BlogHer - For a Good Time, Call a Feminist (Not that You'd Know This From the Media) - Comments

"...as opposed to..."

hipmomma — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:48:46 -0600

Those who don't describe themselves as feminists?

...women and men who identify with feminist values have better relationships in general, including sexual relationships, because they are more comfortable talking about what they want and need as opposed to making assumptions...

Indeed, one should never assume. It's a golden rule. Universal. But the report implies that it's a feminist issue, when it's not. The key to any successful relationship, personal or business, is good communication. And surely no one is suggesting that "feminists" are able to communicate better than "happy housewives," and everyone in between. That would be a sweeping generalization. Just like dismissing the Heritage Foundation's work as "crazy conspiracy theories," while everything in the Guardian and the New York Times must be speaking truth. (to power, yes I know)

But glad you made the reference, as I enjoyed reading it. Seems pretty straightforward and informative:

[T]he Heritage Foundation just released a paper that shows how far some feminists have fallen from the movement's noble beginnings as an advocate for fairness in the home and the workplace -- which most of us would see as worthwhile goals -- to claiming that the only path to happiness for women is to resist marriage and eschew the traditional family model.

The shift began in the late 1960s. Typical of the new breed of feminist was Marlene Dixon, a sociology professor at the University of Chicago, who declared in 1969: "The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way, the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history."

Better not tell my husband, lest he wonder why I'm running the house...
Or is that just me?

As I suggested in earlier remarks, I think it's time to take our bra burning on the road, and apply pressure to countries where women really need our help, where they can't even show their faces or walk on the streets alone, where they are truly second-class citizens or worse.

More than just good bed partners

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:36:27 -0600

The gist of the Rutgers study is that women and men who identify with feminist values have better relationships in general, including sexual relationships, because they are more comfortable talking about what they want and need as opposed to making assumptions about what the other person thinks he/she wants and needs. It's not about merely "being good enough" in bed.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Another perspective...

hipmomma — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:29:16 -0600

...to this story.

"So what is the result of this sexual revolution, which seems to have convinced millions of women that "good enough" in the bedroom is no longer, well, good enough?

In my work as a life coach, agony aunt and psychologist, I regularly encounter women in their late 20s, 30s and 40s - the inheritors of the feminist revolution - with bitter regrets over relationships that have failed on one pivotal issue: the issue of sexual compromise.

Sounds like "conventional wisdom" cannot be generalized. Some women are better in bed than others, regardless of ideology.

I'm Not Surprised

A Elliot — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:24:08 -0600

I'm not surprised by the findings either. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that couples who are able to communicate what they want have more fulfilling sex lives, hey you're getting what you want and pleasuring your partner in they way that he/she wants, and it's also not surprising that feminists would feel comfortable talking about what they want sexually. I was already annoyed when I was reading your post that this study has gotten no media attention in the US, but then when I saw the above comment by Lia, I became angry. You are right that is is easier to paint feminists as being bad . And what's up with the finding that feminist male partners are healthier for women's relationships? Is that really a surprise?
Alex Elliot, Formula Fed and Flexible Parenting

A Further Twist

Lia — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:19:46 -0600

What could be more "depressing that an article about an American study that found positive things about feminism can only find a mainstream media home in a British newspaper"? That the article in the British magazine was written by a journalist in New York. Still, this sort of twist only adds up the tally in favour of The Guardian, a really excellent newspaper.

Suzanne, I very much enjoyed reading something positive about women and men in relationships that is based on sound intellectual exchange and good sex. What more could a gal look for? You are right in saying that the media does not want to portray such liaisons as being positive. Which makes me wonder, how much is this because most relationships are not based on these things, or most journalists' relationships are not based on these things?

lia from luebeck, germany

Author of the yum yum cafe and coauthor of the Red Tent Blog.

For a Good Time, Call a Feminist (Not that You'd Know This From the Media)

Suzanne Reisman — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:19:00 -0600

I spent Thanksgiving with my ex-pat friend Mara and her family in London. During my trip, Mara alerted me to a column by Libby Brooks in the previous week's The Guardian, "Feminism and romantic love make very happy bedfellows", about a study from Rutgers University that indicates that feminists have stronger relationships and are better in bed:

What the Rutgers researchers actually found was that, in a survey of college students and older adults, all in heterosexual relationships, men paired with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction. In addition, there was consistent evidence that male feminist partners were healthier for women's relationships, while there was scant evidence that women's feminism created conflict in liaisons.

Mara and I laughed about this article, as the Rutgers findings are conventional wisdom to us and millions of other feminists around the world. At the same time, it is sort of depressing that an article about an American study that found positive things about feminism can only find a mainstream media home in a British newspaper. (Although according to a wonderful essay on feminism, gender relations, and romance by Joe Williams at Ears Open, British columnists write good things about feminism, but "news" reporters take the same feminist-bashing route as American papers. Read the essay, though. It's one of the best I've seen in ages.)

I'm not the only one whose noticed the absence of this positive story about feminists in American media. Rick Howe at Back in the Day, Boy wrote:

I've already read the NY Times online, and saw no mention of this study there. Nor did I see any mention of this study on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation site. I'll keep an eye peeled for a mention as I read the Washington Post online, but don't expect to find a reference there either.

We Americans are not comfortable talking about sex, in general. Add to that talk about satisfying sex and feminism . . . . that's beyond the pale!

Maybe because there was very little mainstream media chatter there hasn't been too much blogging on Brooks's article, either. Jennifer, a Canadian living in Glasgow and blogging about it at I Dream of Haggis, summed up her feeling about the study by noting that it is "good news for us feminists!" Indeed it is. And that's probably why we aren't seeing much more of it. Who likes reading good news about feminism?!?! Well, everyone who reads BlogHer does, but I guess we don't count.

After all, anti-feminism is much sexier than feminism (with all that body hair and everything!), so why bother covering a report showing that contrary to Pat Robertson's belief that feminism "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians," it actually makes for stronger heterosexual relationships? (For a truly hilarious report supporting this theory, check out Feminist kill-joys target marriage by Rebecca Hagelin at my favorite conservative think tank – it takes a lot of time and money to come up with the crazy conspiracies that they do – The Heritage Foundation. People like Hagelin just reinforce my theory that oftentimes, women are our own worst enemies. Sigh.)

Anyway, kudos to Libby Brooks for bringing some attention to good news. She's written many great feminist articles over at The Guardian, further fueling my Londonphilia. Feminist like me are able to love in many ways.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and has never considered leaving her husband, although the destruction of capitalism and practice of witchcraft does sound appealing.