Commentator Replies - Page 2

Originally posted by: commentator

The target of your anger should be male domination through the institution of patriarchy rather than the women who try to escape its worst manifestations.

should we react with anger at male domination or should we react with sympathy when faced with the close mindedness or the orthodoxy of a rapidly diminishing segment of people and be a positive model by acting ourselves in a progressive and rehabilitative spirit ? won't our aggressive stand make us equal to if not worse than the "oppressors" we are indignant at? if men are to behave inhumanely and our reactive anger causes us to behave equally inhumanely to them + our selves + others we love is that an appropriate response in the name of woman's liberation?

as an example, should the blacks have discrimated against the whites after apartheid was dimished to drive home a point or should they have showed themselves more resilient, more tolerant and more capaable by improving themselves and doing things that were constructive for their own betterment rather than destructive? anger is a short-sighted emotion. a learned tolerance and ongoing rehabilitation first of self then of others is the more suitable action I think. Freedom fighters existed before gandhi and martin luther king but what made the latters efforts more successful was a learned perspective and their non-violent solutions.

Your intellect is the source of your strength; pay heed to its bidding. Hostility towards intellectual women is one of the first hallmarks of sexism.

I think wisdom combined with intellect should be the source of strength. people are not offended by intellectual women they are offended by bookish women. In my opinion, educated and learned are not as synonymous as people think they are. An educated person has information. A learned person assimilates the information he/she has in a well rounded manner keeping several underpinnings in mind "political, socio-economic, moral,etc".

Know that religion and patriarchy are closely imbricated.

religion is made up of an ideology based on moral values and a doctrine based on social traditons and form. I agree that the doctrine part is closely imbricated with patriarchy but what about the ideology which gives solace, moral guidance and positive lessons to many? shoudl that be ignored because of the doctrine or should the doctrine be adopted after a clear understanding of the underlying ideology and one's own determination of the appropriateness?

A husband who understands you and who respects your point of view is - contrary to the conservative thinking many of us have had dinned into us - not an "emasculated" man, but a considerate and caring one.

what about a woman who understands her man and respects his point of view as one human to another - does that make her a "victim", a doormat, an opponent to woman's emanicpation? are we not supposed to be equal to men? or are progressive woman supposed to be dominant to preserve their own rights. if so how does that make us less oppressive than men we consider our oppressors?

I hope for all of you who still have big choices to make that you will make them in as empowered a way as possible. Respect yourselves and you will be respected in return. I agree.

Is male subjugation a must for women's empowerment? What about the Golden Rule of behaviour? One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself

Originally posted by: stillhopeful

Originally posted by: commentator

I'm older than most forum members, happily married to a loving man who sees me as his equal, and have a humanities PhD and a graduate certificate in women's and gender studies from a reputed university in the US. On all these counts I see myself as at least adequately qualified to comment on issues related to women, their socialization, marriage, family life, etc. and in particular, on the very dangerous ways in which they are often represented in television serials.

Some words to young readers and friends on the recent arguments about Varsha:

The target of your anger should be male domination through the institution of patriarchy rather than the women who try to escape its worst manifestations. Didnt see any such thing in the varsha case

Your intellect is the source of your strength; pay heed to its bidding. Hostility towards intellectual women is one of the first hallmarks of sexism. My ire is against intellectual women who use their intellect as a tool to suppress men , depriving them of the right to feel . Nothing sexist about opposing abuse .........yes , even if it is done to a man .

Recognise the ways in which brainwashing works and learn to question and rethink the ideas that have been inculcated into you as being "suitable" for women. Speaking strictly for myself , I am oh so not brainwashed into thinking any such thing . 😆😆😆😆

Know that religion and patriarchy are closely imbricated. Centuries ago, the men who wished to retain gender power wrote the scriptures and made all the religious rules. Their successors wield religion as a weapon over your heads and control you with its strictures. God, if there is one, would never have inscribed such inequality into the rulebook. I dispute this very premise . If I do my PHD again .......the one I left half way , I may do on disputing exactly this . The scriptures were not written to retain gender power at all , they were written with deep contemplation and knowledge about certain scientific facts that were known then as civilization was highly advanced . That knowledge has been lost during the course of time . If at all our ancestors were extremely egoless and very highly advanced on all levels , especially spiritually . I recently debated the non allowance of women to read The Guru CHaritra ........and was effectively silenced by someone who knew much more than me on the subject .😊 I debated on the side of women and gender discrimination and the woman told me exactly why the 32 Canto was not allowed for women .........it explained the utterance of the Gayatri Mantra in detail and Mantra Vidya .......Science of Acoustics forbade that as The Gayatri Mantra induced physiological changes leading to semen formation . A woman's body has two Nadis missing for this and severe problems would occur . I cannot go into the details here but I was stymied and pressed and pressed for more details . She knew the answer to everything . Her PHD was on that . I had no problems accepting defeat in that particular debate as I was delighted ...she supported my views , the ones i wud love to do research on . Anyways Thats my view , I respect urs while agreeing to disagree .

Those men who impose their will on their wives, or allow their parents to do so, are not "the" "real" men. A husband who understands you and who respects your point of view is - contrary to the conservative thinking many of us have had dinned into us - not an "emasculated" man, but a considerate and caring one. There are many such men, who will allow you to be equal partners in the journey of life. Never give up hope that you will find one. A woman who is asked to occasionally consider the feelings of her loving and caring spouse is not a 'suppressed' woman either .It is too strong a term and rather wrongly used in Varsha's case .

I hope for all of you who still have big choices to make that you will make them in as empowered a way as possible. Respect yourselves and you will be respected in return.

C

@ Carpe: thank you, your views are closest to mine. In normal circumstances - though keeping a child ought primarily to be the woman's decision - a responsible partner should discuss abortion with her spouse. And yes, the CVs are indeed at fault here in building up the situation for dramatic effect by entangling the ethics of abortion with the related but rather different issue of paternal consent.

@ Kool: There is a reason for emphasizing my education and my qualification in women's studies. I am disturbed by the aggression towards "pseudo" intellectuals. Varsha, with a basic degree and a software certificate from some modestly priced suburban computer institute, can hardly be described as - or represents herself as - an intellectual. Your anger appears to be directed at members supporting Varsha in her current difficulties, people who can perhaps make more serious claims to the title of intellectual. In any case, the insistence that women, intellectual or otherwise, should not think about themselves first or stand up for their reproductive rights in the face of family disapproval, and the implication that they become "pseudo"- intellectual if they do so, and must therefore be "punished" (presumably along with those who support them) by being "shown the door" is seriously alarming.

@ Hope: I am aware of the difference between education and learning; it can hardly be denied however that someone spending years reading and writing about women's issues and the root causes of women's subjugation will be in a position to speak about them in an informed way. Religion was born of early humans' fear of forces they could not comprehend, of their need to feel that their fates were not governed by the laws of chaos, of their tendency to group into safely likeminded communities. All religions must therefore, in addition to directives, also offer courage, solace, and the security of collective faith or else become obsolete. I myself continue to practice and draw strength from a relatively unorthodox do-it-yourself Hinduism, but that fact does not blind me to the origins of religion or to its dangers in the context of gender.

@ Saffy who will, I hope, one day learn to recognize indoctrination: I am a teacher and it is my responsibility to impart the ideas I believe are right and just. My husband is an atheist and has been a wonderfully caring and supportive father. Regardless of what some fundamentalist judge decrees, the idea that atheists are lacking in any of the normal human capabilities or cannot be responsible parents is hardly tenable in this day and age.

My request is that opinions be voiced in a reasonable manner rather than as accusatory perorations. Critique should be aimed at institutions or practices that offend rather than - however obliquely - at members who post in support of them. Unless this happens those who continue to declaim will be responsible for hounding or horrifying off more and more perfectly sensible and intelligent people from this forum.

This is a longer post than any of my previous contributions and I am very likely not to respond to further comments since I generally avoid extended iterative arguments of this sort.

Originally posted by: commentator

@ Hope: I am aware of the difference between education and learning; it can hardly be denied however that someone spending years reading and writing about women's issues and the root causes of women's subjugation will be in a position to speak about them in an informed way. Religion was born of early humans' fear of forces they could not comprehend, of their need to feel that their fates were not governed by the laws of chaos, of their tendency to group into safely likeminded communities. All religions must therefore, in addition to directives, also offer courage, solace, and the security of collective faith or else become obsolete. I myself continue to practice and draw strength from a relatively unorthodox do-it-yourself Hinduism, but that fact does not blind me to the origins of religion or to its dangers in the context of gender.

My request is that opinions be voiced in a reasonable manner rather than as accusatory perorations. Critique should be aimed at institutions or practices that offend rather than - however obliquely - at members who post in support of them. Unless this happens those who continue to declaim will be responsible for hounding or horrifying off more and more perfectly sensible and intelligent people from this forum.

C