A.C. Bhakitvendenta Swami prabhupada is misogynistic

[raghu_001]

Sage,

"Misogyny" is defined as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny)

Several points:

1) He is stating what Manu-samhita has to say on the subject. One can repeat another person's words without necessarily agreeing with them.

2) But assuming that he agrees with Manu, what exactly about the quote implies hatred for women? Clearly the quote says that women should be dependent, but this does not by the very fact imply hatred. Children are dependent on their parents - if someone says children should not be independent, is he a child abuser?

3) Whether you agree or disagree, Manu's point of view as quoted above is a facet of traditional Hindu culture. There isn't much point in pretending otherwise. Is Hindu culture misogynistic?

Again, the question is, what specifically is "misogynistic" about quoting Manu about the position of women? And what is "misogynistic" about stating the historical facts about gender relations in traditional Hindu culture?

Claiming that men and women were equal in traditional Hindu culture is historically false as a general rule. Spiritually speaking, they may be equal, in the same sense that we are all jivatmans and only have different bodies based on different karmas. But socially, men and women have different constitutions, natures, etc and are even given different duties by dharma-shastras. This is true of all ancient cultures, and not merely Hinduism.

What to speak of equating males and females, you cannot even say that any two individuals are "equal." Being "equal" is not the same thing as having "equal rights." Humanitarian sentiments completely confuse the two.

But at least in Hindu culture, there is recognition of the fact that "maleness" and "femaleness" is an attribute of living in this world rather than a permanent marker of status. This is why you have examples in Hindu scriptures of great female devotees of the Lord whose greatness is not checked by their socially subordinate position - see bhagavata purana 10.23.1-52.

Now here is the real question. Who has the backbone to claim that Hindu culture is misogynistic? If you object to the fact that women had a socially subordinate position in Hindu culture, then you are objecting to an aspect of my culture. If you object to my culture, then any claim of yours to being all-tolerant and all-accepting is clearly a sham. I can logically infer that your objection to my culture is based on bigotry. Who is to say which view is better? Fifty years of the sexual revolution have yet to produce a more enlightened society even by ordinary measures of social progress.

It is one thing to respect all cultures. It is another thing to really live up to that ideal. Are you prepared to respect another culture when you disagree with it? This is what reveals the hypocrites in any crowd of self-appointed social commentators.

[ConnieD]

Manu?

My ethnicity is a very old culture, and women are highly regarded.

In fact, my mother's side ethnicity is matri-lineal.

My tendency is to think anywhere women are not held in high regard is a degenerate society.

My reading of the time of rishis, women were not second-class and certainly no one murdered their wife by setting them on fire to be free to get another bride-price.

I think you know what I think, then.

I have heard no comment back to me.

[raghu_001]

Manu?

My ethnicity is a very old culture, and women are highly regarded.

In fact, my mother's side ethnicity is matri-lineal.

My tendency is to think anywhere women are not held in high regard is a degenerate society.

My reading of the time of rishis, women were not second-class and certainly no one murdered their wife by setting them on fire to be free to get another bride-price.

You are confusing two issues. Actually you are confusing more than two issues.

On the issue of how highly regarded women are, there is no question that women were highly regarded in ancient Hindu culture. The same Manu who holds that women should not be "independent" also has this (3.55-57) to say about women:

55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare.
56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.

Now in combination with Manu 9.3 which precludes a woman from having "indepedence:"

3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

... you have a fairly succinct and accurate summary of the ancient Hindu culture's attitude towards women - respected but protected. Will that satisfy the inherently ethnocentric tendencies inherent to militant feminist thinking? Certainly not, nor was this my intention.

All I wanted to do was set the record straight on the traditional Hindu point of view, before it gets washed over by politically-correct revisionist thinking of Hindu "reformers" or the imperialist tendency towards soap-box style pronouncements of self-proclaimed liberal humanists.

I think you know what I think, then.

I have heard no comment back to me.


edit: I used the nicest words that accurately described it. There are not truly nice words for how women I saw are regarded there. And if there is to be chastity, for the purpose of that life these purport, then the words I found to use are precisely appropriate. My notes were meant to be informative, helpful and instructive and you removed them. The fact is, those things need to be said and taught. The removal was dishonest. There was no "inappropriate" language. I had already "saved" the page to the hard drive.

I really have no idea what you are talking about, and perhaps that is just as well. Your attempt to liken bride-burning with traditional Hindu attitudes towards women is disturbing and reeks of sheer ignorance and bigotry.

Whatever your experiences with iskcon were, recognize that iskcon (like many "Hindu" organizations that take root in the West) is not a traditional Hindu organization and the attitudes of its members do not necessarily speak for traditional Hindu culture.

In conclusion, Manu was certainly not in favor of "women's liberation" but he most certainly was in favor of women being respected and protected. This is not misogyny. It is pragmatic. Before one can take issue with Manu's point of view, one should first show how modern post-industrial culture gives women both independence and respect. A culture that judges a woman on the basis of her sex appeal and forces her to adopt licentious standards of behavior in order to be valued in society is hardly in any position to pass judgement on Hindu culture. But as always, this is my opinion, and I welcome rational and intelligent debate on the subject.

[ConnieD]

Your quotes, here, and your comments, here, are greatly appreciated, because, clearly, this information you have provided needs to be known.

I had my comments edited out, because I could not find a substitute word.

What was edited was ISKON.

However, your condescension is misogynistic.

I have not the slightest interest in "women's lib". You are, sir, a bigot.

Bye, bye. I can find such hypocrisy, anywhere. There is nothing special about here.

..and by the way, No one is burning their brides in any other country in the entire world.

[raghu_001]

However, your condescension is misogynistic.

I have not the slightest interest in "women's lib". You are, sir, a bigot.

I'm sorry to hear that disagreeing with you constitutes misogyny and bigotry. Strange that you are ready to fling accusations of bigotry, especially since you could not resist getting this last dig off:

..and by the way, No one is burning their brides in any other country in the entire world.

There is certainly violence against women everywhere in the world, and India is no exception to that. But it is unfortunate that when violence against women is perpetrated in India, it is portrayed in a cultural context, as if being Indian or Hindu somehow predisposes one to committing such unspeakable acts.

This is an example of the dehumanizing attitude India critics have towards Indians - critics behave as if Indians are somehow as a culture less compassionate or empathic towards their women. What such people cannot seem to grasp is that these people are considered criminals everywhere.

News flash (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm) - domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women from ages 15 to 44 in the United States. An astounding 3-4 MILLION women are beaten by their spouses/ex-husbands/boyfriends each year in the United States alone. 25-45% of American women who are battered are battered during their pregnancies.

Whether it be burnings or beatings, all domestic violence against women is despicable. People who beat women don't do so because they have particular religious beliefs - they do so because they are sick in the head.

It is utterly disgusting that some individuals specifically point to domestic violence in India as if it were a unique phenomenon.

[Bishawjit]

Not to mention witch hunt.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

You are confusing two issues. Actually you are confusing more than two issues.

On the issue of how highly regarded women are, there is no question that women were highly regarded in ancient Hindu culture. The same Manu who holds that women should not be "independent" also has this (3.55-57) to say about women:

55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare.
56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.

Now in combination with Manu 9.3 which precludes a woman from having "indepedence:"

3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

... you have a fairly succinct and accurate summary of the ancient Hindu culture's attitude towards women - respected but protected. Will that satisfy the inherently ethnocentric tendencies inherent to militant feminist thinking? Certainly not, nor was this my intention.

All I wanted to do was set the record straight on the traditional Hindu point of view, before it gets washed over by politically-correct revisionist thinking of Hindu "reformers" or the imperialist tendency towards soap-box style pronouncements of self-proclaimed liberal humanists.



I really have no idea what you are talking about, and perhaps that is just as well. Your attempt to liken bride-burning with traditional Hindu attitudes towards women is disturbing and reeks of sheer ignorance and bigotry.

Whatever your experiences with iskcon were, recognize that iskcon (like many "Hindu" organizations that take root in the West) is not a traditional Hindu organization and the attitudes of its members do not necessarily speak for traditional Hindu culture.

In conclusion, Manu was certainly not in favor of "women's liberation" but he most certainly was in favor of women being respected and protected. This is not misogyny. It is pragmatic. Before one can take issue with Manu's point of view, one should first show how modern post-industrial culture gives women both independence and respect. A culture that judges a woman on the basis of her sex appeal and forces her to adopt licentious standards of behavior in order to be valued in society is hardly in any position to pass judgement on Hindu culture. But as always, this is my opinion, and I welcome rational and intelligent debate on the subject.

First of all I find it to be misogynistic because My mom never got married and she raised both My sister and me while working two jobs at times. To say that my mom most be "miserable" because she didnt have a man in her life--I dont think so.

When I use the word "liberation" it does not neccessarily have to refer to sexuality. Liberation in the sense that woman should be able to choose their colegiate or career paths. They should not be intellectually limited to explore what they want. they should be allowed to explore careers that give them as much fufillment as men get from pusuing their careers. In other words, women shouldnt be limited to the roles of Mothers Daughters and Sisters anymore than men should be limited to Fathers Sons and Brothers.

[WomenForKrsna]

This is what it says in the 9th canto chapter 9 text 32

"A women is supposed to always be dependent...According to Manu-samhita, she is never independent. Independence for a women means miserable life."

My dear Sagefrakrobatik, the past few years or more has been some fanatics not exaclty within Iskcon, who have been trolling the net, taking Srila Prabhupada's words out of context, and then since they are misogynists, claiming they are but repeating him. In other words, they are putting the fault onto him when they are really bad disciples who do not want to follow, do not want to admit their wrong too. Should you be interested in a more clear understanding of Srila Prabhupada, read this:

http://womeninkrsnaconsciousness.blo...-business.html

Should you want to read about those destroying his good reputation, read this one and that's all I put here.
http://womeninkrsnaconsciousness.blo...radhi-ghq.html

HKW

[Believer]

This is a mischievous thread.

To quote something which was true in the ancient times, when women did not work and to twist it as if they were not treated well because of their dependence is totally mischievous. This is an exercise in using a new word (misogynistic) that somebody just learnt, and a deliberate attempt to defame Srila Prabhupad. Surely there are better things in life than to cook up some imaginary charges from statements taken out of context and throw mud at highly realized souls. Shame on you people!

[Kumar_Das]

Pranam



Independence could be very subjective, show me a truly, one very independent person?
Women in my opinion are very powerful but at the same time very
vulnerable.



As to Swami Prabhupada an Orthodox Brahmin ! that could not far from truth, just to make one observation, he gave Brahmin Diksha to his devotees, some perhaps he never met, by way of tape recoder giving them sacred Gayatri.

One can go on and list off unorthodox in his approach but i prefer to look at the positive and that is Hari Naam.

Jai Shree Krishna

Prabhupad an unorthodox Brahmin?! LOL You've got to be kidding me!

Which orthodox Brahmin will perform upanayana or admit non-Brahmins into guru system?

Have you seen how the Hare Krishna males dress? They have Brahmin hairstyle.

This man was anything but orthodox.