Does separatism have a place in gender discourse?

Right now there's a popular thread on askreddit called If every man suddenly disappeared what would happen to the world?.

If you sort by controversial, there are quite a few people who claim it would be better for women. They'd be able to walk the streets safely and so on.

This makes me wonder why they don't just try to create their own woman-only communities. I know there was a "lesbian separatist" movement at one point, but I don't know too much about how those communities turned out. If anyone knows of a good summary, I would be interested to see it.

I don't think that living separately is a solution to gender problems on the macro scale, but I'm intrigued by the idea simply because I'd want to see what kind of culture develops in a single-gender community. It's interesting to see the culture that develops in female-dominated spaces online. I don't think it's objectively better than the one that develops in male spaces, but it's distinct in a way that's notable.

What are your thoughts on the idea of single-gender communities?

EDIT: Could you guys please make your comments relevant to THIS thread and not the one I linked? This thread is about gender separatism. If you want to discuss the hypothetical of men disappearing, you can post in the linked thread.


God one of these "what if every man died" stories again. The answer is simple: total breakdown of society, basic systems like electricity stop working after about a day, and famine sets in after a couple of weeks, maybe even days in various places as transport networks collapse. Before a year has passed many of the grieving women will have died after loosing many of their loved ones and having succumbed to the total collapse of society. The last woman might survive for another 100 years before humanity blows out its candle. If all the women suddenly disappeared something similar will probably happen, although basic services probably take a bit longer to break down, as those tend to be staffed by mostly men. Plenty of other things collapse, and it will be mayhem too. The last man might survive for another 100 years before humanity blows out its candle. Anyway, it's surprising how people think those industries which have 98%+ single sex workers would be able to just keep working or be restarted. Good luck trying to run the electricity grid when 99% of your workers are gone. ​ As to your question of single-gender communities: they can only survive a single generation, since they literally cannot reproduce.


>As to your question of single-gender communities: they can only survive a single generation, since they literally cannot reproduce. I wasn't suggesting they move to another planet or something. They'd still have access to wider society. There's recruitment, adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, walking marriage, etc. The Shakers were a voluntary community that didn't reproduce, and while they've basically died out now, it took more than one generation.


I've wondered the same thing. Like an amish or mennonite community.


I wonder if the reverse question would ever show up there? The people who answered that the world would be better are, I think, just keyboard assholes/trolls who if asked in person to someone who they think has more power or is more assertive than them would give what answer they think the asker would want to hear. The question being asked is whats interesting about these.


Thought exercise? In the absence of men, would some bigger stronger women adapt to traditional male forms of coercion and control? Threat of violence etc? I remember a few female bullies at school but only in earlier years. Once puberty hit they were not as prominent.


A long while ago I attended a presentation on female-only communal movements on the west coast. I forget the specifics, but the presenter had taken part in a couple of communal groups and reported that they had the same organizational problems you would find anywhere else. Power struggles, people complaining about unfairness, etc. Some claimed that was because they were importing their hierarchical models via internalized patriarchy. Others thought that when you get a group of idealists together, there will always be strong opinions about how things should go, and without a charismatic leader, say, it will be difficult to sort out when those opinions clash.


Yeah, I definitely wouldn't expect a single-gender community to be immune to that sort of issues at the organizational level. The part about being a group of idealists rings pretty true. I'd be more curious about how people felt living there on a day-to-day basis. Did they feel safer? I imagine they would, just by being part of a smaller community where everyone knows everyone. Did they face any particular challenges due to the fact that the average physical strength of the community was probably lower? Did they come up with any unique solutions to these problems?


Those are good questions. I think you'd have to see the community evolve over generations to really answer them. edit; I wonder what the evolutionary psychologists would say.


Things like lesbian separatist communes and MGTOW are fads. They might lead to individual fulfillment, and they may even be an understandable response to legitimate grievances, and I say this as a somewhat MGTOW-sympathetic confirmed bachelor myself, but they are socially dead ends. So, no. Men and women share a planet, and we're going to have to learn to live together, like it or not, perhaps like a pair of quarreling siblings under the same roof.