an observation

[Susthama]

I've just finished reading the discussion thread on 'What's Buddhist about Engaged Buddhism' and found it wide ranging and thought provoking in many ways.

But one of the reasons for starting this thread was to share my observation that out of 27 replies only 2 were from women. I don't know if there is anything worth discussing here and so I thought I'd check.

[Kenny Lewis]

Thank you for saying that, infact only the other day I was reflecting on Anthrology and discussing the link between Patriachy and the rise of the 'technoligies', even from the 'spear' one realises the one with the better technology can 'stay on top'.

I digress,.... around 10,000 years ago and further back, the civilisations were based on Matriachy, and although we can see Female and Mother dieties now we are still in 'Patriachial Phase' overall.

I think Matriachy should be on it's way back soon enough, it is prior and by definition older which of course means it is more natural.

Shall we move over?

Namo Amida Bu.

[Susthama]

Thank you for this.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in a dialogue. I'm now interested in finding out some more about the gender make up of this site and the proportion of responses in each group.

It's seems to me that what matriarchy, if you like, or the feminine spirit can add is a different quality and perhaps even a different style or mode of communicating. And rather than men moving to one side what might be interesting to see is whether there is room for something different.

I suppose, if I am honest, I found much of the discussion about engaged Buddhism academic and intellectual and wondering whether others found it a bit too heady or if it was just me. It did make me wonder some things like, perhaps, I need to engage in a different way? I don't have any answers yet but am left with a feeling that Engaged Buddhism is important to me and if I felt this way about this discussion then how can I make myself engage with it in a Buddhist way? What is it that I can do to relate to it better? What does this issue mean to me? and hopefully make it more meaningful to others?

[Robert McCarthy]

and heres another mans view. a few bits and pieces really. i dont know the gender balance of friends but i notice photos and there seem to be many men and women on board. so does this group itself not attract female readers or does its tone turn off female responses? I suspect the answer is coming- now that you have drawn attention to only two responses from women- if there are women members reading the posts they would be drawn to comment and if this discussion does not draw such comment my suspicion is that the subject matter is not drawing interest.
My focus has been in practical activism throughout my life. While that has involved much reading and writing of a political nature, i have no academic background beyond some tertiary sociology and economics. I make this comment because I am out of my league in this group in understanding a number of discussions. and that is not a criticism as i know that this can be an area of complexity and language needs to reflect that.
This is the nature of the situation. some stuff will be heady, some stuff will be hearty. like our members maybe with more dominant head and heart orientation. and with academic and non academic backgrounds.
having said my bits and pieces, what I believe we need to do shortly is make this situation known outside of this group and in a spirit of asking members to notice within any of their groups similar imbalances. knowing the situation is the first step. namo amida bu

[Susthama]

It's fascinating - I've just counted up our members (there are some who haven't specified which sex they are and their name isn't enough to go by) and what a great group of people!!! There are roughly 244 men and 172 women which isn't quite 50:50 but more like 60:40.

I suppose there could be a number of reasons for joining in a discussion or not - I know that I find it difficult to read everything and keep up with all the discussions on this site. Plus it takes me a while to think about things and write a reply and so I usually find myself thinking that I should write something but rarely do I have enough time. (I've got a lot of other excuses...ehem)

I wonder - have you got an example of activism that you might like to share - I think a concrete expamle is the sort of thing that I need to get my teeth into when discussing what's Buddhist about engaged Buddhism.

I'm not suggesting that the discussion on engaged Buddhism isn't useful but was just struck by my own feelings about the difficulty in knowing how to engage with the discussion plus the initial observation.

Namo Amida Bu

[Robert McCarthy]

Susthama said:

Thank you for this.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in a dialogue. I'm now interested in finding out some more about the gender make up of this site and the proportion of responses in each group.

It's seems to me that what matriarchy, if you like, or the feminine spirit can add is a different quality and perhaps even a different style or mode of communicating. And rather than men moving to one side what might be interesting to see is whether there is room for something different.

I suppose, if I am honest, I found much of the discussion about engaged Buddhism academic and intellectual and wondering whether others found it a bit too heady or if it was just me. It did make me wonder some things like, perhaps, I need to engage in a different way? I don't have any answers yet but am left with a feeling that Engaged Buddhism is important to me and if I felt this way about this discussion then how can I make myself engage with it in a Buddhist way? What is it that I can do to relate to it better? What does this issue mean to me? and hopefully make it more meaningful to others?

[Robert McCarthy]

I apologise for a second consecutive post. actually a third. Its a little ironic that my most difficult post that came from energy re gender issues got lost because i am such a fool with technology. so let me see if i can reconstruct what i was saying.
Maybe we need a new group to discuss issues within the issues, difficulties and insecurities we have- a supportive path with heart. In this spirit i discuss some issues that i had not felt appropriate to discuss within existing forums- or maybe such a group exists and i havent noticed?
I am too sided in my discussions and i fear that alienates. My comment is not made to seek reassurance, it is a fault of mine. I particularly felt conflict in the posts on right leadership. My orientation is anarchist and i am sided. Dharmavidya is our leader- my love for him grows through my feel for his heart in his writings- but i did not have the maturity to write with enough heart in my posts. I also have no idea whether it is ego or love- a little too often i find i have the last word on threads and i fear i stifle discussion when i so want to flow with all in discussion.
i have yet to inititate a group or blog and consider that much thought and love needs to be given to such a group. so i welcome further discussion namo amida bu

[Susthama]

Issues within issues. . . hmm, sounds a bit complicated.

[Kenny Lewis]

Dear Susthama,

Thank you, yes I think discussion is the 'Gem in the Mist'

I agree that "It's seems to me that what matriarchy, if you like, or the feminine spirit can add is a different quality and perhaps even a different style or mode of communicating"

Also I agree that it 'feels odd' to approach Matriarchy for all of us as we have mainly experienced Patriachy in 'power' but it is the Women who must define it, I am a Man. To openly discuss our short comings is not really Patriachal.... but that does not account for the Matriarchal approach, which hopefully is more gentle, forgiving and nurturing from the outset?

[Susthama]

yes - sort of like handling Dukkha with a softness or tenderness as one would expect Quan Yin (the Bodhisattva of Compassion) to apply. For me, I think what is often so difficult to achieve in life is to face the Dukkha and handle it with kindness and gentleness - and so to see what is 'bad' or unwholesome and to approach it with courage and love. This is why engaged Buddhism is a gem. It has the power to change situations and to transform society but I think there is a role for both men and women to create this sort of power.

My feeling is that people will think that what is being suggested is that women should replace men in the position of power but I don't think that is what I am saying. I feel that if we have matriarchy at one end of the spectrum and patriarchy at the other then there may be a tendency to push the sexes further and further apart creating more of a divide. But, my sense is that we are talking about creating a style that is somewhere in the middle and thus bringing the genders closer together and thus forcing both sides to work and communicate with the other.

[Robert McCarthy]

I sure dont want women to replace men in their positions of power, as enlightened view grows it is the power that needs replacing. Similarly, as enlightened view grows is not gender identification part of the same personal identificaton that holds us in dukka? That needs looking at.
Gender identification surely has become normalised through the three poisons, not through love. disgusting repression of women over millenia has created very strong gender identificaiton. That creates an energy to resolve. That energy can also be fuelled by love or hate and that in reality is so obviously the situation. But ultimately i believe gender identification to be destructive as it creates a false other. The balance of energies which we perceive to be male or female resting in each one of us is another part of each persons uniqueness. another aspect of the diversity we treasure. We just find it very hard to trust in this because the situation is exploited not treasured throughout society.
Susthama, I did not introduce my second post so well i guess. when you discussed that only 2 of the 27 articles discussed in the forum were by women that is an issue within an issue. male energy is generally not perceived to be a softening, or contrite. Perhaps that is another way of saying what you reported in your post. I was grappling with some idea for a group and was a bit lost. discussion energy in society is towards assertion not contrition. I was wondering how we could turn that around a little.
Of course gender identification will continue to be energised in our world. But i finish with a question- is that how it should be in a pureland? If not, that should colour our attitude today.

[Susthama]

Hi Robert,

I think I agree with most of what you are saying and feel that there are many layers in this. And maybe because I am more sensitive or more uneasy with the gender issue I seem to feel it more than others.

And so to pick up on what you are saying and add my two bits: there is gender identification and there is self-investment and attachment to the self that can cause all manner of problems. And then on top of that there are social norms and expectations of men and women that depend very much on the culture each finds oneself in. And mixed into all of this are the family's views, ideas and choices made when bringing up sons and daughters.

It seems that if we strip away all these attachments and identifications we would indeed be left with individuals who have both male and female energies; strong, passionate, destructive and loving. But is this possible?

Oh - I see what you are saying now about issues within an issue. And yes, point taken. I agree that I do see this gender imbalance as an issue within an issue. Thanks for pointing that out - I guess I thought it best to tackle this here in this group rather than start an 'Issues Group'.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what sort of group you would like to start but can empathise in not knowing and feeling a bit lost when it comes to starting a group or even a discussion . . . unless it has to do with something for which I've got lots of irrational feelings.

[Robert McCarthy]

hi again susthama, what a funny morning. again i thought i had lost my previous post and rewrote it, then found it posted. anyway something else relevant pops into my head.
You asked earlier about an example of activism. Coincidentally, one action I was involved in led me to so question gender identification, due to the extremes of the situation. In the mid 1980s my wife of the time and I were central organizers of a two week peace camp outside a suburban military barracks that was vital to a us first nuclear strike capability. Thugs patrolled the streets at night looking to bash anyone from the camp, despite the presence of many children at night time both molotov cocktails and grenades used for war games were thrown into the camp. My wife and I received ongoing death threats. WIthin the camp women felt strongly repressed by many of the men present and organized a separate womens camp within the camp. I along with a few other men became some sort of honorary females who were welcome at the womens camp.
The extreme nature of the situation i think created shinjin. What on earth was happening in our vulnerable little community. Why do we work so hard to create separation, what is energising it? Arent we unique people and one flesh? I can never forget the loving embrace of those in the community that shared this feeling. Only in transition to our Pureland is this gender identification a necessary defence. Eventualy it is something to get over. Namo Amida Bu