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.

A lot of the conditioning of males and females within current society is directly related to the power structure, which has men being the "have's" and women being the "have not's" Is that conditioning because of biology, or is it more a reaction to ones place within the power structure? If one removes sex as the determining factor of who's on top of the power structure, one is still left with a ruling class, just with a different determining characteristic of who is a "have" and who is a "have not" Which still leads to conditioning in relation to where one falls within the power structure with the "have not's" deferring to the "haves"

This.

Its about restricting the power of the 'elite' group and making it accountable to the 'masses'.

Its not a coindence that the rise of MRAs and TRAs has occurred at a time of rising economic inequality and other political instability.

Its about a power vacuum that has opened up, because centrist politics - which has provided that balancing force of accountability - has been in decline and is struggling.

Which is why I refer to wider politics and putting feminism in the context of this a lot.

I have to say that, if I had separatist views and, if I were looking to connect with like-minded women, I would not have chosen a site which had 'by parents for parents' as their strapline.

It strikes me as an odd choice.

I don't think I have anything further to say really.

Extremes of any political ideal, religion, lifestyle etc are dangerous. Perhaps not in the same way, but extremism by its very nature is dangerous.

I think that it is likely that a female separatist society would be less violent

Right and “less violent” is, I think, plenty reason for some women to choose it. Especially those with a past history of sexual violence done to them by men.

Assuming they are willing to make necessary sacrifices - eg no association with men, loss of most amenities of modern life - I see no problem with women choosing separatism for themselves.

As I said I don’t believe separatism should be considered for women in general, because we do not know the extent to which male violence is biological.

I tend to think it’s a solvable problem that is mostly societal and that all men are fully capable of restraining themselves from violence - They just choose not to. Men’s choice in this matter is why, IMO, it’s reasonable for some women to choose separatism at the present time.

RedToothBrush
I entirely agree. We are at a very dangerous time with tectonic plates shifting. Feminism benefits from economic stability. Now we are in a position where climate change will inevitably destroy jobs if not managed properly. Democracy itself is in danger of collapse, look at India and Pakistan. Social media has dumped an open sewer through the middle of society and is threatening national power.
What we have as a western liberal democracy has produced produced the best conditions for women ever and it's hanging by a thread.

FWRLurker

Perhaps I should have phrased it as "differently violent." Of course there is nothing wrong with a persons self determination, and that includes separatism. The thing is, if one ends up on the bottom half of the inevitable power structure, they will just find themselves in a differently bad situation. The root of oppression and violence is power. Those who have it, and those who don't.

Which is why, we do need to ally with some men to support the concept of accountability of power, because that in turn protects feminism and women.

This isn't something that is easy or without risk, but power can only be held to account if the counterweight to that is strong enough itself.

From this point of view separatism is a fantasy, because you can't live outside global politics. You are always part of it in someway, even if you try to live in isolation.

I also want to say, that I do have the self awareness to realize I sound like a radfem parody.

I feel like, you know, maybe I should censor myself a bit, be a bit more palatable

But I really stopped giving a shit about that when I saw that men are brazenly writing legit articles in mainstream newspapers about what it's like to be a woman. What a woman is, and so on. And almost everyone is just nodding and going along with that. Even thought to me that's crazy making stuff of the twilight zone. They are taking the piss out of women in full view of everyone by writing lies, getting laws passed based on lies, gaslighting the youth into having operations with their lies.

I have to say that, if I had separatist views and, if I were looking to connect with like-minded women, I would not have chosen a site which had 'by parents for parents' as their strapline.

I'm a mother of 2 kids. I love that child free women are on here giving their opinions , even if the site is "by parents for parents "

Most of the time I have no idea who has children and I don't care.

"I have to say that, if I had separatist views and, if I were looking to connect with like-minded women, I would not have chosen a site which had 'by parents for parents' as their strapline."

It strikes me as an odd choice.

I don't think I have anything further to say really.

1. The history of word "parents" in the strap line of "Mumsnet", my (pure) guess is that it was after it became high profile! (to be men inclusive - just like most women's first sympathy, is to welcome trans women among themselves)

1. The only way Patriarchy can be overthrown is if all women unite, separatists are not looking for unity on separatism but unity on overthrowing Patriarchy.

1. (if there are any recruits to separatism then that is bonus).

I wasn't thinking about men using the site. My point was that this is a board where many women are involved with men - either as partners or because they are mothers of sons. Not all, but many. So it seemed like an odd place to look to make separatist connections. That's it. Have a good evening.

*RedToothBrush

From this point of view separatism is a fantasy, because you can't live outside global politics. You are always part of it in someway, even if you try to live in isolation.*

And even in the pure impossible hypothetical world where all men disappeared, those global politics would no doubt look different, but they would still exist. It would just be a different group of "haves" oppressing the "have not's"

In addition to the ending of Patriarchy, I also want to see the end of the current Capitalist Economy, but I still go and shop in Sainsbury or similar but keep that to minimal amount humanly possible, however what I do not do, is to go round defending this participation in my nefarious activity loudly and proudly

Exactly. There is a difference between doing what you need to do in order to survive but having criticism of it. Or having no criticism of it. That's what politics is. Except it's hyperbole for women to have politics. Anarchist and communist men can criticize the structures without being accused of hyperbole because they're taken seriously for their politics. Wonder why?

The extent to which women are ridiculed for having politics is just a measure of the extent to which they are hated

You know sakura, the bit I have seen of the rad-fem parody p**s-take tag-team has been truly tedious but

In addition to the ending of Patriarchy, I also want to see the end of the current Capitalist Economy, but I still go and shop in Sainsbury or similar but keep that to minimal amount humanly possible, however what I do not do, is to go round defending this participation in my nefarious activity loudly and proudly

was genuinely funny - so credit where credit is due...

Anarchist and communist men can criticize the structures without being accused of hyperbole because they're taken seriously for their politics.
Actually that's exactly what I accuse them of. Anarchists are idiots, communists are dangerous idiots and some of them are women! I've been analysing and critiquing patriarchy a lot longer than you have, am just more interested in effecting change.

Anarchist and communist men can criticize the structures without being accused of hyperbole because they're taken seriously for their politics

Are they ? Personally as Imnobody4 says they are idiots. And dangerous idiots.

samyeagar

The reason to choose separatism, now, would be because male people right now feel entitled to power over others. Female people don’t have this socialized entitlement so indeed a society made up of only female socialized people (eg a separatist society right now) will be far less violent. Women would not instantly become as violent as men merely by virtue of having political power.

Your comments also appear to assume that the entitlement to power is inevitable in any society, which I disagree with. Safeguards can be built in to a system.

Anarchists and communists come in for a lot of criticism and ridicule, even (especially) the male ones.
Nice try of false equivalence though.

FWRLurker

An immediate separatist society would be beneficial in the short term for sure, but I am not sure it would be the long term overall solution. From male violence, obviously, but not from the power structure of haves and have nots.

The other thing though is how population size and diversity affects the ability to maintain social norms, and safeguards against entitlement of power, which yes, I do believe that it is inevitable with large populations, especially when those numbers are in the millions. Essentially, the more points of failure, the more likely a failure.

Women would not instantly become as violent as men merely by virtue of having political power.

The word instantly is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence.

sam

The point is, as long as endemic male violence exists due to patriarchy being the mode by which people are socialized, any given woman will always be safer from male violence in a female separatist society.

No one is talking about all or even very many women joining or growing up separate from all men (which would be required for your hypothetical “long term” issues to materialize).

And by male violence I also mean violence in general because in patriarchy the vast majority of violence is male and will remain so even if a few women go separate.

Also remember we don't know for sure whether or not male violence including rape is biological. It's entirely possible it is. In which case separatism is the only possible solution in the here and now.

I personally think that if decent punishments were meted out men could totally keep their rape tendencies in check. Unfortunately they're just not punished for their crimes under patriarchy.

By comparison women are punished disproportionately, with decades and decades of jail time, for crimes such as killing her rapist, her punter or turning on her abusive husband and so on.

So male violence is a catch 22.