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.

In fact, men made rape a crime in the first place. Why would they do that?

Because they didn't like other men touching their property. Rape is, and always has been, a property crime under patriarchy. It's never a crime agains the woman herself

In fact, men made rape a crime in the first place. Why would they do that?

Originally rape was a crime of property damage. I once had an interesting conversation with a (male) lawyer who was of the view that many of the issues around rape reporting, conviction rates etc stem from this fundamental difference between rape and other crimes against the person.

I'm not a lawyer myself and don't really remember the details but it was an interesting perspective.

And I'm not saying plenty of male crimes against children, including murder aren't reported. we don't get news reports of the 2 a week women murdered by their spouses. That's swept under the carpet. But even so, we still get quite a lot of crimes with very lenient punishments reported

Murder is also a property crime when it's a man against a woman. So if he had sex with her, at some point, the murder is often regarded as somewhat inevitable. Dworkin made a speech about the mass shooting of women in Canada, the one where the shooter screamed that they were all feminists, before killing them. She said that the reason this was regarded as a legit crime is because a) the general social standing of the parents of the women, who were from middle class backgrounds and b) the fact he had arguably not slept with any of them.
She did say though, that we should expect at some point that the women's sex lives would inevitably be looked into by the media. So even if hey hadn't had sex with him in particular, they could still be branded as slags who deserved it

But even so, we still get quite a lot of crimes with very lenient punishments reported

Of course, because they are extraordinary cases i.e. unusual.
Like the guy who said he fell on the woman and his penis entered her and got away with it. Reported because it's so unusual and hasn't happened again as far as I know.
Men convicted of rape and jailed get reported locally but don't usually make national news.

But even so, we still get quite a lot of crimes with very lenient punishments reported which could be because they're anomolies, you report the unusual not the norm. I'm concerned about VAWG but we can only tackle it by using factual evidence. The way you express yourself makes it much easier to dismiss. Thanks to you I'm starting to rethink Camille Paglia!

IMO, there is a place for all of us despite our views, but what was quoted above in this thread... 'all men are ultimate oppressors and all boys are future rapists etc' (sorry not a direct quote) reminds me of the broad & discriminatory hate speech used famously against Blacks, Jews and LGBTQ that shouldn't even be tolerated under this umbrella of feminism.

As for me being married to a man, I feel like meeting my male partner might change some opinions, he is so gentle, lovely and kind, and often can't do enough for me.
Discuss your own opinions openly and confidently and avoid those who preach hate or make your opinions feel insignificant regardless of which 'group' they call themselves!

. 'all men are ultimate oppressors and all boys are future rapists etc' (s

That's not the quote. The quote is "oppressor or rapist" so there is room for "not all men".

All men are oppressors, it's what oppression is, one class against another: basic feminist analysis. Until the oppression is eradicated the oppressors gain and benefit. Just because some men don't fare well in patriarchy doesn't mean anything much. They might fare even worse outside a patriarchy for all we know. Or they might fare better. Who knows. They still benefit from female oppression.
If you don't have an understanding of class analysis, then is feminism really for you? It's just random people doing random stuff, passing random laws to benefit some not others.

As for the rape question. We can't know if rape is inevitable or not. How can we know? We know that not all men rape, don't we. That's why she says "or". So you can't make the blanket statement "all men rape" because as far as we know, they don't.
So I personally wouldn't agree with "all men rape".

which could be because they're anomolies

They're not anomalies if they're being reported with regularity are they. When they shouldn't be happening at all. Rape a child, get a harsh punishment. End of. Surely? But no. That's not what I'm seeing over and over again in the media

Going back to men's "science ", new today in patriarchy, they have created a monkey/ human embryo. They plan to use such beings for organ harvesting. Keeping these creatures as slaves (in cages, perhaps?) so that their organs can be cut out of them for humans who are sick is the plan

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/03/first-human-monkey-chimera-raises-concern-among-scientists?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other&fbclid=IwAR1mIru3NN2Jiie0-MWz1LGULqvzqnEieUwlB9HxIfDYm0w3e7tVDuHjWeI

All men are oppressors, it's what oppression is, one class against another: basic feminist analysis

This is another example of not understanding class analysis. The class of men are oppressors in patriarchy. That does not equate to: each and every single man in that class is an oppressor. They benefit from patriarchy, of course.
Men are oppressors, is a different statement to ‘all men are oppressors’. The distinction is important when you are having a class analysis type of discussion.

Going back to discussion of women only societies, its interesting to watch the Stacy Dooley Panarama documentary that's just been on to reflect on a few comments that have been made here.

The post Islamic State camps where the women are now held separately from men still have a problem with women fearing violence and enforcement of ideas upon them from other women. The documentary also talks about how before its collapse it was the foreign women who held a special status as enforcers of the harsh laws.

Now it is difficult to assertain what's propaganda and what really happened but it certainly doesn't seem a situation were its free from living in fear. Dooley had to have an armed guard at all times because the previous week a female guard had been stabbed to death.

These women might still be living under male centric ideology which they don't wish to give up, but it seems some at least are willing to take on the role of the oppresser through violence in order to do that.

The ideology persists despite being separated from men. And there are those with special status and power obtained through fear and there are those with lesser status who obey.

RedToothBrush

It makes sense because violence, and by extension fear and intimidation, is an effective tool in maintaining a power structure, and desire to maintain a power structure is inherent to humans as a species, and is not sex or individual specific.

It is an absolutely logical conclusion that violence would be used by any ruling class, what ever the criteria is that defines said ruling class.

Women's prisons can also be very violent and extremely hierarchical.

Not to mention girl's middle schools. Those are practically dystopias.

inherent to humans as a species, and is not sex or individual specific.

I think this is where these discussions often go wrong. People seem to think certain characteristics are male or female, when many are simply human. Women and men might express the desire for power, or greed, slightly differently, but those qualities are there is all human beings.

It is an absolutely logical conclusion that violence would be used by any ruling class, what ever the criteria is that defines said ruling class.

Right, so it's interesting that a male imperative has always been to capture women and hold them hostage, without means to escape ( unaffordable housing meaning they're stuck with men, have to turn to prostitution etc)

And a female imperative has always been to get away from men.

I think if women win the right to live apart from men, as well as some basic equal say in their destruction of the environment, disarmament of weapons and so on, then the revolution has been won.

The thought of expending energy ruling over men does not excite me, unless you count appropriate punishments for their crimes: you'd expect at least a couple of Nigels to be on board with adequate punishments for child rape: then again maybe I'm asking too much.

Men are oppressors, is a different statement to ‘all men are oppressors’. The distinction is important when you are having a class analysis type of discussion.

I'll concede that not all men rape because as far as I know they don't ( unless you follow the logic that all PIV is rape, which some women do)

But all men in fact are oppressors whether they like it or not under patriarchy because they do all benefit. Every single last one of them.

Outside of a patriarchy, without the economic exploitation of women, do you think men would go around taking care of the sick and elderly men who need it? I don't think they would: and men know they wouldn't. So they keep women in economic chains so we are bound by the system to carry out "care" work for men.

Rape as a specific tool of social control does mean that men have a weapon that women do not have, based purely on sex alone.

But as a species we evolve and adapt. Terrorism methods and techniques are an evolving thing, as law enforcement crack down on one thing other methods develop and become the weapon of the moment.

If women can not rape, it does not mean that to oppress and control they wouldn't use sex based means to exert fear over time. This could, indeed, include making some women pregnant through artificial and enforced methods.

Humanity is a cruel thing when there is enough incentive to do it and not enough accountability to prevent it.

Humanity's issues all come from inequality and power imbalances being exploited. It's part of our survival instinct which can get out of hand and go into overdrive to ensure supremacy - security and opportunities - for our children.

As for men carrying out care work, the whole trans argument is so that women can request for men not to be part of her intimate and elderly care. Dworkin wrote of old women getting raped in nursing homes. It's not like men being near us in old age is a feminist prerogative. I think many old women would rather die of the elements

It's part of our survival instinct which can get out of hand and go into overdrive to ensure supremacy - security and opportunities - for our children.

In fact I would say this is an area where women can particularly be inclined to go too far - protecting their kids even when they are in the wrong, or promoting their interests over other people's children.

But all men in fact are oppressors whether they like it or not under patriarchy because they do all benefit. Every single last one of them.

No, that logic doesn’t work. All men benefit from patriarchy. That does not make them all oppressors.

RedToothBrush,

I'm honestly not fighting for the right to rule over men. I can't think of anything more of a waste of energy than women ruling over men.
What I want is for men to stop killing us and children, I want the good Nigels to stop handing out ridiculous sentences to those who do. I want a say in the necrophilic system that has destroyed our planet, to stop male tendency to rape the planet. I want each and every woman to be able to live alone without a man, because even though some may choose it there are billions more who are living with men because they have no other choice. And providing sexual services to him to boot. I want the system that keeps women in poverty and chained to work that involves caring for men eradicated. Men should care for men. And women should care for women. No woman alive is fighting for the right for men to care for her in old age (see Dworkin's work on rape in nursing homes)

In fact I would say this is an area where women can particularly be inclined to go too far - protecting their kids even when they are in the wrong, or promoting their interests over other people's children.

Agreed, I’ve seen it so many times. My own mother tried to excuse my brother’s abusive behaviour, even after he ended up in prison for it. She continues, into his 50’s, making excuses for him. This is part of our battle, getting mothers to stop defending their sons abusive behaviours.

No, that logic doesn’t work. All men benefit from patriarchy. That does not make them all oppressors.*

It makes them all members of the oppressor class.

Whether each individual man is an oppressor is a bit of a straw man really. All men expect certain things, that they might not get outside of a patriarchy.

This is part of our battle, getting mothers to stop defending their sons abusive behaviours.

Erm yes. That's why "not my Nigelito" gets short shrift in radfem circles.

Even Gail Dines goes on about how great her son is. My mother in law thought her son was amazing, even as she witnessed him throwing me through a wooden wall panel. She still thinks he's amazing.

Women who are feminist really need to stop this