Mary Daly

[napnip]

Not sure if anybody here has heard of Mary Daly, but she's a rather famous radical feminist who previously taught theology at Boston College. When I say "radical", I mean Radical with a capital "R"! Personally, I would say "extremist".

http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/000026.html

Granted, that news item is a bit old, but it might make for a good debate.

Daly was famous for refusing to allow male students into her classes. Boston College basically let her get away with it for quite a while, until a male student threatened to sue the college. The college sided with the student and told Daly she'd have to accept male students. Daly said that she'd rather retire than allow a male into her class, and ultimately did retire. (Or was forced to retire.)

So, who do you think was right in this situation? Should the college have stood behind Daly, since it had let her get away with it on previous occassions? Or was it right to force her retirement? Do you think the male student was right to threaten Boston College with a lawsuit?

What if the genders were reversed? If a male professor had refused to allow females into his class, do you think he'd have gotten away with it for 25 years?

[opus512]

Originally posted by napnip


So, who do you think was right in this situation? Should the college have stood behind Daly, since it had let her get away with it on previous occassions? Or was it right to force her retirement? Do you think the male student was right to threaten Boston College with a lawsuit?

What if the genders were reversed? If a male professor had refused to allow females into his class, do you think he'd have gotten away with it for 25 years?

Did they stand behind her, or did they just let her do what she wanted?

Anyway, yeah a man could have gotten away with it, depends on the college and where it was at.

There's an extreme that we are pendulating back from. Society tends to do that, go from one extreme to the other. We were at the extreme man side, now we're dealing with the extreme woman side, we'll hit a nice middle ground here eventually.

Of course we will always have individual instances, but not as bad as before.

[napnip]

Originally posted by opus512


Did they stand behind her, or did they just let her do what she wanted?

Anyway, yeah a man could have gotten away with it, depends on the college and where it was at.

There's an extreme that we are pendulating back from. Society tends to do that, go from one extreme to the other. We were at the extreme man side, now we're dealing with the extreme woman side, we'll hit a nice middle ground here eventually.

Of course we will always have individual instances, but not as bad as before.


They grudgingly allowed her to get away with it. Admitted, they did warn her and didn't give their wholehearted approval, but they had 25 years to do something about it other than warnings and slaps on the wrist.

But you're right, hopefully there will be a middle ground reached soon.

[msan_msw]

Hrmmm.... I read the article and still don't feel I have enough information to make a rational judgement about Mary Daly. Still though, I'll comment on some of your questions:

Should the college have stood behind Daly, since it had let her get away with it on previous occassions?

I don't know enough about the material covered in the class and the other nuances of the situation. There are many "why's" of this situation that haven't been covered. In general, "get away with" is subjective. However, without knowing all the facts, I think she should have allowed men in her class in the first place. Here's my "why"...

Having been involved in many classes around feminism I've come to see that the attitude of the professor has more to do with any turmoil in the class than the actual material in mainstream feminism. Mainstream feminism isn't that horrid devil we make it out to be if discussed and taught in a civil fashion. It's much like a democrat or a republican discussing something. I was fortunate enough at EWU to make it through a class with a "radical feminist" professor who just flat out amazed me in how she approached the subject matter. She included me in discussions knowing that feminism isn't just about bitching at men... i.e. if you want men/patriarchy/and other issues with traditional male ways of doing things changed it would be prudent to have men involved or at least in a position to hear the feminist message. This is where Mary Daly had a great flaw. IMHO, she failed her feminist cause by excluding males from any possible change process. IMHO, she was just as bad as any other segregationist group.

Do you think the male student was right to threaten Boston College with a lawsuit?

Without knowing all the facts.... Yes I do. If it were to go to court I would also hope that he would win.

If a male professor had refused to allow females into his class, do you think he'd have gotten away with it for 25 years?

I'm not going to go running around Google looking for examples but I'm fairly sure you could find an account of a male professor excluding females. The gates of segregation swing both ways. There are definite historical implications surrounding this. I think the farther you go back in history the easier it would be to find an example...

So, who do you think was right in this situation?

Is Boston College a state funded college? That would add to the complexity. I think the school was wrong for letting her do that (especially if this was a formal thing allowed by the school), I think Mary was definitely wrong if I'm reading this correctly.

BTW, this question is ironically very masculine looking at it through a feminist model. "Right/wrong", "who should be accountable/punished", and outcomes based on presumed injustices rather than a process based question.

-----

Some side notes and rants. I think that feminism has changed a lot in the last 20 years and still a majority cling to the 70's anti-male mantra as a source of empowerment (IMHO, false empowerment). Slowly feminism is growing into something that has a better and stronger base with more of an ability for practical application. This wouldn't have been possible without some of the 70's stuff though... it's a growth process. IMHO, feminism now is more of a practical theory much like any other theory and adding "fem" to it may not be as accurate as in the past looking at in in its historical context.

We can see another case with Augusta and Tiger Woods and the whole issue of not allowing woment to play there. I do feel that this is wrong but on the flip side I don't hold Tiger responsible for it. This is a whole other topic though.

[EG]

LOL.... Augusta wasnt about women

The women screwed up with Augusta by taking them head on..
Then Augusta said we dont need no steenken advertisers...

Augusta turned Bill Gates down for a membership..lol

a billionare white male

Its a private club

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
LOL.... Augusta wasnt about women

The women screwed up with Augusta by taking them head on..
Then Augusta said we dont need no steenken advertisers...

Augusta turned Bill Gates down for a membership..lol

a billionare white male

Its a private club

So the fact they don't allow women in means it isn't about women? Doh, my bad, lol.

[EG]

Originally posted by msan_msw


So the fact they don't allow women in means it isn't about women? Doh, my bad, lol.

LOL...

its a private club.....

If they can turn down Bill Gates I suppose they can turn down anyone...

Just like there are some excercise clubs that are privately
owned that are women only

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


LOL...

its a private club.....

If they can turn down Bill Gates I suppose they can turn down anyone...

Just like there are some excercise clubs that are privately
owned that are women only




Letting women have all women clubs, and not letting men have all men clubs. That's a "do as I say, but not as I do" thing and the double standard that goes hand-in-hand with giving certain groups special rights. :rolleyes:

[opus512]

There's still plenty of mens only groups out there, lots of whites only groups, too.

NOW is just making a big stink about Agusta trying a recruiting drive.

Keep in mind though, that it wasen't that long ago that some big name courses didn't let blacks play, either.

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by opus512
There's still plenty of mens only groups out there, lots of whites only groups, too.

NOW is just making a big stink about Agusta trying a recruiting drive.

Keep in mind though, that it wasen't that long ago that some big name courses didn't let blacks play, either.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to base membership qualifications on race. If you've got another Tiger Woods on your hands, why not accept him?

Separating groups based on gender makes more sense though (in many things involving physical activity, especially contact sports). Most (not all) women are physically weaker than most men, and by an undeniable margin. You can blame Mother Nature for that one. ;)

[opus512]

Originally posted by sj_hurst


I can't imagine why anyone would want to base membership qualifications on race. If you've got another Tiger Woods on your hands, why not accept him?


Uhm, because he's not white....? ;)

It wasen't too many years ago when Tiger was denied playing at one of the courses on the major tour, can't remember which one, could have actually been Agusta, but not saying for sure.

Personaly I'm for integration pretty much on every level. I think there is too much too learn from people that are different, either in gender, race, religion, what ever.

I believe that when people insulate themselves from all that is different it breeds racism and hate and fear, and insecurity, which leads to fear, which leads to hate, which leads to racism. Ugly cycle.

Keeping institutions or groups or clubs private to the point of exclusion on physical grounds such as race and gender really depends on the specific group or what have you. Unless, of course, it recieves federal or state money, then it's a no-no.

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by opus512
Uhm, because he's not white....? ;)

I was using a figure of speech, which means that I, personally, see no legitimate reason for it. ;)

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512
There's still plenty of mens only groups out there, lots of whites only groups, too.

NOW is just making a big stink about Agusta trying a recruiting drive.

Keep in mind though, that it wasen't that long ago that some big name courses didn't let blacks play, either.

women can play the course at Augusta as a guest. They are not allowed to join as members. Membership is by invatation only...

usually when a member dies or quits.....they are replaced