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.

Men really don't get that much jail time for child rape and wife murder. So in effect patriarchy encourages male violence by protecting perps from the punishment they would receive in a non patriarchal society. And I don't even mean a matriarchy. I mean just a fair society.

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

Ridicule? They managed revolutions in the two largest countries in the world: Russia and China.

And it was the communists that put an end to Chinese footbinding. So I have a lot of time and respect for the communists.

The capitalists: that would be Donald Trump. But no no, the capitalists definitely don't deserve ridicule

Men really don't get that much jail time for child rape and wife murder.

How do you define not that much time?
Ian Watkins got 29 years.
Women get decades and decades? Get real.

And it was the communists that put an end to Chinese footbinding. So I have a lot of time and respect for the communists

And also introduced one child families leading to genocide of female infants.
Nice allies you have a lot of time for there.

Okay you're right on that one.
Maybe all political views are subject to ridicule, not especially feminism.
It does seem like feminism is derided more than other political stances but come to think of it Trump has been ridiculed well and truly.

So ridicule is just par for the course if you are in some way political I guess

And it was the communists that put an end to Chinese footbinding.
No you're wrong
Ending centuries of a painful cultural practice that often left women crippled, disabled, and in constant pain, Chinese empress Cixi outlawed foot binding on Feb 1st 1902.

And also introduced one child families leading to genocide of female infants

China was misogynist before the communists took over. They didn't introduce misogyny into China.

It's fair to say communism is a better bet for women than capitalism, if we got to choose our male rulers.

You're saying the communists never managed to eradicate misogyny? That's because they're not feminist. And that's why I'm a feminist and not a communist

I suppose you could be a feminist communist or an anarcho feminist. But both those align with men. I mean it's certainly worth me thinking about whether it's worth me aligning with male communists for the greater good. It's just that I know what men are like. A communist revolution, while ending up slightly better for women than capitalism, will still result in women being second class.

When the Communist government came to power in 1949 they were vehemently anti-foot binding regarding it as being archaic and preventing women from taking a more active role in the economic life of the country. The government had inspectors who went around the country recording who was bound and who was being unbound, and to prevent any further binding.

trc-leiden.nl/trc-digital-exhibition/index.php/chinese-lotus-shoes/item/150-10-the-end-of-foot-binding

Sakura184
Surely a real feminist wouldn't erase a woman from history in favour of a man.
I also want to say, that I do have the self awareness to realize I sound like a radfem parody.
What have you done with your alter ego who appeared a while back?

What have you done with your alter ego who appeared a while back

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with whether marriage has a place in radical feminism?

Or is it just a random personal insult. Ad hominem, is that what they're called

It would just be a different group of "haves" oppressing the "have not's"

Not at all. First of all, we don't know what it would be like to have women rule or even have equal participation, because this has never happened.

And because men might have a biological imperative behind their behavior, the incessant rapism, colonialism, imperialism it doesn't necessarily follow that a society run by women would mirror what men have done.

In fact I'm almost positive that a society run by women would look entirely different to the global patriarchal mess we're currently dealing with

Most female groups I've been part of have some pretty significant power structures going on, and there are people on the top and people firmly on the bottom, and kept there.

Women have a will to power just like men do, and it can be just as nasty.

We cannot know how women would behave if they weren't colonized by men.

I think at this late stage of patriarchy it would be morally wrong not to try and overthrow male rule "just in case" women are just as bad.

But It's not like women even want to rule and dominate over men: we just want to be able to live peacefully without them around.

They won't let us.

I personally don't think revolution is possible , so I'm sticking with my separatism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding?wprov=sfla1

In relation to ending foot binding The Communists simply carried on with the groundwork which others had set in motion.

Yes I see that. They were the ones who eradicated it once and for all though

Some good news. Cyntoia Brown, who was given a LIFE sentence for killing a punter in self defense, and was tried as an adult, even though she was 16, has been released after much campaigning by interest groups, at the age of 31.

www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/us/cyntoia-brown-being-released-from-prison-next-week-trnd/index.html

You continually ignore that men do get long sentences (and in this country when they don't it is considered shocking and can be appealed). You just wrote a woman out of history yourself! And you insist on this nonsense that all men are rapists and without harsher punishments can't control themselves. The majority of men are not violent. They majority of men are not rapists. If they were the situation would be worse as we are governed and policed by consent.

Grammarteacher, no they really don't. They might do once in a while but I've seen very short sentences given to men for the most heinous crimes

Sakura184
these kind of cases are an anomaly, if they weren't you wouldn't even hear about them. And there was an outcry something you don't see in China and it was put right. You can't just exploit outliers to validate your views, show some robust statistics.
They were the ones who eradicated it once and for all though you can't let it go can you. In most parts of China, however, the practice had virtually disappeared by 1949
I hope you're prepared to validate that well known patriarchy, the British Empire for outlawing Sutti.

If they were the situation would be worse as we are governed and policed by consent.

I don't quite know what this means. I know the police themselves find it hard not to rape (recent law passed in Kansas now making it illegal for police to rape in custody the women they've arrested). I know that women in the UK can be arrested for reporting rape, like the woman who wouldn't go to court and had to serve jail time, with no understanding of how trauma might prevent you from wanting to testify. The odds are stacked in the rapist and male criminal's favor. That's why anarchy would probably be a better set up for women.

these kind of cases are an anomaly, if they weren't you wouldn't even hear about them.

Cases of men getting low jail sentences are reported all the time. Enough for lenient punishments to be a pattern.

Thinking about it, I actually find the fact that patriarchy doesn't punish men for their crimes as quite a hopeful situation. It means that if we were to move into a society that did appropriately punish them, the crimes might decrease. Obviously the only way you could avoid spouse and prostitute murder is by making sure men didn't get to live with women.

Patriarchy does punish men for their crimes.
In fact, men made rape a crime in the first place. Why would they do that?
You can cherry pick cases to support your argument and reject the ones that don't.
The fact that two separate women were jailed last week for murdering their children doesn't prove that women are more violent than men either, it's just two cases.