This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

4
5

"When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist." (self.polyamory)

yr_mom が 投稿

The above passage in this article spoke to me on a very deep, personal level.

I (f) am legally married to a man and we were mono for about 5 years. Since opening up 6 months ago, we stopped using the terms husband/wife (instead, we are 'partners') and I stopped wearing my ring. We are more committed than ever, but these symbols of traditional marriage no longer felt right for us. I know that 'rejecting traditional marriage' is not a requirement to be feminist and many feminists wear rings and use the terms husband/wife, but for me, practicing polyamory has allowed me to become more self-actualized, more 'myself.' I feel more free to define my own relationships and be my true self. For us, this means that we don't wear rings and we refer to each other as 'my partner.' For others, it could mean that they do exactly those things, and what is right for me/us isn't necessarily right for them. We can each do our own thing and not blame or shame the other.

To me, this is the core of feminism -- that we should all be able to express our unique selves freely without the pressures, violence or prejudices of patriarchy (this goes for all genders, btw). It also hearkens to what I see as the core of poly -- the passage in The Ethical Slut where the authors explain that, instead of people trying to fit themselves in a pre-conceived standard relationship model, poly is about creating relationships to fit the people who are in them.

Whether or not you are hetero, do you feel that practicing or living poly is inherently a feminist act?

全 16 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]StarMantapoly newbie 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

I believe polyamory leads to more balance between genders than monogamy, overall. It can help bridge the gap between men and women, and between sex and emotional connections. That is, a monogamous person would have to choose between the "bachelor life" and an emotional relationship; either pop culture or biology (or some combination) pushes men towards bachelor life and women towards the relationship. This division is, in a nutshell, what leads to slut-shaming; it's the "the best key is the key that opens every lock, and a shitty lock is opened by every key" type mindset.

Polyamory, however, shatters this mindset pretty handily. It allows both men and women to seek both shallow sexual relationships and deeper emotional relationships simultaneously. Without the pressure to choose between one or the other, it sexually liberates women while emotionally liberating men.

WRT this article specifically: I believe both halves of this equation are important, and that's where this article rubs me the wrong way. The way it's written makes it sound like it's only his wife that is benefiting, and that he did this entirely for her, with no benefit for him. If being read by people not already familiar with poly, then it's doing a disservice to polyamory (it makes poly males seem like doormats).

[–]anvilfolkempathy 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

WRT this article specifically: I believe both halves of this equation are important, and that's where this article rubs me the wrong way. The way it's written makes it sound like it's only his wife that is benefiting, and that he did this entirely for her, with no benefit for him. If being read by people not already familiar with poly, then it's doing a disservice to polyamory (it makes poly males seem like doormats).

Agreed. To me it simply felt like a switch of the actors in a play of gender roles, with the roles themselves intact, and that's why it felt uncomfortable. There is a clear economic and perhaps psychological power imbalance... and power imbalances are ripe grounds for coercion. I was left wondering whether the person with less power is being accepting because they can't really afford the alternatives.

I think we might be able to think of this purely in terms of power imbalances, and not gender it at all.

[–]StarMantapoly newbie 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was left wondering whether the person with less power is being accepting because they can't really afford the alternatives.

That was exactly the impression I got from the article.

[–]anvilfolkempathy 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've been thinking a lot on this article since I read it a couple of days ago.

I'm torn. I don't really have super consistent opinions on this, and am very interested to discuss them. Here's some points I seem to have landed on, after apparently writing and thinking on it for like, an hour?!

  • Mononormativity is definitely one of the factors that contributes to institutionalised patriarchy. One can trace its roots to ownership of women (as resources) by men, and tearing down mononormativity is one of the ways in which we can help undermine the patriarchy.

  • The distinction between mononormativity and monogamy is an important one. Mononormativity is an ownership-based institution that comes from a place of misogyny. Monogamy is a valid choice and orientation for people of any gender (including no gender), and it isn't inherently misogynist... or misandrist, for that matter.

  • I would love to pretend that we can make polyamory a community of people that love people, and get rid of mononormativity, heteronormativity, gender binaries and gender roles. I would even be able to pretend, but that's because of my western, white, male-bodied privilege.

  • So yes, I think it's a feminist act. We cannot afford to pretend institutionalised patriarchy, which still exists, won't seep into polyamory, as into any other community or subculture, if we're not careful.

  • The above point does not erase our need to avoid sidelining people who desire a monogamous union, and to be aware that the modern mononormative ownership-contract often going both ways, i.e. women owning men as well, in often subtle ways.

[–]LaughingIshikawarelationship anarchist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would love to pretend that we can make polyamory a community of people that love people

I don't see what's so impossible about this. Sure nothing will ever be perfect to the nth degree, and it will take some doing getting there, but I feel if we concentrate on accommodating all "people who love people" then I think we'll get there.

Mononormativity is an ownership-based institution that comes from a place of misogyny.

I'm not sure I can conceive of mononormativity as an institution... I think the patriarchy is an institution, and one that promotes mononormativity, but I think mononormativity is itself just a bias. I guess I would say that the opposite side of the coin might be said to be... polyphobia? Anyway, this is just my 2 cents right now because I can't describe what I think the difference between an institution and a bias is - I just feel like it's different. Maybe there aren't people who are directly and unfairly benefiting from mononormativity, the way that there are people directly benefiting from the patriarchy.

[–]sethpeckbring me solo! 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

feminism = equality among all genders (or lack thereof), so polyamory can be feminist if the respect of equality is applied to the relationship.

Monogamy can also be feminist as well, for the same reasons.

One thing for certain....being polyamorous, reading books and going to discussion groups has made me a better feminist.

[–]qualmicvery lucky 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think the community tries to promote more equitable and flexible relationships, especially compared to traditional polygamous relationships, but I don't think it's inherently feminist. I think it's prescriptive and somewhat disrespectful to apply political (philosophical?) labels to a large, diverse group of people, who are really just living their lives. But, many people are okay with sticking labels on other people's business, so, I'm betting there are others that will agree with you.

Glad to hear it's working for you. :)

[–]yr_mom[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's prescriptive and somewhat disrespectful to apply political (philosophical?) labels to a large, diverse group of people, who are really just living their lives.

This is why I phrased my post as a question. I am interested in how/whether poly and feminism intersect in the lives of people on this sub

[–]castleborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He seems ambivalent - it has the tone of rationalizing something which isn't really okay.

am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing

Doesn't that sound fun?

It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it

Mentioned it after the fact, did she? Why am I not surprised...

...that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife fucked only me.

Feeling emasculated is just a special case of feeling dis-empowered - which he quite literally is. He has no economic power, and his wife doesn't even ask about his feelings before acting.

How does it feel? It feels great ... mostly. Most of the time, it feels like a mature, responsible way to address our needs and desires within our loving, mutually supportive marriage. It feels very adult... We take great pride in all the talking we do.

Great...mostly? Mature, responsible, and adult? What a ringing endorsement...

It does work both ways and, yes, I too enjoy sexual carte blanche. I just don’t use mine as much as my wife uses hers. What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

These may be true words, but when you consider it in context with everything else? I just think it paints a pretty clear picture of what's going on here. He's pretty much being cuckolded here, and not the kinky way. This is a picture of humiliation and loss of power and control over his life, both with respect to his relationships and his finances. Even in an article which is proportedly about the merits of his situation, he's managed to give pretty much the most unenthusiastic consent ever. All I can say is, I would never, ever want his life.

Name one truly joyful statement in this entire article? It's supposed to be about everyone being their best selves, not men rationalizing cutting their balls off.

[–]LaughingIshikawarelationship anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yes and no - although some would say my disagreement is merely semantic.

Over time I've realized that I have a problem with feminism. Many feminists are well-intentioned, but overall the feeling I get when people talk about feminism is "Let's give advantages to traditionally under privileged women." Which, I argue, is fundamentally different from "Let's work towards true gender equality."

Feminists are focused on women. That's why the "fem" prefix is there, right? The problem is if you aren't allowed to deal with both "sides" of the scales, it's much harder to achieve a real balance. I suspect that one would be hard pressed to find a feminist who is willing to entertain the idea of taking away privileges from women where women are in a privileged position. (I wouldn't even suggest it, except that I feel this sub is unusually open-minded, as internet communities go.) If you can't take away the privileges that women have, such as a notable advantage in child custody cases, ect - then at best you're stuck trying to decide what is an "equivalent" advantage to grant to men - and no one's going to completely agree on what fair because everyone has different priorities. Let's say that we allow men to challenge child support payments (bad example, but work with me) in more cases, as "compensation." You will simultaneously find people who say that's not enough, and people who say that's too much.

Which is all very awkward, and causes me to reject the practice of feminism, even while I agree with many feminist's stated goals. I say we rebrand the whole thing as "Egalitarianism." That can mean men, women, but also other minorities - anyone facing unfair, biased discrimination. Let's question all the social structures that give people unequal opportunity. Let's give everyone the best possible shot at "Expressing our unique selves freely, without pressures, violence, or prejudice."

And in that sense, poly is a deeply egalitarian practice : ) I personally think poly relies on gender equality implicitly - if that doesn't exist first, then poly just becomes a tool of oppression towards the less advantaged gender. People in a poly relationship have to be choosing, on a fundamental level, to partner with each other without outside pressures and expectations interfering. There's no other way for it have a good chance at being "fair."

[–]yr_mom[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

one would be hard pressed to find a feminist who is willing to entertain the idea of taking away privileges from women where women are in a privileged position.

It's not so hard; I'm right here. :)

[–]LaughingIshikawarelationship anarchist 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I thought someone would call me out on that... it's a just a tad harsher than I really mean actually, but I can't think of a way to qualify it that's not super awkward, in a literary sense. It's less "All feminists are this way." and more "This has been my experience generally."

Thanks for being good humored about it. To be fair you do seem to be a very egalitarian-minded feminist, and as much as I might want a more radical course change on this issue... I will be happy with any movement that values equality, regardless of the name. I hope more people think as you do.

[–]FallCatrelationship anarchist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's important to remember that every sufficiently large group will have jerks in it, and that jerks are often more outspoken and loud, while also being the stereotype other groups refer to when they want to put down the group.

If you're looking toward equality, you're generally going to do best with "intersectional feminists" as the aim of that movement is to look at the way different axes of privilege and oppression change people's experiences. Of course there will still be jerks, but I haven't seen any anti-men vibes or comments anywhere.

[–]castleborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Pretty sure almost all feminists would support equality and fight against hypothetical cases where women were in privileged positions.

I think a better way to phrase it is that it's hard to find a feminist that actively embraces the fact that there are, in the real world, many contexts in which women are in an unfairly privileged position, that these are injustices frequently perpetuated by both women and men, and that there are deep systematic effects on everything from test scores to suicide rates as a result.

When these sorts of things are brought up, they're either rejected or grudgingly accepted as "part of the patriarchy" and then ignored.

[–]LaughingIshikawarelationship anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for this comment! This explains my own views much better than I did. I guess I must always come back to the fact that I feel even just calling it "FEMinism" shapes people's thinking and focus. It's not right to say feminists actively ignore places where men are underprivileged... but those issues are implicitly given a lower priority... because clearly women are the real "victims" of the patriarchy.

What makes it hard to argue is that from a certain perspective that's totally true... and yet it doesn't address the full scope of the problem, so it's not a good frame of reference to use in defining a solution. To get anywhere meaningful, we have to start with the end goal in mind - a world where everyone is presumed equal, until proven otherwise in a particular context.

[–]ahatmadeofshoes12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Feminism isn't just about elevating the positions of women it's really far more about getting rid of toxic patriarchal views of which the custody bias towards women is one of them. That bias comes from the belief that women are born to be nurturers and mothers and men are not capable of fulfilling this role. I don't think that that is valid because it limits rules for men and it also limits rules for women because it makes it seem as if women can only be nurturers. I'm all for getting rid of this bias and I don't see why any feminist wouldn't be. The bias you suggested is a symptom of the patriarchy which feminism seeks to dismantle.