The radical feminist at Boston College for 33 years died on Jan 3rd

  • Thread starter Thread starter foolishmortal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

foolishmortal

Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly
She teaches all this anti-Catholic thinking with an unChristian rage and they dismissed her for only teaching women in her women’s history or studies and her ethics course (teaching men privately)? She did the guys a favor!

Anyway, I hope she saw the light before dying and repented, because she probably needed it! If she were like that before tenure, God help those who kept her on staff then! There must have been more like her in these Catholic schools. The thought of all that scandal and misinformation makes me sick to my stomach!
 
On the good side, she was rather witty and a lot of the people she infuriated really, really needed a good infuriating.
 
Another article: boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/mary_daly_pione.html

A suggested epitaph:
“Reformers are generally right about what is wrong, but nearly always wrong about what is right.” (GK Chesterton, paraphrased from memory). But then she’d probably be more angry that the quote was from a man than the content of it.

She did such a great job expressing righteous outrage that men in the era she grew up in disrespected women and the work they did. Too bad her solution was to agree with said piggish men and further disrespect women instead of demanding that society change so as to appreciate and value the central role that wife and mother plays in every healthy family.
 
manualman said:
You mean those naughty, naughty patriarchal oppressors of hers? 😉
Click to expand...
They were quite ‘wikked’, if I remember correctly; there’s one Daly neologism that I use - ‘a-mazing’, ie working out the maze of thought behind some conventional ideas. Of course she was ‘bonkers’ but, amongst all the nonsense, there were interesting insights to consider and, as I said, there are some people you rather like to watch getting irate - well, I do anyway. 🙂
 
From a Catholic perspective her life was a disaster. She caused quite a lot of damage also and has to deal with that burden. But there’s hope for mercy for her and perhaps she was insane enough that she didn’t know what she was doing. She may have infuriated some (with attention-seeking behavior) but I think most others were just saddened. She was talented and did have some creative moments – I hope all of that did not come at a huge cost to her soul though.
 
Some quotes from her works:
“The Dionysian solution for women, which is violation of our own Hag-ocratic boundaries, is The Final Solution.”
Click to expand...
“Dionysus sometimes assumed a girl-like form. The phenomenon of the drag queen dramatically demonstrates such boundary violation. Like whites playing “black face,” he incorporates the oppressed role without being incorporated in it. In the phenomenon of transsexualism, the incorporation/confusion is deeper. As ethicist Janice Raymond has pointed out, the majority of transsexuals are “male to female,” while transsexed females basically function as tokens, and are used by the rulers of the transsexual empire to hide the real nature of the game. In transsexualism, males put on “female” bodies (which are in fact pseudofemale).”
Click to expand...
“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.”
Click to expand...
And from an 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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Afraid to say it? Yes.

Because this bit about demonising minorities, and advocating “decontamination” resulting in “population reduction” in a “Final Solution” went out of fashion around 1945. People who advocate it tend to be criticised rather strongly.
 
“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."Do all feminists hate men this much? Would a 90% female population really be better?
 
I studied feminism and found her books to be unreadable. Some of the radical feminists do as much harm to feminism as the anti-feminists. Still, she was never as bad as Adrienne Rich.

To me, a feminist (in the most general sense) is simply a person who believes women are equal to men and deserve equal rights. Radical feminists usually (but not always) see women as superior, which makes them as sexist as the anti-feminists. I fear they may turn many reasonable people away from the worthy goal of equal rights for all people.
 
“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”.

Interesting that China, which adopted communism, which was supposed to make all equal, is aborting away all its women and I bet Planned Parenthood is there to help them do that. Did Daly like abortion?

In a world, especially a country (ours), where rights are printed out as fast as money, “rights” is a loaded term. Gays want it now. Pedos will want it later.
Code: 
We men need women in the home, I think.  They are better multi-taskers.  Besides, I read in a Time mag, that, according to a poll, despite being in high places, women are no happier for it.  I have to wonder if women deep down want us to be real men and they've been disappointed and felt some need to compensate for the maturity and straight-headed leadership we had lost, especially in times of prosperity, heterosexuality mistaken for manliness and broken society (thanks to the efforts of the Freemasons), where they don't feel they need God and/or religion and/or to take care of their family (men are supposed top be the spiritual head).  I think armchair coaches and theologists of all sexes feel the same about other leaders who seem a bit fuzzy-headed in the line of duty since last century, but only seem in charge about their fuzzy-headed decisions.  If I'm right, it's egotistical, but understandable, but wrong and it results in going nutty with rage at not having the leaders be real leaders.
Did Daly believe in women’s ordinations? I don’t buy that all religions had female leaders before the Hebrews came along. Despite having priestesses, were the highest Japanese leaders in their native religion women? Why are Native American Indian chiefs, men? They’re native religions were similar in who they worshipped, right?
 
I think, thanks to the Freemasons, the shepherd of the family was struck throughout last century. Though men took the apple, it did taste sweet in ways it was hard to resist. In the '60s, it was the Church selling too much of itself out, except dogmas (as if many people cared), for ecumenical ties. Even if Vatican 2 was abused, who took care of its implementation? People were scattered in both cases and though their egos grew unchecked, I believe they also grew resentful of the lack of sound leadership. It’s like the son blaming the father for bad parenting, despite the fact he felt free to try this or that vice with his laptop dad or mom (but dad, in the case of Church leadership being men) not there to say “No” and put his foot down. The father didn’t want to run the son off by being firm with him. The son then stumbles along doing the best he can to self rule or finds a stand-in who will rule over his passions and it may be the blind leading the blind, as in separatist groups and denominations or even other religions. Spiritually, we all need our clergy to be our dads unless a persecution should happen, in which I think the Holy Spirit would step in (kids with dads who die serving their country are better adjusted than those with deadbeat dads or absent ones). Lay leadership, even of clergy, is order turned on its head. If we get in an age where Church leadership leads parishes and dioceses instead of the symptoms (the surface) of weak leadership, abortion, euthenasia, gay agendas abound, people will be more happy, even if inconvenienced. The battleground is on the local level–making sure we get a reverent, non-innovative, Mass with real Catholic music. Then, we’ll get Catholics voting with a Catholic conscience and fathers, not mothers, heading the family church under the direction of The Church, of course. That’s my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top