Basu Ghosh speaks out - yet again!

[Guest guest]

> Protection of women means that the men ought to take the responsibilty to

> see that they do not fall into illicit sexual connections.

 

Is that all?

Why don't we then just put all women in jail, and throw away the key.

Then they are perfectly protected according to that paradime.

 

I would rather say that women have needs. Protection means to fulfill

those needs to the full satisfaction of the women. If a women have

a desire for an illicit sexual connection, you satisfy the need by

providing a licit sexual connection. If that is really the need, that is.

Women tend to trade sexual connections to fulfill another need.

To get what they want, they have to give men sex, and hope that

the men then will fulfill their actual need. Unfortunately that does

not always happen, so the women has no choice than to try with

another man, and another and so on.

 

Women are not really that good to understand men's sexual

intentions, and rather interpret them according to their own mind,

and sexuality. Unfortunately that does not give the right

answer, since men work differently. Men take advantage of

that weakness i the female mentality, and cheat women to

get sex.

 

 

>

> Vide Gita 1.40:

>

> "When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krishna, the women of the

> family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O

> descendant of Vrishni, comes unwanted progeny."

>

> How is this to be done? By strenghening the family system that is still

> very prominenet here in India, but has degraded in the west, due to

> atheistic & materialistic concepts in society.00000

 

This exactly what is needed. The problem is that ISKCON is very much

focused on renounciation only, that is all the non-grihasta (family)

asramas. Grihasthas get no support whatsoever. I cannot see

this policy as very strengthening for the family system, it rather

have the complete opposite effect.

 

> The place of women in society is primarily as a housewife. Which means

> serving a husband by bearing his children, rearing them, cooking his

> meals, looking after the home, cows, etc.

 

That might ultimately be so. Unfortunately, due to the advances in

western society, a big part of the current generation of women could

never accept that. So how then are you going to implement that utopian

perfect system when you lack the proper human material?

 

> From this we can understand that Srila Prabhupada did not approve of women

> in management positions in society. In the home, the do indeed manage.

> The 2nd to the last sentence here, starting with "In the history of

> India..." proves this point. And the fact that Prabhupada did not appoint

> women as managers of the instituion.

 

Current ISKCON has a severe problem of finding qualified persons to take

up leadership and management positions. Excluding the women is

not really going to help finding qualified persons. Instead you will

get unqualified persons, which will ruin ISKCON, as is happening

right now. Better then to let qualified women take these positions.

Not the ultimately best maybe, but at least it is a working solution,

that works with the devotees we have today.

 

 

> So the householder men must fulfill the desires of their wives...

>

> This does not mean that they ought to make them "leaders" of the ISKCON

> institution. But the men must provide for their wives & families. House,

> clothing, foodstuffs, etc. But what you have written above Prabhuji is

> being isinterpreted by seemingly insincere devotees who don't seem to want

> to understand Srila Prabhupada' instructions (nor vedic literature's

> instructions) on the matter of the duties of women, but want to project

> their own concoctions as SP's instructions. It is offensive & *will not

> work*; because it is like colored water that looks like medicine. Show

> bottle. Useless.

 

Sorry, I could not follow your reasoning in that paragraph.

 

> Srila Prabhupada's words in Chicago in 1975 to a woman reporter contradict

> what you write here. Not MY words; Prabhupada's words: (again from the

> Folio, July 9, 1975 at Chicago)

>

> Reporter (3): (a woman) Where... Do women fit into this social structure?

> You keep referring to man.

> Prabhupäda: Woman is not equally intelligent as a man.

> Reporter (3): Equal in intelligence?

> Prabhupäda: Not equal intelligence. In the psychology, practical

> psychology, they have found that the man’s brain has been found up to

> sixty-four ounce, woman... Sixty-four ounce, man’s brain. And woman’s

> brain has been found, thirty-six ounce. So therefore woman is not equally

> intelligent like man. Reporter (3): So where does she fit?

 

Srila Prabhupada is referring to some questionable scientific investigation

of that time. That cannot be considered the absolute truth. In factual

life, the scientists cannot really find any real significan difference

between the male and female brains, at least not one that affect

intelligence.

 

> Prabhupäda: You will find in practical psychology.

> Reporter: Pardon?

> Prabhupäda: Practical psychology.

> Brahmänanda: She’s asking where does woman fit into this structure?

> Prabhupäda: Now, woman is supposed to be assistant of man. If woman is

> faithful wife of the first-class man, then she also becomes first-class.

> If she is assistant of the second-class man then he is also second-class.

> If she is assistant of the third-class man, then she is also third-class.

> Because she is assistant, so, according to her husband, or protector, she

> becomes first, second, third, fourth.

> Reporter (3): But she doesn’t have any structure at all until marriage?

> Prabhupäda: No, she has got structure—she has got brain. I have already

> told. But not as good as man’s brain.

 

This is one of the statements many ISKCON devotees really have big

problems with. What does it actually mean? That any single man

is more intelligent than any women? That is how some men want

it interpreted. Or can it possibly mean that the average intelligence

of all men is higher than the average intelligence of all women.

In that case you will find many women that have much superior

intelligence to many men.

 

What are we actually speaking about there?

 

The best is probably just not to use such statements by

Srila Prabhupada as arguments, if we don't even know what he

means by intelligence in this context.

 

> OK. But by giving them a comfortable grihasta atmosphere - not by making

> them the leaders. It's simply not vedic culture.

 

If the only argument is "it is not vedic to have women as leaders",

you will have a hard time convincing everyone of it. You must

know why it is so, otherwise that "knowledge" is pretty useless.

We don't live in "vedic" times where shastras was the final word

on anything. Today people want to know WHY it is so, not only

that it is.