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.

"It is also the case that not every feminist believes in nuclear disarmament

Every radical feminist does.

In fact that's, again, why it's so important for politics to be defined.

I repeat: every radical feminist, without exception, believes in nuclear disarmament

"The topic of this thread, is defining radical feminism, otherwise how on earth can we answer the OP's question?"

That's what I thought too! But now the op herself is jumping on and saying it's not about that. Maybe we needed to see the original Facebook convo.

I did post a definition written by Finn Mackay.on the previous page,, since you missed it I'll post it again;

''First, the acceptance of the existence of patriarchy alongside a commitment to end it.
Second, the use and promotion of women-only space as an organising method.
Thirdly, a focus on all forms of male violence against women and their role as a keystone of women’s oppression broadly.
Fourth and finally, an extension of the analysis of male violence against women to include the institutions of pornography and prostitution.''
This list is by no means exhaustive and is purely my own interpretation and understanding of this school of feminism.''

www.theoryculturesociety.org/finn-mackay-on-radical-feminism/

Namechangeforagamechange

I don't think the mother, or parents more generally, are necessarily responsible for bad outcomes in their children. Some people who have lovely childhoods turn out to be very nasty people, for reasons no one understands, or which weren't anyone's fault, or which were not the fault of the parents.

It's also true that bad outcomes can be related to parenting but not in a very clear way. No one has perfect parents or a perfect childhood, and yet sometimes a particular child seems very affected by something that wouldn't similarly affect another child. This sort of thing probably applies to most cases and most people to some degree. We can look back at our childhood and see links to who we are today, even the less positive elements, but they aren't things we blame on our parents, if we are mature.

And then sometimes parents do things that screw up their kids and there is no question. Sometimes it's unawares or with best intention, other times abuse or neglect.

I don't know why I even look at this thread - it's become a kind of coffee-break morbid fascination

Same here. I don't have the strength to comment on the non- sequiturs, contradictory posts, illogical posts and hypocritical posts. Not that doing so would make the slightest difference.

the bigger point was she was trying to make was explain the difference between a woman only society and a feminist society.

The real point is that she doesn't understand the difference between a starting point or mode of analysis, like radical feminism or any other political or philosophical school, and the end points that different thinkers might come to from those starting points, which can be highly variable.

Same here. I don't have the strength to comment on the non- sequiturs, contradictory posts, illogical posts and hypocritical posts. Not that doing so would make the slightest difference.

What's depressing is that the original subject was interesting and worthwhile, and it was run over. The same with a lot of other threads. I am starting to agree it is on purpose.

I gave up on this thread some time ago, as on one level it is pointless.

There isn't anybody who is entitled to say what is or is not radical feminism. What the thread was about originally was really bad unsisterly behaviour on a facebook group.

An on a point of information Finn MacKay is not a radical feminist, and is trans inclusive.

She is part of effectively fanzine feminism, and just appropriates the views of women she admires - but not to the extent of being trans critical as that wouldn't be compatible with an academic career.

Great organisational skills, part of the trend or wave that turned feminism into a consumer based feminism where a few "leaders" (self appointed) put on events for other passive (ie not radical) feminists to consume. ie depoliticising Reclaim the Night as a grass roots protest for women to spontaneously do in areas suffering high levels of male violence, to a meaningless tribute march to an early feminism.

Not all that different from trying to argue with a young earth creationist.

Maniak when did I hop on and say that's not what the thread is about?! I asked if there was a place in radical feminism for women married to men. I can't recall a comment I've made that back pedalled on that.

@theinebriati

I like the following definition, which covers more of the points we've been discussing - especially b) sweeping social change d) that biology is not destiny (vs motherhood) and e) the personal is political:

dictionary.apa.org/radical-feminism

(a) the oppression of women is pandemic, the most fundamental of all historical instances of oppression, and thus a paradigm case of oppression;

(b) because the oppression of women is systemic and ubiquitous, sweeping social change is the only remedy radical enough to overcome it;

(c) traditional gender roles are constraining to both sexes and ought to be overcome;

(d) biology should not determine the destiny or shape the lives of women; and

(e) consciousness raising, in which women come to see their personal problems as symptomatic, is the beginning of liberation

stumbledin I've realised it was just unsisterly behaviour, but on a really personal level. It's interesting to me that it's been almost exactly replicated on this thread, although not aimed at me this time.

It stinks whoever it's aimed at though, and in my mind, it's not what feminism is about. I'm sure there are plenty of other women who agree.

So if you denounce prostitution but defend the patriarchal institution of marriage it literally comes across as slut-shaming.

This is staggeringly obtuse.

@Namechangeforagamechange

When you said it had become ridiculous and twisted into something entirely different (?)

@Namechangeforagamechange

Maybe the issue is the personal is political part of radical feminism.

No it is very important that there are clear definitions about what radical feminism is, and isn't. I always took it as a given that marriage couldn't be radical feminist, end of. It's just a patriarchal, often religious (ugh) institution.
I am about women who criticize prostitution but not marriage. I don't get where they're coming from, it seems to be a morality stance

I have been told, also, that motherhood is not compatible with radical feminism.

Therefore I call myself "radical leaning".

So I think if you agree with some radical feminist tenets and not others you should probably use radical leaning. Or come up with your own words, that's fine too.

I've realised it was just unsisterly behaviour, but on a really personal level. It's interesting to me that it's been almost exactly replicated on this thread, although not aimed at me this time.

Just like middle school. Really, this is what makes me think a "feminist" or woman only society would not be particularly nicer than a male society. Different in some ways, I expect, but not nicer. It's just another way of asserting the will to power.

Sakura

A definition doesn't necessarily mean outcomes.

I could give you a pretty succinct definition of philosophical empiricism, or of Marxism. But guess what - working from those definitions, and within those traditions, you will find quite significant differences of opinion, very different ways of thinking.

Radical feminism is no different. It has particular ways of thinking that tend to characterise it and some common principles. Though, like most systems, there is disagreement within radical feminism about some of those things, how to talk about them, what they really mean, even if they are quite true. But even so, even if they start in the same place, different thinkers come to quite different conclusions about some things.

Most people here know this, when you keep on telling us that radical feminism always says x. y, or z, you just look silly.

This is staggeringly obtuse.

It's not as obtuse as married women having pity for prostitutes, or whatever the motivation is behind criticizing prostitution.

But nobody seems to be offering alternatives to prostitutes other than a truly shitty job and also being owned by one man, which is often the reason they went into it (the "choice " ones, not the trafficked ones)- to avoid this very outcome.
And arguably women who become wives remain in marriages they hate because they don't want to become prostitutes. I know prostitution ends up being hell in most cases, but so does marriage for many women. So why criticize one but not the other?

I've heard a radio interview with a prostitute up against a well spoken academic and the prostitute was angry that the middle class woman was threatening her livelihood without offering her any reasonable alternatives

biology should not determine the destiny or shape the lives of women; and

This of course is a problem - relates to the thread about the Biggs paper on how feminism contributed to trans ideology.

Goosefoot I went to an all girls secondary school, with almost exclusively female staff, save for the geography teacher and chemistry teacher. As you noted a few pages back, it was not a feminist utopia. In fact, it was hell. We were offered outstanding opportunities and the schooling was second to none. But on a social level, it was one of the most unbearable things I've experienced. I don't know what it's like these days, but I often see the school talked about on here as though it's a golden wonderland (highly oversubscribed 'elite' school in London) and wonder if parents really knew what went on there, if they'd feel the same.

This thread is just another example of why a truly separatist society could never, ever work.

A definition doesn't necessarily mean outcomes

I am exacerbated that you managed to say that a non patriarchal society would be just as war mongering when the only people who want and are agitating for a non patriarchal society are all, without exception, anti nuke.

So you're quite right goosefoot. A woman-led society doesn't necessarily mean less war. But if nuclear disarmament is part of your core principles in your argument for an non patriarchal society then it follows it would naturally be more peaceful.

I think you'll find there's other general agreements along radical feminists, or radical leaning women. Like , no more fucking with seeds and food, which is regarded by radical women as patriarchal practices

This thread is just another example of why a truly separatist society could never, ever work.

I think that's why the separatists draw lines to be honest. You're either with them or against them. Otherwise it can't work, you're right

And in all honestly , this "with us or against us" attitude comes from powerlessness, an admission that very few women will ever become feminist or radical feminist- certainly not enough to effect any real change or revolution. A sort of self preservation. In fact I'd say the separatist women don't really see women as a class bound by a commonality. They see themselves as maybe different to other women.

I know prostitution ends up being hell in most cases, but so does marriage for many women. So why criticize one but not the other?

Again, this is obtuse.
Prostitution does not equal marriage.
Prostitution is hell for most prostitutes.
Marriage is hell for some women.
Even if it was most women, which you may well think (I don't), it still doesn't mean prostitution = marriage.