![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusYllllgh. I hate Gilbert & Gubar.
As a former Buddhist nun I hate every millisecond of their -- oh, what's the most recent gem? -- Yeah. "Conventlike life-in-death." It reminds me that Protestantism developed as a reaction against Catholicism and thus anti-monastic distrust runs deep in our culture. Then feminism developed in reaction to Protestantism during the sexual revolution. So you've got that triple whammy of reaction against Protestantism, reaction even more strongly against Catholicism (which is worse in the feminist book), and on top of that you have sexuality as validating yourself as female (and therefore anything non-sexual as invalidating) because of the Christian history concerning chastity.
What does this have to do with Buddhist monasticism?
Nothing. There is no Eve in South Asia. There is no Eden. There's no apple. No history of "chastity" of women. (Read the kamasutra lately? There's no virgin/whore dichotomy in a culture that has no virgin.) Asceticism is largely a male space, a place of honor in that society, in which women are only grudgingly accepted. You must be bold to step into that role.
My lip curls in frustration and disgust as I begin to see why feminists in my past have been so very wrong-headed about Buddhist monasticism, how utterly ignorant, hard-headed, and unable to conceive of another culture and-- argh! I'm re-fighting old arguments in my mind now that I know what they were talking about, knowing full well that even if I had this information, they would be incapable of listening. It's not that South Asian society isn't sexist, it's just sexist in such a different way that none of this applies.
If there are any questions why I'm having trouble forcing myself to write these essays, that just answered them.
If you were wondering. Which you probably weren't. But anways....
*returns to sneering at this artefact of feminism as defined by Christianity, holding it away from me with two fingers, as if it smells bad*
As a former Buddhist nun I hate every millisecond of their -- oh, what's the most recent gem? -- Yeah. "Conventlike life-in-death." It reminds me that Protestantism developed as a reaction against Catholicism and thus anti-monastic distrust runs deep in our culture. Then feminism developed in reaction to Protestantism during the sexual revolution. So you've got that triple whammy of reaction against Protestantism, reaction even more strongly against Catholicism (which is worse in the feminist book), and on top of that you have sexuality as validating yourself as female (and therefore anything non-sexual as invalidating) because of the Christian history concerning chastity.
What does this have to do with Buddhist monasticism?
Nothing. There is no Eve in South Asia. There is no Eden. There's no apple. No history of "chastity" of women. (Read the kamasutra lately? There's no virgin/whore dichotomy in a culture that has no virgin.) Asceticism is largely a male space, a place of honor in that society, in which women are only grudgingly accepted. You must be bold to step into that role.
My lip curls in frustration and disgust as I begin to see why feminists in my past have been so very wrong-headed about Buddhist monasticism, how utterly ignorant, hard-headed, and unable to conceive of another culture and-- argh! I'm re-fighting old arguments in my mind now that I know what they were talking about, knowing full well that even if I had this information, they would be incapable of listening. It's not that South Asian society isn't sexist, it's just sexist in such a different way that none of this applies.
If there are any questions why I'm having trouble forcing myself to write these essays, that just answered them.
If you were wondering. Which you probably weren't. But anways....
*returns to sneering at this artefact of feminism as defined by Christianity, holding it away from me with two fingers, as if it smells bad*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 10:55 am (UTC)Cultures that aren't communal, i.e. that do assign paternity and rights connected to that (like the Western world, like Arab world, like parts of Africa, although I am woefully ignorant here), have a very, very bad habit of controlling women's sexuality.
This is not Western per se at all: Look at Arabia and the tribal culture. Look at Africa and genital mutilation. It's all about either making sex so lethal that women refrain, or so painful and orgasm-less that they leave it be.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 11:15 am (UTC)Families are incredibly complicated. There are detailed descriptions in the Mahabharata of who can be considered an heir that includes illegitimate sons, the son of the secondary wife, the son of a wife of higher rank, the son of a maid/person of lower caste, adopted sons, nephews, sons fathered upon your wife by someone of a higher caste or by another member of your family if you happen to be impotent, and onward.
A lot of times they were scraping for an heir. There wasn't that "one woman must produce an heir from this one man" that results in chastity being terribly important.
Now you do see babies abandoned by unmarried women of higher caste (not so much the lower castes) but women were considered highly sexual beings -- and that was that. Just the way it was.
That's largely why women were considered incapable of the hardships of asceticism, because they were thought too weak to resist their own sexual drives.
So from the perspective of Asian culture, Gilbert & Gubar are unlining that insulting message that women are incapable of monasticism.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 11:19 am (UTC)Ah-hah, thanks for that background! Didn't know that, and now your criticism makes a lot more sense.
That said, India isn't all of Asia--especially re: Arab desert tribe culture, I would be very surprised if there aren't similar mechanisms of control and misogyny at play in the deserts and steppes further North.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 11:40 am (UTC)China is a completely different matter, Neo-Confucianism under the Song and after brought out a tight control of women. That largely had to do with the wealth they were gaining through huge dowries, and a negative reaction to a corrupt Empress (though Confucianism has rather nasty things to say about women and power). Typically practical Chinese. They weren't so concerned about the sex as the political power that came with wealth.
Tibet practiced polyandry (not such a feminist breakthrough as it seems -- multiple husbands meant that Tibetans didn't have to divide limited land, and the house was passed down through the maternal line, while the yaks, etc., whatever were passed down through the paternal line). Birth rates were so low that a woman monastic was greatly discouraged although a son who was a monk was a feather in the family's cap. Extramarital sex was winked at, gossiped about, but if it resulted in a baby--say hello to your new in-law, kiddo.
The Mongols, Uigyurs, Turks, Central Asia, and whatnot I know little about.
In Heian Japan, pre-marital sex was the norm, but women had very little security and were often abandoned by men. They'd be a favorite for a while, be supported and richly cared for, and then the man would lose interest. Women became accidentally important because of the insular nature of Japanese court life. The only way you could gain influence was to have a beautiful daughter who was trained to be perfect--fashionable, elegant, artistic, musical, a poet--and hope she became a favorite and maybe got to marry someone important.
Islamic culture I tend to group in the Judeo-Christian cluster because Islam also includes various books of the bible and considers Abraham and Jesus and whatnot to be prophets.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 10:32 am (UTC)2. I knew that about Tibet. *g* I read a lot, or used to, anyways.
Extramarital sex was winked at, gossiped about, but if it resulted in a baby--say hello to your new in-law, kiddo.
Heh. And wow. Now why do Stargate Atlantis writers not explore this in their fiction--the scarcity of babies, the fear of losing one's line in addition to that property.
The Mongols, Uigyurs, Turks, Central Asia, and whatnot I know little about.
You and the rest of the world--I'd bet that even the Chinese know little (truth) about them.
Women became accidentally important because of the insular nature of Japanese court life. The only way you could gain influence was to have a beautiful daughter who was trained to be perfect--fashionable, elegant, artistic, musical, a poet--and hope she became a favorite and maybe got to marry someone important.
Depressing. But not too unusual either; nobility in the Middle Ages worked similar enough, if probably less extreme.
Islamic culture I tend to group in the Judeo-Christian cluster because Islam also includes various books of the bible and considers Abraham and Jesus and whatnot to be prophets.
Hmm, culturally I'd say this comparison doesn't work--Islam retains its Tribal Culture Roots, whereas these have been long (and thankfully) been abandoned by mainstream Judaism, and of course Christianity brought its own problems that however don't pertain to this particular desert way of living.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-18 10:10 pm (UTC)Korea has a Shamanistic tradition (that predates Buddhism and Confucianism) that relies on female shamans exclusively. That tradition continues into the present and elements of shamanism are focused on locations that are important to special deities and, iirc, people who are ill will go to one of these women shamans.
For this reason, women had an important spiritual role in Korea, and as Buddhism began in the 3rd and 4th century, it was largely spread by Korean Buddhist nuns. A Buddhist nun would have a dream of a particular local deity and then request that a monastery be built on that location. (Men couldn't have these special dreams apparently.)
Later as China began to dominate the region you had Sinefication. The Korean Imperial palace actually mimicked the Chinese palace. There seems to have been a stratification, with Confucianism and Buddhism followed at the upper levels of government, while a mix of Buddhism and Shamanism was practiced by regular folk. I understand Neo-Confucianism also swept through Korea but this gets beyond the periods that I've studied. Neo-Confucianism has almost always been bad for women, but Korean woman have had more dominant political and spiritual roles than Chinese women.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 10:36 am (UTC)*spit-take*
Korea has a Shamanistic tradition (that predates Buddhism and Confucianism) that relies on female shamans exclusively. That tradition continues into the present and elements of shamanism are focused on locations that are important to special deities and, iirc, people who are ill will go to one of these women shamans.
Huh. Must ask my friends of that background about it; it sounds fascinating. Spiritual power usually translates into actual power, and again, that's not just a Church/Western thing--Native American holy men, Buddhist monks, certainly the Brahmans in Hinduism....
Neo-Confucianism has almost always been bad for women, but Korean woman have had more dominant political and spiritual roles than Chinese women.
I'd be interested to see a contemporary analysis. Considering Korea's independence now, I wonder how much of this stronger role has been preserved.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 07:51 am (UTC)The misunderstanding comes from mistaking the semiotic meaning of "nun" in certain texts and contexts with actual nuns.
Even in a Christian context, the real nuns are human beings with complex motivations and lives. They cannot be reduced to a "nun" symbol. That is nothing more than a flat sterotype, no more accurate than any other stereotype.
But stereotypes are used to create meaning, in this case in order to convey a feminist message. Only a superficial reading of that meaning will confuse real nuns with the symbolic "nun." People are that stupid, however, which is what makes stereotypes, no matter how useful, dangerous.
In a South Asian context the same semiotic meaning that is conveyed by the stereotypical image of a "nun" (that has no relationship to the reality) is conveyed instead by the symbol of "caste."
Not how caste really functions in Indian society (a complicated affair where Brahmans can be just as poor as any outcaste) but the idea of caste embodied in the standard four varnas (I'm sure you're familiar with the clerical, king, merchant, servant roles).
These symbols are used to create and convey a political message. But it's important not to misunderstand the symbol and then discriminate against--or hey, insult--the real persons in those roles.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 10:45 am (UTC)Even in a Christian context, the real nuns are human beings with complex motivations and lives. They cannot be reduced to a "nun" symbol. That is nothing more than a flat sterotype, no more accurate than any other stereotype.
I agree about the stereotype, but if you look at diversity and positions, a Christian a "nun" is very different from, say, a "nurse." The latter is entirely an individual, with the small exception of certain elements of and about her work(place). The nun may hold her views and opinions, but she certainly cannot stand up for her individualised views when they don't match the official stance of her order.
Well, in my country, she could, but even here, that only goes so far.
Only a superficial reading of that meaning will confuse real nuns with the symbolic "nun." People are that stupid, however, which is what makes stereotypes, no matter how useful, dangerous.
I second that. Meh.
In a South Asian context the same semiotic meaning that is conveyed by the stereotypical image of a "nun" (that has no relationship to the reality) is conveyed instead by the symbol of "caste." Not how caste really functions in Indian society (a complicated affair where Brahmans can be just as poor as any outcaste) but the idea of caste embodied in the standard four varnas (I'm sure you're familiar with the clerical, king, merchant, servant roles).
Yes, both with the (rough! I don't know the sub-castes beyond the highest level) system and the term itself. And heh, yes. Having stayed with Brahmans for a while, cared for, got my bronchitis treated the Ayurvedan way, I sure know they weren't exceedingly rich, although not poor by Indian standards, of course.
But it's important not to misunderstand the symbol and then discriminate against--or hey, insult--the real persons in those roles.
Amen. I completely agree. Thanks for this.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 11:12 am (UTC)...if you look at diversity and positions, a Christian a "nun" is very different from, say, a "nurse." The latter is entirely an individual, with the small exception of certain elements of and about her work(place). The nun may hold her views and opinions, but she certainly cannot stand up for her individualised views when they don't match the official stance of her order.
Having been a nun I have to say that this is part of the stereotype. It tends to be an insular society so our many divisions are not played out in public--not because of the order, but because of the extreme reactions of the public towards monastics. This is true of Asia and the US.
The public is ever ready to tar the entire religion, which we care about, with the same brush if they any division or anything they don't like. It's sort of like being the CEO. You are the face of that organization.
An extreme example: the child-molesting Catholic priests. There are a lot of daycare workers who've been arrested for child molestation, but it hasn't tarnished the reputations of daycare workers worldwide. The Catholic priest thing has impacted people's opinion of all monks, even of Buddhist and other religions.
A less extreme example: my riding on the hood of a car while the monk driving it did a donut, laughing my ass off. We were just blowing off some steam after a heavy construction project. A layperson informed me that visitors would get a bad impression. We could only goof around inside the monastery.
The same thing happened at my work. I was sliding down a hillside, squealing, and my boss commented that if I weren't a nun, I'd be pretty wild. I got the semi-sexual "party girl" way he was interpreting it and, disappointed, I cut it out (until I got home).
There are more examples. A monk friend of mine, Tashi, got stopped for speeding and the cop, well, he recognized the robes and mentioned it. The monk got that he was held to a higher standard and couldn't speed any more.
Because to outsiders we represent the religion and not ourselves (which sucks, by the way) we can't be ourselves. That enforced from the outside, not from the order.
Inside the monastery? Hell, everyone knew that Tashi was a speed demon and I played like a kid.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 11:21 am (UTC)Heh.
I see your examples and nod--my personal reaction is certainly a positive one; it reinforces my belief in individuality (and since you read my LJ, I'll assume you know I'm into that and not following the herd at all times...only sometimes). Also, there's of course the issue I don't like humans but do love a lot of single humans. But what makes me smile and cheer doesn't have parts of the public or the establishment react in the same way; that's what I meant.
Yeah, definitely true. And very sad.
There *is* a bias against daycare workers, though; people are more suspicious these days. But as always, the parents who have their eyes and ears open are not the parents of the kids preyed upon....
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 11:59 am (UTC)Other people didn't feel the same, so like any community I had to grapple with my own ideas vs. the community consensus. That consensus wasn't established by "Buddhism" so much as by which faction of the monastics was in power. I've had that problem in fandom. I still feel that fanfiction needs to be de-mystified and familiar to make it not so much of a threat, but other people didn't agree. Buddhism was no different. Sometimes I had to yield to the community consensus. Under protest.
Since I was anti-authoritarian (note that nothing in Buddhism supports this, it's just me) I was always going to toe-to-toe with the latest dominant faction--which meant it was never my view in charge. *g* Er. I may have possibly thrown a cup of coffee at a certain head monk at a certain point....
In terms of the spiritual stuff, I was traditionalist--if it wasn't in the books, they could stick it. The Dharma was my refuge. Others were more interpretive and selective.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 12:10 pm (UTC)Oh, I get that.
I hope it wasn't scalding hot? & ;-)
Hmm, I think all communities tend to cling to the status quo. Humans are surprisingly conservative unless, of ocurse, things get so bad that the only way is up.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 12:32 pm (UTC)He was being a pompous ass. But I missed and managed to nail half the people in the room. I walked away saying, "I'm so sorry! I'm so sorry!"
A friend said, "What are you sorry for? That was great!"
I said, "I'm sorry I didn't hit him with the whole cup!"
Hmm, I think all communities tend to cling to the status quo. Humans are surprisingly conservative unless, of ocurse, things get so bad that the only way is up.
This was a new monastery so we didn't really have a status quo. Yet. Instead each person had their own idea of what they wanted to see. And personalities and talents played a large part of this.
No coincidence that the woman who had been a highly successful executive at an insurance agency before she was a nun ended up climbing to the top and running things. We take ourselves into this world. She and I crossed swords many times.
She was all about public image and regimentation, with a laxness about the traditional calendar and an emphasis on fundraising over... substance, in my opinion. She had a "build it and they will come" approach. I felt that you focus on the spiritual practices and retreats (that's what we were about, right?) and then you developed the support, the funding et al, because you're doing it.
Oh yeah, we got along greeeeeaaaaaat. Maybe I was naive, but you get into an endless fundraising loop.
Most of our clashes were over stupid little things of course. I had an ugly pair of black leather sneakers that looked ridiculous with my robes. I was trying to work on my vanity (not that I was going to tell her that). Once I no longer cared I looked absurd, I would buy new sneakers. This drove her bonkers.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 01:10 pm (UTC)I agree with the latter stance, but then again, I cannot see myself in a monastery in the first place.
Huh. I like this approach.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 11:24 am (UTC)This creates most of the tension between monastics. The Lamas were forever saying we had to just deal with our own religion, not the religion of each other. There are different beliefs, different backgrounds, different opinions of what is important in the religion and what's not... living in a monastery is the fastest road to tolerance I know. Otherwise you'll strangle your roommate.
One example... there was a nun I knew who was into rebirthing. She genuinely believed that you could, through rebirthing, remember past lives. To me that's tin hat territory, there are lots of Buddhist teachings that say only if you're an arhat can you remember past lives. But whatever. I smiled and nodded every time she brought it up.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 11:32 am (UTC)Oh, yeah. I don't doubt that depending on the religion and the order, the diversity of opinion is great. Inside, that is, for the reasons we talked about.
*g* This makes me smile. Very true, though. And I wonder if that isn't one aspect of the whole idea--away from hermits who find enlightenment under a Bodhi tree or speak to God in the desert after living on honeyed locusts.
Best course of action, no doubt.