Thank you for acknowledging my ‘experience’.
I would speculate when monastics help laypeople with problems, such as providing counselling, they majority of people helped are women. Of course, the more bhikkhunis the better so to relieve the monks of this.
My point is, from the outset, that monks are not intrinsically sexist bad guys towards women.
[quote=“Brenna, post:13, topic:3209”]
I did not mean to infer that women’s roles in monasteries are exclusively negotiated by men – but historically and in the present day they often are; to imply that women have a valued and equal voice in proportion to men would be simplistic and unrealistic.[/quote]
I am not sure what is being referred to above. When I lived in a monastery, everyone, both men & women, had their communal duties to perform. I did not notice any power issues there since two primary activities occurred: (i) meditating; and (ii) service (apart from some power relationships between individuals).
That is why I previously asked Sujato what the fuss is all about (apart from the petty squabbles that occur over worldly matters).
[quote=“Brenna, post:13, topic:3209”]
I don’t understand why useful is in quotation marks. Was she not useful? [/quote]
The nun provided a useful & important social function. However, I was not prepared to emotionally support the nun because I am a stronger believer in the goals of meditation, which is liberation. I enjoy solitude.
Overall, I was providing an example of nuns relying on monks (since you seemed to provide a link to an article that seemed to assert monastics view women as sexual hindrances, power threats or similar, as though women are ‘all-powerful’). I was pointing out that monks & men in monasteries are often required to help women.
Naturally, I cannot agree here since I do not regard the attachment or clinging of women to their families, spouse & offspring and their instincts towards nurturing as “degrading”. To the contrary, I find it ethical, virtuous & life affirming; just as my own mother clung to her family, through thick & thin, to provide for their welfare.
[quote=“Brenna, post:13, topic:3209”]
These ideals were prominent 2600 years ago, but as a modern practice are greatly un-beneficial. Merely because the suttas state women’s ‘intentions’ does not suggest that they are correct. Also, be mindful of the fact that these ideals were vocalized and written down by men who potentially had very little direct experience and interaction with women.[/quote]
In my sincere opinion, I find the above ideals are greatly un-beneficial since, as a man, I have no issues in viewing women as assertive, goal orientated, demanding & domineering. In my life experience, the sutta is an accurate representation.
Do you expect me to disregard the sutta & my own experience and accept your portrait that women are generally meek, pure, saintly & non-demanding, who act without any self-interest like Mahayana Bodhisatvas?
I personally have no issues with assertive & domineering women (although, naturally, I am not prepared to marry them & fulfill their expectations towards men. Instead, I choose a celibate life of freedom).
My post was merely about underlying tendencies & monastic ‘dynamics’ rather than a condemnation of what I regard as a woman’s domineering tendency, which I view positively (since I am not partial to submissive women).
I do not recall commenting on monks criticizing nuns. I am sure there are rules about this. I doubt young monks are allowed to criticize senior nuns.
I personally have never experienced women forbidden to teach the Dhamma. Even the 10-precept- nuns from Amaravati were flying around the world (in planes rather than by using psychic powers) as world-wide Dhamma teachers. Personally, I don’t really know what the issue is here? In every Dhamma centre & monastery I have visited, be it Theravada or Mahayana, women teach.
My point was the monastery has always been essentially a male domain since it was the men that left the household life for freedom. To accommodate women in the monastery, I trust the monks have had to take up many responsibilities, burdens & sacrifices; just like monks are often counselling women.
It is wonderful bhikkhunis can currently establish monasteries in relative safety but that has not always been the case.
I did not post what you have inferred. I merely referred to a tendency or anusaya. Are you denying women search for mates? Do you hold the view that it is men that impregnate women by force, against the will of women?
As for ‘an androcentric framework’, I do not recall mentioning such a concept. I merely made an argument for the separation of the sexes & particularly problems in nuns teaching monks. I certainly am in favour of bhikkhuni empowerment in primarily supervising their own monastic affairs.
I do think women are useful for teaching worldly men morality (sila), such as sexual morals that fulfil the moral expectations of women (rather than leaving the difficult tasks to monks of trying to explain sexual misconduct to men). Apart from that, the Dhamma is the teacher thus I see no reason why a women in particular needs to preach Dhamma to me. If I hear a ‘woman’ preaching about Emptiness (Sunnata), like Tenzin Palmo used to do when she was fresh & clear from her cave, that inspired me. As a man, I am inspired to hear a woman talk about her own freedom.
Why? Because I have spent lots of time in my life trying to help women & the more women that find freedom the better. I suppose that is why I personally disagree with sexist feminist comments degrading male monastics & men in general.
With metta & equality in discussion 
