I get to thinking how, for more than 30 years now, feminists have been talking about the fallout of male violence that we live with. For more than 30 years we’ve been detailing the abuse that men have heaped upon us, in every fashion they’ve been able to imagine. More recently, we’ve been locating oppressions and decontextualizing sexualities and situating ourselves within our positionalities, and you know what? The stories keep coming.

None of this is women’s fault, but it seems to me we’ve managed to identify damn few alternatives. Men ought to change, clearly. Their behavior is inhuman and unjust and unacceptable. Rape, battering, war, capitalist exploitation–they should stop doing all of this immediately.

But it doesn’t seem to me that we’re getting very far by saying, “Stop raping us! Stop it! I mean it! Stop raping us!” We know that most women and children are abused by men they know, but we still befriend males, we still drink with them, we still let our teenagers date them, we still leave our toddlers alone with them. Anytime any feminist suggests letting young women know the real odds, to give them a chance to learn from other women’s experience when making decisions about their own safety, she gets jumped all over by just about everyone, from MRAs and libfems screeching #NotAllMen to radical feminists accusing her of blaming women for being raped.

Of course men’s violence isn’t our fault, of course they should change, of course we deserve autonomy without sacrificing our safety — but has the sex class man shown any indication that they’re going to change anytime soon?

I’ve never been the kind of person to sit around and wait for other people to do what I want them to, particularly after I learned, at a fairly tender age, the new-agey sounding but no less true adage that the only person one can change is oneself.

I still see a lot of feminists writing and talking and acting as if we really can’t get on without the men. I understand perfectly well that they want the men; that lots of women, lots of feminists, enjoy social and sexual relationships with men despite the dangers attendant on those relationships. I also understand perfectly well that women who can attach themselves to a man, whether by finding one who’s halfway decent or by learning to somehow live with varying degrees of sexism and abuse, often do better materially for themselves and their children than they would have on their own. That’s not an accident–that’s part of how male supremacy makes individual women dependent on individual men.

And yet–how to account for those of us who are managing to muddle through, somehow, without men’s money or their penises?

Which brings me back to the historical arguments for lesbian-feminism/separatism.

There were some women who thought about the fact that patriarchy is built upon the usurpation and direction of women’s emotional energy, sexuality, and labor into the support of men’s interests; they stood back and scratched their heads and said, “Hey, what would happen if we, being women, directed our emotional energy, sexuality and labor to the support of women’s interests?”

(..)

Nevertheless, there are lots of ways of prioritizing relationships with women, without involving sexuality. As just one example, what about creating a cooperative arrangement with another woman or women –neighbors? roommates? — to live more cheaply and have help with household chores and childcare, as well as companionship? Why don’t more women do this? It’s a question I, as a childless lesbian-feminist, cannot answer, but I sure think straight feminists ought to be doing more to encourage their sisters to take care of themselves and each other in these ways.

With that said, I will also opine that the belief that sexual orientation is innate and inborn is a big patriarchal lie. Patriarchy’s convinced many women that the only alternatives to an unsatisfying heterosexual relationship are a worse one, or being “alone.” It’s patriarchy that tells us that sisters doin’ it for themselves is nothing but a joke or a male fantasy. If sexual proclivity is inborn and unchanging, how do we account for the hundreds or thousands of women who came out as lesbians after entering the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s? How do we explain the fact that women leave heterosexual marriages for other women every day, well into the new millenium?

(...)

Some feminists seem to think men will stop raping and battering and killing just because we ask them to, as though it’s simply a misunderstanding that keeps patriarchy on its feet. Some want the lovely pink cinderella fantasy to be real, rather than seeing it for patriarchal brainwashing. Some of us don’t want to understand that men are not going to hand over their privilege, that the transformation of happy heterosexuality into something real and egalitarian won’t begin until women refuse to participate in the institution as it currently exists.

Think about it: Did labor unions say to workers, “Well, we know that some of you have really good jobs with employers who only exploit you a little, and you have a great relationship with your boss, so you all keep on working. The rest of us will go on strike to try to get better wages for everybody.” Of course not. They knew that some workers’ positive experiences or fair treatment didn’t negate the analysis that the system is exploitive and only collective action in the form of refusal to participate by all will change it.

(...)

If we really want that safe feminist world, women are going to have to let go of desires for male approval and male love and start to build something with other women–not because rape is our fault or because justice is our responsibility but because men like raping women and they like hitting women and they like controlling women and they’re not going to stop until they have to. All that rhetoric about “giving up heterosexual privilege” wasn’t about being politically correct or cool or cutting edge; it was about the recognition that justice can’t exist within the system that created the injustice in the first place.

(...)

Don’t think I’m saying it will be easy. Men will probably freak out if they see lots of “their” women (not just those throwaway hairy fat dyke freaks) actually making real attempts at solidarity; look how much just the ideas of feminism put forward on blogs and internet bulletin boards scare the shit out of them. So they’re going to put up a fuss.

But I believe we can make a start, because I’ve seen it done by just a few women who are willing to dedicate the bulk of their time, energy and resources to it, and who are willing to give up a lot of the comforts and conveniences most of us think we can’t live without. I know I can’t do it by myself, and I’m as scared as any of you. But I just keep thinking, what if there were 10 or 50 or 1000 of us and we were holding out our hands to each other and saying, “I’m scared, but I’m ready to make other women my priority so that we can start to build the world we want, together.” What if?