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.

There is the 'mothers defence' where a mother will not accept that their child could possibly be a murderer for example and will defend when everyone else has seen the evidence to the contrary which is damning.

Two thoughts on this. One, less important, we seem to have a hard time as individuals, but also culturally, with the idea that we can strongly disapprove of actions while still loving an individual. Clearly it is very difficult if your child does something abhorrent, or is a bad person. And as a mother we still love them, indeed have an obligation to love them and offer certain kinds of support, even to an adult child.

We seem however to have moved to a social sense that care or love or support also must mean approval in every way. This seems a particular struggle for the left who often want to either claim that x really isn't that bad and if you don't agree you are not being inclusive. Or, that x is abhorrent and people who do x are sub-human and we should lock them up in prison and leave them there to fester. (Although plenty on the right also subscribe to the latter view.)

But the other thing I would say is that while sons who are abusers or murderers are an example, they aren't really the most common example. Most of us are never faced with sons who are rapists and murderers, and that is extreme enough that there are plenty of mothers who will not protect them from consequences of that, though we might want to.

But in terms of power structures, it is very common for mothers to do what they can to give their children, boys or girls, an advantage. Maybe a little better education, or fudge the rules for some sort of scholarship, or help them get a job that they really shouldn't interfere with, or protect them from consequences of lesser misbehaviour, maybe drugs or speeding, which would affect them. And these things are either seen as so minor they are natural to do for your child, or even as good. And they happen all the time.

Yes of course. Mothers are to blame. MOTHERS are to blame for their son's abusive behaviour. In some way. If only they would stop defending them, maybe.

Who said mothers are to blame? What was said was that mothers do, quite often, defend their sons abuse. That’s not ok. Nobody says the action is their fault. Just grow up already.

Feminism has to reach out to include all women otherwise it becomes entrenched in its own bullshit and becomes an echo chamber. It becomes elitist and that in itself means it develops blind spots - the real failing of what mainstream liberal feminism has become.

I think this is a tightrope @RedToothBrush . If you don't have clear definitions and so on then it can lead to the libfem fiasco that took place. Because women weren't adamant about what their feminism meant and didn't mean, for fear of appearing exclusionary or even "mean".

To be honest I wish I'd been told outright how much mothers were hated in radical feminism, or whatever you want to call it. It would've helped me out. And I don't think that just because I don't like that aspect of radical feminism I think radfems should redefine what radical feminism means.

I think that's where splinter groups come in I guess. All you can do is take bits of politics that apply to you. I opened a Facebook group called : Radical Leaning Mothers Against Patriarchy.
Not explicitly radical feminists.
There's about 250 members but it's not that active.

Who said mothers are to blame? What was said was that mothers do, quite often, defend their sons abuse. That’s not ok. Nobody says the action is their fault.

You said, "this is part of our battle, getting mothers to stop defending their sons abusive behaviour." So what do you mean - why is this an important battle for feminism?

Just grow up already.

?

One of the conclusions raised recently in my Facebook group is that mothers have NO say in the outcome of their children. And to suggest otherwise is misogynistic mother blaming patriarchal psychological bs.

We must reserve compassion for mothers whose sons commit crimes , in a culture obsessed with shaming the mother for her child's behavior.

- why is this an important battle for feminism?

It's really not is it. It's a total deflection of who is oppressing whom

Yeah I just don't even seeing the point of requiring mothers to denounce their sons. And why mothers specifically? Why not other relatives?

If you don't have clear definitions and so on then it can lead to the libfem fiasco that took place.

I'm going to use the example of 'safeguarding' as I've seen a post by Datun on the Leeds pride thread which is relevant here.

She said:
It is always striking, to me, how patient people are on here with opinions that directly undermine safeguarding. Explanation after explanation.

Showing exactly why telling a parent they are responsible for their child's safeguarding at a family event which allows fetishes, is wrong, etc

'Safeguarding' as a word does have clear definitions and it's a word in common usage unlike some of the words and phrases you use. It doesn't mean it doesn't need patient explanation time and again to ensure people truly understand it. You shouldn't assume they do because that's where the problems come in, because something is lost in communication because of that assumption.

'Shorthanding' complex and difficult ideas always falls down in this manner. You have to understand the history and purpose of the process and logic behind the word to really understand it.

That's the point I'm trying to make. If you want to argue your rad fem ideas in a more universal and far reaching way, then it is necessary to have that repetition rather than only converse with others who are already entrenched in that ideology and thinking.

That repetition is the most valuable argument you can make ironically.

Also 'know your audience' is a good thing to remember. As is 'what is you objective' in your argument. MN certainly is a wider audience rather than a narrow group. And just trying to argue point by point with posters you are talking directly to, isn't as useful as making a wider argument that anyone reading but not engaging might be able to get something from.

I refer back to a comment the op made about stuff getting lost....

And to suggest otherwise is misogynistic mother blaming patriarchal psychological bs.

Ah, it's about the agenda, eh, not the facts of the matter.

Mothers cannot determine who their children will become. But they can absolutely fuck them up.

Two true statements.

Yeah I just don't even seeing the point of requiring mothers to denounce their sons. And why mothers specifically?

If you read back, you will see that this was brought up - though not so much with regard to sons as children generally - in relation to the idea that somehow a female society would not be oppressive or violent.

And yet we know that mothers, women all, are quite ready to oppress others, including other women and girls, in order to give advantage to their own children. That is, along with other things we know, there is really no reason to think that somehow a female society would leave behind exploitation, oppression, or environmental destruction, as some seem to think.

Yeah I just don't even seeing the point of requiring mothers to denounce their sons. And why mothers specifically? Why not other relatives?

I'm just nodding along to this. I do think women shouldn't make sweeping announcements about how amazing their sons are, to a radical feminist audience. But otherwise yes totally agree.

the other thing. Radical feminists, well the fringe groups, think a mother of a daughter is ok but not a mother of a son.

So exactly like what you see with women in pornography: the woman's entire childhood, hopes, dreams, personality, essence, everything hangs on some patriarchal definition of her. She is nobody in her own right, and must be defined by what type of offspring she has produced.

I take on your points @RedToothBrush But mumsnet does have its own special inclusive language as well. I think it's just women, to be honest, I think they are inherently creative and play with language all the time. This thread is specifically about radical feminism so you would expect some of their language to crop up in it.

And yet we know that mothers, women all, are quite ready to oppress others, including other women and girls, in order to give advantage to their own children.

Mothers preference their own children, yes. But those children could be girls or boys so the effects even out. It is the nature of all human relationships to preference some people over others. That preference does not in itself enable violence or oppression.

Goosefoot

Which leads to the double edged sword of women being primary care givers, often the only caregiver, and the disproportionate influence that gives mothers over their children.

Though I think the modern trend of children being considered children until well into their 20's, and a general erosion of personal accountability, enable by society as a whole, and then add in a healthy overboard dose dose of everyone gets a trophy so as not to have hurt feelings.

Put all that on top of virtually everyone is not only able to, but actively encouraged, to communicate any idea, at any time to literally the entire world, virtually instantaneously with no accountability, and the notion that all ideas and opinions are valid and equal...

I do think women shouldn't make sweeping announcements about how amazing their sons are, to a radical feminist audience

Fair.

the other thing. Radical feminists, well the fringe groups, think a mother of a daughter is ok but not a mother of a son.

Yeah, it's back to this idea of choice. We chose to have sons. We chose to raise them. We chose for them to become abusers. None of that is true. If you find yourself a mother of a son you really have no choice but to support them. And forming a close and trusting relationship is actually the best way I know of to put them on the right path.

Maniac
It is the nature of all human relationships to preference some people over others. That preference does not in itself enable violence or oppression.

Preference is the very root of the power structure. It is what defines the haves and have not's. Violence is a tool to maintain the preference.

Maniak

Damn it...I am sorry I misspelled your name in my above post.

@samyeagar If you say so.

It's okay I knew who you meant.

This thread is specifically about radical feminism so you would expect some of their language to crop up in it.

Yes but you certainly shouldn't shut down and resort to the academic side of it, when others call it out as restrictive and elitist either. Which was also one of the themes of this thread and part of the complaint the OP made.

All ideologies should be open to criticism and their own limitations as movements in order to grow.

The moment they cease to do that they become problematic.

Which is where the issue the OP had really comes in.

I do think this applies to all political debates and there are many many examples of this going on in politics in 2019 and certainly not just different brands of feminism. Its fracturing ideas rather than letting them grow and flourish.

The thing about MN is that it has a particular wide cross section of society as users compared with a lot of other social media. It's not perfect but in terms of reflection you do have a wider range of views to enable cross fertilisation of ideas. It's worth playing to its strengths for that reason.

You can express complex ideas without the need to do it and I think it helps all parties concerned.

Which leads to the double edged sword of women being primary care givers, often the only caregiver, and the disproportionate influence that gives mothers over their children.*

I think to make out mothers have influence, in a patriarchy, is pure woman hating. It was in Greer's Whole Woman I learned that male prisoners jailed for heinous crimes are given therapy encouraging them to blame their mothers. I've read a book about the rape of Nanking blaming Japanese mothers for being too controlling.
Patriarchal bs begins with cartoons. No mother can avoid any of the brainwashing. And that's if you take the view it's not biological: I mean I personally think it's a mix of both

I met this mother the other day, and her son is 9 and he is violent. Like, really bad. And she is terrified about what he will do as he gets older and she's desperate for treatment. And often, I believe, mothers are abused by their sons. That's even more taboo to mention than normal domestic abuse.

So if we want to blame someone, why not blame the lack of support and respite for these mothers? Why are they left wholly responsible for abusive sons? They are HEROES sticking with them and trying to make a difference.

I think to make out mothers have influence, in a patriarchy, is pure woman hating.

Since it is obvious you are not a woman hater, then it leads that mothers have no influence over their children in a patriarchy? Did I get that right?

I think to make out mothers have influence, in a patriarchy, is pure woman hating.

Right? It's so weird. "Disproportionate influence". Disproportionate to what? And also, what to people think mothers are trying to do here except raise children who are adapted to the current social context.