Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

Lets discuss Hitler and his impact on the west and the inherent superiority complex he breed in white blond females!! Now, he really was an arsehole!!

Eclectic I dont think anyone can as he did not.
*

Can someone point me in the direction of unequivocal fact that Gandhi supported honour killings?

KRITIQ are you speaking for women of colour?

I have no idea why Luther King and Mandela were introduced to this thread - perhaps because people think of them as historical figures, people to be admired, people who fought for justice and the end to an oppressive regime, like Gandhi. And therefore people we idolise (and in a way dehumanize by doing so), people we want to believe were only good. People we are disappointed to find out were susceptible to other forms of oppression.

I mean, rather than us just being racist. Yunno

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the notion that certain men, are above certain women's scrutiny, over their treatment of women.

This is the second time I've had it implied on MN that I am racist because I have expressed my discomfort over male support of honour killing. I'm deeply uncomfortable with that too.

I quote:

"the using of women as a 'resource' for non-violence, the problematic nature of non-violence as used against violence, barriers to gender equality in Indian society, religious chastity and the problems thereof."

WTF?!

So Gandhi should not have involved Women and 'allowed them' too have equal responsibility for the freedom struggle?! He looses whatever he does due to the shear arrogance, ignorance and immaturity of knowledge shown by some of the comments here. Gandhis Chastity was his personal choice. Not to do with 'religion' as implied here.
'problematic nature of non-violence?!' Oh not any longer. India is now a nation that hold nuclear arms. Does that make you feel better?!

What would you rather have?

Although, I don't believe racism was an intention.

To be fair, I'm not white and I didnt pick up on the race thing first, I just thought it was ridiculous to take some spurious information and bandy it about as fact, denigrating some outstanding achievements for the human race. But I can see how people may have seen it as racist.

How much good do you have to do before it not only cancels out the crappy things you do, and renders it offensive to mention them?

Genuine question.

I am a women of 'colour'. I did not feel this thread was picking on coloured men at all. Its when the discussion began criticizing Gandhi based on a few paragraphs from a newspaper someone has read and making that the sole round-up of Gandhis life is what is painful for me. He spent a good 20/30 years in South Africa fighting for human rights as a lawyer and the remaining in India doing the same. What does it matter if he controlled his urges with his wife?! Gees!
It is the 'high' tone of some of the voices here that are irritating. The Indian government is not banning anything. if it was, there would not be open publications and discussions re. Gandhis life.
Some contributors here also fail to recognise the time and context of Gandhis or Mandelas actions. The cultural differences between now and then.
So therefore are British women frigid becase Tolstroy was not too good at sex?!!

Agree Miranda, I'm sure if we really researched it ( I don't have time). It would not be as black and white as portrayed on this thread. I think there may be an element of propaganda here... Just a feeling mind.

I think I agree, how do you define internalised sexism? I'm interested in internalised oppression... Are they similar?

A quote from Gandhi re women (note that the Guardian article didnt' quote him, it was all hearsay):

Gandhi said this....

Of all the evils for which man has made himself responsible, none is so degrading, so shocking or so brutal as his abuse of the better half of humanity - to me, the female sex, not the weaker sex. It is the nobler of the two, for it is even today the embodiment of sacrifice, silent suffering, humility, faith and knowledge."

"I learned the lesson of non-violence from my wife, when I tried to bend her to my will. Her determined resistance to my will on the one hand, and her quiet submission to the suffering of my stupidity involved on the other, ultimately made me ashamed of myself and cured me of my stupidity in thinking that I was born to rule her."

SO Gandhi wasn't all bad then....

Frankly I'm disgusted by some of the comments on this thread.

Some people feel driven to do something about poverty or injustice, as Mother Theresa did, and Gandhi, and ASKK. And then the priviledged of MN put them down for it.

Yes Eclectic, to both posts.

To be fair, I meant posts in this room demonstrating indirect sexism would likely be tackled sharpish, not necessarily everywhere on MN. Even if the membership is predominately women, there's still internalised sexism stuff.

Kritiq, I think that's down to focus. I tend to focus on all discrimination, some tend to only focus on discrimination of women, but maybe it's down to personal experience.

I think it comes back to... People aren't perfect and it's pretty impossible to excel at everything. Sometimes single minded focus is needed... What about Einstein or the Dalai lama? Do you think any faults they have can detract from the good they do? I understand what people are saying but I think time and context are important.

Ta Oatie for the additions :)

The point though is that no one seemed to notice, or at least think it significant that the thread was focussing on dissing men of colour. Same thing often happens on discussion threads where no one "notices" that the targets of most of the dissing happen to be women. Both are examples of indirect discrimination. The latter tends to get picked up on sharpish on Mumsnet. I wish the former did as well. :(

Okay, just try for a minute to imagine you are a woman of colour reading this thread.

You read comments about 3 people of colour who made a massive difference for the rights and opportunities of people of colour. One spend decades in prison and two were murdered for their beliefs. You may feel inspired by the actions of these people of colour who achieved so much in the face of extreme opposition. Depending where you live, you may as a person of colour, you are now have human rights as a direct results of one of their actions.

You read comments about the things they did in their personal lives that were not good to women, or that they said and did things in their lives that did not reflect feminist values. 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.

It's expecting women of colour to choose between two intrinsic parts of their identity. It happens all the time and it sucks but it doesn't have to be like that. It's hardly surprising though many women of colour are cynical about some strands of feminism.

Solidarity in Feminism Or How White Feminists Fail Intersectionality?.Again

Racism, like sexism, doesn't have to be overt. If there was a thread talking about people who did bad things and the discussion focussed primarily on three respected feminists, that would be indirect sexism, and I'd be calling that one out as well.

"Just. Quite. Noticeable. Not. Dissing. White. Guys."

Are there many examples of white guys leading struggles against oppression in the relatively modern Western world?

Just for the sake of dissing a few white guys ...

Tolstoy.

He is an example of a celebrated white man known for setting himself challenges to do with "lying alongside" women I think. He hated himself in relation to his sexual desire if I recall correctly. He challenged himself to keep away from his wife's room as long as he could and only went there in a state of self-loathing and haste that must have been traumatic for her.

That sticks in my mind because he is so very hard on his characters, especially Anna Karenin, whose sexuality he was so stern about. His harshness towards his characters always seemed to me like a projection of his sexual self-hatred. And men do that a lot of course -- hate and fear their sexual appetite and project the fear/hated object onto the women who arouse it. Using women to play out a conflict in their onw head, perhaps similarly to Gandhi in this respect?

Ruskin, another white man who made lying alongside his wife a traumatic business for himself and for her, in his case because he, like young men today, was repelled by pubic hair (by extension, repelled by her sexuality).

Tolstoy in particular is someone I think of as brilliant, laudable, but problematic to say the least in his attitude to women. It isn't hard or unusual to admire and criticise the same person?

Sorry 'mankind' is a bad choice of word on a feminist board. Humankind?

Can we not discuss those topics without denigrating people who have achieved amazing things for mankind?

Oh and now we are racist too apparently .

I don't think anyone is doing that though MrGin, so there is no need to say people sound unhinged .

Shame.

A thread like this had the potential to be an explorational discussion of women's place in history and current affairs.

Or a discussion of how women are written out of history, or not considered in history.

There is lots to discuss here; the Indian government's ban on disclosure of Gandhi's behaviour with women, the fetishization of femininity, the using of women as a 'resource' for non-violence, the problematic nature of non-violence as used against violence, barriers to gender equality in Indian society, religious chastity and the problems thereof.

Endless subjects.

All of which are more interesting than 'you are mad for wanting to discuss this' - which is rude, boring and aggressive and just brings any discussion to a halt really.

What is it with the mental health slurs on here at the moment BTW? Most unpleasant.

Um, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Junior, Nelson Mandela . . . all mentioned on this thread for their misogyny.

All men of colour and leaders of struggles for people of colour.

Just. Quite. Noticeable. Not. Dissing. White. Guys.