17
I don't believe that those concerns are "valid" and "deserve thoughtful consideration." Setting boundaries and asserting ownership of one's own spaces is a necessary, justifiable act of resistance
Direct confrontation with society is unlikely to result in meaningful change, as patriarchy is able to deflect and neutralize external pressure by drawing on its deep-rooted power structures. It will perceive any challenge as a threat to its dominance and respond with countermeasures designed to maintain its position. This is exhausting and disheartening for women who are already marginalized and oppressed by the system
The intermingling of women and men in the same spaces is an obstacle to the full liberation of women. Withdrawing from society will allow for the development of alternative systems and practices. Unfettered by the expectations and limitations that arise from the presence of men, we'd create women-only spaces for collective healing. The result would be a more holistic, sustainable form of liberation
"Detractors [of female separatism] argue that it is exclusionary"
Yes. That's the idea. Exclusion is a good thing when it sets boundaries - the purpose of boundaries is to exclude. Exclusion is also the purpose of refuge and sanctuary, to provide safety. We exclude potential, or already pursuing, predators.
Men. Will. Not. Change.
"But how am I supposed to prey on women if I'm not allowed?"