Men in Women's Studies: The Mary Daly Case

PAGE 2 OF 3
===========================================================================

It would be fine with me if all the men at B.U. were _forced_ to take Mary
Daly.  That'll be the day, eh?
 
One issue I have not seen considered:  just why did this particular case
come to a head?  She's been teaching away for decades, with apparently
little problem.  Indeed as we all know Women's Studies isn't where most
men at private conservative colleges head. And when they do, as in this
case and in my own experience, it is intentionally to disrupt the process,
not to engage in constructive dialogue.  When I taught at an extremely
privileged private (previously men's) school, the conservative straight
white male who took my class did it deliberately, he told me, to fight
feminism.  And boy did he ever hog the classroom space and energy.  Women
just shut down (often out of disgust) or argued back at him.  Not an
experience I would like to repeat.
 
It seems clear Daly was set up by a student backed by conservatives to
attack her and feminism.  No one objects that this is what brought the
story into the public eye, just as no one ever asked "why are we all of a
sudden hearing about Mapplethorpe when we never expended any energy to go
see an exhibit of his in the first place?"  When people asked me "why are
we paying him to make pornography?" I said, "had you ever seen a picture
of his before this controversy was caused intentionally by Jessie Helms?"
Changed the whole discussion right away. My response in this case will be
similar. I am not swallowing the bait.
 
BTW I am an older wiser teacher than I was when I had that privileged
white male.  I don't take bait (most of the time), so it's awfully hard to
take my power away.  Last year when a student said "this class is about
how all men are pigs" I replied "that's right, and it's going to be on the
final." ;-)  We all had a laugh. Why get riled up by people who simply
need to argue and hence spew outrageous statements?  Because I am less
likely to respond to attacks than I used to be, the classroom energy is
not dissipated by a male nag. (Of course conservative females try
desperately to prove us wrong, too. Even on this list. Don't let them suck
your energy either. When you know the post's outrageous, walk away.  Go
look at a tree.  Pet your cat.  Call a friend and tell her you love her).
 
This semester began with two separate men (one grad one undergrad)
telling me they looked forward to "arguing" with me all term.  Guess what?
After the first several sessions they have settled right down and become
students rather than enforcers of the patriarchy.  I'm not having an
argument, I am representing a legitimate intellectual field of inquiry.
 
p.s. I once had an all-female class (no men chose to enroll) on Women's
Lit and the atmosphere was so different than usual it blew my mind.  I was
glad they had that space to be free, but I was awfully sad to see first
hand how most women are affected by the presence of the all-mighty male in
any room. I had no idea.  Fight the good fight, friends.
 
Diana
 
Diana York Blaine
Book Review Editor
Studies in the Novel
University of North Texas
dblaine   AT   unt.edu
===========================================================================

Joan Korenman wrote:
 
She was simply saying
> that she didn't want men in the class because they create a dynamic that
> inhibits women.  Her offering to let men pursue the subject matter via
> independent study, carefully isolated from women, does not strike me as an
> acceptable or responsible solution.
 
Dear Joan:
 
Do you know Mary Daly personally? Have you had the opportunity to
discuss the issues with her?
 
I feel sick about this.
 
You have publicly characterized her approach as unacceptable and
irresponsible and her ideas as offensive nonsense. I'm wondering, why
would you say such things publicly, on the Net of all places, and also,
why would you attack the person (such comments as "now comes along Mary
Daly spewing forth the same offensive nonsense" can hardly be perceived
as anything but a personal attack) as opposed to addressing the issues?
 
Carrie Lybecker
===========================================================================

At 08:40 PM 2/28/99 -0600, Diana York Blaine wrote:
>It would be fine with me if all the men at B.U. were _forced_ to take Mary
>Daly.  That'll be the day, eh?
>
>One issue I have not seen considered:  just why did this particular case
>come to a head?  She's been teaching away for decades, with apparently
>little problem.
 
 
This is not the case.  There was a time when male "higher-ups" audited her
classes in order to determine if she was "preaching" the party line of the
Catholic Church.
 
Sasha McInnes
 
sasha   AT   worldchat.com
===========================================================================

Mary Daly's decision to exlude men perpetuates the muddiest, solipsistic
kind of thinking.
Her reasoning is analagous to saying that we should not study history,
because we weren't alive, and is essentially tantamount to saying we
cannot learn and understand anything outside of our narrow selves.
History, anthropology, sociology, literature -- all of these should be
beyond any comprehension in her line of reasoning.  We may as well
eliminate the academy altogether.
 
Diana Fox
===========================================================================

At 08:38 AM 3/1/99 -0500, Diana Fox wrote:
>Mary Daly's decision to exlude men perpetuates the muddiest, solipsistic
>kind of thinking.
>Her reasoning is analagous to saying that we should not study history,
>because we weren't alive, and is essentially tantamount to saying we
>cannot learn and understand anything outside of our narrow selves.
>History, anthropology, sociology, literature -- all of these should be
>beyond any comprehension in her line of reasoning.  We may as well
>eliminate the academy altogether.
 
Isn't there room in the Academy, Diana, for a *women's voice* and a
*women's space* for *women only*?  I don't get it.
 
Sasha McInnes
 
sasha   AT   worldchat.com
===========================================================================

 We need to separate the issues here--and we've been doing that.
 
  My separation would be into these elements:
  1--the person of Mary Day--who has accomplished much in feminist theory,
    but whom I will never invite to lunch--
    and I'm sure she wouldn't care--
    ever since I heard her say (at the *30th* anniv. conference of the
     publication of THE SECOND SEX, at NYU, in 1979), in response to a
     question about class, that class didn't "move" her.  OK; and
    defending her doesn't move me, nor could I even take a position on it
    until I heard a very specific report on what happened;
 
  2--the liberal position, of Patai and others, that because it's
    wrong, or illegal, to discriminate against women,then it's wrong
    to discriminate against men; that is a simplistic answer that
    overlooks the 2000 year context we're dealing with here; I don't
    think that any defense of men in the wmst classroom is a liberal
    liberal position, however;
 
  3--the presence of men in the classroom is sometimes good,
  sometimes not so good; it's been my experience that occasionally
  women's studies majors and minors need some lessons in "how to
  survive" in a patriarchal world; maybe the wmst classroom is a good
  place for them to begin learning this;
 
  4--the issue of classroom dynamics; I too have found that most of the
    worst students (not all) can be brought around; but let's not forget
    that "men" come in races and classes; they aren't floating genders,
    anymore than we are; sometimes the lenses of race and class (ours
    as well as theirs) are powerfully at work in the classroom dynamic.
 
        Jo-Ann Pilardi, Towson U., jpilardi   AT   towson.edu
===========================================================================

I have no desire to defend Mary Daly's enrollment policy--I don't know
what to think.  But this debate about Mary Daly reminded me of an occasion
when I was an undergraduate at Bryn Mawr when she came to speak and she
requested that men be banned from her lecture.  Bryn Mawr said "no", she
would have to allow men.  I thought that that decision was right-- there
were many men from Haverford who were interested in hearing her speak; and
the lecture occurred (with men in attendance) without a hitch. And yet I'm
trying to figure out how a women's college can consistently take that
position with Daly.
 
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Kit McChesney wrote:
 
>  What does the
> practice of sex-segregation teach the women about how the world really
> works? And how to make their way in it? Patriarchy exists out there in
> the "real" world, folks, believe me. Just try being a woman--and a
> lesbian on top of that--and run a women's/lesbian business in the
> "straight" world. It is extremely difficult. We need to teach women how
> to operate in this world without sacrificing themselves. Teach them how
> to break out of that model of either "liking" men, or being "like" them.
 
One thing of which I'm confident is that women's colleges _do_ prepare one
for the "real world".  According to many studies, it appears that at a
women's college one has many more opportunities to develop skills-- like,
running of public office, speaking out, being a physicist-- which, for
whatever reasons, women who attend co-ed institutions do not develop as
frequently.   I think that one has the opportunity to develop the sort of
confidence in one's own abilities that makes it easier to stand up for
oneself and one's views when one reenters "the real world".  For that
reason alone, I would be very sad to see institutions like Bryn Mawr
forced to go co-ed.
 
> Probably one thing that we aren't pausing to consider or acknowledge
> carefully is the fact that most women's studies classes are already
> nearly women-only--by default. And why is that? Because most
> college-aged men wouldn't be caught dead in one! The exceptions are
> infrequent, at best. If anyone on this list has had a women's studies
> class that has enrolled a higher percentage than 25% male in a class--if
> that much--I'd be surprised. In a class of 20 students, have you ever
> seen five men? I'll bet not.
 
To meet this challenge.  I teach philosophy at Amherst College, and most
of my classes in my 10 years of teaching have been mostly men.  When I
teach feminist philosophy, the proportion of women goes up to 50%, except
for the last time, when the women preregistered the class spoke to the men
preregistered for the class, begged them not to take the course, and won
them over. I found out about this after the course was over, and while I
admire their pluck, and we all had a great time in the course, I still
wonder whether they did the right thing.
 
Best,
Jyl
 
<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>
Jyl Gentzler                jgentzler   AT   amherst.edu
Department of Philosophy        (413) 542-5806
Box 2253                Fax: (413) 542-5837
Amherst College                www.amherst.edu/~jgentzle
Amherst, MA 01002-5000
<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>
===========================================================================

To add to Jackie Haessly's personal example of co-ed sports, I
recently saw a piece by the sports analysist Robin Roberts which
focused on the 2000 young women (approximate) in the United States
competing on High School co-ed wrestling teams.  (Co-ed in this case
meaning that there is one or more females on the team).  Because these
women are in a numerical minority, they typically are wrestling against
male opponents.
 
Angela Pattatucci Aragon
ampatt02   AT   athena.louisville.edu
===========================================================================

Carrie Lybecker asks Joan "Do you know Mary Daly personally? Have you had
the opportunity to
discuss the issues with her?"
 
I think that talking to Mary Daly would be interesting but not necessary
for this controversy. Her views are in print everywhere. I think we have to
distinguish between a person's personal acts and those which are carried
out in public. We are not talking about Mary Daly's version of an auto
accident she was in where there were no witnesses.  We are talking about a
policy that she has carried out for twenty-five years in a public setting.
The Globe story was fairly balanced: it mentioned that this particular
student didn't have the prerequisites for that particular course, that a
right-wing group on campus was backing him, and that Mary Daly will take a
male student for an independent study but it also quoted her rationale for
conducting her lecture courses without men.
 
Frankly, as a graduate of another Jesuit college, the University of San
Francisco, I think it is astonishing that a Jesuit college allowed her to
do that for as long as it did; Boston College is a fairly conservative
institution. As a professor at a state university, I am fairly certain that
that kind of policy would not have been tolerated by my University for more
than five minutes.
 
Looking at the history of the exclusion of certain groups in education,
even a simple reading of _Brown vs, Board of Education_, which put an end
to the policy of separate but equal, would lead one to infer that Daly's
policy is unacceptable in our system. Brown not only ended segregation in
public schools but put an end to all sorts of exclusionary practices in
education.  Many other cases, many of them pertaining to higher education
(women and people of color being excluded), followed Brown and extended the
interpretation.
(An easy way to find the cases on this issue is to see what casebooks are
being used by law schools to teach sex-based discrimination.  The one that
I used in law school twenty years ago was edited by, among others, Ruth
Bader Ginsberg; it was called _Sex-Based Discrimination_ and published by
West.)
 
Finally, the question arises of why, now, after 25 years, she is being
challenged and why the school is responding to this right wing group. Let
me answer that as a lawyer rather than an academic: The school is afraid of
law suits and has no constitutional grounds upon which to defend her. Mary
Daly can argue that her radical views go beyond the U.S. Constitution which
is merely another patriarchal document but she must abide by it(and that
includes the cases that have interpreted it) or face the consequences, in
this case, that if Boston College WANTED to defend her, it has no
constitutional grounds upon which to do so.
 
For a law suit to go forward, factors are required:
 
(1)Standing (Do the parties have a direct interest in the suit; third
parties, eg., ACLU or NAACP, can't bring a suit, though they can get
involved once it's going.)
(2) Jurisdiction (Are you in the right court?  You can't go to a Superior
Court unless the damage is at a certain level of financial loss; you can't
go to an appeals court until the case has been heard in a lower court; you
can't go to a federal court for certain types of cases.)
(3) Mootness (is the injury still ongoing? If the suing party is no longer
being injured, if s/he has died, moved to another job, etc., then there's
no point to continuing the case)
 
For a Supreme Court decision, the following factor must also be considered:
 
(3) Ripeness (Have enough people been affected/damaged by the law/judicial
decision that is being challenged?  If only one or a few, then the court
may not consider it to be ready for a Supreme Court decision.)
 
Our legal system is inherently conservative; it won't act unless it needs
to but I could see a case like this going to the Supreme Court and winning
easily.  The court and the temper of the time on issues like these are very
conservative (consider for example, the blows that the Supreme Court has
dealt to affirmative action.) I hope that she doesn't press the issue
because the outcome could be a disaster for all of us.

Rosa Maria Pegueros
Assistant Professor             PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
Department of History              pegueros   AT   uri.edu
    & Women's Studies Program
Department of History
University of Rhode Island         Phone:(401) 874-4092
113 Washburn Hall             Fax  :(401) 874-2595
Kingston, RI 02881
 
"Politics is great entertainment--better than the zoo,
better than the circus, rougher than football, and even
more aesthetically satisfying than baseball."  --Molly Ivins
===========================================================================

I admit I haven't fully worked out my position on this, but I'd like to point
out that some of the objections to Mary Daly's policy sound vaguely
reminiscent of Ward Connerly's reasons for abolishing affirmative action.
Connerly (U-Cal regent and leader in the attack on affirmative action in
education) argues that if our goal is to be a "colorblind" society, then we
should pretend to be and apply all rules/standards/etc. to everyone
equally--regardless of the profound disparities that presently exist between
them (and the opportunities they've been given or denied on account of race).
 
This strikes me as a disingenuous argument, at best.
 
Jackie Jablonski
jjablonski   AT   stclair.cc.mi.us
===========================================================================

Jackie Jablonski said,
 
>some of the objections to Mary Daly's policy sound vaguely
>reminiscent of Ward Connerly's reasons for abolishing affirmative action.
>Connerly argues that if our goal is to be a "colorblind" society, then we
>should pretend to be and apply all rules/standards/etc. to everyone
>equally--regardless of the profound disparities that presently exist between
>them (and the opportunities they've been given or denied on account of race).
 
The same thought has been bothering me. I've been surprised to see
in this discussion the extent of opposition to women-only classrooms,
given that a woman-only space would be related in principle
to affirmative action.
 
The point that affirmative action supporters (including feminists)
have been trying to make is that identical treatment across the board
is fair or just only when all parties begin on an equal playing field.
When disparities exist--when marginalization has occurred
so that one group has more opportunity or voice simply by virtue
of their race, class, gender, or sexual orientation--then measures
need to be taken to remedy the disparity. After the parties have
become more equal, then the same treatments can be applied
across the board.
 
Have the anti-affirmative-action forces won this debate?
(This is a polling question for list members, not a rhetorical question.)
Do more feminists now support what I would call (agreeing with
an earlier poster) the liberal position that parties should be
treated the same regardless of disparities in opportunity, etc.?
 
Or are those of you who oppose Mary Daly's practice distinguishing
it in some way from affirmative action? For myself, I could see
the usefulness of women-only classes in women's studies alongside
mixed-sex classes. And, IF affirmative action is legally supportable
(present Supreme Court excepted), then women-only classes
should be also.
 
Priscilla Stuckey
pstuckey   AT   california.com
===========================================================================

I for one do not see Daly's practice as a form of affirmative action.
The goal of affirmative action is to overcome discrimination in
a particular area (say, job selection) and, ideally, create a level
playing field in which everyone has a chance to develop their
full potential as a human being, regardless of gender/race/age/
sexual orientation and so on.  Affirmative action in schools and
workplaces also encourages interactions among diverse groups that
past discrimination has made difficult if not outright impossible.
 
I don't see how any of these characteristics of affirmative action
programs apply to Daly's teaching preference.  A women-only
women's studies class does not alleviate some present or past form
of discrimination in the field of women's studies or even more
broadly liberal arts education; indeed, if anything, we need more
men in these classes!  Moreover, the gender segregation does not
encourage interactions among diverse groups, as do fair hiring
practices; Daly's practice actively discourages the idea that
men and women can productively learn and discuss the important
concepts that are explored in women's studies classes.
 
In sum, I'd say Daly's preferences undermine affirmative action
rather than support it.
 
Miles Jackson
cqmv   AT   odin.cc.pdx.edu
===========================================================================

I have been following the discussion of Mary Daly's stand on women-only
classes, and am baffled that on a list of this size we are not hearing from
any radical feminists.  Every argument I've read seems to come entirely
from a liberal feminist perspective, as though there were only one
"feminism," and that is the one that emphasizes sameness and equality.  As
I'm sure most of you know, there are many perspectives on feminism, and a
very important one is the one that emphasizes difference, does not try to
reverse every situation (if it's right or wrong for the boys it must be
right or wrong for us, and vice versa), and points out that as the
subordinate sex women are not in symmetrical relation to men in these
situations.  That view is usually argued by radical feminists, who will
then take it to extremes.  Alice Echols (*Daring to be Bad*) argues, among
other things, that it was 60s radicalism that finally pushed liberal
feminism as far as it went.  That is, working within the system can take us
only so far, without the flame of those working otuside the system.  Mary
Daly is surely a prime example of a feminist who has challenged the system
on every level, as radical as you can get and still keep you job in a
university.  To critique her stand on liberal feminist grounds, without any
reference to the radical philosophy she stands on, is surely to miss the
point.
Rose Norman
University of Alabama in Huntsville
===========================================================================

Miles Jackson wrote:
 
>   A women-only
> women's studies class does not alleviate some present or past form
> of discrimination in the field of women's studies or even more
> broadly liberal arts education; indeed, if anything, we need more
> men in these classes!
 
When women's studies is a moot issue, this will be too.  Until it is a moot
issue, I think Daly's response is a perfectly acceptable way of making sure
women can speak and learn as women.  If men's needs to take women's studies
classes are being met, then I do not see a basis for complaint.
 
A.R. Calvert
arcalver   AT   u.arizona.edu
===========================================================================

I agreee with Rose!! One of the most painful things, I think, is
to see people already marginalized--marginalized further and yet
again--in classes such as women's studies, lesbian studies, black
studies--simply with the addition of a single "privileged" individual.
    In my experience, these privileged characters are very high
maintainence so that rather than doing the work that women or lesbians
or blacks might do together--too much time is spent taking care of the
person of privilege.
catherine green
===========================================================================

Since Rose said the list hadn't heard from radical feminists, and I had
trouble sending my last message on substantive equality (radical feminist
jurisprudence, versus "formal equality"-treating all groups the same, let me
state it here.  I also want to add that radical feminists, including Daly,
highlighted the importance of violence against women when socialist
feminists were saying it was only state violence that women should fear and
liberal feminists said an ending of steroetypes would end problems, along
with better laws.  Even an excellent law such as the Illinois sexual assault
statute was not being enforced on "date rape" when I studied it.  The trend
to "gender neutrality" again, criticizing any hint of differences between
men and women, even if they are not biological, results in uproar for
example on the Sociologists for Women in Society list, alolng with the idea
that mothers behave differently (on the average) from fathers.  They are
wrong wrong wrong.  I don't understand that position except as a desired
fantasy.  However Daly is too idealistic (in the philosphical sense) to be a
radical feminist in the way that I and feminist jurosprudence scholars such
as Catharine MacKinnon are.  We are more structural and cognizant of
material power (which men, especially healthy white men, have) anddo not
have confidence in making change by changing our words.  But she spoke of
genital mutilation and suttee well before other folks did.
 
We should honor those early feminists, the first wave of the second wave, so
that another generation won't have to do it all over again.  I'm pretty
tired by now, though I will have a panel at the Int. Women's Studies Conf.
in Norway in June "Remembrances of Things Past: Are we Destroying our own
History".
In sisterhood (remember that phrase?)  There is no individual solution.
Pauline B. Bart   p.bart   AT   ucla.edu
===========================================================================

Though I generally agree with Joan Korenmam's post on this matter and the
others who have expressed reservations about such a practice,  I do think
that there are circumstances where such a separation might be justified
and I am loath to endorse a general condemnation.  If title IX can be
read to forbid such classes, it should be amended.  I cannot say if the
particular course in question at BC would satisfy my criteria for such
segregation, but in general I think senior faculty should have a great
deal of freedom in establishing the nature of their classes.  While I am
not especially impressed by the need for a safe space as a justification
for segregated academic instruction,  I am aware of instances where such
separation would serve a useful academic purpose.  In my own course on the
family, some aspects of dating and premarital relations are discussed
somewhat less forthrightly because both males and females are constrained
by the presence of the others.  I have not used separate discussion
sessions because of the logistical and time involved , and  because I think
there are other ways to reduce that constraint; but I would see nothing
wrong with doing so either morally or legally.  We have male only and
female only colleges where the advantages of segregation are deemed
educationally important.  I do not see that as a better educational model,
but for those who do, I say why not so long as the disadvantages for the
excluded are not clearly greater than the presumed advantages for the
included.  I received an excellent education in an all male college where
I have no doubt that the interaction between faculty and students was
different from what it would have been in a co-educational setting:
confrontational, blunt criticism, dressing down of students, etc.  Whether
that contributed to the quality of education is a different question.  The
presumed advantage of male only education, young men think about women too
much anyway so having them in classes detracts men from the serious
business of scholarship, was abandoned when the lure of tuition from women
as well as men changed that aspect of the school.  I believe students
still receive a fine education.  In sum, though I would defer to the
opinion of the instructor, were I required to validate a woman only or a
man only class, I would want to have academic reasons, though they might
be specific to a student body or setting.  I would defend the right of a
teacher to exclude any student who proved to be disruptive of the class,
though I have found other ways of dealing with that, here rare,
eventuality.
 
Wm W. Pendleton
Department of Sociology
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga. 30322
socwwp   AT   emory.edu
404 727-7524
===========================================================================

I disagree with the sender who claimed that the affirmative action model
did NOT apply to women's studies.
First there is NOT yet a level playing field in the universities given the
level of sexual harassment, discrimination against female faculty, and more
importantly, the male (considered universal) perspective in most textbooks
and readings.
2) Affirmative action covers more than jobs. And the philosphy behind it is
that people who have been subordinated need extra help in catching up.
Women are in that position.
3)  It is questionnabler whether men help or harm women's studies classes.
Some help and some harm.  And when they harm the harm they cause can result
in entire programs, e.g. Univ. of Washington, being destroyed, especially
when they go to court.  Years afterward one woman faculty member involved
wouldn't be on a panel I asked her to discuss it the pain was still there.
I could go on but I have things to do.  Read a law textbook on discrimination-
Studies in Feminist Jurisprudence: Taking Women Seriously, by Becker, Bowman
and Torrey, pub. West (a legal publisher) to understand the issues involved.
Pauline Bart  who taught women's studies starting in 1969 until driven out
of Chicago Cricle women's studies by  a man in my class going to the
administration.
===========================================================================

I was glad to hear Rose bring up radical feminism in the context of Mary
Daly, and was glad to hear the responses of others.  Yes, whether or not
we consider ourselves radical feminists in the sense that Daly is (and few
now are heard who do) or in the sense that Pauline and K. McKinnon are, we
seem to have forgotten that radical feminism exists.  Also, whether or
not we are separatists, we need to remember that separatism is and has
been a legitimate political strategy with a long and respected
history.  Is the separatism of Daly -- and that of the 60s and 70s women's
liberation thinkers -- less legitimate as a *political* move than that of
Malcolm X or Ghandi?
 
If we believe it is less legitimate, is that because we believe
(consciously or unconsciously) that women are qualitatively
different from men, maybe even only "half a species" (a phrase from a
story by Joanna Russ), and that we are not a legitimate political entity
that can speak for itself and make demands in the way that other political
entities can?
 
I never was a separatist, only because I perceived it as a way of life
that would require a sustained dedication that I did not feel I could
uphold. (I'm
not a vegetarian either for the same reason.)  But I do not believe in
dismissing separatists--whether feminists, lesbian-feminists,
African-Americans, or any other group, as merely individuals with personal
problems or issues.  They are acting out of a tradition and utilizing
a strategy for a short term or a longer term that has, in some
cases, been effective.  I see Daly as acting out of this tradition.
 
As to whether I agree with her or not, I would have to know the whole
story and context.  Does she exclude all men from all her classes or just
some men from some classes?  What has been the response before?
What does she herself have to say about it?
 
And finally, she's 70 years old.  I think elders should have the right to
be a little
bit eccentric--especially if they have contributed a great deal.  And Daly
has. 
 
M. Charlene Ball, Administrative Coordinator
Women's Studies Institute
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia
404/651-4633
wsimcb   AT   panther.gsu.edu
http://www.gsu.edu/womenpower
 
I dwell in Possibility --
A fairer House than Prose --
            (Emily Dickinson)
===========================================================================

Miles Jackson wrote,
 
>A women-only
>women's studies class does not alleviate some present or past form
>of discrimination in the field of women's studies or even more
>broadly liberal arts education.
 
I disagree. Women-only classrooms represent one attempt to
level the playing field reagrding who gets air time in a classroom
discussion. Twenty years ago when I was an undergraduate,
I sat like a bump on a log in all my classes--an intelligent,
intensely thinking bump, to be sure, but a silent one
nonetheless--because I was too intimidated to open my
mouth during class discussions.
 
By the time I got to graduate school, I am happy to say,
I was joining with other feminist students who began to
confront professors for giving more air time to male
students.
 
The discrimination here, whether or not it has been recognized
in law, is the discrimination of listening more closely and
giving more authority to male voices just because they are male.
 
Priscilla Stuckey
pstuckey   AT   california.com
===========================================================================

<<Twenty years ago when I was an undergraduate,
I sat like a bump on a log in all my classes--an intelligent,
intensely thinking bump, to be sure, but a silent one
nonetheless--because I was too intimidated to open my
mouth during class discussions.
>>
 
When I was an undergraduate I too sat like a bump on a log, but guess what?  I
went to an all-women's college.  My intimidation had nothing to do with gender
factors, but rather, mainly, with social class factors.  My point is that it's
far too simplistic to assume that all we have to do is toss out the male
students and then all the female students will flourish.  Secondly, I do not
think that creating a hothouse learning environment ultimately prepares female
students for living in a world that has men in it.  We may as well deal with
these issues now, when we can still help those students who are silent because
they feel intimidated.  Finally, if the presence of one or two men in a
women's studies class intimidates the vast preponderance of students in the
class who are women, then we're really in trouble!
 
Shirley Frank
NYC Technical College
 
SRF WRITER   AT   aol.com
===========================================================================

As the director of the women's center at my small liberal arts college, I
met with a group of students last night to facilitate a program entitled,
"Reflections of women in the eyes of the community."  All the students
attending were women, although it was open to all.  The presentations
consisted of poetry readings, musical peformances and testimonies to
women in students' lives.  Only 4 students had prepared a presentation,
so I suggested that we each go around the room and speak briefly about
one woman who had influenced us in a positive way.  At this suggestion,
about 7 students got up and walked out, not wanting to participate, even
in an all female crowd.  Later in the discussion, I asked students why
they thought so few students attended events for or about women.  Three
of the remaining students replied that they didn't want to come to events
"where a bunch of women sat around whining and complaining and bashing
men."  Although this is different from a classroom situation, it
nonetheless gives some important insight into the perspective of female
students.  It is not only the presence of male students which is
intimidating or thrwarting but the influence of an ideology of
individuals which identifies struggle as an individual moral failure.
Toward the end of the program, a young male student dropped by and asked
if he could participate.  He said that he grew up in a family with a
mother, grandmother and two sisters and wanted to speak about them.
After he shared his thoughts on his femal-centered household, the
remaining students began to share their thoughts as well.
 
Diana Fox
===========================================================================

Dear co-list members
 
I am surprised at the comparison being made between  men being excluded 
from WS classes to women being excluded from predominantly male centered 
classes and classrooms. This is much like comparing African Americans 
being kept from Eurocentric classes and whites being excluded from AA 
studies. The power dynamics are very different,  distorting issues of 
sexism, racism and discrimination.
 
I was fortunate enough to attend a school where men were excluded. The 
freedom of expression that that experience brought us women has stayed 
with me until today. Unfortunately, my daughter may not have that same 
opportunity.
 
I have also taught WS classes where men were included. The women held 
their own admirably but it took a 40 to 1 ratio for them to do it.  I also 
felt the frustration of many women who deeply resented the presence of men 
in "their class."
 
To paraphrase Cornel West, men have had the ultmate in gender preference 
for several thousand years; I can't get too upset about one man, without 
the appropriate prerequisites, being kept out of a WS class.
 
 
Bon courage a tous!
Stephanie Chastain
chastain17   AT   aol.com
===========================================================================

It is here, it is now. Such a basis should be the only one used when
deciding what is right and what should be done.
 
To try to do what is right by 'paying back' the privildges of the past to
those not privilidged and therefore deprieving others is faulty. It
continues a system of retribution that never ends. All most all
peoples have been persecuted at one time or another in thier history,
but little is gained by rewarding them in the present by depriving
the people that once oppressed them. Odds are that the original
parties are not around to appreciate such.
 
Or it causes bloody war after bloody war with each side claiming that
the land should be theirs because it was the land of thier ancestor.
 
By living in the past, by trying to correct the past, we are repeating
the past. We are suppose to be learning from the past to make a better
present and future.
 
Finally, if in this particular case the class is provided for by tax
money paid by all, then all should have an equal oppurtunity at such
benefits.
 
-Traci
===========================================================================

At 03:39 PM 3/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear co-list members
>
>I am surprised at the comparison being made between  men being excluded
from WS classes to women being excluded from predominantly male centered
classes and classrooms. This is much like comparing African Americans being
kept from Eurocentric classes and whites being excluded from AA studies. The
power dynamics are very different,  distorting issues of sexism, racism and
discrimination.
 
In the regards of the latter blacks being excluded from Euro classes and
vice versa, there are the issues of power dynamics, but I find it disturbing
that
anyone would want to exclude someone from a so-called "Learning" environment.
 
I don't want to touch the Mary Daly dilemma with a 100 foot pole because there
are some unresolved racial issues I have around her writings.
 
Right now, I'm co-teaching a introductory WS class (we're broken down into
three groups with director doing main lecture on one day; ta's doing discussion
group on second day).  My first day in class women wanted to know why men were
in the classroom?  My response:  What would make you think they wouldn't be
here?  And then I asked the men to explain why they were in the class.  Although
it is a core curriculum class, men responded to learn more about feminism.
I was taken aback, since most of the time, men and women have said they took
this class because it was (1) a requirement (2) their advisor told them it
was an easy "A".; (3) they needed to find another class at the last minute
and this
was all that was left.
 
My point:  I welcome anyone who's willing to come and learn.  I will not let--
keyword: let, anyone come into the classroom to railroad or takeover.  There are
ground rules that are passed out the first day in class.  We go over them
and re-evaluate, re-articulate them when need be.  I find that the men are
attentive for the most part; have more trouble with women sometimes especially
younger ones.
 
That's not to say I wouldn't have welcomed and still do welcome learning in an
all-woman environment. Given the sexism and racism I experienced as the only
black woman in high school doing the college-track, I understand the need for
womanspace only.  But, then again, there are power dynamics that are raised even
in a woman only situation, especially when all the women are of different race,
class, ethnic, sexual backgrounds.
 
I'm not putting much stock in the Mary Daly story because of the medium it's
being communicated through--i.e., newspapers, etc.  Is there anyone on this list
who's personally aware of the situation, who teaches at BU, knows her, is in the
mix and can speak to actually what is going on?
 
Sisterly yours,
 
Marva Nelson
Southern Illinois University
 at Carbondale
===========================================================================