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.

which others did you have in mind and why should we care what they think?

I think she means men and anti feminist women.
I think she cares because women throughout history have been punished for having political opinions and it's safe not to be associated with such women. It's even safer to openly oppose them

I work in science and can tell you there are loads and loads of women working in animal testing labs - shock horror even running them.
To state that men are the ones doing this is bizarre, false, misleading and stubbornly, wilfully ignorant.

It is generally a good thing that echo chambers tend to become diluted to the point of irrelevancy once they come in contact with reality.

Sorry I don't get what this means

I work in science and can tell you there are loads and loads of women working in animal testing labs - shock horror even running them.

NAMALT and WDIT

Also a lot of their experiments have been on animals, with no obvious positive contributions to anything.

Animal experiments are standard and often required in order to have drugs passed and to get funding for your research. If you knew anything at all, you’d know women do this too, most of the time it’s required. Using humans is considered unethical in many cases, although it was done in the past it is not standard. There are in fact organisations committed to new technology and new forms of research that does not require the use of animals. Animal testing is actually not that relevant to humans so on a purely scientific basis it doesn’t make sense, morally I find it repugnant as I’m vegan, but we simply cannot avoid using medicines that prolong or save lives for that reason as there is not currently enough other options. The organisation I know of that is committed to non-animal research, has both women and men as its founders and staff. In veterinary healthcare they have even created artificial dogs that bleed! for students to work on, rather than working on stray or unwanted dogs which get destroyed as soon as the students are done.

All of this commendable work around eliminating animal use in research, has both men and women paving the way for a future that benefits both animals and humans. We evolve and learn from past mistakes and having seen animals who were rescued from labs, I’m very thankful there are men involved in ending it. I won’t reject something beneficial because a man made it.

Anyone rejecting medicine entirely because men are connected to it, risks their own life and their children’s. Tell me Sakura, did you vaccinate your children?

NAMALT and WDIT

But relevant in this case.
It's hugely disingenous and, dare I say, a LIE, to state men are responsible for cruelty to animals.

I think she means men and anti feminist women.
I think she cares because women throughout history have been punished for having political opinions and it's safe not to be associated with such women. It's even safer to openly oppose them

Don’t speak for me Sakura. If you had spent any time here listening over the years, you’d know what I am for and against. You haven’t, so you don’t. I oppose extreme views, including yours. I also speak out when I need to, and have been punished for doing so. You’re being incredibly goady. Also against talk guidelines.

Anyone who left their house and entered workplaces would know that there are women and men in most workplaces.
Why say "men do animal testing" when it's not true.
Well, it's as true as saying "women do animal testing", or more accurately "men and women do animal testing".

Sakura continues to use ‘NAMALT’ whenever someone challenges their extremism and literal ‘all men’ statements, whilst additionally saying women aren’t involved in any of it. As far as I’m aware, both men and women use animals, sadly. Any other assertion is baseless. The NAMALT isn’t relevant here, and it is annoying to have the phrase misused. As we know, doing so diminishes the impact and trivialises real issues. This has happened with the word, hate.

I actually think WDIT is a gross argument. Do you know there are some genres of porn where women are literally eating shit so that men can have a precious orgasm. I mean, it's a thing. So that means lots and lots and lots of women have done this unspeakable thing just to survive. So even though I obviously don't condone women torturing animals, I think the discussion of agency is an important one to be had. We do need to discuss how much agency women have under patriarchy and how much they should be resisting the disgusting things imposed upon them. What we know to be an unequivocal fact, however, is that men rule.

You’re being incredibly goady. Also against talk guidelines.

I think this is another projection. And a silencing tactic to boot. You've called me all kinds of names and I haven't accused you of being goady because silencing women is not what I do.
The truth always outs. So I don't need to silence anybody

And Sakura, I’m not discussing other threads here, other than to say your behaviour has been noticed by most of the women and for some reason you have continued to single me out when in fact, your presence and contributions are abhorred by most of the board. As evidenced in numerous threads. That’s why you are being asked if your intention is to make actual feminism look mad. Your views aren’t feminist, some maybe, but most of it is as extreme as the misogynists. You don’t even think we can do anything to end patriarchy anymore and should just separate from men entirely! That ain’t any wave of feminism I’m familiar with.

Did anyone else see that but where Sakura seemed to imply I should stop taking my asthma medication because feminism?!
This kind of ridiculousness about science and similar is why more and more people are turning away from feminism in it's entirety.
The only people shutting down debate are the ones spouting NAMALT and WDIT. Because both of those things are TRUE. Engage and find the reasons why they are true and don't use them as statements to shut up discussion.
Sakura, if you genuinely think like this fine. But please accept that this isn't the only way to be either a radical feminist or a feminist of any kind. And good luck with receiving any medical care if you reject anything developed by men.

You've called me all kinds of names and I haven't accused you of being goady because silencing women is not what I do.

I have not. I have said numerous posts from you are: disgusting, extreme, unintelligent. That’s not name calling, that’s an opinion of your views. But you do so like to misrepresent don’t you. Never mind you salivated at the thought of me being ‘eaten alive’ in your extremist groups!

Nobody will silence you except MNHQ. I suggest you take a look at guidelines as you do keep violating them. Carry on as you like though. So will I, just within guidelines.

Tell me Sakura, did you vaccinate your children?

In fact you've just reminded me that there's a genre of porn where men get off on watching (usually naked) women torturing animals.
Given that it gives them orgasms it's not like they're going to object to women doing it in other capacities like "science" is it

What? So now all scientists are pervs using women at work for their gratification. This is a beyond ridiculous thing to think!

This tread is reminding me of the Tony Judt quote:

The more perfect the solution, the more terrifying the consequences.

I'm not even sure I WANT to be a radfem any more if it means ignoring science and only believing everything women say. Does that mean because Jenny McCarthy is an anti vaxxer, I should follow her?

I have said numerous posts from you are: disgusting, extreme, unintelligent. That’s not name calling, that’s an opinion of your views

Yes but what I'm saying is, you accused me of calling you dumb when I haven't, nor do I think you're dumb. But you, in fact, do think a lot of negative things about me.

TheGoddessFrigg

Honestly, I would not refer to this persons ideas as radical feminism or see it as an example of it. This is nothing like the radical feminism I know or read about.

That sounds a lot like policing people's opinions on your theories. Which you can't do @sakura184

What? So now all scientists are pervs using women at work for their gratification. This is a beyond ridiculous thing to think!

I don't know what men think: I'm not in their heads. I don't know why men are in gynecology for example but I do know that there is medical porn: and i know it's impossible to tell where the doctor treating you for xyz actually gets off on this type of porn, or other types of porn, or whatever, which is why I would exclude men from my intimate care, yes.

@GrammarTeacher what sounds like policing people ?

In fact you've just reminded me that there's a genre of porn

A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement.

Your reply to Jessica. And as I've said before your perception of risk is really off. And I say this as someone who is hugely risk averse.