Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

you women
intelligent women in quote marks
use of word gossiping

What a rubbish article pasted here about Gandhi. Khushwant Sing trying to sell his books?!
I am annoyed by you 'intelligent' women for not researching your facts before gossiping.

Pan - I know - I was just trying to think what the worst was I knew and that was all I could come up with. Similar to ASSK maybe - I think they both fall well on the side of Not Being Arseholes at all, Really.

It's not petty and small minded to point out that revered people have flaws. it doesn't take away from the good they did, but it's not nothing, either - see Beachcombers excerpt above.

I really don't like this attitude that you can't criticize your 'betters' for want of a better word - that leads to unquestioning acceptance of anyone who sets themslves up as betters. Thinking particularly of priests, medical professionals here. Nobody is above criticism,.

Gandhi did not seek oppression for any group of people.

The thing about Gandhi (please note spelling), is that he excepted that did nothing much for his family. To him, his whole family was india. If you read his biography, he admits there that he did not treat his wife too well early in his marriage. So what? Everyone is flawed in some way. We may be able to find something similar in the Dalai lama. He was way ahead of his time. Those who criticise are petty and small minded people who are never going to achieve anything close to what people like Aung sung have.

Aung San Suu Kyi went back to Burma to care for her dying Mother, IIRC. Yes, she could have walked away - could quite possibly have made it back to Britain to live with her husband and sons in exile. But I heard her once say something about at least she knew her children were safe with their father. Many Burmese people could not say the same thing - so how could she abandon them, when they were suffering far worse torments than her?

It must have been unimaginably awful for her, hearing that her husband was sick and dying while she was under house arrest. Knowing that her sons were growing up without her.

Nothing arseholish about it - just a terrible choice. And NOT one that you can compare with Ghandi's misogyny, FFS. Aung San made a sacrifice. That's not the same as someone who fights for freedom for one group but seeks to oppress another.

I DID see what you did there! But....deserting his family is loaded. As was his family. (see what I did there?) He was a prince, and finding his way in the world - to say he 'deserted' them is to imply he should have stayed at home. Permanently. When Buhddism relies on he notion of 'impermanence'. (just pointing out exactly what I did there.)

What about higgs or einstein? I'm sure they had faults... There is a neuroscience theory that your brain only has so much capacity. If you excel or spend all your resources in one area, there will be a weakness or deficit on others. Human after all.

Einstein for sure. Higgs seems decent enough as far as one can tell. The one Nobel prize winner I know much about was pretty admirable - Dorothy Hodgkin. But good scientists don't have to be egotists - some are but its not essential.

christ on a bike, you have surpassed yourself on this one.

I guess the Buddha had to desert his family - certainly lose his attachment to them (see what I did there?)

My admiration of and hero worship for Daw Aung San cost me a job. I lost a job because I described Suu Kyi as my ultimate hero for her views on democracy and freedom. I still hold the same view. She is inspiring and a wonderful example of how a brave human being can change a country.

My boss had never heard of her, and was when I explained who she is. As a subbie I had no rights. I'd been there nearly a year with no problems. Damn me and my political persuasion! :o

YY especially to being products of our time - or perhaps more accurately our societies within time.

Yes ES, excepting Buddha. MN challenge laid down.

"Ok woo alert. But I think that's one of the most fascinating things about the human race. There are no saints. We are all flawed (sometimes deeply, weirdly Ghandi-flawed) but we still have the capacity to achieve amazing things. And we are all products of our time, so whatever we do achieve will never be a concrete achievement, we'll continue to be judged by standards we can't even imagine yet. Don't you think that's amazing?

"

I do :)

Wagner. Do we judge his music because he was 'fairly right-wing'...? Age old question.

Same as Gary Barlow.

Ok woo alert. But I think that's one of the most fascinating things about the human race. There are no saints. We are all flawed (sometimes deeply, weirdly Ghandi-flawed) but we still have the capacity to achieve amazing things. And we are all products of our time, so whatever we do achieve will never be a concrete achievement, we'll continue to be judged by standards we can't even imagine yet. Don't you think that's amazing?

not sure where Buddha fits in here. Please enlighten me? (see what I did there?..). Gowan...tap his phone...

Thank you for clarifying.
And for the information about Ghandi. I was unaware of this too.

GetOrfMoiiLand - I don't think it is shameful to not know.

I only found out the other day too.

These things are not in the films and the history books. (Having said that, they appear to have been written about more than once in the fecking Guardian so perhaps we don't have much of an excuse...)

Wasn't nelson Mandela quite abusive to his first wife, also Martin Luther king was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife.

Totally spot on with the we need them but don't marry them philosophy

You get people accused of deserting their families if they just work outside the home.
they are Career Women or Good Providers. Each has a subtext, too.

oh heaven forbid a woman should put her job/calling/politics ahead of her family

I don't think Aung San Suu Kyi has committed or condoned any atrocities against a group of people. Not entirely sure why she was mentioned tbh