Comments on: What We Should Talk About When We Talk About Lesbian Separatism

By: Links for February 4th from 13:45 to 18:02

Links for February 4th from 13:45 to 18:02 — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:34:01 +0000

[...] The Pursuit of Harpyness: What We Should Talk About When We Talk About Lesbian Separatism – “These women found a way – and it was not an easy way for them, let’s be honest – to live their lives such that they felt more human. They felt more like whole people living apart than it seemed society would grant them.”And that’s fucking sad, but the reason it’s sad is not because they’re ‘wrong.’ I’m just not willing to call these women deluded about their own experiences. They had, obviously, a kind of early life that turned them from men permanently – of being lesbian in a society that barely had a name for it, or of being raped or sexually abused, or of being told their worth was nothing absent marriage and the bearing of children. I wish everyone would keep in mind that it’s patriarchy that’s wrong here. It’s patriarchy that made these women feel this way. [...] [...]

By: amanda/notmandy

amanda/notmandy — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:57:11 +0000

Someone posted the NY Times article on metafilter and it turned into a 200+ comment shitstorm. There were comparisons to white supremacist groups. I couldn't believe just how angry it made some people to know there as a group of older white women living together in the woods of Alabama. There was, however, this awesome comment from someone who used to live in a different separatist commune.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:01:45 +0000

Well, I think the latter part of your statement is incorrect – I’m not sure I’ve understood radfems to be saying very much at all about “the thing that makes us women” other than to identify patriarchy as a power structure. They have definitely said that sexual subordination is an all-too-common theme of women’s experience, and that we can’t wish ourselves out of that situation.

But assuming you are correct, I’m still not sure how it is the case that homosexuality exempts one from the gendered nature of sexual subordination. Gender doesn’t start and end with genitalia, as we well know.

By: jdregent

jdregent — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:50:17 +0000

It seems disruptive to me because they appear to be making claims about WOMEN, as a category, and then seem to say that the thing that makes us women is our experience of sexual subordination.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:25:32 +0000

@JD: How is it theoretically disruptive? If it’s because the existence of LGBT people implies that not all people live in a heterosexual paradigm, well, I think most radfems would say, duh. The extent to which they think patriarchy is inescapable is often exaggerated by critics, IMHO – obvs we have the power within patriarchy at least to see it, because without any space for agency there would be no possibility of feminism itself.

@bluestockings: Yes, this is true. As Twisty put it at I Blame the Patriarchy once, “Racism, for example, is wrong, even if some black chicks think I have my head up my ass and don’t invite me to the cookouts.”

By: bluestockingsrs

bluestockingsrs — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:06:42 +0000

Thanks for this post, Pilgrim Soul.

As a lesbian, I often feel battered by living in a patriarchal, homobigoted, racist society and desperately need a refuge from it.

Lesbian separatists are controversial I think because they identified a need they had as individuals and then set about creating a community that could take care of that need – to be safe. And they were uncompromising of their needs as individuals in a culture that demnds that women compromise what they need to others.

I love interacting with my brothers and sisters of color, but I understand that they need “safe space” away from the color of my (white) skin. It isn’t about me personally, but about a power structure I can only abdicate partially, not completely, because my skin will always be white.

This is the same situation with women only spaces (and for clarity I include transwomen in women only spaces). Women only spaces are safe space for some women. It may be a weekend retreat, it may be a longer retreat, but it is necessary for some women.

I love theory, but I must remember that theory sometimes does not take care of the needs of humans – and so theory must balance itself against those very real needs of humans: to feel safe and accepted and loved.

By: exelizabeth

exelizabeth — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:02:04 +0000

I guess it seems sad to me because you’re screening based on an inherent characteristic (sex), even though it’s also based on ideology. Like… I guess I’m just always sad when people write off an entire category of people as so hopeless or terrible they don’t want to have anything to do with any of them.

I think I’m also projecting, because I have so many men in my life I love and I would be very sad to lose them or to have never had those relationships with them.

By: Unpossible

Unpossible — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:59:56 +0000

While I can totally understand the desire of someone who’s been abused (physically or otherwise) by the patriarchy to, as PhDork says, “get the P out of their lives as much as possible,” it does seem a bit like a cop-out from the “feminist crusader” perspective. As someone mentioned yesterday, you can’t change the system from outside it. So in trying to build yourself a permanent haven from the P, you are kind of removing yourself from the feminist struggle in society. I can imagine this would be a huge relief and a positive life-change for some women, but I see it more as a personal choice than a political one.

By: jdregent

jdregent — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:52:56 +0000

I don’t know if it is sad exactly. I have lived in intentional communities before and we definitely selected for homogeneity of ideology, even though we were different in a lot of other ways. Those women don’t seem sad to me.

By: exelizabeth

exelizabeth — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:42:54 +0000

PilgrimSoul, I love that you are bemoaning the shallowness of internet commentary. I say this in solidarity as someone who has railed in all seriousness how we just really need to be more respectful and thoughtful on the internet. I have gotten *really* worked up about being being jackasses on comment threads.

I didn’t read this NY Times article, but I generally support people setting up communities in which they feel comfortable (for instance, this one).

I did comment simply “But… I like men” on the Jezebel post regarding Julie Bindel. But I didn’t mean that in the sense that I’m heterosexual, though I am, but in the sense that I enjoy men as well as women. I like being around them. They enrich my life immensely and I wouldn’t want to be separate from them. I didn’t say it defensively: I think you can only get defensive about a choice you’re not completely comfortable with, or that deep down you know doesn’t sit well with your values.

I guess I’m trying to echo what Becky was saying in that it’s sad to me that these women have been so traumatize/disgusted/etc. by the Patriarchy that they find it preferable to cut off interaction (and the richness that interaction can provide) with 50% of the human population. However, if this is how they feel most comfortable and fulfilled, I say more power to them.