Reacting to Skulldrix’s post and thinking about reclusive separatism vs. boundary-living separatism

Just a few days ago I read Skulldrix’s post on a separatist state of mind, which I have found very refreshing and enlightening, and which brought me back to many of my own first experiences of separatism. I remember some conversations going on at FCM’s on separatism, maybe a year and a half ago, where several of us bloggers and commenters discussed whether we should call ourselves separatists or pro-separatists. FCM at the time argued that separatism wasn’t a realistic or feasible goal for most women under patriarchy because the reality is that we can’t completely escape men, so it would be more realistic to envision ourselves as pro-separatist instead of separatists.

I can’t quite remember what I wrote at the time or whether I expressed myself clearly but I thought that the distinction between pro-sep and sep was unnecessary once we conceive of it as a way of being, an ongoing journey and struggle, according to the means we have and what is safe for our survival. Though I agree about the fact that most if not all of us can’t escape men on a daily basis. Most women will have to work alongside men to some degree because that’s the only or least worst job opportunity we can find. Very often we will have to depend on men to learn a skill, or to heal from severe illnesses, because men monopolise and control all disciplines and sectors of their society.

Well Skulldrix’s take on it as state of mind is really important, because that’s how it is really, and that’s also how radical feminism works. Once you have the state of mind, a strong perception and insight of how male domination works – including on how it affects and colonises us – the willingness and drive to move on, and out, and take women with us on the ride: that’s the only thing that counts. Everything stems from here. And radical feminism and separatism from men and from male mindbindings are one and the same to me, both theoretically and in my experience: both were absolutely synchronous in my life. Radical feminism can’t go without separatism because separatism (or a separatist state of mind) is the logical conclusion to radical feminism, that is to seeing and understanding how men’s domination works and understanding the danger men represent to us. Once you perceive and feel viscerally how destructive men are and how their mere presence may suffice to sap our vital force, your gut reaction is to run away from anything male.

But this is where the importance of separatist state of mind comes, versus mere physical separatism from men. Refusing to interact with men as much as possible is not enough. It is not enough to flee men and hang around with women only, we also have to unwork the effects of men’s ideological and traumatic mindbindings on us and unlearn woman-hatred, and transmit this to other women in some way or another. Separatism is of no use at all if it’s to reproduce similar male hierarchies and values of domination and subordination between ourselves. In order not to do this, it requires a particular state of mind: both a clear vision and focus and a willingness to maintain and especially develop this vision and focus over time.

This is because in patriarchy, our radical feminism / separatism is constantly put at trial, and all strategies are used, from attacks to manipulation – to put as back into fragmentation. There is no moment pure free consciousness or place where we can leave our status of oppressed and where men’s violence will no longer affect us if we are subjected to it. Oppression continues to affect us and our mind, because that’s what violence does, and men’s violence remains pervasive, even if the degrees of violence vary. The separatist state of mind is a commitment to persist into radical feminism, deep empathy towards women and hatred of male oppression over time.

And sometimes, we have to choose between physical separatism of men and our own survival, most notably when we need a job, money, skills, care or resources and we have no other choice but to get them from the hands of men. This is where the state of mind is important because we will choose to give as little energy and mindspace to men as possible, and to try to bond with the women whenever possible.

Finally, one thing I’ve noticed is that to continue sparking other women and reaching women requires to a certain extent working on the boundaries of male institutions (whatever these may be, whether blogs or other platforms that we can bear staying in for a certain amount of time) because there is simply no chance of interacting with women if we live recluded or hidden (although this choice is perfectly understandable). Mary Daly talks about this living in the boundaries in “Outercourse” and Janice Raymond talks about it in “A Passion for Friends”. It takes a very, very long time to bring women to radical feminism and for women to be in a safe enough position to be able to think about it; If we want to find women, we can mostly only find them in places controlled by men, because the vast majority of women in western countries are too afraid of separatism. Separatism therefore also means to me creating a pocket of freedom or an open door within this place from which to move on to and transcend, create true women-only identification and place.

I think this boundary-living must be done with extreme caution however because such experiences can be very abusive and getting the measure of how far we should go or which institutions we should be in the boundary of or when it’s time to leave before things get too nasty, is very hard. I’ve been thinking about the reclusive / vs boundary-living separatism for a long time and I know Mary Daly and Janice Raymond have criticised reclusion, as opposed to Sonia Johnson who embarked on this route fully with her partner Jade DeForest, and documented it in her books – they decided that they wouldn’t even interact with other women any more because it was too endangering to their integrity.

When I first became radical feminist and separatist, not only I couldn’t stand being with men but it was physically impossible for me and endangering for my sanity to be around women who were even slightly colonised. I couldn’t deal with the dissonance, radical feminism was too fresh, I had barely discovered myself, I had much less confidence in my perceptions then and my greatest fear was too lose my mind again. I had a visceral need to expel everything male from my life. Now, with several years of experience in radical feminist journey behind me, I don’t feel that my world will crumble down so easily when my reality as an oppressed woman is denied, because I have much more confidence in my own perceptions than I used to. I have also bonded to a network of radical feminist lesbian friends, learnt not to beat myself up any more when women turn against me out of misogyny or because they can’t follow me farther in my bus ride. I feel my feet and my soul are much more anchored into the ground and it’s less easy to topple me. I’m better at protecting myself, at creating situations that are safe for myself and women and avoiding those who aren’t. It is only with this background that I know feel slightly more confident about finding other women and understand better how it works. I know that the most important thing is to talk with women and create spaces where this is possible, without interference. Three or two years ago this wouldn’t have been possible the same way.

Most importantly, I love being around with women too much. I love feeling the electricity and spark of when we share and create insights together, I love witnessing women unpeeling the mindbindings and freeing themselves from the bonds of a man. I love the stars in our eyes when we See each other and our reality, when we become visible to ourselves. I love our laughter. Being with women-identified women and making this woman-identification possible is like dancing around a fire of joy, you can feel the fire inside you becoming bigger. I would never be able to become a reclusive separatist.

***

Here are the comments I wrote on Skulldrix’s post which spurred me into writing this post. I’ve rephrased the first one and put it here for clarity.

it’s great to see such a nice article on separatism. I relate to your perceptions on separatism, on many levels, and have followed a very similar path. Separatism started for me in a crossroads of circumstances. It started in part when I decided that I wouldn’t date any men because dating with them had been so painful and traumatising and I wanted to protect myself from that. I was already feminist, had almost perceived that PIV was inherently violent and a way to humiliate women, and that all men wanted was to use us as receptacles for their dicks. So I first thought that if I wanted to date a man, a way to prevent being used by them as their dick-socket to be thrown away the minute after, I’d have to choose one I knew for a long time and could trust he wouldn’t abuse me, had already built an equal, friendly, respectful relationship with him which stood the test of time, and especially, they would have to understand feminism and i should be able to be feminist with them without feeling uncomfortable about it.

Well I very quickly realised that this standard was totally impossible! Once I held this standard for interacting with men, they all disappeared out of my life very quickly. It became obvious that men didn’t want to interact with me or with women in general on an equal level, and that what “attracted” them in women was subordination to them – as soon as we wanted to be their “equals” they were repelled by it, lost interest or tried to thwart the feminist drive in me some way or another. This was a major eye-opener. I’ve said this before in various comments but I found this experience really amazing – just setting the bar high for men made them disappear out of my life.

Also once I saw how everything men do is always directly or subliminally a rape threat and reminds us of our penetrable caste, I couldn’t bear being exposed to anything male, either in physical presence or in mediated ways (religion, ideology, media, art, etc, etc,). It re-triggers unconscious or conscious defence mechanisms to rape, PIV and sexualised invasion. It’s stressful and traumatising.

 

Advertisements

64 Responses to “Reacting to Skulldrix’s post and thinking about reclusive separatism vs. boundary-living separatism”


  1. 1 hat May 1, 2014 at 6:09 am

    Hello! I know it’s been a long time since you wrote about PIV, but I hope it’s okay if I share some thoughts on the subject? Also, you wrote about mitochondria once, so I guess you are interested in biology of sexes? Anyway, your and FCM’s posts on PIV = rape were fascinating to read and also reminded me of a paper I wrote for my Animal Behavior class in uni. Paper was on reproductive strategies – essentially it was about ways in which males and females of various species attract and choose mating partners. Peacock’s tail is one of the most overused examples of this. However, I was quite surprised when I learned that rape was one of the strategies. It occurs in many species, you can check Wikipedia’s article on ‘Sexual coercion’ for general idea and examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_copulation). After reading your post on PIV I started wondering – what if rape was dominant human reproductive strategy? Wiki entries on this subject, especially aggression, intimidation and coercive faithfulness definitely apply on how women are treated under patriarchy. I like the fact that it is not written with humans in mind, so it is not trying to obscure what rape is or isn’t. Since topic are animals, it is impossible to apply the concept of consent, and yet – it’s obvious what is rape. I actually find this part the most fascinating. While reading FCM’s blog I sometimes struggled with ideas such as ‘rape can be explained without referencing consent’ and ‘from male point of view there is no difference between sex and rape’. But applied to animals and rape as a reproductive strategy – not only that those ideas make sense but are totally obvious. And since Andrea Dworkin used inductive method to come to conclusion that piv = rape, I definitely think that she was above genius. Now I think that any strategy which doesn’t fully include female choice (most common female reproductive strategy) is rape on most basic level. Female choice would mean free choice of a partner and freedom to choose abstinence if desired partner is unavailable. For instance, many male animals fight and the winner wins access to females. This is rape strategy because female choice doesn’t apply. Arguing that maybe female would choose the winner herself is irrelevant. What makes this a rape strategy isn’t weather the female likes the winner or not, it’s that even if she doesn’t he will still mate with her and prevent others from doing so. Her choice is absolutely irrelevant for this strategy, and if it happens to fall in the line with what male does it still doesn’t mean he did it because of her preference – it was still a rape. Also, rape as a dominant strategy explains male behavior 100% accurately, because it shows that violence and sex are deeply interconnected in male psyche, which is something we witness every day, but struggle to explain where does this ‘evil’ come from. Furthermore, women obviously don’t share this trait with men (why would they?) which is something noticeable in everyday life too, but acknowledging publicly that women are better than men is considered a serious transgression because of ‘equality’. Anyway, my thoughts on this subject are still a bit unorganized, but if you find it interesting and would like to bounce ideas feel free to email me.

  2. 2 witchwind May 1, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    hi that’s fine, i was actually going to suggest a free discussion for this thread.

    Yes well men are very explicit when it comes to naming male animal behaviour but when it comes to human males, it’s in their interest to destroy our identification of their rapism and to persuade us that our subordination to them is natural. But males are indeed rapey and violent across all species. The conclusion that can be drawn isn’t that this is how species reproduce but how males reproduce at the expense of females, which means that males are parasitic to females. Many females across various species can perform parthenogenesis, that is females can survive and continue to reproduce without males. Many females of different species have found social and biological constraints to male rapism by limiting reproduction of males or stopping to reproduce males in difficult times, by limiting the amount of rapes (many mammals limit this to once a year in spring) by throwing males out of the female-centred families and communities, by killing males after “mating”, by developing false vaginas to avoid pregnancy, etc.

    There is evidence that female humans used to impose these kind of regulations to male rapism and violence in the past, for instance I have read about / been told about an old European tradition which seemed to limit intercourse/rape to once a year, in spring, during a massive collective “ceremony” where everybody drank and males would have licence to rape the females this one night. I suppose there must have been punishment for men who tried to rape females outside of this “ceremony”, but I don’t have any information about this. This spring collective rape ceremony might have been a way of preventing men from taking hold of the children because both men and women didn’t know who was the father was and so men never “fathered” any children. Shadows of this tradition continued well on into the Patriarchal Greek civilisations and are known as the Dionysian spring orgies – although by then males had already organised a very hierarchical and complex female-raping, impregnation and slavery system.

    I have also heard of old practices whereby some women chose some young men for reproduction but these men would then be killed or sacrificed afterwards – because they had fulfilled their role and it was probably considered dangerous to keep them in society as adults. I’m not sure what was done of the other men, whether they continued to live with women, or stayed outside the community, or whether they were culled at young age. also practices must have varied from community to community. Though the fact seems to have been that only a minority of men would get to pass on their genes and it was considered an honour for these men to be chosen, whatever their fate was afterwards. There’s also the possibility that women chose men and simply used their sperm without intercourse, and that intercourse was considered a violation of women’s sacred integrity/impregnability/virginity (in the sense of being impenetrable). Many of these stories are in fact found between the lines and reversals of Greek myths which tell the story of how men gradually took over females by killing, fragmenting and raping women / the mother goddess – committing the ultimate forbidden act and transgressing the sacred regulations of women.

    Most women (or men) who have written about this weren’t radical feminist though, and tended to naturalise intercourse or not consider it as rape and thus did not look into how women guarded themselves from male rapism and organised their societies accordingly. Marija Gimbutas is one such example and it’s quite frustrating in this sense to see her argue about an egalitarian society in old europe when the question of rape/PIV isn’t even adressed – yet this is the most important point when we consider how fair a society is for women. although we should bear in mind that the threat of rape by men is never completely erased as long as they’re there.

  3. 3 witchwind May 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    also you will hear men saying things such as “we have to cull wild boars every year because they endanger the ecosystem” (whether this is true or not is another question, they most often use this as an excuse to hunt and kill animals), but if we say the same of human males, that we need to cull males because they’re endangering the ecosystem, and with all the evidence of the world that men are dangerous for the survival of this planet, men are killing life on earth, raping babies, women and animals, penetrating the universe with nuclear bombs and probes and colonising ever more aspects of life in ways that we would never imagine (etc) – well, of course we’re not allowed to say that because they rule and they have the power to censor, punish and suppress every woman that goes against their parasitic interest.

  4. 4 SisterRay May 1, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    witchwind, are there any cultures where excess or useless men (following their PIV rape of womyn) are removed from the equation? I can think of fringe Mormon churches that expel young boys from the community in the United States, but there have got to be more. In some cultures, women have historically been the matriarchs in monarchies and theocracies, though of course this is much less prevalent today. I was reading in an anthropology book a while back about a primitive South American tribe that ritually drove a large bone through the end of every young boy’s penis, only to be taken off when he had properly matured. The picture looked like a railroad spike, and must’ve weighed a pound or two. Older men who could no longer hunt had their testicles cut off so that they wouldn’t fight with the younger, more productive males. The foreskin was reported to swell up to the size of a grapefruit and leak blood and puss all over the place, which was seen as a sign of impending manhood. Often times, infection from both operations could cause gangrene of the gonads and kill the males, but such was the religion / law of the land. Of course, once the evil Spanish or Portuguese arrived, they raped and murdered everyone. But it must’ve been a much more harmonious culture since some male aggression was removed. Meanwhile, instead of being celebrated as a hero, Lorena Bobbitt is treated as just another crazy bitch, just because she dared to proactively chop her husband’s ding-a-ling off while he was sleeping to prevent repeated abuse in the form of PIV rape. I wish there was a day that we would all celebrate Lorena Bobbitt as one of the first TERFs and give schoolage girls the day off as a holiday.

  5. 5 MaryMayI May 1, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    I posted the the following on Skulldrix’s post regarding separatism and feel it needs to be posted here as well:

    I don’t think seperation is enough. We will still be oppressed if we restrict ourselves to caertain places, or even if we restrict certain places as men only. We need to rid the everyday world of men. All we need from them is their sperm. Someone mentioned the film The Matrix. While it is just more man propoganda, it does have a solution we could use for men. Keep them asleep in pods and just harvest their sperm. And we would not allow them to have pleasing dreams or fantasies. No, we we force them to have constant nightmares. A living hell for those devils.

    And after we perfect cloning, we won’t even need them for that. If we can clone sheep we should be able to begin cloning humans and we can dispose of men completely. Then there would be women and women only. No more violence. No more war. A perfect, enlightened world. This is what we should strive for. Men had their chance to and have done nothing but opress, murder, and rape women and our planet.

  6. 6 witchwind May 1, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    I don’t think cloning is a very nice idea, and we don’t really need that because we’re the ones who make babies. All we need to figure out is how to do parthenogenesis or how to mix female genes together if we don’t like the idea of birthing a copy of ourselves.

    I completely agree that separatism isn’t enough, simply because it isn’t a feasible goal for most women today because are just too many and there’s no where to go. We could always only be separatist to certain degrees and we will always remain limited and restricted to certain places as you say. We can’t separate completely from men’s oppressive world in other words. Even though women are obviously far better economically without husbands (because of absence of direct theft and destruction coming from him) the likely outcome for many women is that they will be slaughtered if they leave. If this isn’t the case then options are so scarce and isolation is so great that leaving men isn’t conceivable or only conceivable as some horrible misery to be avoided (even if it may be possible in some ways or others).

    I wonder if it will ever be possible to rise all at the same time. Many women have done this, sometimes have remained pockets of freedom over centuries even, but patriarchy always stood the test of time and overlived and eventually quashed / slaughtered / suppressed the female evaders. We do need to get rid of the everyday world of men as this is the only thing that will free us completely. I find putting men to sleep into pods too cumbersome and necrophiliac though. Why bother? And why even bother with their sperm? It will only risk birthing more males.

  7. 7 witchwind May 1, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    however having this knowledge shouldn’t prevent practicing a separatist state of mind on a daily basis because it is truly life-preserving. Especially, it is also really important to seek and nurture our electrifying connections with lucid women and hold this as our life priority because it is what really keeps us alive and sane I think. I don’t think the impulse to act and change and crack through men’s system will happen without this electricity.

  8. 8 MaryMayI May 1, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    So you would be for complete eradication of men?

    As for the sperm harvesting, the genomes and chromosones should be manipulated to make sure they are all female.

  9. 9 witchwind May 1, 2014 at 11:37 pm

    I don’t know whether it would be possible to cohabitate peacefully with a minority of men, whether they would be manageable or not. I would certainly be happy to live in a world only populated by females, things would be so much easier, never having the male threat on our minds at all, being free of all restrictions and fear. If men could all go to another planet and leave us alone that would be ideal. We are obviously in no position whatsoever to harm the oppressor directly at this very point though, especially not in individual acts of defense because they are very easy for men to punish and quash. Look at what happens to women who only scratch their abuser, or slightly maim him, they can be put into prison for life, if they’re not killed. Whereas men continue to kill women every day – already 100 million women killed in Asia, that’s more than any global-scale genocide in the entire history of humanity as far as i know.
    Collective self-defense of women against violent men has been done in many occasions and the results were disastrous for the women, since they were always very localised acts of rebellion and proportionately very manageable by the global patriarchy or wider patriarchal institution, which always holds monopoly over the use of force and has the right of life and death with its super-death-machines.
    Globally, men have always ended up winning over women, look what they have done now – their weapons of mass destruction and mass rape are more sophisticated than ever.
    The only options that seem feasible to me is either that global patriarchal civilisations crumbles down by itself but will probably leave but only a few survivors, but we have no guarantee that these survivors, if there are men in them, won’t reinstate another form of patriarchy. The other option is for all women of the world to act in self defense against their oppressor together in the same 24 hours – it will have to be done quickly before the male abusers have time to retaliate. Yet this will require global, synchronous awakening and that we all know what to do at the same time, I’m quite skeptical about the likelihood of this event. Then the other option still could be for a natural catastrophe to wipe out humanity. And maybe, with a bit of luck, some females will survive. This may seem all very daunting but it doesn’t stop me from being hopeful. I know something good will happen.

  10. 10 RedHawk May 1, 2014 at 11:45 pm

    I am a relative novice when it comes to being rad-fem, but we all have to begin somewhere, right? The idea of separatism is one I fully embrace, at least insofar as I can and still maintain a roof over my head. By the end of the work day, it is not much of a challenge to isolate myself from men. I, literally, shower every day when I get home as a means of ritualistically cleansing myself of all the looks, the words, and the thoughts I know are there. This enables me to quiet all the noise and recenter.

    The biggest challenge I face at present is reconciling my heart and my head with the physical needs of my body. I have learned that many of these needs aren’t really needs, but are faux needs programmed into me my the male-dominated society. However, where does the programming stop and the real biological urge begin? I have yet to be able to bring myself to have sex with a woman…I grew up in the southern area of the United States, and that sort of behavior is beyond frowned upon (chalk another one up to religious institutions suppressing women’s freedoms). Beyond that, I have been very disturbed by the notion that even women want to…I’m not sure how to put this delicately…penetrate me with objects. In some ways it seems even more of a violation to me. Why would a woman want to do that to another woman. Are we really so inundated with male-dicktated (spelling intentional) ideas, we have no other recourse than sticking things in to one another? There has to be some kind of middle ground.

    So, I have these biological urges, at least to some degree, and they are not satisfied enough by doing it myself. How do I not betray what I am believing more and more every day, yet not find myself wanting to climb the walls? Like I said, it’s easy to eschew men after working around them all day, but sometimes late at night, when the voices have quieted and the looks have lost their impact, I still find myself kind of wanting a man. I don’t, but I do, if that even makes sense. Maybe I just need more time to deprogram. As I said, I am relatively new to all these ideas.

  11. 11 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 12:09 am

    Hi, thanks for commenting!

    PIV, on top of all the physical damage, causes deep psychological damage of which we are only beginning to understand. The trauma is caused by the constant, repeated invasion which is, in my opinion, one of the most extreme forms of psychic and physical invasion that exists, and the trauma is exacerbated by the fact that men destroy our capacity to identify it as violence by naming it as love and sex, suppressing all external evidence and confirmation that this is violence, which forces us to dissociate even more. The dissociation comes in form of flashbacks, urges, which are drug-like, and also in the form of extreme trauma-bonding to men. That is, the incapacity to see PIV as violence and to experience genital stimulation as a form of dissociation to the violence and pain are an integral part of the effects of PIV. PIV destroys our psychic integrity as well as our physical integrity, we literally splinter into million pieces. This genital stimulation and dissociation/urges is a way we have coped with repeated PIV and especially how men have trained us to cope with incessant piv/rape.

    I have written a series on this if you look up in previous entries – the series is called the politics of love, plus a post on PIV as rape.

  12. 12 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 12:20 am

    also, the urges tend to diminish over time, but most importantly the way to heal from the flashbacks and urges is to reintegrate the experiences with the full conscience of the violence of those acts. Basically so long as the connection between the violence and the lived experience hasn’t been made, we will continue to have these dissociative reactions even just at the thought of being penetrated. The reason we still have the flashbacks and urges is because the experience of rape is still dissociated from our memory, we only remember the feelings of dissociation but can’t connect to the violence of those acts. That is, we have to find a way to officially recognise those experiences as rape, that we have been a victim of abuse and that those urges we feel are a direct consequence of abuse that we still have to struggle with today. It’s important to go bak to the first PIV also and try to think what consequences it had on our lives, how it might have triggered a series of sexual violence after that, or self-endangering behaviours, or long-term trauma-bonding to many men, extreme or increased vulnerbility to their sexual invasiveness, etc. And how these PIVs had damaging and traumatic consequences on our life and the way we relate to ourself and to others. I’m saying this because this is the only thing that has helped me, and this is really what feminism is about and why it is so freeing: because men have robbed our capacity to identify and name the violence they subject us to, naming an fully integrating those experiences in our body and history is what frees the spell of dissociation.

    I’ve said something similar at Skulldrix’s, so I’ll copy paste my comment here:

    wrt heterosexual hiccups, I have talked about it in several of my posts, but something that helps end the flashbacks of PIV and the dissociative arousals caused by the rape threat is certainly to see how every act of PIV was rape, and to see ourselves as rape victims, and to link the rapes to later consequences on our lives (dissociative disorders, hightened trauma-bonding to men, etc).

    Not long ago i bumped into a guy who had raped me when i was a child, it was the first PIV i’d ever had. He came up to me to say he was sorry and that it was the worst thing he’d ever done. Of course, he took that opportunity to mansplain about himself how he had become a better man, pro-feminist dude, etc.

    One of men’s weapons is to deny us the capacity to identify and name the violence they subject us to, which is what causes such extreme dissociation, confusion and colonisation. They own our reality and they can choose to take it away from us or at very rare occasions, give snippets of it back to us so we should be grateful to them. The fact is, for him to come up to me and name it as rape, it had the effect of making the violence of the event completely obvious and clear: even if I knew it intellectually before, i didn’t feel it, i still felt self-doubt, guilt and shame.

    All this to say that freeing ourselves from “heteresexual hiccups” and dissociative arousals is directly linked to our capacity to identify and experience the violence of the rapes. In my experience, to officially see that this was rape, immediately freed me both of the shame I felt, my desire to forget and erase this experience of my life, of the dissociative flashes of PIV, and of this horrible reaction of trauma-bonding to men: because it was all linked to this and it really started with the first PIV/rape. After the reality of rape being given back to me, I never had these dissociative reactions the same way again. I could finally reintegrate this event in my life story and see myself as a victim of abuse, and therefore link it to the consequences it had on me later: years of sexual abuse and trauma-bonding to men. It became clear. For the first time I could experience the rage, disgust and anger against him and of having been abused, there wasn’t this blank screen any more between my perception and what happened.

  13. 13 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 12:23 am

    oh and wrt women penetrating each other, that’s just because they haven’t freed themselves from the imperative that we be treated as penetrable and that we treat our vagina as a socket for dicks, and in the absence of men, for dick-shaped objects. It’s based on internalised misogyny, hatred of our body and ignorance of all the subtle and beautiful ways we can bond and communicate physically and emotionally with each other as women, that are not based on domination and surbordination.

  14. 14 RedHawk May 2, 2014 at 1:29 am

    It’s like we all suffer from a form Stockholm syndrome…to the point where women violate other women by emulating the actions of men. Wow.
    Is the answer, then, instead of finding an alternate sexual expression, to become asexual?

    I admit, in tapping into some of my anger and disgust regarding that which I have been subjected to all my life, I find myself wanting to seek some sort of…revenge, for lack of a better word. I want to turn the tables. I want men to experience that feeling of violation. Is that wrong? Is that just further proof of my indoctrination into this male dominated society? Maybe if all men were made to experience what it is to be violated in that way, they would understand a little better what it is they’ve been doing to us? Or are they incapable because, well, they’re men?

    Pardon me if this is too graphic, but the thought of lining up a bunch of men and reaming them with penis shaped objects, both orally and in the rear, makes me smile. Maybe they wouldn’t ever really understand, but at least it would be a start. I don’t know, I’m just thinking out loud.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am learning so much!

  15. 15 Robin Claassen May 2, 2014 at 1:40 am

    Witchwind, I wasn’t sure where to put this comment, but I thought that you might like to know that someone linked to your “PIV is always rape, ok?” blog post on an image that was on the front page of Imgur for at least a day: http://imgur.com/gallery/TvmhYE8/ (roonmian’s response to bumcivilian17’s comment). As a warning, some of the responses expressed disrespect toward you and/or your ideas, but if you think you can tolerate exposing yourself to that, you might find it interesting to see the variety of reactions from people who had likely never been exposed to those ideas before.

  16. 16 skulldrix May 2, 2014 at 1:55 am

    I love everything you write. It rings the truth that all women possess. And as I read more of your writing it becomes less shockingly epiphanal and more like obvious everyday reality I was already pondering.

  17. 17 SisterRay May 2, 2014 at 2:18 am

    I don’t think womyn even really do this outside of pornography, of course manufactured by, and for the gratification of men. Ridiculous belts and harnesses that effectively transform one of the actresses into a de facto man. Actual lesbians do not do this.

    It does lead to an interesting question though. Without any kind of penetration, how is the G-spot stimulated ? Or is there even such a physiological thing as the G-spot ? Research seems to suggest both, though I’m not an expert. I didn’t experience a clitoral orgasm until age 29, and even then it took straddling a tempermental radiator to manage it. Is the G-spot a myth created by men to justify control, or is it something that can be accessed by fingers or fist (since clearly penises don’t do it and violently tear up the tissues as well).

  18. 18 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 2:52 am

    I have yet to write about my views on sexual relationships with women, but I think that sexualising physical touch is something that derives from male sexual invasion and objectifying the other (seeing as means to an end) and has nothing to do with communicating affection, closeness and warmth or pleasure through touching physically a woman that you like. All men’s sexual touch has an end-goal, which is penetration. When a touch is referred to as sexual, it is defined as such according to its connotation to intercourse.
    This is what defines it as sexual, because it either precedes or succeeds intercourse and communicates the desire of the male to engage in intercourse – Penile penetration is the defining paradigm, it is either subliminal in its message or direct. Sexualised touch, whether on the genital areas or other parts of the body is inherently violent IMO. It reproduces the male hierarchy and fragmentation of the female body, which cuts it into sexual and non-sexual areas, that is, the areas reserved for male use during PIV/rape (breasts, vagina, anus, etc) and the “other parts” which may or may not be sexualised according to the context. It teaches us to view some parts as shameful or to be hidden, and to treat some parts as not to be touched. When this dichotomy of sexual / non sexual area, wrt women, is fictitious. Touching any part of our body can be pleasurable as it might not be.
    Sexual touch is also a way for the male to communicate to the woman that she belongs to him, to communicate her touchable caste. Male sexual touching is thus directly tied to ownership, to the couple, to domination and subordination, and it never communicates affection but the fact that the man has right of touching his object, right of appropriation. It makes you feel like you’re an object and at best you’re constantly bartering your limits, but the very setting of the couple is to put you back to your touchable position where the other person has right of touching over you, where your limits are abandoned from the offset. This is the classical male couple relationship mode and it’s not reformable. I’m writing fast so what I’m saying might be a bit erratic, i’ll have to write a proper post to elaborate on what i’m saying.

    I think in our relationships with women we are to completely undo and re-found our way of touching and conceiving touching. Touching to me is simply a way of communicating and feeling with women. Only men are sexual, that is driven by sexual urges, the urge to use the other to relieve a sexual urge, which is inherently objectifying and violent. Women don’t have sexual urges, instead we long to bond in deep and intimate ways with other women, through emotional but also through physical touching. Physical touching is simply a different dimension of interacting, communicating and bonding. To me it’s never anything that can be “contractualised” or instituted through a “relationship” (whether couple or just one night stand etc) because it kills the spontaneity and natural movement of emotion by rendering it compulsory. It should feel as natural as talking when you feel close enough to a woman and feel the desire to touch and be touched.

  19. 19 Amanda Boannmi May 2, 2014 at 2:53 am

    I am currently trying to abstain from any contact with males at the moment, but i just cant see not getting a piping hot beef injection on occasion. I have an assortment of high quality toys, but there is just is no substitute getting Randy-ed with big tube steak. Suggestions on breaking my addicktion?

  20. 20 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:06 am

    wrt to wanting revenge, i think it’s normal to want to harm men but it’s pointless to try to revert the harm they inflict on us because they will simply never get to feel the extent of the horror they subject us to because in order for that to be possible they would have to be a women oppressed by men, with all the aspects of psychic and physical colonisation it entails during a lifetime. Sexism is simply no revertible, because for that happen, men would have to be oppressed by women, and second, men aren’t impregnable, because they’re men.

    also, men don’t fear women. At best they might indeed be afraid to die if you really threaten their lives but it won’t ever be the overpowering terror of annihilation we experience every day because of being erased on so many, many levels, collectively and individually. To give you an example, attacking a man individually would have the same effect than if a cat attacked his master and scratched him all over and say, bit him so as to severely injure him. Sure, the master would be physically harmed, but to him it’s an accident, he just failed to domesticate the cat properly. He’s not harmed in his integrity as a master and subject at all. It’s merely an annoyance to him. The master’s life, identity, sense of self, perceptions, sense of reality, etc, doesn’t depend in the slightest on the cat. What happened is just a slight error in his domination over the cat. It’s incomparable to the daily terror experienced by the cat whose life depends on the master, and whose survival depends on being “nice” to the master even if he beats her. Who is named by the master, isolated from her peers.

    Well imagine with women, the contrast is even starker, because we are far more psychically colonised by human males than animals are. The best we can do for ourselves individually is simply rid ourselves of men as much as we can in our daily lives, cut them out of our lives, and when time comes ad when it is sufficiently safe to do so, organise a concerted effort to cut them off more vital means for their dominance, whichever this may be.

  21. 21 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:11 am

    @ robin, thanks for letting me know, i rarely go to see those things because they’re just dispiriting and my life is better without it. I can’t protect myself from the effect it will have on me once I read it so the best is to avoid it. As a woman it always takes an extra effort to put things right again, it is very draining and even if i know it’s wrong and violent it still stays with me for some time. This is one of the reasons I cut down comment time because it was too toxic to have to to read to read the trolls so often.

  22. 22 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:19 am

    @Sister Ray, unfortunately most lesbians do this outside pornography, thanks to the infiltration and taking over of masculinist gay male interests in Lesbian communities. The pornification and phallicisation of Lesbian relationships comes directly from male ponorgraphy, both “het” and gay. The widespread use of BDSM and phallic objects in lesbian communities has really come from gay men though, who fetishised extreme forms of sexual violence and domination and subordination. If you’re interested in this subject the best account I know of this masculinist requisition of lesbianism is written by Sheila Jeffreys in “unpacking queer thoery”. (The queer movement forms part of the gay anti-lesbian feminist backlash).

  23. 23 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:23 am

    @ skulldrix, aw thank you!

  24. 24 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:33 am

    oh, and the G-spot is a Myth. Anne Koedt wrote a good article on that, I can’t remember the title of it, but it’s on the myth of vaginal orgasm. You’ll find it on google, if not, I could probably dig up a link somewhere. basically the clitoris is a huge organ that extends far beyond the vulva, and is closely tied to several internal organs, and has millions of sensory connections and tiny blood vessels which can swell. try to find a 3D image of the clitoris it’s absolutely amazing if you haven’t seen it yet. Any pleasure in the vaginal or vulva area will necessarily be related to the clitoris, except for the senses related to the outer skin parts of course. And not only its absolutely unnecessary to penetrate the vagina to feel pleasure, but it’s much less effective – besides most of this “pleasure” is derived from the violence of the act instead of the pleasure itself (it’s mechanical form of dissociation to violence that we learn through grooming). Stimulation of the clitoris can be done from the vulva and this is where the outer connections are most acute anyway, it doesn’t need violent, accelerating cramming to be stimulated, simply gentle touch.

  25. 25 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:45 am

    @ amanda, i didn’t understand everything you said but it might help to track down to where this “addiction” started and link it to the acts of violence – what was so violent and threatening about it that you had to dissociate from it. And go back further than that, to understand how you found yourself in this situation in the first place, what had your parents or other males done to you for a male to be able to hurt you and trap you in this rape situation. How he got about doing it etc: isolating you, presenting as a saviour when he clearly identified your desperation, reverting guilt and shame, denying his violence, requiring you to be silent about it, degrading you, etc etc. The “addiction” is basically a symptom of PTSD, that is a consequence of ongoing trauma or abuse, and addiction is a continued way of dissociating both from the abuse and the ongoing effects of the trauma (flashbacks, anxiety, depression, melancholia, feeling of emptiness, etc – the consequences are endless).

  26. 26 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am

    see my responses above to redhawk where I address the same thing

  27. 27 amunetra May 2, 2014 at 5:07 am

    I realise this isn’t the topic of the post, but has been addressed in the comments…

    I would very much enjoy reading an article by you on the topic of sexuality with women. This is one of the topics I have the most confusion about myself and I find your writing to be very enlightening and I’m sure it would help me.

    I have been celibate for almost a decade now and and have still yet to work out what my sexuality is, or what it’s for, or if it’s even real. I have always been “heterosexual”, and even now after such a long time without it I still occasionally have thoughts and desires in that direction. I understand that this is a product of the conditioning and trauma-bonding of the man society I live in, but I am very unsure as to what remains (or would remain) if I could ever truly remove that indoctrination.

    Even though those feelings and desires are sometimes aggressive and very physical (and not spiritual), I still feel as though the drive behind them is coming from me, even if I have been taught how and where to “correctly” direct those urges. But those urges have never directed me towards women, and when I’ve tried to guide them that way they refuse. I can only conclude the urges are not really (naturally) a part of me at all. But then so many women find loving and “sexual” happiness with each other, so surely there is some part of that in me that really is natural, and not taught by men?

    I probably didn’t make much sense there, but that is fairly indicative of my confused stance on the whole matter.

    However, I wouldn’t waste more time trying to address “Amanda Boanmi”s thoughts on the matter, as a more obvious troll I never did see (the clue is in the name).

  28. 28 Robin Claassen May 2, 2014 at 7:28 am

    @ witchwind: I understand how dispiriting it can be to experience people disrespecting you and what you care about, and your decision to not expose yourself to any more of that than already gets directed at you. I’m sorry that that’s something you’re forced to deal with in your work on these issues, and I admire your strength to carry on despite that.

  29. 29 SisterRay May 2, 2014 at 8:06 am

    @witchwind thanx for the response.

    So the strap-on apparatus is really a thing for lesbians ? I’ve spent quite a bit of time in intimate lesbian circles, and while dildos and vibing are quite beloved, dressing up in leather and strapping on a fake cock isn’t something I’ve seen or heard of. More to the point, the lesbians I’ve known and loved used to make it a hobby to laugh at so-called lipstick lesbian porn.

    I will definitely look for that book, since it sounds like highly interesting reading material.

  30. 30 blackmetalvalkyrie May 2, 2014 at 8:58 am

    I am getting really sick of self proclaimed rad fems defending various types of relationships with men. On separatism full separatism may not be possible for all women but we have the ability to be more separatist than we think. We certainly are not forced to have male friends, those should be the first to go. In other news- women are being blamed for mens perversion (whats new)- http://jezebel.com/fetish-models-arrested-for-ripping-off-chicken-heads-in-1570491165
    On the topic of the mythical gspot, I believe in it as much as I believe in male feminist unicorns, male rape victims, the communist state, male rights jackivism, “empowering” sex slavery etc. I remember Laci Green in a video chastising rad fems saying that science does not support our position… lol. She is everything that is wrong with feminism. In her latest video on nudism she completely trivialized women’s concerns that men are creeps and will take advantage of women nakedness. Or maybe she has a newer video now but this is recent.

  31. 31 blackmetalvalkyrie May 2, 2014 at 9:02 am

    Or as I like to call it male rites jackivism. By “position” I might the fact we know that the gspot is a creation of men to justify their rape and has no basis in science.

  32. 32 blackmetalvalkyrie May 2, 2014 at 10:00 am

    If you have a “craving’ for PIV just picture his penis as a disease infested giant worm or shit. That’s pretty much what it is anyways.
    I often worry about being raped and infected with deadly/untreatable infections. How can I stop worrying about this? I also worry I may have some kind of disease bc I had a guy who is a slut and even had sex with other men do oral sex on me, I did it on him but with a condom. This was when I was 15 and I found feminism shortly after. Maybe he gave me HPV? I did have a shot before that and I don’t have warts but I still worry. The “pleasure” was not worth it. I felt self conscious and anxious. If I could go back I would never have done it but at least I didn’t have PIV and found femonade’s blog before that. Men’s mouths are gross and even if you think he’s straight he probably sucked a man’s bare cock and/or licked his butthole. Just think of men as gross festering spreaders of disease in every sense of the word bc they are. Repeat after me: “Men are gross, men are gross, men are gross.” If we weren’t around they wouldn’t even bother washing.

  33. 33 blackmetalvalkyrie May 2, 2014 at 10:02 am

    Of course you know I am a spinster and absolutely opposed to PIV so I don’t have to worry about “consensual” instances of infection but still…

  34. 34 Oana May 2, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    i agree with amunetra. i think “amanda” is a troll, because “she” is very vulgar and has got a very nasty way of speaking.

    i think there is a sex urge in us that does not originate from men’s violence. men’s violence makes us express it in ways harmful to us(especially emotionally harmful). we have a long way to deprogram ourselves and develop a good and healthy relationship with our own bodies and other women.

    i think men when have a sexual disease, it is always taken from other men, although they blame it on “whores”. they give it to “whores” and then they say that it happened the other way, which is not true.

    i remember when i had was having piv, the guy was very “concerned” with protection and disease. he was implying that i might give him a disease, although he was sleeping with lots of women and problably had a thing or two with other men. he was also very concerned that i might get pregnant and he was afraid of consequences, which were going to affect him, which didn’t actually exist btw. in the end, he didn’t use any protection. that was one way of him mindfucking me. men’s minds are so twisted. they are so aware of what they are doing the whole time and they find it really funny.
    also i remember other time when he threatened to rape me, although i was sleeping with him, like everything he was doing to me at that time was “consensual”. there was no way at that moment i could have run from there and escape piv and sexual torture. the first time i was there i recall thinking that i didn’t want to be there, but that i had to go through it to get out of there. and this has happened every time when a man was raping and sexually torturing me, or just sexually torturing me. i was getting in the wolves mouth and had to be eaten, so that i could escape.

  35. 35 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    hi, i agree amanda is a troll, I won’t let her comment here again. Just read the continuation of the thread at Skull’s and I wish I hadn’t. “Women” throwing extremely violent rape threats at each other in some very perverse way, it’s of a kind of violence I have only seen in porn films. will respond to the rest of your comment later

  36. 36 Oana May 2, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    yes. i’ve already read the thread of skull’s. men have played with our mind once again. it also gave me the impression that they have been surveiling our discussions for a long time and have learned in the meantime to mimic our way of thinking to fool us. i don’t know what else this could mean, except that they are a bunch of parasites that try to imitate and copy women so that they trick us in to thinking that men and women are the same species.

  37. 37 witchwind May 2, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    If they’re trying to mimic radfems they’re not trying very hard, they’re very overtly taking the piss, as the convo has become far too pornographic to resemble anything real. All they needed to say is “I’m new to radical feminism” please explain me this and that. Marythingy is a troll too, with that question “do you want to exterminate all men” – no woman new to feminism wold ask such a question. It’s typically a bait question so they can pin us down and then show to everyone that we are genocidal (which is a reversal). It angers me that I even responded to Mary and Amanda. Just at a time where I was thinking about loosening my modding standards to include more newcomers, as it can sometimes lead to interesting things happening. Well, I’m never going to do that again. Anything weird will be trashed.

  38. 38 Tracy25 May 2, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    Separatism is Indeed the logical Endpoint to Radical Feminist thinking. Even the very basic understanding that Men are not Women and Women are not Men will create a kind of Seed of Separatism in the mind, where it becomes Possible and even Easy and Logical to separate even further. But of course, Women equal Men and Men equal Women is the basis of equality politics. It is no Coincidence that this is largely if not entirely the form mainstream Feminism takes, it is a complete Reversal and actually prevents women from separating on Any Level, especially on the Level of Thought which much precede anything else. In the United States we have the Supreme Court saying that “Separate is not Equal” in the case of racially based school segregation, and this seems to be the liberal feminist position as well, where they apply principles of Male Antidiscrimination politics to sexual politics. They then conclude that if we are Separate then we are getting a Raw Deal, and that the only way for Feminism to succeed is with full “Integration” which is the antithesis of Separatism! And therefore the Antithesis of Radical feminism.

    Even so-called Radical Feminists and Rad Funs have misidentified the root of the problem as Male Violence and not Men, and those are the ones that even use the M-word at all. Once you identify the problem as being Men (which includes male violence but also men’s misogyny, Parasitism, Necrophilia, domination strategies, sexual and reproductive abuse of Women) it seems perfectly Reasonable and Logical to try to Separate from men and Maleness. Of course, this is the one thing we are never allowed to talk about, lest the Rad Funs separate themselves from us! Some of us have stopped caring about that, and have Realized how small our Numbers really are. Which is better than the alternative, and watering down Real Feminism so that it is Palatable to women and men who refuse both to Identify the real Problem and to make real, valid points.

    Regarding the distinction between Reclusive and Boundary line separatism that you make here Witch Wind, this is an interesting Distinction to make. I would not Dismiss Reclusive feminism, although I can see the Benefits of Boundary-living and Be-ing around women who Get It, and helping that happen. In my Own Journey, and seeing what men Really Are has made me think that Natural Law is the only law that applies here (or anywhere really), and that Men through their Social Engineering including global infant Femicide, the Burning Times, procreation through rape and selective breeding with only Male Pleasing females, Et cetera have created too many males, while Weeding out Radical Feminists and Radical Consciousness the best they could. The result has been nothing short of Global Catastrophe and Crisis. The time has passed where anyone could Argue that Men’s Way is just another way, and just as Valid as the next way. Natural Law says otherwise, and I believe that Natural Law is what will correct this, and that it is the only thing that Can now. Sparking and spiraling with Radical Women is part of Natural law and cannot be Stopped. But stepping back from all of this into Radical Reclusion, and letting Natural Law take its course without Direct Action on our part is a valid response as well. This is what I think anyway.

  39. 39 Tracy25 May 2, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    As you are one of very Few Radical Feminists writing currently, and as you have invited an Open Thread here (which was unfortunately hijacked) I would also like to comment on a Meme I have been noticing lately in Liberal and Progressive discourse, which is that “society” is actually getting less Violent over time. I have heard this Sentiment three times in as many Weeks, this seems to be very in the Foreground of the Liberal Mainstream at the moment. My thought is that, Well, if you define Violence to exclude certain things, in this case, the things Men are doing more of, then sure, you can make it look like Anything you wish. You could call Violent Pornography “Corn on the Cob” and then ponder over how much “everyone” seems to like Corn these days too. It is about as intellectually honest as saying that Society is getting Less violent. Of course, I count the Male Colonization of women, sexualized violence including Pornography, and Environmental destruction (as examples) as Violence and these Liberal Commentators clearly don’t.

    Dworkin commented on this decades ago, and it is as True now as when She first said it, maybe more. Whatever you want to do to another person that is Violent, be it hitting, burning, whipping, cutting, destroying, Et cetera, as long as you are doing it to a Woman, and especially to her Genitals, it is not violence at all, but “sex” and “sex” does not Count as Violence. That Dworkin (and others) could make such Cogent points and truthful Analyses of our Condition and not desire to Separate from or give up on men is an Unfortunate Tradition we need not continue, and it looks like We aren’t!

  40. 40 skulldrix May 2, 2014 at 11:32 pm

    @ Witchwind

    I just spent the entire day spamming through the vulgar and misogynistic comments of Amanda, MaryMl, and Anika. I’m not sure if troll or just devastatingly abused victims.

  41. 41 witchwind May 3, 2014 at 4:02 am

    Thank you Tracy for such an insightful comment, and I’m glad you took on the discussion of separatism, especially the point regarding boundary-living vs reclusive separatism.

    Wrt equality politics, it’s funny but very logical when we look at it from a radical feminist perspective, that equality feminism does exactly the opposite of what we should do to free and protect ourselves: rush back to the oppressor, in any possible way. Equality politics is something promoted by men on a mass level: the UN imposes it in colonised countries, many states create their ministry for women’s rights, etc. The reason why men do this is so that they can assimilate budding feminists and thus keep financial, psychological and physical control on the women’s movement, prevent it from becoming radical, prevent women from going to the end of their thoughts, it keeps us bonded to men and grateful etc. It not only “dulls the feminist impulse” as Mary Daly said but it means that men get to contain and trap women into their system, and manipulate women into acting against their interest and sabotage their chances to get away from men.

    Perhaps boundary-living and reclusive separatism isn’t that distinct also. My observation about my current state is that I know that I would not be able to live without communicating with radical feminists for instance, whether in a reduced group or not. And I love creating conditions in which spark can happen, to witness the wildfire igniting.
    Sonia for instance hasn’t completely given up trying to communicate to women since she still published a book after they both made this decision to “leave the world”. I don’t think however that the knowledge that natural law will take its course (that we simply have to wait till men disappear if we can’t kill our oppressors individually) and boundary living are incompatible. Action and being are inseparable and I will always define radical feminist action as spinning and sparking.

    I will comment more tomorrow, time seems to be so sparse these days. There is so much more to say about this.

  42. 42 witchwind May 3, 2014 at 4:42 am

    I’ll comment more now actually. This question of reclusive vs boundary-living is actually an ontological split between those who still believe that women can have the capacity to contribute to the extinction of patriarchy – even if it is nothing short of a miracle, many women believe in this miracle. That one day we will reach a critical mass and get rid of our oppressors each of us individually, but in a collective impulse. Or something, whatever the variation is.

    And reclusive separatism is those who have decided or who believe that radical feminists will always be a minority, or that we simply won’t ever have the means to wake up together in synchonicity and put an end to maleness – that nature will have to do that. It doesn’t mean that all women don’t have this potential but that this potential can’t be realised given the conditions in which men put us which are too totalistic and that we have nowhere to escape and we’re too isolated, etc.

    the difference isn’t to me so much in how we view the means but how we view the probability of women liberating ourselves given the conditions. What are the probabilities of women rising up and out and who manage to cut down male population to non-threatening levels, that is, by defending themselves against their oppressor(s) and killing him?

    I don’t know what to think really. I still don’t know whether women will see the day where patriarchy will be gone. I have never known for sure. What I do know is that patriarchy won’t last forever, it will disappear somehow. What form of life will survive after that, I don’t know. If for now I choose boundary-living, is because I need the experience of interacting with women, I learn and grow from it. Despite this, I believe in magic, and think magic is possible. And working with the elements is possible too. I still have much to learn.

  43. 43 witchwind May 3, 2014 at 4:48 am

    of course i am talking about radical feminist separatists here, because there are reclusive separatists who aren’t radical feminist or who are reclusive separatist for different reasons.

  44. 44 witchwind May 3, 2014 at 4:51 am

    that’s interesting wrt to the meme that societies are getting less violent over time. I don’t even know whether this can be held true even from an androcentric perspective – whether, from men’s perspective, it only applies to an elite of white men. If it is true that men globally endure less violence than they used to, it only means that there is a global brotherhood that is now more united than ever against women.

  45. 45 witchwind May 3, 2014 at 5:00 am

    “But stepping back from all of this into Radical Reclusion, and letting Natural Law take its course without Direct Action on our part is a valid response as well. This is what I think anyway.”

    I’m going to have to think more about this. This maybe assumes that we can’t communicate with the natural law (which are the elements – or what do you define as natural law?), that we can’t influence her/ them, or that we aren’t the natural law, or there is still some separation, that we have to wait until IT happens rather than participating in it, whichever the way we participate in it, by being, communicating, sparking, etc. Maybe we will all take our course at the same time? It makes sense that since all female life participates in being, that we all participate in the natural law.

  46. 46 Brynn May 3, 2014 at 6:05 am

    Natural Law has already begun to diminish the size of the Y chromosome, but evolution is painfully slow at reaching a female-dominant society. I respect that nature should take its due course (which will eventually and inevitably lead to the end of men), but considering the dire circumstances that we are forced to deal with in our interactions with men, I would say the moral question of expediting such a transformation would be negligible.

    @Witchwind I can’t thank you enough for opening up and maintaining a forum for such important discourse. As Tracy25 mentioned, you are one of the few Radical Feminists writing currently, and it is so important to have a safe place to share with like-minded individuals. When (not if) women are finally liberated from this patriarchy, it will start with powerful ideas from people like you! Thank you.

  47. 47 Tracy25 May 3, 2014 at 6:41 am

    Women are Natural Law, this is True! Radical feminism follows Natural Law, which Law states that Women are Not to be oppressed by Men, and that Men are Not to control Women, or reproduction. The way we Know that Natural Law states this, is that Men have gone against this (what appears to be a Central Tenet) and directly following from That, they have managed to nearly destroy the World. Women’s Global, Timeless aversion to PIV intercourse and to penis-centric “sex” follows Natural Law. Some Females dispatching children (especially males) at birth follows Natural Law. Males being born Naturally more sickly and frail follows Natural Law. It has taken great feats of Male Social Engineering to go against this, and they have been very destructive to both Women and Nature but they have Not been successful at rewriting the Law. That is the One thing, maybe the Only thing they Cannot do.

    You have written about Other things that appear to be Natural Law playing out and Taking Care of the Problem of Maleness, and overwhelming maleness. Like more Female fetuses being produced, and less males, in times of Maternal Stress. Like Environmental Pollutants being specifically harmful to Male fetuses, but not Female. Men are more or less Naturally Violent and will kill themselves and each other if We let this play out, and We should! This is where Separatism comes in, women no longer save Males from themselves, and we are no longer placing Ourselves Voluntarily in Harm’s Way, such as we can help it. Women Saving Men from themselves, and getting in the way of men’s Violence so that we are also harmed (and having both things seem completely Natural) is the result of millenia of men’s Social Engineering to Make it So. Anything that goes Against men’s Social Engineering in these areas, all areas, is probably a good idea, but I would stress that if left to its own devices, everything would follow Natural law, not Men’s Law. So Be-ing, as opposed to Do-ing, is important here as you say. This has been Discussed before. We need to re-member (or create) our own devices, as well as Letting Go of men’s. Separatism, whether Reclusive or Boundary Living, seems to fit that bill.

    I suppose New Age religion has stolen This truth from Women, as it has stolen (and reversed) so much, and I know this kind of Talk makes people think of this, so I might as well Address it. Reclusive Separatism does kind of evoke the “Let go and let God” New Agers propose, only when they say it they mean “Let go and let men and maleness do whatever it wants.” That is not, of course, what I Mean when I say it (or something that looks Superficially like it) but there is a Letting Go feeling or quality to it, and it has been Freeing and Peaceful for me to realize that Nature (not God) will Take Care of the Problem of men, and that This has Already Started. And you are very Right to say that Women are part of Nature, and therefore a part of (and not Separate from) this Natural solution. Absolutely, we are. Apologies if this did not Clarify anything, but as you say, there is a Lot to be discussed.

  48. 48 skulldrix May 3, 2014 at 6:45 am

    @ Witchwind

    Okay, so earlier I see you made an honest and interesting comment about female sexuality, touching and lesbianism.

    Before I became a radical feminist lesbian, I was not interested in lesbianism because I saw the same heterosexual patterns and objectifying, dom/sub models of men. So I figured I might as well get it the best from the original source because I felt there was no real benefits to being a lesbian because I’d face constant woman on woman hatred and women who tried to model men’s abuse.

    This is true for the majority of the lesbian community. The codependency, the sexual objectification and violation of women through sado-masochistic sexual practices, which includes penetration. Men’s sexuality is different than female sexuality. Men’s sexuality is disconnected from love, relation, communion, and affection, that’s why “liberated sex” is synonymous with hook-up culture, it’s just men’s preferred practice of gratification becoming trendy ( yet obviously here to stay because, piv for free and no effort on men’s be half is the end all be all of female freedom).

    I never saw the point of hooking up with an individual just sexually and then leaving them. Women know this is irrational. Why not have all the amazing components of a mutual relationship, which actually would enhance and fuse the sexual aspect? Only men can use someone’s body for their own sexual fulfillment then become absent, because they’ve been doing it for thousands of years, and aren’t interested in relating or LIVING in the world. Hence why men don’t care for relationships, or understand them.

    I don’t want to make my comment too long or sound like I’m clueless of the “sexual revolution”, pornography, LGBTQ community, gay men,neo-liberalism, compulsory heterosexuality, and all the institutions of men’s patriarchy that directly produced mainstream lesbianism and female sexuality today- it’s just been very tiring dealing with all the mindfuckery of men posing as women today and I am terribly exhausted from it- but there is a clear way I think lesbianism should be done.

    Like throwing aways all ideas of “attractiveness” and judging who’s datable by their “fuckability” and all those male lies. Whatever happened to forming relationships with people who you have deep internal connection/ understanding with. Physical attraction is the code of men, for again they don’t seek to relate or connect so they judge by the surface, because that’s all the world is to them in their sick minds.

    Like TRULY developing and participating in a mutually reciprocal relationship with a woman as opposed to a romantic one. I always hated romance even as a child, because I knew it was all a tricking process by men, so that’s why i never fell in or believed in love with the men who raped me.

    Ending codependency and fear of loneliness. Understanding we don’t need a romantic partner or sexual contact have relation, fulfillment and love in this world. As we can see this myth clearly benefits and stem’s from heterosexuality.

    Respecting one another as human beings. You brought up a point about female touching which Is the complete truth. As a woman lover, I never dared touch any of my friends or even women I had crushes on because I saw them as full human beings with boundaries and respect.

    If a woman I had a crush on touched or caressed me, and I knew she wasn’t interested in me the same way or wasn’t radfem, I wouldn’t touch back but only respond in the mutual hugging. That’s something that proves men’s stupidity, they can’t be friends with women who don’t want to have sex with, because they just want to violate them in the first place.

    The idea of touching or staring down my closest friends or any woman is unthinkable. It’s not that touch or staring isn’t acceptable at the appropriate and reciprocating times, it of course like you mentioned, is about what it means to both partners, but there is this subtle understanding I’ve always carried, that a person’s body is not an object to be touched, used, or stared at by another, to do so is violation and molestation.

    But thank you for bringing this up, even if it was brought by through potentially by spammers. It’s got me engaged.

  49. 49 Oana May 3, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    if some part of the natural law is going to do something to stop patriarchy, it’s going to be us, women. from our very own cells, to our daily lives actions. our own DNA fights the men’s DNA, so we, radical feminists, fight patriarchy. although we haven’t won so far, there are still many ways ahead to try and defeat these parasites. i don’t think it’s going to be over until we win. men can’t live without us, but we could survive without them.

  50. 50 blackmetalvalkyrie May 3, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    “society” is actually getting less Violent over time” thanks for naming that Tracy, I have seen that too, what really is happening is that men are gaslighting/mindfucking more than they ever have. They refuse to name prostitution and porn as human rights abuse. You are right about “new age” being nothing but endless reversals.

  51. 51 Tracy25 May 3, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    Perhaps another Way to think about it is, Women, being part of Nature, will be Part of the Natural Solution…but Probably not all of it. And that We are already Doing it, just like Nature is already Doing it. It takes away the Pressure and the Imminence of Activism, which feels like Responsibility and can easily turn into Blame. The “Moral Question” issue, as well as the Warlike mindset turn into Blame (blaming women) when taken to their logical (Natural) endpoints, do they not? Meaning, we haven’t Fought hard enough, or long enough. Or, that the Horribleness of it somehow makes women that much more Responsible for ending it, and it is so Horrible that huge amounts of responsibility and blame follow. It does not Have to be this way, see Above for Women only being Part of the Solution and not all of it.

    I would also like to Comment on something Mary Daly said was important for women and our Liberation, and that is Joy. I think Mary Daly knew how to Access Joy, and that Sonia Johnson does too, and that Andrea Dworkin probably did not. If Witch Wind’s assessment is correct, that Daly was a boundary-living separatist and Johnson is a Reclusive separatist, and we know that Dworkin was not a separatist (and was an Equalist) it seems as if there is Joy in Separatism, either kind. And it is possible that there is No Joy for women without it. These things are all Related, I think.

  52. 52 witchwind May 3, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    Thanks for addressing this question of joy because I do also think it is intimately related to both radical feminism and separatism. In fact I think we even have a moral obligation to make our radical feminism joyful. Will comment more later. I’ll probably let the comments a few more days open this month as they will be closed in June.

  53. 53 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 2:11 am

    Back to the joy, it’s a very good point that the thing in common between different forms of separatism is joy, and especially heightened and enrichened forms of interaction and communication, either with women, animals or elements – an interaction which Mary Daly calls ecstatic, and it really is. For joy, reintegration and true communication is not possible in a state of violence and fragmentation, where every second of our time and energy must be spent on avoiding or surviving the attacks on our integrity. There is joy simply in finding ourselves again, too. It is like finding our long lost but best and most intimate, most compassionate, funniest, nicest friend and traveling companion. It’s very sweet.

    I also think it’s important to find a way to relieve this pressure of constant emergency like we have the weight of the whole world on our own shoulders. Men’s violence is so total, so overwhelming and so horrible it is not possible to psychically assume responsibility for protecting all other women at the same time, because we will always beat ourselves up for not doing enough. I also tend to think that our liberation is far more individualistic than we think it is, in that each woman has the responsibility to free herself, since no woman can do it for her. This does not mean we should give up helping women but we shouldn’t destroy our lives in doing it. Our act of supporting other women should be joyful, or strive to be. It shouldn’t be destructive.

    Men of course deprive us of any means to put a stop to their violence individually and collectively, which is why after so many generations of us have tried so hard to rebel, men are stronger than ever, and each generation of men has become worse, because they’ve learned from the mistakes of their predecessors and peers, and also from the attempts to escape of women: they know what to do to prevent this from happening next time. So there’s only so much we can do individually or even as a small group. The only power we do have that doesn’t require material means which men deprive us of, is our power to touch other women, the power to move each other, and move I mean in every sense possible. I don’t know where to go from this but what it means is that once the wind will be blowing we will be swept by it and the crumbling down of patriarchy will be effortless, or, natural. Just as natural and visceral as it is as when we come back to consciousness and came back to ourselves. It will have the same feeling of being swept by something greater than us, yet we are also participating in it, we are part of it. This is what the Movement is. It will come. Witchcraft is just like this, it doesn’t require any particular effort, it is very light, very subtle even. It requires some particular attention and especially, sensitivity.

  54. 54 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 2:37 am

    When you say, Tracy, that women aren’t the solution but part of it, this also relates to the fact that a movement can’t be something you control, or initiate by yourself, as in impose. It necessarily is something greater than yourself, in which we participate in and of which we’re a part. It is quite possible that a movement is a an element by itself, an energetic flow or matter of some sort, and that the elements are part of it too, just as we are. This is my image. But it isn’t something independent, it’s composed of us, we all co-create it.

  55. 55 shediogenes May 4, 2014 at 2:55 am

    wrt to lesbian sex and gspot. I am a lesbian and have tried various forms of sexual stimulation devices with women, didnt find strapons to live up to the hype, theyre awkward. I suppose I tried them because the imagery was familiar and when I was younger I was still working out sexual abuse and trauma issues. there certainly are spots within the vagina that can enhance sexual stimulation, but for my part they are secondary and only work in conjunction with external clitoral stimulation. those spots most likely are in fact clitoral stimulation, simply on a different part of the nerve strand, and reaching them doesnt require deep penetration. sexual stimulation and orgasm release a lot of pleasing and pain reducing brain chemicals that are adaptations we have had to evolve to deal with piv and childbirth, and they reinforce trauma bonding considerably. I wish I could cite the study I heard about that examined release of endorphins, dopamine and seratonin. I heard it on the radio and dont recall the source, but basically the gist was that the brain chemicals release could also be achieved by 1. eating certain foods, like chocolate, but also 2. from getting a good deep hug. The report found that endorphin release from hugs was sustained far longer than that from orgasm. Sometimes when I feel like I need sex, all I’m really in need of is the kind of interaction of non sexual touch that results in all those warming brain secretions. Unfortunately, sexual release is easier to come by than a good deep hug, even among lesbians. in any case, stimulating endorphin release without coupling it to trauma bond reinforcing behavior was not possible for me for a long time. several years of celibacy helped (too much chocolate, not enough hugs) and when I began having sex again I put limits on traumatic penetrative practices and refuse to have sex with women who wish to view porn. as much as i enjoy it, sex pales in comparison to non sexual touching and sexual touch without any ultimate orgasm goal. if I cant get that, theres always chocolate

  56. 56 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 3:01 am

    finally, back to the idea of imminent urgent action, related to activism and reactionism to male foreground genocidal emergencies: the image this gives me is one of panic, and frantic running around in every and no direction. It also evokes a complete sense of paralysis, of being completely overpowered, shattered by the unimaginable scope of men’s atrocity, of their infinite unstoppable evil, of being tiny and flattened by an infinitely massive evil. Or of being endlessly prodded by more and new violence, there is so much of it we don’t know where to look, here and here and here and here! here! and after two minutes we are already exhausted and burned out by having to react to it all yet we know that there are still 3 billion “heres” to react to and it only brings despair because we know we will never be able to address them all, and it only makes us feel more desperately powerless.

    I don’t know if this makes any sense but as I tend to think visually, either in patterns or images, it’s easier for me to describe what I see.

    What it means is that this activist “reactionism” as I call it, distracts us from our true course. We aren’t self-focused but focused on men’s violence. Panic and paralysis is a normal reaction to violence but activism / reactionism is a form of panic, a way of being constantly distracted by men, running around in all and no direction, maintaining this sense of desperate powerlessness because we know we will never be ahead of their billion daily atrocities.

  57. 57 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 3:08 am

    freeing ourselves from men’s violence requires focus (fierce focus as Mary Daly says). And focus is powerful, it also has a powerful force of attraction. When focus is fierce, things will happen, they are accidentally timely. You attract events to you. A radical feminist movement has this focus, which is also what makes its force so sweeping. Focus doesn’t mean on a straight line though, but that all moments in all their diversity concourse towards this greater, wider movement, which is to be imagined as a spiral, something that grows outwards.

  58. 58 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 3:10 am

    This is why separatism is focused action.

  59. 59 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 3:22 am

    @shediogenes, i think this joins my point that sexual touch is inherently traumatic vs non-sexual touch (even anywhere on the body). there’s much to say about those science studies which reduce emotional bonding (the non trauma bonding type) to a set of chemicals released in our brain. Trauma atrophiates brain and body connections because of the dissociation, it literally cuts us off entire parts of our body.
    whereas non-traumatic bonding is the opposite of dissociation, it creates deep connections within and without, in ways that scientists probably have no idea. Comparing traumatic bonding to non-traumatic bonding is completely flawed and looking only at the release of certain chemicals doesn’t take account of this difference. Although in the case of trauma, whichever the form of dissociation, it is always achieved through drug-like chemicals whether they’re produced by our own body through sexual stimulation, scarring etc or by external products (alcohol, cocaine, etc).

    As I said I have yet to develop this aspect of sexual touch being inherently violent. This was one of my very early insights as a radical feminist and the first time I read anything confirming these thoughts was in one of Sonia Johnson’s books and she’s the only one who has addressed this as far as i know.

  60. 60 shediogenes May 4, 2014 at 3:29 am

    as to boundary separatism. men pretty much practice this already. womyn are not much in their thoughts unless they need someone to harm or exploit. how many men spend all day in mostly male offices, a few womyn to do all the grunt work and to objectify, same at home, the wife is good for piv rape, washing out their underwear, or smacking around when the mood strikes them, and then they tune out during the football game, nascar, golf, etc…. off to play golf, they dont care what the wife is up to or in need of, same with daughters, mothers, sisters. they tune us out and focus on other males, occasionally reinforcing their role as master and patriarch so they can continue leeching off our energy, otherwise focusing on themselves and other males. I see no reason for any controversy if we practice boundary separatism. whenever I hear anyone eschewing separatism, I know its just to continue colonising us to use us up. Radical Feminism has really helped me to maintain some distance from men and conserve my gynergy. I notice them less and less, I dont smile or make eye contact much anymore. days go by and I realize I havent really looked at or spoken to any men, other than the vigilant notice to keep myself from harm, I dont notice them much at all. I dont miss them, my thoughts are clearer, I have more energy and less stress. these little tastes of liberation leave me wanting more, and I believe separatism is the inevitable path. I enjoy your blog, its so nice to see these topics being discussed

  61. 61 Alexis Flamethrower Daimon May 4, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    hi witchwind,
    great post! its so good to see other women (you and women on the thread) have the same thoughts on the movement and on what radical feminism is about as me.
    For a while I have known that “the movement” is either the movement of women who are Self-centering, moving according to their inner telic force (as Mary Daly calls it), or its not going to be a movement at all. I agree whole-heartedly with you assessment of activism/re-activism, and that radical feminist consciousness will naturally lead to seeking out/attracting situations with women or alone which are freeing, healing, life-giving and in so doing we establish new patterns/connections which in turn contribute to what Mary Daly calls web of Be-Friending (or something like that) which is the context in which more women can move in this Self-centerin way. This is the way in which we are part of Natural Law both as subjects and as environment for other women/other movement. It’s a spiral, as you say.
    It’s also a wave, like you say, which can sweep us forward. I take the fact that separatism is being discussed on several blogs at the same time at the moment as evidence of synchronicity, and synchronicity is a symptom of the Wave, en energy field which makes more sparking possible among women.
    Contrary to the stress.inducing feel of activism, which makes us feel as if there is so much to do and so little time (all the emergencies) and keeps us “turning on our heels” (Mary Daly), catching The Wave has a calming, focussing effect. This is because information/consciousness is spreading by our own coming to consciousness and voicing/acting/being out of this consciousness we strengthen it which in turn makes it easier for other women to also access this consciousness. This doesn’t even have to be direct, as I’ve come to believe. Consciousness can be “downloaded” by women, we don’t even have to directly interact with them. I don’t know if I can explain this properly, but its kinda like the “Butterfly effect”, since we are all energetically connected, seemingly “non-activist” things like reading blogs, doing yoga, going for nature walks, if done with the right consciousness are all part of the movement for women.
    I also agree that liberation has to start with each woman for herself. Over at W4’s blog (wwomenwwarriors.com) one commenter has brought up the imminent collapse of civilization. I think this is part of natural law and that we are soon going to be faced with having to survive in the midst of the crumbling patriarchy. It’s crucial to find women with whom to form a “coven”, a group of support and strengthening of energetic resources. I believe soon all hell will break lose and this is how the earth is going to be decontamined from men. Let’s make sure we are among the surviving women. It’s a bottle-neck, most will not get through. What do we need to get through? A conscious connection with Background reality and women around us who share this connection. I think groups of women will have the best shot at surviving.
    Sorry if this reads erratically at the moment, I have a hard time coherently formulating these thoughts yet, but am thinking about a blog post about this topic too. We need to cut out men because they are leaks of our gynergy and we need all we have for ourselves. On an individual level. But also on a macro-level, since patriarchy runs on gynergy, more and more women cutting men out will also (as part of natural law) contribute to the crumbling of patriarchy. I think Earth is giving us an opportunity here, an opening, if that makes sense.

  62. 62 witchwind May 4, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    i see what you mean but again when we talk about men there is no comparison to be drawn with our experience as oppressed by THEM. Their experience of oppressing us and our experience of being oppressed by them is directly opposite. Their experience of ‘separatism’ from women isn’t one of separation but of ownership. We are their property, so in fact they consider us part of them, their possessions, and this is why we can’t be in their male circles because otherwise we wouldn’t be their possessions any more but their “equals” – just as they wouldn’t invite their animals or chattle to participate in their male circles, or in the same way that they put animals in barns or in separate spaces and don’t let the animals eat with them, etc.

    Men aren’t separated from us in the sense that they have acceess to us, to our thoughts, to our interiors, whenever THEY decide. Since they also exclude us, as exclusion is part of ownership, only we are separated from their spheres of power.

    Men are truly separated from us only when WE separate from them: that is, when they no longer have access to us.

  63. 63 witchwind May 5, 2014 at 12:18 am

    Oops my last reply was to Shediogenes.

    Thanks for writing Alexis. will comment later, maybe tomorrow.

  64. 64 Sandy Grey May 5, 2014 at 8:54 pm

    🙂 Oh okay, the conversation got a little hard to follow with man-children polluting, and then a bunch of great comments disappearing.

    I very much liked your exposition on colonisation and subjugation of womyn in society through mass media infection of what our self-image should be. Brainwashing us from an early age to making us desire looking like a sex object men can deposit semen into, is a brutal crime. I still can’t believe that japanese anime is allowed to be exported.


Comments are currently closed.



past musings

themes

Join 371 other followers


%d bloggers like this: