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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.