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

Cat, (sorry for shortening your name, on the phone!)...agree completely. There is a very interesting discussion about how separatism and aspects of it can be used by women, and just feel the tangents in this thread (whilst they may interesting discussions in their own right)....are being used to divert here.

Not sure if this makes any sense at all!

Don't worry it's a difficult name!
And yes, derailing has been in force.

It's interesting that if people in other oppressed groups want to set up spaces to be with one another (disabled social clubs, [insert ethnic/cultural minority name of choice] associations etc), the mainstream might take the piss or whine about their taxes being spent on one-legged black gay vegans (Please note, any one-legged black gay vegan reading this, I am not having a go at you) but they don't generally start insisting that it's going to be the end of the world if such people ever get to talk to and spend time with one another without straight white ablebodied men being present.
Whereas women spending any time with other women and no men triggers this whole 'Wah, you just want to oppress the menz' business - and women socialising with other women and no men in public are treated as fair game for every man or group of men to go and interfere with.

a lot of the examples of segregation are ones where the privileged groups have forced it upon the 'other' groups - e.g. US segregation, S Africa apartheid, Jewish ghettos etc.

Other examples of small scale social groups, e.g 'chinatown' type arrangements where one group chooses to live close by and dominate an area, are a response to the insecurity felt by being in a minority and/or new place. this is more an example of people with less power/privilege attempting to use group dynamics to give them more control.

my concern about separatism is that by doing that, we highlight differences & issues without reaching a resolution. that by not mixing together, we would actually become more entrenched in our own views without any way of changing things. if we had a group which was much like the 'chinatown' kind of place, ie a geographical area which was dominated by women, but still open to all, it could be used as a way of showing that we are 'different', which can be used as justification to treat women differently, and to see us as 'other', ie not quite human.

i like the idea of a safe haven of retreat, but not sure about a permanent residence for women.

i like the idea of a separate group, but worry that it would actually produce as many negative results as positive ones.

SGB.... Actually you're wrong. There was a thread in the last couple of years where there was a playgroup for 'immigrants' only. Most people strongly objected. Although many groups have a common purpose as opposed to a common 'enemy'.

I wonder what bthe trade off is really? So let's say from the beginning man and woman was equal....what happens when a woman has a baby and breastfeeds? Assuming that in order to truly carry on as we are workplaces are not the place to take a newborn, and hopefully never will. Whilst money is king, you knows buys us basic needs to live, we need to work.

So what is feminism hoping to achieve? How on earth does segregation help? What's in it for the other half? They can't be fathers as women only groups are better for children, They can't be husbands as we all love to live away from men, should they be on stud farms waiting to be useful?

Not really asking about the menz for their sakes as such but what would 'feminist separatists' do with men or have them do with themselves? Rather confused about a theory that is just so stupid and impossible on so many levels.

long day, bad typing.

Actually, posie, very few workplaces are really so awful for newborns. Admittedly the paramedic, firefighter or jump jockey might have a spot of bother completing the day's work with infant in tow, but there is no real good reason why offices, shops, cafes or farms shouldn't accommodate kids. They used to - a few centuries back the smithy, the bakery, the farm, the haberdashers or whatever had the proprietors' DC either lying in a basket or trotting round 'helping'.

'So let's say from the beginning man and woman was equal....what happens when a woman has a baby and breastfeeds?'

Well, some milk travels from her nipple into the baby. The baby therefore doesn't die but grows and lives. Is this somehow bad in a subtle way I'm missing?

To be serious ... I am not quite sure how you get from that 'beginning' to 'workplaces', but I think your basic problem is that you say 'assuming' -it's probably easier to understand feminism if you start out not making assumptions, or questioning those you do have. If you do that, you can start thinking, 'wait a minute, what about all the kinds of work that do or have involve babies, or co-exist with babies and children... gosh, that's most of civilized society I've just described!'

Then you can think about how to tackle the issue of some workplaces today that aren't suitable for babies - if that's an issue that's central for you. Can they be made more suitable? Or will these always be jobs that rely on some kind of childcare? If the latter, how can childcare be properly valued?

I don't think, personally, these questions necessarily have anything much to do with separatism, though I can see that it might be helpful in some circumstances to think of them together (eg., if you're trying to think about how a separatist community would function economically). I think they're really just general questions - and there is a really good thread in this section about the value society accords mothers, if you're particularly interested.

I don't know about others, but what came out of this thread most strongly for me was the idea of separatism as a refuge. For me it wouldn't and couldn't be a permanent lifestyle - but each to their own.

Hope that makes sense - I was a bit confused by the questions but if you want I will try to clarify.

Cross-posted with you SGB but I agree - and FWIW, I grew up in a farming community and people still raise their babies very much 'in the workplace'/tractor seat. Farming is still pretty much a family issue - everyone pitches in (that's my experience anyway).

I think it was when there was a shift to 'employment' rather than 'work', and especially commuting, that you started getting this really stark division between workplace and home. One of the reasons so many women set up their own businesses is so that they can have their DC with them at work - I really do think that workplace creches would be so good an idea.

Yes, I think you're right - especially about commuting.

I think it's strange how you'll hear some people make such a virtue out of being, essentially, a bit crap at their jobs - for example, I know someone who was insisting he 'couldn't possible concentrate' on his work with a small child in the room. A couple of parents there who do the same work as him, who pointed out that they managed it pretty much all the time! It's not always possible for children to be in a workplace I know, but I do find it a bit of an own goal when people object to it on the grounds that they're shite at concentrating!

My first two babies you wouldn't have noticed, next two ...oh my gosh, reflux, screamers and non sleepers. Factory lines well any sort of manufacturing really couldn't accommodate a newborn, life has changed somewhat since babies were taken into work, low paid shop work would not allow for childcare.....unless of course we had creches everywhere, which noone will because they cost money. Call centres and service industries also would not accommodate babies.

Personally I don't want my babies to be cared for by anyone else, I had them, I love them, I want to be there, for myself and for them. It would kill me to leave them before they could talk and before any obvious benefit to them and so I want a world in which being a mother, just a mother, is important which means I need my husband, their father, to contribute to their lives in many ways not least financially. I can't, won't, do it on my own.

I feel the same as you SaF.
I have two children and a partner I've been with since 1983.
However, I would only be comfortable having children if I could provide for them alone, without needing anyone else. Extra help is always good, but it really shouldn't be essential. But that, of course, is only IMO. I know I can rely on me.

yes-i agree with Saf completly[09.39]-i think this also.
actually-i think this should be made very aware to young girls/women.
maybe in schools?
definatly at home.
its a very good point Saf.
i also think that the strenths in being a single parent should be taught in schools.
everyone just looks at the bad bits.

Really Saf? So you have huge insurance payouts ready should you no longer be fit to work? And a massive support network to help raise your children if you're taken ill? Perhaps you think people with disabilities shouldn't have children either, or people on low incomes or people on benefits? Or do you really mean without a man?

Perhaps my husband and I have a system/agreement in which I stand to gain more from being with him or separated than without him at all. And even if I worked and earned a fortune his income is still substantial and without his extra X amount my/our lifestyle would be fucked.

Honestly? We should teach children/boys to be better and responsible fathers looooooong before we tell everyone how great it is to be a single parent, I think our welfare system has a hard enough time as it is.

Short answer?
I put insurance payments in place when I had my first child, if I'm sacked or disabled, the payments kick in. I had an emergency support network in place. Before I chose to have children.
It's a long-term commitment for at least 18 years, why would I not plan for it?

And again I can't stand nurseries, I think they're awful places and am delighted that my children will never have to go. I am thankful that being married has afforded that choice, couldn't care less about yours. But you're insinuating that being a SAHM is not a choice one should make as she can't raise her children alone. What about your death? Can you prepare for that anymore than anyone else's?

If I die children still live with a person they love dearly and has raised them, what about you?

I have an insurance policy too, it's called divorce settlement. And life insurance and a pension.

Are you asking me that question PP?