Radical lesbian separatists

When it comes to rights movements, feminism has always been in a unique position. If, for example, the majority of relationships were multiracial then I'd guess racism would be far less acceptable. And yet - because of sexism and gendered socialization - we still see widespread oppression of women despite most being in relationships with a member of the oppressor group. Men won't share the power.

Sadly there are far too many women in lousy relationships, which they endure because of bad family dynamics.

However more generally I think as individuals we can have some influence by refusing to get involved with men who don't clearly display their rejection of sexism. I certainly wouldn't have married a man who didn't see me as his equal in every way. It was a must.

I know what you mean OP, I have seen this sort of thing a few times in other parts of the radfem universe. I've also noticed a few posts on Spinster and the GC subreddit saying how terrible it is when women are feminine in anyway which I assume means we should all let our hair go grey, cut it short and wear men's clothing which I find grim since I've always been feminine and enjoyed dressing in a mostly feminine way (note: feminine not hypersexual). On Spinster they linked to a video of a rather haughty young radfem who was mocking women for dressing in a feminine way and she conflated femininity with hypersexuality. This is a side of radfeminism I am not keen on, but I noticed most of these women are young and I think they are still trying to 'look cool,' were hipsterish and looked like they were trying to find their identity. I'm quite a lot older than them and I have a feeling they'll ease off with this as they get older. The problem with telling women they can't be heterosexual, bi or ever wear dresses etc is that it reduces the feminist movement to a very narrow group of gender non conforming lesbian separatists. Whereas I'm more of a (not intentionally) gender conforming heterosexual gender critical feminist. I agree with most radfem views but not all.

As a lesbian I have NEVER met any gay person that thinks that sexuality is a choice. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to suffer stares, judgement, hate crime etc.

I'm pretty sure I know which group you're talking about, and if so this is the third MN thread I've seen about the same group.

Seriously, just ignore them. The admins and their mates in that group are mostly a bunch of misandrists with VERY black and white thinking which they're keen to force onto others. The culture in the group can be toxic IMO, hence threads on it appearing here.

Thing is, they don't own radical feminism.

Do you actually get any benefit from that group or feel that you are making a difference in terms of activism via that group?

That's a really good question. If it's the group I'm thinking of, I don't think I've seen any activism coming out of it at all.

Meh. I think people forget that heterosexuality is not an aberration but an evolutionary norm and therefore deeply ingrained in every animal species including homo sapiens.

Homosexuality and bisexuality make up a very, very tiny percentage and that will never really change even when sexual fluidity is embraced. The percentages stay relatively stable across different cultures around the world.

There can be strong elements of biology denialism in feminism but all the feminist will in the world isn't going to change the fact that human beings have evolved to sexually reproduce and therefore heterosexual pairings will be the driving force in the overwhelming majority of people's lives.

Also worth remembering that the vast majority of women do not identify as feminists, even if they might agree with (radical) feminists on certain issues. Just like most people aren't Marxists even if they might agree on certain points about capitalism, workers' rights etc. If I understand it correctly, radical feminism is strongly grounded in Marxism? Therefore it's always going to be a very marginal and niche following.

It might be lovely to daydream about Wonder Woman-esque storylines of women only populations, but like many idealised notions, the separatist viewpoints tend to be devoid of realistic details in terms of bringing about this promised land / nirvana.

Focus on the topics that interest you and ignore the hetero-bashing.
The things that actually make a difference in women's lives are pragmatic ones that bring about change in the here and now, not utopian musings. If there were more pragmatic solutions, I think more women would embrace feminism.

I suspect that some of the people who say this are people who are naturally a little more flexible about their sexuality, but perhaps they don't realise it doesn't apply to everyone equally.

I'd not even say they are naturally bi-sexual. I think that it's become something that isn't talked about much, but there is a capacity in many people to learn to enjoy intimacy with those they aren't so strongly attracted to naturally. Sexual contact can feel good even with someone you don't find attractive and it can be possible to learn to appreciate it at that level for some people.

Maybe only a minority, or maybe most of us don't want to bother when we could have sex with people we are really attracted to, but for some reason these women have been able to do that and motivated to do it.

Like a previous poster, a lot of separatist feminists in my experience have abusive backgrounds in common and my guess is that is what is behind a lot of the rhetoric and maybe an inclination to turn to the non-prefered sex for sexual partners. And for those who don't have a lot of personal insight they can't see why people who have fulfilling and positive relationships with men would not feel the same.

Lol, I think I know the group (and the admin) you’re talking about. Quite a few women flounced recently because of her - it’s not just what she says but the way she does it, isn’t it?

I just ignore her shit on ‘hets’ and ‘bi women’ because there are interesting conversations in that group and because I quite like her otherwise.

If they are saying that sexuality is a choice then they aren't lesbians. Anyone who is capable of being attracted to both men and women is bisexual - and, yes, if they are bi, very committed to radical and separatist feminism and sick of men, then sticking with women might be the best option for them but it isn't for everyone.

I think some bisexuals just don't understand that not everyone's sexuality is fluid, particularly if they've previously suppressed one side of their sexuality to fit in with a heterosexual world they then think that everyone has that other side that just need to be freed from the patriarchy.

Do you actually get any benefit from that group or feel that you are making a difference in terms of activism via that group? Are there any other groups you could join?

Well some feminists are their own worst enemy, turning on each other.

And yes weezol good point. Men can't be true feminists so I guess I should say feminist allies.

I don't think men can be feminists.

It's an interesting topic though. As a radical feminist and a married straight woman, I do find it absolutely exasperating to live with a man most of the time! I know a lot of men who are feminist in theory but not at all in reality. It's real life in the patriarchy. If I could find the perfect feminist man I'm sure we wouldn't fancy each other (don't know whether to grin or sad face at that).
I do fantasise about living with my sister and/or female friends. We could see the menfolk to socialise and have sex. I do wonder if our relationships would be more harmonious if we didn't live together.

OP just leave the group. Lesbians are being thrown under the bus left right and centre and they are probably letting off steam. Allow them their space and their rants and save your sanity.

I'm not sure you can defeat compulsory heterosexuality with compulsory homosexuality

Just leave the group.
I'm sure there are others - if not you could start one.
You'll be an admin so you can delete/block comments and people you don't like

I have to agree with stealthsquirrelnutkin.

There are mixed Rad Fem spaces both on and away from FB.
I'll stand beside Lesbian Rad Fems in solidarity any day of the week, but I have no clue what it feels like to grow up lesbian in a hetrosexual world, so I don’t think I'm going to wade in to that coversation, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.

Well, I really dont know what to say. It sounds like the issue is a toxic group situation, not feminist separatism. Women are no less likely to be total gits than men, personality wise. There are other feminist spaces online. I'd hie thee hence to spinster and ask there. Theres no need to stay in a group where the admins and you so profoundly disagree.

I think it's probably best to leave the radical feminist lesbian separatists in peace, smother your unhelpful urge to police their views.

Sometimes we just need to air our disappointment, disillusion and frustration without being policed by heterosexual women.

You don't want to end up like one of the sad blokes who comes on here, hijacking threads and droning on endlessly about how women are feministing wrong.

There are other groups were you'll feel more at home, and things you can do in real life that will be a lot more helpful than wasting your energy trying to dictate what lesbians are allowed to think, feel and say.

I feel that the compulsory heterosexuality argument makes sense when you view it in its historical context (and I think it’s fair to say that it holds less sway today than it did in, say, 1981). Yes, it was a more extreme view than that held by most feminists at the time, but it was part of a scorched earth policy against patriarchal oppression and it was felt that extreme positions were needed at that moment. And maybe there's a resurgence of that, I'm not sure.

This probably won’t be a popular view, but in many ways I see parallels with it and some of the more extreme aspects of the TRA arguments. I would imagine that a few years down the line, some of the very black and white transactivist positions will have modified, but that at this moment in history they feel it’s necessary to take a radical stance.

Periodic NC here.

My experience of women who could be referred to as radical lesbian feminists/political lesbians/lesbian seperatists/revolutionary feminists is that they tend to be super-intelligent, clear-thinking, energetic and courageous women and that suggests to me that they are on to something in believing that men sap women's energy, the heterosexual life (in patriarchy) dulls women and that women supporting one-another, separate from men, can help release women's potential in spectacular fashion.

I look up and admire them, but being married to a bloke, I don't feel comfortable complaining about the sexism in my life to them because they'll jump too enthusiastically in support of me.

My main priority in life is motherhood and doing the right thing by my kids. I choose to do this even if it means sacrifice on my part. I was very negatively affected by my parent's divorce and I unfashionably believe couples should stay together for the sake of the kids unless there is actual abuse going on. I know I am dulled, but I choose the heterosexual life because it has brought me deep joy like nothing else and the sacrifice is worth it.

That said, I have never experienced overt challenges to my personal heterosexuality from them and their analysis is overwhelmingly spot on. There are some (no true Scotsmen I know) mouthy women on the edges who can be a bit naive about the practicalities of motherhood/raising/looking after kids or who come out with naive crap about PIV, etc, but it seems to be the case of 'empty vessels' who absolutely don't represent the majority to me.

I've come across this a lot recently. Lots actually. I had to look up what radical lesbian separatism is. It sounds interesting, in theory.

Those of us that are het are victims of compulsory heterosexuality. We are a product of the patriarchy. We centre dicks/Nigels/xys and we don't stick up for lesbian women enough.

A lot of the thought seems so extreme

I could never be sexually attracted to a woman and I shouldn't have to defend that!

I've met feminists who I think are a teensy bit oddball. While I may disagree with taking an idea to an extreme, I think it's perfectly possible to explore and think about the ramifications of a world no longer centring men, and what all the possible ways of putting women first and foremost might mean.

I think that innate sexual orientation, as protected in law, is very specifically a thing. But I do think that if a woman chooses to be separate from men entirely, regardless of her own sexuality, as a conscience choice, then her boundaries are just as valid and sacred as a woman who is naturally only sexually attracted to women.

Otherwise, what are we saying? You can only say a flat no to men if you can't help it? You can't set a clear and firm no to men unless you can prove you have a 'natural' out?

Now obviously, that's not the same thing as trying to coerce a woman to do something she doesn't want to do, which is obviously the very thing that clear and firm boundary respect is all about.

Bottom line, if a woman says no to a man or men, that's it. No negotiation, no further reason required. But no woman should feel coerced in any direction.

This is a bit sad, really.
Can you really help who you are attracted to? I mean, you can exercise discernment and leave if the relationship is abusive or bad (and you are able to leave) - but the alternative to finding another partner if you are heterosexual is being single. Not becoming a lesbian, surely.

And as a single parent for many years (because I cannot imagine bringing a man into my DC’s lives after the abusive car crash of my marriage), the suggestion that being alone is all there ever will be is quite disheartening, really. Probably not made by a single for a long time person!