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.

you could argue that he is a rapist just for having PIV.

No you can’t and to do so is extremist nonsense with no basis in reality.

Some radfems argue that all PIV is rape, so unless a man is celibate for feminist reasons you could argue that he is a rapist just for having PIV.

You know why people use euphemisms?

The idea is to create almost a 'club' where people who understand and use the language can belong. It is also to exclude some people from a conversation. Its also to avoid certain issues. They are strangly common in extremist language and groups.

This alienates those inside the group from mainstream thinking and also alienates the mainstream from the group. Those in the group think this is normal thinking and think that have 'special knowledge' that others simply are not enlightened enough to get. Meanwhile everyone else thinks they are just batshit.

Its very clever.

Quite honestly, some radfems might argue that all PIV is rape. They are also totally fucking batshit. If we listened to this seriously and had separatists lives, what would the world look like? To what extent are we going to take this? To where we reverse the oppression of women and impose the same things on men? How does that make the world better?

Its one thing to view men as a threat or to state that you have no need for men in your life (which if you are a lesbian might be very true) and express that notion. Its another to come up with statements like that.

As I said before, its deliberately inflammatory and attention seeking.

I have a huge problem with extremist language and how it has become so prevalent in recent years and fuelled polarisation of society to the point that people can no longer talk to each other and issues can not be addressed because people are so entrenched in their echo chambers and fail to try and engage with the outside world.

When you talk like this, you are NEVER going to persuade the rest of the world that you can be taken seriously. You just make people switch off.

It means that good and valid arguments and debates are lost in the haze of lingustic vitrole and word salad.

If you can not speak in language which is inclusive and tries to engage with as many people as possible you really are missing the point of activism.

It means that good and valid arguments and debates are lost in the haze of lingustic vitrole and word salad.
^ this

It's as others have said. The human species is a sexed species. Neither women nor men, on the whole, really want to live entirely without the other sex, or without having sex, in the usual way. What would that even mean? we'd die out, clearly. Unless we got access to sperm somehow. Then what about the little boys, would we give them to men to raise, or kill them, or what?

Women want to be with men, and they want to love their sons. You can't have a pro-woman approach that excludes men. Most women also have a sense of justice and simply won't accept some sort of blanket condemnation of all men. And if you are advocating all these things, its just not going to seen as anything different than extremist weird male perspectives.

I don't see how an inverse handmaid's tale scenario would be any better. A little better for some women perhaps but worse for others.

Do you remember that YA book years ago about the society run by women, the men were all shunted into the army? In the end when they are getting uppity the leadership of two cities send their armies to war to reduce their numbers.

You could read it as a utopia or dystopia depending on your perspective, but I always thought a society composed mainly of women wouldn't run nearly as smoothly as that one seemed to.

When you talk like this, you are NEVER going to persuade the rest of the world that you can be taken seriously. You just make people switch off

I haven't read the whole thread - but that Dworkin meme. Try showing that to a selection of 100 women stopped randomly on the street and see what reaction one gets.

the 'sons are inevitable rapists or exploiter of women'

Yeah wow. I grew up with radical feminism and I used to believe this stuff, but then I became a mother. I'm dismayed how feminism doesn't fit with motherhood.

The idea above confuses individuals with structure. It's the same as saying every little girl will grow up to be a handmaiden of the patriarchy, inevitably exploited and raped. Of course, we would never say that about our daughters, and it's not true. When I used to make comments like that, it was because I didn't really distinguish between one person and the next. Having sons has changed everything.

Over-generalising, and over-individualising, are both very common errors. Often the same people make them, too.

I think it must reflect the way we process ideas in some way, it takes quite a lot of care to avoid these kinds of mistakes and I am sure almost everyone does sometimes without realising it.

What if a woman married "down"? Like, way down the hierarchy. So, if a rich woman married a poor man. Or an established citizen married an immigrant etc. Is there some point at which all the intersecting power differentials could cancel out?

It's fine to slag off radical feminism, it doesn't really fit well with motherhood. Just bear in mind that the thread is about whether it fits with marriage. I would say, yes, you can be a radfem and married but you definitely can't be a radfem while defending marriage as an institution.. that would be just the same as saying anyone can be a radfem cause it doesn't actually mean anything at all, which is MRA bs.

I don't know if I can be a radfem, because I've had babies and I know a lot of radfems hate mothers and think they are breeders, although this only seems to be the irl radfems I've come across; the second wave theorists for example Dworkin and Daly and Greer don't hate mothers. I know today's radfems think this is because they didn't go far enough with their theory. Fair enough

As for the all PIV is rape argument, I get it and understand it although it took quite a lot for me to get it. I just felt I could differentiate between consensual sex and forced intercourse- things like whether you can get him to wear a condom, that sort of thing. As well as violence.
But anyway I do get where the radfems are coming from with this one

If we assume that women will have children then marriage is a procedure that extracts resources (work, money) from the father to support the family. That's if you hold children as the default. However, if being childless is the default and children are something that come with marriage, then definitely marriage is oppressive. But I think it's reasonable to have children as the default because more women have children than don't.

Is it slagging off radical feminism? I Think thats a bit of a stretch.

Or it criticism of certain interpretations of radical feminism? Or merely how certain ideas are expressed and communicated in an inaccessable way rather than the core ideas themselves?

The point is that if you are overly academic and exclusive you are an elitest group which aren't really going to have as much affect and influence as perhaps you'd like.

The skill is in communicating these ideas in a way which opens up the debate and engages others rather than this competitive ideological purity which says you can't be a radical feminism if you X, Y or Z.

Its self defeating.

It's not just self-defeating, the all PIV sex is rape is offensive. And just plain wrong. It minimises actual rape.

I like the ideological purity. I love it. No compromises.

But yeah obviously relationships are all about compromising.

What is the basis of the 'all PIV sex is rape' arguement again? I don't get it?

@Propertyofhood

Here's an argument for it. Sorry to post a link, but for some reason I find it hard to discuss myself:

witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

I like the ideological purity. I love it. No compromises.

Very nice.

Except we live in a society where compromise is essential part of life.

Otherwise you are looking at off grid life on a remote island.

Property - het vaginal sex is by its nature an uneven power balance, the woman will always be at more risk than the man even in what is usually (by most) considered 100% consensual sex. Therefore if the risks are not even, can consent ever be truly informed consent, or is it being given in a situation where it is expected rather than wanted (given the risks)

I have a banging headache, so this isn't the best explanation, but hopefully it helps. :(

I can see the logic in that - having been severely injured by childbirth - despite also being a rape victim. But of course that doesn't mean anyone else has to agree, everyone has their own viewpoints.

Thank you Maniak for that link.

Wow...

A couple of things there I was like 'mmmm, yes OK' when reading, mainly the part about PIV being so risky - this might resonate with me more at the moment, as I can no longer take hormonal contraception (and I was done with it anyway tbh) and DH keeps saying he will get the snip but keeps putting it off, so it's condoms for us at the moment. Everytime it comes up I have to remind DH that if the condoms failed (I don't trust condoms in the same way I trusted my coil and pill for some reason) and I were to get pregnant (and both of us are quite adamant we don't want another) then it would be me who would have to go and get the morning after pill, or me who would have to go and get an abortion. Not him. But then I have to balance that against his bodily autonomy with regards to a vasectomy. So yes, sometimes I do get a bit pissed off in that regard, but I still don't ever see myself as being raped when we do have sex with condoms.

The rest of that blog? Well, the writer has issues doesn't she? The way she describes sex and everything? I find it quite sad actually.

And it also perpetuates this idea that (PIV) sex is just something that women have done to them, that they cannot enjoy it at all or have any sexual agency? Surely that idea is damaging as well.

And yes, it's pretty offensive to women who have actually been raped.

I also feel like the idea that women only 'consent' to sex because they have been conditioned to do so, and therefore it's not true consent, pretty offensive and patronising as well.

BeyondDangerousTshirts

Thank you - yes that is the bit that makes most sense to me, although I'm still not sure I'm on board with that meaning that 'all PIV sex is rape'.

I kind of agree that the all PIV is rape argument minimizes rape. But at the same time I agree with the radfem argument that it's difficult to define consent when there is so much coercion involved. For example all "sex" you see in porn is rape. Rape in the traditional sense.
But what about sex to pay rent, survival sex, we know women can't afford housing on their wages. Or wives and cohabiting women having sex to protect the kids from him, or to keep a roof over her head or so he doesn't stray and leave and she ends up homeless. There's also "sexual harassment" which is a loosely defined term which can also mean the boss having sex with you and then you realizing you might lose your job if you stop. So anyway there is a lot of sex going on that appears consensual but just can't be.

And why are women consenting anyway to something that is so inherently problematic for women and not for men, because of the consequences?

We might need a different word then, to describe consensual PIV which takes place in a patriarchy , a word other than rape

I like the ideological purity. I love it. No compromises

Me too @Maniak . I'd rather accept I can't be a radfem than have them change their ideological purity.
It was this adamance that they were correct and refusal to bend their ideas that meant radical feminists were the only ones criticizing trans ideology; since 1979 they have been doing this! (And of course been ignored for being women)