--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I just can't buy 100% into this victimhood stigma > > > you wrap these women in. > > > > I have to say it bothers me as well. It's one thing > > to sympathize with a person's pain from the results > > of a bad choice, and quite another to strip them of > > any agency in making that choice. > > I haven't seen anyone doing this. In ethical matters concerning an abuse of > a power relationship the most relevant issue isn't the person's willingness. > As I said in another post, it really isn't focused on the women who decide to > do it, it is most focused on the ones who refuse. But the abuse is the same > from the perspective of the power holder. And no one can sort out how much > coercion was a factor, even the victim, after the fact. > > > > > What is not helpful, however, is to criticize them > > for the choice. I suspect they've all engaged in > > quite a bit of self-criticism for it, and that's > > more than enough. It's part of the pain they're > > going through. We don't need to add to it, any more > > than we need to pin a big VICTIM label on them. > > Again, I'm not sure I've seen any such labels or that this focus is the main > point. They were victims of an abuse of power. That doesn't mean that is > their total identity. By speaking out or moving on they have already > re-claimed some of their power over this. Our label is not the issue, it is > how they respond internally in their healing. > > > > > I think we should give them implicit credit for > > having recognized they made a bad choice, do what > > we can to soothe their pain, and leave it at that. > > There was a continuum of how much "choice" as involved for these women. In > the case of a single mother dependent living month to month on a paycheck > when the boss comes on to them, the choice is pretty small. For a young > woman in a foreign country being employed and supported by their guru, I > don't think the "choice" aspect is the problem. > > > > > Part of the motivation for portraying them as > > helpless victims lacking a will of their own > > seems to be that it facilitates demonizing MMY. > > The less agency the women are accorded, the more > > important his agency becomes, hence the harsher > > the blame that can be piled on him. > > This seems like a manufactured argument. I'm not sure how you are assessing > "motivation" but again this is not the issue in play. The laws and ethical > standards that protects employees and others from unfair exploitation doesn't > deal with this side for good reason. It is the line the person in power is > crossing, not the willingness of the person being exploited. Maharishi did a > nice job demonizing himself with his own choices, you can't pin that on > anyone here. > > > > > Not that he doesn't deserve the lion's share of > > blame. > > Legally he gets all the blame if he is an employer. > > But depriving the women of any agency at > > all creates an equation that's out of whack. > > Again, I'm not seeing this in anyone's discussion. This aspect may not be the > most reliant issue in play so it may not have come up. I think it misses the > point actually. > > And > > it dehumanizes MMY by suggesting that he himself > > never felt even a shred of remorse. Maybe he > > didn't, but we don't know that. > > I couldn't care less about his remorse, neither do the ethical standards and > laws. From Judith's book he seemed to feel some remorse about how the sex > effected his "energy." No discussions were recorded concerning how he was > feeling about her except to blame her for wrong thinking when she tried to > get out from under his control. > > The second post here is much more troubling because this person refused. I > hope she will post some of the ramifications of that "choice" so we can more > accurately focus on the side of the relationship the ethical standards and > laws are meant to protect. > > You've been pretty consistently both supportive of these women and willing to > take a hard look at Maharishi the person. I think some of the differences in > focus for some posters comes from having been around the guy or not. For > anyone who has the negative implication of turning down his advances is > unfathomable. We stayed up all night for the guy, traveled around the world, > laundered money, whatever it took to "fulfill the desires of the master." > When you are around him that IS your technique and you do it before you even > meditate, sleep or eat.
Exactly, he was The Master. I think the confusion that his advances must have caused would be more than if a professor or therapist suggested having sex. MMY was God and supposed to be celibate. What a genuine shock it must have been. In addition, if such behavior on his part resulted in a young girl's "losing faith" or giving up spiritual pursuits, well that is really a shame. MMY always said that initiators needed to be extra careful in their behavior, because the laws of karma were somehow harsher on those who had more knowledge. He was supposed to be at the top of the heap - so you wonder if he bbelieved his own words and worried about the results of his actions on others and even himself. And as Judith says in her book,he seemed to turn down the woman who were obviously trying to seduce him in favor of women he could pursue. Their "choice" is the least relevant aspect of what went down IMO. > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, there's a lot of hypocrisy floating > > around. There are people on FFL who are not just > > narcissistic and insensitive but actively, > > persistently sadistic. They know who they are, > > and they really ought to STFU with their > > condemnation of MMY. They'd do well to get some > > professional help as well. Sadists are never > > happy, balanced people, no matter how spiritual > > they may believe and portray themselves to be. > > >
