Summary
This essay was written in response to feminist academic Mary Daly's book Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Lorde begins the essay with a footnote, explaining that she originally contacted Daly in a private letter. When Daly did not reply, Lorde chose to publish her response to Daly's work. Before delving into her specific evaluations, Lorde mentions finding herself in a "wild and bloody spring," a reference to the recent murders of twelve Black women in Boston, Daly's own home. Lorde praises Daly's activism and writing, and thanks her for sending Lorde a copy of her new book. She mentions her reluctance to offer critique to Daly, based on a history of Black women's words being ignored by white ones, but explains that she ultimately chose to dismiss these fears on the basis that they merely perpetuated old racial dynamics.
Lorde then explains that she wishes to clarify some points of difference between white women like Daly and Black women like herself. While she was enthusiastic at the start of Daly's book, while Daly discussed the archetype of the goddess, Lorde quickly noticed that every goddess figure cited by Daly came from a white, western tradition. Lorde mentions some of the African goddess figures Daly failed to incorporate, making clear that she could have easily done so. Furthermore, Lorde writes that Daly does not entirely ignore Black women. Rather, she brings them up in a chapter on female genital mutilation in Africa. While this is, Lorde writes, an urgent issue, it is dehumanizing to mention Black women only in the context of helpless victimhood. Moreover, Daly cites a Black woman's own words only once: at the start of her chapter on genital mutilation, she quotes Lorde's poetry. Lorde takes issue with this use of her words, believing the choice of poem to be arbitrary. She accuses Daly of carelessly using the writing of a Black woman for mere "decoration" on her own work of white feminist rhetoric. In a series of rhetorical questions, she asks Daly whether she has ever read the work of women like Lorde in order to learn and grow herself, or whether she does so only to select quotes that will advance her own agenda. Addressing Daly by first name, Lorde asks her to understand how the perception of white femininity as a default dismisses Black women and diminishes the quality of Daly's own work. Here she explicitly links Daly's writing to the recent murders of twelve Black women, arguing that erasure and dismissal of Black women directly leads to their deaths. She argues that Daly ignores the kinds of differences between that lead to measurably different kinds of patriarchal oppression. She cites statistics showing that Black women have, for instance, far higher rates of mortality from breast cancer, and that they are far likelier to be raped and assaulted. All women are oppressed, but not in the same ways.
Finally, Lorde reminds Daly of the occasion of their first meeting: a panel on "The Transformation of Silence Into Language and Action" (readers may recall Lorde's earlier essay, taken from a speech delivered on that occasion). She explains that she once swore not to discuss racism with white women, finding it too stressful and tiring. However, because of her admiration for Daly, she says, she has broken that silence. Lorde thanks Daly, then signs off.
Analysis
For readers who are making their way through Sister, Outsider as a whole, rather than reading specific selections from the collection, the placement of this essay within the collection as a whole is striking. Like in the previous essay, "Sexism: An American Disease in Blackface," here Lorde is responding to a specific piece of writing by an academic. While that previous essay, addressed to the sociologist Robert Staples, has a harsh and even occasionally mocking tone, this one contrasts in tone if not in form. Lorde speaks to her feminist peer in a pleading, disappointed voice, emphasizing repeatedly that she wants to believe in Mary Daly's good intentions. In a way, this emotional appeal makes Daly's work appear even more dangerous and offensive. While Lorde dismisses Staples' sexism as ridiculous, she views Daly's racism as an insidious force within the work of a beloved fellow radical.
The editorial choice to juxtapose these two essays showcases Lorde's wide range of persuasive techniques. It also provides balance for her readers. She accuses Staples of ignoring the realities of Black women in favor of prioritizing Black men, and she accuses Daly of erasing Black women in favor of prioritizing white women. To, for instance, a white feminist reader, the second of these essays can serve as a reminder of the work to be done within multiracial feminist coalitions, and prevents feelings of smugness or complacency after the conclusion of "Sexism: An American Disease in Blackface." The same might occur for a Black male reader: feeling chastised after reading the first of these epistolary essays, he might feel reminded, by the second, that many demographics bear blame for the erasure and harm done to Black women.
Finally, in this essay, Lorde touches on an idea common throughout her work. She accuses Daly of using her words, and Black women's experiences more broadly, to simply "decorate" their own. Lorde often notes instances of white or male figures categorizing a powerful force as mere adornment in order to neuter its power. White society, for instance, isolates both poetry and eroticism by designating them as superficial or recreational. White feminists, she argues here, do the same with Blackness.
