Do you think this is accidental? All the Gaudiya Vaishnava instituations are heavily male dominated, with very few revered female devotees.
I’ve always thought of me being outside of devotee association to be a lack in me, but I now believe it has been a mercy. I would not have survived in Krishna Consciousness if I had been a part of a temple etc.
Back to Godhead india just released a link to a blog post about a rape statement made by Srila Prabhupada where Jayadvaita Swami uses Hollywood and romance novels as an understanding of the female psyche. Then Jayadvaita Swami comes with this statement:
Of course, “rape” carries with it images of guns, bruises, and brutal thugs–hardly what any woman hopes for. But the essential feature–a man who is strong and aggressive–is sexually attractive.
I don’t even know where to begin with these ignorant statements.
a man is attractive to a woman when he is bold, strong, valorous, assertive, aggressive, “manly,” and so on.
So how many romance novels has this Swami read since he know they sell so well? What is meant by aggressive? What is the meaning of “manly”?
Jayadvaita Swami has misunderstood how romance novels function on the female psyche. It usually comes in the form of pining after some man you can’t have, and he wants to protect his female. Not aggressively and “manly” rape her, which kind of opposes the whole idea of protecting females. So can we please just lay to rest this idea of the female psyche.
I know no women who wants the advances of an aggressive and “manly” man.
On the contrary the statements of Jayadvaita Swami and Srila Prabhupada shows a huge lack of understanding of the female psyche. Stating that women thinks strong and aggressive men are sexually desirable can *drive* rape offenders towards their abominable acts. If you want males to sexually harass and rape women, those are the kinds of statements that supports it !
I find this whole article to be offensive towards women, and dangerously so.
We all accept Srila Prabhupada as a pure devotee, so how do we reconcile that he makes such statements? The trouble is that devotees take whatever comes out of the mouth of pure devotees so literal and to be absolute truths no matter what is said. The whole guru-disciple relationship encourages blind following and accepting without asking too many critical questions. Criticism is discouraged hugely within our movement, because it can destroy your spiritual life and is a huge offense.
We need to understand that pure devotees can be both omniscience and bewildered at the same time. This is how child abuse happened during the presence of Srila Prabhupada without him doing anything about it. Srila Prabhupada didn’t know because Krishna withheld these abominable acts from him.
Secondly, we have to differentiate between material matters and spiritual matters. I accept Srila Prabhupada wholeheartedly when it comes to spiritual matters. When it comes to statements concerning this material world (including women), I reserve the right to reject those statements without them in any way breach my faith in krishna consciousness or Srila Prabhupada.
We take a pure devotees word so literal when it comes to his statement about material nature that we try to explain away things that are not morally okey in any way. We lack the ability to separate between statements on spiritual and material matter. I will question statements on this material world, but accept everything in regard to the spiritual world. I wish more could make this crucial difference.
I just keep on coming back to Bhaktivinode Thakur who reserved the right to question everything in regards to material nature:
… the confidence to follow their ancestral religious traditions by showing how those traditions could plausibly be redefined and re-appropriated according to the culture of the modern world.
Hindu Encounter with Modernity page 136 – 137