Pin It

‘The “Sisterhood” of Man’–Mary Daly

her definition from her book “Webster’s First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language” of Patriarchal Religions:

god/rod n.1: projection by impotent prickers of an omnipotent, eternally erect divinity
                2:  divine ruler of phallocrats possessed by penis envy, who obsessively compete, measuring/comparing their rods–e.g., guns, missiles, rockets.  
Junckocracy: n : state of man-made addiction to toxic waste e.g. , junk food, junk mail, junk medicine, junk religion, junk politics, junk economics, junk entertainment, chemical and nuclear junk. 
Four types of patriarchal reversals that are meant to destroy women’s lives:
 1. simple inversion
    ronald reagan called “the great communicator”
    the mx missile called “the peacekeeper”
    animal rights activists called “terrorists”
     groups who oppose women’s right to choose abortion-groups manifesting callous indifference to women’s lives and the lives of unwanted children–label themselves “pro-life” and “right to lifers”.  In a society that  accepts such inversion, Coca-Cola can pass as “The Real Thing” and makeup can be labeled “The Natural Look” while women who refuse to wear maeup are called “unnatural”. 
the unholy trinity according to Dr. Daly: war rape genocide.


  1. Ladyjane Green says:

    When a woman Senses that she is being tricked and ensnared by the deceivers who occupy the state of staledom she longs to share her insight with those whom she can believe she can trust. Not uncommonly, her attempts to Name the situation are met with angry rebuffs and ridicule. Her attempts to escape the imposed condition of patriarchal paralysis increase her awareness of her isolation.
    In the nineties,- as in the fifties,- many women learn to remain silent after such crushing experiences. Like animals caged and tortured in the laboratories of patriarchal “science”, women in the state of torture which is diaspora become sensitized to subliminal cues as well as overt threats. There is a general understanding that even more serious punishments will follow if one continues to speak out. Thus women become their own censors and censor each other.
    Fearing that she will be ostracized, or fired from her job, or beaten, or killed, a woman may shrink into a living death of quiet, -or noisy- despair. Since the condition of despair is the norm for women under patriarchy, she may well appear normal. Being “normal”, she rarely acknowledges her despair. Having been subdued, she uses more acceptable terms, such as “depression” to describe her condition, which suggests she should be “treated”. The word despair, after all comes close to giving the show away. Therefore it is taboo. Mary Daly, Quintessence

  2. Ladyjane Green says:

    Taken also from Dr daly’s Wickidary.
    …GAGGER n: a species of dickspeaker: one who tries to stop the Musing of Muses , esp. by means of rules or ridicule; common preacher or dirty joker. Examples a.”saint Paul” (or one of his clones), who droned:
    Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor1Tim 2:11-14
    OR b. Rudyard Kipling, who dribbled /scribbled
    And a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.

  3. Don’t lead with your persecution complex, Galileo.The only authority I’m relying on is rational thought. Check this out, and I’ll humbly stand corrected if it makes no sense: I regularly trust my life (and my childrens’) to Science-based contraptions like commercial jets. Acceleration, Thrust, Resistance, Lift, and the way those factors relate to flight are principles that have been pretty damned-well charted out. That’s not to mention the Calculus involved (I’m no math whiz, but I think that’s pretty much the Mathematics of Motion). Look at the job a jet engine dependably does all day long, day after day, and then tell me somebody doesn’t know what the fuck is what.
    I think you’re undervaluing what’s close enough to exactitude to qualify as valuable, verifiable knowledge – and you’re relying on a lot of hair-splitting and Semantics, it seems to me. When people come in talking about how 2+2 might not really be four because Space is curved or quarks have been observed climbing up their own ass or whatever – I figure they’re just looking for an argument because they’ve already seen every Star Trek episode too many times, or they’re looking for a chance to impress everybody with their vocabulary.
    There are provable Truths that have been discovered, revealed, observed, whatever you want to call it, by Science. They’re borne out and replicated in countless ways every day. If you want to quibble, have at it, but don’t try to make me out to be a Science Fascist because I simply state what for most people is obvious.
    Science asks questions that may never be answered; Religion provides answers that must never be questioned ………Dr. Heywood Jablomie

  4. no, she (mary daly) is saying that phallocentric arrogance creates its own type of mutant inspiration and “creative” thought—in other words its a BORE, splitting hairs to hijack conversations and actually stop communication, not furthering it. Obviously, I can’t understand anything you are saying now, and neither can anyone else here I don’t think–you win you are just too smart for us cows!

  5. ok – you’re using authority to suppress knowledge. I understand where i am.

  6. mjj–2+2 =four. that’s enough now…I am going to fly to NY on an airplane–the math that gets me into the air and to JFK is precise. You are splitting hairs and ignoring the big obvious stuff

  7. So how bout you use that intuition you think so hard about?

  8. my argument is that the straitjacket of formal logic is broken and that allows intuition, inspiration and creative thought to lead the way.
    Are you suggesting that the idea of intuition, inspiration and creative thought is phallocentric?
    .. or didn’t you bother reading and just make assumptions because it wasn’t in line with R’s thoughts.

  9. From Gyn/Ecology;
    “Despite the dullness of dictionary diction, there are clues here. I would say the radical feminist metaethics is of a deeper intuitive type then “ethics”. The latter, generally written from one of several( but basically the same) patriarchal perspectives, works out of hidden agendas concealed in the texture of language, buried in mythic reversals which reveal control “logic” most powerfully because unacknowledged. Thus for theologians and philosophers, Eastern and Western, and particularly for ethicists, woman-identified women do not exist. The metaethics of radical feminism seeks to uncover the background of such logic, as women ourselves move into th of this Backgroundof this back-ground. In this sence, it can be called “of a higher [read deeper] logical type.” It is , of course, a new discipline that “deals critically” with nature, structure, and behavior of ethics and ethicists. It is able to to do this because our primary concern is not male ethics and /or ethicists, but for our own Journeying.
    This book has to deal with the mysteries of good and evil. To name it as ” feminist ethics” might be a clue, but it would also be misleading, pointing only to foreground problems. It would be something like arguing for “equal rights” in a society whose very existence depends upon inequality, that is upon the possession of female energy by men. The spring into free space, which is woman-identified consciousness, involves a veritable mental/behavioral mutation. The phallocratic categorizations of ” good” and “evil” no longer apply when women honor women, when we become honorable to ourselves. As BarbaraStarret wrote, we are developing something like a new organ of the mind. This development both causes and affects qualitative leaping thru galaxies of mindspace. It involves a new faculty and process of valuation . None of the dreary ethical texts, from those of Aristotle down to Paul Ramsey and Josph Fletcher, can speak to the infinitely expanding universe of what Emily Culpepper has named ” gynergy”. Indeed, the texts of phallocratic ethisists function in the same manner as pornography, legitimatizing the institutions which degrade womens be-ing. Gyn/Ecolological metaethics , in contrast to all of this, functions to affirm the deep dynamics of female be-ing. It is gynography.
    There are , of douse, male-authored, male-identified which purport to deal with ” metaethics”.
    In relation to these, gynography is meta-metaethical. For awhile male metaethics claims to be ” the study of ethical theories , as distinguished from the study of moral and ethical conduct itself,” it remains essentially male-authored and male-identified theory about ” ethical theories”–an enterprise which promises boundless boringness. In contrast Gyn/Ecologyis hardly “metaethical” in the sence of maturbatory meditations by ethicistsupon their own emissions. Rather, we reconize that the essential omissions is of our own life/freedom. In the name of life/freedom, feminist metaethics O-Mitsubishi seminal omissions.

  10. dashus christ says:

    oh mijj, we all know it is really about ur dick obsession

  11. well, if there’s general grumbling that i’m messing up the thread or R gives the instruction. I’ll stop going off at a tangent.
    Plus, you should see someone about your dick fascination.

  12. lol .. thanks for your comment (!!wray/kong image) .. yes, i’m a brit and so have a peculiar sense of humour .. but, unfortunately tone of voice doesn’t communicate over text.

  13. Gregory Chaitin 2005 Pt 4
    oh, ps re maths .. mathematical truths aren’t truths in an absolute sense, they’re truths relative to the axioms via rules of logic of the system. The axioms aren’t proven, they’re assumed .. (maybe arrived at by intuition).
    Eg. euclid assumed parallel lines do not meet except at infinity. That’s an assumption for his plane geometry. For spherical geometry, that doesn’t hold, it’s a different system of geometry that can’t be arrived at from plane geometry.
    this is a good one too…
    Gregory Chaitin Lecture Lisbon University 2004 Pt 1

  14. dashus christ says:

    got to 2nd on P J LOL!! goes really well w/ coffee!

  15. lol

  16. I think Mijj is in keeping with this thread. Matter of fact what it does show, is that like Mary Daly, Mijj has a good working brain. It is good to see non toxic brains. And lets not forget, the brain plays a major part in all this.

  17. This has nothing to do with Mary Daly. In fact it is more distracting dickspeak .

  18. i hate to do this, R .. but mathematics is in there too. (This is going to sound pompus .. but i can’t help it.. i’m that kind of person)
    Mathematics is limited. There are truths in mathematics that can’t be proven. You can’t use logic to determine the truth of particular statements.
    This is a very significant product of the beginning of the last century (coincidentally about the same time quantum physics was rearing its ugly head and upsetting the certainties of the world. – They complement each other in ushering us into an era of glorious (my opinion) uncertainty and doubt.)
    It started with Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem, progressed with Turin’s Proof Machine,
    and the latest work in this direction is Chaitin.
    These are very significant – and totally destry the idea that logic and mathematics is a complete system of truth.
    As an illustration.
    Lets say you are on a sphere. The points of the surface of that sphere is truths, and walking on the surface is logic. The original thinking is that all truths could be arrived at by logic, like walking from any point to any other point.
    Currently **proven** (in the sense of rattling the cage to prove you can go no further): not only are there islands in pools that you can’t walk to, but there are an infinity of planets of truths in space that you can’t get to either.
    There are a magnitude of infinity more truths that can’t be proven than can be proven.
    A v. good vid on this by chaitin: .. i’m going to search YTube for a relevant one, may take a while (i’m assuming there might be interest, but in any case, it gives me an excuse to look through them again with different eyes)
    (ps: chaitin refers to Leibniz to understand exactly what is meant by “proof”)
    tl,dr: you can use logic to examine areas of truth that are related to each other; but to get to unrelated truths, you need something different from logic. .. Intuition .. inspiration .. any kind of creative thought .. perhaps?

  19. I was referring to the conversation lacking definate form or limits.

  20. i mean provable scientific fact of numbers and mathematics. Mathematics is precise. If it can’t be proven then I don’t really include it-

  21. Ladyjane Green says:

    you blinded me with science, blinded ME with SCIENCE! (thanx thomas dolby) Now all i can see is the experimental method laid out before me bare, like fay wray to that big ole King Kong! i think wordplay was involved…..all good convos start with lots and lots of word play. That and a sense of humor……oh no i didnt go there. its a certain kind of tourettes. yall euros are a serious lot…..dry humor, i get it…..

  22. oh .. unless you’re teasing me with word pedantry? .. in which case forget the above and replace with “yes”.

  23. also, it’s worth bearing in mind that there’s a struggle between religion and science over the right to be our Priests.
    There’s a tendency for scientists, when explaining whatever they’re up to, to the public, to explain it in confident terms. There’s a suggestion there’s a consensus about particular theories being the true theory (ie. a truth that shouldn’t be questioned). Scientists themselves know full well that they do no more than provide models, but we should regard their models as more than a mathematical convenience, we should regard their models as “truth”.
    Within science tho, there are obviously different strands of investigation in all areas.
    eg: evolution, questions about the assumed “big bang”, dark matter, thermodynamics space and gravity, etc.

  24. i’m not sure what exactly you mean.
    What science does is formulate theories and validate theories according to test data. Those theories are mathematical models of the behaviour of some natural system. They provide a model of surface behavior in terms of things that are measurable, and there can never be absolute accuracy of data.
    The theories are created to minimise the amount of information needed to model a natural system (whatever that might be). There’s no way of *knowing* if the theoretical model is actually what is going on. It’s a surface model to predict behavior.
    It’s like scientifically examinining a box that the scientist cant see inside – they might say it weighs x kilograms, its centre of gravity is at (x,y,z), its electrical properties are .., etc : .. but if you look inside the box there’s a rembrant and a roller skate.

  25. Nebulous?

  26. aha .. but science doesn’t arrive at truth .. it just provides mathematical models of behaviour that’s accurate to a certain degree.

  27. yes, she says that patriarchy is all about gynocide…the rape/murder and enslavement of women/nature and anything life affirming.

  28. there is fact and it is scientifically provable–meaning is completely overrated. the universe is unpredicated.

  29. speaking as a gnostic (with a small “g”) – there are no facts. Just meaning.

  30. as long as things are based in fact! provable fact i am ok with whatever

  31. Ladyjane Green says:

    the more daly i read the better i feel. She was ahead of her and our time. just beginning to really understand her maverick stance.(age?) most catholics r a tortured lot, tend to dwell on the carnage/misery of tha crucifixion ala drunken mel. Dalys scholarship and wordcraft helped define a generation of smart, outspoken feminists who were not painted babylon dimwits ala the palein mama grizzly femmynists. thanks for posting. for all of tha history of tha catholic chuuch,
    women have unfortunately been a group to subjugate, and control. Daly was a superb subversive force in a sea of patriarchal haters. She showed that confrontation could be productive for revolutionary minds. Boston College sure wasnt no picknic for radykal feminists.
    i admire her mental toughness and dexterity.

  32. oh, and umm .. sorry, this is off topic, but it just occurred to me ..
    re arrogance: i think you need arrogance to fight the pressure to conform to authority and create your own ideas. Creating your own meaninful ideas and being wrong is more important than following authority and being right (conforming).

  33. the stuff you quoted resonates .. but there’s one point that’s puzzling ..
    > “Four types of patriarchal reversals that are meant to destroy women’s lives:”
    Those’re meant to deceive and destroy us all. What’s in her mind to suggest those are directed at women? .. oh .. um .. i can understand the idea if (in my peculiar view of thermodynamic mother creation/evolution) the natural order is female, and they’re an attack on natural order. But i don’t get it if she means women specifically.