Sources used in this document:

Lesbian separatists argued that women were innately more connected to nature than their male counterparts, and this connection would enable them to develop new, positive woman-woman connections (Sandilands 2002: 122). The discourse of what is natural has informed how sexuality is viewed in Western culture, and lesbian separatists attempt to question and challenge this. Queer ecology fuses a non-heterosexist view of the landscape with ecofeminism. Sandilands analyzes a lesbian separatist community in Oregon to examine this issue. The community wished to create a kind of utopian existence, free from heterosexual norms. Land was to be owned commonly. But inevitably divisions begin to emerge between owners and non-owners and the community began to shrink. Sandilands ascribes clear ideological motivations to the separatists, whom she suggests consciously felt rural landscapes were sites of domination by men (Sandilands 2002: 146). Women used traditional agriculture and strove to be in harmony with the land, ethics that still remain today in the remaining separatist's attitudes.

Going back to rural life was seen as a political act, and a rejection of male, urban culture based on ownership. Gardens were gynocentrically designed; women took on the names of natural forces. Sandliands paints a highly idealized portrait of this community, and she also stresses how ideology was woven into the relationship of the women to the land. However, there are hints in the article that this uncomplicated and natural relationship may not be as harmonious as Sandliands' dominant tone. During the collective's early years, she vaguely notes that there were profound conflicts between members about practical matters such as land ownership, hygiene, and farming practices. Practical matters pertaining to how the land was used did not always conform to the collective's ideology. Sometimes, the women were led astray by their ideology, as their zeal for planting trees caused them to plant conifers which interfered with the growth of white oak (Sandilands 2002: 147).

Ultimately, farming is a hands-on endeavor in a way that transcends 'feminism' as a concept, and the land must be responded to, not theorized. How the women created a viable community is not clear from the article, and all of the women's differences are only alluded to in a few sentences, although there was significant attrition of the community. It is significant that the Collective's most notable 'production' is not agriculture, but a work of writing. This suggests, despite the insistence on the bounty of the land, that for the collective the land still remains a symbolic place on which ideas are imposed, rather than something in and of itself. Imposing concepts upon Mother Earth is, of course, what patriarchy is accused of doing. Noting this is not to blame the women, but it is important to ask if it is really possible to have a 'value free' and 'judgment free' relationship with nature.