Separatism isn't a losing strategy. Shoving girls and women into co-ed situations or expecting them to magically fix men is a losing strategy that's been tried and tested for centuries with no success. Your post misses the mark and fails to acknowledge the benefits of separatism
"... and shame women for the completely normal desire to have a family"
"It's natural/normal" isn't a sufficient justification for engaging in an act
Women don't "want" men or children. Men and women have been socialized/groomed to identify as "straight" and please the opposite sex
Female separatism offers a space for us to explore our hidden same-sex desires outside of patriarchal constraints; a space for alternative visions of fulfillment and flourishing that don't depend on perpetuating the immoral cycle of procreation
"... all men are inherently evil ... meaning it’s the woman’s responsibility to avoid abuse by avoiding men altogether"
Patriarchy rewards toxic masculinity, creating a social climate in which the majority of men evince morally repugnant modes of behavior
The majoriry of women willingly interact with these men. They are accomplices in the maintenance of a system that oppresses them, and their participation in this system enables men to act with impunity
We might not be responsible for the behaviors of men. We should nonetheless shoulder the responsibility for our own bad decisions, and assume a posture of heightened vigilance and self-determination to avoid potential abuse. The path of separatism, "avoiding men altogether," is the reliable method for achieving this objective
" ... discourage us from participating in public life"
Participating in patriarchal institutions or public life doesn't challenge patriarchal power structures. It reinforces patriarchy. Women are playing a game the rules of which are rigged against women from the start. We need to stop playing
Challenging patriarchy requires a multifaceted approach. Single-sex spaces and structures outside of the dominant system are one such approach
Female separatism doesn't equate to "cowering in a castle." Separatism is a proactive strategy empowering women to create and control their own spaces. Female-only fortresses are incubators for ideas, movements, and leaders who can then go out and effect change in the outside world
"It's time to go on the offensive"
Not all battles are won through direct confrontation. A single-sex foundation and base of operations is a strategic advantage. Women would be able to organize, strategize, and build strength
You're parroting the same things you've been told by everyone else. Nothing new. You're too immature and cowardly to understand the necessity of female separatism
You don't want men to rape, harass and sexualize women? Separate women from men and take refuge in fortresses. Guards and soldiers will defeat men (enemies) outside the fortresses. Women who want to interact with men (enemies) or breed? We will have to fix them in re-education camps or get rid of them. It's that simple
You can't expect men (enemies) not to rape, harass and sexualize women in mixed spaces. It's bound to happen
What you wrote would be "liberal feminist sham," not "feminist realism"
Why separatism and not advocating to change male psychology/behavior through intervations to modify their biology (like prenatal demasculinisation, since prenatal sex hormones exposure is the main cause of gendered behaviors) ? Or changing the male to female ratio so males represent only 15% of the total human population (by using genetic testing, like PGT-A and selecting mostly female embryos ?)
We can and should achieve both objectives. First, we should change male psychology and male-to-female population ratio. Next, we should separate men and women into their own respective communities/societies. This way, men would peacefully coexist in their men-only communities, and women would thrive in their women-only communities without fear of male war, interference or oppression. Men wouldn't have the power or numbers to do that to women
This opinion piece did nothing to convince me of your illogical anti-separatist and pro-breeder stance. Congratulations
Not all "living" things have an instinct to "reproduce" (I don't). Even if they did, something being natural and normal bears no relation to it being moral. You're guilty of the naturalistic fallacy, a move from a descriptive utterance of nature to a prescriptive utterance of nature. I'll provide an example. It's normal and natural for males to rape females. In fact, rape or "forced copulation" evolved as an "advantageous" behavioral adaptation to increase the number of offspring. It’s foolish to claim male socialization or pornography is the only reason as to why a man might rape a woman: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/09/20/evolution-not-culture-deserves-blame-for-rape/
"The evidence suggests that natural selection, which has equipped men with a psychological apparatus designed to maximize the total number of female copulations, may lead them to rape as a byproduct of this tendency or, frighteningly, because in certain environmental conditions, rape is a behavior that enhances reproductive success [1]. This latter notion, however repugnant, is consistent with the observed phenomenon of out-group rape, in which members of a human band are encouraged to rape the women of the enemy during times of war, but are forbidden to rape women in their own community [1, 9, 10]"
Rape or "forced copulation" is normal in other species as it was in past human societies. Rape is still normal in present human societies. Men invented a pro-marital rape "god" in their own image that orders women to "sleep with" men within "marriage" to more easily access women's bodies. 1 in 5 western women are assaulted by men. And due to under-reporting, it's safe to assume the number of assaulted western and non-western women is much higher than the number of confirmed cases and the number of men who do not rape is much lower
You see something as normal and natural as rape and instinct to rape as immoral. How about you take a step back and look in the mirror the next time you shame separatists and anti-natalists for seeing birth and "instinct" to give birth as immoral? Separatists and anti-natalists are right to shame breeders and breeding
Feminists don't want women to take responsibility for their actions. Admitting that "straight" identifying women contribute to patriarchy would be a hard pill to swallow for them
Yes, women who "sleep with" men are like Nazi collaborators. They play right into the hands of their oppressors. Yes, conservative and abstinence-only women are right to encourage celibacy. A broken clock is right twice a day. You disagree with me. I disagree with you. Now what?
Do you have free will or do you not have free will? If women have free will, they can overcome their so-called "instinct" to "sleep with" men and "reproduce"
What's the point of free will if you are no different from other animals that have no ability to take control of their instincts? You make it sound like you have no free will
It's easy to give up the "wh0re" lifestyle and close our legs as long as we are motivated enough, I can assure you. Medication and therapy can help lower your over-active libido
You don't listen to the suggestions of separatists because you want to have your cake and eat it too
You cry about men commodifying your bodies and do nothing to separate women from men to avoid commodification
Unless you want women to literally bite the heads of men off, which I support, separatism is the solution no matter how effective or ineffective it may be. Period
"Neither hypersexuality nor female celibacy challenges patriarchal power structures in any meaningful way." So if one agrees with that, how do you recommend engaging males? What is "going on the offensive" in that interpersonal context?
And how do females take over institutions from males in a societal context where females have little power?
I don't understand the battle plan; could you explain?
Hey Miss Lilith. I know you are busy with FDS and the podcast. But will this substack continue to be updated? I have been waiting for the offensive strategies article. I check every month to see if it has been updated.
Also, I would like to give a suggestion for future articles please. I would love to hear your views on female supremacy.
In what ways are women superior?
With female supremacy in mind, what are the ideal ways society should be organized and how should personal relationships between men and women look like?
I largely agree with you, but on the other hand, we could advocate for chaging male psychology and behavior through interventions aimed at altering their biology (such as prenatal demasculinization, since prenatal exposure to sex hormones is the main cause of gendered behavior)? Or altering society sex ratio so that males only represent ~10% of the total human population (using genetic testing, such as PGT-A, and selecting predominantly female embryos) ?
Apart from being unrealistic & useless, global separatism is built on a contradiction. If women can & should fight their "natural urges" to socialize & reproduce with men, so can & should men fight their “natural urges” to be assholes to women. If some women fought these “natural instincts” and became separatists, so can men fight their “natural desires” to hurt women and there are some men that are harmless to women. But for some reason they refuse to apply their logic all the way through. It's better to acknowledge the complex nature of both sexes, pin out the pros and cons of socializing with men, and stop focusing on individuals because this is a logical fallacy known as the ecological fallacy & antithetical to the collective approach of radical feminism.
Women would like men to suppress their "natural urges" to be assholes to women, the urges that lead them to hurt women physically or mentally, so they can be in relationships with them. but they don't. And women that don't even consider separatism are doing the same thing, unable to fight their "natural urges" to keep themselves safe.
And you're guilty of fallacy fallacy, presuming that an alleged fallacy undermines the logical validity of female separatism
Men SHOULD fight their "natural desires," but they don't. They are committed to the patriarchal principle of dominating, assaulting and silencing the voices of women
Women have waited long enough for a change that won't come. Enough is enough! Global separatism should be the way to go
Is it unrealistic? Maybe! Radical feminism has been hindered by mainstream accessibility. The majority of women refuse to see men for who they are: oppressors of women
Is it useless? N to the O! Even if men changed, an unrealistic dream, it's in our best interest to separate from men until this pathetic species fades into extinction
Although I do not disagree with you, I do wish to share a bit about the point of view from some separatists, as I think there is more nuance to be had about some of the cons.
For example, number 2) I angered some women on radfem twitter when I said that our body is inherently oppressive because it is one of the most dangerous things we can do, and she accused me of hating it as if I should be proud of something I absolutely wish my body couldn't do it, because of how risky it is for me. My mother and grandmother both nearly died giving birth. I could lose my organs being pregnant because of my own diseases. To me, my body is my own prison, because I am sick with it, and one prominent gc woman and her friends accused me of being some evil boogeyman transhumanist who wanted to escape the prison of the body as if that was a bad thing. The fact the desire to reproduce is natural is exactly why I told a man it was oppressive, because it used to kill us en masse and marriage, in the past, used to result in a woman being impregnated over and over and over again until she either died in childbirth or hit menopause. From the way I grew up and observed things around me, it absolutely made me believe our biology was the enemy and that it was nearly impossible to defeat, so there was no point in shaming or blaming women for not being able to go against that impossibly strong urge that made generations of humans for hundreds of thousands of years kill themselves through the act. There is a good chunk of separatists who view the drive to reproduce as the inherently oppressive force, especially when the institution of marriage led to multiple deaths and oppressed women via the family unit. It's not that we view those things as inherently, innately evil, or blame women for doing it as if it makes them somehow evil, especially in the 21st century where we have medicine and technology to address many of these issues. Nobody would say someone is evil for having the flu or a genetic disorder or wanting to drink water or having a drive to find food or shelter, many of which are basic psychological needs every scientist accepts as needs.
As for number 4), To some degree I accept the premise that men are inherently untrustworthy and mostly restrained merely by the law, and as soon as the law enables them to be depraved, they will do so. I do believe the only way to avoid abuse is to avoid men altogether, but I do not blame women for being unable to do so, as millions of years of evolution did create an impossibly strong urge to find a mate. There is no sense of superiority in being able to avoid 'biology' as if you are able to avoid the urges it's likely either due to a change in your own biology or environmental circumstances. To me, a woman is never to blame. It's not her fault that a sex drive puts her in danger.
I did talk to you about the bit with other stuff, but I would like to point out that the idea of separatism has 'offense' baked into it. Refusing to support men financially or provide emotional labor or the billions of USD Worth of unpaid labor that mostly mothers do would cripple the economy. Strikes are effective and not merely defensive. Some of us cannot afford to wait long enough for 'full participation' and some of us also have no desire for full participation. Voting, sure, but the existence of separatism helps a lot of women that the people who fight for full participation miss, even if men began to treat us well and we had control over everything. There's just no interest in dealing with them, and when we are weaker than men as a whole, defense can be seen as a benefit.
I think it is short-sighted for many separatists to hate on the vast majority of women, but it is also foolish to ignore the way the same issues can be seen or perceived. Neither side may like the other, and I am glad you addressed both the positives and the negatives, although I feel like some of the critiques may be missing some of the motivations or intentions of many different types of separatists, as they may arrive at the same conclusion but for completely different reasons and therefore make some of the critiques less applicable to separatism itself and more to specific separatists.
The separatists who do attack you and the majority of women are missing a lot of key things. One professor of mine pointed out that even if we had 'the science' to address COVID, we saw many people react irrationally to it or be subjected to cultural impacts (distrust of the government for good reasons, such as living in a corrupt society or one where human experimentation went on like against Black women in the USA or Puerto Ricans), and a long list of psychological, sociological, and anthropological experts were required to work with the 'hard science' STEM experts, because even if they had found a magical cure, they were still dealing humans with their own wants and needs, not robots. The same applies in this case and even if they found a cure for AIDS or cancer, we both know things aren't as simple as "here's the solution, do it or it's all your fault" and that 'solutions' may come with serious, undesirable side effects that may be worse than the cure (such as when separatism isn't psychologically fulfilling or would create many other problems for women as a whole, such as those who do wish to participate in society)
"I think it is short-sighted for many separatists to hate on the vast majority of women"
I don't think so. Radical feminism/separatism builds bridges, and most women collaborate with men to tear the bridges down. They sabotage feminist goals, and contribute to their own subjugation. Criticizing and/or hating them isn't narrow-minded or unproductive
Separatism isn't a losing strategy. Shoving girls and women into co-ed situations or expecting them to magically fix men is a losing strategy that's been tried and tested for centuries with no success. Your post misses the mark and fails to acknowledge the benefits of separatism
"... and shame women for the completely normal desire to have a family"
"It's natural/normal" isn't a sufficient justification for engaging in an act
Women don't "want" men or children. Men and women have been socialized/groomed to identify as "straight" and please the opposite sex
Female separatism offers a space for us to explore our hidden same-sex desires outside of patriarchal constraints; a space for alternative visions of fulfillment and flourishing that don't depend on perpetuating the immoral cycle of procreation
"... all men are inherently evil ... meaning it’s the woman’s responsibility to avoid abuse by avoiding men altogether"
Patriarchy rewards toxic masculinity, creating a social climate in which the majority of men evince morally repugnant modes of behavior
The majoriry of women willingly interact with these men. They are accomplices in the maintenance of a system that oppresses them, and their participation in this system enables men to act with impunity
We might not be responsible for the behaviors of men. We should nonetheless shoulder the responsibility for our own bad decisions, and assume a posture of heightened vigilance and self-determination to avoid potential abuse. The path of separatism, "avoiding men altogether," is the reliable method for achieving this objective
" ... discourage us from participating in public life"
Participating in patriarchal institutions or public life doesn't challenge patriarchal power structures. It reinforces patriarchy. Women are playing a game the rules of which are rigged against women from the start. We need to stop playing
Challenging patriarchy requires a multifaceted approach. Single-sex spaces and structures outside of the dominant system are one such approach
Female separatism doesn't equate to "cowering in a castle." Separatism is a proactive strategy empowering women to create and control their own spaces. Female-only fortresses are incubators for ideas, movements, and leaders who can then go out and effect change in the outside world
"It's time to go on the offensive"
Not all battles are won through direct confrontation. A single-sex foundation and base of operations is a strategic advantage. Women would be able to organize, strategize, and build strength
"Feminist realism"
Realism? LMFAO
You're parroting the same things you've been told by everyone else. Nothing new. You're too immature and cowardly to understand the necessity of female separatism
You don't want men to rape, harass and sexualize women? Separate women from men and take refuge in fortresses. Guards and soldiers will defeat men (enemies) outside the fortresses. Women who want to interact with men (enemies) or breed? We will have to fix them in re-education camps or get rid of them. It's that simple
You can't expect men (enemies) not to rape, harass and sexualize women in mixed spaces. It's bound to happen
What you wrote would be "liberal feminist sham," not "feminist realism"
Why separatism and not advocating to change male psychology/behavior through intervations to modify their biology (like prenatal demasculinisation, since prenatal sex hormones exposure is the main cause of gendered behaviors) ? Or changing the male to female ratio so males represent only 15% of the total human population (by using genetic testing, like PGT-A and selecting mostly female embryos ?)
We can and should achieve both objectives. First, we should change male psychology and male-to-female population ratio. Next, we should separate men and women into their own respective communities/societies. This way, men would peacefully coexist in their men-only communities, and women would thrive in their women-only communities without fear of male war, interference or oppression. Men wouldn't have the power or numbers to do that to women
This opinion piece did nothing to convince me of your illogical anti-separatist and pro-breeder stance. Congratulations
Not all "living" things have an instinct to "reproduce" (I don't). Even if they did, something being natural and normal bears no relation to it being moral. You're guilty of the naturalistic fallacy, a move from a descriptive utterance of nature to a prescriptive utterance of nature. I'll provide an example. It's normal and natural for males to rape females. In fact, rape or "forced copulation" evolved as an "advantageous" behavioral adaptation to increase the number of offspring. It’s foolish to claim male socialization or pornography is the only reason as to why a man might rape a woman: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/09/20/evolution-not-culture-deserves-blame-for-rape/
"The evidence suggests that natural selection, which has equipped men with a psychological apparatus designed to maximize the total number of female copulations, may lead them to rape as a byproduct of this tendency or, frighteningly, because in certain environmental conditions, rape is a behavior that enhances reproductive success [1]. This latter notion, however repugnant, is consistent with the observed phenomenon of out-group rape, in which members of a human band are encouraged to rape the women of the enemy during times of war, but are forbidden to rape women in their own community [1, 9, 10]"
Rape or "forced copulation" is normal in other species as it was in past human societies. Rape is still normal in present human societies. Men invented a pro-marital rape "god" in their own image that orders women to "sleep with" men within "marriage" to more easily access women's bodies. 1 in 5 western women are assaulted by men. And due to under-reporting, it's safe to assume the number of assaulted western and non-western women is much higher than the number of confirmed cases and the number of men who do not rape is much lower
You see something as normal and natural as rape and instinct to rape as immoral. How about you take a step back and look in the mirror the next time you shame separatists and anti-natalists for seeing birth and "instinct" to give birth as immoral? Separatists and anti-natalists are right to shame breeders and breeding
Feminists don't want women to take responsibility for their actions. Admitting that "straight" identifying women contribute to patriarchy would be a hard pill to swallow for them
Yes, women who "sleep with" men are like Nazi collaborators. They play right into the hands of their oppressors. Yes, conservative and abstinence-only women are right to encourage celibacy. A broken clock is right twice a day. You disagree with me. I disagree with you. Now what?
Do you have free will or do you not have free will? If women have free will, they can overcome their so-called "instinct" to "sleep with" men and "reproduce"
What's the point of free will if you are no different from other animals that have no ability to take control of their instincts? You make it sound like you have no free will
It's easy to give up the "wh0re" lifestyle and close our legs as long as we are motivated enough, I can assure you. Medication and therapy can help lower your over-active libido
You don't listen to the suggestions of separatists because you want to have your cake and eat it too
You cry about men commodifying your bodies and do nothing to separate women from men to avoid commodification
Unless you want women to literally bite the heads of men off, which I support, separatism is the solution no matter how effective or ineffective it may be. Period
The dynamic will only change when they perfect female female procreation.
"Neither hypersexuality nor female celibacy challenges patriarchal power structures in any meaningful way." So if one agrees with that, how do you recommend engaging males? What is "going on the offensive" in that interpersonal context?
And how do females take over institutions from males in a societal context where females have little power?
I don't understand the battle plan; could you explain?
I'll be taking a deep dive into the offensive strategies in my next article ;) these first 2 were just a warmup
Hey Miss Lilith. I know you are busy with FDS and the podcast. But will this substack continue to be updated? I have been waiting for the offensive strategies article. I check every month to see if it has been updated.
Also, I would like to give a suggestion for future articles please. I would love to hear your views on female supremacy.
In what ways are women superior?
With female supremacy in mind, what are the ideal ways society should be organized and how should personal relationships between men and women look like?
Great article. I’m exploring liberal views on this. The subject being so in sports etc.
I largely agree with you, but on the other hand, we could advocate for chaging male psychology and behavior through interventions aimed at altering their biology (such as prenatal demasculinization, since prenatal exposure to sex hormones is the main cause of gendered behavior)? Or altering society sex ratio so that males only represent ~10% of the total human population (using genetic testing, such as PGT-A, and selecting predominantly female embryos) ?
Apart from being unrealistic & useless, global separatism is built on a contradiction. If women can & should fight their "natural urges" to socialize & reproduce with men, so can & should men fight their “natural urges” to be assholes to women. If some women fought these “natural instincts” and became separatists, so can men fight their “natural desires” to hurt women and there are some men that are harmless to women. But for some reason they refuse to apply their logic all the way through. It's better to acknowledge the complex nature of both sexes, pin out the pros and cons of socializing with men, and stop focusing on individuals because this is a logical fallacy known as the ecological fallacy & antithetical to the collective approach of radical feminism.
Women would like men to suppress their "natural urges" to be assholes to women, the urges that lead them to hurt women physically or mentally, so they can be in relationships with them. but they don't. And women that don't even consider separatism are doing the same thing, unable to fight their "natural urges" to keep themselves safe.
And you're guilty of fallacy fallacy, presuming that an alleged fallacy undermines the logical validity of female separatism
Men SHOULD fight their "natural desires," but they don't. They are committed to the patriarchal principle of dominating, assaulting and silencing the voices of women
Women have waited long enough for a change that won't come. Enough is enough! Global separatism should be the way to go
Is it unrealistic? Maybe! Radical feminism has been hindered by mainstream accessibility. The majority of women refuse to see men for who they are: oppressors of women
Is it useless? N to the O! Even if men changed, an unrealistic dream, it's in our best interest to separate from men until this pathetic species fades into extinction
Keep dreaming.
Although I do not disagree with you, I do wish to share a bit about the point of view from some separatists, as I think there is more nuance to be had about some of the cons.
For example, number 2) I angered some women on radfem twitter when I said that our body is inherently oppressive because it is one of the most dangerous things we can do, and she accused me of hating it as if I should be proud of something I absolutely wish my body couldn't do it, because of how risky it is for me. My mother and grandmother both nearly died giving birth. I could lose my organs being pregnant because of my own diseases. To me, my body is my own prison, because I am sick with it, and one prominent gc woman and her friends accused me of being some evil boogeyman transhumanist who wanted to escape the prison of the body as if that was a bad thing. The fact the desire to reproduce is natural is exactly why I told a man it was oppressive, because it used to kill us en masse and marriage, in the past, used to result in a woman being impregnated over and over and over again until she either died in childbirth or hit menopause. From the way I grew up and observed things around me, it absolutely made me believe our biology was the enemy and that it was nearly impossible to defeat, so there was no point in shaming or blaming women for not being able to go against that impossibly strong urge that made generations of humans for hundreds of thousands of years kill themselves through the act. There is a good chunk of separatists who view the drive to reproduce as the inherently oppressive force, especially when the institution of marriage led to multiple deaths and oppressed women via the family unit. It's not that we view those things as inherently, innately evil, or blame women for doing it as if it makes them somehow evil, especially in the 21st century where we have medicine and technology to address many of these issues. Nobody would say someone is evil for having the flu or a genetic disorder or wanting to drink water or having a drive to find food or shelter, many of which are basic psychological needs every scientist accepts as needs.
As for number 4), To some degree I accept the premise that men are inherently untrustworthy and mostly restrained merely by the law, and as soon as the law enables them to be depraved, they will do so. I do believe the only way to avoid abuse is to avoid men altogether, but I do not blame women for being unable to do so, as millions of years of evolution did create an impossibly strong urge to find a mate. There is no sense of superiority in being able to avoid 'biology' as if you are able to avoid the urges it's likely either due to a change in your own biology or environmental circumstances. To me, a woman is never to blame. It's not her fault that a sex drive puts her in danger.
I did talk to you about the bit with other stuff, but I would like to point out that the idea of separatism has 'offense' baked into it. Refusing to support men financially or provide emotional labor or the billions of USD Worth of unpaid labor that mostly mothers do would cripple the economy. Strikes are effective and not merely defensive. Some of us cannot afford to wait long enough for 'full participation' and some of us also have no desire for full participation. Voting, sure, but the existence of separatism helps a lot of women that the people who fight for full participation miss, even if men began to treat us well and we had control over everything. There's just no interest in dealing with them, and when we are weaker than men as a whole, defense can be seen as a benefit.
I think it is short-sighted for many separatists to hate on the vast majority of women, but it is also foolish to ignore the way the same issues can be seen or perceived. Neither side may like the other, and I am glad you addressed both the positives and the negatives, although I feel like some of the critiques may be missing some of the motivations or intentions of many different types of separatists, as they may arrive at the same conclusion but for completely different reasons and therefore make some of the critiques less applicable to separatism itself and more to specific separatists.
The separatists who do attack you and the majority of women are missing a lot of key things. One professor of mine pointed out that even if we had 'the science' to address COVID, we saw many people react irrationally to it or be subjected to cultural impacts (distrust of the government for good reasons, such as living in a corrupt society or one where human experimentation went on like against Black women in the USA or Puerto Ricans), and a long list of psychological, sociological, and anthropological experts were required to work with the 'hard science' STEM experts, because even if they had found a magical cure, they were still dealing humans with their own wants and needs, not robots. The same applies in this case and even if they found a cure for AIDS or cancer, we both know things aren't as simple as "here's the solution, do it or it's all your fault" and that 'solutions' may come with serious, undesirable side effects that may be worse than the cure (such as when separatism isn't psychologically fulfilling or would create many other problems for women as a whole, such as those who do wish to participate in society)
"I think it is short-sighted for many separatists to hate on the vast majority of women"
I don't think so. Radical feminism/separatism builds bridges, and most women collaborate with men to tear the bridges down. They sabotage feminist goals, and contribute to their own subjugation. Criticizing and/or hating them isn't narrow-minded or unproductive
"I think it is short-sighted for many separatists to hate on the vast majority of women." I'd say that was a real feminist dead-end, wouldn't you?