Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

361 replies

solidgoldbrass · 06/07/2012 20:33

Isn't it just the case that it's nearly impossible to achieve huge memorable changes in the world without being a bit of an arsehole? You've got to have a massive ego to think you can take on such a challenge, and so it's really not that surprising that pretty much everyone who achieved massive changes for the good turns out to have been a bit of a sod round the house and have various other unattractive traits.

OP posts:
LostinaPaperCup · 06/07/2012 21:12

"Please don't compare Gandhi with Glitter."

Only on Mumsnet! :)

DowagersHump · 06/07/2012 21:11

Gandhi did good stuff but he was a misogynist. That doesn't mean that what he did in tackling racism and colonialism wasn't good. It just means he wasn't the demi-god of love and light that he's portrayed as.

Much like Mother Theresa tbh.

KRITIQ · 06/07/2012 21:11

Human beings are human, so flawed. As mentioned, Betty Friedan was homophobic, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was overtly racist, Marie Stopes had eugenic and classist beliefs. Yes, it's difficult to balance up the fact that one person may have done something incredibly noble, but in another sphere of their life, was anything but noble.

EclecticShock · 06/07/2012 21:07

Please don't compare Gandhi with Glitter. Non of us are perfect and most of us don't contribute that much to society... Cut some slack.

Original poster
solidgoldbrass · 06/07/2012 21:02

DH: I am not defending Ghandi against misogyny, just using him as an example of someone who is widely celebrated for his achievements but who was also not such a good person. I could have said 'Gary Glitter made some records that I used to love listening to; are they unlistenable now everyone knows he's a paedophile?'.

OP posts:
messyisthenewtidy · 06/07/2012 20:58

I do see what you mean Solid. I get disappointed when I hear that people I admire were misogynistic or homophobic. Like Betty Friedan and her views on homosexuals.

OTOH people are of their time and no one gets to such heights without having a very strong personality but then you expect that if someone believes in justice in one area they wouldn't be so blind in another IYSWIM

DowagersHump · 06/07/2012 20:46

I'm surprised that you of all people are defending a man who believed that menstruation was manifestation of the distortion of a woman's soul by her sexuality.

I thought you were pro-celebrating women's sexuality Confused

EclecticShock · 06/07/2012 20:39

I don't think any of us a perfect, plus you can't believe everything you read. What counts is that they bothered and managed to achieve something for the greater good. It's often at the neglect of other areas on their life. Opportunity cost and all that.

Whatmeworry · 06/07/2012 20:37

All golden idiols have feet of clay. It is impossible to excel at everything.

AlistairSim · 06/07/2012 20:36

Can you be a tad more specific?

In what way are they arseholes?

wellwisher · 06/07/2012 20:35
Confused