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.

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?

No that's not what I said or implied. I meant that the social forces encouraging boys to become oppressors, beginning with cartoons, or even earlier, mean that the outcome is beyond the mother's control, and to suggest that how the kid turns out is her fault, when she is powerless and has no influence over law and policy (she might want porn eradicated for example, she might want the military dissolved) is pure woman hating

@Goosefoot. I didn't mean you when I said it's so weird. I meant mother blaming in general.

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.

Preferencing based on things like blood ties is where the natural or inevitable hierarchies in societies become corrupted.

You are misunderstanding the argument that was being made though, it had nothing to do with patriarchy. The claim that sakura fairly consistently makes is that without men, a separate female society would be fair, it would not be environmentally destructive, people would not be oppressed.

And yet we know that women as much as any one else have a very visceral inner drive to divert power and resources to their own children at the expense of other people's children. How then would a female society avoid unjust power plays?

Maniak

No worries, I've been called much worse things than weird. Chances are I am, anyway.

*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 know.
I think elderly women struggle with adult sons. I once read a woman's comment underneath an article, she had 8 adult children. Every Sunday they used to come to her house for Sunday dinner and they, along with her husband, treated her like shit. She wrote a letter expressing her sadness that she'd tried to be as kind as possible and raise them the best she could. They responded by saying she should be in a mental asylum. She did say one son was standing by her and would empathize with her.
Then there's matricide. I always get a little shudder when I hear about one of those. Surely that has to be proof that patriarchy is unnatural?

And yet we know that women as much as any one else have a very visceral inner drive to divert power and resources to their own children at the expense of other people's children. How then would a female society avoid unjust power plays?

I think society, which would include plenty of child free women, would make sure children had sufficient resources. The idea that you should compete for resources is so very male and honestly when I think about it this way I really think there is a biological aspect to men's colonial and competitive nature

And yet we know that women as much as any one else have a very visceral inner drive to divert power and resources to their own children at the expense of other people's children.

Completely disagree. Mothers want a peaceful and ordered society more than anything, because that is safest for their children. Equality is stable, and I see women all the time going to great lengths to maintain cohesion. I mean sure, it can be a little superficial at times, but that's still different from men.

Like every now and then a dad will turn up at the playground and start boasting about their child and it's shocking because mothers are very careful not to do that on the whole.

So I think an all woman society would be different. At the very least, there would not be the patriarchy and it could not be constructed again because there wouldn't be two sex classes. But it's just imagining anyway. Men are here to stay I think.

sakura184

Your explanation makes it more clear I think. You are suggesting that societal pressure and influence outweighs familial influence to the point of making familial influence irrelevant?

I mean look at how society is designed.

Men especially older men have the most resources in society, and women and children have the least.

So under patriarchal law, old men are "important" and women and children are "unimportant" hence the relative distribution of resources.

Whereas by natural law, society would be run very differently, prioritizing resources for children.

This is how I know patriarchy is against natural law

Your explanation makes it more clear I think. You are suggesting that societal pressure and influence outweighs familial influence to the point of making familial influence irrelevant?

Yes.

I mean god I'm not justifying abuse. I know how my meaning can be distorted and twisted. I think abuse adds an extra element for sure.
But what I'm saying is a mother can do everything right, and her child can still go on to commit a crime. And it's misogynistic to say she should've done better, when kids are watching porn on their phones at age 11

Maniak

I think the flaw in that reasoning is there appears to be an assumption of a largely homogeneous population in what any final vision would look like. Women, just like any other population are far from homogeneous.

As to competition for resources, there are finite resources, and the elite, the ruling class control the distribution of those resources. It's why there are have's and have not's. That is not something that is endemic to a patriarchy, it is fundamental to to the power structure. It is an inherent characteristic of the ruling class, independent of the specific characteristics of who holds that position.

In Greer's The Whole Woman, she quotes studies that show when women have more resources, children have more resources.

The exact opposite happens when resources of a society or culture are channeled to men

Right. And why should SHE have done better, when mothers are already doing far more than anyone else, at huge personal cost, to raise their children as best they can? Why not the fathers, uncles, grandfathers, other relatives, community members, could have done better? They're not there so people don't think to blame them but that's the point.

I mean if it's not about the children then what is it about, in all honesty?

She said when men have resources they spend it on gadgets and prostitutes

Not all men, before we go there. It's just statistically, we know that when women have more resources children in turn fare better

It is an inherent characteristic of the ruling class, independent of the specific characteristics of who holds that position.

Maybe? Maybe not. There never has been a society of women outside a patriarchal context, so we don't know what it would be like. But I know from experience that women are different when men are in the room. So of course they are different when men are controlling the society. It'd be interesting to see a women only society.

But to me that doesn't matter anyway. The value in that argument is expanding the bounds of the negotiation space, not as a realistic endpoint.

Women channeling their resources to their kids doesn't show that they won't channel them preferentially to their own kids. It's not what is being said. And you can't assume an abundance of resources.

As for hierarchy, I think it's an inevitability, it always occurs, so there is always a carrot and a stick to influence people to prefer their own children. You have to structure society to try and minimise it but that isn't any different between men and women.

Like every now and then a dad will turn up at the playground and start boasting about their child and it's shocking because mothers are very careful not to do that on the whole.

Oh, I don't think that is true. Mothers do it a lot, though in some subcultures they are very careful to do it in the right way, which is to say they are obliged to also listen to the other mothers boasting with good grace.

Mothers do it a lot

Oh good lord, just look at Facebook. Likes for kids is almost a currency, and the oneupsmanship...

I'd safely bet you're in the majority on here.

As many have said before feminism is not about all individual men - although thankfully for those who have left abusive ones, freeing ourselves from them is part of it.

As long as you realise you're coming from a vastly difference experience of intimacy with men than the women feminists set up refuges to support, I can't see why it would be a problem. The idea that all 'real' feminists are lesbians or man-haters has no place in modern day society that I can see.

I can say that FGM is brutal violence without cutting myself off from everyone who practises the religions concerned.

Similarly, I can interact with men who seem basically decent and good-hearted (until proven otherwise) whilst also recognising that they belong to the sex class that systematically oppresses mine.

Yes, mothers post positive news about their families on social media sometimes and people like those posts.

Competitive motherhood is a thing. It can be quite crazy. Mommy wars and all that.

Errr... anyone else lost here?? OP's question was,

Is there a place in radical feminism for women who are married to men?

So why are we endlessly talking about mother's protecting their sons?

iwunderwhy

The premise around women not marrying is that without men, we would have a good society, without all the social ills we see. And most who take this view seem to be quite broad in their claims, not just sexual assault would be gone, but other kinds of oppression, capitalism, nepotism, even environmental destruction. There would be an egalitarian society.

Mothers preferentially treating their children is just an example of why that's bollocks.