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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Gandhi did not seek oppression for any group of people.

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,.

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.

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.

OK, I'll concede that Mother Teresa is a far better example of someone who is revered but was actually an arsehole, than ASSK.

Could also perhaps have said: Bob Geldof. Did great or at least well-intentioned things WRT Band Aid, also did a good thing in taking in Paula Yates' youngest DD (who wasn't his DD) so she could grow up with her sisters. But also prone to thoroughly crass sexist statements and supporting F4J.

you women
intelligent women in quote marks
use of word gossiping

Grimma- just been distracted by reading about Elanor Roosevelt. Am tempted to push her up only to be shot down, MN style.

On her Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
""Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."

I have a heroine. Shoot her down.

Gandhi was against the Indian caste system. Gandhi was against keeping women at home and not educating them. Gandhi was against child marriage (he was a victim himself). Etc etc
Now I believe that if he was Christian, he would have received a sainthood.
I am not against criticising when the criticism is fair and valid, but to do so without checking and verifying facts is rather silly. Mandela, same thing. Christ and Budha, same. We are all human. Our views and opinions are formed over time with the help of experiences we encounter. That is what life is about. To say that Einstein was an awesome genius but alas! He did not put the toilet seat down and therefore he was an arsehole is an arsehole thing to say.

Failure to put toilet seat down =/= Using young girls as objects for own gratification, no matter how discomfited they would have been.

His good works are not being disputed or minimised here

A whole new slant on the Relationships topic....posted by Mrs Gandhi.."Mahatma never puts the toilet seat down, but what he has done is...."

"Leave the bastard".

Don't marry a single minded hero type, was the consensus on this thread, i believe

24 how do you know he was a constrained pedophile?! Cause it was written by some journalist trying to seek her 5 mins of fame for the guardian by digging up something that was published to discredit him?! Oh dear, it must be true as clearly the British adored him! Gandhi never wore clothes in his upper body. Even when he visited uk he wore a loin cloth. This was again a political stance against the British. It was to stop he tax on cotton that the British added to Indian cotton. If he was a closet pedophile, why would he sleep with little irks in public so that everyone would know?! Oh yes, he wanted to be famous!

thepan haha fabulous.

gandhi was doing this work 70 years ago, i'm not sure it's right to judge someone on the values of today.

Sili, I think it's within my rights to not be too fond of Gandhi because he had a habit of sleeping with virgins next to him and being an all round meanie on the issue of women's rights. If you read the article in the guardian (written by a man so should have more gravitas for you) you'll see that his actions did have quite an effect. Of course I admire him for his work against the Brits. No one is saying they don't so do calm down.

Anyhoo, what about Pythagoras? He seemed like an ok guy, no? He let women into his group at a time when no one else did. In fact, as the theorems that were attributed to him were actually developed by his team then it is quite possible that a woman had a hand in the famous a2 + b2 = c^2 theorem

From this link

Meanwhile, Gandhi was challenging that abstinence in his own way. He set up ashrams in which he began his first "experiments" with sex; boys and girls were to bathe and sleep together, chastely, but were punished for any sexual talk.

Eeek. Experiments on children's sexuality. With punishments.

It seems Gandhi himself was perfectly comfortable with writing about sleeping with his grand-niece and other young women. I don't think we need to doubt that such things happened.

www.timescrest.com/coverstory/truth-about-his-experiments-5086

I'm more interested in the hushing up and unwillingness for people to talk about it.

According to the quote I posted above, enormous cultural harm has been done to Indian women. And when cultural harm translates into the supporting of women as vessels for male 'honour' and treated raped women as less than human, we are in the territory of Grade A misogyny.

And this is real harm, to real women - in other words, the sort of thing feminists are against.

I don't think anyone would argue we shouldn't know about these people faults and mistermeaners.

Certainly these aspects should be part of any overall discussion. Taught in school etc.

I think the point is about defining a person in a short sentance. The definitive statement.

Gandhi was a......

Mother T was a.....

Einstein was a.....

It reduces their lives into a single word.

What are they first and foremost know for. Should be known for.

If Gandhi's mysoginy was his life work, it's global impact exceeding his influence in change through non violent means, then I guess it's fair to refer to 'Gandhi the mysoginist(ic bastard)'

I think it's also problematic if one defines someone like Gahndi as mysogenistic first and foremost, as you then have to go on to describe the great things done by a mysoginistic bastard.

i.e. People start thinking it's ok to be a mysoginistic bastard , just look at Gandhi and what he did.

( I know mysoginistic bastards probably don't give a hoot about Gandhi , am just trying to illustrate the point )

beach how did Gandhis experiments on himself do enormous harm to Indian women?