February 8, 2012
12 Responses »
Leave a Reply
NOTE: Comments are moderated. Pensito Review reserves the right to eliminate spam, hate speech, personal attacks, abusive language and other objectionable material.
Most Recent
- Congress’ Approval Hits All-Time Low
- Gaffe-a-Day Romney Strikes Again
- The GOP Made Obama So Moderate
- The Right Froth
- Is Obama ‘Luckiest Man Alive?’
- Santorum Stealing Gingrich’s Thunder
- Republican Enthusiasm Waning
- Bush was a Bigger ‘Food Stamp President’ Than Obama
- Look, It’s SuperPACman!
- McCain Does Not Plan to Watch ‘Game Change’
Gimmeabreak. Saying that women are inherently more virtuous than men is just as bogus as saying they’re morally inferior.
I couldn’t agree more Ann.
This quote really offends me as a feminist even if it comes from one of my heroes.
I’m trying to put this into the context of his time and place and understand that he was going over the top to empower women. I just think this is a bad way to go about it.
One doesn’t have to tear down straight people to build up gay people. One doesn’t have to tear down white people to build up people of color and one doesn’t have to tear down men to build up women.
Too many people seem to not understand this.
No offense intended. I agree that Gandhi was a bit overwrought and over the top with this statement, but I think the nugget delivered in the last sentence is true. This quote resonated with an off-line conversation a while back between Jon, Trish and me. In assessing the big problems in the world right now and historically, we came to a consensus that most, if not all, of them were caused by men. Let me know if you can identify a really big global challenge that was caused by women. The sad thing about the conversation was, we, three pretty smart folks, could not come up with a solution to the “man problem.” Maybe you can. We’d be pleased to hear it.
If we have come to a point where a quote in praise of women by Mahatma Gandhi is called offensive, I fear what comes next.
For one thing, not to consider Gandhi’s statement in the context of its time, the early 20th Century, is to be too politically correct by half. In that era, a male world leader speaking in praise of women, not for their physical attributes or homemaking skills, but for their strength and courage, was considered radical thinking.
The particulars of Gandhi’s sentiments may have been rendered quaint as a by-product of feminism but to call them “offensive” is ridiculous.
Lincoln was a racist by the standards of the early 21st Century. Should we let his views about “darkies” negate the courage it took for him to draft and sign the Emancipation Proclamation?
I personally believe the world would be a better place if women ran it. Not a perfect place, just better. If that makes me a hidebound male chauvinist pig, so be it.
No matter who starts the wars it will always be the men who will be sent to fight them.
I would also like to point out that in these discussions men always get all the blame for being the aggressors but seldom get the same level credit for being the defenders.
By the way, I am female, and a life long feminist. I don’t need a lecture from Mr. Ponder or anyone else on women’s history or the historical oppression of women.
Reread my orignal comment. You missed my point.
Um, are we seeing Lincoln being quoted about “darkies” nowadays? I don’t think so.
I’m not offended that Gandhi said that, and I’m not upset that early suffragists made a similar argument–that women should have the right to vote because they’re morally superior. I just don’t expect to see a quote like that WITHOUT any context or comment. And my comment is…that’s BS. A pedestal can be as limiting as a cage.
Ann – “Quote du Jour” is daily-ish feature that has a specific format — just the quote and a word or two about the quotee. Never any context. Here’s a link to the QDJ archives.
Whoa Now – You are right. I am missing your point. My point is that Gandhi, like Lincoln, was a product of his times. The sociological atmospherics between then and now can’t be synched up.
Both my gay and feminist bona fides are in good order, but I think Gandhi gets extra points for being well-intentioned because he was, well, Gandhi.
Yes yes yes, I understand the format of QDJ. Geez, maybe now you’ll explain what all these shiny buttons are for. If people aren’t supposed to RESPOND to the quotes, perhaps the comments feature should be turned off?
I’d like to know what the limits of the “product of his times” apology are. It seems to be such a catch-all. Aren’t we all the products of our times? Should people then always be let off the hook for any attitudes that are commonly held? Obviously not. It’s just a lazy argument.
A quote gets posted, I call it BS, and suddenly I’m not supposed to object to it because it was from an earlier era? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Then with the Lincoln analogy you drag in a COMPLETE strawman argument suggesting that I’m dismissing all of Gandhi’s accomplishments because I don’t like his attitude toward women as represented by this quote. I’ve done nothing of the kind. Please try to respond to what people actually say.
I won’t even touch the notion that there are political and historical figures who should be immune from criticism.
And “in the context of his times,” it wasn’t at all unusual for a man to praise women for moral superiority. In fact, that myth was used for more than a century to keep women OUT of the public sphere. The only twist Gandhi contributed was suggesting that men might consider being more like his fantasy women.
Ann, I’m just astounded by this. If you understood the format of the Quotes du Jour series then why on earth did you chastise us for not providing context in a format that doesn’t provide context?
I’m also amazed that you would unashamedly admit that you think historical context is irrelevant. Whether you believe it or not, it is a fact that attitudes towards race, women’s roles and gay people have changed drastically over the last 50 years.
It is also a fact that these changes did not happened by accident. They changed because people who were inspired by Gandhi devoted their lives to making them change. He was the world’s pioneer in non-violent resistance through civil disobedience and his success in India was the impetus for movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.
Most notably in the U.S., Gandhi was the inspiration for Martin Luther King, who led the African-American civil rights movement in the 1960s, for which he, like Gandhi, was martyred. King’s methods inspired the women’s movement in the 1970s and the gay rights movement that is still ongoing.
To toss Gandhi on the trash heap of chauvinism because he expressed the opinion that women are morally superior to men is just outrageous.
Ann, I have a question. Are you offended by the Gandhi quote itself or by the fact that I chose to post it?
Jon,
1. I didn’t “chastise” anyone for not providing context. I said I don’t expect to see a quote like that without context or comment. That doesn’t mean “I don’t expect to see a QDJ without context or comment” either, because “a quote like that” and “”QDJ” aren’t the same thing. If QDJ did indeed post a racist quote from Lincoln, I would similarly be surprised.
2. “Unashamedly admit that you think historical context is irrelevant.” How can I even respond to a statement this stupid? I certainly did not admit any such thing.
3. “Toss Gandhi on the trash heap of chauvinism.” Apparently I have to actually quote myself here: “with the Lincoln analogy you drag in a COMPLETE strawman argument suggesting that I’m dismissing all of Gandhi’s accomplishments because I don’t like his attitude toward women as represented by this quote. I’ve done nothing of the kind.”
Finally, Buck, please re-read the part where I say “I’m not offended that Gandhi said that.” Now please find a part where I said that I was offended AT ALL. YOu cannot. That’s because I’m not offended.
“No offense,” but christonacrutch, can you people READ?? There is absolutely no point in having a discussion with people who are unable to respond to what is actually said.