Goddess / Matriarchal project / intentional community

Monasteries have had one sex populations as a usual mode, almost always emphasizing celibacy and sexual abstinence. Modern communities might take this route, or then again might have a strongly homosexual bias in the original founders. It might be misogynist or man hating, or simply want to model roles usually reserved for the opposite gender in an atmosphere where they don't have to compete with people of that gender. I think it wonderful that people are afforded these opportunities to experiment. Would definitely not appeal to me at all, but i wish good luck to all concerned.

But calling such egalitarian?

It's interesting to read this conversation after the fact, to see the difference between Kiyl, Doe, and Wil (whose comments I've read and agreed with elsewhere). I'm kinda in the middle on these issues.

On the one hand: Doe- I'm a woman. As a pre-teen and teenager, I had VERY good and affirming experiences in all-woman groups. I feel I was afforded mentroing, community, and safe space I might not have gotten everywhere. There is a part of me still much more comfortable with women than with men. I also agree that choosing to live with other women is choosing FOR woman, not AGAINST men, and that it's not inherently prejudicial. All-female spaces, whether retreats or communes, often give girls and women role models and space to develop confidence in a world that is admittedly mlae-dominated.

On the other hand: Kiyl- I'm genderqueer, and a trans ally. These days, as an adult, I feel quite uncomfortable in spaces seperated by gender, ie women's play parties, groups, retreats. I also understand that my experiences were, perhaps, more typical of white and middle class girls, and the "women are sisters" vibe often excludes poor, queer, and women of color. I'm behind people's right to create spaces for themselves, but I also agree that those spaces inevitably exclude *alot* of people, and may stagnate.

And on my foot, Wil, since I've run out of hands- Of course you're correct about the literal meaning of "discriminate", but we all know it's being used here in its parallel meanings of "prejudice against" and "oppress".

That said, Kiyl your statement about race would have read quite differently if you had posed it as black or Native American people wanting to form there own community- that is, if you had put a historically socially and institutionally oppressed group, like women, into their place, instead of a socially dominant group. And, further, I think you're pulling an arguement called "reverse oppression". Let's take an extreme case and play it out- using race, to continue the theme. A white person kills a black person, just because of their race. Oppression. Now, a black person kills a white person, just because of their race. Some are screaming this is also oppression. The difference is in the group's power. In the U.S., white people have, and continue, to get away with killing, because there are large segments of the population who are racist, and they have connections to those in power- judges, lawmakers, police, etc. In the second case, the media would be all over the case, there would be a public outcry, governors would comment on the tragedy- and on and on. Socially dominant groups- white people and men included- have the force of soceity, and society's history. behind them. Discrimination going this weight has more power.

I'm still not sure exactly where I lie on this issue, though. Hope this inspires thought!