"In his disgusting discussion of Dora, who suffered from “hysteria”, Freud relays her experience of being sexually assaulted at the age of fourteen and pontificates upon what she should have experienced. He describes the scene in which an older man and friend of the family, having managed to get Dora alone, “suddenly clasped the girl to him and pressed a kiss upon her lips”. Freud’s profound analysis follows: "This was surely just the situation to call up a distinct feeling of sexual excitement in a girl of fourteen who had never been approached. But Dora had at that moment a violent feeling of disgust, tore herself free from the man, and hurried past him to the staircase and from there to the street door." Clearly, Freud assumes that any woman who is “approached”, that is, sexually accosted, should respond with uncontrollable visceral desire for the man who mauls and violates her. Thus Dora’s normal reaction of disgust and self salvation is negated. Freud drones in: "In this scene, the behavior of this child of fourteen was already and entirely hysterical. I should without question consider a person hysterical in whom an occasion for sexual excitement elicited feelings that were preponderantly or exclusively unpleasurable; and I should do so whether or no the person were capable of producing somatic symptoms. Instead of the genital sensation which would certainly have been felt by a healthy girl in such circumstances, Dora was overcome by disgust." In this maze of obscene babble the great mind-shrinker announces that any woman who does not enjoy rape is hysterical. Freud’s psychoanalytic babble is a paradigm of the rapist’s erasure of male responsibility for rape on all levels. The patient is not merely blamed for being a victim who “asked for it”. She is blamed for being a victim who did not “ask for it” and who did not love being violated."

- Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly

It is said of the Goddess Demeter after her daughter Korê (named "Persephone" after being abducted by Hades and brought to the underworld) was stolen from her, that she compromised. She had stated flatly that she would not allow the earth to bear fruit again unless her daughter was returned to her. But, according to the patriarchal myth, when Zeus decided that Persephone should live with her husband (Hades) for three months of the year and pass the other nine months with her mother, Demeter set aside her anger and bade the soil be fertile. But Persephone had tasted of the pomegranate; she was possessed by her husband, and every year when the cold season arrived she went to join him in the deep shadows. The myth expresses the essential tragedy of women after the patriarchal conquest. The male myth-makers presented an illusion of reunion between Demeter and Persephone-Korê. The compromise can be seen as forced upon Demeter, but it was fatal for her to undervalue the power of her own position and set aside her anger, just as it was fatal that she taught the kings of the earth her divine science and initiated them into her divine mysteries. The patriarchal Greek myth-makers (re-makers) constructed a typical phallocratic plot when they (through Zeus) seduced her into the apparently satisfactory—even triumphant—compromise. However, the fact that the daughter was allowed to return for a "period of time" says everything about patriarchy.

-Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology

Looking for radical feminist texts and other downloadable PDFs of anything regarding female spirituality, or anything else that would be good in a library for Radical Women. I’ve started one on Facebook and will eventually post it somewhere more accessible. If you’re on Facebook and would like to join for the resources please lmk and any links to PDFs of this nature would be greatly appreciated.

Be-Witching - Mary Daly

Take courage 💕

I went to the local used book store today with a friend and was lucky to find a few feminist books. I've seen quotes of Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth and Promiscuities on tumblr before and I am looking forward to reading it. Please feel free to let me know your insights if you have read these. I'm particularly excited for the center book as I am Native American.

Obviously, it is important to be critical when reading any literature regarding Feminist theory and form your own opinions and beliefs. Only through education and learning our history of opression through the voices of the feminists before us will be also be able to make change in our time that can benefit the health and safety of all women now and in the future.

“It is a mistake to see men as pitiable victims or vessels to be “saved” through female self-sacrifice. However possessed males may be within the patriarchy, it is their order; it is they who feed on women’s stolen energy. It is a trap to imagine that women should “save” men from the dynamics of demonic possession; and to attempt this is to fall deeper into the pit of patriarchal possession. It is women ourselves who will have to expel the Father from ourselves, becoming our own exorcists.”

— Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, p. 2

Agree with your take on political lesbianism! For me the “problematic” (for lack of a better word) nature of it has been mostly terminological. Encouraging female separatism is definitely endorsed in radblr, it's the calling yourself a lesbian part gyns take offence with. But as you said, critical thinking is a must and we can view it as a product of a different era. The terminology may be outdated but much of the feminist theory it involves is still relevant and valuable

thank you! I myself have political critiques of political lesbianism/lesbian separatism but imo it’s really disingenuous to caricature the OG poli lez feminists as “straight women who aren’t even ATTRACTED to women using lesbians as their personal sex toys!!” or “bisexuals making it seem like lesbians are sexually available to men!!” (as if men care at all lol)

it seems like their arguments were more along the lines of “most women are latently bisexual and every woman has the potential to have fulfilling sexual/romantic relationships with women if she unlearns patriarchal conditioning.” do we have to agree with that? ofc not. but it is definitely a very different beast. and frankly, I think it’s pretty self-defeating to write off the feminist contributions of women who chose to forego men and prioritize their relationships with women because we don’t like that they had a more expansive definition of one word than many of us do today

''Overcoming the silencing of women is an extreme act, a sequence of extreme acts. Breaking our silence means living in existential courage. It means discovering our deep sources, our spring. It means finding our native resiliency, springing into life, speech, action.''

- Gyn/Ecology, Mary Daly.

Children's books provide chilling evidence of mind-control through dismembering myth. Fairy tales are particularly gruesome examples. An apparently genteel contemporary type of disguised mind-dismembering myth for children is exemplified in The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein. It is the story of a tree consistently referred to by the pronoun she—who gives absolutely everything she has to a boy. This begins innocently enough, with her shade, leaves, and fruit. But, the boy grows up and cuts off her branches and then her trunk. Finally, in his old age, he uses her stump as a seat. As a result of all this nonreciprocated giving, the tree is "happy." The jacket blurb of this book, published in 1964 but still a big seller, describes it as "a tender story . . . a moving parable for readers of all ages." The story, in fact, is one of female rape and dismemberment. It draws upon sources in the Background of female identity, taking the Tree of Life—who is the Goddess—and making her a willing participant in her own mutilation, which makes her "happy." Her degradation is total, for the "Giving Tree" wallows in self-destruction. Here is a model of masochism for female readers of all ages, and of sadism for boys of all ages. This chilling children's tale is an extension of christian myth. It is a superrefined, invasive, and deceptive offspring of self-satisfied secularists secure in their superiority to christian crudity. The saccharine sweet story of a little boy who "loves" a tree—a young Apollo who crowns himself with her leaves—has "healthier" appeal than overt S and M biblical tales of a dead godman crowned with thorns. Thus the post-christian (that is prechristian) parable has deceptive acceptability, extending its tentacles into unaware minds, guiding them to a more primal Fatherland, inhabited by paradigms of patriarchal matricide. It thus brings its parental purchasers and readers into unwitting compliance with primary programming for gynocide.

Whether or not the authors, illustrators, and promoters of such books "understand" that they are communicating gynocidal messages is beside the point. Since self-deception is of the essence of doublethink, they undoubtedly would respond with incredulity/amusement/indignation to such an analysis. For they themselves have been programmed not to recognize gynocidal reversals. Within the massive public relations business of patriarchy, the promotion of rape and dismemberment has top priority, and it is essential that the promoters make this fact invisible to everyone, especially to themselves. As George Orwell wrote of his character, Winston Smith, in 1984: "For the first time he perceived that if you want to keep a secret you must also hide it from yourself."

-Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology

That's a labrys, for goodness' sake

The usual level terf knowledge of feminism and queer history is clearly on display in this tweet:

The person is replying to a tweet about a lesbian protest in favour of trans rights. The tweet uses a picture of a labrys (a kind of axe, which is a lesbian symbol). The reply says

Lesbians tend not to promote things with weapons.

Let's take a look at an important radfem text from 1978, Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly. In this paragraph (p420 of my copy), she is describing a metaphorical meeting of Amazon warriors which is being invaded by the demons of patriarchy.

The Aggressors, the personifications of virile violence, “explain” to the crowd that the labrys is obsolete. They offer what they describe as a modernized improvement: the “protection racket.” They proclaim that Amazons need no longer possess weapons of our own and they offer their special services. It is noticeable that some demons in this group wear police uniforms and some wear military uniforms, whereas others wear plainclothes. Before they are finished, a labrys flies through the air and grazes the horns of their chief spokesperson, which had been hidden by a policeman’s hat. The Chaircrone explains that it must have dropped from the ceiling and calls for Dis-order.

Other people than me have pointed this out. But I want to note a more subtle piece of rewriting or forgetting lesbian history.

The 1978 paragraph above is explicitly anti-cop. Yet there are terfs in that thread with "keep prisons" in their names. Suddenly they think cops are friends.

Let's not forget that Mary Daly was a transphobe (amongst her other prejudices). She was no friend to our community. But these terfs' idea of radical feminism is not worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as hers.

They are not the heirs of history they like to pretend they are.

Naming is Power

It is a mistake to see men as pitiable victims or vessels to be “saved” through female self-sacrifice. However possessed males may be within patriarchy, it is their order; it is they who feed on women’s stolen energy. It is a trap to imagine that women should “save” men from the dynamics of demonic possession; and to attempt this is to fall deeper into the pit of patriarchal possession. It is women ourselves who will have to expel the Father from ourselves, becoming our own exorcists.

“Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism” - Mary Daly

Why indeed must God be a noun? Why not a verb—the most active and dynamic of all?

Mary Daly