My partner is still my partner, and we haven't finalized any decisions about where she and her mother will live. Things may (or may not) be warming up here among everyone.
Anyway ... here's Starfish's comment. Starfish, thank you for coming by--I've missed you a lot. I won't be able to blog, probably, until May.
Starfish commented:
I'm sorry to learn that your life has not moved (to a 'next stage', perhaps) as it had seemed it might. I was excited for you. I hope I am not overstepping by saying that if I were you, I imagine I would be feeling, at least in part, righteously rankled by this turn of events, no matter how it all came about. (Just in case you might need or find it useful to hear that it's okay to be angry, as well as...sad, regretful, disappointed, hurt?)
"I thought we would be a collective--a house of women."
Had you and your partner discussed this thought together?
Because, unless you and your partner had explicitly stated that male persons were not to cross the threshold for recreational/relational purposes then... well, why would the majority of womenfolk even consider such a thing - that men would be generally excluded from your (collective) home?
If all it took for your partner to be comfortable staying on with her mother, was to ask your daughters not to bring men into the house, would you, could you do that?
Or is it more along other lines that difficulties have arisen; that your partner does not get that most women who have birthed and raised children are either never able to, do not wish to, or wish (at least a little bit) to but do not feel free to reposition themselves as not, or no longer, Mothers? From a couple of other things you've mentioned about your partner and your children, I gather she's more in the authoritarian/'tough love' vein when it comes to children, and you, not so much?
Perhaps, rather than only those contemplating raising children together talking about, checking for compatibility in "parenting style", maybe those couples/collectives who do or will have adult children (and potentially, grandchildren-type human beings and their attendant co-parents/carers) in their lives also need to have that discussion?
Difficult to find the time and space to do when partners/couples are already busy and stretched by the ramifications (those variously perceived good and worthy, as well as otherwise) of the caring-relationship roles and other responsibilities outside of the personal, intimate relationship that is two alone...
Which has brought me in my (theoretical) thoughts, to the point of throwing up my hands about coupleism, nuclear and extended-by-blood-and-yet-more neverending-bloody-coupleism families, and how life as we know it is socioeconomically constructed altogether, and blargh! on and on, BLARGH! The saying of most of which, above, does absolutely nothing useful for you, I know. Pardon my rant.
If we knew each other in real life and were speaking about this face to face, I would doubtless feel the urge to give you at least one big hug, so if you would be okay with that, here 'tis.
{{{{{SW}}}}}}
starfish - still on hiatus from blogland, but reading more again lately.
12:19 AM
3 comments:
I don't know whether or not anyone has called me out on this in an as yet unpublished comment...
I would like to add a correction/extension to the following (extracted from the comment I made)
"women who have birthed and raised children"
to read:
"women who have birthed and/OR raised children"
'cause why on earth would I go about privileging blood relationships in the same ways the p does?!
And that point, the privileging of "family" relationships, or rather the problematic nature of that, is one that applies to the post where you talked about how others (and you, yourself) note or cite difficulties in relationships with women who are blood relatives, particularly, as somehow questionable or even damaging to a/your radical feminist or women's liberationist or woman-centred politic.
That you might be jabbed at or jab at yourself about that is highly indicative of that aspect of patriarchal ideology; that is, "family first", at the very least. Like we all somehow magically will or should get along best with those with whom we share blood and/or (lots of) personal history.
You know that that aspect of the ideology/mindset is first and foremost about control of women (and through women, the children of the family/clan), right?
starfish
"privileging" is probably a confusing word to have used in the above context.
valoris(z?)ation, perhaps? to "overvalue" or arbitrarily "place a greater value on", is what I meant.
Oh and Second Waver, I know you caught the mention of my blog archives. I've also opened my main blog again. It just doesn't have all the old posts. Those I mostly keep for myself now. Hugs. Be well.
Post a Comment