Viewpoints

Lpetrich,
I believe that there is a woman priestess somewhere in southern India now, but that is less important now than the fact that women spiritual leaders have always arisen and continue to do so in the Hindu tradition. It continues to amaze me that on the one hand, women are subjugated to the male will within households and yet, the same households will worship the Supreme Being in its female goddess form and sit in rapt attention to hear discourses by women spiritualists. This leads me to comment that there is a major disconnect between lives as lived on a daily basis and the guiding principles of Hindu thought.

deKooning

I think the criterion of a religion’s female friendliness should rest in the degree to which her attributes as a woman are most fruitfully fulfilled. Whether or not this includes leadership over men in some or all cases may or may not be relevant. The difficulty is that we no longer assume that men and women really have attributes or inherent needs and either sex is virtually interchangeable. We are nothing more than Gnostics in this respect. Our corporeality is either meaningless or confusing to us.

To say that a woman does not have needs and inherent attributes different from that of a man is much like saying she is not a woman at all.

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: deKooning ]

Gurdur

But given your attitudes towards truth-seeking as expressed here by you, de Kooning, and your using possible tragedies to score verbal 'points', is there any reason for us to take your opinion seriously?

DMB

I am not at all sure what this means. How about her attributes as a human being?

I would refer interested people to two books on different aspects of this discussion:

Mala Sen, "Death by Fire: Sati, Dowry Death and Infanticide in Modern India" and
Courtney Howland (ed.), Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women

The second is particularly interesting, because it looks at a whole range of religions, and shows how, for example, Buddhism discriminates against women.

lpetrich

Baloney. The sexes could be psychologically identical and still be different sexes. I don't think that that's the case, but I do think that there is considerable overlap in the psychological features of the two sexes; I don't agree with the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" view.

And I think that that comment is a sort of concession of my point; Mr. DeKooning tries to argue that female religious leadership is somehow irrelevant because he knows that the Christian Churches lose rather badly in that field.

deKooning

Gurdur: The reason my former post was harsh was because of the sarcastic manner in which you doubted my information and asked for "stats," as if the level headed scientist just stepped into the room. Especially when you really showed no concern yourself. "hmm, de Kooning, I'm very sorry to hear that." Your hypocrisy is not subtle. It does not sound like you are too concerned about tragedies here. Very sorry indeed. If you were offended by the way I made my point, I am sincerely sorry. I mean it. If you keep rehashing it for other reasons (e.g., ammo for ad hominem arguments, as yours above) , get off it. I can scroll over you.

And regarding truth seeking, what have I posted that is not truth-seeking? So you have conflicting evidence with regard to my claim? Great. So do I. I sleep at night. I have valid reasons for believing what I do. Satisfying Gurdur’s challenges / doubt is not on my epistemological checklist and rightfully so.

Ipetrich: I do not believe I understand your point(s) well enough to know what you are calling baloney and concessions. I understand mine. And I did not say that women’s leadership is irrelevant, as you misunderstood. It was never mentioned because it is secondary to what I think is a prior concern.

I also do not subscribe to pop-psychology if that is what you are inferring. What does that have to do with it? I also appriciate the way you introduced yourself so gracefully, using cold-cuts as the open door.

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: deKooning ]

Gurdur

ah, I see you really enjoy argument by abuse.
Further reason not to take your opnions seriously.

hinduwoman

what exactly is meant by womanly functions? The only way woman differs biologically is in bearing children. Atheism is not going to take that away from her, unless she wishes it.

Yes, nowadays there are a grwing number of formally ordained women priests in hinduism. also you must understand that many of the household ceremonies were conducted by women and that in many places in rural areas where a Brahmins are missiong sometimes women with a smattering of mantras perform the rituals. The last two types had always been present. but the first had only come into existence in the 80's.

hinduwoman

Not really. The difference lies in the perspective. the wives and daughters are percieved as ordinary women; they may be a part of shakti, but they are viewd as passive, subordinate to the will of the male. On the other hand women spiritual leaders are regarded as above conventions as embodying the active principle of shakti.

consider Mirabai. as long as she was simply regarded as a wife, her actions were a source of horror. But once she went out abjuring any ties with the social world, she became someone beyond any social claims. she no longer belonged to the domestic 'space' allotted to her and therefore could be revered and obeyed.

Gurdur

@ Hinduwoman:

I am building up and maintaining a databank of news items URL's on religious problems.

Should you wish to add to add to this databank / list, let me know.

If de Kooning's allegations of wide-spread "suttee" had actually been half-way validated, I would have certainly included the information.

Seperately: as you can see from my comments on de Kooning here, I find his attitude and tendency to argue by abuse are such that I myself see no point in trying to discuss matters with him.