From: iw@tosser.Rational.COM (The_Devine_Dolly)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists (was Re: Roy's "consenting" slave)
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:06:46 GMT

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:


>Depends on your definition of separatism, doesn't it? I mean, separatism
>lies on a spectrum with women-only co-op organization/companies with minimal
>day-to-day contact with men on one end (or close to that end.  I'm not sure
>how 'extreme' (in a non-perjorative sense) separatists can be), and women
>who work side-by-side with men but simply don't spend any emotional energy
>on them close to the other end.  

A feminist separtist is generally a woman who decides to  remove all
contact with men from her life, looking to woman for all her support. 
A separtist, I would say, is also one who defines herself as a separtist.
This a concsious political choice that the woman has made.

To call a woman "who works side-by-side with men but simply does't
spend any emotional energy on them " a separtist is a gross piece of
nonsense.  I know many women like that, most of them are lesbians.  
They are NOT lesbian feminists, just lesbians.  They are blind to men,
they do NOT read your energy.  They have no interest in you.  It is
not however a thought out political act like separtism, they are SIMPLY
NOT INTERESTED. 

Clue Roy and Elf and others who would agree with your definition of
separtism - there are many women who do not  define themselves in terms
of their relationships or lack thereof with men.  I am a prime example.
We do not seek your approval, we are bored by your silly male egos,
we are tired of stroking you, and most of all we are fucking sick
of trying to educate you.  

Only a man could read a Vikkis comment, (that women need to seek
support from other women), as an exclusive or statement, which means
that they should not also seek support from men.  

While I did not agree with Vikki about your relationship, in fact
I really know far more about your relationship than I care to, I
am beginnning to agree with her statement that you guys just don`t
get it.

It is not enough to claim that you have feminist principles, if you do not
also have a feminist consciousness.  And more and more I believe in the
politics of oppression which says that if you are not of the opressed
all you can do is be a supporter.  Malcolm X had a lot to offer in some
respects.

Your are still defining women in terms of men.  
You look at a woman who is has little or no interest in men and you
call her a separtist.  You can't clue to the fact that SHE HASN~T EVEN
THOUGHT ABOUT MEN ENOUGH TO EVEN THINK OF ACTIVELY SEPARATING FROM THEM.
She is not defining herself in terms of being separate from men.  
Only men would have the egocentricity to do that. She
is just doing her own thing irrespective of whether or not there happen
to be men around.  This is very different to a concious decision to 
become a separtist.

Another clue - we are not here to spend emotional energy on you.  You,
by simple birthright as a man, do not get the rights to womens emotional
energy. No person has an automatic right to anothers emotional energy. 


>The mere fact that you're married, IMHO, does not indicate that you're not a
>separatist.  I do not make any assumptions about you, your SO, or your

What about the mere fact that she has told she is not a separtist.  I can
see two possibilities here.  (1) you were hurt, and understandably so,
about what Vikki said about your relationship.  (2) you are arrogant
enough  to define somebody in your own terms, when they have clearly
stated that they are not that thing.  I hope that (1) explains your
attitude, because that I can understand.         

Now I don't believe that this post has much bi relevance, but I do think
that it has as much bi relevance as the fact that you are in a D/S relationship
with a woman.

Iseult - who is pissed that she wasted some more emmotional energy on you.
	 But hey, it is my space as well.
Newsgroups: soc.bi