That excerpt from the 'Law of Manu', which is actually quoted quite
often by people who work themselves to death to prove that ancient
Hindu society was not misogynist, applies to women who are in
accordance with their inner nature, whereas the excerpt from
the 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad' which was quoted the other day applies
to representatives of the weaker sex who have betrayed their inner
nature, and, more specifically, to the steps which should be taken by
a Kshatriya to put them back where they belong.
As for the opinion according to which "Evola seems to be dedicated
more to a critique of non-conventional females, as opposed to actual
women as a collective group", those who are of it are invited to read
again texts such as 'Do we live in a Gynaecocratic Society?', which,
as any of Evola's writings on the 'woman question', works on the
principle that "non-conventional females" have become the majority.
Those who are not fooled by the word 'feminism' won't be surprised to
hear that the word 'feminism' is almost completely absent from
Evola's writings on modern gynaecocracy. 'Feminism ' is only a
catchword, a trap into which anti-feminist books like 'The Myth of
Male Power' and anti-feminists site like www.savethemales.ca (sic)
fall merrily. Admittedly, Feminism as a verse collection of social
theories, political movements, and moral philosophies motivated by or
concerning the experiences and the interests of women, especially in
terms of their social, political, and economic situation, still
exists, chiefly in Anglo-Saxon countries ; certainly, it is still
striving, as you know, to "eradicate and promote women's rights" in
those three fields, in which it has managed to get everything it
wanted on issues such as reproductive rights, i.e. the right to
choose an abortion, the elimination of legal restrictions on
abortion, and access to contraception, maternity leave, equal pay, so-
called sexual harassment, so-called sexual violence, you name it.
Certainly, that kind of movement always wants 'more' and will never
stop until it gets even 'more' ; women don't know what they want, but
they want it badly. The point is that the claims of feminism have
gone far beyond the context of feminism and that, today, not only
feminists are convinced that they have all those rights : in fact, is
there a female in the Western world which is not 'deeply' convinced
that she's got those rights, so to speak, by birth and by the mere
fact of being a woman?
Feminism as an ideology no longer exists in its former aggressively
activist form for the simple reason that it has achieved most of its
goals and, besides, it has turned any Western female into an
unconscious feminist, who may condemn feminism, but behaves and
thinks as a feminist, without her being aware of it. Unnaturality has
become, so to speak, natural.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Savitar Devi
<savitar_devi@y...> wrote:
>
> By the same token, no one seems to quote this passage from the
Laws of Manu either-
>
> '5. Status and Duties of Women
>
> 55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers,
brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own
welfare).
> 56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but
where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
> 57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon
perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.
> 58. The houses on which female relations, not being duly
honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by
magic.'
>
> Furthermore - '45. He only is a perfect man who consists (of
three persons united), his wife, himself, and his offspring; thus
(says the Veda), and learned brahmins propound this maxim
likewise, "The husband is declared to be one with the wife'.'
>
> (A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Moore & Radhakrishnan,
Princeton University Press, 1957).
>
> Given that this is from the Laws of Manu, which are Vedic, it can
hardly be dismissed as non-Aryan in origin, yet it seems to be
curiously absent.
>
> I think the key point some people are missing is that Evola seems
to be dedicated more to a critique of non-conventional females, as
opposed to actual women as a collective group. The above passage from
Manu would not have applied to modern feminists though - a woman who
adopted a 'male' role lost her rights as a woman in Vedic times, and
was in general treated as a man.
>
>
>
>
>
> evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
>
>
> In the meantime, we are still waiting for one of
> those 'traditionalists', 'Satanists' or 'neo-pagans' to set to
music
> this Stotra from the 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad' (VI.4.7), that is
one
> of the main Upanishads : "If she does not grant him his desire, he
> should buy her (with presents). If she still does not grant him his
> desire he should beat her with a stick or his hand ...", as well as
> other 'misogynist' parts of the Rig-Veda.
>
>
>
> Three heavens there are; two Savitar's, adjacent:
> In Yama's world is one, home of heroes.
> As on a linch-pin, firm, rest things immortal:
> He who hath known it, let him here declare it.
>
> - Rig Veda I.35 (Griffith)
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://in.messenger.yahoo.com
>