“Although recognition and respect for some rights articulated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights can be found in the cultural references and religious texts of many communities, the traditional cultural norms and practices also include numerous discriminatory stipulations. The novelty of the Declaration and subsequent human rights documents is not only universalism – the notion that all people hold certain rights by virtue of being human – but is also the desire to end all forms of violations that have been allowed in existing cultures. In other words, international human rights follow a reactive pattern: as violations are noticed, the rights violated within prevailing cultures are enumerated in declarations and treaties to bring them under protection. In the case of women, many human rights violations and discrimination have been not only culturally permissible, but often encouraged or demanded by cultural norms. That is why CEDAW makes specific references to culture, as well as traditions and customs embodied in cultures, and emphasizes the need to change discriminatory cultural norms, values and practices.” - https://unchronicle.un.org/article/womens-rights-human-rights
I understand why there is discrimination between the elders and the new-comers but this is not the issue here - we are talking about sexism.
As far as I know, the recognition of seniority is not considered a human rights issue. I don’t feel there is anything pernicious about respecting seniority per se. It is not these facts per se that are important. However, if a female elder is not treated ‘equally’ to a male elder then, we have an issue.
If there is anything in the monastic codes - male or female - that leads to discrimination based on gender then, are you willing to ignore that fact? Are you willing to say this is acceptable in your eyes? If not, why not say so?
Are you OK about discriminatory monastic rules in Buddhism? The next logical question would be, if you don’t agree with them, do you choose to ignore them or, encourage change?
If there is a point-blank refusal to do anything about it even though you find this an affront to the basic rights of women then, that’s potentially problematic - IMO. It creates a dissonance between someones values and practice. If we believe that women’s rights should be respected and efforts should be made to do something about this kind of discrimination and, we simultaneously ignore it when it is part of the religion I/we practice - and celebrate - there is a contradiction in this (an ethical dilemma).
There is also an ethical contradiction in pointing out sexual discrimination against females in other religions - world-views - and not objecting to discrimination against females in our own religion - world view. We could argue that our form of discrimination is less troubling than the practices found in other religions and therefore, it is acceptable? This has not been said as of yet, would anyone like to highlight this and make much of it?
Perhaps, all religions could agree to cooperate and tell the ‘United Nations’ to deal with sexual discrimination in every other arena of life but to sanction it in religious practice? Would you have a problem with this?
Shall we make a distinction between religious rights and human rights? I can see how the present dysfunctional dynamic could be justified on these grounds. What we do in Buddhist practice is not to be considered a human rights issue - it is a matter of religious freedoms? We are free to discriminate and treat women as second-class citizens because our tradition says its OK - it is supported. In fact, something like this is actually being done - by some - but it is being done subtlety, implicitly - not explicitly.
This is why I drew attention to ‘spin’ and alternative facts. We really need to own this issue and not baffle ourselves and, others, through ideological persuasion.
Some - not all - religious conservatives, traditionalists and, fundamentalists, would have no problem with making a distinction between religious rights and human rights. They may be openly opposed to some other human rights - as well! As we know, some religions encourage their practitioners to shun, persecute or, kill there own family members, if they change their religion. This seems to be the general pattern we see everywhere?
Those who do not comply with a traditional or ‘accepted’ mandate in Theravada Buddhism may be shunned or ostracised - as in the case of ‘Ajahn Brahm et al.’. In some other religions/teachings, they like to up (or raise) the ante! We all know this, don’t we?
Why not say I don’t agree with this inequality of men and women practitioners in the Sangha and insist that it is not good-enough? If there is a willingness to acknowledge the problem and do something about it - even if it involves a departure from convention - then, this is a cause for happiness and joy. By doing this we are saying boo! to the fearful spectre of religious oppression. It will find another group of Buddhists to haunt and torment.
When there is a point-blank refusal to do anything about it out of fear of ostracisation, persecution etc. or, for some other reason then, we are faced with a choice. Be part of the problem, a supporter of the problematic dynamic through passive acceptance - through inaction - or, practice passive resistance.
Many Roman-Catholics - not all - are notorious for their passive acceptance. They disregard many of the teachings and practices required of them and, still insist on being Catholics. Many, have been conditioned at a young age to submit to the Church and, they have been told that if they are not Catholic, God would disapprove! They may live in fear of change and may refuse to leave the Church - even when some of them have suffered abuse. Violence and abuse can be subtle or gross - correct? This is something we best not emulate - IMO. We need to question everything - it goes with the territory!
We might also consider creating alternative forms of practice that keeps what we can all celebrate and is willing to let go of that which is unwholesome and, therefore, without benefit.
When we build something we need to create solid foundations. Otherwise cracks will appear etc. Our structure - what we build - may look nice but on closer inspection we will discover a problem. I am looking at the problem holistically and there is a problem with the foundations of practice - they are sexist.
Someone had to point out the issues here (there may be others). I have done my best to highlight the obvious ones! It makes me a bit sad that I felt the need to do this but somebody had to regardless of the consequences. It saddens me because it may sadden, annoy or, upset others who I care about. I believe what I have said is reasonably accurate? I hope it helps to awaken people or, at least clarify, why I see problems with the consensus view.
We really need to be the change we wish to see in the world. Cosmetic change does not deal with the underlying issue. If we are vitally concerned about human rights in Buddhism we need to ‘change’ fundamentally.
It seems we struggle to see clearly how human rights and, many other important issues are related to our practice together in fairly insular groups and, our individual practice. There is not a single good reason why it should remain this way!