Where are separatist feminists on the political spectrum?

[Craig_J]

Where would you place seperatist feminists on the political spectrum? Are they left wing as they're trying to achieve something very radical for the liberation of women and certainy going against the traditional structure? Or are on the right becausethey're trying to sgeregate the sexes, and in some, but not all, instances claiming they're better off without me for good.

By the way, I don't consider feminism an opposing ideology, indeed I'm a femninist myself and believe that many of us are. But couldn't really see any other topic area to put it in!

[Red Flag Waver]

I think they are clearly left wing, for the reasons you mentioned. Whether you agree with them or consider their strategy effective is another matter.

[Blake's Baby]

Are seperatist feminists real?

[Vercingetorix]

They're a unique form of fascism. Any form of ideology that preaches about an other is fascism. Any political ideology that rejects pluralism is fascism.

In this case, the other is not the semites, or the blacks, but men. It is identical to patriarchy but the gender of the oppressor and the pastiche it is dressed in has changed.

[Skyhilist]

I don't think that segregation based on things that someone has no control over should ever be considered left wing. After all, how is segregating based on sex any better than segregating based on race.

Anyways I doubt there are a significant number of "separatist femenist as it should be pretty damn obvious that society would die out without both sexes.

[Vanilla]

I don't think that segregation based on things that someone has no control over should ever be considered left wing. After all, how is segregating based on sex any better than segregating based on race.

Anyways I doubt there are a significant number of "separatist femenist as it should be pretty damn obvious that society would die out without both sexes.

I think that separatist feminists argue that they should just get sperm donations or whatever the latest technology is regarding that stuff.

Or they could just be like those mythological Amazon women who meet with men once a year to reproduce.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Separatist feminism is, in my opinion, a highly reactionary and twisted form of radical second-wave feminism. It isn't so much a tendency as it is a description for a collection of women in the feminist movement from the 60s and 70s who took the rhetoric of the late New Left and took it to an illogical extreme.

They're basically the reason for the 'feminist sex wars' and the eventual development of third-wave feminism.

[#FF0000]

I don't think that segregation based on things that someone has no control over should ever be considered left wing. After all, how is segregating based on sex any better than segregating based on race.

Basque nationalists and the Black Panthers aren't left wing now guys gubgubgubgugbugbgub.


They're a unique form of fascism. Any form of ideology that preaches about an other is fascism. Any political ideology that rejects pluralism is fascism.

In this case, the other is not the semites, or the blacks, but men. It is identical to patriarchy but the gender of the oppressor and the pastiche it is dressed in has changed. lmao

1) Men aren't an "other" here. Society is patriarchal and male-dominated.
2) That isn't remotely close to what fascism is anyway.

I don't think separatism (what I know of it) is a good idea, but holy shit people lets try to think and only post things that aren't completely foolish rather than just slap at keyboards in indignation over a thing probably no one here has ever read a thing about.

[Vercingetorix]

Basque nationalists and the Black Panthers aren't left wing now guys gubgubgubgugbugbgub.

Basque nationalists desire an independent state, not an ethnically pure one. The old black panthers desired a state which didn't murder their children.

I *have* read about feminist seperatism. It seeks to replace patriarchy with matriarchy. It's keeping the structure of our current society, but making men second class citizens instead of women.

What feminist separatists desire is to live in a society where men do not exist.

It's a kind of gender-based fascism which seeks to elevate women as the matriarchs, rather than a system which abolishes such power structures.

While some advocates of feminist separatism would disagree with my statements, that is what their kind of separatism is.

We have no patience for fascists here, whether they be white separatists or "feminist" separatists.

Those who do not believe in a plural society are by their very definition NOT left wing.

[#FF0000]

I *have* read about feminist seperatism. It seeks to replace patriarchy with matriarchy. It's keeping the structure of our current society, but making men second class citizens instead of women.

Then you'd have no problem presenting a source to back this statement up, then? Right? I'd really be interested to see it, especially considering that a lot of these separatists only see it as a tactic rather than a political stance, and that I've never actually heard of any feminist separatist call for the establishment of an independent state or anything like what you're describing.


Basque nationalists desire an independent state, not an ethnically pure one. The old black panthers desired a state which didn't murder their children.The old black panthers were still black nationalists. Beyond them, there were a lot of black nationalist groups supported by communists at one time that literally called for a black state to be established in the South. Were these movements "fascist" as well?

[DasFapital]

this sounds like another internet only phenomenon like anarcho-capitalism or third worldism

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think there were actual separatist feminist and lesbian movements in the seventies. Some of them were outright fascistic, others were simply a bad solution to a pressing problem. Were they left? Who cares. If there is anything that is not left, it is equating the oppressed with their oppressor. Misandry, if it exists, is no concern of ours.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't view them as negative. The problem with "Marxist Femminism" "Socialist Feminism" and other such currents within the broad left is that they try to integrate the struggle against patriarchy into the Anti-capitalist struggle by abandoning the anti-patriarchal struggle in favor for a more vague notion that woman should struggle against patriarchy by struggling against capitalism as workers, rather than struggling against patriarchy as woman. Instead of taking the woman's struggle seriously, it just seems that most groups try to incorporate feminism in order to score talking points against capitalism rather than fight for woman's liberation for it's own sake. Because let's be honest here, we are grown up big boy/girl/transfolk Marxists, we can look at a concrete situation and come up with concrete analysis without relying on outdated platitudes. Sure woman are oppressed by capitalism, but only as workers, not as woman. And yes, capitalism creates patriarchy, but when we look at what is the primary force oppressing woman as woman , it is patriarchy. After all, Capitalism in the abstract doesn't rape woman, working men rape woman. And therefore if we take our role as Marxists seriously we ought to be able to grasp this. So I am all for woman struggling against Patriarchy as woman and organizing as woman. Separatism is valuable insofar that it gives woman political agency outside of "gender collaborationist" organizations and allows them to struggle against patriarchy as woman. Of course they developed a faulty analysis of patriarchy, but I still think that it was a positive rupture, albeit one that ought not to be repeated again.


It is identical to patriarchy but the gender of the oppressor and the pastiche it is dressed in has changed
Just as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the brutal oppression of the bourgeois at the hands of the workers, it must also be the brutal oppression of patriarchy at the hands of woman.

[Vercingetorix]

Then you'd have no problem presenting a source to back this statement up, then? Right? I'd really be interested to see it, especially considering that a lot of these separatists only see it as a tactic rather than a political stance, and that I've never actually heard of any feminist separatist call for the establishment of an independent state or anything like what you're describing.

Search for their blogs. I am not currently allowed to link information. A quick search for "Feminist Separatist Communities" or "Lesbian Separatist Communities" will help you find the information you're looking for.

They're going to die out, because it's an idiotic idea. And yes, it is a fascist system.


The old black panthers were still black nationalists. Beyond them, there were a lot of black nationalist groups supported by communists at one time that literally called for a black state to be established in the South. Were these movements "fascist" as well?

They did not ask for the expulsion of white people from the south, they asked for controls of the political system in states where they represented a majority of the population. Migration has since dropped the numbers of the black community in the south, which once represented a majority population in places like Georgia and South Carolina, with a minority white leadership which used the courts and elected offices to keep blacks away from the reigns of power.

They were not fascist, because they did not ask, in general, for the expulsion of whites from such states, merely access to the levers of power that they deserved to control under a majority rule system.

Gerrymandering is still being used to prevent proportional black representation within the american electoral system. They would then argue for secession.

Such a request, which seemed to be the majority desire within the black liberation movement, is not fascist.

And again I say, any movement which desires ethnic or racial purity is fascist, and should be opposed by all leftists.


Just as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the brutal oppression of the bourgeois at the hands of the workers, it must also be the brutal oppression of patriarchy at the hands of woman.

I do not agree with dictatorship, and will fight any state which attempts to give itself such authority.

States have oppressed and committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against my ethnic group. We have no reason to trust states, and will not tolerate a state which has such authority. Any state with such authority is fit only for destruction.

[hatzel]

They're going to die out, because it's an idiotic idea. And yes, it is a fascist system.


And again I say, any movement which desires ethnic or racial purity is fascist, and should be opposed by all leftists.Could you please stop calling everything fascist? Fascism is fascist (and it's kind of specific, you know, rather than some vague notion), other shitty stuff is just shitty stuff, non-fascist shitty stuff...

[Vercingetorix]

Could you please stop calling everything fascist? Fascism is fascist (and it's kind of specific, you know, rather than some vague notion), other shitty stuff is just shitty stuff, non-fascist shitty stuff...

I think we disagree on the definition of Fascism. I define fascism as any authoritarian system which opposes a plural society. I've always thought that was a good boilerplate definition. If the board as a whole disagrees with that definition, which is fine, there are other words I can use to describe these systems.

Far right and authoritarian are good examples. I can use those terms if others feel they are more accurate.

[#FF0000]

I define fascism as any authoritarian system which opposes a plural society.

Which does not even apply here. And I'm aware of lesbian separatist communities, and what you're saying is just an absolute non sequitur


They did not ask for the expulsion of white people from the southNor do feminist separatists ask for the expulsion of men from anywhere.


they asked for controls of the political system in states where they represented a majority of the population.Most (that is, all that I know of) Feminists separatists don't even ask for this.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

How is segregating sexes into different institutions left wing? Haven't the misogynists been doing that for years? In fact, hasn't every supremacist body had this segregation thing going? Instead of actually overthrowing the hierarchical control and equalising the playing field, simply removing an oppressed group into a separate institutional entity almost seems to strengthen the ones on top. As I said, instead of combating the discrimination and fighting against it, this separatism sounds as if the oppressed groups should accept these absurd social norms and separate themselves from society.

They actually have shit like this in Japan: Women have separate transport systems because of the extraordinarily high levels of public sexual assault. This is clearly not a solution to the problem to anyone with half a brain can see that the real evil to be faced is the extreme sexist character of parts of the culture, and proper retaliation to and persecution of those who would commit such crimes.

[Quail]

They actually have shit like this in Japan: Women have separate transport systems because of the extraordinarily high levels of public sexual assault. This is clearly not a solution to the problem to anyone with half a brain can see that the real evil to be faced is the extreme sexist character of parts of the culture, and proper retaliation to and persecution of those who would commit such crimes.

It's not an ideal solution to have separate carriages, but I think as a kind of "stop gap" measure while there is still a high level of harassment, it's good for the women. Things aren't going to change overnight, so until they do change, it makes sense to me to have women-only spaces. If I was being harassed and groped every day on the train by men, I would definitely use a women-only carriage.

[blake 3:17]

I only know one person who talks about separate feminism and he's a 65 year old gay man with a very weird axe to grind.

It's irrelevant.

[BakuninTheHouse]

Sexist fascism, so I would say far right

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's not an ideal solution to have separate carriages, but I think as a kind of "stop gap" measure while there is still a high level of harassment, it's good for the women. Things aren't going to change overnight, so until they do change, it makes sense to me to have women-only spaces. If I was being harassed and groped every day on the train by men, I would definitely use a women-only carriage.

I agree completely. What I should've been more clear about is how the people implementing these trains don't care/want to try and put in measures to stop the abuse in the first place: instead, segregatory policies like this have been used by some misogynists as an excuse to leave things how they are, silencing criticism and action against this sort of thing being the norm in the first place.

Couple this with the very strong political, economic and social sexism against women in Japan, (I.e. the gender gap difference for pay being the highest of any developed country) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/SOWM2010_female_earned_income_ratio.svg/800px-SOWM2010_female_earned_income_ratio.svg.png, and this makes for a very suspicious scenario. As I said before, I agree that things like woman-only trains are a good short term solution. However, if people do not try and strive for social change or put in place strong measures against sexual abuse, then things won't change at all. There are seven days in a week, and someday isn't one of them.

Sorry if this went off-topic at all.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I don't view them as negative. The problem with "Marxist Femminism" "Socialist Feminism" and other such currents within the broad left is that they try to integrate the struggle against patriarchy into the Anti-capitalist struggle by abandoning the anti-patriarchal struggle in favor for a more vague notion that woman should struggle against patriarchy by struggling against capitalism as workers, rather than struggling against patriarchy as woman. Instead of taking the woman's struggle seriously, it just seems that most groups try to incorporate feminism in order to score talking points against capitalism rather than fight for woman's liberation for it's own sake. Because let's be honest here, we are grown up big boy/girl/transfolk Marxists, we can look at a concrete situation and come up with concrete analysis without relying on outdated platitudes. Sure woman are oppressed by capitalism, but only as workers, not as woman. And yes, capitalism creates patriarchy, but when we look at what is the primary force oppressing woman as woman , it is patriarchy. After all, Capitalism in the abstract doesn't rape woman, working men rape woman. And therefore if we take our role as Marxists seriously we ought to be able to grasp this. So I am all for woman struggling against Patriarchy as woman and organizing as woman. Separatism is valuable insofar that it gives woman political agency outside of "gender collaborationist" organizations and allows them to struggle against patriarchy as woman. Of course they developed a faulty analysis of patriarchy, but I still think that it was a positive rupture, albeit one that ought not to be repeated again.


I'm guessing you havent read a lot of socialist feminist books. If what your saying is true there would be no need for feminism, so why call themselves socialist feminists?
Probably because thats not what they believe. They believe the destruction of Capitalism is a neccesary step in the destruction of patriarchy, but not the defining step. It's a long read but try a book called socialism and feminism. I cant seem to find it on my book-shelves. But maybe you can find it with jus the title, idk.

[Doctor Hilarius]

Where would you place seperatist feminists on the political spectrum? Are they left wing as they're trying to achieve something very radical for the liberation of women and certainy going against the traditional structure? Or are on the right becausethey're trying to sgeregate the sexes, and in some, but not all, instances claiming they're better off without me for good.

By the way, I don't consider feminism an opposing ideology, indeed I'm a femninist myself and believe that many of us are. But couldn't really see any other topic area to put it in!

Whether something is left or right wing shouldn't really matter to the informed individual who is above the labels of politics.

The truth is, this group could easily be said to have qualities of both left and right wing groups historically. "Left" and "right" are, though, just empty labels. If you censure your own thought processes and sympathies based upon the artificial labels of man, you are no more enlightened than the two party hacks of American "democracy".

The question should be, do you believe segregation is a progressive policy? Does this fit in with your personal belief system? If it does, then support them, if not, then don't. But the arbitrary label people put on them shouldn't factor into your decision.

[Fred]

I think we disagree on the definition of Fascism. I define fascism as any authoritarian system which opposes a plural society. I've always thought that was a good boilerplate definition. If the board as a whole disagrees with that definition, which is fine, there are other words I can use to describe these systems.

Far right and authoritarian are good examples. I can use those terms if others feel they are more accurate.

You trivialize fascism with your creative and incorrect definition. Fascism is a fairly specific type of political and social movement. The feminists that call for separating women from men are marginal and perhaps crackpots. I don't think they have anything in particular to do with the left as there is no class line being drawn. Communists fight for the equality of women with men in all spheres of life. But in order to achieve this capitalism must be overthrown.

[Craig_J]

They're a unique form of fascism. Any form of ideology that preaches about an other is fascism. Any political ideology that rejects pluralism is fascism.

In this case, the other is not the semites, or the blacks, but men. It is identical to patriarchy but the gender of the oppressor and the pastiche it is dressed in has changed.

Fair point, but at the same time couldn't that logic then be applied to leftists like us to say that leftism is fascism, as it preaches about an other (the burgosie) and rejects class pluralism in favour of the dictatorship of the prolteriat and absoloute working class domination? If it can be applied to radical feminism it can certainly be applied to us, with them as 'gender fascists' and us as 'class facists'.

I wouldn't say sepratists are fascists at all, they do have some valid points such as how many men will look to have power over the woman they decide to be in a relationship with and thus I can see how they draw the men are dangerous and should be avoided point. But I think they're failing is to say that it is a biological difference which makes men oppresive and for them to believe that patriarchy is therefore a division which cannot be overturned. None the less I wouldn't say they're fascists. They're not looking to oppress or rid the world of men but merley seprate themselves, sometimes even not permanently but for a set duration of time, as a way of overthrowing patriarchy.

[Craig_J]

Whether something is left or right wing shouldn't really matter to the informed individual who is above the labels of politics.

The truth is, this group could easily be said to have qualities of both left and right wing groups historically. "Left" and "right" are, though, just empty labels. If you censure your own thought processes and sympathies based upon the artificial labels of man, you are no more enlightened than the two party hacks of American "democracy".

The question should be, do you believe segregation is a progressive policy? Does this fit in with your personal belief system? If it does, then support them, if not, then don't. But the arbitrary label people put on them shouldn't factor into your decision.

I'm not questioning whether to support them or not, I don't support them. I was doing a politics essay at the point of this and was wondering whether I should refer to them as on the left or not, and in the end decided to post this question to find out as a matter of interest.

[Fred]

The problem with the separate train cars for women is that it does nothing toward correcting the actual problem, which in Japan in particular, is profound. If you take the logic far down the line, you wind up apologizing for the burkka and the Chador that women must wear in muslim countries. You see, it "protects them" from being sexual objects of men. Of course it also isolates and oppresses them. There were many leftists defending the muslim head scarf circa 1980 -- I remember an article in the Militant (US SWP) paper touting the head scarf as a "symbol of anti-imperialism." Yikes. Which is not to say that women should not have the right to wear this if they so choose. The stuff in western europe banning head scarves is reactionary stuff.

[Quail]

The problem with the separate train cars for women is that it does nothing toward correcting the actual problem, which in Japan in particular, is profound. If you take the logic far down the line, you wind up apologizing for the burkka and the Chador that women must wear in muslim countries. You see, it "protects them" from being sexual objects of men. Of course it also isolates and oppresses them. There were many leftists defending the muslim head scarf circa 1980 -- I remember an article in the Militant (US SWP) paper touting the head scarf as a "symbol of anti-imperialism." Yikes. Which is not to say that women should not have the right to wear this if they so choose. The stuff in western europe banning head scarves is reactionary stuff.

Not really. Women suffer sexual harassment no matter what they wear - Egypt is pretty bad for street harassment I think, and many women there cover their hair and bodies. However, a women's carriage would actually keep the women in it safe. I don't think anyone is arguing that on its own it is a solution to the problem, but I think it is a good idea to keep women safe in the here and now given that attitudes aren't going to change overnight.

[MarxArchist]

Some of my first posts on this site were in a thread concerning radical feminism. It left a bad taste in my mouth (people defending theory who admitted they haven't even read any books from the theorists I was criticizing, calling me sexist etc). So here we go again... Most second wave sex negative lesbian and radical feminist theory (the source of separatism) is garbage. 75% of it is garbage. They may have truths in some of their theory but if a Christian says gravity exists I'm not going to go supporting Christianity.

The discussions concerning feminism most everywhere on the internet and within the real world community, even the leftist community, are filled with people who are lazy and don't read feminist theory (on both sides). On one side people defend any and everything to do with "feminism" (women and men both who haven't even read the theory/source material they're defending) and on the other people discard feminist theory as a whole because of this or that nonsense they encounter (mostly theory/practice from second wave sex negative lesbian and radical feminists).

Any person who says woman are in a separate class and all men at all times are oppressing women therefore any sexual relationship with a man is oppressive/coercive (by implication rape) and the only way women can liberate themselves from these dynamics is to not talk to, socialize with and or have sex with men is not my comrade. A personal choice not to socialize with men is one thing but as a matter of theory advocating all women have a need to separate themselves from men is absurd. To separate one's self from an abusive situation is common sense- the theory here is that all women at all times are in an abusive situation if they have any sort of relationships with men. This isn't limited to separatist theory many times when women get more and more involved with second wave sex/neg radical feminism they accept the framework of this theory and end up just shy of separatism (in Dworkins case she married a gay man, it was her version of separatism and she came just shy of advocating separatism).

Excuses are made by people "Oh that's just "tumbler" feminists or "youtube" feminists or "blah blah" feminists. No, it's the result of second wave sex negative lesbian/separatist and radical feminist theory. Not all radical feminists take this nonsense in, the majority of Marxist/socialist/materialist feminists don't. Liberal feminists don't. People will attempt to label anyone "anti-feminist" for criticizing second wave sex negative radical and lesbian feminism. If it a man "Men should just keep their mouths shut". The golden calf is golden. Beyond reproach. Criticism is deflected by saying: "you're sexist", "you're a misogynist" etc. If criticism from a woman "you're not a real feminist etc". That climate makes for some extremely questionable theory going unquestioned but it hasn't gone unquestioned within the feminist tradition which is why there's so many different factions. Like Marxism. The thing is this view is bullied on women within the feminist tradition, and I mean straight up bullied. They're the "loudest" and most visible to most "average" people and this, well, doesn't bode well for feminism in general.

[liberlict]

Does it really matter to you if someone's ideas are considered 'left' or 'right'? I mean who cares?