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.

Also just want to mention that "all PIV is rape" article writer doesn't hate mothers

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

The Khmer Rouge were keen on ideological purity.

Also just want to mention that "all PIV is rape" article writer doesn't hate mothers

Doesn't make the article any less crazy.

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

Exactly. An echo chamber serves no real purpose.

Women telling other women that they can't consent, that their choices aren't really choices because they're the "wrong" ones.
Nothing unusual in that really.

Reminds me a bit of this bunch of absolutist extremists.
Many “Gnostic Christians” avoided sex and reproduction under the misguided notion that such practices tainted the spirit which was striving towards God.
I've always hated the idea of ideological purity. Like perfection I associate it with statis, death and sterility. It can't move from its fixed point no matter how much the world changes, it can't engage with arguments, disputes or criticism. It can only build an impenetrable shell around itself as it slowly disintegrates. Unless of course it takes the road of imposing by force but that's another story.

To me I think the question in the OP is almost do you have to be ideologically pure to be a rad fem or are there different interpretations of being rad fem?

Is there a singular doctrine on what it is to be a rad fem?

Oh good post Imnobody4

I honestly don't know how anyone can read the words "ideological purity" and not get a shiver of fear.

I do understand the arguments about how being in a relationship with a het man inevitably involves some kind of compromises with patriarchy etc. Don't necessarily agree but I get the logic there. But if we are going to have relationships with men and have children, and most women do this at some point, the institution of marriage is better protection for us as a class (but not all of us) than cohabiting without a legal contract. So I get the argument from a separatist perspective, problematic and minority interest though that is. Not otherwise.

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..

Only if you think that the institution is intrinsically oppressive. But a radical analysis doesn't have to come to that conclusion.

So anyway there is a lot of sex going on that appears consensual but just can't be.

Yeah, it's common to hear people say "it felt like rape" when it wasn't. One of the times it "felt like rape" for me was when a guy said he was wearing a condom and wasn't. I only found out that really was rape years later. And actually, looking back I realize that there was quite a bit of rape of various kinds. I mean it wasn't RAPE rape. On the other hand maybe, as Germaine Greer said, we need to be more chill about rape so we can somehow have a language for it. The kind of thing that occurs normally, that you might not even mind that much at the time. So to me the idea that PIV is always rape seems to one side of the truth, not quite right, but the idea that sex is normally fully consensual seems on the other side, not quite right either.

Imnobody4

That's an interesting link, to Gnosticism, or any of those philosophies which all reject in some way the reality of the physical world, they think it is tainted, and the goal generally is for the soul to transcend the body and be free of those physical impurities.

A few times I have thought that radical feminism seems to contain a really significant contradiction. On the one hand it seems to say that it is rooted in the material reality of the female, and by extension the male. But at the same time it can't seem to accept the consequences of that. If it's true, then it suggests that whatever we think equality between the sexes might look like, it won't look the same for both men and women. So the reaction, the solution seems to be, deny those parts of ourselves that cause the problem - our sexual attraction to men, our desire for relationships, kids.

But how can you be rooted in material reality and also expecting the solution to be in denying it?

but the idea that sex is normally fully consensual seems on the other side, not quite right either.

Is anything ever fully consensual? I think it's probably not all that common if we think things like social pressure, sense of obligation or duty, being impressed by someone, being intimidated by someone, means that the consent isn't real.

I don't think you can separate sex out artificially and not look at how we think on consent in other contexts.

I honestly don't know how anyone can read the words "ideological purity" and not get a shiver of fear.

I see it as an idea for guidance. Like, maths is pure. Nobody minds that you can't adhere to it exactly in real life. The idea of a straight line or perfect circle is helpful. But yes, if radical feminists started forcibly taking over government and imposing their ideas as law then it would be bad I think. Especially for men lol.

@Namechangeforagamechange I know which group you are talking about and there are a couple of admin bullies in there. I think the long and short of it is that that group is not the place to get emotional support sadly. It used to be but not any more, their rules are very rigid and shaming if you don't do their version of radical feminism. But please don't lose heart. Find some good eggs within the movement and let them be your rock. Some lesbian separatist radfems just don't like het/bi women (or men obvs). Social media in general is a nasty toxic place to be and people get like a road rage and talk to each other differently than they would if they were face to face. Find women you can relate to in real life. I'm sorry I didn't spot it in the group I would have had your back. x

Hey. Just wanted to say that I saw what happened in the group, and was horrified. It was sneery nasty bullying. I didn’t comment but wished I had, came back, and found the thread gone. All that group do is tear women down, and you’re better out of it (as am I!). Radfem (I.e, feminism that gets to the root of women’s oppression) is of course compatible with being in a straight relationship. Yes there is a structural power imbalance but that can be addressed within your relationship. I’m glad, after what you shared you’d been through, that you’re with someone who you are safe with and who loves you!

"Is anything ever fully consensual?"

Right. So it's not as if we can use the magic line of "consent" to clearly separate non rape from rape. Although there are clear examples of both, there's a lot of situations that are unclear. Most situations, maybe. I'm not sure.

Informed consent, is basically about making decisions about risk. And you should know about what risks are possible and most likely. In any situation there is always a box marked 'unknown risk' which you have to consider. This risk is usually small and has to be weighed up against the benefits.

This applies to all decisions. Not just sex. Try 'crossing the road' for example or 'sitting on your arse on the sofa'.

The risk of sitting on your arse is that you might get fat through lack of exercise. The unknown risk might be that the lorry driver who does his regular round drink drives and likes to get a phone call at 5.47pm every evening. And he decides to crash into your front room and kill you on the sofa. The irony because he thought going and crossing the road was too dangerous so that's why he was sitting on the sofa.

My point being that the element of poor shitty luck is always a risk and even if you are risk adverse that's still a risk, which you might recognise and decide to ignore anyway because the chances are so slim.

To say you must know every single possible risk in life, really doesn't reflect life.

Right. So it's not as if we can use the magic line of "consent" to clearly separate non rape from rape. Although there are clear examples of both, there's a lot of situations that are unclear. Most situations, maybe. I'm not sure.

I don't know, I am not a fan of this solution particularly.

I do think there are situations where things can be unclear, for a number of reasons.

But I am not comfortable with the idea that because our consent, or our agreement to things, is rarely or more likely never fully free, that our consent is always in question or unclear. There are a lot of implications around that I find disturbing.

I suppose maybe the thing is that consent is a limited construct and is meant to be. It's a legal idea. If we try and push to far past that kind of discussion, into psychology, or questions around free will, it can't handle the stress, there isn't enough there. It can't deal with the complexities of the issue, of human beings. We need to use some other kind of language and background to discuss those ideas, and then bring that into a discussion of how we determine legal consent.

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

Of course there bloody is.

There's quite a lot of us.

@goosefoot I think the legal definition of rape is different because the question is not was consent given but rather did he reasonably believe consent was given. That's all about the perpetrator and what he did or did not think, as well as what society deems to be reasonable thought. That's a completely different question to that posed by radical feminism which centres women and what we think.

Personally I find that article too much, although I respect people's opinions. Out of interest, would female sex for pleasure be considered similar as there isn't a risk of pregnancy which eliminates that aspect, but people could feel coerced for similar reasons?

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

Completely agree!

And as someone who has never been shy about saying stop or no (except as a child) this idea that you can't say no because you fear he won't stop is self-silencing. As an adult who made the decision to have sex you also have the responsibility of communicating before/during the act if you change your mind. If you give no verbal or visible signal to stop how would any partner (male or female) know to stop? If you trust and like them enough to consent to sex why would you be afraid to say no or stop? I don't understand the logic, you are removing the element of autonomy from the partner by deciding that they are a rapist without affording the opportunity to be shown otherwise. That is terribly unrealistic and unfair to both parties (unfair to self because why would you mind-rape yourself - I mean that's the choice you're making in not signaling; unfair to partner because you condemn them without proof). No one is psychic.

I find the PIV sex equalling rape argument to be reductive and insulting (as a survivor). If you walk around playing the victim you will probably find victimhood - just like if you walk around eyes fixed up at the sky looking for a bird to shit in your eye you'll probably get shit in your eye. If you look to be taken advantage of predators can smell it, if you see yourself as prey you exude weakness (sexual, professional, or otherwise).

There are victims and there are survivors - you choose your narrative. Easier said than done? Yes, I know this firsthand, but please don't reduce yourself to this frail woman trope - some men seek this out and will pounce if they sense it. This isn't victim blaming - I certainly don't blame myself for my experiences (not my sweet 5yr old affectionate kindness nor my 18yr old GNC self) nor any survivor. But this isn't about blame it is about conjuring up armor to shield you when you feel your most vulnerable. Walk down the street naked if you wish but secure that mental armor before doing so (and bring something to sit on to protect your sensitive spots).

OP I'm So sorry that you had those awful experiences and that you went on the radfem group and had women treat you badly.

Do you think counselling would help you? I'm still reading so not heard you have gone down the counselling route.

bd67th your post on 31/07/2019 at 00:43 is excellent.