Guest guest Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 I just heard a really interesting and timely broadcast on America's National Public Radio (NPR), a roundtable discussion entitled "Women and War," discussing everything from the anxious Greek play, Lysistrata, to ruminations on "would things be different than they are if women ruled the world?" The link for audio is at the bottom of this post. Here's the teaser: March 4, 2003: More than two decades into the Peloponnesian War, the Greek playwright Aristophanes summoned his descriptive powers for an anti-war purpose. Lysistrata is the bawdy tale of war weary women from both sides of the conflict, who, as the play's heroine says, "must refrain from the male altogether" in order to bring peace to Ancient Greece. Last night, actors all over the world staged readings of the 25 hundred year old play, in an international pro-peace theatrical event. The readings were good for a laugh, but their message cast the spotlight on something more significant: The role of women in war. Mothers, peace activists, care-givers, and soldiers. To hear it, visit: http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/03/20030304_b_main.asp Enjoy! Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 OM Devi Bhakta The question, "what if women ruled the world?" can be answered very easily, "They would rule just as men do." Three examples: 1. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of GB, gave us the Falkland Islands war. She waged war on the poor in her own country, attacked trade unions, pandered to the entreprenurial class and centralized power unto herself, her government and her supporters. 2. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, gave us a war with Pakistan; nuclear weaponry; a state of emergency in which her political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights suspended and the press censored; and an attack on the Golden Temple for which she paid with her life. 3. Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel and a Zionist since 1915, gave us the spectacle of tens of thousands of Jews killing, looting and stealing land beyond the UN-mandated borders of Israel in the so-called `occupied territories'. And then there are the imperialists: Queen Victoria and Catherine the Great. No, my friend, the ego, whether in politics or not, knows no gender. With regard to the play, Lysistrata, let me point out that it carries the values of the time, with women powerless except for the granting of sexual favours. Is this really an example that should be promoted? These women were just using the weapons available to them. Surely we can come up with something better, more effective. 100 years ago, there would have public demonstrations in the streets recommending war with Iraq, now there are public demonstrations in the streets recommending no war with Iraq. It seems there has been progress in the intervening 100 years, a few throwbacks such as George w. Bush notwithstanding. Om Namah Sivaya Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 Namaskar OmPrem: I don't know if you listened to the audio clip I linked in that post, but the precise point you're trying to make was a large part of the discussion. The question, "what if women ruled the world?" -- the panelists seemed to agree -- kind of begs all kinds of other questions: How did they come to rule? Where are all the men? What happened? The three women leaders you mentioned succeeded because their style was irrelevant to their gender -- they reached the top in their countries' various "boy clubs" basically because they played by the boys' rules harder than the boys did. Their leadership and personal styles were notable for their lack of the qualities that people usually associate with the feminine. So who knows? the panelists seemed to conclude. A world in which women led by womens' rules is so far from our world's current reality that it's like saying "what would life on other planets look like?" -- there's simply no way to guess. One panelist noted that even a society in led by a perfect balance of men and women would be so utterly alien to everything we know that it's really beyond speculation. But the discussion was very interesting ... I'd encourage anyone who's interested to follow the thread back and listen to the link. Thanks as always for your input, OmPrem. Aum Maatangyai Namahe , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > OM Devi Bhakta > > The question, "what if women ruled the world?" can be > answered very easily, "They would rule just as men do." > > Three examples: > > 1. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of GB, gave us the Falkland > Islands war. She waged war on the poor in her own country, > attacked trade unions, pandered to the entreprenurial class and > centralized power unto herself, her government and her > supporters. > > 2. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, gave us a war with > Pakistan; nuclear weaponry; a state of emergency in which her > political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights suspended > and the press censored; and an attack on the Golden Temple for > which she paid with her life. > > 3. Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel and a Zionist since 1915, > gave us the spectacle of tens of thousands of Jews killing, > looting and stealing land beyond the UN-mandated borders of > Israel in the so-called `occupied territories'. > > And then there are the imperialists: Queen Victoria and > Catherine the Great. > > No, my friend, the ego, whether in politics or not, knows no > gender. > > With regard to the play, Lysistrata, let me point out that it carries > the values of the time, with women powerless except for the > granting of sexual favours. Is this really an example that should > be promoted? These women were just using the weapons > available to them. Surely we can come up with something better, > more effective. > > 100 years ago, there would have public demonstrations in the > streets recommending war with Iraq, now there are public > demonstrations in the streets recommending no war with Iraq. It > seems there has been progress in the intervening 100 years, a > few throwbacks such as George w. Bush notwithstanding. > > > Om Namah Sivaya > > Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 OM Devi Bhakta My point is that there will never be "A world in which women led by womens' rules" because when it comes to wielding power as a head of state there is no difference between men and women. Ruthlessness and the ability to be ruthless when necessary is an essential component of a leader. The ego that drives a person of either gender to pursue high office results in an acute political survival instinct and the iron will to implement a vision of what the person deems a desireable state of affairs. Second, I think that it would impossible to get a group to agree on what constitute 'women's rules' . Think of the ferocity of durga, the creative urges of Saraswati or the lushness of Lakshmi. Perhaps the Thugees are an appropriate model for the current times as people prepare to murder others to satiate their own gods or their own inner demons or simply to feed their own greed and lust. Finally, we should remember that in Medieval and Pre-medieval Europe, women fought as ferociously as their men. Pre-history myths bring us the Amazons who are probably grounded in a reality. So there is ample precedent from across the span of human existence that women do go into battle and are as ferocious as men in those battles. This nice, romantic idea that woment are somehow above the pull of ego and don't have the will to fight has been proved incorrect time and time again. We need to look at woman as they truly are and not as we would like them to be. Let us not forget that shakti is action. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > Namaskar OmPrem: > > I don't know if you listened to the audio clip I linked in that post, > but the precise point you're trying to make was a large part of the > discussion. The question, "what if women ruled the world?" -- the > panelists seemed to agree -- kind of begs all kinds of other > questions: How did they come to rule? Where are all the men? What > happened? > > The three women leaders you mentioned succeeded because their style > was irrelevant to their gender -- they reached the top in their > countries' various "boy clubs" basically because they played by the > boys' rules harder than the boys did. Their leadership and personal > styles were notable for their lack of the qualities that people > usually associate with the feminine. > > So who knows? the panelists seemed to conclude. A world in which > women led by womens' rules is so far from our world's current reality > that it's like saying "what would life on other planets look like?" -- > there's simply no way to guess. One panelist noted that even a > society in led by a perfect balance of men and women would be so > utterly alien to everything we know that it's really beyond > speculation. > > But the discussion was very interesting ... I'd encourage anyone > who's interested to follow the thread back and listen to the link. > > Thanks as always for your input, OmPrem. > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > OM Devi Bhakta > > > > The question, "what if women ruled the world?" can be > > answered very easily, "They would rule just as men do." > > > > Three examples: > > > > 1. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of GB, gave us the Falkland > > Islands war. She waged war on the poor in her own country, > > attacked trade unions, pandered to the entreprenurial class and > > centralized power unto herself, her government and her > > supporters. > > > > 2. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, gave us a war with > > Pakistan; nuclear weaponry; a state of emergency in which her > > political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights suspended > > and the press censored; and an attack on the Golden Temple for > > which she paid with her life. > > > > 3. Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel and a Zionist since 1915, > > gave us the spectacle of tens of thousands of Jews killing, > > looting and stealing land beyond the UN-mandated borders of > > Israel in the so-called `occupied territories'. > > > > And then there are the imperialists: Queen Victoria and > > Catherine the Great. > > > > No, my friend, the ego, whether in politics or not, knows no > > gender. > > > > With regard to the play, Lysistrata, let me point out that it > carries > > the values of the time, with women powerless except for the > > granting of sexual favours. Is this really an example that should > > be promoted? These women were just using the weapons > > available to them. Surely we can come up with something better, > > more effective. > > > > 100 years ago, there would have public demonstrations in the > > streets recommending war with Iraq, now there are public > > demonstrations in the streets recommending no war with Iraq. It > > seems there has been progress in the intervening 100 years, a > > few throwbacks such as George w. Bush notwithstanding. > > > > > > Om Namah Sivaya > > > > Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 There have been societies where the model for power was parental rather than conquering. Then some conqueror comes along and beats those peaceful people silly. Okay, I'm being cynical, but here in Colorado, on the eve of war and embroiled in my own personal conflicts, that's what it seems like to me. Great Mother help us all, prainbow , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > OM Devi Bhakta > > My point is that there will never be "A world in which > women led by womens' rules" because when it comes to > wielding power as a head of state there is no difference between > men and women. Ruthlessness and the ability to be ruthless > when necessary is an essential component of a leader. The > ego that drives a person of either gender to pursue high office > results in an acute political survival instinct and the iron will to > implement a vision of what the person deems a desireable > state of affairs. > > Second, I think that it would impossible to get a group to agree > on what constitute 'women's rules' . Think of the ferocity of > durga, the creative urges of Saraswati or the lushness of > Lakshmi. > > Perhaps the Thugees are an appropriate model for the current > times as people prepare to murder others to satiate their own > gods or their own inner demons or simply to feed their own > greed and lust. > > Finally, we should remember that in Medieval and Pre-medieval > Europe, women fought as ferociously as their men. Pre-history > myths bring us the Amazons who are probably grounded in a > reality. So there is ample precedent from across the span of > human existence that women do go into battle and are as > ferocious as men in those battles. > > This nice, romantic idea that woment are somehow above the > pull of ego and don't have the will to fight has been proved > incorrect time and time again. We need to look at woman as they > truly are and not as we would like them to be. Let us not forget > that shakti is action. > > OM Namah Sivaya > > Omprem > > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > Namaskar OmPrem: > > > > I don't know if you listened to the audio clip I linked in that post, > > but the precise point you're trying to make was a large part of > the > > discussion. The question, "what if women ruled the world?" -- > the > > panelists seemed to agree -- kind of begs all kinds of other > > questions: How did they come to rule? Where are all the men? > What > > happened? > > > > The three women leaders you mentioned succeeded because > their style > > was irrelevant to their gender -- they reached the top in their > > countries' various "boy clubs" basically because they played by > the > > boys' rules harder than the boys did. Their leadership and > personal > > styles were notable for their lack of the qualities that people > > usually associate with the feminine. > > > > So who knows? the panelists seemed to conclude. A world in > which > > women led by womens' rules is so far from our world's current > reality > > that it's like saying "what would life on other planets look like?" > -- > > there's simply no way to guess. One panelist noted that even a > > society in led by a perfect balance of men and women would > be so > > utterly alien to everything we know that it's really beyond > > speculation. > > > > But the discussion was very interesting ... I'd encourage > anyone > > who's interested to follow the thread back and listen to the link. > > > > Thanks as always for your input, OmPrem. > > > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > > > , "omprem" > <omprem> wrote: > > > OM Devi Bhakta > > > > > > The question, "what if women ruled the world?" can be > > > answered very easily, "They would rule just as men do." > > > > > > Three examples: > > > > > > 1. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of GB, gave us the > Falkland > > > Islands war. She waged war on the poor in her own country, > > > attacked trade unions, pandered to the entreprenurial class > and > > > centralized power unto herself, her government and her > > > supporters. > > > > > > 2. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, gave us a war with > > > Pakistan; nuclear weaponry; a state of emergency in which > her > > > political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights > suspended > > > and the press censored; and an attack on the Golden > Temple for > > > which she paid with her life. > > > > > > 3. Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel and a Zionist since > 1915, > > > gave us the spectacle of tens of thousands of Jews killing, > > > looting and stealing land beyond the UN-mandated borders > of > > > Israel in the so-called `occupied territories'. > > > > > > And then there are the imperialists: Queen Victoria and > > > Catherine the Great. > > > > > > No, my friend, the ego, whether in politics or not, knows no > > > gender. > > > > > > With regard to the play, Lysistrata, let me point out that it > > carries > > > the values of the time, with women powerless except for the > > > granting of sexual favours. Is this really an example that > should > > > be promoted? These women were just using the weapons > > > available to them. Surely we can come up with something > better, > > > more effective. > > > > > > 100 years ago, there would have public demonstrations in > the > > > streets recommending war with Iraq, now there are public > > > demonstrations in the streets recommending no war with > Iraq. It > > > seems there has been progress in the intervening 100 > years, a > > > few throwbacks such as George w. Bush notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > Om Namah Sivaya > > > > > > Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 I just wanted to again mention that there are some great books on the Shakti Sadhana reading list that explore this area of interest. So far, I think the best one is The Chalice and the Blade. There's also Is the Goddess a Feminist? which Devi Bhakta has quoted from recently. It's not as awe-inspiring, though it is quite relevant to Shakti Sadhana because it examines the Hindu goddess(es) and features essays by many different people exploring the issue of the apparent disparity between the goddess(es) and women in the world. The Chalice and the Blade directly addresses the notion that "Ruthlessness and the ability to be ruthless when necessary is an essential component of a leader," a statement made below with no apparent questioning of this as a rule or model. In The Chalice and the Blade, the author defines two models for relationship/society, shows the existence of each of these models throughout history, and their connections with the genders, though the models aren't necessarily gender-specific. The book is quite thought-provoking and worth delving into. I got it for $4 on amazon.com. , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > OM Devi Bhakta > > My point is that there will never be "A world in which > women led by womens' rules" because when it comes to > wielding power as a head of state there is no difference between > men and women. Ruthlessness and the ability to be ruthless > when necessary is an essential component of a leader. The > ego that drives a person of either gender to pursue high office > results in an acute political survival instinct and the iron will to > implement a vision of what the person deems a desireable > state of affairs. > > Second, I think that it would impossible to get a group to agree > on what constitute 'women's rules' . Think of the ferocity of > durga, the creative urges of Saraswati or the lushness of > Lakshmi. > > Perhaps the Thugees are an appropriate model for the current > times as people prepare to murder others to satiate their own > gods or their own inner demons or simply to feed their own > greed and lust. > > Finally, we should remember that in Medieval and Pre-medieval > Europe, women fought as ferociously as their men. Pre-history > myths bring us the Amazons who are probably grounded in a > reality. So there is ample precedent from across the span of > human existence that women do go into battle and are as > ferocious as men in those battles. > > This nice, romantic idea that woment are somehow above the > pull of ego and don't have the will to fight has been proved > incorrect time and time again. We need to look at woman as they > truly are and not as we would like them to be. Let us not forget > that shakti is action. > > OM Namah Sivaya > > Omprem > > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > Namaskar OmPrem: > > > > I don't know if you listened to the audio clip I linked in that post, > > but the precise point you're trying to make was a large part of > the > > discussion. The question, "what if women ruled the world?" -- > the > > panelists seemed to agree -- kind of begs all kinds of other > > questions: How did they come to rule? Where are all the men? > What > > happened? > > > > The three women leaders you mentioned succeeded because > their style > > was irrelevant to their gender -- they reached the top in their > > countries' various "boy clubs" basically because they played by > the > > boys' rules harder than the boys did. Their leadership and > personal > > styles were notable for their lack of the qualities that people > > usually associate with the feminine. > > > > So who knows? the panelists seemed to conclude. A world in > which > > women led by womens' rules is so far from our world's current > reality > > that it's like saying "what would life on other planets look like?" > -- > > there's simply no way to guess. One panelist noted that even a > > society in led by a perfect balance of men and women would > be so > > utterly alien to everything we know that it's really beyond > > speculation. > > > > But the discussion was very interesting ... I'd encourage > anyone > > who's interested to follow the thread back and listen to the link. > > > > Thanks as always for your input, OmPrem. > > > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > > > , "omprem" > <omprem> wrote: > > > OM Devi Bhakta > > > > > > The question, "what if women ruled the world?" can be > > > answered very easily, "They would rule just as men do." > > > > > > Three examples: > > > > > > 1. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of GB, gave us the > Falkland > > > Islands war. She waged war on the poor in her own country, > > > attacked trade unions, pandered to the entreprenurial class > and > > > centralized power unto herself, her government and her > > > supporters. > > > > > > 2. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, gave us a war with > > > Pakistan; nuclear weaponry; a state of emergency in which > her > > > political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights > suspended > > > and the press censored; and an attack on the Golden > Temple for > > > which she paid with her life. > > > > > > 3. Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel and a Zionist since > 1915, > > > gave us the spectacle of tens of thousands of Jews killing, > > > looting and stealing land beyond the UN-mandated borders > of > > > Israel in the so-called `occupied territories'. > > > > > > And then there are the imperialists: Queen Victoria and > > > Catherine the Great. > > > > > > No, my friend, the ego, whether in politics or not, knows no > > > gender. > > > > > > With regard to the play, Lysistrata, let me point out that it > > carries > > > the values of the time, with women powerless except for the > > > granting of sexual favours. Is this really an example that > should > > > be promoted? These women were just using the weapons > > > available to them. Surely we can come up with something > better, > > > more effective. > > > > > > 100 years ago, there would have public demonstrations in > the > > > streets recommending war with Iraq, now there are public > > > demonstrations in the streets recommending no war with > Iraq. It > > > seems there has been progress in the intervening 100 > years, a > > > few throwbacks such as George w. Bush notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > Om Namah Sivaya > > > > > > Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 Namaskar Omprem ji: You write: *** My point is that there will never be "A world in which women led by womens' rules" because when it comes to wielding power as a head of state there is no difference between men and women. *** I understood your point; mine was simply that your asserion is impossible to prove one way or the other. We have no way of knowing whether "women leading by women's rules" would do things differently, because all the women leaders you mention (and all the others I can think of in recorded history) rose to power within male-dominated power structures. Would women be better, more compassionate leaders? I dunno. My younger sister tells me that anyone who's ever been in the women's dressing areas of Filene's Basement on sale day will witness raw aggression and ruthlessness on a scale that no man could ever hope to match. And way back in my college years, I had a very cool, smart and sexy Lebanese friend -- now she's married into a strict Muslim family, in full head-to-toe purdah by choice, and a traditional Muslim wife par excellence (*and* long since incommunicado with me, since I'm male and not a relative) -- who told we of how her Bedouin ancestors used to make a practice of handing over prisoners of war to the womenfolk for torture and execution. Why? "Because we women are more creatively cruel," she told me, the very picture of sophistication and elegance over a cup of Turkish coffee. "We can really draw out the agony if we feel like it. At the end of the day, because women can take more pain, we can also dish out more pain." Was that simply social conditioning talking? Or was there somethig more to it? Again, I am not qualified to say. *** This nice, romantic idea that women are somehow above the pull of ego and don't have the will to fight has been proved incorrect time and time again. We need to look at woman as they truly are and not as we would like them to be. *** I am well aware of the historical examples you cite of women who excelled and thrived in a supposed "man's world." Closer to home, my wife and I have been married for nearly 10 years and I know her well; I have two sisters and a mother who all drive me crazy on occasion; I have many women friends who are comfortably speaking quite frankly to me about their lives and beliefs and opinions. So I can assure you, Omprem, that I harbor very few "nice, romantic ideas" as a result of not seeing women "as they truly are." Women are human; men are human. Nonetheless, I still very strongly believe that women in general do not process and experience the world in the same way that men do; I do not assert that women are physically or psychologically superior to men -- I think it all depends on the individual and the context; but I *do* believe that women and men are physically and psychologically *different* in profound ways. This is scientifically measurable on a temporal level; and it is the essence of Shakti on the spiritual level. And I *do* believe, once again, that a world "in which women led by women's rules" would be a very different place than the world we live in. But in the end, of course, my hypothesis cannot be proven any more than yours can. But it's an interesting question to ponder. I think the excerpt that Maryann posted in Msg #5473 is an excellent rumination on the issue (Rianne Eisler has spent a distinguished career exploring these questions in a balanced and scholarly manner, and is worth reading if one is interested in this area of inquiry). *** Let us not forget that shakti is action. *** Indeed, let us not. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.