Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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:
EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 23:41

Im sorry, but there are white men who have contributed significantly to civilisation...surely that's not a shock? There are also plenty of white women...not sure how "white" is relevant? In fact not sure how this whole thread is relevant to furthering women's rights...

Whatmeworry · 08/07/2012 23:38

The suggestion here is that they aren't quite so worthy, that at best they and their achievements are "tarnished," and at worse, they don't qualify for being admirable, inspirational or heroic, if you are a good feminist

Not surprising, look at who is advancing the argument. Its standard Old Skool FWR pattern, where unless you held you were a poor Feminist.

WicketyPitch · 08/07/2012 23:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 23:22

I love Darwin too. He naturally knew that the female form is the more evolved of the species and therefore he probably did not do much for the feminist cause thinking that we don't really need help.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 23:19

eclectic how about Charles Dickens. He is one of my fav. Writer/story teller. What did he do for the white western female?

messyisthenewtidy · 08/07/2012 23:11

Well that's ok Silli, we don't have to agree on everything! In spirit of reconciliation I will do some more research on him before I jump to conclusions... Wink

Now I must go to bed because Monday morning is just a few hours away and I have yet to dig to the bottom of my dirty laundry basket for tomorrow's clothes... Hmm

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 22:58

messy I kind of agree with your first paragraph but not applied to Gandhi.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 22:57

messy sorry. I read PARP and that's he first thing that came to mind. GrinGrin

Blush
EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 22:49

Darwin, Alexander fleming, Einstein?

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 22:48

So white Jewish men have not been oppressed? What about the amazing things schindler did?

messyisthenewtidy · 08/07/2012 22:47

Silli, there is no need to resort to such tactics, really.

To me, what I feel people are trying to discuss is the negotiation that, as a woman or person of colour, you have to make with history. History is filled with men who have done great things and are heroized by society. But chances are that each of those men will have held derogatory opinions about YOU, and it hurts... For all their high ideals of democracy and progress, they would not have extended those ideals to you....

Take Charles Darwin. He's one of the men I most admire for his amazing contribution to our knowledge, yet he argued that women were physically and intellectually inferior to and more childlike than men. Logically I know that he was of his time, but if he'd met me he would have told me to get back in the kitchen and that I would never be able to achieve the intellect of a man. That hurts. But I can't write him off cos he's awesome. That's the negotiation you have to make, and its a tad depressing.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 22:44

Beachcomber, it's a contentious thread. Many people are in admiration to Gandhi, assk, Mandela etc for everything they have dedicated themselves too. It was always going to be a two sided thread. Best accept that people have different perspectives and can still be supportive of feminism. There's no need IMO to denigrate these people in order to further feminism.

solidgoldbrass · 08/07/2012 22:43

There isn't, actually, a white male equivalent of Ghandi or Mandela, because there has never been a time or a place where white men as a class were an oppressed minority in need of a leader to fight for their rights.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 08/07/2012 22:30

I am so sick of the lowering to personal attack on this section.

means, I'm off the thread because it is a waste of time and is about gotchas and other pointless crap.

HTH.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 22:21

PARP

Probably means Beech farted. But I thought thats all she has been doing all along with all the hot aired opinions!!

Grin
SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 22:18

samyukta.info/site/node/150

Beach, some extra reading for you before you jump onto the next thread and show your ignorance.

Of all the factors contributing to the awakening of women in India
none has been so potent as the field of non-violent action which
Gandhi offered to women in his ?war? against British domination
of India. It brought them out in their hundreds from sheltered
homes to stand the furnace of a fiery trial without flinching. It
proved to the hilt that woman was as much able as man to resist
evil or aggression (Radhakrishnan : 218).

REFERENCES
Bose, Nirmal Kumar. Lectures on Gandhism. 74.

Datta, D.M. The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. 18.

Fischer, Louis. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi. 205.

Gandhi, Mohandas Karam Chand. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. (CW.XXI ;105)

---. Collected Works. VIII:51

---. Collected Works. XXXII : 485 ? 86.

Radhakrishnan, S. Ed. Mahatma Gandhi: 100 Years. 211.

ibid 216.

ibid 218.

ibid 222.

ibid 271

Contributor
GEETHA KUMARI M.B. Teaches English at the University College, Thiruvananthapuram. Much interested in Gandhian Studies in which she has a doctoral degree.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 22:16

Sorry, it didn't realise we had to leave 'real life' and other groups opression at the fwr door. What does PARP mean?

Beachcomber · 08/07/2012 22:12

Okay.

"Women - back of the queue."

In a FWR section. Hmm

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 22:09

Beachcomber, maybe you could afford the same courtesy to Gandhi? Or at least do some thorough research before denigrating him. I understand you are tying to get a valid point across. I agree that not all people who have done great things for humanity have put women first... But IMO, sometimes there is a greater need than those of just women. Sometimes there is a universal need... And if that's a choice someone like Gandhi makes, that's their perogative, IMO. Many people who have fought or fight for women's rights chose to ignore other sectors of society... Radical feminism is a prime example. So
Sometimes, you can only focus on one thing, as I have been told over and over on this board.

Beachcomber · 08/07/2012 22:03

KRITIQ - I have no wish to speak for lesbian women about their lived experiences and their feelings. I would rather listen to what they say for themselves. And support them if my presence is wanted.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:57

Kritiq you did not offend me either.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:56

Eclectric What he did, the round up of his life is all okay then. ConfusedHmm

Grin
EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 21:55

Agree Kritiq, you didn't offend me. It's a valid viewpoint that I might have come to if I had not been offended by the general 'meh' of the thread.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 21:52

Yes! Hitler. We have unequivocal evidence. However, maybe he was good to his mistress?

KRITIQ · 08/07/2012 21:51

Eclectic, I'd say internalised oppression is where you absorb all those societal messages that say you are of less value because of your ethnicity, class, sex, disability, immigration status, etc., and it forms how you see yourself. When women put themselves and other women down for things they wouldn't condemn if men did it, that's an example of internalised oppression, imho.

Beach, it's pretty clear from my posts that I was not "speaking for women of colour." Apologies to Sili, Eclectic or any other women of colour who might have felt I appeared to do so.

From what I recall on another thread, you don't identify as Lesbian (apologies if I got that wrong, however,), but if you saw a thread with content you thought might be hurtful to Lesbians, would you not speak out about it? From what I know of your political views, I would expect that you would, even if it wasn't from your own "self-interest." I would speak out, too.

One doesn't have to be directly affected by a form of oppression to call it out or condemn it. Likewise, if one isn't directly affected by a form of oppression, it's really easy not to even notice it. It's also easier to diminish it's significance, or even dismiss it when it doesn't affect you.

Applied to sexism, that means men can call out and condemn it. But, since they aren't directly affected by it, they may not even see it when it happens. Because it doesn't affect them, they can insist women are "making too big a deal" of it, or even insist it's rubbish and isn't even an issue.

It's the same mechanisms of oppression in different contexts.

Swipe left for the next trending thread