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.

We’re all animals. Most animals have an urge to reproduce. You can’t escape biology.
(Well we can a bit, with birth control...)

*The but I don't get, which has bbeen mentioned here is that all men benefit from The patriarchy. Yet it is also often said the patriarchy hurts men and boys too.

So how can those both be true?*

Honestly? I think this is women trying to justify feminism to men. Like saying , can we please be feminists because ultimately men will benefit.

No. Men hate feminism because at its very core it attacks male dominion over women.

It's a side issue to say that men have masculine hierarchies, such as old men have power over younger men. When the Japanese sent men to war as kamikaze pilots they basically sent all the teenage boys. Men are vicious and cruel to each other..

I think it's ridiculous to suggest women could and should involve themselves in male hierarchies. We don't even have the power to get away from men, to separate from them. And they think we're supposed to be sorting out their problems as well! Ridiculous!
If patriarchy ends, and women and children are finally safe from male violence, men will still be killing and raping- it will just be each other even more than it already is

We’re all animals. Most animals have an urge to reproduce. You can’t escape biology.
(Well we can a bit, with birth control...)

So are you saying rape is natural? I mean I'm not arguing it isn't. Also, male animals do rape and female animals are known to resist. I've heard that squirrels are pretty bad for gang rape.

Im a rad feminist and i still cook my husbands dinner . Dont feel ashamed of it.

KarenThompson69

All women are oppressed under patriarchy. Some radical feminists criticize women for being oppressed, I'm not one of them.
But what you can't do is defend female oppression and be a radical feminist at the same time.
So you cook your husband's dinner, that's what you have to do. Nothing to be ashamed of. I became a radical feminist when I was still cooking my husband's dinner. Cooking your husband's dinner is not a feminist act though. Defending PIV is not a radical feminist act, but nobody should care if you're one of the millions of women who submits to it. These things are just what women do to get by. Motherhood is not a feminist act. It's something I have done but it's arguably not feminist to do so.

Then again I wonder about motherhood. In part I became a mother because I was absolutely in awe of mothers and what they had managed to do. I thought every woman who had given birth was amazing, and that women's ability to create life seemingly out of nothing was incredible.
Radical feminism taught me the error of my ways. No we are just breeders for the patriarchy.
I do think my original opinion of mothers was very woman-loving though. I mean hating mothers is just run of the mill patriarchal thought, it's ingrained into patriarchal psychology, so when radfems hate mothers it's like yeah yeah nothing new to see here.

Sakura184
Radical feminism taught me the error of my ways. No we are just breeders for the patriarchy. Wow.
You are so confused. Firstly its men have to control women's sexuality because they'd never know fathered the baby. This is because of woman's rampant sexuality which has to be prevented by FGM or controlled by vicious punishment. If women were free they would reject monogamy. Now its all women hate heterosexual sex, it's oppression.
Thought you were a mother's rights activist shouldn't that be breeders rights activist.

RedCowboyBoots but cars benefit people and hurt the planet. So how do we work out safe, good car use?

The patriarchy hurts most women and yet it also hurts men so how does it benefit all men? I cannot see it benefits all men.

It benefits some, IMHO.

"I think it's ridiculous to suggest women could and should involve themselves in male hierarchies." Who said we should do that?

"If patriarchy ends, and women and children are finally safe from male violence, men will still be killing and raping- it will just be each other even more than it already is"

I don't see this as a realistic 'conclusion' to the problem. If patriarchy continues with men raping each other will it truly be seen to have ended? And if so will the human race? I think the aim is the erradicatin of patriarchy and a new area of cooperation cooperation etc.

I don't think, for me, being a mother is anything to do with patriarchy. Patriarchy is just the system we live under. It didn't fuel my choice.

"And on balance it is worth it for most women."
@deydododatdodontdeydo

How do you know? (Not rhetorical. Curious)

Because, Maniak, while radfems reject PIV, most women don't.
Most women can be celibate if they want. As I said, many are.
There's nothing to stop it, so they do.
But most women still want men and still want PIV.
It's very dismissive of women (by other women naturally) to suggest they don't really want it, they don't know their own minds, silly women, they're just doing it because their husbands pay them.

I mean hating mothers is just run of the mill patriarchal thought, it's ingrained into patriarchal psychology, so when radfems hate mothers it's like yeah yeah nothing new to see here.

It can't be right. I think rad fems are being intellectually lazy. Because the fact is that motherhood makes women vulnerable and need help from others, and often from men. That's the reality. And that really complicates everything.

I think women in the past were really tough and smart. I don't think they just submitted to powerful men. They compromised because they were mothers. Marriage was probably created by women to give their children legal rights to the man's resources.

My mother used to get her way on everything. She used to say the key was to get a man to think it was his idea. I think of generations of women getting men to think they were in control and that everything was the man's idea. Like, women aren't stupid.

Ohh sorry yeah that's why they're against motherhood BECAUSE it makes us vulnerable. Sorry. My mind works slowly.

Nah. That's like saying we should take testosterone because our arms are weaker. MEN ARE NOT THE BENCHMARK. We don't have to be like them. Big fail for radical feminism there.

I think part of the problem here is patriarchy is used to mean whatever people want it to mean, to play whatever role people want, or even to mean nothing. Sort of like "the invisible hand". It's just a concept but the question is what is it materially. If it's not rooted in that it's just intellectual masturbation or a concept used to promote some idea someone is pushing.

If it is rooted, you can ask questions like that and actually try and answer them, because you can see the answer. Or you can see if your idea is wrong.

@Goosefoot I think you are right, you replace the word “patriarchy” with the words “the man”, and men don’t tend to object. Which is interesting as I use the word patriarchy I’ll get “not all men” etc etc. Doesn’t Halle. With the other.

Assuming women become mothers, what better support could there be than a man channelling all his resources to the family (marriage)? Every man has to pay a tax surplus and from that the government gives mothers a wage?

Surplus may be,the wrong word. Extra tax I meant.

Assuming women become mothers, what better support could there be than a man channelling all his resources to the family (marriage)?

I think this is basically the deal women think they are striking with men, yes.

No questions asked as to how he got his resources and why she and her kind have none of their own? Because oppressed people are exploited for their cheap labor and , in the case of women, unpaid reproductive labor, they will have fewer resources than the oppressors. The system of oppression is necessary for marriage to work. Otherwise what would men bring to the table?

I mean it's not even like women have some resources is it? Enough to raise a kid or two on. Generation after generation women have NOTHING.

*The patriarchy hurts most women and yet it also hurts men so how does it benefit all men? I cannot see it benefits all men.

It benefits some, IMHO*

I read somewhere on mumsnet that men agree that some men will rule over all men, so that all men can rule over women.

This seems to be the deal men strike with each other.

That's why I stopped being a communist or anarchist in my politics. It was just poor men wanting a larger part of the patriarchal pie, but still wanting women to make the tea

Nah. That's like saying we should take testosterone because our arms are weaker. MEN ARE NOT THE BENCHMARK. We don't have to be like them. Big fail for radical feminism there.

I know. It's like they react to motherhood negatively because the patriarchal assumption is that childbearing is what women are for (true). So the obvious reaction would be to reject motherhood because it is of course totally devalued anyway. But this defines women in relation to men, with men as the benchmark of what is normal for humanity.

Anyway as another mumsnetter wrote on another thread, can people just stay away from criticizing women's bodies. Anything else, but stop with women's bodies.

Just as I'm curious, not judging anyone's views. But does radical feminism push for no one to have children?

But does radical feminism push for no one to have children

This seems to be where the theory ends if you follow it through.
it's a sound theory in general, overpopulation and all that. Also, not bringing more vulnerable children into a dangerous patriarchy.

But instead of just sound theory I found a lot of mother-hate and mother-blaming in the movement. Indistinguishable from the patriarchal thought of blaming the mother for all of society's ills

I just wish I'd known how much mothers were hated in radical feminism before I embarked on my radical feminist journey. It would've saved me a lot of energy, honestly, and I would've put my energies more towards perhaps socialist feminism

But whatever, I enjoy reading their theory, and the radical feminist writers I most admire didn't hate mothers

@sakura184 where do you get this idea that women have no resources? This isn't pre-suffragettes. There are many things that we do still need to fight but over emotive statements like you make, make it a lot harder to achieve victory.
Does my husband earn more than me? Yes, but the same would be true if you reversed our roles as society deems one form of public service to need more pay (and one role gets paid overtime and the other doesn't) this isn't due to sex though. As when this disparity started my role would also have been given to a man.
Things are not all flowery in the garden but they are nowhere near as bleak as you paint them. From what you say it would seem the end goal of rad fem is annihilation of the species!