I had many conflicting reactions to this book. I believe all in all, the concepts she discusses are deeply important for both women and men (though she writes solely to women). I would recommend this book to others WITH CAVEATS.
WEAKNESSES
-----------------------------------------------------
Webster pervasively blames "what's wrong in the world" on some concept called "patriarchy", the buzzword that's supposed to win applause in most circles. To me, it just comes off as very narrowly focused and oversimplified.
-----------------------------------------------------
Introduction includes the obligatory qualifier of being "an educated, white person of privilege" because...what, is your audience the type of people who won't listen to what you have to say until you've thoroughly groveled? I can't gauge the genuineness of these types of speeches, but they come across as scripted to me, and I dislike them.
-----------------------------------------------------
Webster frequently makes sweeping statements such as:
"For every human being, the very first wound of the heart was at the site of the mother, the feminine." Um, no, it wasn't.
-----------------------------------------------------
She attributes all wounds to the Mother Wound, yet gives no credence to the role of Father Wounds. This seems like because that wasn't HER experience, it doesn't matter.
-----------------------------------------------------
"I'm increasingly convinced that the world will be healed by women's ability to feel the full scope of their own feelings."
Well, you're half there. Women cannot and should not have the responsibility of HEALING THE WORLD. No one can do another's healing for them. If women heal, but men are not involved in this, nothing will get better. It's very strange that she places women in this Savior role, which is the very role she accuses...um, the patriarchy of instilling (caring for others' needs ahead of your own, emotional laboring, etc.) Funny that she also says later,
"when we refuse to toil emotionally for others...we are correcting an ancient imbalance....responsible for so much human suffering."
-----------------------------------------------------
A word on Christianity: she states that,
"Women's capacity for empathy has been exploited in our culture, distorted into guilt, a sense of obligation, emotional caretaking, codependency, and self-recrimination."
I personally experienced this more in a religious context, rather than a gender context.
-----------------------------------------------------
Her views on unhealthy mother-daughter dynamics were very narrow, really just a description of her own relationship of enmeshment with her mother. There is so much pain between mothers and daughters that has nothing to do with enmeshment.
"Because of the daughter's sympathy for her mother's plight, she is more likely to absorb her mother's pain as her own, creating a toxic enmeshment that directly prevents her ability to flourish in life."
This is a very specific type of dynamic. Not all women can relate to HER experience of being enmeshed, though she talks about this as though this is some scientific law about how things work. What if you just had a shitty mom for reasons a, b, and c, and are struggling to flourish in life because of it?
More universalizing her experiences:
"As little girls, we were rewarded for being relational, compliant, quiet, and invisible."
No, not all of us. I was indirectly "rewarded" by peers and parents for being smart, funny, kind, literate, and creative. And I know I ain't the only one.
-------------------------------------------------
The thing that bothered me the most was how frequently she offloads any responsibility that women may take for the pain they cause others (e.g. their daughters) as nothing more than patriarchal imprinting.
"...mothers who use their daughters in these ways are also exploiting their daughters' empathy in a patriarchal fashion."
"The fear of 'being a bad daughter/person' keeps so many women silent about the truth of their feelings, truth that if spoken could set them free in many ways. In actuality, this guilt is an artifact of control, the larger patriarchal control of women's voices and feelings."
No, this guilt is also perpetuated BY women, AS women.
I got tired of counting how many times she attributed all harmful behavior by women to patriarchal patterning. Women need to own the hand they have in wounding the world. They don't get to cop out with "the devil made me do it" argument. This type of thinking makes it impossible for women to be culpable for their actions because "it was never really their fault." It's always someone else's fault. In doing this over and over again, Webster insinuates that what is masculine is ultimately bad, and what is feminine is ultimately good. She even uses the phrase "patriarchal mothers", somehow not seeing that that is an oxymoron. She exonerates mothers for the conniving, controlling, manipulative, selfish, narcissistic behaviors they exhibit because THEIR BEHAVIOR isn't bad, they have only been influenced by the evil Masculine called patriarchy. This idea also insinuates that only men influence women--women don't influence men. And to me, this seems like an infantilization of women.
If we're going to say that no one can be blamed for their behaviors because it is the result of their unresolved pain...okay, maybe? But it needs to be universal. Bad behavior from women does not get a "get out of jail free" card. And furthermore, tipping the scales so that the Masculine is intrinsically bad is not the healing the world needs. It only stirs the pot of animosity between the sexes.
-------------------------------------------------
"Patriarchy is about power at all costs."
Okay, we get it. Patriarchy may be the need for power, yet patriarchy is not the only effect of the human lust for power!!! I would like to suggest that the lust for power or control exists within every human heart. Yeah, even in women. And the language we give to it--labeling it as "patriarchy"--uses men (or perhaps, the divine Masculine) as a scapegoat for evil. In fact, most of what she describes as patriarchy is actually misogyny.
--------------------------------------------------
"When a mother doesn't have access to her own feelings, she may see her daughter as an extension of herself and view her own negative feelings as having come from her daughter rather than from her own pain, which has been deeply suppressed in her unconscious. In this way, she may isolate and abuse her daughter, repeating the same abuse that she herself experienced, all while being in denial or unaware that she is doing this."
It's interesting that even having experienced this dynamic herself, Webster still places no culpability on the mother; it is somehow all the fault of the patriarchy. (Again, men bad, women completely innocent.) Also, she seems to place too much emphasis on the generational perpetuation of the Mother Wound, and not enough emphasis on the simple fact of motherhood being stressful, and causing mothers to hurt their children due to constant stress. While unresolved trauma is often taken out on children by parents, there is a huge situational component she ignores.
--------------------------------------------------
There is hardly a single page in this book that doesn't blame the patriarchy for all noxious mother-daughter relationships, and yet here is an example she gives that actually shows evidence to this being a more complex issue (though of course she never admits it). She discusses a video she saw about how mothers should seek the validation of their children in stressful times and she says,
"it perpetuates the illusion that the approval of one's children should be compensation enough for brutally unending thankless, isolating work of motherhood."
I really do agree with this. And I believe it is a million indirect or direct messages women receive from the culture at large--which involves more than just patriarchal influences--that can set them up for unhealthy patterns. Blaming the complexity of this issue on a single idea will prolong fixing it.
-------------------------------------------------
"Society tells mothers that their children should be enough of a reward and shames them when they feel anything less than total satisfaction."
Yeah, probably. What exactly is society, though? Is society not influenced by more than just patriarchy?
-------------------------------------------------
Unsupported claims that we're just supposed to run with: "...diminishing access to reproductive healthcare." Really, it's diminishing? Said who? Shouldn't this be cited?
-------------------------------------------------
"Perhaps the very definition of 'family' will change and expand. People who call themselves family may not be linked by blood but by soulful connections that mutually nourish their journey to discover and live their authentic truth."
I guess I get what's she's getting at. Like, later in life if one's family has been more harmful than good, we can surround ourselves with people who lift us up. But the nuclear family will never and should never cease to exist. It is through the nuclear family that infants, children, adolescents, and even teens develop their sense of belonging and identity. It's ridiculous to state that the nuclear family isn't a need.
-------------------------------------------------
She places a lot of emphasis on the manipulation mothers employ with their daughters, and not enough on "mom rage", which I believe is more common.
-------------------------------------------------
"This belief in a 'female defect' keeps women on a never-ending wheel of self-improvement, constantly working to meet an impossible standard of what a 'desirable woman' ought to be."
I believe the constant striving for self-improvement has more to do with individual personality than sex.
"...these things [excuses made for bad mothering], even if true, shouldn't be cause for you to swallow your pain, stop seeking healing, and silence yourself. This silencing is in accordance with the silencing of women as a whole."
Regarding taboos: "The taboo of focusing on self-exploration (labeled 'selfish,' especially for women."
This may be true in some circles, but if it is selfish for women, it is also seen as unsafe or effeminate for men.
"We all desire to be real, to be seen accurately, to be recognized, and to be loved for who we really are in our full authenticity. This is a human need. The process of becoming our real selves involves making peace with our capacities to be messy, intense, assertive, and complex--the very things patriarchy portrays as unattractive in women."
Of course it's true that every person wants to be seen and loved for their authentic self. She constantly victimizes women as being put upon by the male standard, yet ignores the reality of men needing to be their real selves in spite of societal expectations from the feminine. Is this to say only men have expectations for how the sexes should present, and women don't?
These types of beliefs above seem very self-focused to me. They unnecessarily isolate the self, assuming "only I experience this problem", when in reality, -->only you experience YOUR own problems.<-- We know what we experience better than we will ever know what others experience. I can see how this kind of thinking can give birth to this ideology that women are victims, and men are either blissfully living without these issues (e.g. societal expectations of their sex, feeling silenced) or are perpetrators of them.
--------------------------------------------------
"The most insidious forms of patriarchy pass through the mother."
This is probably the most ridiculous statement in the entire book. I am amazed that a logical person could come up with something so nonsensical, and that the editor was like, "Yeah, makes perfect sense." If the worst forms of "patriarchy" pass through women, THEN IT ISN'T PATRIARCHY!! By this logic, women are the biggest perpetrators OF patriarchy, and yet they're still not ultimately to blame??? This is where I actually bring out my bullshit-colored highlighter.
-------------------------------------------------
She describes the The Faces of Mother, which are the roles a mother is supposed to be for her child such as source, attachment, responder, modulator, etc. It makes me wonder: if a father who shirks or goes against his paternal tenets is part of patriarchy, what is it called when a mother does not live up to her tenets? (Let me guess, patriarchy?)
------------------------------------------------
"In response to the mother gap, the mask of a 'false self'...is formed."
Why does she assume that every person even HAS a mother gap/wound? They don't. And yet, we are all egoically programmed to have a false self.
------------------------------------------------
"'I can't be happy if my mother is unhappy...' Usually this belief comes from the pain of seeing your mother suffer from her own inner deprivation and your compassion for her struggle under the weight of patriarchal demands."
What if motherhood IN AND OF ITSELF is a demand that requires women to forget themselves? These issues are far more practical, and far less philosophical, than she makes them.
------------------------------------------------
"On a deeper level, the Mother Wound is a wound with life itself."
This may be one of the most important lines in the book, and one I think not even Webster realizes the truth of. After almost an entire book about how every wound is from the mother, and that all of the wounding is just patriarchal imprinting, she finally gets to the truth of it: we are all wounded, and it is part of being alive. These wounds can come from anywhere, and may be the result of real abuse, or a child-brain misinterpretation of reality. They may indeed come from a bad mother, bad father, or from just...being a person.
------------------------------------------------
TRUTH BOMBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------
"The deprived child within a mother may be looking to her daughter for the emotional nourishment that she never received from her own mother."
"One of the most powerful things we can embody is: 'I don't owe you a version of me that distracts you from your responsibility to face your own pain.'"
"Siblings may feel emotionally close as they lived the same experiences, and yet because their roles may be different in the family system, there may be tension about how their perceptions differ or contrast with one another."
Within "The Longing to Be Real and the Longing for Mother" section: page 126 "Refraining from emotional caretaking and letting people have their lessons is a form of respect for self and other...Contrary to what we've been taught, we don't have to heal our entire families. We only have to heal ourselves."
page 129-130: "Detach from the need for 'peace' at all costs...Detach from the need to be liked, understood, and approved of...If that bond [being approved by our parents as children] was compromised when we were children, as adults we may conflate being liked with being safe, placing our source of emotional safety outside ourselves as we did when we were children. Healing involves cultivating the primary source of our approval within ourselves."
"As she validated the hunger for approval from her inner child and affirmed the goodness and lovability of her wild, creative side, she began to see how often she had tolerated being overlooked and undervalued."
"YOU are worth every bit of discomfort it takes to embody and express more of who you truly are in this world. It's worth it for you in terms of how it creates a powerful inner environment of self-love and because what you offer the world as you radiate from that place of realness is pure gold."
"Each 'no' is a doorway into your greater 'yes'."
Quote from Marion Woodman on the Apocalyptic Mother and the Death Mother is on fire:
"'A life that is truly being lived is constantly burning away the veils of illusion, gradually revealing the essence of who we are. Apocalyptic Mother burns us in her hottest flames to purify us of all that is not authentic. Her energy is impersonal. She doesn't care how painful or terrifying the process is. Her only purpose is to serve life.'"
"The Death Mother archetype could be seen as the gatekeeper of our true power that lies beyond the taboo of confronting mother, keeping us trapped in shame, guilt, or fear."
Chapter 10: Giving Up the Impossible Dream
This motivates a person to perform to earn the acceptance and admiration he/she never received from their primary caregiver. This impossible task keeps us running in our own mental rat race, with a carrot that can never be reached through external reward.
"It gives a false sense of control and a false sense of hope that often gets projected onto other areas of our adult life."
Lesson: Acknowledging how childhood strategies did not work (or accomplish what we sought to receive.)
This whole chapter is pure gold.
Chapter 11: Accountability. This is where the work is truly done. Taking accountability for our pain (not placing blame, but providing for ourselves what our caregivers did not give us) is where we experience our own healing and stop cycles of harm.
"Feeling our pain is what allows us to become liberated from it."
I would change this to say, "attending to our pain".
"Through that primary, holy wound, we are called to become that loving mother to ourselves...and to all of life."
Chapter 12: Grieving
"The healing comes from mending this split [internal dichotomy between authenticity and attachment] so that both authenticity needs and attachment needs can be abundantly met within ourselves...and our relationships."
"This reunion in the self opens us up to the possibility of perceiving an even larger 'and,' the larger bond of love and belonging that pervades all life."
THIS IS WORTHY OF BEING TATTOOED: "Despair...is the pain of the inner child without a loving adult witness...Grief transpires when a loving adult consciousness is present alongside the pain...a feeling of 'I'm with you in this pain."
More hard truth bombs: "the true gift of being unseen is having no choice but to find and claim one's worth within oneself first, without getting the approval or validation of others."
-----------------------
Overall, an essential book about healing from our subconscious childhood wounds.
Obviously, she takes a different worldview than I do.