So, Frye contends that feminist separatism is a personal decision which can be used for political means. Separatism comes in many forms. She says it can mean "Breaking up or avoiding close relationships or working relationships; forbidding someone to enter your house; excluding someone from your company, or from your meeting; withdrawal from participation in some activity or institution, or avoidance of participation; avoidance of communications and influence from certain quarters (not listening to music with sexist lyrics, not watching TV);withholding commitment or support; rejection of or rudeness toward obnoxious individuals" (333).

While I see the theory behind the concept of separatism--and while I agree it's important to assert female independence and solidarity--it's absolutely ludicrous from a practical perspective to think that half of the population could go through life avoiding the other half of the population.
What feminism needs is not separatism. What feminism needs is to emphasize woman to woman relationships--both personal and working--while still recognizing instead of denying the existence of woman to man relationships. Nurturing woman to woman relationships, focusing on women centered spaces and the positive portrayal of women in television and music seems to me like a far sounder plan than living as part of a commune. As appealing as communal life sounds--and regardless of my tendency towards radical feminism--I feel the need to challenge the concept of radicalism--maybe it's the easy way out?
No comments:
Post a Comment