Cults & Society
Department: Group Report

Hare Krishna: women

5/11

Fundamental Human Rights in ISKCON

Radha devi dasi

[continued]
Similarly, our language divides male and female members of our movement. When we say "devotees and matajis" (devotees and mothers), as we frequently do, we place women in a category separate from devotees. We may use or at least sanction by listening to others use derogatory names for women such as "witch," "Maya-devis"[x] with "no souls" and "razor like hearts." One of the most telling examples of this phenomenon is found in Srila Prabhupada's Lilamrta where the presence of devotees at one event is described by listing the names of the men present and adding "and their wives" at the end to acknowledge the presence of the female attendees. Thus, in one of the official histories of our movement, women have been, at least at times, robbed of their individual identities. This use of language, which in many cases is benignly motivated, facilitates the dangerous process of objectification. 

Objectification poses a particular difficulty for religious organisations seeking to eliminate oppressive behaviour. That difficulty is the tendency of religious institutions to transform customary behaviour into sacred behaviour. For instance, in many Christian churches during the 1960s the use of musical instruments such as guitars or drums, in preference to the traditional church organ, were viewed as heretical, in spite of the fact that the Christian religion did not prohibit the use of any particular musical instrument for worship. 

Similarly, women in ISKCON face enormous difficulties in eliminating the "women in the back" policy in some of our gender segregated temple rooms in spite of the fact that ISKCON's original policy permitted men and women to stand on different sides of the temple room with equal access to the altar.[xi] Part of the resistance to changing that policy is the mistaken belief that the "women in the back" is the traditional policy when, in fact, it is not a traditional practice in Vrndavan, India nor is it the policy implemented by Srila Prabhupada. In ISKCON, as in other religious institutions, unjust behaviour may be codified and protected in the mistaken belief that such behaviour is spiritual. Hence, the material process of objectification can pose a special danger for religious institutions.  

I do not contend that we must always avoid distinctions between groups, or that we cannot engage in evaluations of our members. Such distinctions and evaluations are a necessary part of operating an international organisation. However, I hold that we require some structural limits on our power to distinguish and label. In the absence of such limits, as we have discovered to our cost, power can sometimes become abusive.   

1/11 < > 11/11

Cults & Society
Department: Group Report

Hare Krishna: women

5/11

Fundamental Human Rights in ISKCON

Radha devi dasi

[continued]
Similarly, our language divides male and female members of our movement. When we say "devotees and matajis" (devotees and mothers), as we frequently do, we place women in a category separate from devotees. We may use or at least sanction by listening to others use derogatory names for women such as "witch," "Maya-devis"[x] with "no souls" and "razor like hearts." One of the most telling examples of this phenomenon is found in Srila Prabhupada's Lilamrta where the presence of devotees at one event is described by listing the names of the men present and adding "and their wives" at the end to acknowledge the presence of the female attendees. Thus, in one of the official histories of our movement, women have been, at least at times, robbed of their individual identities. This use of language, which in many cases is benignly motivated, facilitates the dangerous process of objectification. 

Objectification poses a particular difficulty for religious organisations seeking to eliminate oppressive behaviour. That difficulty is the tendency of religious institutions to transform customary behaviour into sacred behaviour. For instance, in many Christian churches during the 1960s the use of musical instruments such as guitars or drums, in preference to the traditional church organ, were viewed as heretical, in spite of the fact that the Christian religion did not prohibit the use of any particular musical instrument for worship. 

Similarly, women in ISKCON face enormous difficulties in eliminating the "women in the back" policy in some of our gender segregated temple rooms in spite of the fact that ISKCON's original policy permitted men and women to stand on different sides of the temple room with equal access to the altar.[xi] Part of the resistance to changing that policy is the mistaken belief that the "women in the back" is the traditional policy when, in fact, it is not a traditional practice in Vrndavan, India nor is it the policy implemented by Srila Prabhupada. In ISKCON, as in other religious institutions, unjust behaviour may be codified and protected in the mistaken belief that such behaviour is spiritual. Hence, the material process of objectification can pose a special danger for religious institutions.  

I do not contend that we must always avoid distinctions between groups, or that we cannot engage in evaluations of our members. Such distinctions and evaluations are a necessary part of operating an international organisation. However, I hold that we require some structural limits on our power to distinguish and label. In the absence of such limits, as we have discovered to our cost, power can sometimes become abusive.   

1/11 < > 11/11

Cults & Society
Department: Group Report

Hare Krishna: women

5/11

Fundamental Human Rights in ISKCON

Radha devi dasi

[continued]
Similarly, our language divides male and female members of our movement. When we say "devotees and matajis" (devotees and mothers), as we frequently do, we place women in a category separate from devotees. We may use or at least sanction by listening to others use derogatory names for women such as "witch," "Maya-devis"[x] with "no souls" and "razor like hearts." One of the most telling examples of this phenomenon is found in Srila Prabhupada's Lilamrta where the presence of devotees at one event is described by listing the names of the men present and adding "and their wives" at the end to acknowledge the presence of the female attendees. Thus, in one of the official histories of our movement, women have been, at least at times, robbed of their individual identities. This use of language, which in many cases is benignly motivated, facilitates the dangerous process of objectification. 

Objectification poses a particular difficulty for religious organisations seeking to eliminate oppressive behaviour. That difficulty is the tendency of religious institutions to transform customary behaviour into sacred behaviour. For instance, in many Christian churches during the 1960s the use of musical instruments such as guitars or drums, in preference to the traditional church organ, were viewed as heretical, in spite of the fact that the Christian religion did not prohibit the use of any particular musical instrument for worship. 

Similarly, women in ISKCON face enormous difficulties in eliminating the "women in the back" policy in some of our gender segregated temple rooms in spite of the fact that ISKCON's original policy permitted men and women to stand on different sides of the temple room with equal access to the altar.[xi] Part of the resistance to changing that policy is the mistaken belief that the "women in the back" is the traditional policy when, in fact, it is not a traditional practice in Vrndavan, India nor is it the policy implemented by Srila Prabhupada. In ISKCON, as in other religious institutions, unjust behaviour may be codified and protected in the mistaken belief that such behaviour is spiritual. Hence, the material process of objectification can pose a special danger for religious institutions.  

I do not contend that we must always avoid distinctions between groups, or that we cannot engage in evaluations of our members. Such distinctions and evaluations are a necessary part of operating an international organisation. However, I hold that we require some structural limits on our power to distinguish and label. In the absence of such limits, as we have discovered to our cost, power can sometimes become abusive.   

1/11 < > 11/11