Men in Women's Studies: The Mary Daly Case

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

I want to turn the discussion about Mary Daly and women-only classes around a
bit, to look at it from a somewhat different angle.
 
Before I get to my main point, I want to say at the outset that I have had
experience with women-only classes and organizations, and I believe strongly
in their value for enabling women to develop skills and strengths for which
there are many obstacles in "co-ed" groups. I also believe strongly in the
value of exclusionary minority groups and settings as places where people feel
more comfortable speaking up and don't have to waste time educating and
nurturing the "ignorant" rich or middle class white man or woman.  However, I
also want to say that there can be many patriarchal structures built into such
groups which mitigate their ability to be truly successful, internally
dividing sub-groups and individuals in such a way that much energy and time
gets lost in in-fighting.
 
My first year of college (1966-7) I attended a women-only school. Now, I am an
intensely shy person, whether around women or men, but I also know that for
the longest time, the presence of a single male in a class (which would happen
at the school because several of the professors were male) was enormously
intimidating. The source of this is, I believe, was the complete lack of
communication between myself and my father throughout my childhood. I learned
that women were for talking to, and men were for sex. If the man was not a
potential sex partner, there was no point in talking to him. I learned from my
mother (as well as the rest of the world) that men were the ones who got to
talk about all those fascinating intellectual topics, while women were
supposed to keep their mouths shut and listen with admiration.
 
I also learned from my father's example something very contradictory to the
above--the most admirable thinkers were those who challenged the status quo
and weren't afraid to be different and as a result become isolated from their
communities (as my father had done repeatedly, isolating our family, and thus
reinforcing the sense of alienation and aloneness that, on the one hand formed
a huge obstacle in breaking out of my shy silence, and on the other ultimately
gave me the courage to speak despite awareness of extensive opposition to my
ideas.)
 
It wasn't the exclusion of men from the classroom (I had three courses out of
5 each semester taught by women) that alone helped me to begin to open up,
though I am sure it helped. It was the class taught by Sister Catherine Louise
(Katy-Lou, we called her) that began the process for me. She taught a two-
semester long required core course in Western literature for first year
students, with 50 in the class. After the first semester, she became disgusted
with the usual lecture structure, and in the spring she divided us into
discussion groups of about 10 each. We met 1x a week as a whole, and then
groups met 1x week, reducing a 3-meeting weekly schedule to 2. She also
strongly encouraged free expression. We did weekly 2-page papers in which we
took some issue in the readings and related it to our lives and contemporary
events. (I had great fun with Chaucer's Wife of Bath, e.g.)
 
This set-up forced Katy-Lou to do a tremendous amount of extra work, but she
was much happier with the results. I "found my voice" in my discussion
section. There I could feel comfortable speaking my mind, a sort of budding
feminist-socialist view without the words to shape it clearly--despite the
fact that I was a "minority"--in this case, a non-Catholic. There were only 4
non-Catholics in my frosh class of 100 students. Non-Catholics were recruited
and lavishly supported with grants and scholarships in order to ensure the
presence of "a different voice" in the education of the Catholic women.
Unfortunately, it was difficult to express that different voice except when
faculty (whether male or female) openly and consistently encouraged it.
 
I left the school after a year because, despite Katy-Lou, I felt extremely
isolated. Being that "minority" was very difficult and ultimately very lonely.
Also, I had been raised by very liberal parents and had trouble adjusting to
the extremely conservative rules of the school (no pants to be worn in public
areas; dress-up, sit-down dinners 2x a week; dorm rooms checked at 8 a.m. to
be sure they were properly clean and beds made). Clearly there was a great
deal of paternalism at the school, and the patriarchy of Catholicism was also
clearly evident, if I had had that word to describe what I saw. Nonetheless,
Katy-Lou's course provided a wonderful crack in the structure that would
later---much, much later---enable me to re-find my voice,
 
From Holy Names College I moved to UC Santa Barbara, where my voice was once
again squelched, both because of the predominence of male faculty who refused
outright to give any feminist perspective credibility, and because of its
sheer size (which I consider to be an element of patriarchal structure
regardless of the gender distribution or subject matter). For example, I
argued in a studio art class that pottery had to have been invented by women,
who were the primary users of the products, and I was laughed at derisively.
Some of my classes were grossly huge (700 in my art appreciation class; 50 in
each "discussion section"), and I retreated into my shy, silent self, got
married at 20 to a "caretaker" husband in order to deal with my isolation.
 
Now, I want to fast-forward to the 90s, and discuss exclusion, patriarchy, and
feminism within the context of a women-only organization that started out to
be committed to "diversity" among women and ultimately, covertly has become a
lesbians-only organization with a few "token" straight women.
 
This is a theater group that I, along with a woman who was my housemate at the
time, founded. Our primary mission was to provide women with experiences
within a non-judgmental, nurturing group to discover and develop skills that
would enable them to become more powerful and self-confident in their other
endeavors. A very short time afterward, my housemate came out as a lesbian. To
her astonishment I eagerly supported her and encouraged her to take the
necessary emotional risks to go after a woman whom she desired, and who since
has become her live-in partner. (I should note that I am terminally straight.)
 
There was a strong lesbian contingent within the theater group (about 50-60%
at the start). I had no problem with this and enjoyed the opportunity to learn
more and connect more with people who at one level at least were very
"different" from me. I appreciated the vitality and openness about sexuality
issues that they brought to the group. Over time, however, the group became
predominately (about 95%-5%), and I gradually began to feel very alienated,
very much an outsider, and I ultimately dropped out entirely.
 
Now, just as I have no problem with women-only groups, I have no problem with
lesbian-only groups. I recognize the value of such groups for providing venues
for the development of self-confidence and inner strength. However, I *do*
have problems with a group that identifies itself as open to all women but
clearly through its actions excludes straight women, no matter how supportive
or enlightened (or willing to learn) those women may be.
 
I was intensely involved with the organization for about 2 years and spent
endless hours going to meetings, rehearsals, and parties whose main purpose
was to enable "bonding" among the members. However, I very quickly became the
only straight woman so involved. At first it didn't matter to me, but I
gradually began to recognize the perhaps unconscious or unintentional (or
even, possibly intentional) discursive practices that tagged me as an
undesirable "other." Among the most obvious of the practices was the sexual
banter that was always a part of everything we did, whether an organizational
meeting or a rehearsal or a party. Ultimately, it occupied about 75% of the
time, and became grosser and grosser as we went along. I often felt as if I
were in a men's locker room--only these were women doing the gross sex talk. I
thought it very funny at first, but ultimately became uncomfortable and felt
forced to laugh in order to show what a good sport I was. The worst of it was
that at least once, and often several times, I became the butt of jokes about
straight people. There always had to be a joke about how "Georgia likes those
ugly penises."
 
I stuck in there despite all this until the ultimate exclusion came--there was
a retreat for the group involving lesbians only about which I learned only
afterwards. (The lesbians-only element was unstated; evident only in the names
of the people who were invited.) I then very quickly dropped out without
saying anything, and no one attempted to encourage me to return, not even my
former housemate who had once called me her "soul sister."
 
This was an enormously painful experience for me--one that started out being
very supportive and ended up being isolating; that started out enabling me to
come out of my shyness but ultimately contributed to my sense of not being
wanted. I believe the actions (whether conscious or unconscious)  of the
lesbians in the group constituted reproduction of patriarchy. Now again, I
must repeat that I have no problem whatsoever with lesbian-only groups, so
long as that element is openly stated. And I do *not* accept a "heterosexuals
only" group as a fair or appropriate counterpart. But practices within a
supposedly diverse group of women that ultimately exclude one or another
minority, regardless of the minority (or powerless) status of the dominant
group in the outside world, represent patriarchy ingrained in the human psyche
and reproduced in daily action--in this case,  the identification of an
"Other," the determination that "Other" is "less than"; and that justifies
action that causes deep pain to the "other," action that would be untenable if
directed toward the sub-dominant group, the "we" opposed to the "them." This
is particularly reprehensible when the "Other" (whether straight, or women of
color, or whatever) belongs to other types of oppressed groups; in my case the
disabled.
 
Despite my hetersexuality (unexpressed in overt action for years because I
can't find a suitable mate), I share a great deal with many lesbian women. I
was sexually abused as a child and the victim of relationship violence (a
lover tried to strangle me when I informed him of my intent to break up with
him). I have twice experienced near-rape situations as an adult. I have spent
years and tons of money in intensive therapy to deal with these and other
painful issues. For the longest time the vast majority (not a token number) of
my dearest women friends have been lesbians or about-to-come-out lesbians whom
I supported publicly and privately. I deal constantly with "fat jokes." As
with racist jokes, I hate homophobic jokes and have not been afraid to speak
up when I hear them. And, like lesbians, I suffer the results of
institutionalized, rampant mysogyny. It's not a difficult stretch for me to
empathize with the pain of those who suffer from homophobia as well.
 
Although the man who is attempting to enroll in Mary Daly's class has no such
empathy toward women or any other oppressed group, and although I acknowledge
the legitimacy of exclusive organizations operated by minority (and powerless)
groups, I still contend that her policy is grossly wrong. Despite the fact
that opening the class to men clearly opens it to someone whose sole purpose
was to be disruptive; keeping it closed also closes it off to empathetic men
who could become allies, and whose presence could help enable women in the
class to become less intimidated by male presence. Men who are empathetic to
feminism are themselves a minority; they need the words and the tools provided
by feminist women's studies to counteract misogyny in other men--and women
definitely need that support! I see nothing wrong (and everything right) with
nurturing that empathy. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we do not avail
ourselves of the opportunity to do so, out of some dogmatic refusal to nurture
men, period.
 
Putting men in a class by themselves is a less-than-adequate solution, both
for the women *and* for the men. It deprives both the men and the women of
hearing the direct experiences of their counterparts.
 
Finally, having a class comprised solely of people with vaginas is no
guarantee that the institution of patriarchy will not be reproduced in the
classroom. People with vaginas are also often people who are homophobic,
racist, agist, classist, and so forth. The possession of a vagina is no
guarantee that such a person will not disrupt the course and/or spew forth
patriarchal dogma. Even a commitment to feminism by people with vaginas does
not exclude the possiblity of their reproducing patriarchal structure on a
daily basis. Our jobs as educators is to teach both women and men how to
recognize patriarchy, to see it in daily action,  and to self-consciously
enact changes whenever possible.
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith   AT   aol.com
===========================================================================

Greetings:
 
>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 believe you, Marva. Some men really are interested in 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.
 
Marva, I hope you didn't put up with that "easy A" putdown.  I hope
you found out the advisor's name and had a talk with him or her.
Patriarchy is a complex social system.  Learning about it is hard
intellectual and emotional work.  Doing something about it is even
harder.  I'd love to see these "easy A" advisors take a written
comprehension test on some *basic* feminist books.  I'd love even more
to see them actually do some activism.
 
Like just about everything else these days, Women's Studies needs a
PR coordinator.  Yes, I know about time and money issues, but this
"easy A" nonsense rankles me more than Marc Sack's posts.
 
>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.
 
All right, sister!  I'm getting tired of this notion about women
keeping silent when men are around.  Perhaps WS profs should paraphrase
Audre Lorde's great quote: "Your silence will not protect you--and it will
not get you an A even if you ace the exams".  Of
course, I'd have a complementary quote for the men:  "You will not
win any points with dominance--even if you get A's on the exams."
 
I was in two meetings at work today (I develop online help systems
for a living).  At one meeting, an Iranian female engineer was persistently
challenging three men's technical ideas and eventually got them to agree
with her.  At another meeting, an American female
programmer was telling four senior male engineers, "You need to go back to
the drawing board and redesign this feature.  It's not going to work and
I'm not going to code it."
 
If women in a mostly male engineering enviroment can be assertive,
then women in a Women's Studies class can certainly stand up to the
lone male in the room.  If it scares them off, then the guys probably
weren't ready for the class anyway.  I'm a somewhat introverted person
and was raised to be a "good Catholic girl".  But that hasn't kept me
from standing up to sexism on dates, in Toastmasters, in conversations
with friends, etc.  Yes, I have taken some hits, but I also learned
the *true* beliefs of these people who "really believe in equality".
Conflict and confrontation are facts of life, especially if one seeks
justice and social change.  The WS classroom could be an excellent
place to get some practice.  It could be a lab for women learning to
speak out and men learning to listen with respect.
 
>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.
 
Exactly!  A good win/win solution to these issues could be to make
the WS classes coed, but have single-sex "lab" groups for working out
various issues.  Also, the race-class-gender matrix must be covered.
 
Kathleen Trigiani
ktrig246   AT   airmail.net
 
*********************************************
"Out of the Cave:  Exploring Gray's Anatomy"
http://web2.airmail.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave
You Don't Have to Settle For Mars&Venus!
===========================================================================

A few random thoughts:
 
I went to a women's college in the late '50s and, although I was pretty
intimidated, too (though not because of social class but rather intellectual
factors), the experience of studying and learning without the constraints that
the presence of men would have imposed (self-consciousness, pressure to appear
"feminine," tendency to defer to men, sexual distractions, etc.) seemed to
give me more confidence later in the "real world."
 
(Could somebody remind me how women's colleges have been allowed to remain
single-sex while men's have not?)
 
It's not necessarily "intimidation" that's the problem when men are in the WS
classroom.  It's often simply their presence (whether they say anything or
not) that make women less willing to talk about certain topics -- or feelings.
If it were just about men's tendencies to dominate the conversation, that
should be possible to control.
 
On the other hand, the classroom isn't the only place in the world, and it
doesn't have to meet every need.  People can congregate elsewhere in self-
chosen groups (all men, all women, or whatever).  Despite the cultural images
of men's clubs and boys' nights out, most men I know don't spend enough time
with other men, in my opinion.  With women getting more connected these days
(via women's studies, women's business organizations, quilting groups, etc.),
it's almost a reversal of the old days, when women were isolated from each
other and the men hung out together.  I think some separateness is healthy, as
long as it doesn't threaten equal opportunity (as it once did, probably still
does in some quarters, in the men's clubs and washrooms where the real
business took place).
 
Kathleen Preston
Humboldt State (retired)
KathKnight   AT   aol.com
===========================================================================

David asked, sincerely I assume, if anyone had real evidence, legal type, that
the law says one cannot exclude anyone from one's classes.  I don't have real
evidence, I guess, but from a brief stint as Affirmative Action Officer and
other experience, it seems clear to me that (a) one cannot exclude someone
from a class *on the basis of sex*  (we've been successful in offering
parallel men's and women's sections of some courses, notably in athletics and
career counseling, but I think the rules still apply)  BUT (b) there are other
legitimate grounds for excluding people from one's classes -- e.g., space
limitations (where first-come-first-served, or seniority, or some other non-
discriminatory criterion may be applied), or removing them from classes
because of inappropriate behavior (as defined in the student handbook or
catalog or somewhere--threatening, unprofessional, destructive of the learning
situation, or whatever).  Rules for the latter were clarified on our campus a
few years ago when a small Asian female visiting instructor was intimidated,
physically and verbally, by a large aggressive male student, who finally,
after a lot of running in circles by everyone, was removed from the class.
 
The success stories we've read here about handling difficult students are
wonderfully inspiring and can be sources of real help for others.  Still, we
should remember that we are in charge, in both senses of power and
responsibility --these are our courses and our classrooms.  Those who handle
troublesome students best seem to know instinctively how to convey that fact
without saying it.
 
Kath
 
Kathleen Preston
Humboldt State (retired)
KathKnight   AT   aol.com
===========================================================================

At 09:16 PM 3/5/99 -0600, Kathleen Trigani wrote:
(snip)
>I believe you, Marva. Some men really are interested in feminism.
 
(Marva responded):
 
>>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.
 
Kathleen wrote:
 
>Marva, I hope you didn't put up with that "easy A" putdown.  I hope
>you found out the advisor's name and had a talk with him or her.
 
 
Kathleen, thanks for responding to my post.  As for the easy A response, I, in
turn, point out students who say this, ask what other classes they're taking,
and if a man teaches the class and if they hold that same expectation for
getting an easy A. Usually, the response is that they don't have the same
expectations from a male teacher--and then I ask why not which helps lead us
into a discussion of gender differences/expectations.....
 
This may sound like a simplistic solution, but it's not.  I do try to call
on all students equally and make a point of questioning men as much and
sometimes more, not so much to give them "equal" time, but to put them on
the spot and make them think...  Tendency for guys is to sit back and not
talk a lot of times because they don't want to be there to begin with...or
feel like women are going to "jump" all over them.
 
I think race and, to a more limited extent, class need to be taken into
consideration in this conversation of men in the classroom.  Find all resistant
to the notion of a woman of color being able to inform them of anything.
Given the way that the face of feminism is portrayed on this campus, as well
as out
in the world, this should not, but is a constant surprise to me.  Also, I feel
that students, especially males sometimes come to women's classes, not
necessarily just women's studies classes, be it subconscious or not, with this
notion of being "mothered", taken care of.  I see it played out among other
classes I take, other classes friends teach.  I reduce the issue of class a
little because the assumption is made by students that if you are a teacher,
even a TA, you have more class privilege than they do--regardless of color.
 
BTW, Kathleen, your website--Gray's Anatomy--is wonderful!  We discovered it
recently.  Great work!
 
 
Sisterly yours,
 
Marva Nelson
Women's Studies and English
Southern Illinois University
  at Carbondale
Carbondale, IL
===========================================================================

Kathleen Preston <KATHKNIGHT   AT   AOL.COM> wrote on Date: Sat, Mar 6, 1999, 1:48
AM:
 
> David asked, sincerely I assume, if anyone had real evidence, legal type, that
> the law says one cannot exclude anyone from one's classes.
 
I think that the 'David' in question was me. If so, I did ask the question
"sincerely." It certainly wasn't a rhetorical question.
 
> I don't have real
> evidence, I guess, but from a brief stint as Affirmative Action Officer and
> other experience, it seems clear to me that (a) one cannot exclude someone
> from a class *on the basis of sex*  (we've been successful in offering
> parallel men's and women's sections of some courses, notably in athletics and
> career counseling, but I think the rules still apply)
 
How do you understand "*on the basis of sex*" for this purpose, and what in
your experience makes this seem clear to you, especially given that you note
two supposedly defensible exceptions? I would have guessed that gender-
separate sections on career counseling would be no more or less legally
defensible than separate sections for women's studies. But I don't want
anything significant to depend on my guess.
 
> BUT (b) there are other
> legitimate grounds for excluding people from one's classes ...
<stuff deleted>
 
That's certainly beyond question, and the examples are good illustrations of
the revelant notion of legitimacy.  There are legitimate grounds for
limiting all sorts of acts (including, of course, offensive speech acts by
students or instructors) in the classroom. What I'd like to see is a general
principle clear enough to be practically applicable that clarifies the
distinction between legally legitimate and legally illegitimate grounds. The
examples given provide a good starting point. Pertinent case law might help,
too, but I'm ignorant of it if there is any.
 
> The success stories we've read here about handling difficult students are
> wonderfully inspiring and can be sources of real help for others.  Still, we
> should remember that we are in charge, in both senses of power and
> responsibility --these are our courses and our classrooms.  Those who handle
> troublesome students best seem to know instinctively how to convey that fact
> without saying it.
 
I agree and hope that colleges and universities would give official support
to the legitimate exercise of power and responsibility by articulating
reasonably clear policies that respect legal and other important
considerations.
 
David.
 
---------------------------------------
David F. Austin
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Box 8103
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103
(919) 515-6333 Winston Hall 006
David_Austin   AT   ncsu.edu
Sexual Harassment Resolution Officer
NCSU Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy:
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/provost/info/sexhar/sexhar.html
===========================================================================

This message is forwarded, with permission from Eleanor Bowman, from a
women's spirituality list, because it updates the recent discussion about
Mary Daly.
 
fyi,
Betty
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------

Reply-To: Women's spirituality and feminist-oriented religions
     <WMSPRT-L   AT   LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>

 
Last week, Mary Daly spoke at Vanderbilt. She is on a book tour promoting
her new book Quintessence. No questions were allowed. I assume it was
because she was either too tired and wanted to save her time and energy for
book signing or she wanted to avoid more controversy. Anyway, she seemed so
down and dis-spirited. I felt so bad for her and for all of us. It just
never lets up. The targets of her speech/attack were academia which she
refers to as academentia, lawyers, biotechnology and genetic engineering,
and post modernism. I got to speak to  her briefly when she signed my book.
She wanted to know something personal about each person so she could write
something a  little bit meaningful.
 
She never specifically addressed the problem at BC, but she did say that
there was no such thing as equality for  women in patriarchy -- so she feels
this whole equality issue is a red herring. Also, she emphasized  the fact
that in patriarchy, women's and earth's issues are the same. All in all it
was a very disturbing evening -- especially disturbing that she seemed so
beaten down -- tho' of course who can blame her? I checked the BC web page
the next day and saw that on Monday promotions had been announced. Daly,
still an associate professor -- the most important feminist theologian ever
with 3 PhDs and years and years of teaching -- was still not promoted to a
full professor. Perhaps that was also weighing on her -- although being as
radical as she is, why would she care? However, no matter how radical any of
us is, no matter how much we try not to care, we still exist within
patriarchy and there is no escape except within .
 
I think the most disturbing fact for me was that, except for the chaplain,
not a single professor from the divinity school showed up -- and Daly gets
bashed regularly by feminist theologians for being too far out there and too
"popular." Ugh!!!!! This academic factionalism is so disappointing. Without
Mary Daly there would be no feminist theology -- she was the first to
identify and discuss the issues which were and are the most important.
 
In the dark,
 
Eleanor
k
===========================================================================

I'd like to go back to the Mary Daly issue.  I no longer have the original post,
but wasn't the issue that she was being asked (told) to accept a male student
backed by members of a Right organization (one without the background for the
class) into an all woman class?  We were involved in a "men in the WS classroom"
thread right then, and this fed into it.  But if my memory is correct, this
looks like a case of a college admin panicked by pressure from the right and
bowing to it.  They have profited by Daly's presence as a "intellectual
celebrity" and have previously consented to her desire to teach only women
in at least some classes.  Now they wish to change their stance, suddenly and
abruptly, without her consent.  This forces her into making her class a battle-
ground or sideshow, or it forces her to resign over the issue.
 
I am told by a Colorado lobbyist that something somewhat similar happened in our
legislature several years ago.  A number of right wing people were elected, and,
instead of taking places near the back of the house to learn their new craft,
the freshmen legislators sat in front, facing the group, and conspicuously
taking notes on who voted how and who said what.  For some weeks, the
 legislators
were intimidated, and then they suddenly realized who they were and what was
happening and took back the legislature.
 
If Daly is under right wing pressure (and I trust you'll let me know if I am
wrong about this), she is in that situation as a major feminist, and whether or
not we  personally support everything she does, a move against her is a move
against feminists and women.  I would like to suggest that we find out what
issues are really involved, and then, if appropriate, ask her university to
stand against pressure against diversity and offer Daly at least moral support.
I do not suggest we do this as a group because that is not the purpose of the
list, but a couple hundred letter to Daly or the administration, each copied
to the other, might assure some people that feminism is very much alive.
 
So -- who knows what's actually happening?  Anyone know Mary Daly personally?
Anyone have contacts at her university?  What is the current status of this
situation?
 
Yours in sisterhood
Marilyn Grotzky
===========================================================================

In our local paper, Bangor Daily News, there is an article, plus photo,
of the legal battle for Mary Daly and Boston College.  Trying to attain
women-only spaces to get at the deeper essences or issues that women
confront in their lives without having to defer to a male presence in
the classroom.  In the setting of a Catholic univeristy, the irony in
all of this is how, FOR centuries, the male clergy of the Catholic
Church has had not a qualm or problem in getting for themselves
male-only spaces.  Reading this in our state's largest daily newspaper,
in a small-sized city, surrounded by rurality and religion of various
sorts, I am reminded of the witch triasl of another era, and this is
not unlike that at all.  This trial is very much like a witch trial.
At least it reminds me of such.
 
Rhea Cote Robbins
Director
Franco-American Women's Institute
641 South Main St.
Brewer, Maine 04412-2516
Telephone/FAX: 207-989-7059
Emails:
Rhea_Cote   AT   umit.maine.edu
RJCR   AT   aol.com
Web Sites:
http://members.aol.com/FAWI2000/index.html
http://members.aol.com/RobFAM10/WedC.html
===========================================================================

There is also a small article on p. B4 of The Boston Globe available online
at http//:boston.com.  The article discusses the Middlesex Superior Court
Judge's refusal to bar BC from distributing the course catalog next month
that omits her courses, as well as from telling people Daly has retired,
despite the fact that Daly has made no concession to retire.  Judge Martha B.
Sosman also said that BC has adequate cause to fire Daly on the basis of
Daly's "defiance of college policy that all courses be open to male and
female students."
 
Emily Mann
===========================================================================

WMST-L   AT   UMDD.UMD.EDU,.Internet writes:
>In our local paper, Bangor Daily News, there is an article, plus photo,
>of the legal battle for Mary Daly and Boston College.
 
Hello, Rhea and all:
 
_BDN_'s online site mentioned nothing about Daly, but _Boston Globe's_
site surely did.  (I smell some ageism and due process issues, too).
 
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/feminist.htm
 
 
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/145/metro/Judge_rejects_BC_teacher_who_bars_
men+.shtml
 
'Documents from the Women's Liberation Movement
                      An On-line Archival Collection
               Special Collections Library, Duke University.
 
 
Daly, Mary. "After the Death of God the Father.'
 
Pittsburgh: Know, Inc. Originally published in Commonweal,
March 12, 1971."
 
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/after/
 
Daly's Homepage    AT   Women's
Writers Com.:
 
http://www.womenbooks.com/mary_daly/index.html
 
Holly
===========================================================================

Relative to the women-only spaces issues...
 
Was at a program on educating women in math presented by U of Cincinnati's
Teachers' College just a couple weeks ago and the discussion was focussed on
early education mostly...  what toys do young girls who develop math skills
play with, vs what toys do boys... etc....
 
Since my interest is in teens I introduced some of the research we were doing
on the reading recommended by tech-women and proposed that a major part of
the problem of encouraging young women to continue developing their math
skills was the classroom-environment and the limited math curriculum
choices...  (we advocate decision analysis for example and topics in
operations research)...  I was expecting some comment on how this might
segregate young women since my premise is that these topics are closer to
women's lives...
 
amazingly the researcher not only confirmed this perception that the
*linearity* of the math-ed pipeline was a stumbling block from her own
research but she also referred to a study of women in leadership positions in
general in the US that showed a staggering 70 or more% of them came from
women's only educational backgrounds...
 
is this common knowledge in women's studies?  confirmed?
 
and how does that fit with the perception of same-sex groups as a
characteristic of rape-prone societies????  should the issue be
compulsory-ness of same-sex groupings which would seem more in keeping with
the violence aspect??
 
Something is going on here.
TTYL
Jeanette
<A HREF="Token">http://members.aol.com/Dectire">Token Woman</A>
===========================================================================

Jeanette Raichyk <MRaichyk   AT   AOL.COM> writes:
 
> amazingly the researcher not only confirmed this perception that the
> *linearity* of the math-ed pipeline was a stumbling block from her own
> research but she also referred to a study of women in leadership positions in
> general in the US that showed a staggering 70 or more% of them came from
> women's only educational backgrounds...
>
> is this common knowledge in women's studies?  confirmed?
 
        I've seen such studies referred to many times.  I'm convinced that
at least some of the studies are accurate, but I'm not sure what time
period they refer to.  Before the 1970s, most Ivy League schools did not
admit female undergraduates, and many selective non-Ivy schools similarly
admitted no or few women.  So the high achieving women who today might
choose, say, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., instead chose
highly selective women's colleges: Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, Mt. Holyoke,
etc.  Since these female students were the creme de la creme--talented,
highly motivated, and often (though by no means always) from privileged
backgrounds--it's hardly surprising that they were high achieving in later
life.  What role the all-female college atmosphere played is less clear to
me.  Perhaps it was very important, perhaps not.  I don't know the extent
to which the studies used comparable control groups.
 
        What's even less clear to me is the extent to which all-female
college environments produce unusually high percentages of high achieving
students now, when many women who in the past would have chosen such a
college now opt for high-prestige, highly competitive co-ed institutions
that now admit fairly large numbers of women: Harvard, Yale, etc.
 
        I'm not trying to dismiss the claim that a disproportionately high
percentage of high achieving women attended all-women's colleges.  I'm just
trying to point out that that statement by itself tells us relatively
little about the merits of an all-women college environment.
 
        (Also, while I have focused my remarks on all-women's colleges, I
think similar issues could be raised about secondary schools.  It wasn't
all that many years ago that many prestigious prep schools excluded women.)
 
        Joan
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Korenman                 korenman   AT   umbc2.umbc.edu
U. of Md. Baltimore County    http://www.umbc.edu/cwit/
Baltimore, MD 21250           http://www.umbc.edu/wmst/
 
The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================================

In a message dated 5/26/99 12:30:14 AM, you wrote:
 
<< I've seen such studies referred to many times.  I'm convinced that
at least some of the studies are accurate, but I'm not sure what time
period they refer to.  Before the 1970s, most Ivy League schools did not
admit female undergraduates, and many selective non-Ivy schools similarly
admitted no or few women.  So the high achieving women who today might
choose, say, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., instead chose
highly selective women's colleges: Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, Mt. Holyoke,
etc.  Since these female students were the creme de la creme--talented,
highly motivated, and often (though by no means always) from privileged
backgrounds--it's hardly surprising that they were high achieving in later
life.  What role the all-female college atmosphere played is less clear to
me.  Perhaps it was very important, perhaps not.  I don't know the extent
to which the studies used comparable control groups.
 
        What's even less clear to me is the extent to which all-female
college environments produce unusually high percentages of high achieving
students now, when many women who in the past would have chosen such a
college now opt for high-prestige, highly competitive co-ed institutions
that now admit fairly large numbers of women: Harvard, Yale, etc.>>
 
In fact this is exactly the issue I raised with the speaker and she insisted
it was not *the Wellesley-effect*....  because of circumstances then I did
not get a chance to pursue specific refs but if anyone here has some *best*
sources, I'd very much like to read up the details...  especially in view of
the research on a curious link between security for women and the
non-existence of same-sex groups, which I would suggest is likely more
related to compulsory same-sex structures reminiscent of
deprivation/segregation and not matters of choice...
 
choice has been one of the liberation movement's key demands...  choice is
psychologically linked to empowerment...
 
that's one reason complusory schooling is so noxious to self-respecting
children...  that's why college was different, especially the programs now
that emphasize flexibility, and diversity, exactly the trends that make
women's studies grow compared to the scene 30 years ago.
 
if anyone has citations on the same-sex/leadership connection, I would very
much appreciate the opportunity to pursue what's been done to date.
 
TIA
Jeanette Raichyk
Dectir=E9 Publishing & Quantification
mraichyk   AT   aol.com
===========================================================================

Check out TAKING WOMEN SERIOUSLY: LESSONS AND LEGACIES FOR EDUCATING THE
MAJORITY by M. Elizabeth Tidball, Daryl G. Smith, C. S. Tidball, & L. E.
Wolf-Wendel, 1999, Phoenix, AZ: Am. Council on Education/Oryx Press.

Bev Ayers-Nachamkin
Wilson College
1015 Philadelphia Ave.
Chambersburg, PA 17201
bayersna   AT   epix.net
bayers   AT   wilson.edu
===========================================================================

At 10:19 AM 6/2/99 -0400, SPSCHACHT   AT   AOL.COM wrote:
>  Dear WMST-L,
>
>  Doris Ewing and I are presently working on a project exploring what sorts
>  of positive roles men might play in the larger feminist/women's movement.
>  We plan to examine both theoretical and practical concerns of men's
>  involvement in both activist and academic settings.
 
 
For those interested in the historical view, I've linked at
http://womenshistory.about.com/msub9.htm to a number of web pages that
include both pro- and anti-feminist views by men.  Included is a chapter
from Margaret Fuller's _Woman in the Nineteenth Century_ where she names
names of men she considered supportive of women's rights in her own time.
===========================================================================

Also perhaps of interest is the documentary history I edited a few years
ago of profeminist men in U.S. history, AGAINST THE TIDE: PROFEMINIST MEN
 
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1776-1990 (Beacon Press, 1992).  It has a couple of
 
hundred documents, and references to several hundred more.
Michael Kimmel
===========================================================================

Probably the best source for Daly's reasons for not having men in her classes is
 to be found in  her memoir _Outercourse_, published in 1993 (I think). This
 book also documents the problems she has had over the years with the faculty
 and administration at Boston College.
  
Anne Carson
Cornell Law Library
Ithaca, NY 14853
carson   AT   law.mail.cornell.edu
 
<<< Rhoda C Fehrenbach <rhodaf   AT   JUNO.COM>  7/ 8 10:34a >>>
I was trying recently to express my support for Mary Daly's feminist
attitude but realized I didn't have all the details to argue effectively
for it.. Does anyone know what year Daly began refusing to teach males in
the classroom and opt for personal tutilage?   What were (are) her
reasons?
(Others' experiences in this matter are very welcome!)
 
Thank-you
Rhoda Fehrenbach
rhodaf   AT   juno.com
=============================================================================  

Rhoda and everyone,
 
I wanted to take this opportunity to inform the list of Mary Daly's situation
regarding Boston College and the right-wing law firm, Center for Independent
Rights (CIR).
 
Daly is a renowned philospher/theologian/radical feminist who has taught at
Boston College for 30 years.  For 25 years she taught women-only classes, the
explanation for which can be found in her books, Pure Lust (1984, p.372) and
Outercourse (1989, pp.326-328).
 
 In May, Mary learned that none of her courses were listed in the College's
1999-2000 registration materials.  Mary's attorney immediately filed suit,
charging that the College had breached its contract with Mary and trampled on
her tenure rights.  While the Middlesex Superior Court declined to enter an
emergency order restoring Mary's courses to next year's roster, the Court did
note that it appeared that the College had violated a tenured professor's
procedural due process rights.  The case is scheduled for trial in late
summer of 2000, and much work must be done in the coming months to ensure
victory in this historic legal battle.
 
To strengthen the efforts of Mary Daly's all volunteer defense team headed by
Daly's lawyer, Gretchen Van Ness, a group of committed supporters of Mary --
former students at Boston College, international feminists and
political/social activists, lawyers and businesswomen, lesbians and straight
women, religous women and academics, and other women and men from a multitude
of ethnic and racial backgrounds -- formed an all-volunteer not-for-profit
organization with the working title, The Mary Daly Defense Fund.
==========================================================================

Emily,
 
What's the contact info for the defense fund?  Is there a web site? I'm
not exactly a fan of Daly on all issues, but on some, and I'm very
worried about the precedent Boston College could be setting in regard to
feminist scholars committed to their values and methodologies, and in
regard to tenure in general.
 
Thanks,
Simone
=========================================================================== 

Meaghan wrote: " I'm not exactly a fan of Daly on all issues, but on some,
and I'm very worried about the precedent Boston College could be setting in
regard to feminist scholars committed to their values and methodologies,
and in regard to tenure in general."
 
It seems to me impossible to defend Daly's practice of excluding men from
her classes [disregarding for the moment the issue of tenure and who said
what to whom] without at the same time opening the door to like-minded men
who want to keep women out of their classes because of their "values and
methodologies," as Meaghan put it.  I know the argument from past
oppression, and the comparable argument made by critical race theorists and
others in relation to speech codes with double standards, but such
arguments strike me as very dangerous as precedents.  Nor does it seem
convincing to say "well, group X used to treat group Y that way, so why not
the reverse?"  A tit-for-tat defense does not promote greater justice; it
switches roles.  I have long known some women's studies professors who
certainly discourage men from enrolling in their classes, through various
strategems, but actively barring them is something else again. What's of
course amazing is that Boston College tolerated Daly's refusal to have men
in her classes for years.
---------------------------------
daphne.patai   AT   spanport.umass.edu
===========================================================================

The contact info is in the previous message I already sent, but here it is
again:
 
Mary Daly Defense Fund
P.O. Box 381176
Cambridge, MA
02238
 
e: MDalyFund   AT   aol.com
t: (781) 433 7309
 
There is no official website for the Defense Fund as of yet.
  
Emily
===========================================================================

In this past Sunday's New York Times Education Week section (Nov. 7,
1999) there was an article on Mary Daly and her struggles with Boston 
College. The author is sympathetic but not uncritical. Unlike most other 
articles on the controversy surrounding Daly, this one discusses Daly's 
relations with other feminist faculty at Boston College.

Anne Carson
Cornell University Law Library
Ithaca, NY 14853
carson   AT   law.mail.cornell.edu
============================================================================

If anyone is interested in receiving an email-format copy of the New York
Times article, email the Mary Daly Defense Fund at the below address and
we'll send it to you:

Mdalyfund   AT   aol.com

Thanks,

Emily Mann
============================================================================

Or you can obtain a full-text copy of the article(without a charge
tacked on) by searching Lexis-Nexis.

Kelly Barrick Hovendick
============================================================================

[Note: Judith Lorber apparently forwarded this message; the
message's writer is not named]

>Some time ago, when the news about Mary Daly's situation at Boston College
>became widespread, there was a lengthy discussion on the SWIP list about her
>practice of not allowing men in her classes. But there was no discussion
>about what Boston College is doing to her.
>
>Regardless of what you think of Mary Daly's pedagogy or her philosophy, I
>think everyone on this list should be concerned about what is happening.
>
>Regarding her practice of not admitting men to her classes:
>1. She is not breaking the law
>2. The man over whom this case has developed did not even have the
>prerequisites for the course he tried to enter.
>3. For men who wish to study with Mary Daly, she will work with them
>separately, and has done so over the years.
>
>This all started with a suit against Boston College brought by the Center
>for Individual Rights, who sought out the man Mary Daly turned away.
>
>Some information about CIR:
>     1. CIR has been around for 5 to 6 years
>     2. CIR advertises in college newspapers for students to bring suit
>against their campus Affirmative Action policies.
>     3. CIR is responsible for the attack on the Violence Against Women Act.
>As a result of the federal case they brought, women can no longer go into
>federal court to seek damages against their abusers.
>     4. CIR has also targeted Title 9.
>     5. Nevertheless, CIR used Title 9 in its suit against Boston College.
>
>Regarding Boston College:
>     1. Boston College settled privately with CIR and then tried to make Mary
>Daly resign. She refused, so Boston College simply took Mary Daly off its
>books, refused to list her courses, and closed her out of the college.
>     2. This despite the fact that she had already received a letter from the
>president of Boston College renewing her contract and giving her a raise.
>
>The Case:
>     1. The court date is February 7.
>     2. Legally, there is no question that Boston College violated its own
>procedures, terminating Daly's appointment without giving reasons and
>without permitting her access to a grievance procedure. (That should not be
>done to any tenured faculty member, whether you like their politics and
>pedagogy or not.)
>     3. Nevertheless, whenever there is an openly lesbian or gay person
>involved in court cases, how things will go is a "wild card."
>
>What you can do:
>     1. Recognize that this is a case about an attack on the tenure.
>     2. Mary Daly's lawyer is doing the work almost for free, but the costs
>for things like depositions are enormous, particularly against the string of
>attorneys representing Boston College. The defense fund needs money. They
>are $50,000 in debt at this point, however, even a few dollars can help.
>    You can send money to:
>             The Mary Daly Defense Fund
>             P. O. Box 381176
>             Cambridge, MA 02238-1176
>     3. You can talk about this with others, spread the word, and garner
>support. Please, don't just turn away from what is going on.
>
>My information comes from Gretchen Van Ness, Mary Daly's attorney. She can
>be reached at 617 723 5060 for information, updates on the cases, etc.
>
>(Also, in the next APA newsletter on feminist philosophy a paper by Marilyn
>Frye includes a passage about responses to Mary Daly's situation.)
>

****************************************************************
Judith Lorber, Ph.D.            Ph/Fax -- 212-689-2155
319 East 24 Street              judith.lorber   AT   verizon.net
Apt 27E
New York, NY 10010
Facts are theory laden; theories are value laden;
values are history laden.   -- Donna J. Haraway
****************************************************************
============================================================================

For Immediate Release                   Contact: Gretchen Van Ness, Esq.
February 6, 2001                       
Phone: (617) 723-5060


*PRESS RELEASE*

Mary Daly and Boston College Settle Lawsuit in the 11th Hour 


Boston, MA * In a surprising development last Friday [2/2/01],
Professor Mary Daly and Boston College settled Daly's lawsuit
charging the college with breach of contract and violation of
Daly's tenure rights following her removal from the faculty in
1999. This hard-fought case was set to go to trial on Wednesday.

Mary Daly, a radical feminist and author of seven books on feminist
philosophy, was ousted from her tenured post at Boston College
without due process in February 1999. Daly had been teaching
feminist ethics to men and women in separate sections for over
twenty years when the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a
conservative Washington-based law firm, threatened to sue Boston
College for "sex discrimination" in October 1998. Instead of
supporting a long-standing faculty member, Boston College
capitulated to the CIR and denied Daly her right to due process by
falsely claiming she had agreed to retire. Daly responded by filing
a lawsuit against Boston College.

The case was on the verge of going to trial, with jury selection
scheduled to begin on February 7, when Daly announced that the case
had settled out of court. There is much speculation about Boston
College's motives, but Daly's attorney, Gretchen Van Ness stated,
"We are confident that, after hearing all of the testimony, the
jury would have ruled in our favor and found that Professor Daly's
tenure rights and academic freedom had been trampled." Van Ness
went on to say that the settlement is a victory for Daly and that
she and Daly are pleased with the outcome. The terms of the
settlement are confidential. Daly is now working on her next book,
Amazon Grace, which will include an examination of these events.
Daly will continue her speaking tour, titled "Rekindling the Fires
of Feminist Fury."

The Mary Daly Defense Fund is an all-volunteer organization formed
to support Mary Daly in her lawsuit against Boston College by
raising funds to provide her with the best possible legal
representation.
============================================================================