I suggest watching for moments when a woman gets shut down by a man, and say something.
Usually nothing confrontational is needed; you can simply take the next opportune moment to pivot everyone’s attention to back to the woman who got silenced: “I think Lisa had something to say. Lisa? Did you have something you wanted to add?” Or, “Oh, say, Lisa, were you through speaking a moment ago?”
[Edit 1: Or you can politely stop the guy in the act: “Oh, sorry Tim, I think Lisa was speaking,” then exaggeratedly turn to face Lisa.]
[Edit 2: Another way to help is to echo a woman’s points when men aren’t listening to her, or to voice approval of the woman’s points when men are acting irrationally dismissive towards her.]
It’s great to have an ally, and I often do this myself for other women, but the voice of a male ally is more powerful and authoritative. A guy can verbally karate chop another man from stealing a woman’s power.
Thanks Ayya, that’s great practical advice. As you say, men often have no idea that they are actually doing the things you describe, and it needs to be drawn to their attention.
I was a little worried that this comment could be construed like this, so thanks for raising it so that I can try to clarify
I know that in ‘my’ past lives I was unwise, and unskillful - I’m born as a human and there has been/is suffering in my life. Lots of room for improvement/perfection
Suffering is not restricted to or determined by male or female forms.
Kamma is complicated… There is no way to know that due to specific actions, such as being unkind, and hurtful to people of the opposite gender means you will come back in that other gender… Rather, no matter what the exact expression of the kamma, the causes for my current life, were put in place by my past unskillful actions…
I suppose I was just trying to make it clear that to view ourselves only as a male or female is quite a limited view, and that this strong identification with gender is part of the problem.
I am under no illusions that I have been perfect in any bodily form. Given the depth of delusion that identification with gender elicits, I have little doubt that in previous (male) lives, I was just as subject to delusion as any other being, so the chances that ‘I’ was a misogynist in a past life, are very high.
There is no ownership here though… WE are all on a path through the conditioned realm, in whatever bodies we currently have, looking for a way to let go, and unbind from suffering . Seeing the dangers inherent in gender bias though, gives all beings an opportunity to avoid unskillful behaviour, and to be more skillful, and create more good kamma
I hope this clarifies what I meant a little better
Just one further observation. This is just my view at this time. So not worth very much and certainly not worth arguing over.
Personally I would love to find a way to be neither male nor female - it just causes so much trouble. Unfortunately existing in a human body, in human society, one gets placed into narrowly pre-determined roles.
The Buddhas Path of renunciation always seemed so lovely in this respect. From the time one undertakes the 8 precepts, one is moving away from normative gender roles. By shaving the head and wearing of robes, this distancing from gender is taken even further, with very little outward sign of gender differences.
Unfortunately it hasn’t proven to be enough to erase the effects of gender identification on human communities. These days I realise that it is my wishful/fantasy thinking that ‘thinks’ we should be able to move beyond it… but this is just my view, my hope and my fantasy, and not in line with the reality of things - just like at the time of The Buddha, it was not the reality of things. So I appreciate the wisdom that went into the development of the original rules, in outlining ways that communities can live together in harmony, as Ayya @Charlotteannun has indicated. (sorry about the name usage , not sure what your preference on this forum is)
Unfortunately those original rules have not remained static, … which has created its own problems… but this is getting into another topic
These days I just try to do my best, in whatever circumstances arise. I don’t want to monopolise this topic, so am bowing out now
From a legal point of view this is correct in most countries, but from a scientific point of view I believe that this is now incorrect and this old belief is a source of many of the problems that we see.
I would be interested in the definition for the ‘two sexes’ that you are using, which leads you to assume that it is a fact that our species is split into two as opposed to say a spectrum of possibilities? From my understanding, there are many scientific (biology) definitions of male and female (for our species and across species). They differ from sub-discipline to sub-discipline within biology, and indeed these definitions vary within sub-disciplines of human physiology. Some of them are mutually exclusive; others are only relevant in a particular sub-discipline. So I’m interested to know if you mean “it’s a fact” from a legal perspective or from our current scientific understanding. If the latter, I would be interested in the definition that you are using.
For me “it’s a fact” that our species is divided into two, in the same way that, in the past, the majority of people would have had you believe that “it’s a fact” that the earth is flat. In a little time, it will be rare for people to believe in dividing the species into two. But this can only start to happen when we give up binding half the population at birth to worse education, lower opportunities and second class status by ticking a box on a birth certificate.
In the UK, our National Health Service (NHS) now specifies ‘maleness’, and ‘femaleness’ as a spectrum of characteristics with a spectrum of possibilities within each characteristic (a multi-dimensional spectrum if you will). To get to the legal definition (which is a legal requirement for the NHS) they mark each of an individuals salient characteristics out of 100, and then add them together. If the individual gets over 50% for femaleness, then they are female (for the purpose of the birth certificate), under 50%, they are male (for the purpose of the birth certificate). Very few, if any, score a perfect 0 or a perfect 100. There are “scientifically” very few, if any ‘males’ and ‘females’ born in the UK. But legally 50% of the population is female and 50% are male.
As an aside the word ‘species’ is another word borrowed from biology with many understandings.
Aww Shucks I had really hope to duck out of this discussion, but you raise a hugely valid point
I completely agree with what you say I don’t believe that our species is validly split into 2 My definition was used in the grossest and most clumsy ways that pop-culture society deals with categorisation. Really, if we get down to it, the definition could be ‘male’ and ‘other’, because anything perceived as deviating away from ‘cis’ male is seen as inferior. But I did not want to splinter the focus by being too precise in the definitions and get bogged down in details… My whole aim has been to try and be detached from gender, rather than focus more on it… Lets look at it as though we were ‘Arupas’ looking on at these humans with bodies it is not the ‘body’ that creates the difficulties, but the minds attaching to those bodies - so that is where I think we should focus - how our minds deal with gender… though now this is hugely hugely removed from the OP. I’d suggest creating a new topic if you’d like to discuss this further.
lol I’m doing a terrible job as a Moderator here, as I’m obviously invested in this discussion… Can we have some grown -up mods to take over please
Ayya whilst I sympathise with you entirely is snowflake a gender based pejorative? Is this kind of speech what we are trying to move away from. I am not sure exactly what a snowflake is but it sounds not very masculine.
Snowflakey (as I understand it) mean presenting as unique and special; as in, I am a special case, so what I say means whatever I want, not what the words might mean in any other case…
“Snowflake” comes up in childhood education to describe children who feel they need/deserve special treatment. (Or whose parents feel their child does.) As with @ERose I did not hear it as gendered.
and certainly not worth arguing over.
, not sure what your preference on this forum is)
