Skip to content

Mary Daly, R.I.P

January 4, 2010

53 Comments
  1. Mary Sunshine permalink
    January 4, 2010 9:09 pm

    I feel surrounded by her mind and spirit. I love her. Tears stand in my eyes.

  2. atheistwoman permalink
    January 5, 2010 12:44 am

    Oh that is sad. She was a firebrand, that’s for sure!

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, you are the only blog I have come across to note her passing.

  3. January 6, 2010 6:51 pm

    One of the internet’s biggest supporters of all things male under the name of feminism is now taking heat from men for not sucking dick hard enough. Take heed women. Appreciate a woman just for a second and see how quick the menz will run out crying how much they are being abused and neglected.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 6, 2010 9:19 pm

      Yes, I am so pissed about what the funfeminists are doing to her now.

    • January 6, 2010 9:27 pm

      Nothing like a good radical feminist bashing to remind them how much better they are than those mean nasty women who have the nerve to not put men first.

    • darthvelma permalink
      January 7, 2010 6:06 pm

      Delurking because I just can’t help myself from commenting about the trainwreck that is Shakesville. I think my favorite part of this is that rather than seeing the situation for what it is…a drive-by from a trans with an axe to grind…Melissa did what she always does and flounced from her own blog. *snort*

      And of course, now everyone is falling all over themselves to tell her how much they love her and appreciate Shakesville as a “safe space”. What. Ever. I’ve watched this pattern too many times to do anything other than laugh.

      I think it speaks volumes about that site that no one ever acknowledged womanistmusings outing “voz” as the worst kind of woman-hater. Apparently one can believe all “cis” women need to be raped and still be considered an ally. I think I can do without that kind of “ally” thank you very much.

      Btw, love this blog. Read it every day…over and over and over hoping for updates. *snorts at self*

    • January 7, 2010 6:30 pm

      Oh you have given me a good laugh. I do not want to “pile-on” her, but, it is hard not to laugh at how the signs of arrested development play out over there (And I would hold my opinion if she didn’t center men so much in the name of feminism). Margie often screams into the phone, “STOP GOING OVER THERE!” LOL. Wait, I am the one who screams, –not her. It is exactly like they say how people cannot avert their eyes from train wrecks. I try to avert my eyes, but they seem to have to look. It is ghastly, I know. I am truly ashamed of myself. But, I cannot stop laughing and in my head mocking all the theatrics. Of course the ego must be nursed in order to amend for thy lack of purity, thus flouncing is essential. Good Heavens.

      And I just love the whole, “I’m not saying she is silly, but one of us is silly and it is not me!” line of reasoning when it is asserted how she accepts dissent but not dissent. LOL! By the way, that quote (perhaps not verbatim) comes from the movie (miniseries, I suppose) Wives and Daughters.

      Just send them money, all will be well.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 7, 2010 7:30 pm

      Ha!

      “It is exactly like they say how people cannot avert their eyes from train wrecks.”
      That is how I feel about most blogs I read. I feel like such an addict.

  4. January 6, 2010 7:10 pm

    Wow, not even 10 comments in, Kitty. It’s amazing to me that no matter how instrumental a woman’s work has been to a philosophy of women’s freedom, trannies, while claiming to identify *as* women, will celebrate her death if she saw that transition was itself misogynist. I’m not sure why any woman is fooled into believing that these assholes give even half a damn about female people.

    I truly appreciated Daly’s analysis of transition, and I think her Frankenstein analogy is dead-on.

  5. January 6, 2010 8:23 pm

    Ok… next time, please trigger warning ladies. I had NO IDEA that I would find/learn this shit:

    womanistmusings Today 10:47 AM
    @Melissa
    Please do not prostrate yourself for the sake of VOZ. Granted Daly had several issues which is why I did not post about her death myself however anyone who has taken more than cursory glance at this blog is well aware of where your principles lay.

    @Voz She apologized and she updated the information. Given your history, I am quite certain that your “concerns” are more about raging at others. I have not forgotten your suggestion at Feministe that all cis women need to be raped in order to understand the pain of trans women. Liss is good people and she deserves better than to be attacked by the likes of you.

    A trans-woman saying born women need to be raped in order to understand the SELF INFLICTED pain of men? And some how we’re not supposed to believe these people hate born women?

    I want to throw up and cry and scream all in the same breath. omg

    • January 6, 2010 8:30 pm

      I know right. One day, I shall trudge through Feministe to verify that claim. It sounds credible though.

    • January 6, 2010 8:46 pm

      What I don’t understand is the logic in saying something like that… perhaps because there is none.

      What goal would it accomplish to have all born women raped? As an alleged woman, how could you ever wish that on people whom you desire to regard you as their sister?

      Only a man could be so callous, so hateful, so disgusting and think it is perfectly fine to say such a thing. I don’t care what is done to their bodies, the idea of using rape as a weapon to control women and to submit us to male desires, ideals, etc. It is MALE, it is MALE, it is MALE, to use rape as a weapon. It is MALE, it is MALE, it is MALE, to think YOUR suffering is greater than anyone elses. And it is MALE, M-A-L-E male to feel entitled to think that inflicting a very terrible, horrible, life altering experience on women is just in any way.

      I don’t doubt that it is painful for males to be confused and to think they’re women, but why is it that females, born females at that (notice they’re not wishing this on each other) are always the target of hatred, anger, and misogyny? It is MALES who reject tranny men as women the strongest and who rape, beat, and torture them for fooling them. Why is that hatred and anger directed toward born females? Is it because it is easy to go after women, because you know no one will stop you? Is it because, like all males, women are just bound to be blamed for whatever their twisted little minds can dream up?

      I’m deeply disturbed by this. I feel so sorry for all women who have ever been raped by a male, and those who haven’t, to then have to read another male wishing it on them.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      January 6, 2010 9:28 pm

      well, and also, how fucking fabulous for voz and whoever thinks like voz does that there are populations of women where that wish has already come true! and that female people, the world over, are never *that* far from all-of-us-being-raped in the first fucking place, voz’s wishes or no. I don’t and have never taken voz seriously about anything other than narcissism and hatefulness. I’m sorry you had to see that, though, soulsistasoulja.

      additionally on this topic – thank you for being a space where flawed female people do not get compared to rapists (Polanski) and Hitler for *speech* and the written word alone. Somehow “free speech” is something to support and not vilify people for so long as it’s female-hating (hello, many people’s defense of even the most hateful pornography!) Let a radical feminist say some shit that pisses males off, and someone better call the fucking Hague! fucking assholes.

    • January 6, 2010 10:45 pm

      As far as I know, comment 46 on this post is the relevant one, though the incriminating paragraph was deleted. And then Cara posted a follow-up apologizing for her “cis supremacy”!

      Anyone so misogynistic that they suggest all born women should be raped should be exiled from internet feminism for life, not placated with an apology post.

      I despair for feminism.

    • January 7, 2010 5:04 am

      with all the derailing by white women on posts or threads where woc are sharing our experiences with racism, would such a public apology be made by a white woman? I mean really it happens all the damn time. If the topic is racism, white women find some way to either use language that doesn’t accurately frame it as racism, or completely avoid discussion on racism. OR, here is the big one, if/when one of them messes up no one comes in saying oh you were wrong for that let me be accountable to other woc and put myself on blast.

      Women go out of their way to appease males who cry “oppression” LORDE help me it’s enough to make you want to cry. I’m pretty damn close to just being over it all.

    • January 7, 2010 6:00 am

      That is so true. White feminists walk on eggshells when it comes to trans males, but it’s exactly the opposite when it comes to WoC – instead white feminists expect WoC to walk on eggshells regarding WW’s racism.

      That right there sums up the whole problem, until WW address our racism/white supremacy and stop pandering to men in dresses, the feminist movement will remain in shambles.

      White feminists have a lot to answer for.

  6. January 6, 2010 8:25 pm

    Also, Mary Daly was racist too, but hell even I posted something at my space about her.

    I have shivers just even thinking about what a warped, twisted, disgusting, hateful, misogynist mind this voz character is. I never go to the tranny sites, so I don’t know anything about tranny males, but reading that has really shaken me. Right up there with ole Misha.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 6, 2010 8:44 pm

      Do you mind my asking what you are referring to, re: her racism?

    • January 6, 2010 9:02 pm

      I don’t know all the details, because as I’ve said before, I haven’t read much non-fiction, including feminist criticism because I like to discover for myself, you know, like untying a difficult knot instead of having a professional knot untie-er (lol) do it for me. However, from what I can gather, Daly’s racism was challenged by Audre Lorde and Daly did not publicly respond to the challenge. There has been talk that they settled it among themselves, but to put that in an analogy representative of the blog world, it would be like a popular white feminist blogger getting called out on her racism and instead of addressing the topic where she was called out, she deals with it through private email exchanges.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 6, 2010 9:09 pm

      Oh, that’s right I had forgotten about the euro-centrism (I hadn’t known about the ignoring part of it). That’s upsetting.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 6, 2010 9:09 pm

      Thanks Kitty.

    • January 6, 2010 9:10 pm

      I posted the link below, Kitty could you help me fix that? I’m trying to edit it but for some reason it’s not doing it.

    • January 6, 2010 9:16 pm

      Not implying that the lack of response was in itself the extent of the racism, just saying. Perhaps one could say the lack of public response suggests indifference, which supports such an assertion as reasonable.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 6, 2010 9:10 pm

      Oh, thanks soulsistasoulja.

    • January 6, 2010 9:11 pm

      No problem. Thank you for asking, I’d just assumed that people would know. I should’ve posted it from the start.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 6, 2010 9:17 pm

      That letter is heartbreaking. Presumably Mary did it because of her Catholic/European centrist thinking. Apparently she was beyond god the father, but not god the white man?

    • January 7, 2010 12:54 am

      “Apparently she was beyond god the father, but not god the white man?”

      Beautifully said!

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 7, 2010 3:36 am

      Thanks!

    • January 7, 2010 3:54 pm

      That letter is incredible. So incredibly generous. Every word I read of Audre Lorde’s moves me so much.

  7. Valerie M permalink
    January 6, 2010 9:21 pm

    That is exactly why I very rarely go to that blog. And did you see the way another man galloped in and saved the day at the end of the thread? Ugh. Males rule the roost at Shakesville.

  8. Valerie M permalink
    January 6, 2010 9:47 pm

    That letter is amazing, soulsistasoulja! Now I want to read Audre Lorde – it sounds as though she was a brilliant woman. I hope Mary Daly took the opportunity to learn from her.

    • January 6, 2010 9:49 pm

      One of Lorde’s poems was the first to make me cry. Before that, I assumed people who cried at poetry were too sentimental. I will find and post the poem later tonight, when I get home.

    • January 7, 2010 5:12 am

      Lorde is amazing. I love her writing, I love her mind I love how she wrote about black female power so clearly, and introduced us to goddesses in our own likeness.

      I felt that she was overly nice in that damn letter too. Very respectful, very peaceful, very truthful. The way some white women discuss it enrages me, if she had kissed Mary Daly’s ass it wouldn’t have been enough.

      The tremendous amount of work it must have taken her to address Mary’s racism with such calm, care, gentleness is amazing to me. I don’t think many white women *get* just how much energy it takes a woc to engage one of you on racism. It comes at a great cost to woc to do so.

      I wish that Mary had been more public when she responded. I think it was only fair to expect her to publicly address it, given her eurocentric book was public. I think that if white women put the same energy into addressing their racism/privilege as some do to pleasing men (see that thread Miska posted for us all here from feministe) we might actually go somewhere. That is the only way to truly be accountable to woc for privilege abuse, bigotry, and racism. How is it that men deserve more of a kind word than women, sisters? (not asking for an answer, just thinking out loud.)

  9. Thursday's Child permalink
    January 7, 2010 2:14 pm

    Mary Daly responded both privately and publicly to Audre Lorde’s originally private letter to her. Lorde denied for the rest of her life that Daly had responded to her, but after Lorde’s death her biographer, Alexis DeVeaux, found Daly’s letter to her in her personal papers with “Daly” written on it in the lower left hand corner in Lorde’s handwriting. Daly also responded publicly to Lorde in her book Amazon Grace. Daly and Lorde also had a meeting in New York to discuss Lorde’s concerns with Daly’s book and Daly writes that Lorde seemed satisfied after the meeting but apparently was not.

    • January 7, 2010 2:26 pm

      Can you link to the response, Thursday’s Child?

      I wonder how much time elapsed between Lorde sending the letter privately, publishing the letter publicly, and Daly responding at all.

      Regardless of a response, though, Lorde’s charge of racism stands. And it does not surprise me that a white woman would declare satisfactory that which left something to be desired by a black woman.

  10. Thursday's Child permalink
    January 7, 2010 4:39 pm

    I don’t have a link. I read about it in Mary Daly’s book, Amazon Grace and Alexis DeVeaux’s biography of Audre Lorde, Warrior Poet, both of which I have. Not to say there isn’t a link anywhere, I just don’t know what it is.

    Daly’s private letter to Lorde was dated Sept. 22, 1979, about 4 months after Lorde’s private letter to Daly of May 1979. Daly explains in her book that for “deep and complex personal reasons” she was unable to respond to Lorde’s lengthy letter immediately. In the letter to Lorde Daly says “My long delay in responding to your letter by no means indicates that I have not been thinking about it – quite the contrary. I did think that by putting it aside for a while I would get a better perspective than at first reaction.” She also wrote to Lorde “You have made your point very strongly and you most definitely do have a point. I could speculate on how Gyn/Ecology would have been affected had we corresponded about this before the manuscript went to press, but it doesn’t seem creativity-conducing to look backward. There is only now and the hope of breaking the barriers between us – of constantly expanding the vision.” She then went on to suggest that they meet with each other in New York during the Simone DeBeauvoir conference, which they did. In her book Outercourse Daly writes of that meeting “in response to Audre Lorde’s objection that I failed to name Black Goddesses, that Gyn/Ecolgyis not a compendium of goddesses. Rather, it focuses primarily on those goddess myths and symbols which were direct sources of christian myth. Apparently Lorde was not satisfied, although she did not indicate this at the time. She later published and republished slightly altered versions of her originally personal letter to me in anthologies as an ‘Open Letter'”. Lorde’s main objection to Daly’s book as expressed in her May 1979 letter to Daly was in Daly’s handling of the international section in Gyn/Ecology on patriarchal atrocities, especially African genital mutilation. It was basically that Daly showed women as victims of these atrocities and as “token torturers” in the carrying out of these atrocities, but there was nothing on women’s history of resistance to these atrocities. This is a substantial objection in my opinion and also in Mary Daly’s. It was to this that Daly replied “you most definitely do have a point.” I guess the same could be said about the other chapters in the international section, though that was not Lorde’s focus. It *is* a shame that Daly and Lorde had not corresponded on this before the book went to press.

    Lorde maintained to the end of her life that Daly had never responded to her at all, either publicly or privately, and the existence of her letter to Lorde was not able to be proved, as Daly had not made a copy of the letter before sending it, until DeVeaux found it in Lorde’s personal papers.

    • January 7, 2010 8:10 pm

      “Lorde maintained to the end of her life that Daly had never responded to her at all, either publicly or privately, and the existence of her letter to Lorde was not able to be proved, as Daly had not made a copy of the letter before sending it, until DeVeaux found it in Lorde’s personal papers.”

      I could be VERY wrong, but it seems to me that you’re more concerned with calling Audre Lorde a liar than discussing the charges of racism and euro-centricity. It’s almost as if Lorde’s claims of not having received a letter, though she had, are more of a problem (to you) than Daly’s white privilege abuse/euro-centricity. Would you comment toward that? What is your intention in defending Daly, while blaming Lorde, as you are here?

  11. joankelly6000 permalink
    January 7, 2010 8:19 pm

    To me, it’s not possible to remove the problem of Daly and DeVeaux making these claims about Lorde when she was no longer alive to respond, but even if it *were*, there is something about Daly’s “public” response that feels not only self-serving (“I just want people to know I’m NOT racist like she said – I was having a hard day/months/year is all and just couldn’t handle addressing this prior!”), but also feels pointedly derisive towards Lorde, (“I guess there’s just no satisfying some people!”)

    Honestly I think it’s possible that both things may have been true – that Daly did send that letter, and talk to Lorde in NYC at that conference, and the Lorde was right that Daly never actually *responded* to her objections. I don’t find the above-quoted passages responsive at all to Lorde’s charges.

    • January 7, 2010 8:53 pm

      Joan I don’t either. I was thinking just as you wrote here, but wanted Thursday’s Child to respond first.

      Just because two women sat down and talked, doesn’t mean that racism was addressed or responded to. But for ppl who are hell bent on making Mary look like some sort of victim, I guess it’s enough that there was a letter and a lunch meeting. Have you looked at Lorde’s wiki page? “a scathing letter” is such a disgusting way to describe all of the care, and love, and appreciation and respect present in that letter to a woman who just couldn’t be bothered to at least even send a letter saying “Audre I received your letter, I need some time to consider this and respond” and instead thought oh poor me let me wait 4 months” and further isolate and alienate this woman whom I’ve offended so deeply.

      “It *is* a shame that Daly and Lorde had not corresponded on this before the book went to press.”

      No, I’ll tell you what *is* a shame though, that a black woman even had to tell a white woman that she was racist, divisive, and euro-centric. That a white woman didn’t go to a black woman and ask her if it were ok to quote her and ask for her input, is a shame. That a white woman thought she didn’t need to be accountable, or reach out to woc while appropriating the horrors experienced by those women, is a shame. That woc are STILL expected to hold the hands of ww and “let bygones be bygone” is a shame. That Mary was unable to self reflect in any real meaningful way for the sake of woc, is a shame. And most of all, that white women still, by and large, DON’T GET IT and defend this crap, is a damn shame.

      From me, further up in the thread:

      “I felt that she was overly nice in that damn letter too. Very respectful, very peaceful, very truthful. The way some white women discuss it enrages me, if she had kissed Mary Daly’s ass it wouldn’t have been enough.

      The tremendous amount of work it must have taken her to address Mary’s racism with such calm, care, gentleness is amazing to me. I don’t think many white women *get* just how much energy it takes a woc to engage one of you on racism. It comes at a great cost to woc to do so.”

      And we shouldn’t have to, since ww are claiming to be sisters and allies to woc. The lack of consideration for what it costs woc to correct, instruct, and address racism is disgusting.

  12. Thursday's Child permalink
    January 7, 2010 8:32 pm

    When I am logged into Word Press my user name comes up as Thursday’s Child, but some of you may know me under another name – Branjor. Sorry, I was writing so much I forgot to identify myself as Branjor in the post even though that is what I usually do in a “Thursday’s Child” post.

  13. Thursday's Child permalink
    January 7, 2010 8:43 pm

    Soulsistasolja, unfortunately, Audre Lorde did lie about not having received a response from Daly. Also, I said in my post that I considered Lorde’s criticism of Daly’s handling of the chapter on African genital mutilation, women as victims and as token torturers but not as resisters, to be valid and substantial. Mary Daly also considered it such. So you see, Mary Daly, the white woman, did not “declare satisfactory” that about her book which Audre Lorde objected to.

    • Valerie M permalink
      January 7, 2010 9:28 pm

      Branjor, you don’t know that Lorde lied. Even if Daly did write back to her (and by the way you are already taking a WW’s word over a BW’s when you say that she did), it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Lorde found her letter unresponsive.

      And even if she did lie, so what? Lying about receiving a response is nothing compared to the erasure of BW’s herstory. I’m not sure why you are keeping on about this.

  14. January 7, 2010 8:57 pm

    Banjor, you’re confusing who has written what to you. Margie responded saying:

    “Regardless of a response, though, Lorde’s charge of racism stands. And it does not surprise me that a white woman would declare satisfactory that which left something to be desired by a black woman.”

    Not me. Do you care to respond to what I have said, though? Also, not to speak for her, you have misunderstood what Margie said. She didn’t say that Mary “declared satisfactory” the portions of her book that Audre objected to.

  15. Thursday's Child permalink
    January 7, 2010 10:29 pm

    Soulsistasoulja, correct, it was Margie, not you who said ““Regardless of a response, though, Lorde’s charge of racism stands. And it does not surprise me that a white woman would declare satisfactory that which left something to be desired by a black woman.” Sorry. And I thought that Margie was assuming that Daly had declared the parts of her book to be satisfactory which Lorde had objected to (??). If I was wrong on this, then I don’t know what Margie meant.

    As to what you have said, I assume it is about the racism and Euro-centrism of the book? OK, I will respond to that. I read Gyn/Ecology more than 20 years ago and immediately recognized that it was mostly from a Euro-centric perspective. That did not surprise me however as Mary Daly is a white woman who deeply identifies with her European roots (specifically Irish). I considered it indicative of her integrity that she would write from where she herself is coming from, rather than (falsely) from where someone else is coming from. I rather excitedly anticipated that there would be more books coming out, utilizing some of the tools and insights Daly gave us in her book, only coming from *other* cultural perspectives. As I read somewhere, that was also Daly’s hope. Whether or not that hope was naive is something else. Also as to the Euro-centrism of the book, as Daly said, it was only meant to focus on goddess myths antecedent to christianity, not all goddesses. Many of these antecedent goddesses which Daly discussed were Asian, such as Isis and Astarte, not only European. Anyway, the problem seems to come in when Daly adds her section on patriarchal atrocities around the world. In this section she discusses Indian suttee, African genital mutilation, Chinese footbinding and European witch burning. In all of these chapters the emphasis is mainly on women as victims of the atrocities and, where it applies, as “token torturers” in the carrying out of the atrocities, not as valiant resisters against them. Though this is true for all the chapters, including the one on European witch burning, Lorde concerns herself only with this shortfall in the African chapter. While it may seem that the treatment of all the cultures is therefore equal in the book (for purposes of that particular section of the book, it is), I am thinking that with the basically European perspective of the rest of the book, that shortfall is not so bad in the European chapter, but it ends up shortchanging the history of women in other parts of the world, such as Asia and Africa. That I think was totally inadvertent on Daly’s part. I think a writer of any racial group or ethnicity that tries to be so inclusive of the entire world would probably end up with some deficiencies in their treatment of cultures other than their own. So the moral of the story seems to be if you are going to write a feminist book, discuss your own group only, or, if you want to include others, use good consultants from those other groups to make sure your treatment of those groups is as satisfactory as possible.

  16. January 8, 2010 3:03 am

    Branjor, you know exactly what I mean. Stop being obtuse. I’m actually rather sick of your little come-to-Margie’s-blog-to-defend-the-white-woman BULLSHIT you keep pulling.

    You repeat, over and over and over again, that Daly thought Lorde was satisfied with the results of their meeting. And then you say, again, repeatedly, that Lorde was apparently not as satisfied as you claim she made herself out to be at the end of the meeting. It is not surprising to me that Daly would have assumed Lorde was satisfied when she wasn’t. Easy as that. It’s amazing to me that you can type the word ‘satisfied’ some dozen times in a single fucking comment thread and then make the absolutely ridiculous claim that you have no idea what I’m talking about when I make mention of it in my first response to you.

    Frankly, I don’t think Daly did respond to Lorde, if by respond one means actually address the charges made. Daly saying that her book was meant to take into account only goddesses relevant to Christianity makes no sense whatsoever when you consider that Christianity was born in the goddamn MIDDLE EAST. Allow me to clarify for obtuse white women – There were no white people in the Middle East at Christianity’s inception. There were therefore no white goddesses.

    So, Daly’s dismissal of Lorde’s charge was unwarranted, baseless, and fucking insulting coming from one scholar to another. End of fucking story. If Lorde saw that drivel as a non-response, then the two of us see eye to eye. And *I* will maintain until the day that I die, even with evidence that Daly did shoot off a letter Lorde’s way, that Daly DID NOT RESPOND to Lorde’s charges of racism.

    So, now that Lorde and I are both “liars,” why don’t you take your white-woman whining to someone who gives a good goddamn. Stay the fuck away from my blog, Branjor. You, and white women like you, are not welcome.

    I’m sure FCM would love to have you over at her blog, where the two of you can whine together about how I just can’t take your “facts,” all while you wallow in some dreamland where the gods/goddesses overtaken by Christianity in the Middle East were white.

    • January 8, 2010 3:13 am

      xoxoxoxoxoxoxo

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 8, 2010 4:25 am

      I’m not sure if this is derailing or not, but curiosity killed the cat. If it is, just delete it. (This post would probably not be necessary if I remembered anything at all from GynEcology, but there you have it). I agree with the final conclusion that Daly’s actions/ writing were racist, but I’m not sure that her inclusion of European goddesses for pre-Christian culture is all that off if she already had a European mindset. For starters Catholicism of the Irish variety borrowed from the pre-Catholic beliefs there. And many of the stories in the bible have been clearly stolen part and parcel straight out of the Greek/Roman mythology. Eve and the apple, Pandora and the box, etc. And I have just gone to Google books, and seen that she did mention middle-eastern/Asian goddesses of the area of the birth of Christianity. That was the question bit that is probably very stupid and probably should be deleted.

      This is my main point: Wherever Christianity goes, it steals and incorporates the beliefs of the area. So, although the Irish, MiddleEastern/Asian, and Greek/Roman stealings happened much much earlier, it would have made sense (if not blind-sided by privilege and bigotry) to also speak of similar incorporations in other areas, the Caribbean, Africa, Latin America. What I’m trying to say, I suppose, is that it wouldn’t have even been separate from Daly’s original mission (roots of xtianity) to have gone along with Lorde’s vision.

      I also think it is pathetic how black women are expected to be prrrfect all the time (but SHE LIED!!!! Well no, but who gives a damn?) while white women can be huge bastards, liars, whatever, but you know, mum’s the word, because SISTERHOOD. Christ.

  17. January 8, 2010 5:28 am

    but I’m not sure that her inclusion of European goddesses for pre-Christian culture is all that off if she already had a European mindset.

    Well, for one thing, her book was not Beyond the Europeanized Christian God the Father. And even if it were, the Middle East is a conglomerate of Asian and African cultures. Greek/Roman cultures were also partly African-derived. So, no matter how you slice it, Africans should have been included. Her mentioning Asian gods/goddesses, but not African ones, only proves Lorde’s point.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      January 8, 2010 5:45 am

      “And even if it were, the Middle East is a conglomerate of Asian and African cultures. Greek/Roman cultures were also partly African-derived.”

      I did not know about that. Interesting.

  18. ybawife permalink
    January 9, 2010 4:37 am

    I don’t understand why at this stage of rad-fem thinking something written in the 1970’s needs to be so rooted and booted in order to validate or debunk Daly’s huge body of work. Daly is DEAD……her work is what is important from HER standpoint….Lorde is also a wonderful feminist, both womon deserve OUR respect not our abuse of each other or them……

    Feminism like all movements has its problems its triumphs and its disasters but if we look at Daly’s contribution and Lordes we can only hope to do a dot of what they have achieved for womon and feminism in general….let us be generous to all womon who struggle in the cause of womonkind………

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: