There *is* actually life beyond fanaticsm!

[Guest guest]

>

> >So, if in a future it ever happens that someone denies to a woman

> >becoming

> an >authority like TP or GBC just because she is a woman (what has not

> happen so >far, as we all should have understood already by now), I will

> be glad to

> >refer them to you as the one (among many) who got no objection to a woman

> >becoming an authority.

>

> Not quite so, prabhu. It's not an "all or nothing" matter. There is a

> middle ground, as Srila Prabhhupada's explained in his conversation with

> Mr. and Mrs. Wax. Read it and be happy!

 

 

This is where it boils down. One can't take you people

seriously, you twist what you are saying so that it can

mean just anything and just nothing. You can't be straightforward.

You say to be a woman is not disqualification, and in the same time

you refuse to accept that a woman may become a TP or a GBC simply

on base of her gender. That's what I call double speach (please

prove me wrong)

 

As far as "It's not 'all or nothing' matter". I would love

see you stick to your own words. For you GHQ people even

*one* (1) woman in a position of an authority is an

unacceptable option.

 

 

>

> NB: Neither do I advocate the extreme position that "simply possessing a

> woman body does automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP or

> a GBC,"

 

Then why do you refuse to acknowledge that a woman may become

TP or a GBC? Because you indeed maintain that very extreme

position. This very clear point.

 

 

nor the extreme position that "if it ever happens that someone

> denies to a woman becoming an authority like TP or GBC just because she is

> a woman" is misogyny.

 

No, it may not be neccessarily misogyny, you are right. It

may be simply ignorance, for example.

 

However, there is the list of characteristic symptoms that

indicate misogyny. Those who match to these...

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das