see *some* women as mother?

[Guest guest]

> Many women want to take on the roles that men have historically dominated

> thinking that this will be better for them simply because they CAN do it.

 

Now this is an interesting thing. What defines what role a person should

have

in society? My suggestion is that the role should be defined by inner

qualities, rather than external bodily features. For example, if a women

cannot take some roles, because of her bodily features, in the same way

we can reason that big and strong persons cannot be brahmanas. Since

the body is determined by genetics, i.e. your father and mother, this

leads to today's caste society, where the roles are determined by

in which family you are born.

 

If everyone should get a role in society, based in qualities, and not birth,

why should women then be excluded?

 

Both men and women are equally fighting for position in society for which

they are not suited. I don't think this is anything particular for women.

Rather, that the artificial suppression of women leads to that stronger

women naturally want to follow their inner inclination and fight against

this

injustice.

 

> If I am a ksatriya trying to be a brahmana this is not what Krsna advises.

> If I am a woman trying to be a man, this is not what Krsna advises. A

> sincere woman, sweeping the street or churning butter or whatever, will

> get to Krsnaloka far sooner than the big, big, pretentious sannyasi, by

> far. Again, the story of the tortoise and the hare.

 

So you mean that women are a varna of their own, or that they have no

varna? That women are excluded from many things in society?

But why then do many women have brains and ability matching and

exceeding that of many men? Isn't that a sign that women can do

many serious duties in society? Isn't it like saying that if you are born

in a sudra family, you are a sudra, no matter if you have the brains

of a brahmana?

 

In Vedic times maybe women were different, and men different. But there

are also indications that they had many of the same problems that we

have today, only that they knew how to handle them.

In any case, with todays population, it does not appear to be any bigger

difference in intelligence between men and women, so why should we

artificially create divisions based on something that is not?

 

Possibly there can be different roles for male brahmanas and

female brahmanas, and so on, depending on the difference in mentality

and the way the brains work differently for the two groups. Men's and

women's intelligence in general are directed in different ways, but to

define that the male way of thinking is the "correct" way, and the female

way is "faulty", does not appear to be a way to a saner society.

 

ys Prisni