"Gyn/ecology" by Mary Daly

[Stephen C]

I'm interested to hear what you intelligent people here on the boards think/feel about this section of the book Gyn/ecology. I'm not the best at determining what is logical and what is not, so if anyone can shine some light on this is terms of logic I'd love to hear. 

"A few years ago one Robert Byrn, a 40-year-old professor of criminal law at Fordham University, took it upon himself to represent all human fetuses between the fourth and twenty-fourth week of gestation scheduled to be aborted in New York City municipal hospitals. Byrn was himself represented by attorney Thomas Ford, who made the following statement: "The fetus might well be described as an astronaut in a uterine spaceship." As Ellen Frankfort aptly comments:

It takes a certain kind of imagination to assume guardianship for something lodged within another's body - a rather acquisitive proprietary imagination that fits right in with the conception of a woman as a spaceship and the contents of her womb as an astronaut.
The astonishing Byrn incident and the analogy made by his attorney merit some attention for the light they throw upon the deceptions of male myth. Since the astronaut is perceived as the captain of a "vessel," there is a desire to see the fetus as controlling the woman. Moreover, the image of the astronaut in a spaceship is interesting also because in this image the "captain" is very much controlled by other males outside the spaceship (for example, politicians, economists, scientists, flight surgeons, engineers). This makes the analogy particularly "appropriate" in its perverse way, for the fetus is maintained in control of the woman by males outside (for example, politicians, legislators, priests, doctors, social workers, counselors, husbands, "lovers"). Moreover, the analogy involves deceptively circular reasoning, making it doubly appropriate in this doublethink context. For here, a biological event - the presence of the fetus in the uterus - is imaged as "like," that is, imitative of, a technological event - the presence of an astronaut in a a spaceship. This elicits an obvious question: *Is* the astronaut in the spaceship an attempt to imitate the situation of the fetus in a uterus? Elsewhere I have shown that there is (unacknowledged) evidence in ethical writings on abortion of a widespread male tendency to identify with fetuses. This merits further analysis.
There are clues about the source of this fetal identification syndrome (which is frequently fatal for women unable to obtain needed abortions) in Frankfort's description of Byrn as "a childless man who seeks to guard unwanted fetal tissue." Males do indeed deeply identify with "unwanted fetal tissue," for they sense as their own condition the role of controller, possessor, inhabitor of women. Draining the female energy, they *feel* "fetal." Since this perpetual fetal state is fatal to the Self of the eternal mother (Hostess), males fear women's recognition of this *real* condition, which would render them infinitely "unwanted." For the attraction/need of males for female energy, seen for what is is, is *necrophilia* - not in the sense of love for actual corpses, but of love for those victimized into a state of living death.
Frankfort's description of Byrn as "childless" also merits scrutiny. For it is the condition of *all* males to be childless, and there is evidence that this condition is experienced as disturbing to those who are obsessed with the reproduction of the male self (which should not be confused with any genuine desire to care for and energize another being). Indeed there are male authors who are very willing (perhaps too willing) to attest to the anxiety of males over their childless state. Philip Slater, for example, writes of "this vulnerability of the male in the sphere of worldly immortality which gives rise to the concept of the 'external soul,' so prominent in magic and mythology." According to his view, a woman need not guess whether something of herself continues on in a new organism, for she can see the child emerge from her own body:
Thus if one translates "soul" in these stories as "that part of me which will live on after I die," the woman initially holds her "soul" within herself. It is only man whose "soul" always resides outside of himself.
Thus "as men have been lamenting for centuries, his immortality is out of his own control."
According to this view, then, males identify the "immortal" soul with biological offspring, and women should feel fortunate in their role as incubators, shells, hotels, youth hostels, homes, hatcheries for human souls. I have already suggested that it is dangerous for women to accept reductionist theories about the male propensity for "womb envy." Thus it should arouse suspicion that Karen Horney's "womb envy" theory (with which she countered Freud's proposition of "penis envy") has been eagerly adopted by some liberal males (for example, Philip Slater). The problem with such a theory is that the implied criticism stops short of being a genuine feminist analysis. Hags must learn to double-double unthink (Andrea Dworkin's phrase) - that is, to go past the obvious level of male-made reversals and find the underlying Lie. Thus it is a pitfall simply to reverse "penis envy" into "womb envy," for such theories trick women into fixating upon womb, female genitalia, and breasts as our ultimately most valuable endowments. Not only disparagement, but also glorification of women's procreative organs are expressions of male fixation and fetishism. These disproportionate attitudes are also demonically deceptive, inviting women to re-act with mere derivative fetishism, instead of deriding these fixations and focusing upon the real "object" of male envy, which is female creative energy in *all* of its dimensions. Male hatred of women expressed in such fetishized forms hides the deeper dimensions of envy, which remain unacknowledged. Thus we hear one male say of another's "project" or invention, "That's his baby." We also hear men describe the books, papers, articles of other men as "pregnant" with meaning. Such deceptive expressions provide clues to the deeper levels of deception. They suggest that the procreative power which is really envied does in fact belong primarily to the realm of mind/spirit/creativity. Yet this envy is not necessarily a desire to *be* creative, but rather to draw - like fetuses - upon another's (the mother's) energy as a source. Thus men who identify as mothers (that is, supermothers controlling biological mothers) are really protecting their fetal selves. They wish to be the fetuses/astronauts and the supermothers/ground commanders, but not the biological vessels/spaceships which they relegate to the role of controlled containers, and later discard as trash." - Mary Daly

[aeonicentity]

I think fundamentally men and women both desire reproduction, and of course, the fact that we can't do it ourselves drives us nuts! Women want sex and babies without having to give up independence. Men want sex and babies without having to give up resources. This is a fundamental problem until you find someone who wants to have sex and babies with him in exchange for her independence, and a man who wants to have sex and babies with her in exchange for his resources. (this relationship can be reversed, but fundamentally this IS the relationship). Relationships which do not require the other partner to give up something are unhealthy. I'm sure every parent would like to be more independent, or have more money, but these relationships are usually one-sided and unhealthy.

 

I think the problem here is the problem with all gender-relations. people get lost in the woods, trying to explain a specific problem with a specific partner, or fail to "double-double unthink".

 

Its important to recognize that we invented gender roles for a reason: because they help us to establish well deliminated terms of relationships. When people try to imagine what life would be like without these gender roles, they usually just say "it would be good" without little explaination as to why it would be good. The reality is that we invented the idea that a man gives up x and a woman gives up y because the sacrifice is necessary to create a healthy relationship. Who sacrifices what is irrelevent.

 

It seems to me though that they're especially tying why a man feels he has control over a woman's child to some kind of 'lie' or psychological issue men have. This is not the case at all. A child is just as much a man's as it is a woman's. while the woman carries the child for 9 months, and ideally raises it for the first 5-18 years, a man's responsibility is arguable more intensive: providing support for that child from infancy to his own grave is not cheep, nor is it easy. He puts work and effort into that child, and while a woman might think it's not as valuable as her contribution, that would be a lie.

 

To remove men's rights from the choices surrounding a fetus is entirely immoral (unless that man made that child in an imorral way, i.e. rape). To be entirely honest, if someone came and stole my savings and said "well you didn't buy a house with it yet, so its O.K. that I did this!" we'd find that person a thief. But its perfectly O.K. for a woman to take a man's investment in his posterity and future and slaughter it without his consent because it hasn't quite come to fruition.

[Stephen C]

Thank you for taking the time to contribute your thoughts, Aeonicentity. I'm soaking in what you've said. Right now I'm wondering specifically about your last paragraph "To remove men's rights from the choices surrounding a fetus is entirely immoral...". Who / what gives men these rights? How does this fall into the category of morality?  Why did you go to an analogy / metaphor about the situation instead of talking about the bare facts of the situation? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just don't understand this fully. Again, I do very much appreciate you taking the time to go over this and share your thoughts.

[Seleneccentric]

I read most of Gyn/Ecology a while back. It's so interesting to see people discussing it here. I think Daly is an excellent story teller (her interpretation of subtle shades of meaning in word-choice is stellar) but the story could go another way — maybe men crave emotional and physical closeness with their children as much as women do, but because they are taught to not show affection, they pour that energy into other areas — technology, projects, art, etc.

 

Aeonicentity, do you mind if I ask why you say that it is necessary for both parties in a relationship to make sacrifices in order for it to be healthy?

[Stephen C]

I read most of Gyn/Ecology a while back. It's so interesting to see people discussing it here. I think Daly is an excellent story teller (her interpretation of subtle shades of meaning in word-choice is stellar) but the story could go another way — maybe men crave emotional and physical closeness with their children as much as women do, but because they are taught to not show affection, they pour that energy into other areas — technology, projects, art, etc.

 

Aeonicentity, do you mind if I ask why you say that it is necessary for both parties in a relationship to make sacrifices in order for it to be healthy?

Thanks for your input, Selene. I've recently been getting some Mary Daly quotes tossed my way and it's difficult for me to understand them, not because they don't make sense or anything like that, but my mind isn't geared to process this type of material. I've noticed reading some of these quotes I become defensive, not that I shouldn't, but it's interesting to explore. Nahmsayin'?