The Secret Lives of Wives + This Is Not A Book Review

[Guest guest]

> Braja Sevaki typeth:

 

Syamasundara prabhu, I do believe you've gone all "old English" on us, all

this 'typeth' and 'strumpets' abounding....

>

> > I've also found it a slightly hypocritical stance to take, to be so

> > adamantly outspoken against "feminists", who, after all, are only

> > behaving that way because the men in society have allowed them to, so it

> > seems like a really pointless argument...

>

> This then creates a conundrum. On the one hand men (which ones? every last

> one or just a few?) are blamed for allowing, encouraging and even creating

> feminism. But when other men try to do the right thing and curb it then it

> is "slightly hypocritical" as if those very same men were promoting

> feminism the day before.

 

Because...er...most of them were No one joined this movement as pure as

the new snow with no desires to exploit the opposite sex--all of us come

from the same polluted society. In fact, no one came to this WORLD without a

desire to exploit the opposite sex, so I'm not sure that the outrage is

justified

 

There's no point arguing about who's right and who's wrong, because both

are. The men say the women have to behave a certain way before they (the

men) will want to protect them, and the women say they have no proof or

experience that men *will* protect them so prove it first and we'll oblige.

I can personally see both sides of the argument, so what's the "argument"

even about?

 

There's no mystery---it simply requires that we all act on a proper

platform. I'd never advocate feminism, but I'm sure not advocating that

women simply surrender blindly to a man who hasn't proven himself. Why

should we? Look what's happened in the past in ISKCON---you can't say that

all the cases of domestic violence against women have been 100% the fault of

women because they're just not behaving properly? If a man is qualified, a

woman behaves properly---that's a generalism, but I sure see it around me,

and that's the experience of most women I know. Of *course* there are

exceptions, and we all know them and see them, but there has to be credit

where it's due: that the men who have come to this movement and have a

sincere desire to protect women have done so, and the women who have come

with a sincere desire to embrace the philosophy and culture do so. In both

cases, men and women, it takes time---nothing happens overnight.

 

> Now, it would be hypocritical if that were the

> case but I don't see any proof of that. Some men want to exploit women and

> some want to protect them, the common factor is that both parties are

> male. I do not see how the sins of one now become the sins of the other

> because they share the same gender. Or am I missing something?

 

No, but you have to apply that premise to the opposite sex as well. I just

wrote that above in the last sentence: credit where it's due. The sins of

the feminists do not become the sins of women in general. Everyone has

different motives for acting the way they do, separate from the behavior of

the species or gender, which are generalisations, though true (ie: how Srila

Prabhupada describes women in the Bhagavatam is true, and is a

generalisation, but he made it clear to his female disciples, "You are not a

woman, you're a Vaisnavi.")

 

There's also a gross misunderstanding on the part of some as to what

constitutes protection, and consequently, what the symptoms of a chaste or

protected woman are. It doesn't mean we go into purdah, never speak again,

walk 3 steps behind the man. That's fanaticism, and women in ISKCON are

really over having that kind of twisted theory of womanhood shoved down

their throats---usually by unqualified men, strangely enough

>

> Once finding a protector women have the choice of agreeing to be protected

> or not. That is their responsibility. Protection means to be controlled by

> a superior. Not having a bodyguard that you order around.

 

Like Srila Prabhupada said, there are only two people who can tell you what

to do: someone who loves you, or your mother...

 

> Women have to take responsibility for their own behavior because they do

> suffer the reactions. They are not immune from the laws of karma.

 

I didn't suggest they were. But you're talking about a trend that swept thru

the entire western society. You can't brush it off just as karma. If so,

then the men who implemented this kind of behavior will suffer more than the

women who were victims of it. And you can't say on the one hand that women

don't have the intelligence to look after themselves and not act like

prostitutes, and then on the other turn around and say, "they're responsible

for their own behavior." That's a contradiction. The scriptures say at all

times a woman isn't responsible, and that her father, husband, and son

should be. So I'm not sure I agree with that. Of course a woman suffers her

karma--her karma of being born a woman!

>

> There has always existed a class of loose women who are easily influenced

> by men. In sastra they are called Pumscali, which literally means, "moved

> by men" as in easily seduced.

 

Which means it's the men who are responsible. If it weren't for the men

wanting to "move" them, they wouldn't "move," right?

>

> In ancient astrological texts it clearly demarks the specific planetary

> combinations that would indicate women who were strumpets. As a result of

> past activities some jivas take birth as such loose women of easy virtue.

 

Would that be the men who in a past life "moved" them? ! I'd say it's

likely, wouldn't you?

 

> We should note that just as all men are not evil similarly all women are

> not strumpets.

 

Gee, you're too generous...

 

> The reasons why men don't want to marry American women are documented at

> these two links.

 

Well no offense, but if I was a man I wouldn't want to marry an American

woman either...

 

> It would seem that women need to be protected from themselves.

 

....and from men who would exploit them and not protect them and force them,

through societal pressures, to have to fend for themselves and become

independent. I don't think there's much getting around the fact that it's

the men who have to come to the party....

 

> > Yes, you did. Srila Prabhupada says as much in BG Ch 1, when he says

> > that basically, while it might be women who "spoil society" with their

> > uncontrolled behavior, it's the leaders of society who create that

> > environment and promote loose morals.

>

> And it is our job to change that by first stopping it in ISKCON.

 

How?

 

Your servant

Braja Sevaki dd