Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

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 21:20

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.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:23

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?!!

chibi · 08/07/2012 21:28

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.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 21:30

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.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 21:31

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

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:35

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?

Beachcomber · 08/07/2012 21:35

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 Hmm

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.

WicketyPitch · 08/07/2012 21:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 21:44

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

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:45

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

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:48

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!!

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.

EclecticShock · 08/07/2012 21:52

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

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.

SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:56

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

Grin
SiliBiliMili · 08/07/2012 21:57

Kritiq you did not offend me either.

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.

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 22:12

Okay.

"Women - back of the queue."

In a FWR section. Hmm

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?

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.

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
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.

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:
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.