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

Oh, I don't disagree with that all SAF.

I just had thought that the majority of people who had disagreed with the concept of seperatism on the last two threads in the last two threads, had not particularly self identified as feminist (of any kind).

I may have mis-read that though!

snowmama - my understanding of liberal feminism was that adherents are more likely to modify what they think about feminism because they see other concerns competing for attention, or they want to balance women's issues against 'other' issues. In contrast radical feminists don't (on this board) seem to see the same competition among issues - prejudice/inequality is assumed to be all part of the same root problem with the same power structures that need challenging.

In my other post I was thinking especially of people I know who would never identify as radical feminists but who would identify as feminists. I think some people get so caught up in the importance of 'accepting everyone', they don't notice that it is very obvious they're having to make an effort to be 'accepting' ... they'd see themselves as feminists but don't seem to realize that if they're having to make a huge effort to put their prejudices to one side, that's actually quite patronizing.

I hope that makes sense. It may not be liberal feminism I'm looking at, but it seemed to me to fit.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above (though I think there are spaces inbetween I personally don't fully identify with either position ).. I just still don't see where there was a liberal/radical feminist debate in this context.

Theoretically, it could have been a debate between permanent vs temporary seperatism - but the conversation has not really gone there (partly possibly because of multiple derailments?). Most of the disagreement has to me appeared to come from an 'anti-feminist ' perspective rather than 'different approach' feminist position.

i notice that we are all assuming that women would still be the child carers, or at least predominantly.

i agree with the rad fem view that there will never be true equality unless women stop being the birth parent. because we go through pregnancy & childbirth, then provide the milk, we get tied to child caring. then this aspect of society is undervalued & the 'wife work' unpaid etc.

so, how would society function if women stopped caring for children? if there really was a separatist community who just decided to take care of themselves, put their work & interests first, maybe visited their kids once or twice a week & financially supported them?

now that's a scary thought for a lot of people.

i dunno Kickass-[unless women stop being a birth parent......]
do you mean stop being the birth parent or stop being the parent with the number one responsibility ect?
a woman couldnt stop being the birth parent could she?as shes the one that gives birth!
surely by taking this away its another patriarchic notion?
anyway-even these days women who are not with theyre children are looked down on!

ok, i heard it on an interview many years ago with germaine greer. obviously it is not a practical solution, but i thought it was one of the things she'd said which raised much discussion - however i know next to nothing about this.

anyway, the idea (it's purely theoretical) is that if it was possible for babies to appear without a woman having to gestate & birth them then society would have a vvv different attitude towards the whole concept of child raising & how women fit into society.

sep fem seems to be a way that women could, potentially, step away from raising children & it would be interesting to see how society restructured itself if we didn't assume it was primarily the woman's job. the attitude towards women who don't raise their own kids, and how badly many men do the job when left to it (not in every case, but often enough), i see as just further examples of how the patriarchy is embedded within our thoughts.

apart from breast feeding, there is not one part of child rearing that a woman has biological expertise for and a man is unable to do. even the idea that women are better are multi-tasking is a)highly questionable, and b)thought to be a result of patriarchy down the centuries. So even that aspect, of being able to watch baby, help with homework, cook dinner & chat on the phone, is a fallacy, and men could use those skills if needed to.

The fact that there are plenty of men who can and do achieve these tasks, just shows how it doesn't have to be this way.

yet we still assume that women will be the ones raising the kids.

which makes me wonder - there's this assumption that somehow 'mother love' is better/stronger than 'father love'.

really?

or are we just made to feel so guilty if we don't raise the kids, that almost every aspect of society is based around that idea - even in the courts, which should be as impartial as possible, it is assumed that the mother will have the main care for children, even when both parents work ft.

so, as someone with a pt job, why couldn't i be the one to leave the house, let dh raise dd, and i just support myself financially, with weekend visits from dd? dh earns enough to support himself & dd, including the cost of childcare etc.

i have a feeling that there would be a lot of resistance to this plan if i voiced it in rl

probably, but if we're discussing women separating themselves off, then it's worth thinking about.

tbh, a LOT of society seems to be divided into 'men' and 'women and children', so I like to think around what it would be like if it wasn't organized like that.

If it had been dh who had ivf treatment, followed by 9 months of hyperemesis, an emcs, mastitis, breast feeding, then a year of low immunity so getting every cough, cold etc. Where would his career be compared with mine?

In spite of going through all that, I still applied for promotions (even whilst on mat. leave) but didn't get them, so I'm thinking that if women were not biologically linked to reproduction, and not socially linked to childcare, then things would be very different.

the idea of being able to 'get away from it all', live somewhere that i just have to focus on me & take care of myself, not completely isolated, but basically living as a divorced man would do, is quite appealing. I could get so much more done than I do. I could invest in my career more, and not have to rush home after work etc etc. I could see dd a couple of times a week, and enjoy her company at those times.

I'm sure a lot of people would condemn a mother who did that, but it is assumed that men will act like this if their marriage ends.

Why?