Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

[solidgoldbrass]

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.

Can you be a tad more specific?

In what way are they arseholes?

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

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.

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

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

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?'.

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.

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.

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.

"Please don't compare Gandhi with Glitter."

Only on Mumsnet! :)

Actually, can anyone fill me on on the good stuff that Mother Theresa did do? She was great at self-promotion, I'll give her that, but as far as I understand it, her charity work that everyone made such a fuss about seemed to consist of dishing out the odd bowl of rice, banging on about her imaginary friend and campaigning against contraception and abortion.

20 facts about mother Theresa

When people are judging Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Aung San Suu Kyi
or whoever, I tend to think, what have you done that's worthwhile?

Very easy to criticise and write people off.
Everyone has weaknesses and faults.

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.

It's a bit like in 100 years time everyone will be like "wow, those mumsnet feminists were awesome. They got rid of porn, eradicated inequality, changed the world. But I can't believe they used to eat animals!"

Or something like that...

Messy .

We need some links for context, no?

Might I post this from drjohnsonscat on another thread. Thanks.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

EclecticShock, and a few more.

A member of my family sacrificed himself trying to save Jews in Germany during the war. He was caught, tortured and executed.

The only member of the family with a bad word to say about him was his wife . She said to me, "Your family all think he was a hero. I know he was a stupid old man acting out some Boys Adventure fantasy, and that was more important to him than his wife and children."

So, yes I agree. I do think that people who are especially heroic, focused, achieving against the odds, are not like the rest of us. You probably do have to be pretty ruthless to achieve so much against the odds. I'm thinking of women I know who have set up fantastic pressure groups and voluntary sector organisations, who are inspirational leaders but also a feckin nightmare to work closely with.

We need these people. But try not to fall in love with them or have children with them.

messy

The ego thing SGB mentioned. I think that may have something to do with it.

Maybe at some level you think everyone is beneath you, only a few privileged groups have the honour of being elevated to worthines? They're the exception rather than the rule to their view of humanity.

Or am I doing them an injustice. probably. Even if true, on balance it's better the ego exists.

We need these people. But try not to fall in love with them or have children with them.

Or work for them!

The title really made me laugh

Maybe some people care more about people in the abstract than in particular individuals?

Sorry for being stupid but what did Aung San Su Kiy do that was arsehole ish ?

I didn't know this sort of thing before having it brought to my attention on MN (thank you) ;

Gandhi believed Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings. He argued that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour. He moderated his views towards the end of his life. But the damage was done, and the legacy lingers in every present-day Indian press report of a rape victim who commits suicide out of "shame". Gandhi also waged a war against contraceptives, labelling Indian women who used them as whores.

Like all men who wage a doomed war with their own sexual desires, Gandhi's behaviour around females would eventually become very, very odd. He took to sleeping with naked young women, including his own great-niece, in order to "test" his commitment to celibacy. The habit caused shock and outrage among his supporters. God knows how his wife felt.

Gandhi cemented, for another generation, the attitude that women were simply creatures that could bring either pride or shame to the men who owned them. Again, the legacy lingers. India today, according to the World Economic Forum, finds itself towards the very bottom of the gender equality index. Indian social campaigners battle heroically against such patriarchy. They battle dowry deaths. They battle the honour killings of teenage lovers. They battle Aids. They battle female foeticide and the abandonment of new-born girls.

In the words of the Indian writer Khushwant Singh, "nine-tenths of the violence and unhappiness in this country derives from sexual repression". Gandhi isn't singularly to blame for India's deeply problematic attitudes to sex and female sexuality. But he fought, and succeeded, to ensure the country would never experience sexual freedom while his legend persevered. Gandhi's genius was to realise the great power of non-violent political revolution. But the violence of his thoughts towards women has contributed to countless honour killings and immeasurable suffering.

Fuck, but patriarchy sucks.