Women in leadership positions

[Guest guest]

On 16 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> "COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

>

> > On 08 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> Point is that Srila Prabhupada made all those indirect statements GHQ are so

> fond of weaving together and come to the conclusion that what Srila

Prabhupada

> meant to say is that woman shouldn't be temple presidents.

 

Our point is that in his entire pastime as founder-acarya of his developing

ISKCON he never saw fit to appoint a woman as GBC or tp. Aren't we supposed

to learn by the combined instructions and *example* set by the

founder-acarya? But you're correct to say that he "never said a woman could

not be a temple president."

 

>yet I have not yet seen one where he directly said no women astemple

>presidents.

 

Nor have I. But I've also never seen where he directly says "no cows allowed

to go out on book distribution" or "no babies allowed to preach at the

universities." In the absence of such prohibitive statements, it seems that

we certainly can accomodate exceptional cows or babies for the above

preaching activities. Why not? They're also spiritual souls and should not

be denied full oppotunity to perform devotional service according to their

propensities.

 

Srila Prabhupada said that he was only 10% strict and 90% lenient. Even

within that 90% leniency, isn't it a bit telling that still there were no

female GBCs or tps throughout the history of Srila Prabhupada's

personally-managed ISKCON? And beyond that, should ISKCON remain static on

the 90%-lenient platform, or should it dynamically progress?

 

It seems that the ideological crux is this: Some view the increase of women

in ISKCON "leadership" positions as progress, whereas others see it as

regress. (Now, you needn't ask which view I hold

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

"COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

 

 

> It seems that the ideological crux is this: Some view the increase of women

> in ISKCON "leadership" positions as progress, whereas others see it as

> regress. (Now, you needn't ask which view I hold

 

Yes, it is a regress in that there are just too few qualified men,

so women have to step in and fill the lack. And the reason? Too many

men concern themselves in (subtle) sex-life by worrying about what

women are doing. When they instead should worry about how to

qualify themselves.

 

ys Prisni dasi