Section 9

Text COM:1741665 (138 lines) [W1]
From: Krishna Kirti (das) HDG (Baltimore - USA)
Date: 03-Oct-98 19:24
To: GHQ [136]
Comment: Text COM:1742026 by Shyamasundara ACBSP
Subject: OPN Mary Wollstonecraft, the pioneer of the modern feminist movement
------------------------------------------------------------
For those interested, I would like to point out that much (if not all) of our modern feminist thinking has strong roots in Mary Wollstonecrafts "Vindication of the Rights of Woman." c. 1792. Mary Wollstonecraft
(henceforward MW) was the mother of Mary Shelley, the author of "Frankenstein." I would recommend anyone who wants a better understanding of modern feminist thought to read MW's Vindication.

I have included below some quotes from MW's Vindication. Although some of them may appear quite demonic, when seen in context, they are not to be
taken simply as incoherent outburst of a frustrated woman. Rather, she had
an exceptional sharp mind; her presentation of her thesis was so potent that
her book created general indignation wherever it was sold. The effect was
such that other authors used to write about how young women who read MW's Vindication became completely immoral.

Her book is a reaction to the hypocritical morality of the time--materialism
sanctioned by society and by religion. Implicit in her thesis is that somehow it has come to pass that man has been ordained by providence to predominate over women. She admits that this is indeed the fact, but then
she also concludes that women can be freed of being the slaves of man's
lecherous cravings through education. In fact, in stark contrast to what feminism has become today, she observes (but doesn't persue the idea to it's
logical conclusion) that only those who abstained from associating with the
opposite sex were truly virtuous:

> In tracing the causes that, in my opinion, have degraded woman, I have
> confined my observations to such as universally act upon the morals and
> manners of the whole sex, and to me it appears clear that they all spring
> from want of understanding. Whether this arise from a physical or
> accidental weakness of faculties, time alone can determine; for I shall not
> lay any great stress on the example of a few women 14 who, from having
> received a masculine education, have acquired courage and resolution; I
> only contend that the men who have been placed in similar situations,
> have acquired a similar character—I speak of bodies of men, and that men
> of genius and talents have started out of a class, in which women have
> never yet been placed. (Vindication Ch. 4 para 81)

Earlier in the chapter she quotes Lord Bacon in a similar vein:

>When I treat of the peculiar duties of women, as I should treat of the
>peculiar duties of a citizen or father, it will be found that I do not mean to >insinuate that they should be taken out of their families, speaking of the >majority. 'He that hath wife and children,' says Lord Bacon, 'hath given >hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of >virtue or mischief. Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the >public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men.' I say the
>same of women. But, the welfare of society is not built on extraordinary >exertions; and were it more reasonably organized, there would be still less >need of great abilities, or heroic virtues. (Vindication Ch. 4 para 39)

But again, she doesn't pay this thought much regard in her book, instead,
she postulates that the very education that trains a woman to be devoted to
her husband, to gratify his every base desire, is the cause of her loss of
dignity and her misery:

> Noble morality! and consistent with the cautious prudence of a little soul
> that cannot extend its views beyond the present minute division of
> existence. If all the faculties of woman's mind are only to be cultivated as
> they respect her dependence on man; if, when she obtains a husband she
> has arrived at her goal, and meanly proud is satisfied with such a paltry
> crown, let her grovel contentedly, scarcely raised by her employments
> above the animal kingdom; but, if she is struggling for the prize of her high > calling, let her cultivate her understanding without stopping to consider
> what character the husband may have whom she is destined to marry. Let > her only determine, without being too anxious about present happiness, to
> acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational being, and a rough inelegant
> husband may shock her taste without destroying her peace of mind. She
> will not model her soul to suit the frailties of her companion, but to bear
> with them: his character may be a trial, but not an impediment to virtue.
> (Vindication Ch. 4 para 51)

The last part of the paragraph is somewhat inspiring, actually. However, her
view of education is the same as those of the materialistic men she is speaking out against. Ultimately, at the end of her treatise, she recommends that social and civil parity will ameliorate women's miseries:


> Asserting the rights which women in common with men ought to contend
> for, I have not attempted to extenuate their faults; but to prove them to be > the natural consequence of their education and station in society. If so, it is > reasonable to suppose that they will change their character, and correct
> their vices and follies, when they are allowed to be free in a physical,
> moral, and civil sense. (Vindication, Ch 13 para 75)

And to end her book, she portrays men in a society of social disparity as
soulless torturers.

> Let woman share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man; for
> she must grow more perfect when emancipated, or justify the authority
> that chains such a weak being to her duty.—If the latter, it will be
> expedient to open a fresh trade with Russia for whips; a present which a
> father should always make to his son-in-law on his wedding day, that a
> husband may keep his whole family in order by the same means; and
> without any violation of justice reign, wielding this scepter, sole master of
> his house, because he is the only being in it who has reason:—the divine,
> indefeasible earthly sovereignty breathed into man by the Master of the
> universe. Allowing this position, women have not any inherent rights to
> claim, and by the same rule, their duties vanish, for rights and duties are
> inseparable. (Vindication Ch. 13 para 76)

Sound familiar?

In effect, because MW (who in argument resembles our present day ISKCON
feminists) doesn't have a spiritual alternative, her recommendations that
women liberate themselves from male dominence by civil parity, only creates further problems. The reason is simple: socially, physically, mentally, men and women are different.

Today, America and the rest of the world is experiencing the fruit of Mary
Wollstonecraft's fundamentally flawed ideas. Replacing mammon with mammon has only resulted in further misery. America's current president is an excellent example. In the name of non-discrimination, women who thought they could rub shoulders with men have forgotten what happens when a woman "rubs" a "man's shoulders." The results have been infamy, insult, dishonour, and broken marriages.

MW takes it for granted that men (except for those who avoid women
altogether) are only after sense gratification and that women are only a
means to this end. Although she speaks of the need for women to acquire an
education for the purpose of attaining "higher" goals, she does not specify
what those "higher" goals are, except that women should have civil freedom
(read "gratification") equal to that of a man. This is also what feminists
(ISKCON or otherwise) instinctively assume.

Therefore, in order for our presentation to to take the the wind out of
feminist sails, it must stress on the Vedic ideal of restraint in all statuses of life. Although men are seemingly given more social freedom and privilege, it has to be shown that it is not for his sense gratification. If a man is not acting for his own gratification (which can also be construed as acting for prestige, name, fame), then where is the question that women are being exploited?

ISKCON femists assume that those who are advocating the strict adherance to
varnashram prinicples are doing so to exploit women--therefore they reject
varnashram.

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das
(Text COM:1741665) -----------------------------------------

Text COM:1763235 (56 lines)
From: Shyamasundara ACBSP
Date: 12-Oct-98 20:55
To: GHQ
Subject: SHA PRS MAle body superior to womans for spiritual life
------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSLATION
"A living entity who, as a result of attachment to a woman in his previous
life, has been endowed with the form of a woman, foolishly looks upon maya
in the form of a man, her husband, as the bestower of wealth, progeny, house and other material assets.

PURPORT
From this verse it appears that a woman is also supposed to have been a man in his (her) previous life, and due to his attachment to his wife, he now
has the body of a woman. Bhavagad-gita confirms this; a man gets his next
life's birth according to what he thinks of at the time of death. If someone
is too attached to his wife, naturally he thinks of his wife at the time of death, and in his next life he takes the body of a woman. Similarly, if a
woman thinks of her husband at the time of death, naturally she gets the
body of a man in the next life. In the Hindu scriptures, therefore, woman's
chastity and devotion to man is greatly emphasized. A woman's attachment to her husband may elevate her to the body of a man in her next life, but a
man's attachment to a woman will degrade him, and in his next life he will
get the body of a woman. We should always remember, as it is stated in
Bhavagad-gita, that both the gross and subtle material bodies are dresses;
they are the shirt and coat of the living entity. To be either a woman or a
man only involves one's bodily dress. The soul in nature is actually the
marginal energy of the Supreme Lord. Every living entity, being classified
as energy, is supposed to be originally a woman, or one who is enjoyed.
****** In the body of a man there is a greater opportunity to get out of the material clutches; there is less opportunity in the body of a woman. *********
In this verse it is indicated that the body of a man should not be misused through forming an attachment to women and thus becoming too entangled in material enjoyment, which will result in getting the body of a woman in the next life. A woman is generally fond of household prosperity, ornaments,
furniture and dresses. She is satisfied when the husband supplies all these
things sufficiently. The relationship between man and woman is very
complicated, but the substance is that one who aspires to ascend to the
transcendental stage of spiritual realization should be very careful in
accepting the association of a woman. In the stage of Krsna consciousness,
however, such restriction of association may be slackened because if a man's
and woman's attachment is not to each other but to Krsna, then both of them
are equally eligible to get out of the material entanglement and reach the
abode of Krsna. As it is confirmed in Bhavagad-gita, anyone who seriously
takes to Krsna consciousness-whether in the lowest species of life or a
woman or of the less intelligent classes, such as the mercantile or laborer
class-will go back home, back to Godhead, and reach the abode of Krsna. A
man should not be attached to a woman, nor should a woman be attached to a man. Both man and woman should be attached to the service of the Lord. Then there is the possibility of liberation from material entanglement for both of them. (SB 3.31.41)
_______________________

We note that that Srila Prabhupada didn't say it is just true of old India thousands of years ago, but it is a general principle that is always true. Also he doesn't specify whether it is a sudra or brahmana, just male versus
female. So even in a lower caste the male's body will have a higher adhikara
than the female of similar community.
(Text COM:1763235) ------------------

Text COM:1765044 (20 lines)
From: Shyamasundara ACBSP
Date: 13-Oct-98 10:13
To: GHQ
Subject: SHA Wife not to compete with husband
------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSLATION
Therefore please accept her, O chief of the brahmanas, for I offer her with
faith and she is in every respect fit to be your wife and take charge of your household duties.

PURPORT
The words grhamedhisu karmasu mean "in household duties." Another word is also used here: sarvatmananurupam. The purport is that a wife should not
only be equal to her husband in age, character and qualities, but must be
helpful to him in his household duties. The household duty of a man is not to satisfy his sense gratification, but to remain with a wife and children and at the same time attain advancement in spiritual life. One who does not do so is not a householder but a grhamedhi. Two words are used in Sanskrit literature; one is grhastha, and the other is grhamedhi. The difference
between grhamedhi and grhastha is that grhastha is also an asrama, or
spiritual order, but if one simply satisfies his senses as a householder, then he is a grhamedhi. For a grhamedhi, to accept a wife means to satisfy the senses, but for a grhastha a qualified wife is an assistant in every respect for advancement in spiritual activities. It is the duty of the wife to take charge of household affairs ***** and not to compete with the husband. *****

A wife is meant to help, but she cannot help her husband unless he is
completely equal to her in age, character and quality. (SB 3.22.11)
(Text COM:1765044) -----------------------------------------------

Text COM:1765045 (38 lines)
From: Shyamasundara ACBSP
Date: 13-Oct-98 10:22
To: GHQ
Subject: SHA Wife should tolerate husband even if he is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSLATION
O Vidura, Devahuti served her husband with intimacy and great respect, with control of the senses, with love and with sweet words.

PURPORT
Here two words are very significant. Devahuti served her husband in two
ways, visrambhena and gauravena. These are two important processes in
serving the husband or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Visrambhena means "with intimacy," and gauravena means "with great reverence." The husband is a very intimate friend; therefore, the wife must render service just like an intimate friend, and at the same time she must understand that the husband is superior in position, and thus she must offer him all respect. A man's psychology and woman's psychology are different.

As constituted by bodily frame, a man always wants to be superior to his
wife, and a woman, as bodily constituted, is naturally inferior to her husband.

Thus the natural instinct is that the husband wants to post himself as superior to the wife, and this must be observed. Even if there is some wrong
on the part of the husband, the wife must tolerate it, and thus there will be no misunderstanding between husband and wife.

Visrambhena means "with intimacy," but it must not be familiarity that
breeds contempt. According to the Vedic civilization, a wife cannot call her
husband by name. In the present civilization the wife calls her husband by
name, but in Hindu civilization she does not. Thus the inferiority and
superiority complexes are recognized.

Damena ca: a wife has to learn to control herself even if there is a
misunderstanding. Sauhrdena vaca madhuraya means always desiring good for the husband and speaking to him with sweet words.

A person becomes agitated by so many material contacts in the outside world; therefore, in his home life he must be treated by his wife with sweet words. (SB 3.23.3)
(Text COM:1765045) --------------------------------------------------------

<< Previous Next >>

Articles

Appendices

Begining