Separatist Feminism - Thread Two

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

A second thread to discuss separatist feminism.

If you clicked on this thread and want to know more, there's a wiki link for the basics here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism

On the previous thread there is more discussion, including links to some articles about existing separatist communities, and some personal experiences from MNers who live in a separatist or partially separatist environment. If you're interested in more discussion of separatism, what it might mean for feminists, and what women's spaces can do for us, please come back and join me so this OP doesn't sit unanswered like a lemon!

Link to thread no. 1 (and kudos to the lovely VictorGollancz who started it all off) here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1259519-Separatist-Feminism

snow..... I don't need educating about DV thanks, or how it affects the wealthy, please don't make assumptions.

The poster had three episodes where dogs were set on her, including a pit bull, I was not stereotyping it was all there. She also said she had 'nearly' been gang raped.

What is your point TPP?

Yet again why did you mention their class / level of education?

Do tou dispute that the events described happened?

As a mother of a son and married to a man I am really not understanding where your anger is coming from Posie. Can you really not see why some women would want to live in their own group? Can you not see that as a positive thing?

Also that poster you quoted shared a really difficult time in her life and you are minimising her experience and feelings on the subject which is horrible and not very feminist either.

The people who attacked her, not her. I think it's important to differentiate. A butch lesbian would be welcome where I live, anyone would. But my white husband wouldn't be welcome in some places, or a black women, or a Muslim, or a Chinese person. I think the backdrop of a catalogue of assaults is pertinent when one comes through it with a huge fear of a whole gender. Needless to say if that poster had lived in the eco development of self built homes near to me she would never have experienced those things or any prejudice at all. Just like if my Mother's racist friend hadn't experienced such dreadful things done by black men in Botswana he wouldn't be racist.

Anyway, clearly I derailing this discussion and for whatever reason it's really pissing me off, so (in the words of Duncan Bannatyne) I'm out.

(And I'm not saying that everyone should be like me and have my life, I'm very much in awe of some women having the guts to leave an abusive partner and choose long term happiness for themselves and their children. I think they are both courageous and bold.)

why should people[eg butch women]be segragated to where they can and cant live?

SAF That's exactly the point made by the separatist feminist and political lesbian movements - that only by removing men from the personal equation (hard though that might be) can women-as-a-group really see the damage done to us by men-as-a-group. It's because women-as-a-group love men-as-a-group (husbands, partners, fathers, sons, brothers) that insidious male privilege goes unexamined.

As long as women engage in heterosexual relations, there is the danger of 'my man is different...', or 'my man doesn't do that...' being used to shut down discussions of very real, easily proven statistics of violence perpetrated upon women by men. We see it happening all the time!

I write as a woman in a relationship with a man. Of course I think he's different - he has to be or I wouldn't be in a relationship with him. There's no violence or misogyny in our relationship. But is he really very different, or is he benefiting from his male privilege in hundreds of ways that I don't see - or don't want to see?

It might not be practical to live totally separately, and actually it's not something that I'd want to do all of the time or forever and ever. But I think it is a very valuable tool for thinking and evaluating relations in patriarchy.

Thanks to LRD for starting another thread - I wanted it to continue but I've been really busy!

And actually, lesbian feminists brought this to the fore, and for good reason. Certain lesbian women, feminist or not, were (and are) living a separate life, raising children and having relationships and working - all without men. They started to look around them and realise that all this stuff about 'needing' a man wasn't actually as true as we'd all been told. And then they started to write about that experience.

Patriarchy is straight. It is heterosexual. It needs a man and a woman, and one of the biggest sticks used to impress that on us is children. Look at the implicit threats if you don't have a man and a woman as parents, or in marriage. Look at how we treat parents who aren't in that man-woman configuration. But it's falling down! Statistics now bear out that children of lesbian parents, or lone female parents, are just as happy, just as successful, as those from heteronormative set ups.

It works both ways: children of gay men don't 'need' a mother. It's jolly good for all children to have role models of both genders, but they don't need to come from the 2.4 children mould.

This is being destroyed, and it's a good thing. Full separation might not be necessary or desireable (although in the words of a poster on the earlier thread, the revolution might come quicker if we did separate!) but separatist elements are starting to become accepted as normal, rather than 'the most damaging thing a woman can do'. It's bloody great, and long may it continue.

'This' should read 'heteronormativity'.

VG - glad you didn't take offense - it is such a good discussion, didn't want it to stop!

snowmama - I think what you said on p. 2 about why people are so hostile to women alone is spot on. It is very strange, these attitudes.

posie, I really don't understand why the idea of a small fraction of women getting to live the way they want provokes such a strong reaction in you. Are they hurting anyone? No. Are they doing it because they've been scared or harmed? It would seem, often, yes. It seems as if you find the idea of women doing something they want positively offensive - yet you've offered no reason why beyond 'well, there are lots of other things - like men and racism - and women should be bothered about those before they selfishly take time to be bothered about themselves'. Why don't women get to put themselves first occasionally?

Btw ... I am not sure about this, do you think part of the reason people get so steamed up about the idea of women's separatism because the communities we discussed in the previous thread made economic self-sufficiency a priority - so no-one could say 'my husband is paying for you' or 'it's my tax dollars' (they were in the US, I'm allowed that phrase! ).

I think people are, sub-consciously maybe, but deep down, aware that women's work is vital to the economy. The idea of losing it and losing the usual stick society uses to beat lone women - 'you're a drain on society/we (men) pay for you' - sends them into a panic.

Very cynical view, but I am feeling cynical!

my semi separatism was enforced-however for me...........
it has given me space to get my strenth back and grow.
apart from the stuff i mentioned on the other thread-its got me away a bit from things like-the pretence of people accepting me-this is horrible as i know it is a case of people not wanting to be seen as phobic-but they are anyway-just trying to hide it[not for my benifit but theyres]but i can still see it-this is harder for me id rather be outright called names.
it[separitism]also saves me a bit from being vileified as a [butch lesbian]mother and vilefied as a mother of children who are[mostly]the same as me.
it stops us a bit from being the local "freak show".
i dont hide but i try and make sure that the places we go to and the people we know and the people that come to our home is ok for us-and we are not put in posisions of the above said[in this post]
this problem stretches right across the board-from something simple like going to the local shop[things are ok there now as a lot round here realise that i give shit back]-to going to partys-actually basiccally-everything.
it would still be the same wherever i live as this problem is not just confined to round here.some of the people i have had to deal with[on other levels]are not even from my class/culture/ either and theyre preduijuice is even worse-but its quieter and nastier.
the answer is not moving home-i would still be having to look over my shoulder/justify myself.
its not a matter of being welcome somewhere-"welcome"is like saying "well yes-youre no good but we ll take you anyway-as we are good people" sometimes.this isnt good enough-we are the same as everyone else.
its not just about namecalling ect-its about peoples mindset and predujuices.
people might think its strange[semi separitism]but its not that needs challenging-what needs challenging is why is someone semi separitist/separitist.but again its not liked that someone cant/wont comply.

'its not a matter of being welcome somewhere-"welcome"is like saying "well yes-youre no good but we ll take you anyway-as we are good people" sometimes.this isnt good enough-we are the same as everyone else.'

I think this is really important (and maybe a problem with liberal feminism?). People think it's all ok as long as they pretend they don't see women/certain groups of women as scary or dangerous or unappealing.

I think it is a good point that both anon and LRD have made about those who do not fit the norm and how welcome they would truly be. There is a difference between being 'welcome' (often more so if you are seen to visibly try to fit into societal norms), and being welcomed and embraced for who you are.

I am not sure where Liberal Feminism comes in though...I am not sure we have seen a discussion between two different brands of feminism here....what working definitions are we working to as the difference between Radical and Liberal Feminism?