Is there a place in radical feminism for women who are married to men?

[Namechangeforagamechange]

Just that really. I consider radfem views as most closely aligning with my own, but I am married with 2 children. After being subjected to the most hideous pile on in a radfem Facebook group about relationships with men, I'm left feeling a bit disillusioned.

I'm not libfem in any way, shape or form. So where do I go?

I'll admit I'm feeling a little sensitive atm, I chose to share traumatic experiences I haven't talked about for a long time and it's left me exhausted. I was accused of manipulating behaviour because I said dredging up those feelings had made me cry. I honestly cannot see how explaining that speaking about my own experiences has upset me is manipulating, but then a lot of what I said was taken out of context and twisted.

I will never feel comfortable in a 'Feminist' space where it's OK to tear down a woman when she is talking about past trauma. So where is MY place in feminism? Please, be kind.

Oh and obviously NC for this, as I have no doubt that some of the women on that particular group are on here!

Hmmm. I consider myself to have radfem views and also married with two children. The labelling of ‘types’ of feminism is often what seems to be tearing it apart - divide and conquer - I wonder where it came from. Any tribal style group will cause problems but I would say you’ve had a bad experience with a group there, not an ideology.

Sorry for your history and hope you can find your place. No one will agree with everyone on everything and nor should they.

It’s confusing as there seems to be a conflict with the idea that patriarchy has structured marriage yet a majority of women will still get married and have children. I am very happily married (for 23 yrs) and my DH is my best friend so I find the party line that it is oppressive of us all doesn’t make sense. I understand of course that some marriages are/have been coercive and unhappy but it is the preferred pattern for most women and men to raise their children in and always has been in every society. Some societies have obviously allowed family structures with more than one wife or husband but the typical family worldwide is mother and father and their biological offspring or versions thereof.

What is their issue with being married to a man? Why would that clash with radfem?
Not very clued up but the only way I would see that as an issue is if they don't agree with being hererosexual or is it the married part that is the issue?

Quite frankly I would stay away from isms. I hold a lot of feminist views but don’t associate with self identifying feminists due to a somewhat similar experience (was heavily criticised for putting having children above having a career because apparently women only have the right to choose when they make the right choice).

As far as I can tell, some people see marriage as compliance in patriarchy.

Butif you take the line you can’t be married and be radfem, perhaps you should also say you can’t be employed or even go shopping for food becuase working and participating in society would also be support8ng the patriarchy.

Which would be a neat way to kill of feminism by starving all feminsits .

verybored I wish I'd screenshotted some of what was said, but there were women basically saying that all men are deliberate oppressors, and quoting Andrea Dworkin saying that all male children should be viewed as inevitable rapists. I, naively, said my husband is a good man to which one replied 'yeah but he still uses porn and eyes up schoolgirls, they all do'.

I know NAMALT is a contentious argument, but it's true isn't it? There are a lot of men who are, yes. But unless you have met and spoken to every single male on earth, how dare you presume that ALL men are dirty pervy leeches? I'm so, so angry.

It wasn't even the marriage part it was ANY relationship with a man. They were saying that if you're attracted to men, you should only have casual sex. How the fuck is that safer for a woman than being in a consensual relationship? It's utterly batshit.

Not being a radfem would not make you a liberal feminist.

I’m not a radical feminist, nor in a fb group, but I do think if you’re feeling very sensitive it isn’t a good idea to start a thread on here on a topic you are already upset about.

I also feel uncomfortable about making sterotype assumptions about men , given how harmful such sterotypes are I’m general. Replacing patriarchy with an equivalent that’s run by women acting the same way isn’t progress to me,

There was a particularly fabulous comment 'I do feel sorry for het women, seriously. What a shit position to be in'

Firestone pointed out something along the lines of that while women get pregnant there will always be vulnerable to abuse and subjugation. Don't consider myself a radical anything...but I've always thought that was a fair point.

I think a woman can marry, as long as she is careful to continue to earn and keep her own finances separate of the man...but having children will always leave her vulnerable.

I’m happy for people to feel sorry for me as a het woman. It is a bit of a hassle, to be honest.

I'm no expert but it sounds like you came across some extreme views. When feminist = man hater it's not useful for anyone imo.

Interesting interpretation of the post that I saw (no I wasn't one of those who responded either, before you assume I was)

Andrea Dworkin had it right when she said:
Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy in behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with anymore

It's all of us

Beyonddangerous what was your interpretation?

I do not think radical feminism is separatist, so I do not think that marriage rules you out - and if it did, why would you want to be part of a movement which discriminates in that way?

As I understand it, radical feminism is about recognising structural inequalities, and how these discriminate against or oppress women. Historically speaking, marriage was patriarchal but so was being a daughter! Society was structured that way and to an extent still is.

I am sorry that you were put down when you talked about the trauma you have faced. It is difficult to be open about traumatic experiences and even more so if you do not find support. I am not sure why any feminist group would do that, to be honest, but then I am not sure why any group would.

I would just put it down to there being nutters and angry bitter people at the extreme end of every viewpoint.
Best ignored when encountered.

KTara I'm fairly certain the admins of that particular group are in favour of separatism, so it probably is too extreme for me.

I think my real issue was that several other women commented similar experiences to me which went largely unnoticed. I'm not sure why they picked my comment in particular to focus on.

I think what you are seeing is the tension between extremism and ideological purity versus liberalism (not liberal identityism) and pragmatism.

I don't believe that radical feminism is inherently authoritarian. But that Facebook group may well have more extreme views in it which are more authoritarian in nature.

The more extreme you are in any view the more you abandon the ability to think critically. Your identity becomes more important than making reasons and critically considered opinions.

Remember the effect of social media can be to amplify echo chambers and to drive extremism.

My point being, 'who decides what radical feminism is and is not'? It has some core tenants but these are not set in stone and how you apply these in everyday life is open to debate.

Don't let it get you down.

Careful, there are women on this board who say the same things. You may come in for the same kind of treatment.
It gives the lie to the "women without men present are so supportive to each other" myth.

Well imo radical feminism is about class analysis. That wasn't what I saw in the posts in a radfem group I'm in that led to the poster flouncing. Notmynigel comments don't usually go down too well because that isn't class analysis.

I certainly didn't see anyone abusing anyone else about traumatic experiences they had shared.

But then this whole post compared to what I read - as a random impartial observer - is probably why disagreements carried over from other internet fora are generally frowned upon on mn (I learnt that one myself the hard way!)

Leave them to it, OP. As for the 'male child= future rapist' idea, never argue with stupid.

They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oh for fucks sake. Ignore them. There is always some educative value to social media groups but they are also the places where the socially inept and the fuck wits go. Live the life you want to live.