Another Glimpse of the Real Feminism™

Here is a long, revealing interview with the infamous radical lesbian separatist feminist (and lapsed Catholic) Mary Daly, published in What Is Enlightenment? magazine in 1998:

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/daly.asp?page=1

So now you know what a Real Feminist™ is. They don't get any realer than Mary Daly! In this interview, Mary mentions a book that she had recently published, called Quintessence. Well, I would say that Mary Daly herself is the quintessence of feminism—and that means all of feminism, not just some small, obscure corner of it. Mary Daly is the quintessential feminist, the gravitating singularity, the gold standard if you will, the true index by which you must gauge your own feminism, or lack of same. Simply put, the less like Mary Daly you are, the more feministically marginal you are, the more irrelevant you are in terms of feminism's core principles. And yet, if you insist on embracing the "feminist" descriptor for any reason whatsoever, then you are living on a slippery hillside pointing directly toward Mary Daly and people of her kind. Think very carefully, and decide if that is the sort of company you wish to keep. Then consider disowning the word "feminist", and calling yourself something entirely different. Because if you don't, you should expect the same treatment that Mary Daly dishes out to MEN!

What's that you say? It's unfair to treat all feminists the way that radfems treat all men? Well I think its bloody ill-mannered of radfems to treat all men that way in the first place! So please don't cry on my shoulder about unfairness: of course its unfair! When was unfairness ever fair? Quit your damned whining! And then, do the right thing and get on the right side. After all, we're not treating all women the way radfems treat all men. Just all feminists! So I think that sounds pretty fair after all!

Here is an extract from the interview:

WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" writes: "At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race." What do you think about this statement?

MD: I think it's not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.

WIE: Yes. I find myself now thinking that's a bit shocking.

MD: Well, it's shocking that it would be shocking.

WIE: So it doesn't sound like your vision of a separate nation for women is something you see as an interim stage that would eventually lead to men and women living together in true equality.

MD: No. That's a very old question. I answered that to audiences twenty-five, thirty years ago. I just don't think that way. See, right now, I would be totally joyous to have a great community of women—whether men are somewhere out on the periphery or not. I don't have this goal of: "Oh, then we can all get together again!" That doesn't seem to be a very promising future. So why would I think about it? I think it's pretty evident that men are not central to my thought.

Fine. If Mary Daly declares that men are "not central to her thought", then I certainly won't hold it against her. However, Mary Daly (or anybody else for that matter) ought to understand that by the principle of compensative symmetry, certain men may likewise refuse to make women central to their thought, and that if this be the case, these men are certainly entitled to their opinion.

Very well then. Real Feminism™ is a many-splendored thing with a great diversity of aspects, yet we need not entertain a single crumb of doubt what kind of future it would create for men. A couple of months ago, I posted about another Real Feminist™ and the Real Feminism™ that she wishes to realize. Now would be an excellent time to read that post again: counterfem.blogspot.com/2009/05/real-feminism-as-real-as-it-gets.html

So, do you STILL prefer to call yourself a "feminist"? Then go line up with Mary Daly, Susan Caringella, and a passel of others like them. Or if you unfortunately haven't got the stomach to do that, then just stop calling yourself a feminist altogether! But either way, make your critical decision and get the hell off that fence!

Yes, the world slouches toward Armageddon, and I am exactly the kind of 'patriarch' that Mary Daly thinks I am. As if I had any decent choice. . .

Thank you! ;)