PDA

View Full Version : Women



Madhuri
09-24-2006, 11:28 AM
I visited a temple today, and sat down to hear a sermon. The Guru Ji was talking about decaying moral values, and amongst many other points he raised, what took my attention was his opinion about women or how a woman should be in her life.

He said "A woman in her life should be protected first by her father, then by husband, and then by her eldest son"

What is your opinion?

Does this statement project women as weak?

What if a woman says that she would like to have all these relations, but not because she should be taken care of as if she is not capable enough?

Please, answer not in terms of being protected or not.

Virgil
09-24-2006, 11:39 AM
I have known women who need protection and I have known women who can protect. If protection refers to brute physical protection, then the Guru has a point; if protection refers to being able to make in the world, then I think he projects women as being incapable. I've known men that are incable as well as women. It doesn't correlate to gender. I'm somewwhat old fashion, but not that old fashion to think that women can't do the work of men in all except the extreme physical jobs.

Madhuri
09-24-2006, 11:53 AM
Well, my interpretation to what he wanted to say was I think both what you have pointed out. And I am refering to more in terms of the second point you have made.

Even if a woman has a successful career and can make it on her own, but in her own home she is still considered as a second citizen.

Does this also come under what the Guru ji was saying, that there will always be a father, or a husband, or a son, and then you?

subterranean
09-24-2006, 12:02 PM
Well, I personally think that his opinion is more or less influenced by religious values. I don't know what Hinduism teach about women and women's role in family and society (I assume you're a Hindu, Mad. Please excuse me if I’m wrong), but I think different religions have different perspectives on women and their roles. I'm sure we've heard many cases on how religious teachings were "misused" to justify woman subordination.

I'm a female and I never considered my self as weak. But due to certain situations (cultural, religious backgrounds, physical reasons), we have those special laws to protect woman (e.g. laws against violence in the home). Is such law meaning that women are weak? No. But like I wrote before, in certain countries (like mine), cultural and "misused" religious values sometimes put women in weaker position compared to man, and without such formal laws, woman would probably always be a victim.

And the relationship between man and woman should be a mutual one. So, if women want to be treated equally, then we have to show that we have those qualities to be treated equally in our social life. A little example, I see young women complaining not given seats by men in train. They demand men to give them seats because they’re women. But why should they demand such thing? They are not old. But on the other issues, I read about women complaining about not having equal rights for certain job compared to men. So, why the double standard?

holograph
09-24-2006, 12:21 PM
I, too, am a woman. I was raised in NYC, so my views on things are perhaps a bit broader than most people's. All religions have their opinions on things, especially on the role of women. Heh, ALL organized religions somehow establish the woman as the weaker sex, the sex that requires protection. I was raised knowing that I am equal to a man in terms of my rights and capablities. The truth is, though, that men and women are not equal. Just as I am not the same as the person walking down the street, men and women are different. Furthermore, men and women are different within their own sexes. That does not make any sex better or worse than another, it just establishes that women, for example, can bear children and men can do more pushups if they try hard enough. Big deal. Regardless of these inherent differences, they are not enough for me to embrace being subordinate or to subordinate males. My point is, even if we are different, we are still all equally allowed to live and do as we please without judgement.

Now to your question: In most countries, women are treated in as suborinates. In that case, men have a RESPONSIBILITY to care for them. Being protected and cravign protection is a personal issue, however. If a woman would like to feel protected by a man, then it is her choice. If not, then that is also her choice. I prefer the latter. If you were to ask a hardcore feminist, she would say that asking men for protection is an overwhelming sign of weakness. For me, I dont think so. It's like saying that a housewife does less than a working woman, and that is completely false. If the woman seeks protection, it is the traditional job of the male anyway, and there is nothing wrong with that. The only way it would be a sign of weakness is if she submits completely to his will.

Madhuri
09-24-2006, 12:24 PM
Sub, you and I are on the same thinking level it seems :nod:

Yes, I am a Hindu. My query was more about the point he made, it could be said by anybody else.

I absolutely agree with the relation being a mutual one, and except the physical limitations everything else can be equal.

I also think that sometimes women also take this as their fate and agree to the life of subordination. I have seen cases where the woman is the bread-winner of the family and still is being treated badly (be it father, husband or son), which will not be the case if it were vice-versa.

Then where does this statement fit into, it seems a wrong statement, and I believe all the people (guru or just any other person, and believe me you'll find women also making such comments) who have such view points, have not really considered all scenarios. They seem to be making such comments probably because it is written somewhere, or some guru has said so.

If I try to take a broader look, these statements dont appear realistic to me.

Madhuri
09-24-2006, 12:34 PM
Yes, Holograph, I believe it is a matter of choice. I am happy to hear that people do not think that it should be the norm, and that it is a priviledge that can be taken to their advantage (man or a woman). And I didnt want to take it as what guru ji had sounded (more like a should)

kathycf
09-24-2006, 12:41 PM
I think you all make very valid points. I think it is fairly ingrained in human behavior to look at the sexes in different ways. After all, as a species we have been around for thousands of years and feminism is a modern phenomenom. If the sermon was given 100 years ago, very few people would have questioned the validity of saying a woman needs "protection".

If one looks at some rights that many of us consider basic, such as the right to vote (suffrage) then these changes were introduced not all that long ago. For example:

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was now an accomplished fact and the Presidential election of November, 1920, was therefore the first occasion on which women in all of America were allowed to exercise their right of suffrage. This had the effect of overriding local laws which confined the right to vote to males only. However, even now some of those laws are still on the statute book.

Of course I am writing from my perspective as an American. It seems "normal" to me that men and women are free to choose their path in life without restriction (providing the path is a legal one--choosing a criminal path will net one a few restrictions ;))

So, I think I can see why you were a bit irked, Madhuri. It is a fairly old fashioned idea, but it seems that the Guru Ji is from a more traditional school of thought. I think it is possible to respect another's teachings and learn from them, but it does not mean you have to subscribe to everything you hear from them.

subterranean
09-24-2006, 12:42 PM
I also think that sometimes women also take this as their fate and agree to the life of subordination. I have seen cases where the woman is the bread-winner of the family and still is being treated badly (be it father, husband or son), which will not be the case if it were vice-versa.

Then where does this statement fit into, it seems a wrong statement, and I believe all the people (guru or just any other person, and believe me you'll find women also making such comments) who have such view points, have not really considered all scenarios. They seem to be making such comments probably because it is written somewhere, or some guru has said so.

If I try to take a broader look, these statements dont appear realistic to me.


Well, I have to say that not all women, esp. in developing countries like ours, have the same opportunities like we have. You and I can get education and lots of information, which are sufficient enough to enable us to see these gaps. But we know that in countries such us ours, education and equal access to information are two of the fields, in which women enjoy less compared to man. There are still many cases in my country where parents will prioritize school to the son compared to the daughter. So, we can't really "blame" them (not sure if blame is the correct word). However, to echo holograph, if it is the woman herself who choose to be considered as weak and thus need all the protection she could get, well then it's her choice to do so. But I think our topic here is about those women who are forced to be in certain condition where they are treated as subordinates.

kathycf
09-24-2006, 12:49 PM
Indeed if all one knows is subordination and being treated like a second class citizen then those are the only choices available. Education and information is key to changing people's view of both themselves and others. It is the "changing" part that is difficult.

Someone has to actually have access to things such as healthcare and education and other basic needs. I think that is far from the case in many developing countries as opposed to most of Europe and the United States. I am not intending disrespect to those people, but I think one can safely say that by the simple fact of being in the forum:

A.) We are able to use a computer, and have access to one.
B.) We can read and enjoy literature.

We are lucky in that respect. Many folks still struggle to meet basic needs.

Madhuri
09-24-2006, 01:08 PM
I am really not sure if it is access, but I think it is definitely the changing of views that is difficult.

What if the woman has access to education, but only to study those subjects that her father wants her to study? What if she has access to internet, only because her brother wanted to have a connection and that is why she could access these sites?

They could have these things probably, because there is a pressure on men, to give the women access, and if they had their way they would do otherwise. There could be cases where they are allowed education because, now as per standards well educated girls can catch good husbands.

I think that it is more, of what men and women think of their roles, and how they interpret it and make it functional.

samah
09-24-2006, 01:45 PM
Well, I have to say that not all women, esp. in developing countries like ours, have the same opportunities like we have. You and I can get education and lots of information, which are sufficient enough to enable us to see these gaps. But we know that in countries such us ours, education and equal access to information are two of the fields, in which women enjoy less compared to man. There are still many cases in my country where parents will prioritize school to the son compared to the daughter. So, we can't really "blame" them (not sure if blame is the correct word). However, to echo holograph, if it is the woman herself who choose to be considered as weak and thus need all the protection she could get, well then it's her choice to do so. But I think our topic here is about those women who are forced to be in certain condition where they are treated as subordinates.

I totally agree with you because women in our countries ( Developing countries ) are not treated well even by their own families and i know that some families give more priviliges to the males over the females and in these countries women need protection because they were raised to have very low self esteem and so they need to be protected by men from men !

Madhuri
09-24-2006, 02:01 PM
Yes, and when it is considered appropriate they are to shoulder all the responsibilities, and if these women want to have their own way (even for a small outing with friends) they are usually asked to stay back home saying "have you seen other girls going out." The treatment is more a matter of convenience.

Virgil
09-24-2006, 05:37 PM
I think you all make very valid points. I think it is fairly ingrained in human behavior to look at the sexes in different ways.

I happen to agree with this (ingrained human behavior) rather than say it's because of religion. It so happens that almost all cultures and religions have considered women as second class. I think it's a result of the old world being more physical and dangerous. In a world where physical strength like plowing fields by brute strength, or swinging a sword and carrying a shield, or hunting down wild animals count for more, then men will dominate and take leadership. It has taken the modern world where we pay police to rule our streets and modern equipment to perform physical work to liberate women.

Madhuri
09-24-2006, 10:54 PM
I can see a point why this thought process emerged in the first place.

Virgil
09-24-2006, 11:07 PM
I can see a point why this thought process emerged in the first place.

Yes, but it is time to transition out of this. I find women add a different perspective and approach at work as they work on my project teams. I welcome their contributions. But we must also respect women who choose to remain stay at home mothers. And we must understand cultural traditions and find ways to evolve without destroying our historical institutions. It can be hard for some cultures.

samah
09-25-2006, 07:43 AM
yes its not like the women who choose to stay at home are less respected than the women who work ! i think that its much harder to stay at home and raise children than to go to work in an office for example but I still think that the problem of mistreating women arise not from the countries actually its from the society because maybe in all the countries in the world there are rules to protect women but even in the developed countries there are lot of men hitting their wives , its all about the way that these men and women were raised in their families .

subterranean
09-25-2006, 10:56 AM
I happen to agree with this (ingrained human behavior) rather than say it's because of religion. It so happens that almost all cultures and religions have considered women as second class. I think it's a result of the old world being more physical and dangerous. In a world where physical strength like plowing fields by brute strength, or swinging a sword and carrying a shield, or hunting down wild animals count for more, then men will dominate and take leadership. It has taken the modern world where we pay police to rule our streets and modern equipment to perform physical work to liberate women.

But Virg, this second class thingy is not only caused by physical limitation. As a matter of fact, we have women here in my country, working in farms and fields, and at the same time they are also responsible in taking care of the households and the children. And they even take their babies on their back while they are working in farms. Some tribes even have their women taking care of the cattle too. So they are physically not weak at all. The worst part is when women also come second in the field of education and information, which have nothing to do with physical ability. And this form of subordination, IMHO, has its justification from cultural and/or the mis-used of religious values. I emphasize the world mis-used because iI never considered religions as the root cause, but because the way religious values are interpreted. This maybe because religious authorities, especially in the past, are dominated by male as I personally don’t think the teachings themselves classified women as second class species after men :).

Virgil
09-25-2006, 11:11 AM
You make good points Sub, and I agree that it's a mis-use of religion. Yes, I do believe women have done extra-ordinary physical labor throughout the centuries. I didn't mean to slight them. My whole point was that in a world where physical danger and physical strength count for more, a certain deference will be given to men. I'm sure I've simplified it to a rediculous degree, but I was just trying to make a single point. Life is extremely complex, and who knows what else went into how gender relations have evolved. However, it is a fact (at least I believe it to be and if I'm wrong I would love to see it) that all cultures have had a patriarchal set up. At best women have certain equalities and at worst none. Until, that is the modern world, and perhaps I've been trying to peice together why that may be.

subterranean
09-25-2006, 11:34 AM
You make good points Sub, and I agree that it's a mis-use of religion. Yes, I do believe women have done extra-ordinary physical labor throughout the centuries. I didn't mean to slight them. My whole point was that in a world where physical danger and physical strength count for more, a certain deference will be given to men. I'm sure I've simplified it to a rediculous degree, but I was just trying to make a single point. Life is extremely complex, and who knows what else went into how gender relations have evolved. However, it is a fact (at least I believe it to be and if I'm wrong I would love to see it) that all cultures have had a patriarchal set up. At best women have certain equalities and at worst none. Until, that is the modern world, and perhaps I've been trying to peice together why that may be.

It's absolutely not a ridicilous comment, Virg. And I think I was the one who didn't really grasp your point there ;). Thanks for the additional explanation :wave:.

Thorwench
09-25-2006, 11:44 AM
There are all very interesting points, Marx and Engels thought that the development to see women as the subordinate gender started with material inheritance and the male need to protect their blood-line and property ( a woman always knows that the baby is hers, the man had to rely on her marital faithfulness).
I always thought, and still think, that we as woman should also take care how we raise our children, especially our sons (whom the guru referred to). I have, I hope, successfully managed to make my son respect me not only as his mother but also as a woman, i.e. he should respect me and other women as his equals which sometimes also involves to admit when I have been overbearing (I tend to see and to portray women as the superior gender).Protection then goes both ways, now, that he is 17 I would expect him to defend me physically if need be but I can protect him from getting into situations where this would be necessary, since I am more experienced qua being older. I admit it is easy for me to say these things, in my society women are equal (although of course and thankfully, not the same as men), are expected to work and to take up arms if they choose to do so. However, to think that nothing more needs to be done in our part of the world would be silly and pretty unrealistic. Women still get directed to the "female and weak subjects", especially in academia or places dominated by males. I even had a professor once who told me that the fact that I want another child shows a lack of scientific commitment. One would be an accident, two is premeditated stupidity and instinct driven behavior. Typically female Lol.

Virgil
09-25-2006, 11:57 AM
There are all very interesting points, Marx and Engels thought that the development to see women as the subordinate gender started with material inheritance and the male need to protect their blood-line and property ( a woman always knows that the baby is hers, the man had to rely on her marital faithfulness).
I always thought, and still think, that we as woman should also take care how we raise our children, especially our sons (whom the guru referred to). I have, I hope, successfully managed to make my son respect me not only as his mother but also as a woman, i.e. he should respect me and other women as his equals which sometimes also involves to admit when I have been overbearing (I tend to see and to portray women as the superior gender).Protection then goes both ways, now, that he is 17 I would expect him to defend me physically if need be but I can protect him from getting into situations where this would be necessary, since I am more experienced qua being older. I admit it is easy for me to say these things, in my society women are equal (although of course and thankfully, not the same as men), are expected to work and to take up arms if they choose to do so. However, to think that nothing more needs to be done in our part of the world would be silly and pretty unrealistic. Women still get directed to the "female and weak subjects", especially in academia or places dominated by males. I even had a professor once who told me that the fact that I want another child shows a lack of scientific commitment. One would be an accident, two is premeditated stupidity and instinct driven behavior. Typically female Lol.
:lol: I've have always been amazed at the stupidity of college professors. They live in their own world. They don't understand real life.

I've heard that Marx/Engels thought and like most Marx/Engel's ideas it doesn't jive with me. This gender relationship was established well before inheritance was an issue.

Thorwench
09-25-2006, 12:07 PM
Thanks for your agreement on professors, Virgil. It was one of the reasons why I resigned my post. Wonder what mother he had.

You wrote:
I've heard that Marx/Engels thought and like most Marx/Engel's ideas it doesn't jive with me. This gender relationship was established well before inheritance was an issue.

I don't know about them. They just gave their ideas on how matriarchy (which they believed existed first) changed into patriarchy. Could well be that they are not all too wrong. (anyways, their idea of the globalisation of capital was quite right, but this another issue.)

arsto20042003
09-25-2006, 08:13 PM
firstly, im a male. but not fanatic. in my point of view there is some identifications which are confused to us. if we examine carefully the amin rule of males and females we would understand every thing. the real task of males and females is to worship our God. then to improve our live and evey one has his role and we must look for it in developing our earth. and if we examine the role of females in generale we will find that they are the fair sex which should bring up in a specific way. they must bring up in a way that help them to make a good life for her and her children and finally her husband. life to a human being doesnot mean that male have sex with his beloved and then she become bregnant and have childrens.till now every thing is right but then all things is wrong man and woman think that to bring up ur children is to give them food and water and money. this is the role of both sex.thenchildren bring up and become youth and go away from the house which they have any belongingness to indeed. i wonder what life mean in this way. and of course dont forget the gap between wife and her husband. both of them has his motives and both of them away from the other. what does life mean in this way?.
come back to my point that when woman build a good atmosrhere inher house then it must seek for its motives out side and the male too.
finally i want to see let's see what life mean to us