I was reading this interesting post by Jill of Feministe. She’s talking about the situation that many feminist women find ourselves in, of being in relationships with men who aren’t feminists, or who think they are feminists, but have some seriously sexist blind spots.
[I]n just about every relationship I’ve been in, there have been at least a few feminist falling-outs. They weren’t usually deal-breakers, but they shaped my view of the person that I was with, and they generally just made me feel bad – like there was another reminder that I wasn’t entirely safe, even within my own relationship, and that this person who I cared about and maybe even loved could never really see me or get it.
The thing this got me thinking about was not feminism per se, but relationships, and the huge demands we place on them.
For most of human history, in every culture I’ve ever heard of, men and women lived largely separate lives. Women shared most of their day-to-day experiences with other women (and children). Men spent most of their days with other men. A marriage was a coming together across this gulf of separateness. Perhaps it was an oasis, perhaps it was a tribulation, but it was not a be-all-end-all. It couldn’t be.
I’m not some crazy arch-conservative nutjob advocating a return to marriage-as-enslavement, barefoot-and-pregnant patriarchy. I want to point out, though, how our expectations have changed in a way that burdens relationships. Now, we think our relationship is going to be the sex and family part, AND the best friend part, AND the companionship part, AND the “person who gets me” part, AND, probably, the person who likes the same music and movies and sushi part.
That’s a lot of burden. No wonder so many camel’s backs break.
I have a beloved friend who had a brief foray into polyamory before realizing that she was more comfortable with monogamy. Not long ago, she said to me that what she took away from polyamory was the understanding that one relationship didn’t have to be her everything. She thinks her current relationships are better as a result.
That’s one thing you have to really get in polyamory. It’s okay that your honey isn’t your everything. You can have another honey. It’s okay that you aren’t your honey’s everything. He totally loves you, he just also wants someone who likes action movies, or horseback riding, or decorating cakes, or whatever.
In reading Jill’s post, this is what kept coming up for me: Why does the man in my life have to get it? I can have other people in my life who get it, and I can feel safe and supported by those people.
In relationships, we tolerate flaws and enjoy foibles. Certainly I have managed to love sexist men by treating it as a foible; you know, ‘he snores and he takes a dumbass patronizing tone, teehe.’ That’s okay with me (to a point; I don’t date actual troglodytes). I think part of why it’s okay is because I try not to burden my relationships with the belief that they are my everything.
I read that too – it’s had me thinking for a while now too. It’s so hard because we’re socialized as children that there’s Only One Person out there for you, and for the rest of your life. It only makes sense that they’re “the everything”.
That’s something I’m wrestling with as a parent; how to break one’s kids away from the socialization that places such huge demands on a relationship. It’s everywhere, and I’m not sure how to fight it.
In terms of being socialized, we need to know we can break our own socialization.
In terms of kids, it’s all about finding the teachable moments. As parents, we can listen to our kids, and when they say something that sounds wrong, we can respond with questions and suggestions.
Sometimes, my son has been lonely because his former best friend went to a different school and had a lot of after school activities. And I would suggest that it’s okay to have a friend who’s not your best friend, but who you hang with.
this is interesting. i absolutely agree with the sentiment of your post, but i wonder if we need to shade in degrees – that is, a couple’s differing views on action movies and their differing views on women’s roles are of varying degrees of importance!
i know you know this, but i just wanted to point it out. i think we do need to be more forgiving of our partners for not being ‘everything’, but if a woman considers feminism an integral part of her life and she feels like her partner doesn’t get it, i can see that being an issue.
Yeah, actually in the post I wrote in my head, I did include some mention of that. Typing it up changes it, as I’m sure you’ve noticed yourself!
People have different levels of deal-breakers. And some of those are reasonable (as I mentioned, no troglodytes). Some are unreasonable but deeply felt, and that’s okay too.
Here’s an example, my ex-husband is a fairly feminist guy, but he’s still a guy and sometimes he doesn’t get it. When we got married, I didn’t want to change my name. I offered to hyphenate as a compromise, if he’d hyphenate too. He didn’t want to do that, because, he said, it would confuse his audience. Well, I could never bring myself to believe that anyone who knew the name P.E. Isaac Bonewits would be confused about the identity of P.E. Isaac Bonewits-Lipp. 😀 It was my sense that it was a patriarchal holdover; men get to keep the names.
But it was a small thing, and we did hyphenate our son’s name.
To me, it is the ultimate struggle that everyone has in a relationship; where to draw this line. When are we simply being intolerant (and a total bitch) and what are traits we cannot and should not live with. Big fat obvious dealbreakers aside, everything else is a moving target and I don’t know many people who have it worked out.
It can be particularly disturbing when even a hint of misogyny is revealed. That gets you from in a pretty dark place.
I experience it from time to time with hidden weight prejudice (which I believe stems from misogyny anyway). And suddenly you’re gasping for air in what you had believed to be safe, shallow water.
“That gets you from in a pretty dark place.”
in. not from in. just in.
“That gets you from in a pretty dark place.”
I read it three times, but I did finally get it.
Big fat obvious dealbreakers aside, everything else is a moving target
That sums it up. Maybe a big part of the difference between tolerable and dealbreaker is, is it about “you are my everything” or is it about violating my boundaries?
You are a misogynist? Probably violates my boundaries. You don’t “get” feminism? I don’t need you to be “the feminist friend” in my life.
weight prejudice (which I believe stems from misogyny anyway).
A lot of people say that, but then there are (fat) men involved in fat activism who disagree.
I think that anti-fat and misogyny blend into a particularly potent poison, but I would guess they are different things.
Nah.
Haven’t read a thing about the fat men angle, but I don’t care. Fat immasculates a man, the way it defeminizes a woman. (not spell-checking here, so deal, please.) Men get boobs. Morbid obesity messes with the hormones of both genders.
(It is the same ‘patronizing’ attitude. It comes from the same mindset that men rule the world. Rich white men. And those men don’t have to be thin and pretty, as long as their women are. And a fat guy can be in their stupid club, but a fat woman can’t.)
You have to be waaay fatter as a man to fall victim of the prejudices; guess what? I don’t have a problem that people have a problem with folks who take up two seats. It’s… a problem. But a guy who is 80 pounds overweight does not suffer socially from what a woman who is 60 pounds overweight does.
wheww…
Okay, that was good. You win.
Blog it on your site. It’s great stuff.
This is a really great post and discussion. I just wanted to share regarding the first comment, Karen M’s, on socialization.
My HP and HPS have two sons, 10 and 8. The younger approached us one day, during the potluck after Ostara, with a problem and wanted advice. He’d been told by a girl at school that his girlfriend was “loving other boys.” I’m not entirely sure what this means in the third grade, but there you have it. He was very upset and didn’t know what to do.
We advised him to talk to her, but we also explained that just because she likes other boys doesn’t mean she doesn’t like him too. Indeed he talked to her and was relieved and happy to learn that yes, she liked other boys, but she liked him most and still wanted to be his girlfriend. It all worked out. Teachable moments.
I want to point out, though, how our expectations have changed in a way that burdens relationships. Now, we think our relationship is going to be the sex and family part, AND the best friend part, AND the companionship part, AND the “person who gets me” part, AND, probably, the person who likes the same music and movies and sushi part.
See, this is what’s so awesome about blogging! I’m actually tangibly relieved to discover that I’m not the only person who has concluded this. (Yes, I live in an enlightenment desert. We also have gators.)
The weird thing, though, is that I concluded it after I had a boyfriend who was the best friend AND the companion AND the “person who gets me” AND the person who likes the same music and movies and pizza AND so on and so forth. It was as if the relationship crumpled under its own weight; I had an Everything and I realized too late that I didn’t want an Everything, because it was impossible to breathe. I wish there was a better way to explain it, but even now I’m not sure exactly what happened, you know?
Amy, gators, shudder.
I suspect that lots of relationships can be the “everything” for a while. I’ve had wonderful “everything” relationships, but they get smothered, like putting too much fuel on the fire.
Women’s magazines* give this sort of advise all the time—have other friends, other interests, go to the movies with your girlfriends or play tennis blah blah. They’re right, but they don’t talk about the way we burden a relationship with one expectation, while giving facile advise that undermines that expectation. These are the same magazines, after all, that devote half their column inches to “Him”.
*How come a “women’s magazine” is Cosmo but not Bitch, hmm?
No, how come it’s not Slut, but Playboy and Hustler are gentleman’s magazines?
(okay the analogy’s not right, but whatever, I don’t feel well.)
I think there’s a line between expecting a partner to be Everything and having some things be dealbreakers. It’s perfectly valid to say “I won’t have anyone in my life who does X” — that’s far short of having a long checklist and requiring a partner to check every item.
[…] But I invaded my sister’s blog yesterday, and she suggested I take it back to my own freaking blog (she said this much more nicely). […]
[…] This came up in comments. How come a “women’s magazine” (”woman’s magazine”?) means Vogue or Cosmo or Good Housekeeping or Glamour or Marie Clair, but does not mean Ms. or Bitch or On Our Backs? Filed under: Fun with Language, Feminism — deblipp @ 6:46 am […]