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.

And I am not sure it is a safe assumption that sexual assault would be gone. If we establish that sexual assault is a tool for exerting power and control, it stands to reason that it is a tool available to who ever occupies the elite and ruling class as a means exercising power and control.

That said, I do think that the sexual trauma women have experienced would likely lead to a societal level abhorrence, much like how chemical and biological weapons are currently, thus leading to fewer incidences of sexual violence. But the fear of it should always be there.

I once read a woman's comment underneath an article, she had 8 adult children.

You have an anectode to support all your ideas don't you?
But if someone posts an anecdote which goes against your beliefs, they are "not my nigelling" or "women do it to-ing".

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

Patriarcho- capitalism is a social system @Goosefoot . It is not natural, does not follow natural law, and is violently enforced: the sheer amount of violence necessary to keep this social system in place is a measure of how unnatural it is.

There are other social systems, such as communism, which are based on fairness for the masses and the working classes and on eliminating an elite. So communism is fundamentally female friendly, as long as women are regarded as humans of course. Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that white men are the cleverest and best and therefore deserve all the things. We're supposed to ignore the inordinate amount or violence perpetrated on women and children so they can get and keep the things, as well as economic exploitation.

So there are other social systems at our disposal. Socialism is another one.

What would a feminist social system look like? It would definitely allocate at least the same amount of resources to women as it does to men. Greer argues that women are the workers of society, not men, that all governments understand this. That's why women, not men, are regarded as a resource more valuable than oil.

An example of men parasiting off women in capitalist patriarchy would be taxes taken off women on the minimum wage, and from prostitutes ( I heard they're taxed by the pimp state but correct me if I'm wrong) and then the money redistributed to men via government funding for the military and other male dominated jobs.
It's pure male parasitism.

A feminist communist system would do the exact opposite. It would acknowledge that childbearing had intrinsic value to society and would redistribute resources towards children. This would be separate from expecting women to have children as bodies for the military or the workforce. The system would be set up so that it did not depend on the continued birth of children (to create a labor force)..

They would just be born just because.

Sakura184
Haven't you heard we're all capitalists now.
'The sex industry has become an increasingly important part of the Chinese economy. In an article published in 2000, Zhong Wei estimated that the sex trade contributes about 6 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product with annual consumption at 1 trillion yuan (HK$1.21 trillion). He also estimates that there are 20 million sex workers in China. This is a clear indication of growing gender inequality, accelerated by the market economy. Many vulnerable women bear the brunt of cold-hearted capitalism without seeing any of the benefits of socialism: the social safety net is so thin that it is all too easy for them to fall into prostitution.'
China shows contempt for human rights and persecutes minorities. Do you not know what is happening to the Muslim population. Your ignorance astounds me.

@Imnobody4

You can make a point without adding "your ignorance astounds me". I'd be slaughtered on here for saying that or similar and yet it's fine to say shit like that to me. Why?

Human rights abuses are not inherently communist. You know that, right? Plenty of capitalist societies around the world display human rights abuses.
those things are offshoots of the fact it's a patriarchal communist society not a feminist one.
China was ridiculously misogynistic to begin with, I mean all countries are, but that feetbinding was really something.

And yes, there have been failures in communism, but there have also been equal failures in capitalism. It's like saying the frequent mass shootings in America are they fault of capitalism. They're not. They're just the offshoot of the fact it is a misogynistic society. Mass shootings aren't inherently capitalist

Also I want to mention pornography, which is patriarchal propaganda, dehumanizing women, making it okay to hurt them, insinuating they like being hurt and therefore hurting them is not a crime.
Well it was an American export into Russia after the wall fell. Also, China only recently lifted its ban on internet pornography. Porn being free speech and all So communist countries staved off porn until they couldn't any longer.

And yes I wouldn't really call China communist anymore. Russia fell in 1990. Capitalism won the Cold War. And now we live with its porn.

I didn’t marry and I am way worse off financially, because in many ways marriage does offer protection to women if they are the ones to bring up the children and forgo their careers. I wish I’d married! My decision to be the kids main carer is positive and the best choice all round. The next generation of little people need good women who can teach them to think robustly!

So I think you just have to bypass the extreme crazy views, whatever they call themselves, and think mor clearly for yourself.

And don’t share personal experiences on crazy extreme forums!

Sakura184
If you can have ' feminist communism' why not 'feminist capitalism?

Do you know what is happening to human rights in China at the moment? Are you really trying to compare this country's human rights abuses with China?
You've really jumped the shark. Don't you think China spends money on the military? Try dealing in facts not fantasy.

Also interesting that human rights abuses only count when it's men.

That is literally the feminist struggle.

Porn is not a human rights abuse because women like being abused, it's what women are for, being abused is in their nature, human rights abuses of women are sexy. Above all the question is: is it sexy, and the unequivocal answer is that when it comes to hurting women the answer is yes. And if it's sexy where's the harm? Paraphrasing Dworkin here.

If you can have ' feminist communism' why not 'feminist capitalism?

Do you know what is happening to human rights in China at the moment? Are you really trying to compare this country's human rights abuses with China?
You've really jumped the shark. Don't you think China spends money on the military? Try dealing in facts not fantasy.

I'm not comparing China to the UK! I've been to China a couple of times. It's a scary scary place. I've lived in Russia for a year as a student. I think probably China was scarier.

I'm saying there are countries in the world that have a capitalist system but which are rife with human rights abuses.

Also, the UK just outsources its crimes. It is not directly responsible for human rights abuses but it has a lot of power and trades with countries that have a poor human rights record. It also outsources a lot of labour to poor countries (its PC to say developing countries but I hate that term) and creates all kinds of problems with its interference, including environmental problems

But I mean the USA is mates with Saudi Arabia and their treatment of women is appalling. So that's when we see that human rights abuses really only applies if men are involved.

Sakura184
Why not ' feminist capitalism'?

And yes military spending is just not a feminist priority.

It's... something else. I'm not quite sure what you would call it. A product of men's rapism and their urge to pillage, I've got no idea. It's a male creation, we know that because they're the ones who have been in charge, and who are still in charge. Is it some kind of death wish? Something inherent in the Y? I literally have no idea what the fuck all the militarism is all about. I think the trannyism, the surrogacy, that bloody monkey hybrid they've just created can all be summed up in Oppenheimer's quote about how amazing the atomic bomb is:

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one "..."Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds ...

Please tell me what our psychopathic rulers are on about, because I would really like to know

Why not ' feminist capitalism'?

I've answered below. Creating a military is not a feminist priority. Nuclear disarmament is

@Imnobody4 What would feminist capitalism be like, ideally?

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

It's the conflict between the radical feminist ideals and the reality of motherhood. According to some people on this thread, mothers should denounce male violence, especially when perpetrated by their sons. But more generally that mothers supporting their sons and husbands goes against the ideal of preferencing support for women. And that by giving that support to men, in the context of the nuclear family, mothers are upholding the patriarchy. That is why (I suppose. I don't want to argue for people) mothers and wives can't live properly in the feminist ideal, although some people have said that they can be married, etc., as long as they ARGUE against marriage. I.e. we are required to accept cognitive dissonance forever if we continue to be radical feminists after marriage.

But for me, that doesn't seem right because I think that mothering sons is a biological inevitability for women as a class, and should be treated as such. Also, if motherhood is an inevitability, then fathers provide a really useful support, and there doesn't seem any practical alternative at the moment. And anyway, it's nice for fathers to be with their children, as a general rule. So I'm not really getting it.

What would feminist capitalism be like, ideally?

Feminist capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron. I suppose it might follow some equality theory. That women who were strong and clever enough to compete with men for resources would get their fare share. Mothers would obviously be excluded from that by default, which in turn means not many resources in society allocated to children.

Also capitalism is about accumulation whereas I think a feminist society could or maybe should be about sustainability.

Sakura184
You haven't answered my question, but don't bother.

Feminist capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron. I suppose it might follow some equality theory. That women who were strong and clever enough to compete with men for resources would get their fare share. Mothers would obviously be excluded from that by default, which in turn means not many resources in society allocated to children.

Right? That's how I imagine it too, although maybe with some "welfare" for mothers. But that doesn't seem ideal to me, from a feminist perspective. Maybe there are better models of feminist capitalism though. I hope so.

@Maniak

That's the thing and that's basically why feminism is doomed to fail. Because marriage does uphold the patriarchy, and capitalism, we know this, but the system and our oppression is so entrenched that its just easier to be married. There's no room for manouvere and yes it's probably a bit silly and full of cognitive dissonance if you try to be a radfem but stay married.

I'll disagree with the necessity of the father, although it looks like your Nigel is a good'un from what you've written . Plenty more women feel that the father has been a negative in their lives. I think the father should be an opt in for the mother, and on the mother's terms. Then yes, I think the father could be a positive thing. In general though, especially under a patriarchy, fathers can do a lot of harm. I mean if we look at DV stats and the women being murdered by their kids father, this should tell us about that. Also the fact DV often begins in pregnancy, and so on

And as I've said before, sakura, all the evidence when you look at how groups of women function tends fails to suggest that it would be as nice and pleasant as you say. Women may not enact physical violence as often as men (though they may have others enact it) but they absolutely know how to maintain social hierarchies for their own benefit. Maybe they are even a little better at it.

Yeah. Lots of women have long term violence and abuse in marriage/partnerships with men, and it does seem like the structure of the relationships protects the violence.

@Goosefoot

Right, but that wouldn't be feminist. Because feminism is not, actually, about man hating as many people assume it is. It's about something else. It's the reason lesbianism and feminism are often taken for synonyms even though they're not. Feminism is inherently about female cooperation. Democracy, even. For example every feminist would agree on nuclear disarmament. Greenham common was a feminist endeavor. A society that prized nuclear war wouldn't be feminist, or at least not radical feminist, definitely not.
It could be run by women but it would be something else, something not really to do with feminism. Again, not sure really what it would be

Oh, ffs, Why ever should heterosexual women be excluded from feminism?

FFS.

Makes no sense, whatsoever.