#i'm very tempted to just start responding to separatism related questions

[hadesoftheladies]

do you have anything to say to assuage the concerns of women who are afraid that misogyny will only get worse if women stop interacting with men?

please allow me to let marilyn frye respond:

"If these, then, are some of the ways in which separation is at the heart of our struggle, it helps to explain why separation is such a hot topic. If there is one thing women are queasy about it is actually taking power. As long as one stops just short of that, the patriarchs will for the most part take an indulgent attitude. We are afraid of what will happen to us when we really frighten them. This is not an irrational fear, It is our experience in the movement generally that the defensiveness, nastiness, violence, hostility, and irrationality of the reaction to feminism tends to correlate with the blatancy of the element of separation in the strategy or project which triggers the reaction. The separations involved in women leaving homes, marriages, and boyfriends, separations from fetuses, and the separation of lesbianism are all pretty dramatic."

it's not that separatism is easy-peasy, it's that being in a patriarchy is dangerous for women either way. sometimes feminists get beaten up for speaking out, but women also just get beaten up for being women in general. people wouldn't hate feminists if they didn't hate women, so whatever the feminists get is what women are getting. it's a lose-lose, except fighting back eventually becomes a win.

also, i mean this respectfully, but i already answered your question in the post you reblogged. if a man will get violent with you for separating, he's exactly the kind of man you must separate from (think domestic violence). the kind of men that will get angry that you're divorcing are the kind of men you must escape because remaining with them will only make it more dangerous for you, not less.

believing that women might be able to mitigate misogyny via interactions with men is not the same as saying “men are the solution to male violence.”

there's a beloved quote of radblr's by audre lorde, i believe: "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." what are the master's tools? what perpetuates patriarchy? why does it work the way it does? what keeps it strong? marriage to a man, premature/forced/pressured impregnation (as a weapon of violence and also an economic destabilizer for the woman), relationships with men (psychological and financial toll), femininity, etc. how then can these things be empowering or feminist? at best (and rarest) they are neutral, but when they exist in a patriarchal context, they are patriarchal, hence weapons wielded against women. no matter how they feel about it.

I don’t know of any solid evidence supporting the idea that interacting with men or refusing to interact with men will reliably improve women’s lives

I'm surprised that you haven't read about the studies documenting the mental and physical health benefits of not dating or marrying men. Especially because the exploitation of women in marriage has been a huge topic in feminist literature and politics for centuries! I'm surprised you haven't observed this in your own life too bc I see it every day. It's kinda common sense that interacting with your oppressors is hardly ever a health-boost, but here's a paper that talks about the nuances of marriage and cohabiting with men and why men are the ones who keep benefitting.

but i fear i may be addressing the wrong things here. one, separatism is very niche feminist discourse so not a lot of academics are competing to conduct studies on issues pertaining to it.

two, what we DO know is that marrying, befriending and catering to men in any way has not amounted to more rights for women. what we DO know is that men use sex to exploit and oppress us. what we DO know is that patriarchy is upheld by the institutions of marriage, prostitution, surrogacy, etc . . . all which entail sexual access to women, however regulated. what we DO know is that men are always disproportionately benefitting MORE from relationships with women than women with them. Etcetera, etcetera . . .

three, separatism isn't about "non-interaction." it's about divesting from patriarchy and de-centering men. that's the goal here. to stop boosting men at the expense of ourselves and our movement, which is most effectively done through disengagement on a myriad of levels.

but I’d like to know if you have any arguments against the actual position of the people who doubt the effectiveness of separatism.

scroll through my blog. i've made plenty. :)

It seems most likely to me that it’s a lot more complicated than that, and that different approaches are required for different situations, and using multiple strategies might be most effective

separatists agree with you :)

"if we separate, the men will get violent" is the new "if women aren't prostitutes, men will rape the rest of us"

men cannot be the solution to male violence if men are the problem. it's really that simple.