Separatist Feminism

[VictorGollancz]

Ok, I really am really very late for work at this point but I thought it might be nice to have a space in which we can discuss separatist feminism. I've read a lot of advocates of it, and even incorporate some elements of it into my own life - I prefer not to live with men, for example - but I don't practise it totally and I can't find any examples of any separatist communes.

Does anyone know anything more about it? Does anyone live in a separatist way?

Surprisingly good Wiki link here

Yes, I think that at heart society is a being with agency, programmed by nature, just like animals have animal societies and rules without knowing why, they just operate on instinct, which was programmed by nature. Humans are animals, but have the ability to think and understand and can break their programming and change society. How much they can change it is the real question. I think that some subconscious genetic advantage competitiveness will always remain.

I think that men and women are units in nature with their own voices and wants, but they are subordinate to the voice and wants of nature, and society is required by nature in order to use these units to further nature's interests.

I don't think any social system is perfect, but I think the nuclear family is better than the polygamous societies that we see in some countries where a man can have many wives. I think that that stacks all the cards in the man's hands. I think that a nuclear family is a fairer system than that.

'This is key I think, where societies have had plenty of resources they are more equitable, everyone makes a contribution, there is time just to be.'

I don't think that that is true. The British Empire had the resources of one third of the world, but that didn't help the British people. They could still be hanged or sent to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread. The resources are concentrated into the hands of a small powerful elite. It is the same today, with something like 1000 families owning 90% of the land in the UK. It's just that most people are not made aware of who owns the resources.

Himalaya's article throws an interesting light on polygamous/monogamous structures in humans and the advantages/disadvantages of those.

I'm not denying power. Power is a driving force of nature, it is part of nature in order to try and gain control and advantage (including genetic advantage). But nature is stronger than the power of humans. If a madman manages to gain power and harms nature's plans, then the laws of nature will somehow topple the madman and a more equitable, just system will take over, which is in accord with nature's developing plans.

That's an interesting article, whoever linked to it. But it doesn't quite ring true, it doesn't take in homosexuality or the fact that lots of people don't actually want to have children.
Also, it ignores the other theory, which is that women raise the children living in groups, with the men popping back for a mating now and again.

Himalaya's article shows scientists discussing nature and polygamous/monogamous societies etc. I don't believe the half of what scientists say, for example I don't believe those scientists known as "climate change scientists". So I am sceptical about that article. But the article says something like in the past in some societies men carried out infanticide to kill the children of their rivals, and promiscuous behaviour stopped men doiing that because they didn't know which ones were their children. Then the system switched to monogamy when the female chose a male that she wanted to help her bring up teh child. The male then took part in the upbringing because he believed that it was his child.

SGB I think that nature is vast and tries all of these different organisations out somewhere at some time, just like cuckoos have their children brought up by other birds, unlike teh majority of birds. But those other organisations tend to be in teh minority of human organisations.

'well i don't see it as a real analysis of the facts'

That's OK, we view nature differently. The scientists don't know the 'facts', just like teh so-called 'facts' of man-made global warming.

I said I was sceptical of that article. That is what teh scientists said in that article. I believe it is society that has formed those norms in order to provide what it sees as a more equitable system of bringing up children together and as a form of preventing males from being outside teh system, with all teh resultant risks to teh system.

I believe we have a society where males exert the power and give greater rewards to males.

I believe in the supernatural, maybe you don't. I believe that in nature on the whole male animals exert the power, just as in lion and gorilla societies etc. I believe that only humans are capable of changing that by organised societal structures based on reason. Animals are fully subject to the laws of nature and can't escape them.

I think it is due to nature, where men are more aggressive, more risk-taking and more power seeking. I think patriarchy evolved due to those characteristics. I don't think some men sat around a camp fire and said let's create a patriarchy.