Talk:Feminist separatism/Archive 1

Not all feminists agree with this seperatist
You cant assume that all feminists agree with this seperatist process. I believe in some aspects of feminism but not with seperatist feminism, and whos to say im not a feminist. You? It's not factually true to say they all agree, so it doesn't go in an encyclopedia. Urthogie 02:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't even contain the word agree and plainly...


 * Doesn't assert that all feminists agree on separatistism
 * Doesn't say you're not a feminist

Try re-reading the article...? Wyss 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say, however, that the wording of the article was so sloppy that I can see how someone reading through it quickly might be confused. I have fixed the syntax and done a few other things to ensure clarity. Wyss 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

looks good now, was a problem in communication i guess. Urthogie 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging lesbian separatism into this article
As lesbian separatism is a subsect of separatist feminism, it would be wise to combine the two articles into a single, more comprehensive entry. Would anyone object? - Nihila 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems fair to me, especially if lesbian separatism gets its own section, so it's clear it's a subset, not an equivalent thing. NickelShoe 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Two comments

 * Lesbian separatism should be more differentiated. I'm not sure I agree with the merger but I guess it's ok if the article evolves to reflect that.


 * I put back the link to Lesbian science fiction since it's referred to repeatedly in the article. Wyss 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Holly Near "associated"?
I took this line for Holly Near out of the list of people "associated" with lesbian feminism. I think Holly was shunned by the separatist movement, as noted in her page, but I think the word "associated" makes it sound more like she is a separatist, which is clearly wrong. Another option would be to separate the list into supporters and those affected, but I don't know enough about the others to do that.


 * Holly Near, American singer/songwriter

Association between Lesbian Separatism and Queer Nationalism
I qualified the implied relationship between Lesbian Separatism and Queer Nationalism because in my extensive research on Lesbian Separatism I have found many Separatists to be in disagreement with "Queer Theory" and "Queer Culture", many of these lesbians believing that the "Queering" of Lesbian Culture is a plot to co-opt the energy and time of lesbians. Thus I feel the two schools of thought have a tenuous relationship at best/

Controversies
This section seems rather biased. I tried to clarify the "many people find" type passages to remove the implied appeal to a right-thinking minority and be clear that criticisms (like defences) are only opinions.

''Critics of feminism sometimes describe women-only events and organizations as "separatist." While organizations restricted to or geared towards only women are separatist, they may not carry the extremist ideologies and highly controversial ideas embodied in separatist feminism.{{'' - this seems odd. I adjusted the wording to make more sense, but even so the "geared towards only women" bit seems to imply that, say, a prenatal class or bellydancing troupe would be separatist in a different way than, say, the South Australian Trailer Boat Club is male separatist?

Lindleyle 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lindleyle. That was a good start. What you were dealing with are what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" and we have a guideline over at WP:WEASEL regarding these kinds of phrases. Basically you can delete that crap on sight, but please read the guideline first and cite WP:WEASEL in your edit summary. And these "critics say blah blah blah" can be tagged with {{tl|fact}} and if nobody adds a citation in a reasonable amount of time (maybe a week or two for a slow-moving article like this one), then you can rip it out entirely. I'll leave it all at your prerogative right now. Note that there is at least one {{tl|fact}} tag in the article right now, and if it's attached to something that you want to keep, try to find a supporting citation to replace it with. I don't check this article regularly so if you have questions about my comments hit my user talk page. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I think I was actually editing as you said this! I missed the edit summary tag, sorry - read your comment too late. But I've tried to clean it up and cite.

Lindleyle 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great edits! They really move the article forward. - N1h1l

"Aristasia": questionable relevance
I'm wondering about the legitimacy of "Aristasia"; looking at the links given, I wonder if it's anything more than a role-playing game for people (many of them doubtless male or m-t-F TG) looking to play around with traditional gender stereotypes of "classic" Western femininity? It looks more like a butch/femme chat and fiction site than a real organization of human beings actually relevant to this article. -- Orange Mike 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Valerie Solanas
I think that the phrase "Solanas is notorious for acting out her expressed calls for violence against males by firing shots at several men, including the artist Andy Warhol" is misleading. According to her wikipedia bio, the attack was based on a personal/professional dispute - not misandry. Can anyone provide a reliable source to backup the current statement? If not it should be modified or removed. - N1h1l 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My issue was simply with playing down her views by calling them "fantasy", hence my edit. Unless there is a source linking the attack with separatist feminism, I support your suggestion of removing the line entirely. Neitherday 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I totally understand your position and my source query was not intended as a response to your edit. - N1h1l 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Several men? Did she shoot all Andy's clones? Chinablasts 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She shot Mario Amaya and fired at Fred Hughes. Neitherday 02:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sexism
I think adding this article to Category:Sexism could be highly misleading and PoV. Comments? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the same reaction at first glance, but it occurred to me that the Sexism category does not necessary imply that separatist feminism is sexist - rather that it is a topic connected to sexism (ie. separatism may be a reaction against sexism). You can read its inclusion multiple ways. - N1h1l (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: Since it can be read in multiple ways, I worry readers could be misled. Also, since the Sexism article isn't stable yet, I'm not sure editors have established the sources on sexism, or how the topic fits into wider topics on gender. This edit summary by the anon who added the cat didn't help my thinking this might be too PoV for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. I didn't realize that this was part of a wider pattern of POV-pushing. - N1h1l (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My take: The broader sense, i.e., that feminism is a response to sexism, is a little too road to be a good use of categories. The narrower sense -- calling feminism "sexist" -- is POV. --Lquilter (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is sexism if sexual separatism is not? White/Black separatism articles are categorized as racism. Sexism against "sexism" is sexism too. I didnt call feminism sexist. Feminism is anti-discriminatory isnt it? Is it neutral to call apartheid anti-discriminatory? It should be renamed to "Female separatism" in order not to be anti-feminist "bigots" for calling it sexism. 81.182.208.86 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there was a "response to sexism" page than it would be relevant :-) Carol Moore 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Nazism shuld be added to category:response to Jewish supremacism--81.182.208.164 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Way to push an argument to its logical limits :) - N1h1l (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it as beyond logical limits (and rather off-topic). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of names "associated with Separatist Feminism"
Hi folks, I removed some names from this list because the individuals were not Separatist Feminists. Barbara Smith, Jane Rule and Andrea Dworkin. Smith spoke against Separatism, Jane Rule spoke as an opponent as well. Kootenayvolcano (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I put Andrea Dworkin back in to the list, because there is documentation she espoused separatist ideas in her writing. Sorry!Kootenayvolcano (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused by this Andrea Dworkin thing - she lived with a man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.165.231 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A gay man who wrote some hard core material against patriarchy. Carol Moore 15:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * To keep this in line with WP:BLP (wikipedia biographies policies) there needs to be some sort of reference by all named individuals or any editor can immediately delete the material because IF those individuals are not some sort of separatist they could sue wikipedia. I've put a tag on to that effect for motivation's sake ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I have separated the Controversy Section into a "Within Feminism" and an "Outside of Feminism" section. There is a large range of criticisms withing the section, and I believe that this would be a useful distinction.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work! - N1h1l (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sensible move - well done-- Cailil  talk 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there was some excellent sourced material in this article, I decided to wikify the article a bit more by taking out the self-published mens rights stuff (just realized men's daily isn't self published so will put back in - but it doesn't really deserve its own section) and Julie McCrossin's self-published comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needs to be changed into Ridicule
I find the first paragraph on this article to be hilarious. Can there really be women who outright refuse help from men simply because of their radical opposition of any degree of patriarchy? If that's the case, they should become women of the Amazon. The benevolence of men is found everywhere in society. Even the freedom of feminists is guaranteed by those men who sacrificed their lives in the Revolutionary War. Would they dare reject giving honor to George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, for fighting against a Patriarchal Monarchy?

Even if you hate America, how can you reject those that have given you your freedom to speak out against American Patriarchy?

Intellectually I find Separatism Feminists to be lacking. Since there is no possible citation for reference I can give on this issue, I decided to give comment to that very need and ask for foreign aid, while excluding all women, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

Is there a Separatist Androgyny page on wiki? I would love to "United" this article with it's male counterpart. I feel it would help work against sexist forces here on wiki. --174.23.200.192 (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) -
 * Wikipedia is a not soapbox 174.23.200.192 and not a forum. Please read our talk page guidelines to see how to appropriately use the talk-space and it might be useful for you to review our core principles to understand how exactly this site works.  Comments like the above are considered disruptive and can be removed without discussion.
 * I'm closing this thread per WP:TPG-- CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Synonymous With Misandry??
as i'm reading this article i'm wondering how a woman who considers herself a separatist feminist could NOT be sexist, or at least someone who considers men to be less than or more evil than women (which is also called misandry/sexism). someone should put this article in the misandry category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummy Dummy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

merge Gynocracy into Separatist feminism?
Proposals to merge part of the now-deleted Gynocracy article into the Separatist feminism article are under discussion, in the Gynocracy deletion review. The Gynocracy article was about women governing women and men, as described from the past or aspired to for the future. No part of the article (except a disclaimer) was about feminist separatism, because men were among the governed, and not just briefly, and because this was not limited to separatism within the feminist movement or organizations, but were at a national level, although one possibility would be to include the content with an explanation that these cases are not strictly separatist or limited to feminist venues. There are prominent feminist advocates and several secondary sources. Thoughts on a merger? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been merged into matriarchy where it belongs. If someone tries to merge irrelevant info, it will be deleted quickly enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same thing? The Gynocracy article was deleted; maybe you saw it but most of its references that have something to do with matriarchy are not in the matriarchy article, so there has not been a merger, although maybe something else was merged. I agree that Gynocracy's content may not belong unless explained, because there are distinctions between what I wrote about and what matriarchy often includes, but the deletion debate relied to a large extent on merging into the matriarchy article, and one editor from the deletion debate has reiterated that merger should ensue for parts. Had you seen the Gynocracy article this month? It would be helpful to have a talk-page discussion on edits to include feminist contributions on gynocracy and how they relate to matriarchy, unless they're all going to be reverted anyway and it's a waste of time to try. Thank you for responding. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never saw the article, but if material from it that is not relevant is inserted here, I'm sure it will be discussed and/or deleted. Why not just tell us what is relevant to this article? If people are interested in the other two articles, I'm sure they'll wander over. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)