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.

Many of the women I saw that OP seems to have said were bullying are in relationships with men and/or have children - it’s hardly a group of militant separatist lesbian childfree feminists and no one else is welcome.

I understand you are upset OP, I’m not minimising that - I’m posting about the view others have formed from your description that shows their bias. Happy to admit I have my own bias too.

So the OP has gone into a radfem group and said "not my Nigel" and been jumped on for it, and has made out the group must be a bunch of militant fringe group lesbian separatists, when it turns out they're not at all. They have their own Nigels, but they expect basic radfem theory to be adhered to in discussion

It's possible to have a political stance and not bully people who disagree with you. It sounds like the OP was bullied in this group, and it's important to respect that and not invalidate her experience and accuse her of 'whining.' Otherwise you're just part of the problem of driving women away from actual feminism. Yuck.

Also, can we stop calling straight women 'het.' What an unpleasant, dismissive and derogatory sounding word that is. I'm straight adult human female and I do not accept the label 'het' the same way I do not accept 'cis.'

I just wish separists would just do that. Like the Amish or any group that practises strict orthodoxies and orthopraxies. If PIV sex is to be shunned as an act of collaboration with the enemy and having boy children a contribution to the eternal patriarchy I can't take it seriously.
My position is based in the reality that there is one human species, homo sapiens. It is a dyadic species and my politics is based on redressing the imbalance of power between the 2 sexes.
I fail to see what separists think they actually are offering, they give me the same feeling as the true believers who await the rapture.

It's possible to have a political stance and not bully people who disagree with you.

Absolutely. I generally don’t talk about politics but online groups set up for that purpose should still be respectful enough not to bully.

Shorthand another - as I would also use bi - but I apologise if you find it offensive. Personally I take issue with “straight” as the antonym is “bent”, but hey ho.

I read the actual exchange, I didn’t see bullying - I saw discussion. And OP has admitted herself that she is not a radical feminist.

members understood marriage to be a patriarchal institution

That’s not the same as saying all marriage is prostitution, and all PIV sex is rape ( which Dworkin didn’t actually say like that anyway! )

If PIV sex is to be shunned as an act of collaboration with the enemy and having boy children a contribution to the eternal patriarchy I can't take it seriously.

Me neither.

My position is based in the reality that there is one human species, homo sapiens. It is a dyadic species and my politics is based on redressing the imbalance of power between the 2 sexes.

This ^^

Some radfem groups say motherhood itself is patriarchal. They call us breeders.

This is a view I have heard in radical feminist groups, though rarely. It bothers me but I am a mother and I am also the product of rape. To me it sounds, sneering, victim-blamey and plain old sexist. I have only really heard it used in a put down type of way. I don't actually know if there is any deeper analysis behind it. I will have to look into it.

Also agree with a pp who mentioned a competitive feminism. I see that sometimes from certain feminists, and it does put me off. I think that's more of a human problem than a fault of actual feminist theory.

you can't in fact eradicate that [sex] class divide.

No, but you can mitigate for it as best as possible, on the basis that half the population shouldn't be second-class citizens because of their biology, especially when that biology benefits everyone by creating more people. Which is why we demand single-sex spaces and sporting competitions.

then they can say our oppression is inevitable

Depressingly, men will twist anything around to their advantage and our loss. My physical characteristics don't stop me from kicking arse in my job, being sexually-harassed does. Of course, if I leave my job because the sexism gets too much, a man gets to apply for it in my place. That's how sexism benefits all men, and it's why they collectively choose to oppress us and turn a blind eye to our oppression.

Even down to the fact that if a partner does something you are uncomfortable with sexually, many women will avoid saying anything to not rock the boat, whereas in a one off encounter they may be more likely to feel able to complain about his behaviour and GTFO

I said upthread that this literally applied to me, right up until that EVAW report, with that finding that one man in three thinks "stop" doesn't have to be obeyed, made me feel sick, actually nauseous, every time I look at a man in a sexual way.

Thought process:

1. "He's cute".
2. "There's a one in three chance that he thinks I have no right to change my mind".
3. I feel nauseous.

This is what they do to us. They traumatise us like this and they don't care. Some of them even enjoy it.

If PIV sex is to be shunned as an act of collaboration with the enemy and having boy children a contribution to the eternal patriarchy I can't take it seriously.

I admit those ones are difficult to take on board. Nevertheless they are radical feminist views.

Marriage is prostitution is not even a radical feminist view. This was just a basic view I understood when I was a Marxist feminist, that it was a transaction based on economics, as well as patriarchal ownership over kids. So I was left wing because I saw that left wing socialist and communist support for single mothers was the most feminist option

Got to be honest, whenever 'PIV' is used that the time I exit.

You've jumped the shark for me and into this competitive puritism.

Not for me.

So the OP has gone into a radfem group and said "not my Nigel" and been jumped on for it, and has made out the group must be a bunch of militant fringe group lesbian separatists

No. I was there. That's no what happened.
Someone started a thread asking whether healthy relationship with men were possible.
OP answered that she felt her relationship was a good one.
OP got criticised and picked apart. In the course of this some really uncalled for and unsubstantiated claims were made about OPs DH.
OP attempted to explain: at one point disclosing some stuff about previous abusive relationships in order to demonstrate that she was aware of what abuse is like and doesn't consider this particular relationship abusive.
OP was then criticised for defending the relationship, partly on the spurious grounds that OPs DH displayed "red flags", partly on the grounds that positive experiences don't count because "class analysis"
OP naturally very upset.

You've jumped the shark for me and into this competitive puritism

I regard the word puritism as quite silencing. Like women shouldn't discuss definitions because feminism isn't really real

I admit those ones are difficult to take on board. Nevertheless they are radical feminist views.
Yes Sakura they are, which is why I think that brand of feminism is irredeemably irrelevant to 99.999999% of women.

Stuff like this is why I am wondering if I even want to be considered a feminist any more. Men (as individuals) are not the enemy; the patriarchy is. Marriage is not necessarily prostitution and you are not a 'better' feminist because you don't have a relationship with men.
But how dare anyone speak to the OP like that about her lived experience. That's not supportive and it sure as hell isn't going to win anyone to the cause. You don't have to hate or dislike men to be a feminist. Patriarchy is damaging to all.
Sorry this happened OP.

I do realise that you can get piled on for praising you Nigel in Radfem spaces.
I suspect that's why myself and a number of other heterosexual were somewhat circumspect in our answers.
I was careful, for example, to answer with a generality and managed to avoid any hostility coming my way.
But, for goodness sake, the question as posed invited personal experiences. OP shouldn't be blamed for answering honestly.

@sakura184 but radfem doesn't 'own' feminism. There are many feminisms and theorists who disagree. It is perfectly possible to do so without attacking people. And if it isn't then you're argument isn't a particularly strong one.

unlimiteddilutingjuice

It sounds like the OP has been treated unfairly, the thread was a loaded question from the start. It sounds like it set her up for a fall.

Maybe a better question would have been :

Outside of patriarchy would women still have relationships with men? ...

Something like that

but radfem doesn't 'own' feminism. There are many feminisms and theorists who disagree. It is perfectly possible to do so without attacking people. And if it isn't then you're argument isn't a particularly strong one.

No it doesn't, like i say I was a Marxist feminist mainly and I dabbled in anarcho feminism before I became a radical feminist.

I saw that the radical feminists were the only ones adamant that we had to fight trans issues and that's why I gave up my socialist based feminism and gravitated towards the extremists

Whilst the statement that all patriarchs must be men, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all men are patriarchs.

Yes Sakura they are, which is why I think that brand of feminism is irredeemably irrelevant to 99.999999% of women

I don't think anyone's disputing that. But they exist, that's all. Like anarchists exist. Like UKIP exist.

Radical feminism is a political theory and movement. It's not going to change itself to make itself more relevant and that is probably its undoing.

But for me I can't go back to being a socialist feminist now.

But you admit yourself that they're extremists! That's not generally a healthy approach. Life is a bit more complicated than people at the extremes of political doctrine would like to think.

Someone started a thread asking whether healthy relationship with men were possible.
OP answered that she felt her relationship was a good one.

That is not my nigelling though, even by your interpretation of it?

As I said, I read it differently to you, but unfortunately I can’t go back and check whether I misinterpreted it now, as the thread has gone.