> Had it been standing up to the establishment on account of her
religion that
> cost Mary Daly her job, I would sympathize greatly.
> She has become a hero(ine) to many feminists, but the mystique
that
> surrounds her has also covered up her failings in her campaign.
If women
> want recognition, they are not going to get it by attacking men
> indiscriminately.
I would agree with this as long as the word "indiscriminately" is
heavily emphasized. Attacking men is precisely what we are doing
since we are taking away their traditional power structure and it
is well not to fudge that - except when negotiating with male
dominated committees!!
Men who resist us are not being silly, or unintelligent, blind,
or even especially malicious - though some are all those things
as some women are too. In the main men resist us from a natural
self interest.
Dominance is a great deal of the time, delicious! a major
motivator of our species, for both genders and all ages. Equality
is unstable and fragile. Pretending otherwise gets us
disillusioned of our illusions and therefore saddened.
We may feel as I do that the current inflated power structures
men hold are poisonous to them (the corruption of power) as they
are also damaging to women, so therefore they stand to gain
immensely by a new choice of masculinities. But my thinking this
slips over into an insufferable maternal "for your own good" from
a man's point of view. I can entirely understand and respect men
who grasp the power they are born into and are utterly or
partially reluctant to let go of it. Why shouldn't they be? If I
work for my best options as a woman so do they as men.
When I find it necessary to attack men I try to do it as a
considered choice, a necessity. This is not in the main because I
feel I "must" be nice to them, or listen to them, but because
it's more effective to discriminate whether aggression will get
me what I want, or not.
(When I listen to men, which I do a lot, it is from individual
interest or a more detached interest in how masculinity operates,
not because of any principle that bears on me as an "ought.")
Sometimes it's sad and painful to attack a man/men because I like
or respect the man/ men, or I can see that he/they have not
considered the area much so it's a great shock to them to be
attacked. Nevertheless my self interest can require it at times
when explanation and patience just doesn't work.
Sometimes by contrast it's sheer pleasure to invoke the warrior
and crash fiercely into the fray using every last atom of my
female savagery.
Perhaps just because I know I can do this if I wish, my usual
approach to men is actually very gentle! I am the devoted wife,
and mother of a son after all, and I find some of the men in my
faith community deeply inspiring as "men of the Goddess."
But once years ago, like Mary Daly, I was more often anti-men. I
also in the '70s defended manhating as a valid feminist stance
and I still do. Feminist anger is life affirming and energising.
As long as it moves fairly soon into action and does not halt in
obsession it's a healthy realistic reaction to patriarchy, and
normally processes onwards to a milder stance over the years as
one grows in personal power.
Separatism is a powerful warning to men that they cannot have
access to females unless they behave better. Your girlfriend/
wife might join Them! so we need separatist women as political
warnings if for no other reason.
I think Daly is a fascinating study, necessarily viewed in her
historical context. When she began her work, and for much of its
formal duration in academia, it was unheard of for women to meet
together and share ideas. It was unknown for female concerns to
be seen as primary, important, serious. To make this vital thing
happen she had to go far beyond the polite discussion mode. She
did it and achieved a great deal from which we now benefit.
She also used the persona of "star" "fighting revolutionary" etc
to good effect, both very contradictory of polite womanly modes,
but with unwelcome side effects. When I met her mid 80s she was
utterly flown on the passion of her passage. Her arrogance was
complete in not acknowledging prior work by women who had gone
before her, (Gould Davis/ Starhawk/ Christ & Plaskow/ Saiving/
Solanas etc ) something I found far more of concern than merely
being rude and difficult with men.
If we are exploring the full capacities of our selves we should
not be pressured to restrict ourselves to traditionally feminine
modes of peaceful, dignified protest, or artificially forgiving,
or indeed compulsively nurturing modes towards men. Women who
face violent attack are hampered by a reluctance to hurt another
even in self defence, which self defence training addresses as
its first priority.
Another way to see it is that if we are to respect men as our
equals then we must trust that they can handle us when we are not
being sweet and pretty. Conversely we can also similarly trust
ourselves to handle them when they are brutal, or obstructive.
Re the anecdote when Daly was rude to a male enquirer, it is hard
to assess w/o knowing more.
Many's the time I've been brushed off impatiently by male
speakers who can't be bothered with a mere woman so I don't find
such behaviour unusual, though her use of a swear word certainly
adds piquancy and directness. Men doing the same either 'fail to
see' me, or answer me with a brief few words of condescending
superficiality. Arguably, a rude rejection acknowledges the
other's reality as a person with more respect than being fobbed
off does.
Then also I would find Daly's demonstration to other women that
we don't have to compulsively serve the needs of males, very
important. A great deal of her work is about emphasizing the
priority of women, which is so awesome a worldview challenge it
leaves little energy at times for finesse.
Yes it would be nice if as a public figure one always had endless
patience and courtesy and held one's temper! Giving guest
lectures is highly exhausting and vulnerable. How courteous was
the context to her just before she gave her lecture? Had a man/
men been aggressive to her earlier?
This can happen regardless of whether we are 'strident' or
conduct ourselves in sweetness, so constant work to be polite and
patient and considerate bring us very much less than that in
return. Very maternal stuff, very draining.
Where do we place her fear and vulnerability in the package? It
takes enormous confidence to handle the opposition with calm,
restraint and courtesy *at all times* without a slip. I don't
think we can ask women to have that level of confidence yet in
terms of how we are routinely attacked and drained, but it's
coming closer as a possibility. Certainly it's admirable strategy
when we can do it.
The reality is human. Constant hostility to her I think
embittered Daly and made her harsh - she has always been honest
about her aims and methods after all. She was shaped in an
earlier feminist time. Who can say that the often hypocritical
way we must operate now in the structures of power is better than
her directness?
Shan
www.ovular.co.uk
|
