(More) reasons to be a feminist. Kinda rambly.
I happened to check out the Guardian today, and this blog post got my attention. The news hook to it is a study about feminism and heterosexual relationships.
The study looked at a group of university students, as well as a group of older adults - some feminist and some not, but all in relationships - and came to a few conclusions:
-Feminist women do, in fact, find partners
-Men do, in fact, find feminists attractive
-"College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners"
-"College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners reported more equality in their relationships"
-"Older women who perceived their male partners as feminists reported greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction"
-"Older men with feminist partners said they had more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction"
And keep in mind that in the context of this study, 'older' refers to people past university age. The 'older' group that was studied had an average age of 26.
The article goes on to say that the Rutgers researchers who conducted the study have a few ideas (but not any proof to support them-yet) about why it is that feminists seem to have healthier, more fulfilling relationships, on average. The women in these relationships they say, are more likely to have male partners who support their ambitions. The men in these relationships they say, are less likely to have the sole-breadwinner burden on them, and so they might be less stressed, etc.
I have a theory of my own, too. (It's based on broad generalizations from my own experience. I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well though. The other thing I'd add is that I know there's a whole thing about whether or not men can be feminists, but the people behind this study seem to think they can, so let's just roll like that for now, okay?)
Basically, it seems to me, that feminists are more likely to be open. Open to less traditional ideas about beauty, open to less traditional ideas about gender roles, open to less traditional ideas about child-rearing... the list could go on. Open to less-traditional ideas about what goes on in the bedroom, even. Honest! Most (not all, but most) of the kinkier women I know identify as feminists, anyway.
I also think communication within a relationship would be easier for feminists, just because they're more likely to be open to talking about topics that bleed into a lot of relationship issues: body image and gender roles for two. These are things you have to think about in coming to the conclusion that you are a feminist, and they are things that colour how we all behave within the context of a romantic heterosexual relationship.
Maybe I just see this as somewhat obvious news because I value 'being feminist' in my own romantic pursuits.
***
The blog post makes some interesting points beyond the study, too.
"It may be a biological imperative for both genders to pair bond, but the romantic narrative of love/marriage/children is simply not inculcated in boys in the same way as it is in girls. It's a narrative still closely associated with those traditional feminine virtues of vulnerability, passivity, nurture."
This makes me feel like a woman. I think I am some/most/all of those things. (See? My passivity even results in me refusing to make definitive, declarative statements - about me. I hate being in situations where I have to declare things absolutely.)
"In an essay titled After the Men Are Dead, [Katha Pollit] asks: 'Will it be restful, not having to think about love, romance, sex, pleasing, listening, encouraging, smiling at old jokes ... Men take a lot of attending to and on; there's a lot of putting down of books involved.' Or as Jessica Valenti, founder of feministing.com and voice of a fresh generation of US feminists, more succinctly puts it: 'If I'd spent half the energy on my career and school stuff as I did on my relationships, I'd probably be the fucking president by now.'"
Is that really how it is? Are men such a burden? That hurts!
"That's not to say that men don't fret about their relationships too. But, from the highly unscientific sample of the men I've known as friends and lovers, they don't to the same degree and, when they do, prefer to cast themselves as tragic hero or romantic lead rather than foil. This is why there will never be a market for a book of dating advice for men titled She's Just Not That Into You."
I can hardly imagine someone who frets more about dating and relationships than I do. That said, I still wouldn't be in the market for that book because my default assumption is that She's Just Not That Into Me. Actually, come to think of it, if the pull that women feel to be completed by a man is so strong, and if self-esteem is such an issue for women because of rap videos and Tila Tequila and FHM and Cosmopolitan, then shouldn't women need a book to tell them that, yes, He Is In Fact Into You? For real! If I have a shitty self-image, but finding a partner is the be-all and end-all of me, shouldn't I be more likely to always assume that no one is into me ever?
There must be some element to all of this that I'm missing here. Please lay it out for me if you know what it is.
The study looked at a group of university students, as well as a group of older adults - some feminist and some not, but all in relationships - and came to a few conclusions:
-Feminist women do, in fact, find partners
-Men do, in fact, find feminists attractive
-"College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners"
-"College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners reported more equality in their relationships"
-"Older women who perceived their male partners as feminists reported greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction"
-"Older men with feminist partners said they had more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction"
And keep in mind that in the context of this study, 'older' refers to people past university age. The 'older' group that was studied had an average age of 26.
The article goes on to say that the Rutgers researchers who conducted the study have a few ideas (but not any proof to support them-yet) about why it is that feminists seem to have healthier, more fulfilling relationships, on average. The women in these relationships they say, are more likely to have male partners who support their ambitions. The men in these relationships they say, are less likely to have the sole-breadwinner burden on them, and so they might be less stressed, etc.
I have a theory of my own, too. (It's based on broad generalizations from my own experience. I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well though. The other thing I'd add is that I know there's a whole thing about whether or not men can be feminists, but the people behind this study seem to think they can, so let's just roll like that for now, okay?)
Basically, it seems to me, that feminists are more likely to be open. Open to less traditional ideas about beauty, open to less traditional ideas about gender roles, open to less traditional ideas about child-rearing... the list could go on. Open to less-traditional ideas about what goes on in the bedroom, even. Honest! Most (not all, but most) of the kinkier women I know identify as feminists, anyway.
I also think communication within a relationship would be easier for feminists, just because they're more likely to be open to talking about topics that bleed into a lot of relationship issues: body image and gender roles for two. These are things you have to think about in coming to the conclusion that you are a feminist, and they are things that colour how we all behave within the context of a romantic heterosexual relationship.
Maybe I just see this as somewhat obvious news because I value 'being feminist' in my own romantic pursuits.
***
The blog post makes some interesting points beyond the study, too.
"It may be a biological imperative for both genders to pair bond, but the romantic narrative of love/marriage/children is simply not inculcated in boys in the same way as it is in girls. It's a narrative still closely associated with those traditional feminine virtues of vulnerability, passivity, nurture."
This makes me feel like a woman. I think I am some/most/all of those things. (See? My passivity even results in me refusing to make definitive, declarative statements - about me. I hate being in situations where I have to declare things absolutely.)
"In an essay titled After the Men Are Dead, [Katha Pollit] asks: 'Will it be restful, not having to think about love, romance, sex, pleasing, listening, encouraging, smiling at old jokes ... Men take a lot of attending to and on; there's a lot of putting down of books involved.' Or as Jessica Valenti, founder of feministing.com and voice of a fresh generation of US feminists, more succinctly puts it: 'If I'd spent half the energy on my career and school stuff as I did on my relationships, I'd probably be the fucking president by now.'"
Is that really how it is? Are men such a burden? That hurts!
"That's not to say that men don't fret about their relationships too. But, from the highly unscientific sample of the men I've known as friends and lovers, they don't to the same degree and, when they do, prefer to cast themselves as tragic hero or romantic lead rather than foil. This is why there will never be a market for a book of dating advice for men titled She's Just Not That Into You."
I can hardly imagine someone who frets more about dating and relationships than I do. That said, I still wouldn't be in the market for that book because my default assumption is that She's Just Not That Into Me. Actually, come to think of it, if the pull that women feel to be completed by a man is so strong, and if self-esteem is such an issue for women because of rap videos and Tila Tequila and FHM and Cosmopolitan, then shouldn't women need a book to tell them that, yes, He Is In Fact Into You? For real! If I have a shitty self-image, but finding a partner is the be-all and end-all of me, shouldn't I be more likely to always assume that no one is into me ever?
There must be some element to all of this that I'm missing here. Please lay it out for me if you know what it is.