Lesbian Separatism

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Yuri2356 » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:34 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:
Yuri2356 wrote:Error of division. Mans are not a hivemind. Plenty of our interests lie in creating a just society where half of its members are not often subjected to grievous harm for arbitrary reasons. We'd be quite happy to help if the movement didn't insist that we don't and in fact can't exist, and instead started working out how to make use of their allies. It seems obvious that no man will support you when declare it to be so and thus alienate and enrage the ones who would.

Why should the women figure out how to rally the men to their cause? Why can't the men just act like decent human beings without prompting? That would teach those uppity womenfolk to realize that they have allies!

I'm sorry, but you seem to be doing that thing that a lot of people do, where they read things out of my words that I didn't put into them.

You're also doing that other thing where you allow only the existence of opposing extremes, while quite enthusiastically asserting that anyone who does not conform on all points to one of them, is consequently bound to the other.

Converting people to your ideology strengthens your position and weakens those which oppose you. There's a slice of THE MEN who are being decent people, and would be even more so if people would lead them towards better ways of acting. Giving them a positive direction will help correct the remaining problems with their behaviour and reduce the influence of the oppressive mindset of THE MEN. Snarling at them and banishing them from attempts to improve the world forces them back into maintaining the system, as they have nowhere else to go, now with the added problem of being rejected and scorned by the alternative to the present system. If the separatists have no problem with their rejection of THE MEN being in part self fulfilling they may by all means continue on their way. I certainly couldn't do anything to stop them.

But no, you force the collective them to act sweet and nice to the collective you so they can garner your approval and not provoke your rage, which is kind of the mindset that I would imagine a lesbian separatist would want to separate from don't you think?

The stance "not condemning half the population as innately and irredeemably villainous", does not imply acting "sweet and nice".

And that little accusation of abusive nature, born of ignoring context, is just the sort of thing that pushes ones perception of you from "Quite rightly mad at injustice", to "Blind Extremist".

The line of thought I sought to present was - "I sympathize with your cause and was going to try to help you, but when I stopped by for information you repeatedly ran me over with your car. This did not rest well with me and I have thought poorly of you and your movement hereafter." But no, there's only one reason that one of THE MEN could ever be the slightest bit irate over the actions of a free and liberated womyn and that's because he wants her to get back in the damn kitchen. Banish him to the wasteland and vaporise him from the herstories. Ignore all signs that he may have as much reason to be mad as any other persyn, these have been fabricated by agents of Goldstein.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Ginger » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:09 pm UTC

Exactly: They don't have any problems with their rejection of the oppression heaped upon them by men and society in general. The whole goal of the movement isn't to get the approval of men. Once you realize that and fully understand what it entails then I bet you will observe a massive reduction of ire from many people of the feminist/lesbian separatist persuasion! Just don't expect them to applaud you for your understanding or give you free cookies or something, okay? They don't even have to particularly like you.

Actually I have found that such a stance does in fact imply that a woman must act sweet and nice or else face widespread social rejection and verbal abuse based upon her ideals--That's not even counting the times when a guy decides to retaliate using other even less savory ways. I thank my good fortune that I'm lucky enough to have avoided those less savory means in my life so far but abuse does happen and I don't think you can wave it away because of somebody's supposedly extremist position. Okay, so you don't like this author's views, but so what? Does that mean in the slightest that this world still isn't broken and needs fixing?

That is what we are talking about here: This is how this viewpoint seeks to address some of the many broken parts of this world. This is not about men's feelings or whether or not they're mad that people don't like them. It should not be about that because pretty much everything else in mainstream culture is about their virtues and opinions and feelings anyways. Your mockery aside, they aren't banishing you because they think you're mean and have no reason to be mad, but because you're mad at the wrong things. You're mad at what's happening to you rather than what's happening to them.

Incidentally that was pretty much the gist of "The Woman-Identified Woman" article that Enuja linked earlier: Women are dominated so much by men's perceptions of them that they begin to hate themselves because of it. They must support, complement and endear themselves to men rather than act like their own individual people. Do you see now why you might be receiving some hostility from me and others because of what you're saying? This is my attempt to convert you right now if you hadn't noticed already.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:12 am UTC

Ginger wrote:You're mad at what's happening to you rather than what's happening to them.


Can't we do both?

Ginger wrote:The whole goal of the movement isn't to get the approval of men. Once you realize that and fully understand what it entails then I bet you will observe a massive reduction of ire from many people of the feminist/lesbian separatist persuasion! Just don't expect them to applaud you for your understanding or give you free cookies or something, okay? They don't even have to particularly like you.


Personally I am not asking for cookies (as much as they would be appreciated), just a stop to the venomous hate for a name that includes nice people. I know that it is not about men, but if I said that "women" are useless drivers then I would be misogynist. Thus if people say that "men" just want to rape women, then they are misandrists, not feminists.

Ginger wrote:Okay, so you don't like this author's views, but so what? Does that mean in the slightest that this world still isn't broken and needs fixing?

No, we must fix the world. However that doesn't make the authors' views magically right either. How can it be that these people say that I cannot fight for the rights and happiness of those who I love, that I cannot be a "feminist", I demand this right regardless of my gender.

I ask to be judged as someone who believe in the ideals of feminism, rather than by the contents of my pants; which is what you contuine to do by accepting the patriarchy's stereotype of "men" (the general), rather than sexists (the specific), as oppressors.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Adalwolf
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Adalwolf » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:16 am UTC

...

Umm, what oppression are we talking about here? How exactly is your average joe oppressing women?
Spell it out, please.
Live with passion. Die with passion.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC

How about you go away instead. That'd be nicer for everyone involved, I think.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Adalwolf
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Adalwolf » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:27 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:How about you go away instead. That'd be nicer for everyone involved, I think.


Oh hey there, thanks for killing a genuine interest.

Aren't you nice.
Live with passion. Die with passion.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby PictureSarah » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:30 am UTC

Adalwolf wrote:...

Umm, what oppression are we talking about here? How exactly is your average joe oppressing women?
Spell it out, please.


The average joe is oppressing women by enjoying male privileges that women don't have, and by engaging in patterns that perpetuate male privilege.
Here is a convenient list of said priviles - http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-p ... checklist/

Try to read it in an informative light rather than an accusatory one. Many of us here enjoy privileges by virtue of our gender/age/race/body type/physical abilities/etc. that we aren't necessarily cognizant of until we really stop to think about it (or read a convenient list). Being aware of them is a good first step to ending them or extending them to everyone.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Adalwolf
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Adalwolf » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:33 am UTC

PictureSarah wrote:
Adalwolf wrote:...

Umm, what oppression are we talking about here? How exactly is your average joe oppressing women?
Spell it out, please.


The average joe is oppressing women by enjoying male privileges that women don't have, and by engaging in patterns that perpetuate male privilege.
Here is a convenient list of said priviles - http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-p ... checklist/

Try to read it in an informative light rather than an accusatory one. Many of us here enjoy privileges by virtue of our gender/age/race/body type/physical abilities/etc. that we aren't necessarily cognizant of until we really stop to think about it (or read a convenient list). Being aware of them is a good first step to ending them or extending them to everyone.


There we go. Thank you for the list.
Live with passion. Die with passion.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Ginger » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:57 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Ginger wrote:You're mad at what's happening to you rather than what's happening to them.


Can't we do both?

Sure, but you should temper your (Not you specifically but any hypothetical dude) anger with the knowledge that some women are just not going to take the male-centric mindset anymore, and that it is their right to get peeved when you bring your anger into every discussion on the topic.

Kulantan wrote:
Ginger wrote:The whole goal of the movement isn't to get the approval of men. Once you realize that and fully understand what it entails then I bet you will observe a massive reduction of ire from many people of the feminist/lesbian separatist persuasion! Just don't expect them to applaud you for your understanding or give you free cookies or something, okay? They don't even have to particularly like you.


Personally I am not asking for cookies (as much as they would be appreciated), just a stop to the venomous hate for a name that includes nice people. I know that it is not about men, but if I said that "women" are useless drivers then I would be misogynist. Thus if people say that "men" just want to rape women, then they are misandrists, not feminists.

You don't have to be motivated by venomous hatred to decide that you'd rather take your chances on joining a commune full of people that you know for sure won't mistreat you. That's basically where I would be coming from if I did such a thing: "Men" are unpredictable and any one of them could turn on me at any moment. I can't tell the good guys from the bad guys. I'd rather focus my attention on women because given the state of modern society the good guys' efforts are almost meaningless while the bad guys reign supreme. Please note that I am not currently a political lesbian but that I originally posted in this thread because I think this way of life is valid despite being radically revolutionary.

Kulantan wrote:
Ginger wrote:Okay, so you don't like this author's views, but so what? Does that mean in the slightest that this world still isn't broken and needs fixing?

No, we must fix the world. However that doesn't make the authors' views magically right either. How can it be that these people say that I cannot fight for the rights and happiness of those who I love, that I cannot be a "feminist", I demand this right regardless of my gender.

I ask to be judged as someone who believe in the ideals of feminism, rather than by the contents of my pants; which is what you continue to do by accepting the patriarchy's stereotype of "men" (the general), rather than sexists (the specific), as oppressors.

I apologize for muddying the waters some but I feel like we've veered dangerously close into general feminism territory again. Can we shift the framework of the conversation just over to the side a bit please? Thank you. I'd like to respond more to this but I don't think I can successfully disentangle the general feminism from the lesbian separatism. I will just say that you are free to fight for women's rights as much as you want and I actually encourage such a thing! Meanwhile the vast majority of people--men and women--will continue to support and perpetuate this oppressive society leaving me mightily dissatisfied despite your best efforts. Can you honestly say that I am at fault for preferring to just opt out of the game entirely when for all I know it will never end during my lifetime?
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:59 am UTC

Ginger wrote:You don't have to be motivated by venomous hatred to decide that you'd rather take your chances on joining a commune full of people that you know for sure won't mistreat you.


This is where I and some others disagree the most with the premise.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Yuri2356 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:03 am UTC

Ginger wrote:Exactly: They don't have any problems with their rejection of the oppression heaped upon them by men and society in general. The whole goal of the movement isn't to get the approval of men. Once you realize that and fully understand what it entails then I bet you will observe a massive reduction of ire from many people of the feminist/lesbian separatist persuasion! Just don't expect them to applaud you for your understanding or give you free cookies or something, okay? They don't even have to particularly like you.

And I don't have to stop arguing that their escape from the problem does not fix the cause of the problem, and is thus in my opinion not the right solution.

Actually I have found that such a stance does in fact imply that a woman must act sweet and nice or else face widespread social rejection and verbal abuse based upon her ideals--That's not even counting the times when a guy decides to retaliate using other even less savory ways.

And yet this reply is that acceptable zone. (nice of you to do that. I've quite relieved that that this isn't escalating. Thanks) Unless you feel you've withdrawn to sweet 'n nice to deliver this reply, you're falling quite comfortably into civil discourse. (from where I'm sitting, at least)
I thank my good fortune that I'm lucky enough to have avoided those less savory means in my life so far but abuse does happen and I don't think you can wave it away because of somebody's supposedly extremist position. Okay, so you don't like this author's views, but so what? Does that mean in the slightest that this world still isn't broken and needs fixing?

Please trust that I know how cruel our world is. It is quite broken and in need change.
That is what we are talking about here: This is how this viewpoint seeks to address some of the many broken parts of this world. This is not about men's feelings or whether or not they're mad that people don't like them. It should not be about that because pretty much everything else in mainstream culture is about their virtues and opinions and feelings anyways. Your mockery aside, they aren't banishing you because they think you're mean and have no reason to be mad, but because you're mad at the wrong things. You're mad at what's happening to you rather than what's happening to them.

I'm also mad at what's happening to them. That's why I support those other, non-seperatists who don't premise that I'm incapable of being aware of how fucked up our world is and wanting to make things work.
Incidentally that was pretty much the gist of "The Woman-Identified Woman" article that Enuja linked earlier: I am dominated so much by other human's perceptions of them that I begin to hate myself because of it.

But you see, I have a prostate. So where the fuck am I supposed to go? (Answer - usually the nerdosphere. But even that often fails.) Being able to withdraw into a safe and understanding community would be a wonderful thing. Let me know when I can join one, and hope a place opens up before I'm driven up a bell tower with a hunting rifle.
They must support, complement and endear themselves to men rather than act like their own individual people. Do you see now why you might be receiving some hostility from me and others because of what you're saying? This is my attempt to convert you right now if you hadn't noticed already.

It's been quite useful. I hadn't really assembled that thought above before today and it's nice to see it down in text. But I've the unfortunate flaw of being an inarticulate madman. I haven't the slightest clue how to express how I'd like conclude this right now, and I'm quite convinced that any flaw will result in a total failure to communicate my current position and produce more stress and drama. I may work on untangling that issue. If you'd like to contribute to that feel free, but otherwise you can consider this a withdrawal from the discussion until I can recompile my san.

Rage levels are down though. I can say that much.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:06 am UTC

And I don't have to stop arguing that their escape from the problem does not fix the cause of the problem, and is thus in my opinion not the right solution.


And if you had read the previous dozen times this has been stated, the ability to escape from the problem is (the separatists hold) the only way to gain bargaining power by which to fix the problem.

Until then, you're stuck at "We don't really have to do anything you ask because what are you going to do, leave?"

It's like haggling with the only food merchant in the desert.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:11 am UTC

Ginger wrote:I feel like we've veered dangerously close into general feminism territory again.


Sorry :oops:

Okay in terms of lesbian separatism if
Ginger wrote:Meanwhile the vast majority of people--men and women--will continue to support and perpetuate this oppressive society

why should the society be restricted in terms of sex rather than enlightenment if both genders are guilt of the perpetuation? This is where I feel the anti-man knee jerk reaction is.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:14 am UTC

why should the society be restricted in terms of sex rather than enlightenment if both genders are guilt of the perpetuation? This is where I feel the anti-man knee jerk reaction is.

Different kinds of perpetuation. One is guilty of oppression and the other of collaboration, if you want to see it that way.

Once there's no oppressive force to collaborate with, collaboration is a problem that self-solves.

Does that make more sense?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:23 am UTC

So the women who perpetuate "women are worse drivers" or "women belong in the kitchen" aren't oppressors they are just collaborators? Equally if no oppressors get in (even if some males do) then how does the equation of "Once there's no oppressive force to collaborate with, collaboration is a problem that self-solves" change?

So lets think how we could do this. Well I have partaken of male privilege, so I can see how I would be suspect. But if a male child was reared in the society, would that be fine? If not, then how is it not misandry?
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Enuja » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:24 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:why should the society be restricted in terms of sex rather than enlightenment if both genders are guilt of the perpetuation? This is where I feel the anti-man knee jerk reaction is.

Kulantan, because the men are the ones with the privilege, whether they want it or not.

Yuri2356 wrote:Error of division. Mans are not a hivemind. Plenty of our interests lie in creating a just society where half of its members are not often subjected to grievous harm for arbitrary reasons. We'd be quite happy to help if the movement didn't insist that we don't and in fact can't exist, and instead started working out how to make use of their allies. It seems obvious that no man will support you when declare it to be so and thus alienate and enrage the ones who would.
(bold mine)

I agree that lesbian separatism is an error of division. However, if there are so few men out there who really are pro-women, and all of the pro-women men, no matter how hard they try to avoid it, get enormous social privilege just from being a man, maybe making that error of division is better than accepting some "help" from men. I think the argument that lesbian-separatism would have been meaningless before the sexual revolution (because any man who treated women as equal fell out of society and lost his privilege), and is losing its power now, but made sense from the 1960s (yes, it was only born in the 1970s) to the early 1980s, really has something useful to say about this "error of division."

However, when you write that the failings of lesbian separatism is that it "engrages" men who should be the allies of feminists, you are participating in male privilege. Believe it or not, it's socially unacceptable for women to be enraged, while it's socially acceptable for men to be enraged. In addition, women are not supposed to do things that enrage people, while men are allowed to. Therefore, I completely disagree that feminists should try to avoid enraging men. Men need to learn how not to be enraged. Did what Indon said here enrage you?
Indon wrote:The human propensity to engage in rape socially is a problem in modern civilization that must be dealt with ... It's a problem that requires us to revamp our society, first to make the fact that rape is systemic to humanity clear to every living person, then to take steps to fix that - or to at least minimize the damage.
For you, as a man, saying that humans rape is functionally the same accusation towards you as saying that men rape. If this doesn't "enrage" you, then I'm not sure why the original blog post "enrages" you other than because you are using your masculine privilege to have women be very careful to say nice things to you in order to avoid "enraging" you.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:32 am UTC

However, when you write that the failings of lesbian separatism is that it "engrages" men who should be the allies of feminists, you are participating in male privilege


Well, not only that, you're also negating the whole point. If the entire point is for women not to be beholden to men anymore, then a man demanding that feminism change to suit *his* whims before he'll sign on is undermining the cause no matter what his whims are.

The whole point is that they don't have to cater to your whims. Feminism, and it's more extreme offshoot, separatism, will do what it wants whether it makes you angry or not, and to do otherwise would render the whole thing pointless.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:37 am UTC

Wait, so you're saying that separatism aims at being somehow separate from something?

My mind? Blown.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:40 am UTC

I know, right? It's CRAZYTOWN.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Ginger » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:45 am UTC

Yuri2356 wrote:I haven't the slightest clue how to express how I'd like conclude this right now, and I'm quite convinced that any flaw will result in a total failure to communicate my current position and produce more stress and drama. I may work on untangling that issue. If you'd like to contribute to that feel free, but otherwise you can consider this a withdrawal from the discussion until I can recompile my san.

I can't help you fix your issues. If you want to rejoin the discussion later then feel free. Just keep the male privilege in check, eh? It will certainly save everybody some time and energy.

bigglesworth wrote:
Ginger wrote:You don't have to be motivated by venomous hatred to decide that you'd rather take your chances on joining a commune full of people that you know for sure won't mistreat you.


This is where I and some others disagree the most with the premise.

How specifically do you disagree? I have just stated that I am not motivated by venomous hatred and gave some explanation of my reasoning. If that isn't proof that not every potential lesbian separatist must necessarily hate men with the burning passion of a billion suns then either I have failed to communicate clearly or we are operating from different premises.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:50 am UTC

Enuja wrote:Kulantan, because the men are the ones with the privilege, whether they want it or not.


Yep I see this but if the society is set up to redress this then why should it be an issue?

Enuja wrote:Indon wrote:
For you, as a man, saying that humans rape is functionally the same accusation towards you as saying that men rape. If this doesn't "enrage" you, then I'm not sure why the original blog post "enrages" you other than because you are using your masculine privilege to have women be very careful to say nice things to you in order to avoid "enraging" you.


Partly because Indon is presumably also human, he is not generalising for the purpose if a "us"/"them" divide. Indon 's claim is one that can be dealt with on a rational level (I disagree and say that rape is individual and not systemic, a result of being human, in terms of cause) rather than provoking outrage.

Belial wrote:The whole point is that they don't have to cater to your whims. Feminism, and it's more extreme offshoot, separatism, will do what it wants whether it makes you angry or not, and to do otherwise would render the whole thing pointless.


Yes, however misogyny and it's more extreme offshoot rape, will do what it wants whether it makes you angry or not, and to do otherwise would render the whole thing pointless. Should not be read as a equating of separatism and rape morally (if I thought that I would be the major of Crazytown and Eville), rather I am trying to show that the issues should perhaps take into account the feeling of those all involved at least some of the time or risk becoming the thing it fights. Basically I don't believe the purpose of feminism is to sanction women to be dicks rather to stop men being dicks.
Last edited by Kulantan on Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby setzer777 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:51 am UTC

Ginger wrote:
Yuri2356 wrote:I haven't the slightest clue how to express how I'd like conclude this right now, and I'm quite convinced that any flaw will result in a total failure to communicate my current position and produce more stress and drama. I may work on untangling that issue. If you'd like to contribute to that feel free, but otherwise you can consider this a withdrawal from the discussion until I can recompile my san.

I can't help you fix your issues. If you want to rejoin the discussion later then feel free. Just keep the male privilege in check, eh? It will certainly save everybody some time and energy.

bigglesworth wrote:
Ginger wrote:You don't have to be motivated by venomous hatred to decide that you'd rather take your chances on joining a commune full of people that you know for sure won't mistreat you.


This is where I and some others disagree the most with the premise.

How specifically do you disagree? I have just stated that I am not motivated by venomous hatred and gave some explanation of my reasoning. If that isn't proof that not every potential lesbian separatist must necessarily hate men with the burning passion of a billion suns then either I have failed to communicate clearly or we are operating from different premises.



I think he disagrees with the "know for sure won't mistreat you" part. I imagine this might especially need amending when you take into account things like racial diversity. Perhaps: "know for sure won't mistreat you on the basis of gender", or "statistically less likely to mistreat you" would be more precise.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:52 am UTC

Right. And how does fucking off away from you and your society harm you, again?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby doogly » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:03 am UTC

Enuja wrote:For you, as a man, saying that humans rape is functionally the same accusation towards you as saying that men rape.


Wait, what? 'Humans' does not function as 'men,' not to men or anyone else.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:08 am UTC

Ginger wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:This is where I and some others disagree the most with the premise.

How specifically do you disagree? I have just stated that I am not motivated by venomous hatred and gave some explanation of my reasoning. If that isn't proof that not every potential lesbian separatist must necessarily hate men with the burning passion of a billion suns then either I have failed to communicate clearly or we are operating from different premises.


I believe you entirely. My disagreement is with the idea that an all female community will lack mistreatment, as I see others above me have posted.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Ginger » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:15 am UTC

Fair enough. I concede the point that a commune of women wouldn't necessarily be a paradise free of mistreatment. Does this really matter beyond semantics when the idea hasn't even been tested yet?
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:22 am UTC

Belial wrote:Right. And how does fucking off away from you and your society harm you, again?


Well first it means I wouldn't even get to meet many of the people I have huge respect and love for.
Second it is more the stance (the way it is presented, it's axioms and the us/them mentality that it show) of the position that I feel is demeaning and harmful.

For me the issue with this one is that
Belial wrote:X will do what it wants whether it makes you angry or not, and to do otherwise would render the whole thing pointless.

is not telling me why it should not take account of the anger. Why should feminism not take account of anger? Because there are those who will be angered by it and say that it should be stopped. Therefore feminism, like all things, shouldn't take account of anger, if the anger is unjustified.

However if people bring a valid issue to someone and they are angry (and in this example if they are a man) should they be ignored because they are angry (an angry man). If you are going to argue then tell me why I shouldn't be "angry" about the triablism in the argument of lesbian separatism.

So then we have your argument

Belial wrote:Well, not only that, you're also negating the whole point. If the entire point is for women not to be beholden to men anymore, then a man demanding that feminism change to suit *his* whims before he'll sign on is undermining the cause no matter what his whims are.


So if a feminist appends "it is the right of all women to get free muffins" onto feminism, that any man who went "I agree with the rest, but that is batfuck insane" would be negating feminism? (this is presuming that by "no matter what his whims are" you are including valid "whims")

Ginger wrote: Does this really matter beyond semantics when the idea hasn't even been tested yet?


Semantics are serious business. So how would you define it all to include bigglesworth's point?
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:25 am UTC

So if a feminist appends "it is the right of all women to get free muffins" onto feminism, that any man who went "I agree with the rest, but that is batfuck insane" would be negating feminism?


No, they would be negating it if they changed the movement just because it made him angry.

See, that's the issue. Men are saying "You shouldn't do this." and the reason is "Because it makes me angry".

By definition, that's not something the movement can care about and still remain the movement.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:26 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Belial wrote:Well, not only that, you're also negating the whole point. If the entire point is for women not to be beholden to men anymore, then a man demanding that feminism change to suit *his* whims before he'll sign on is undermining the cause no matter what his whims are.

So if a feminist appends "it is the right of all women to get free muffins" onto feminism, that any man who went "I agree with the rest, but that is batfuck insane" would be negating feminism?

No, that would be fucking stupid.

Luckily, Belial was talking not about feminism in general but about separatism in particular. Which indeed would be negated in principle by demanding that separatists continue giving a shit about the feelings of those they're specifically advocating separation from.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Enuja » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:31 am UTC

doogly wrote:
Enuja wrote:For you, as a man, saying that humans rape is functionally the same accusation towards you as saying that men rape.


Wait, what? 'Humans' does not function as 'men,' not to men or anyone else.

Both statements "humans rape" and "men rape" function to say "you rape" when the person reading the words is a male. Therefore, if you are enraged at being put into a category of "things that rape" then both statements should enrage you. If one enrages you and not the other, the bit that enrages you is something other than the accusation that you are a rapist.

Kulatan wrote:Partly because Indon is presumably also human, he is not generalising for the purpose if a "us"/"them" divide. Indon 's claim is one that can be dealt with on a rational level (I disagree and say that rape is individual and not systemic, a result of being human, in terms of cause) rather than provoking outrage.
Lesbian separatists have no interest in dealing (on a rational or any other level) with men, so it's a bit meaningless to "accuse" them of not being interested in discussing things rationally with men.

I know that this entire thread exists because a man wanted to discuss lesbian separatism, and I think it makes total sense to be interested in doing so. But it doesn't make sense to accuse lesbian separatists of not wanting to rationally discuss their ideas with men: that's the entire point of and therefore a necessary part of the movement. To have a problem with that is to have a basic, un-discussable problem with the movement. Essentially, what gmalivuk said.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Ginger » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:44 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Ginger wrote: Does this really matter beyond semantics when the idea hasn't even been tested yet?


Semantics are serious business. So how would you define it all to include bigglesworth's point?

Indeed. I don't understand your question. How would I define what all to include bigglesworth's point and furthermore how does that point matter until we see some examples of this mistreatment occurring as well as the dynamics with which it occurs among the members of the commune?
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby doogly » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:56 am UTC

Enuja wrote:
doogly wrote:
Enuja wrote:For you, as a man, saying that humans rape is functionally the same accusation towards you as saying that men rape.


Wait, what? 'Humans' does not function as 'men,' not to men or anyone else.

Both statements "humans rape" and "men rape" function to say "you rape" when the person reading the words is a male. Therefore, if you are enraged at being put into a category of "things that rape" then both statements should enrage you.


I don't think in either of those the accusation is that I personally am a rapist (in which case there will be great much rage, or more likely bewilderment).

'Humans' and 'men' mean more to me than 'a group I am in,' it is more like 'x rape' means 'x rape and this is linked to their identity as x.' I personally wouldn't object to using either 'men' or 'humans' here, but there are other groups I belong to where I definitely would, mostly when I think there is some misunderstanding about the group in question. Or the context of the statement; for example, 'Dartmouth students rape' would strike me different ways if it is another Dartmouth person looking to deal with the problem together, or if it is someone outside that is seeing a higher reporting rate as a higher incidence rate.

These particular examples say different things about causes. 'Humans rape' would imply there is something biological happening. The gorilla brain or lizard brain or whatnot. 'Men rape,' this is a more cultural sounding statement. Maybe a speaker means them in the same way (they may be treating humans as one culture? positing a biological basis for masculine behavior?) but I would still interpret them differently.

If one enrages you and not the other, the bit that enrages you is something other than the accusation that you are a rapist.

So maybe we are not in any disagreement, and your initial phrasing just struck me as odd.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:00 am UTC

Belial wrote:See, that's the issue. Men are saying "You shouldn't do this." and the reason is "Because it makes me angry".

Who? If I am or am part of "men" then I have stated my reasons clearly
1. I don't think it would be the most long term effective action
2. it is discriminatory
3. variations and riffs on those themes
I am emotionaly affected by this issue but not arguing that it should be "because it makes me angry".

gmalivuk wrote:Luckily, Belial was talking not about feminism in general but about separatism in particular.

Very true, so I retract the statement as it pertained to feminism and instead say:
So if a Lesbian Separatialist appends "it is the right of all women to get free muffins" onto Lesbian Separatism, that any man who went "I agree with the rest, but that is batfuck insane" would be negating Lesbian Separatism?
gmalivuk wrote:Which indeed would be negated in principle by demanding that separatists continue giving a shit about the feelings of those they're specifically advocating separation from.

Also true, however if this is the case then maybe the idea needs "negation" if it is continued to be expressed in the forms we have seen. If we don't listen to other's opinion then we cut ourselves off from half the brain power of the human species. If men are not allowed to contribute then they couldn't model the society on Plato's republic, however if Plato was a woman they would be allowed to, seems to be the position. This idea of anything male originated being a separatism "thoughtcrime" is (in a practical sense, think water pumps, irrigation theory, ect) crippling to the idea.

Ginger wrote:Indeed. I don't understand your question. How would I define what all to include bigglesworth's point and furthermore how does that point matter until we see some examples of this mistreatment occurring as well as the dynamics with which it occurs among the members of the commune?

What words would you use to frame Lesbian Separatism to combat mistreatment (e.g uses "enlighten women" rather than "women") rather than using language that implies "women only" is a panacea to the mistreatment of women. This theorising is important because the ideas that are being expressed are important, do we tackle only this or wider issues, how do we want to tackle them, what do we target cause or effects?
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:07 am UTC

So if a Lesbian Separatialist appends "it is the right of all women to get free muffins" onto Lesbian Separatism, that any man who went "I agree with the rest, but that is batfuck insane" would be negating Lesbian Separatism?


Again, no, but them caring overmuch about what you think would be.

Also true, however if this is the case then maybe the idea needs "negation" if it is continued to be expressed in the forms we have seen. If we don't listen to other's opinion then we cut ourselves off from half the brain power of the human species.


I think the point is that they consider that to be a sacrifice worth making. The fact that you think otherwise isn't relevant to them, because your thoughts don't matter to them, because the movement isn't for you.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Ginger » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:12 am UTC

Belial wins phrasing! What he said about the movement as a whole pretty much sums up the answer I would have given to your question, Kulantan. Obviously if I were to join a commune of women I would be doing such a thing under the impression that "Women Only" was not necessarily a panacea but at least a much less bitter pill to swallow than remaining in a society with men at all. I'd only rephrase what I said originally to include that maybe new bad stuff might happen but that the new bad stuff is probably preferable to the old bad stuff.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Random832 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:19 am UTC

(EDIT: The part of my post that was relevant has already been conceded, and the rest really probably belongs in another thread)

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby T-Form » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:28 am UTC

Belial wrote:If you must, think of it like entropy. The system will tend toward self interest. Even if one particular interaction within the system accidentally flukes its way into behaving against it, the hundred thousand interactions that go exactly as expected will see that the trend continues. And ultimately, while that single interaction might make the oppressor feel all warm and fuzzy and good about himself, to the oppressed, the trend is all that matters.

I'm not seeing any reason why every system must tend toward self-interest, either. I can see that contemporary Western societies are arranged to encourage a certain type of self-interest, sure, but I'd say that's largely a capitalist thing that relies on a sense of isolation and fear, not an intrinsic aspect of humanity.

Because it's not about judging whether you're a good and fluffy person. It's not about you at all, and that's sometimes tough to hear, especially for people in a place of privilege who are used to it always being about them. It's about them trying to make their lives better.

I'm a woman; it's about me no matter which way you slice it. However, I've never known of any person who genuinely advocates lesbian separatism yet isn't a transphobic jerk, so the idealised implementation would be expected to leave me as one of the very few women in a society otherwise comprised of men. That's not going to be good for me (especially if we take a lesbian separatist view of human nature and/or masculinity), so the same action that makes their own lives better causes indirect harm to me. If it's wrong for them to do that, people must have some sort of obligation to one another beyond non-interference, thus all separatism is potentially unjust and any person can legitimately challenge it. Or if it's not wrong, then self-interest justifies indirect harm, so it's okay (and logical) for anyone to use any effective argument to discourage or oppose separatism when it's in their interests to do so, even if it's not supposed to be about them.

doogly wrote:'Humans' and 'men' mean more to me than 'a group I am in,' it is more like 'x rape' means 'x rape and this is linked to their identity as x.'

Yeah, the fact that the sentence specifies a subset of people completely changes the intuitive meaning. If someone says "people don't understand probability" I'll probably agree, but if they say "women don't understand probability" I'll assume their meaning is roughly "women, unlike men, don't understand probability" and thus "women are inferior to men", and I'm not going to be impressed with that.

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby EmptySet » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:03 am UTC

Ginger wrote:Fair enough. I concede the point that a commune of women wouldn't necessarily be a paradise free of mistreatment. Does this really matter beyond semantics when the idea hasn't even been tested yet?


Surely, if your objective is to end or reduce the mistreatment of women, how much your plan would actually reduce mistreatment is a matter of relevance? I think it's fairly clear that, for example, "gender segregation would end all mistreatment of women" would be a stronger reason to go for it than "gender segregation would reduce mistreatment of women by 10%". I'm not saying the lack of a perfect solution means you shouldn't choose the next best option or anything, just that it is worth considering how much you expect to gain before you leap into things. Particularly given that some women are going to have to give up things they like to go ahead with separatism.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:32 am UTC

T-Form wrote:I'm not seeing any reason why every system must tend toward self-interest, either.


For the simple reason that it's vanishingly rare to get any random selection of people to act against their own self interest all at the same time.

If one person is bucking the trend by acting against their own self interest, and twenty more people *aren't*, the one person bucking the trend doesn't change the status quo much.

I'm a woman; it's about me no matter which way you slice it.


Indeed. I was speaking more to the menfolk who were acting like their feelings on the matter should somehow matter to the separatists.

However, I've never known of any person who genuinely advocates lesbian separatism yet isn't a transphobic jerk, so the idealised implementation would be expected to leave me as one of the very few women in a society otherwise comprised of men.


Is that a problem with the idea, or just the people who often propose it?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Lesbian Separatism

Postby Random832 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Indeed. I was speaking more to the menfolk who were acting like their feelings on the matter should somehow matter to the separatists.


It's not about "feelings". The argument that (in easily observable fact) the groups likely to implement it tend to be virulently transphobic, for example, is equally valid no matter who it comes from. As is the argument that racial, class, and other distinctions would not be solved at all, so the idea that it would be an idealized oppression-free society (conceded here, but... here's not the problem - and once all the non-radical people who bought into a separatist movement find they've been sold a bill of goods, it's going to be that much harder for any solution to get implemented.) is invalid. These aren't emotional reactions, they're facts.

Is that a problem with the idea, or just the people who often propose it?


Since the attitudes of the people who propose it can be generalized directly to how the idea would actually be implemented, every problem with the people who propose it is a problem with the idea.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests