Scan barcode
flaggums's review against another edition
2.0
I have to be honest with my rating. Maybe it's just not my style of book. And I have to add that to my "it was okay" two-star rating that this is no way a reflection on the theologies and ideas Daly is presenting -- I'm mostly on board with those. But as for presentation, I couldn't finish the book and stopped about a chapter and a half early.
elltea11's review against another edition
3.0
[alcohol /]
.
.
.
.
This book features some truly one-of-a-kind, refreshingly upending theological ideas...and an unsettling amount of transmisogyny and racism. Mary Daly was indomitable in her thought, for better in her dealings with the church and other institutions throughout her life, and for worse in terms of who she included in her fold. You will find yourself uncomfortable in ways you never knew you needed and in ways you definitely did not. On this note, some of her recurring key words may inspire one to roll their eyes, but a generous reader will blame at least half of that on the time. In the end, a worthwhile text for students of religious and/or gender studies or those interested, but to be read with several grains of salt. In fact, take some lemon and tequila with you, too.
.
.
.
.
This book features some truly one-of-a-kind, refreshingly upending theological ideas...and an unsettling amount of transmisogyny and racism. Mary Daly was indomitable in her thought, for better in her dealings with the church and other institutions throughout her life, and for worse in terms of who she included in her fold. You will find yourself uncomfortable in ways you never knew you needed and in ways you definitely did not. On this note, some of her recurring key words may inspire one to roll their eyes, but a generous reader will blame at least half of that on the time. In the end, a worthwhile text for students of religious and/or gender studies or those interested, but to be read with several grains of salt. In fact, take some lemon and tequila with you, too.
tangerineteeth's review against another edition
3.0
Deeply thought-provoking. She begins from the assumption that theology itself, and the Church itself, are corrupted by misogyny not only in form but also in principle. From there, she makes a full critique and describes her vision of a way forward, out of patriarchal religion.
tdwightdavis's review against another edition
4.0
10/27/16, first impression: I realize this could be my patriarchy or male bias or whatever, but this feels like an adventure in burning down the house because a few rooms are pretty messed up. I'm much more persuaded by feminist theology that is more constructive and generous (i.e. She Who Is by Elizabeth Johnson) than a project that is purely deconstructive (which, really, this is how I feel about all thought, I have little patience for projects that find nothing good or positive to argue for).
I think that a lot of what Daly is doing with language is interesting as a way of breaking out of patriarchy by developing new meaning and language for feminist experience and I'm appreciative of the verve and bravery it takes to write a book like this at the time in which it was written. I guess it's just not for me.
(Original rating: 2 stars)
UPDATE
1/24/18
It's amazing how much of a difference a year and some change can make. As I've gotten progressively more theologically liberal over the past year, this book has come to mean something very different to me than it did at first blush. I don't see this work as purely deconstructive anymore. Neither would I be so harsh about such projects at this point, having produced a project that was mostly itself a project of deconstruction. What Daly is doing here is brilliant and forward-thinking and essential in conversations about patriarchy and Christianity. It's sort of astonishing to read this in 2018 and realize that so many of the ideas and conversations she takes to task are still happening almost 50 years after this was originally published. Patriarchy is alive and well, and Mary Daly's work is a valuable tool in combating patriarchy in Christian theology.
I still have significant critiques of Daly. She's pretty transphobic, which is not the best. Her racial politics certainly leave a lot to be desired. Centering the oppression of women as the cause of all other oppressions is reductive and unhelpful, much more intersectional work needs to be done in that regard. I also still have significant critiques of her antichurch and anti-ritual/anti-liturgy approach to theology. But unfortunately many scholars have decided that Daly was too radical and too backwards to continue to be of any use. Her books are rapidly going out of print and her name rarely shows up in scholarship anymore (even if her ideas are clearly there and influential, it seems people are ashamed to attribute the ideas to her because of how out of vogue she has become). There seems to be a campaign to silence Daly and remove her thought from the theological and philosophical canons. This is highly unfortunate. Her originality in thought is so vital, and continues to be an incredible resource about God-talk and patriarchy. This book in particular presents so many interesting ideas about grammar as a way of overcoming oppression that should be widely embraced. Her critiques of complementarianism and male religious leadership are still entirely relevant.
It's high time we return to Daly's work and take her seriously.
I think that a lot of what Daly is doing with language is interesting as a way of breaking out of patriarchy by developing new meaning and language for feminist experience and I'm appreciative of the verve and bravery it takes to write a book like this at the time in which it was written. I guess it's just not for me.
(Original rating: 2 stars)
UPDATE
1/24/18
It's amazing how much of a difference a year and some change can make. As I've gotten progressively more theologically liberal over the past year, this book has come to mean something very different to me than it did at first blush. I don't see this work as purely deconstructive anymore. Neither would I be so harsh about such projects at this point, having produced a project that was mostly itself a project of deconstruction. What Daly is doing here is brilliant and forward-thinking and essential in conversations about patriarchy and Christianity. It's sort of astonishing to read this in 2018 and realize that so many of the ideas and conversations she takes to task are still happening almost 50 years after this was originally published. Patriarchy is alive and well, and Mary Daly's work is a valuable tool in combating patriarchy in Christian theology.
I still have significant critiques of Daly. She's pretty transphobic, which is not the best. Her racial politics certainly leave a lot to be desired. Centering the oppression of women as the cause of all other oppressions is reductive and unhelpful, much more intersectional work needs to be done in that regard. I also still have significant critiques of her antichurch and anti-ritual/anti-liturgy approach to theology. But unfortunately many scholars have decided that Daly was too radical and too backwards to continue to be of any use. Her books are rapidly going out of print and her name rarely shows up in scholarship anymore (even if her ideas are clearly there and influential, it seems people are ashamed to attribute the ideas to her because of how out of vogue she has become). There seems to be a campaign to silence Daly and remove her thought from the theological and philosophical canons. This is highly unfortunate. Her originality in thought is so vital, and continues to be an incredible resource about God-talk and patriarchy. This book in particular presents so many interesting ideas about grammar as a way of overcoming oppression that should be widely embraced. Her critiques of complementarianism and male religious leadership are still entirely relevant.
It's high time we return to Daly's work and take her seriously.
atticmoth's review against another edition
challenging
dark
hopeful
inspiring
sad
slow-paced
3.0
I’ll start by saying I am aware of the author’s negative views on transgender people, but I don’t think reading an author should mean one necessarily agrees with everything they think. I am a firm believer that there’s something to learn from everything, and I think it’s counterproductive to cancel a dead person anyway, especially when I picked up this book used for $3.
That being said, I did get a lot out of this book, and it definitely challenged me more than most of what I read. I am not in the habit of reading philosophy, so it was very hard to understand. I would take a few tries to understand a sentence, then a paragraph, and then have an aha! moment when I finally get what she was trying to convey. I really enjoyed engaging with the text actively this way; it felt like being back in school! But despite the many good points Daly made, I had trouble figuring out how they would tie back into the rest of the book, and I’m not exactly sure what the thesis was. The full title is Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation, but the whole thing is approached very theologically, so it seemed to be sort of an effort to establish a new feminist theology, which would in turn transform our own ontology because…?
The best part about Beyond God the Father is that unlike most books of theory, it spends most of its time proposing solutions, instead of simply describing problems. Even if these solutions are discussed in an extremely vague sense, it’s better than the theorists who only complain. It gave me a lot to think about, especially on language — Daly calls it the “castrating of language” — reminding me of Monique Wittig’s Les Guérillères. Everything Daly proposes does seem to be within the context of those who are already some form of religious/spiritual, because nonbeing is apparently existentially terrifying, whereas most atheists I know have already confronted that idea and find it comforting. She makes a lot of criticisms within a Christian framework while claiming to reject that very thing, for example calling things she doesn’t like “idolatry”. Is this short-sighted, or is it a clever rhetorical tool to bring over dissenters?
While a minor part of the book itself, the most glaring issue it had was in its discussion of race. Daly, like other second-wave feminists, draws comparisons between women’s liberation and black liberation, but unlike porto-intersectional feminists like Andrea Dworkin, certain biases are not addressed. Why exactly is a black god less revolutionary than a female god? What makes misogyny “the root and paradigm of various forms of oppression”? I agree that liberal feminists often outright ignore the existence of misogyny, and that it is a throughline to basically everything, but to not back up why it’s the origin of racism seems a very self-centered white way of thinking. Daly discusses minority mens’ capacity to perpetuate misogyny, but does not find it within herself to discuss the opposite, which Dworkin does extensively in Right Wing Women. Perhaps this is a question of authorship — Dworkin was jewish so she knew why true intersectional thinking is necessary. Daly’s most absurd assertion about race was that “it was not the women who brought slaves to America. Women have been pawns in the racial struggle.”
Despite this book’s (and the author’s) shortcomings, the thesis that women’s liberation is going to help human nature as a whole is very inspiring and smart. I respect any book that makes me reflect and self-reflect this much, and would recommend it if you’re interested in a point-of-view that’s not often heard from.
That being said, I did get a lot out of this book, and it definitely challenged me more than most of what I read. I am not in the habit of reading philosophy, so it was very hard to understand. I would take a few tries to understand a sentence, then a paragraph, and then have an aha! moment when I finally get what she was trying to convey. I really enjoyed engaging with the text actively this way; it felt like being back in school! But despite the many good points Daly made, I had trouble figuring out how they would tie back into the rest of the book, and I’m not exactly sure what the thesis was. The full title is Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation, but the whole thing is approached very theologically, so it seemed to be sort of an effort to establish a new feminist theology, which would in turn transform our own ontology because…?
The best part about Beyond God the Father is that unlike most books of theory, it spends most of its time proposing solutions, instead of simply describing problems. Even if these solutions are discussed in an extremely vague sense, it’s better than the theorists who only complain. It gave me a lot to think about, especially on language — Daly calls it the “castrating of language” — reminding me of Monique Wittig’s Les Guérillères. Everything Daly proposes does seem to be within the context of those who are already some form of religious/spiritual, because nonbeing is apparently existentially terrifying, whereas most atheists I know have already confronted that idea and find it comforting. She makes a lot of criticisms within a Christian framework while claiming to reject that very thing, for example calling things she doesn’t like “idolatry”. Is this short-sighted, or is it a clever rhetorical tool to bring over dissenters?
While a minor part of the book itself, the most glaring issue it had was in its discussion of race. Daly, like other second-wave feminists, draws comparisons between women’s liberation and black liberation, but unlike porto-intersectional feminists like Andrea Dworkin, certain biases are not addressed. Why exactly is a black god less revolutionary than a female god? What makes misogyny “the root and paradigm of various forms of oppression”? I agree that liberal feminists often outright ignore the existence of misogyny, and that it is a throughline to basically everything, but to not back up why it’s the origin of racism seems a very self-centered white way of thinking. Daly discusses minority mens’ capacity to perpetuate misogyny, but does not find it within herself to discuss the opposite, which Dworkin does extensively in Right Wing Women. Perhaps this is a question of authorship — Dworkin was jewish so she knew why true intersectional thinking is necessary. Daly’s most absurd assertion about race was that “it was not the women who brought slaves to America. Women have been pawns in the racial struggle.”
Despite this book’s (and the author’s) shortcomings, the thesis that women’s liberation is going to help human nature as a whole is very inspiring and smart. I respect any book that makes me reflect and self-reflect this much, and would recommend it if you’re interested in a point-of-view that’s not often heard from.
catherinedsharp's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
I read this text for a University assessment and enjoyed it. However it held many very controversial ideas which did put me off a little. Can be quite difficult to read due to the information overload but overall enjoyable and informative.
Content Warnings
Please do some research around the author before you read/as you read as this will provide context.
stefhyena's review against another edition
4.0
I am so glad I read this and anything that didn't resound with me makes sense when I see that this book is in fact older than me!
Daly has an angry, uncompromising tone that will not sit well with all readers but apart from occasionally seeming to go "too far" mainly validated and emboldened me (which is something I really need). She has been accused of essentialism but I didn't find it necessary to read this book that way, I rather think that post-structuralist insights can be slotted into Daly's thinking considering her aim is for an androgenaety of being beyond binary gender and her desire to find what is good (but silenced) within femaleness and bring that with us. Her tendency to view both femininity and masculinity as each one monolithic thing throughout history is misguided I would say and might be what leads her to the (wrong) assertion that sexism is the ultimate evil and far worse than (for example) racism.
The idea of intersectionality had not been nutted out at the time when Daly was writing but it must be admitted she is naive about the experiences of non-white people (and women in particular) and largely blind to her own privileged position. This detracts from an argument that in many ways bears thinking about, it is possible that capitalism and consumerism DO in fact stem from patriarchy and cannot be undone without gender equity. The only issue then is that by ignoring the toxic feminities that are implicated within capitalism (that might possibly be seen as products of patriarchy admittedly) the place of the woman is insufficiently reflexive given that our participation keeps fuelling the systems that oppress us.
I'd like to dismiss Daly's post-Christian attitudes and her thesis that Christ has become an idol. I'd like to find some good in the tradition I grew up with because I think emptiness where religion used to be is not necessarily good for people. I end up caught between Scylla and Charybdis because I can;t completely disagree with the way Daly shows the (male) power of the church working throughout history.
Anyway it helped me think and rethink a reflection I had to present. It was a worthwhile read both personally and as one that has influenced later writers that I read. For anyone who wants to really grapple with women's experience of religion and reality this is something you probably need to read. Whether or not you can stomach the strong emotion...
Daly has an angry, uncompromising tone that will not sit well with all readers but apart from occasionally seeming to go "too far" mainly validated and emboldened me (which is something I really need). She has been accused of essentialism but I didn't find it necessary to read this book that way, I rather think that post-structuralist insights can be slotted into Daly's thinking considering her aim is for an androgenaety of being beyond binary gender and her desire to find what is good (but silenced) within femaleness and bring that with us. Her tendency to view both femininity and masculinity as each one monolithic thing throughout history is misguided I would say and might be what leads her to the (wrong) assertion that sexism is the ultimate evil and far worse than (for example) racism.
The idea of intersectionality had not been nutted out at the time when Daly was writing but it must be admitted she is naive about the experiences of non-white people (and women in particular) and largely blind to her own privileged position. This detracts from an argument that in many ways bears thinking about, it is possible that capitalism and consumerism DO in fact stem from patriarchy and cannot be undone without gender equity. The only issue then is that by ignoring the toxic feminities that are implicated within capitalism (that might possibly be seen as products of patriarchy admittedly) the place of the woman is insufficiently reflexive given that our participation keeps fuelling the systems that oppress us.
I'd like to dismiss Daly's post-Christian attitudes and her thesis that Christ has become an idol. I'd like to find some good in the tradition I grew up with because I think emptiness where religion used to be is not necessarily good for people. I end up caught between Scylla and Charybdis because I can;t completely disagree with the way Daly shows the (male) power of the church working throughout history.
Anyway it helped me think and rethink a reflection I had to present. It was a worthwhile read both personally and as one that has influenced later writers that I read. For anyone who wants to really grapple with women's experience of religion and reality this is something you probably need to read. Whether or not you can stomach the strong emotion...
More...