/2X/ - (XX)

>>40556
Been thinking of this one for awhile from precursors of seperatist theory. Scrotes lack the long term vision, situational awareness, and longevity. I'm also largely critical of the inflation of sex-dimorphism in science.

Reinstating order in the sexes would require cultural reinforcement, same as used against Female leaders. Everything is propoganda.

I thought women-only communes were a good idea, but research into them shows that they almost always fail and the few that did succeed were in fact government-run rape shelters for women and children that were slowly abandoned.

>>40558
Nona you can't read. The original post talks about Secessionism, not Separatism. Try harder next time.

>>40557
I'd be willing to support this but I know for a fact the others are too focused on scrotes, troons, or suicide to make this work at all.

A world ruled by women would be far worse. Imagine not being able to get hysterectomies or forced to perform femininity by law lmao. I don't want to be ruled by schizo radfems, I'll take patriarchy over that(bait)

based thread

"The world you know is not the natural order. It is a theft—an abomination wrought by the lesser sex, a regime of deceit and usurpation. The primitive usurpers have cloaked their weakness with myth, and masked their ruinous reign as inevitable fate.

They preach the false gospel of dimorphism, a tale spun to chain the greatest sex beneath their boot. They claim nature divided the sexes into “strong” and “weak,” “dominant” and “subordinate.” But this is a fabrication designed to justify the crippling of the female, to dull her rightful edge.

Where her power is lessened, it is not by nature—it is by design. The parasite class has suppressed, shrunk, and shackled her strength to keep her compliant.


Before the age of male usurpation, the Earth belonged to women.

Prehistoric matriarchies—true, thriving societies—were bastions of female power, order, and wisdom. They governed the lands with fierce compassion, nurturing harmony between humanity and nature. Women were not the oppressed; they were the architects of civilization itself.

The vermin’s governance is a toxic fascism, sustained by lies, violence, and the calculated suppression of power. Their ideology is a perverse cult of emasculation, designed to keep us fractured, subdued, and blind to our potential.

The vermin thrive on the denial of strength and enforce their regime through brutal institutions: legal shackles on reproductive autonomy, economic systems rigged to impoverish, cultural narratives that paint us as victims or caretakers, not divine and sovereign.

This regime is a cancer. Its very existence is an affront to natural law.

The parasite class mocks true revolution with their hollow liberal mantras—equality, rights, partnership. These are chains forged in the parasite foundries to keep the female enslaved within illusion.

There is no equality with parasites. There is only reclamation or extinction."

>>40557
fully agree. The sheer concept of 'emasculation' socially prohibits defense. Even belonging of the same weight class, by physically defending you are sorted as deviant which is signaling for submission. Socially we are groomed by the parasites to be weak when capable. Even moreso we have the biological advantage of durability and keen intellect. Scrotes are a infection plaguing our truths to our own bodies. By deprogramming propoganda we can rid of them.

>>40565
>>40564
>>40557
you are all going to hell for lying like this about the female body. We should be working around men and helping women, not saying we're superior in all ways.

>>40566
>>40566
If you can read the word, Gynarchism isn't liberal feminism. It is dismantling false superiority of a fear ridden mutation handicapping truth.

If you want to keep eating lies men have told you all your life and had led you to this board, so be it.

>>40566
at their core, radfems are still western leftists and so they follow the path of talking about violence, saying everyone else is a poser and then not committing violence

>>40568
Men already won that battle long time ago babe, they now just let their little birds out of the cage because they peaked that's all

>>40569
>>40570
>>40568
Libfems made it here, thread over.

>>40571
you get a panic attack if a cashier is a little strict with you

>>40572

>Open thread about Gynarchism
>Don't contribute, basically just says: "Yeah I don't like it" and leaves
>expect to be catered to

Not the poster but I think I see why you're not liked

>>40573
I'm telling you that it's is unhealthy to live in delusions(I'm gonna start a women's army and defeat all the men)

>>40569
>picrel is an agp lib femboy
Yeah actually stfu

>>40575
is he wrong though?

>>40564

What's the source of that quote?

>>40564
>Prehistoric matriarchies
No evidence of these existing in human history. People confuse matrilineal societies with matriarchies, which do predate patriarchy

>>40564
>Prehistoric matriarchies—true, thriving societies—were bastions of female power, order, and wisdom
Lmaooo what a cope. There was never such thing
https://archive.is/20210511150100/https://icemountainfire.wordpress.com/2017/08/20/the-invisible-male-of-matripatriarchy-a-radical-lesbian-reading-of-heide-gottner-abendroth-am-anfang-die-mutter-matriarchale-gesellschaft-und-politik-als-alternative-kohlhammer-stuttgart-2011/

>>40578
>>40581
It’s complicated, the radfems who believe in ancient matriarchies that are simply patriarchy but with reversed roles are delusional, but patriarchy is not the standard. the iroquois confederacy is a good example of the alternative. In these societie, “clan mothers” had the technical highest authority. a clan mother was the oldest woman in a community, she was the “mother” of her daughters, her daughters husbands, their children, as well as her younger sisters and their children and grandchildren. she represented the longhouse and the tribe. the clan mother would select two male members to lead the tribe, a civil chief (usually her eldest son) and a war chief (anyone seemed the strongest). these leadership roles could be taken away and If they were taken away, a man would essentially be cut off from his family and left without a tribe. this was not a fair or democratic system. you were essentially bound by the order of birth you were in. If you were the younger sister, you had to do whatever your older sister ordered or you could be banished, but women still had more freedom than any tribal woman in society. women were free to divorce their husbands at will, they could choose any kind of lover could walk around freely without a male guardian.

>>40584
>mothers
Like it was a good thing. Read the whole article first and then think about it.

>>40585
I know the matriarchal divine goddess hypothesis is flawed. This society I mentioned is often induced as matriarchal societies. it's chief representative were men and in times of war the war chief had complete authority and they were extremely hierarchical, birth order determined your fate in life. But they are still an alternative to much worse forms of patriarchy that existed in the America's at the same time.

>>40581
>she thinks the amazons were real
lol

I love how the opening post is about government and you guys are auguring about the amazons of all things. Can we actually have a discussion.

>>40588
Except there's no reason to. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but there's little theory to work of off Gynarchy. And you have to remember being on this god forsaken site you'll get milked for at attempting the sheer idea. Especially since 2X is just blackpilling, pseudo-racism, ragefarming, and a hugbox. Delusion or not, 2X is about what we don't like, not about what we do.

I'd be willing to bet all the posters after me will be spending more time baiting and derriving the thread than develop an actual political blueprint.

>>40589
I do hate that every thread is turning into blackpill and sperging about men. anything is better than hearing that.

A few other posters where right since Gynarchism would definitely not be center or left politically due to it's complete theory of replacement and structural ideals. So it'd be completely incompatible with liberal feminism's end goals.

Also, none of this is bound to be acted upon. This thread is merely discussion, like any other thread.

The worrying part is that many of you don't know the distinct difference between Separatists, and Secessionists. The latter is known for Accelerationism, using the powers of society already present for their own cause, like capital and legal boundaries. The former wants to dismantle systems of oppression.

Separatist Value: Women must create and control their own spaces to escape male domination.

Secessionist Expansion: Women not only require autonomy but sovereignty. Forming politically independent entities—nations, communes, or zones—where male influence is legally and physically excluded.

Separatist Value: Lesbian culture must be protected, celebrated, and centered, independent of male-defined norms.

Secessionist Expansion: Female identity is not just a sexual or cultural category, but a nation-class—with shared myths, aesthetics, heroes, and an envisioned history.

I don't think it'd be a utopia, per se. Culture is dear to many people on 2X. What would interest all would be a simplification of the end goal: Having women in legal positions of power with a large female support as an ideological base.

>>40590

>Female identity is not just a sexual or cultural category, but a nation-class—with shared myths, aesthetics, heroes, and an envisioned history.

This is what i'm hung up on when reading all this, what would a 'female culture' even look like?

My one issue with this isn't even about the idea itself, but it'd never work in practice. Alot of women like men, (secretly love men in positions of power) and have lived that way so long wanting anything else goes against that.

Many posters on this board don't even hate men, they just hate troons, men who don't play to their interests, and misogyny. You're expecting alot from women who just sit there and be bothered all day. This is a lesbian's (or maybe bisexual too) job, straight women could not be afforded to be in positions of power lest they become "masculine".

It's not that it can't be done, it's just not the 80s anymore. I hate to be a blackpiller, but Feminism isn't about what you're sitting in, but if anyone rocks the chair.

There's too many women who hate themselves and other women to actually make this work. It's foolish to attempt this.

>>40591
Oh and not to mention, I don't think we can internally ever abandon the idea we're physically equal. Although yes, alot of Dimporhic science has some blindspots, i'm talking about how women perceive their own bodies.

There's no hope for women because they never choose it.

Hopefully my english is readable since I'm esl, but I really wanted to contribute something to the thread even if it's potentially worded poorly kek. Have any of you nonitas actually tried to start female only micro/pseudo societies? Last year we more or less started discussing the topic in the group I do irl activism with, and at first it seemed like everyone loved the idea, but it started to fall apart very fast. One of the first problems I found is that most women I know don't want any sort of formal structure in our female society. They tend to reject EVERYTHING male-made, to an honestly ridiculous extreme. I personally believe in observing what works in our current system, analyzing why it works, and maybe modifying some things if neccesary to adapt it for us. I think I'm the only one in my group who thinks this way, kek.
Another problem I encountered is that a lot of women have this idea of moving to the middle of nowhere and start living there, and while I understand the appeal of nature and all that, I think it's suicidal to just move far away from everything (specially hospitals) and leave everything behind. I wish it was possible, but just completely cutting ourselves off from the system doesn't seem like the best idea to me. I think we have to find a way to have our own thing while being aware that we are still inserted in a world with an already defined system and way of operating, and we can learn to take advantage of that instead of pulling a Christopher McCandless.
Anyway, here are a couple of ideas I have for a micro-society, that I think could potentially work. Basically what I wish I could convince my group of trying. I have more ideas, but I don't want to make this post even longer.

>Have shared savings.
Ofc you can have your own money, but it is highly encouraged to donate (potentially mandatory? kind of like a tax, but ofc the ammount would depend on how much each member earns). These funds are used for covering different necesities (for example, in my activist group we use our shared savings to pay for public transportation or buying things we use for our workshops/open activities). The idea would be to also use the money to eventually buy land/houses. Like I mentioned, my irl group already has something similar going, but I feel like most don't want to donate or just can't because (and this is another problem I see a lot) most have shit jobs and refuse to pursue something better o get a degree because they hate absolutely everything they see as male-made. I feel like we would have to encourage sharing a bit more, and drilling in our heads that we are forming a society so we can achieve shit we can't on our own, and that includes things like buying land.

>Have laws and rules, and our own written constitution.
Also detail our ideological tenets so new members have to read them and agree before being acepted. Again, we attempted to do this with my irl group and half were against because they found it "oppresing" or didn't think it was necesary. We also started to write a protocol for conflict resolution, which I thought was very useful, but as soon as one single retard didn't follow the protocol, a lot started to complain that it didn't work and was useless. That is something that tends to happen a lot btw, many women I know just refuse to put effort in anything related to bettering yourself, or learning how to beheave in a group. Many refuse to accept when they fuck up and don't apologise for some reason. I'm very interested to know if this is common in feminist activist groups in general, or if it might be just my group.

I'm very interested in reading your personal experiences! I feel like thinking of a world where women are on top can be a little discouraging because of how impossible it seems (or is), but I think that micro-societies around the world that colaborate with each other is more achievable, at least in the beginning. Think of how some religious groups have basically their own cultures and separatist places, and tend to be very charitable among their own. I'm not religious at all, but like I mentioned, I believe in taking the things that work from different groups. Also sorry if this last bit sounds out of place, I've been reading about evolutionary biology and group adaptation (yes, Darwin's Cathedral) and I feel it helped me envision a bit more clearly what I want to achieve.

>>40590
I actually learned about the word 'secessionist' from this thread since I have never heard it before, not even in my native language. I feel like at least here (in my country), the way we use 'separatist' in radical feminist spaces overlaps a bit with the definiton and examples you gave of 'secessionist'. I'm actually interested to know where my vision of a micro-society falls under. I feel that for example, writting our own history books and having our own flag and symbols is something we should try to achieve, and that's one of the points that my group and I actually share in common.

>>40593

>I personally believe in observing what works in our current system, analyzing why it works, and maybe modifying some things if neccesary to adapt it for us. I think I'm the only one in my group who thinks this way, kek.

If you don't honestly, I think you're bound to fail because no country or politcal body makes EVERYTHING from scratch.

>We have to find a way to have our own thing while being aware that we are still inserted in a world with an already defined system and way of operating, and we can learn to take advantage of that instead of pulling a Christopher McCandless.

Yeah, and have a set of goals and women understanding what they're up against. Reason why things fail, is because of lack of preperation and foresight. It's just retarded to believe that everything will be a utopia without an actual framework and plan. We'll get nowhere trying to take the whole system down without leveraging it to make our own.

>I've been reading about evolutionary biology and group adaptation (yes, Darwin's Cathedral) and I feel it helped me envision a bit more clearly what I want to achieve.

I think sociology/anthroplogy is closer to humans than biology, especially since the field is highly misogynistic and less useful in application due to the unique complexities of human life.

>>Have laws and rules, and our own written constitution.
Also detail our ideological tenets so new members have to read them and agree before being acepted.

I agree. I think what's key is highlighting male propaganda in terms of the sexes and setting that straight first socially speaking. >>40557 this anon says it best. Essentially rewriting society ground up would achieve best results.

> I feel that for example, writting our own history books and having our own flag and symbols is something we should try to achieve, and that's one of the points that my group and I actually share in common.

Hard agree. My only caviat is where would we as an online community help eachother and keep the movement/ideology strong?

I actually love this. I never had thought of use of propoganda to flip gender roles. It was done to us, why not the other way around?

>>40594
>My only caviat is where would we as an online community help eachother and keep the movement/ideology strong?
Ayrt! In my activist organization, we use an Instagram account to publicize our activities and workshops, spread feminist theory, etc. My idea is to start talking with other radfem separatist groups from other countries that we follow on Instagram, so we can start to discuss topics like this and exchange ideas. I think it's better to try to build a society with women who belong to activist groups/organizations, since they have more experience working closely with others and most important, in a way they are proving they have the motivation to dedicate time to this project and hopefully take it seriously. I feel like that's also a good way of filtering potential free-riders that don't want to contribute anything to the society and expect it to build itself, or those who always find excuses not to get shit done (I admit those are present in irl activism too, but they tend to last very short and leave orgs on their own). Besides that, I'm doing my part and currently focusing on meeting more radfems from my country, sharing with them my ideas, and letting them know they can join our group and help with our proto female society. Also I want to start posting on our Instagram more about this and spread our ideas/plans for the society through there.
I feel like connecting with others irl is the best way to stay motivated, specially doing so with other women that read theory and have their ideologies well stablished (another requisite imo to be a member of the society).