Sexism and related topics

[suryaz]

Originally posted by valaya:

Am I wrong in thinking that, although this is only virtual reality, we are becoming increasingly real to each other, or at least trying our best to? If so, I am most grateful, prabhus. Of course there are limits to what can be accomplished here, but miracles are possible, are they not?

 

ASSEMBLED DEVOTEES!!! RR

Valaya,

 

The greatest miracle begins in sound – Nam-bhajan.

 

Satyam too begins in sound

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

And where to begin? We begin with sound. Through correctness in linguistic representation abuse can be nipped it in the bud. Through speaking honestly we created honest notions and/or rectify those notions left over from former disfigurations, conditionings (whatever). But the main thing is to breathe honesty not distortion. In so doing violence is curbed and ahimsa is restored.

 

Honesty

is the seduction

of sound by silence

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[valaya]

Suryaz: The discourse is about the deceptive use of language, the promotion of it, acceptance of it’ and even more shocking is the obvious non-compusmentus of it, so sadly displayed by many.

Perhaps this could start a separate thread, if only I could figure out what `non-compusmentus` means...Suryaz prabhu, Maitreya seldom reveals himself as Alfred, so please don't make him retreat simply because you aren't satisfied with the way he's expressing himself. It ain't easy, sister! RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-27-2001).]

[valaya]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Suryaz said [quoting Rishi]:

Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation.I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious.

 

If you want to be real and honest then at least admit that women do try to seduce men.I know men try to seduce women.If that fact isn't the most obvious basic thing to someone then this discussion has no hope.

 

Admitting to that is not admitting to hatred of the opposite sex.It is just admitting to something every 11 year old already knows.

 

Forget it Rishi.You tried.

 

Suryaz,I could be wrong, but I hear you speaking through Rishi to someone else in your past.We all do this.Rishi is not your enemy.He is just a nice person who put himself out there and got a swift kick in the face with a spiked shoe for his trouble.Unlike you from what I have read in your many other posts.

 

Here is a fact that I have noticed and I'm sure the world may have seen an exception or two, maybe even three.

 

The woman wants to change the man.If the man changes she will lose respect for him.If he doesn't she will keep trying and complaining that "Oh woo is me,I've tried so hard in this relationship but he is so insensitive,he just won't improve the way I want him too.I guess I just love too hard.I just care too much."

 

Contemplating the sense objects breeds lust.Lust brings frustration and anger.[For both sexes]Then bewilderment of memory intelligence is lost and we fall down deeper into the material muck.

 

By not nderstanding this sequence when we experience the anger then the blame for that rotten feeling gets shifted to the opposite party.They failed to make one happy.It works both ways.

 

Nectar in the beginning and poison in the end.[remember this is sexism thread and not the relationship one].

 

A deep dark forest of bewilderment.

 

Alfred

 

Maitreya prabhu, I'm sorry that your post appeared just prior to the big departure. This is not the time to disturb your mind by entering into such a `discussion` here.

 

Of course, women often seem to sense when a man might be a little more vulnerable or off-balance and time their attacks accordingly, conciously or unconciously. Certainly they never forget perceived wrongs and indeed seem to store them, festering away somewhere deep in their psyches, as ammunition for some future surprise attack.

 

Never mind, brother, they'll still be here when you return, just itching to get their little claws into you! Maybe you'll have some extra ammo of your own by then... please remember what I said about Radhika. She really does hold the key to all of this and, in fact, everything else. What more can I say?

 

Give your `manhood` to Her only, along with your heart and soul. You and I are not family people and there's a big difference between them and us...wish I could share more, but I'm sure you understand why it would prove impossible on these forums, at least right now.

 

Insist on belonging only to Her, not Krsna or anyone else, and She will care for you in the most personal, intimate ways UNCONDITIONALLY.

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-27-2001).]

[Audarya lila]

Well, this is becoming quite an interesting thread and all are sharing very nicely. My own impression of Rishi's posts are that they were very heartfelt and honest. They may be lacking in linguistic presentation and one can certainly take words written to something other than what they were intended to mean, but I personally went with the overall tone of the message and didn't the way that Suryaz did.

 

Speaking, writing and understanding is a very good topic and one which if analyzed could reveal much in regard to the topic at hand. It takes a long time to really get to know someone and how they communicate. Even after many years and honest attempts, miscommunication happens. My wife has a very unique method of communication at times. She will say something and I am left to interpret what she means based on my history with her, her physical appearance etc. I often find that our communication misses because we 'speak a different language'.

 

In one of the management classes I am involved we we are currently discussing communication. We are looking at different personality types and how to present messages that will be effective based on the audience. You have all heard that only 7% of the content of our communication is conveyed through the words we speak. I find that statistic a little hard to believe, but certainly communication is a very complex thing.

 

I had the wonderful opportunity to speak with Valaya Prabhu on the phone last night and it certainly increased my appreciation for him and I feel more connected to him because of this exchange. This medium of communication, while being wonderful in many ways, leaves much to be desired.

 

One last comment about relationships before I get back to work. I agree with Jayaradhe that it is detrimental to relationships to try to change those with whom we are relating. In the seven habits of highly successful people Steven Covey relates the concept of focusing our attention on our area of influence rather than our area of concern. What he means by this is that people have a tendency to focus their energies and attention on issues outside of their area of influence and are incapable of affecting any change. This leads to dissatisfaction and frustration. If we focus our energies on the areas that we have direct influence in we can make meaningful change which will lead to fulfillment. In this regard, my comment is that we can change ourselves and that is where our focus should lie. If we become a good example for others they may be encouraged to make posititve change themselves.

 

Overall, I don't find that the tendency to try to change others is a gender specific trait. It is human nature to look outside and see where things will 'fit better'. It is always easier to see where others can improve rather than being introspective and seeing where we ourselves can change and having the courage and will to do so.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[JRdd]

Very interesting, Suryaz. I like how you explained how sound is the beginning of external manifestation, and how important it is for us to correct our use of language. Also I appreciate your assessment of seduction. Reading that it occurred to me that I do not actually think of men as seducing me when they make approaches, and that’s because I don’t let it affect me. You make the point that one should seek in oneself where these feelings are coming from, advice which is good for all of us in any instance–I know I can’t be reminded of that too many times–and in this case, clearly it is victim mentality which seeks to accuse someone of seducing them. Oh she/he did it to me. Not taking responsibility for our own feelings and reactions. However, in the case of Rishi prabhu he owned his part in the tango, and I feel as Audaryalila in that his posts have been very helpful, and also reveal a sensitive and fairminded individual.

 

Audaryalila, I also agree with everything you said here. Spot on. We need this balanced input.

 

Valaya prabhu, in my opinion Suryaz's points about calling attention to how we use language is very pertinent to this topic. We have been raised in a sexist culture so we probably all use expressions which do not serve to bridge understandings and release us from unuseful modes of thinking. If we can just keep cool heads about us and not attack when someone makes sweeping derogatory statements about a gender, and instead address those issues as they come up, this could be a good experience for all. I say we keep with it, stay in for the long haul. Too many threads in the past have been abandoned just when we were making headway. Things can get a little scary sometimes. But

if we realise the only thing we are really scared of is our own external conditions, which have nothing to do with the beautiful persons we really are, we could make mega strides in shedding our misconceptions and filling ourselves with the good stuff. You know the stuff I'm talking about.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Ys, Jayaradhe

[JRdd]

Valaya prabhu, I do not see how discussing honestly can disturb a mind, at least not in a way that is detrimental. I see it as auspicious. Also I wonder why you think they will have their claws out when MC returns, and why you think women don't forget wrongs done to them. These sweeping statements against a gender may not be so constructive. I can say for myself that I forget very quickly, sometimes to my apparent detriment, but I have a natural inclination to see the good heart underneath our external coverings. Most devotees don't actually hang on to things, at least as far as I can see. (Some things should not be forgotten however, until they are dealt with, and I mean the big things like the corruptions under the name of Srila Prabhupada's mission.)

 

Now you feel free to also call the shots on me when you catch me doing the same, I don't mind. I think that is Suryaz's intention here to catch it and nip it in the bud. Not, as she mentioned, wait until it has blossomed (manifested on the physical).

 

seeking harmony amongst the devotees,

Jayaradhe

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by valaya:

if only I could figure out what `non-compusmentus` means...Suryaz prabhu

It is actually non compos mentis, (latin) meaning "not of sound mind", mostly used in legal parlance. Sometimes people use such terms to flag their neo graduate status but this characteristic is often ironed out by the process of life after academia. (Of course, I don't know if this is the case here).

 

Most linguistic experts are not in favour of "latinisms" in common parlance unless there is no adequate substitute for a particular latin term and unless they are used precisely and correctly. Throwing in a bit of latin and then spelling it wrongly tends to burn the affectation.

 

some references:

Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary ISBN 0-421-29680-1 Pbk

Longman Guide to English Usage ISBN 0-582-55619-8

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 09-27-2001).]

[Guest guest]

talasiga, Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris!

[talasiga]

Originally posted by JRdd:

Too many threads in the past have been abandoned just when we were making headway.

Making Headway is

When we are saying less

and hearing more

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[valaya]

Time for valaya to vamoosa! You started two good threads, JRdd. Both owe much, if not most of their vitality to male input. Again a word of caution: emasculation will destroy everything you're trying to achieve here and elsewhere.

 

When the women start revealing themselves personally and admitting certain negative gender characteristics, perhaps I will be inspired to participate further. Real communication and confidential confession is a two-way street.

 

Little girls never seem to understand why little boys are so uncomfortable playing house or why they don't want to sit through their carefully orchestrated tea parties.

 

valaya RR

[M-dd]

Hare Krsna prabhus! Very interesting to see the dips and turns of this thread.

 

One thing I think needs pointing out is that until pure unalloyed devotion fully blossoms in our hearts, it is necessary, and in fact our duty, to discriminate. 'Accept whatever is favourable for your Krsna consciousness and reject whatever is unfavourable.' That includes people. And that is not about putting blame for one's own set of conditioned being on another person, rather it is a process to disentangle oneself from entangling association.

 

Abuse is entangling. That is simply a fact. When one is abused, s/he is derided with many untrue accusations, toxic shaming, which the abusee eventually takes onboard, simply by dint of repetitive input of a negative kind. This causes the person to drown in his/er own anarthas, becoming stagnant in the quicksand of self-loathing, not become purified of them.

 

There is a subtle but all-important difference between humility and false humility. The first arises from spiritual advancement, the latter from shame. Toxic shame is an interesting thing to look at in this regard. Toxic shame arises from need for perfection. That very perfection is a quality only God/Krsna, or His unalloyed devotees, can emulate. So to have an addictive need to be perfect in some way is none other than rooted in enviousness of Krsna, wanting to be Krsna. This deeply rooted anartha is fed by toxic shame, contributed by others as well as by the self. In fact, accepting it from others is part of the addiction. When we take in the toxic shaming of another person, we use it to beat on ourselves. Beating on ourselves with toxic shame is a futile excercise for we can't be perfect, thus it is an endless downward spiral. A spiral from which one must remove him/herself, if one is to ever have hope of removing the annartha's by the root. That is why it is so important to reckognize the difference between an honest chastisement, which is a benediction, and a toxic shaming chastisement, which is a vehicle for entanglement.

 

But this is not to put the blame for one's entanglement on another person, rather to reckognize what type of association simply reinforces one's own entanglement. One must learn to culture nescience along with knowledge side by side, per NoI. It is our very nature to accept another's input in order to keep us entangled, and that is where addiction comes in. And because it is actually, esoterically, addicting, that is the very reason it is so hard to remove oneself, like swimming upstream of a tidal wave.

 

Therefore it is very important for any person who experiences abuse to know what the abuse is, see it for what it is, in order to shed the chains of material entanglement that it entails. In the case of devotee women, it means that if the husband is an abuser, he is nothing more than a jailer for the material energy, and IN MOST CASES should be rejected as unfavourable for one's Krsna consciousness.

 

But the sad history is that these very women have been categorically blamed for the resultant disastrous volume of ISKCON divorces, lack of submission and lack of chastity being cited, in the name of Srila Prabhupada. The idea, as Srila Prabhupada presented it, was supposed to be that the woman benefits by submitting to her husband because he lifts her up spiritually. I cannot say it enough times that there is an extremely large number of godsisters who did submit to their husbands, only to be dragged down, and I'm not talking about dragged down through sex, which is an oversimplistic idea, but dragged down by abuse, by toxic shaming, usually accompanied by physical violence or the threat of physical violence. That is not to blame the woman's conditioning on the man, rather it is to enlighten society to the fact that when a woman leaves such a situation it is a move on her part up the ladder of spiritual evolution, not down.

 

This is a direct contrast to the socially cherished idea that the paramount important duty of a woman is to stick with her husband no matter what. It also defies the cherished social ignoreing of the fact that higher than this cherished duty is the axiom 'reject whatever is unfavourable for your Krsna consciousness'.

 

If y'all think I'm being sexist here by citing men as abusers, I'm not. The overwhelming fact of reality is that there has been a significant preponderance of this kind of abuse and I am simply citing it, as well as the need for the abusee to remove him/herself from the abuser. A very exhaulted pure devotee may not need to, but the ordinary soul usually does.

 

And I still have yet to hear even one devotee man admit that the vast majority of his godsisters did indeed take wholeheartedly and enthusiastically to the submissive role as His Divine Grace bade us to, and not only to husbands but to temple authorities as well.

 

Aspiring servant of the servants of the servants,

Madhavi-devi dasi

 

PS. It is important to note that in the age-old expression, 'it takes two to tango', sometimes the one is an abuser and the two is a victim. And in such a case the responsibility for the tango itself is not equal. To simplify what I mean, let's just use the analogy of rape, what intelligent person will say it takes two to tango for violent rape, giving equal responsibility to raper and rapee? Similarly, in any severe abuse, the abuse itself is SOLELY AND ENTIRELY the responsibility of the abuser, and the responsibility of the abusee becomes simply a responsibility to remove oneself from the abusive situation, as stated before, from the entanglement that it fosters.

[mahak]

Hey, bb, howzit. Boy, did I waste four years studying latin, oh well, im sure it was good.

 

Dear JRdd, thanks for demonstrating confidentiality in your thread. I have many comments, but will wait and perhaps e-mail em instead, yer surf ant, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

real kewl mahax. i get to serve stateside in new outfit. promotion, too.

 

civil liberties gonna suffer, tho.

 

use backchannel for comm.

 

rX

[JRdd]

I truly believe that the success of both threads is due to the input of both men and women; this mix has made it vital and useful. I thank everyone here for contributing. It has been most engaging. Also I apologise (not!) if I have neglected to mention my many anarthas. I did so when it eas relevant. But I will not own others' projections and speculations about what is going on in my heart or mind. I also think this is sexist to cry out accusations of emasculation going on here. I know that my own femininity is not affected by any man's derogatory comments about women. Wish I could say more right now but it will have to wait. But Valaya I thought you were being a kind of on the sidelines good focalizer at times. (Are you on your period?) Though you yourself did not divulge much.

 

Mahaksa prabhu, I am not sure what you think I am protecting in the confidentiality realm, but thanks anyway. Sorry I haven't emailed in so long. Just got caught up in so many things to do!

 

ys, Jayaradhe

[talasiga]

Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:

talasiga, Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris!

Ah ! Randomji !

It is so very good to see

you are not bringing your boots

into the spiritual discussion room any more.

But, PLEASE, you must be leaving

your <u>SANDALS</u> at the door

also ! Thanking you.....

 

 

[suryaz]

QUOTE]Originally posted by JRdd:

Very interesting, Suryaz. I like how you explained how sound is the beginning of external manifestation, and how important it is for us to correct our use of language. Also I appreciate your assessment of seduction. Reading that it occurred to me that I do not actually think of men as seducing me when they make approaches, and that’s because I don’t let it affect me.

 

Originally posted by JRdd:

 

Jayaradhe: “Reading that it occurred to me that I do not actually think of men as seducing me when they make approaches, and that’s because I don’t let it affect me.”

............................................

Suryaz: Exactly that Jayaradhe. That was my initial point to Rishi. It is wrong for any person to shift the gaze so as to even view (what to speak of accuse) the “other” as the promoter of one’s own inbuilt human weakness. (Which was in Rishi’s case, (as a case study) his own inbuilt biological libidinal function). It is simply wrong.

For example: Just imagine, if a person steals a microphone and that person was arrest for it. Now if the person says to the police/judge “OH X seduced me into stealing it. X made me desire it; or X told me to steal it. One of two things will happen. Either you will be required to have a psychological assessment for mental misbalance, or you will be fined, imprisoned (whatever) in punishment for the violation. Certainly in both the above-mentioned cases the police/judge (every composmentis persons for hat matter) will shake their heads in astonishment at stupidity of the agenda. Why because the act and the justification given are simple WRONG.

............................................

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Ah ! Randomji !

It is so very good to see

you are not bringing your boots

into the spiritual discussion room any more.

But, PLEASE, you must be leaving

your <u>SANDALS</u> at the door

also ! Thanking you.....

 

 

Telasiga,

 

Without a doubt, Random knows that the true ksatriya spirit is set in truth and chivalry. The true ksatriya spirit is far from the protection of distortion, injustice and abuse.

 

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

1 That is the non-composmentis of it (fixed the spelling up Talasiga)

 

2 I [will] not let it happen again.

 

Dear Suryaz

 

<u>The Importance of Language

(as you say)</u>

 

1. It is not just the spelling which

you have still got wrong but also your pretension to a meaningful use of the term,

"not of sound mind", whose application in

your arguments appears very muddled, if not totally incorrect.

 

2. Your statement:

"I will not let it happen again"

and the statement (notionally within the ambit of your negative criticism):

"I will not let her seduce again",

have remarkably similar syntax.

Namely,

Subject will not let Object(other) do X.

 

(ie chaste S VERSUS evil O)

 

Your linguistic bud

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 09-27-2001).]

[valaya]

Suryaz:

Valaya you posted the following. In so doing you altered the contents. It was not like this (below)

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Suryaz said [quoting Rishi]:

Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation.I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious.

Rather it should be like this (below)

Suryaz said [quoting Rishi]:

quote:

My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.”

“not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi

Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation.I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious.

……………

Remember do not change the contents of any post

……….

 

My post was in reply to the one made by Maitreya and addressed to him personally. It was done by clicking on the `Reply with Quote` icon which autmatically quotes the post being replied to. I don't alter posts, except to edit my own.

 

When the boys refuse to play, they can't be forced to. We're not married to you, after all, and can share ourselves or not, as we please. Of course you can try to `seduce` us, but I doubt you'll have much luck now that we've seen the only game going on here is `Pin the Tail on the Donkey.` Besides, what have you got left to `seduce` us with? RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-27-2001).]

[suryaz]

Telasiga,

 

The

· Neglect of abuse

· Distortion of abuse

· Abuse of abuse

· Acceptance of that abuse

· Promotion of abuse

· The silencing of

· Etc. etc.,

Is "not of sound mind" they are of distortion.

 

I am sure you can make some logic, as with some good poetry out of the above.

 

Perhaps you may begin with “To thine own self be true” and move on from there.

 

Valaya,

 

My apology, - however, we must become more aware of inaccuracies as they occur.

 

Suryaz

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]

[valaya]

Originally posted by suryaz:

Telasiga,

 

The

· Neglect of abuse

· Distortion of abuse

· Abuse of abuse

· Acceptance of that abuse

· Promotion of abuse

· The silencing of

· Etc. etc.,

Is "not of sound mind" they are of distortion.

 

I am sure you can make some logic, as with some good poetry out of the above.

 

Perhaps you may begin with “To thine own self be true” and move on from there.

 

Valaya,

 

My apology, - however, we must become more aware of inaccuracies as they occur.

 

Suryaz

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]

 

I prefer to try and look for the essence and thereby bring out the best in others, whenever possible, rather than using them to justify my own position as superior in any way. Sometimes that entails voluntarily assuming the position of inferior myself.

 

You may feel obliged to be more aware of "inaccuracies as they occur", but I am not similarly inclined, so please refrain from use of the word "we" in this regard. My role is neither defined nor controlled by anyone other than myself and God. Thank you.

 

valaya RR

 

 

[Bhaktavasya]

 

May I jump in with a few sentences? thankyou.

I say that the root of the problem here is Rishi referring to what should be a very private, sacred act between 2 people who are supposed to be in love with each other, as a falldown. No wonder his fiance got ticked off with him! Traditionally throughout millennia, the brahmacarya ashram was intended for young males, somewhat like high school. Rsi speaks in old, immature iskcon lingo and naturally the women veterans of iskcon far-right chauvanism react forcefully.

 

In love there is no shame, no falling down from Grace. It's all in the higher consciousness, respect and loving intent.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

Is "not of sound mind" they are of distortion.

I am sure you can make some logic, as with some good poetry out of the above.

Perhaps you may begin with “To thine own self be true” and move on from there.

 

In a trial the plea of non compos mentis may variously go towards exempting from trial or towards mitigating guilt or lessening the penalty of the person purported to be "not of sound mind".

NOTA BENE: For this purpose, the being "not of sound mind" must be to the extent that the prosecuted does not have the capacity to understand or appreciate the nature or quality of the alleged crime. It does not simply mean someone of insane disposition.

 

In the circumstances, your continued use of the term is incorrect and when correctly understood tends to undermine the very point about culpability that you are putting forward.

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[suryaz]

 

Originally posted by M-dd:

Hare Krsna prabhus! Very interesting to see the dips and turns of this thread.

 

One thing I think needs pointing out is that until pure unalloyed devotion fully blossoms in our hearts, it is necessary, and in fact our duty, to discriminate. 'Accept whatever is favourable for your Krsna consciousness and reject whatever is unfavourable.' That includes people. And that is not about putting blame for one's own set of conditioned being on another person, rather it is a process to disentangle oneself from entangling association.

......................................

Suryaz:Yes Madhavi I agree with you on this point.

But where to begin? I say we nip it in the bud. It begins with misuse of language as the accepted norm. I do no understand why so may are against this, or the elucidation of it. What is wrong with establishing truth?

..................................