Whither Mary?
November 9, 2010
A BOSTON UNIVERSITY religion scholar finds little sympathy for the feminist theologian and misanthrope Mary Daly among his students. Given that Daly called for the virtual elimination of the male sex, this is not necessarily heartening news. One would hope they would be angry and outraged at the mere mention of her name and that he would be exiled academically for giving her serious consideration. Stephen Prothero says very few of his students are willing to call themselves feminists. That’s not because feminism has died, as he speculates, but because it has won.
— Comments —
Brandon B. writes:
You wrote:
“Stephen Prothero says very few of his students are willing to call themselves feminists. That’s not because feminism has died, as he speculates, but because it has won.”
Indeed, and as the artificial “matriarchy” gains more and more power in society, it’s going to be increasingly hard for people and especially young men, to take seriously feminist delusions of male oppression.
But, as I like to say, even if feminism so thoroughly dominated the world that all men were enslaved in chains and women were their absolute masters, feminists would still claim to be “oppressed” victims and I highly doubt they would ever reach the degree of objectivity needed to understand that theirs is a self-imposed oppression.
Laura writes:
Feminism has no end point, no ultimate goal that must be attained in order for its adherents to pack up their bags and close the doors. The concrete goals it does have, such as “equal pay for equal work,” can never be realistically attained because of the innate differences between men and women. And, because feminists consider all of history to be marked by exploitation of women, there can never be an end to the need for retribution. All successes are ultimately inadequate in the face of these historic injustices.
Therefore, feminism will not come to an end simply because college students are hesitant to use the label of ‘feminist.’ It will only end when its claims are actively repudiated. Those who do not actively repudiate feminism (refusing to call oneself a feminist is not repudiation) are essentially feminists too.
slwerner writes:
“Stephen Prothero says very few of his students are willing to call themselves feminists. That’s not because feminism has died, as he speculates, but because it has won.”
Unfortunately, this is very true. The ideals once promoted by only the most anti-male feminists are now being “mainstreamed” into even the most “anti-feminist” elements.
As an example, one can look at socially conservative, pro-life Irish-Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh’s take on DNA testing as a measure against paternity fraud. She calls it “ungallant” for men to wish to know if the child they are being expected to raise and/or pay for is actually theirs.
The old man-hating feminist idea that men are largely irrelevant, and easily “interchangeable” (so much so that it doesn’t matter who fathers a child – any man can be inserted into the “daddy” role, even if only so as to provide child support to the child’s mother) has now been co-opted by a proud member of the “anti-feminist” conservative Christian women.
And as for the “power-politics” that the gender-feminists have lived by, well McDonagh has picked that ball up as well. Without so much as a hint of irony, she declares:“But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.”
While McDonagh has thoroughly embarrassed herself by actually daring to publish something so obviously in it’s utter disregard for men as individual human beings, I have the distinct impression that many women amongst the “anti-feminists” feel the exact same way (they’re just smart enough to keep quiet about it in public).
A. Scientist writes:
slwerner wrote:
“As an example, one can look at socially conservative, pro-life Irish-Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh’s take on DNA testing as a measure against paternity fraud. She calls it “ungallant” for men to wish to know if the child they are being expected to raise and/or pay for is actually theirs. ”
Mrs. McDonagh makes a point against scientism, the belief that science can produce for us ultimate truths. She suggests that merely because we have the technology to do something does not mean that we should do it; often, we should not. In addition to her point, I should note that scientific tests can be and have been wrong.
slwerner writes:
Of Melanie McDonagh, A. Scientist writes, “She suggests that merely because we have the technology to do something does not mean that we should do it; often, we should not.” What A. Scientist has not presented is any refutation as to why “we should not” – an issue I take it she or he would rather not have to confront. Well, McDonagh lays out her reasons for not doing it – it deprives women of a powerful tool of deception they have long had over men.
Right off she points out:
“For the entire course of human history, men have nursed profound, troubling doubts about the fundamental question of whether or not they were fathers to their own children; women, by contrast, usually enjoyed a reasonable level of certainty about the matter.”
And she then notes that if men are relieved of their “profound, troubling doubts,”it will, on balance be a very bad thing because it will produce (according to her own words) “a change in the balance of power between the sexes.” Clearly, her primary focus is on the ability of women to deceive men. It gives women power (or, in gender-feminist speak, it “empowers” them to cruelly deceive men about something so intimately important to them). She even offers a historical example of what a good thing it is for woman to be able to deceive men:
She writes:
“The courtesan in Balzac who, on becoming pregnant, unhesitatingly sought, and got, maintenance from two of her men friends, can’t have been the only one. Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.”
You see, a woman can get more money and resources for herself (oh, yeah, and her child too, of course) by deceiving men. Good thing that, because, as any good feminist or Social Conservative knows men, in general DO NOT MATTER. They are not fully human, have no feelings, and are just to serve as cogs in the wheel of the social machine that serves the needs of women. As McDonagh dismisses the plight of men who have been deceived, and even robbed of their legitimate desire to produce their own heirs:
“Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter?”
Of course it doesn’t matter – they’re just men, after all. How could it possibly matter? It’s not as if men should have rights, just obligations, as McDonagh informs us:
“Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations.”
You see, women have no moral obligation not to lie about paternity, nor to not engage in infidelity – it’s just the men who they say is the father who has moral obligations to provide for her (oh, yeah, and her child too, of course).
And, as she concludes:
“But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.”
And, it causes great harm in not shielding evil women from the potential consequences of their own actions. How dreadful. Why, it’s almost as if science is trying to consider man as equal humans to women, valuable in their own right, and having rights to such things as not being cuckolded. What’s this world coming to if women can no longer make the rules about who has to pay the price for whatever they chose to do?
And, yet, it seems as though A.Scientist supports her views? She or he sees nothing wrong with women deceiving men via paternity fraud, and a greater harm coming from men finding out their wives have been unfaithful, or that the child they are being asked to pay for isn’t even theirs?
Laura writes:
McDonagh makes some very outrageous claims.
