19 Oct 2013
A rough sketch, from: We're in the Money
I am going to write something contentious which, if misunderstood, could appear sexist. It's not meant to be so and I know it does how apply universally.
However, consider this ...
For most of mammalian evolution, females of the species have looked for a mate, or created social structures, which prove them support. In the first place, especially as Hominids (humans and other apes) evolved in a manner that they bore children who were vulnerable and dependent on them for a long period of time, this was essential. The female required a male who was a "good provider" for when she could not hunt or gather, and to build networks of females who shared a commonwealth or circle of co-prosperity in order to bring up children. (Interestingly, it is being proposed these days that the menopause evolved so that women would stop breeding and invest more time bring up those children who were already born).
I think anyone with half a brain can see where I am taking this ...
Of course, this natural selection lead to unnatural exaggerations and corruptions of the trends to the point where woman of certain classes look for rich, powerful, wealthy males ... like Lekhraj Kirpalani ... to provide for them so they do not have to work, and the choices of partners (e.g. impractical trophy wives who cannot work) and the displays of wealth have become obscene.
Our very impression of what "beauty" is has been corrupted by this trend and what many societies now believe is beauty is a highly impractical and dysfunctional human being (e.g. women without hips who cannot breed without invasive surgery), fashions which make ordinary functions impossible.
And I think there are very fair grounds to point a finger of criticism as some elements of the BK Sindi community of the 1930s/40s in this area, e.g. one daughter when she got married had a clause in the contract that she never need walk on ground that was not carpeted, more than one always wore new dresses and "donated" their old ones to the poor, even the Om Mandli had submissive servants etc.
Yes, we have patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies but they both amount to much the same this ... a castes above other castes exploiting the lower ones. There is nothing wonderful about a matriarchal society if it is equally exploitative and disempowering, especially of women of lower castes ... gareeb jee joy jag jee bhaajaayee, chao dhiya khey, ta sikhey noonha etc. Ditto, in Sindhi society, abuses of the "husband" (read Dadi not Daddy) were accepted ... murs ta phado, na ta jado.
Therefore ...
10s of 1,000s of years of evolution do not disappear just because one is enculturated into the Brahma Kumaris. As we have seen many times, many sub-conscious and conscious desires still flow underneath the white saris and are acted out in a variety of manners.
Lekhraj Kirpalani, or whoever the "spirits" behind the BKs are, took love and sex out of the equation ... AFTER HE HAD HAD HIS FILL ... and by taking love and sex out of the equation increased the amount of available resources perhaps 500% or 700%. This was a business strategy. Stop women breeding and having to expend time and energy bring up children ($250,000 in developed nations over 18 years, $16,500 in India), and you have all that time and energy to spend expanding the business of the cult.
Fine ... as an expansive business strategy, it is a good one.
800,000 devotees equal 400,000 couples, equals 1,200,000 children, equals a saving to "the BK community" of an equivalent of $300,000,000,000 (300 billion) over 18 years ... or $16,666,666,666 per year.
But human beings aren't just mechanical tools ... unless they have been brainwashed and hypnotised ... they have emotions, feelings, biological and sociological urges, e.g. to reproduce and replicate their required communities. Communities within which they are fed, houses and protected and care for them at the end of their lives. This is an even stronger instinct in Asian societies, especially where there is no social welfare safety net.
Now you must see where I am going with this. 90% of BKism is just recreating society, but a society at which they are at the top of ... and protected and cared for at the end of their lives. See how much emphasis is placed on "respecting" elders ... why? Because the middle management want to be respect when they get old!!!
Brahma Kumari women still "make babies" ... it's only just that they make adult babies, infantile BKs and grow them up in "greenhouse" environments within their centres. Luckily for mother BKs, many of them mature quickly and bring in wealth with them.
And there are all sort of gender confusions, with males playing female roles and females playing male roles.
I would venture out to say there are many Brahma Kumari women who are ... covertly perhaps ... of the gold digger tendency. I would venture out to say, there is a big proportion of Brahma Kumarism which is gold diggerism under a subtle veil.
You can take the women out of the Bhaibund, but can you take the Bhaibund out of the women?
A separate analysis of BKism should be made observing how the women, and their servant or subservient male wives, have sublimated, replicated and corrupted reproductive instincts and desires, and the nature of their social building ... or climbing. For example, how where there are not sufficient males within the leaders caste within BK society, certain females have to adopt male roles as breadwinners.
What it all suggests is ... plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
- God Diggers or Gold Diggers?
Gold digger is slang for a materialistic woman who only dates and subsequently marries wealthy men with the sole intention of exploiting said wealth.
I am going to write something contentious which, if misunderstood, could appear sexist. It's not meant to be so and I know it does how apply universally.
However, consider this ...
For most of mammalian evolution, females of the species have looked for a mate, or created social structures, which prove them support. In the first place, especially as Hominids (humans and other apes) evolved in a manner that they bore children who were vulnerable and dependent on them for a long period of time, this was essential. The female required a male who was a "good provider" for when she could not hunt or gather, and to build networks of females who shared a commonwealth or circle of co-prosperity in order to bring up children. (Interestingly, it is being proposed these days that the menopause evolved so that women would stop breeding and invest more time bring up those children who were already born).
I think anyone with half a brain can see where I am taking this ...
Of course, this natural selection lead to unnatural exaggerations and corruptions of the trends to the point where woman of certain classes look for rich, powerful, wealthy males ... like Lekhraj Kirpalani ... to provide for them so they do not have to work, and the choices of partners (e.g. impractical trophy wives who cannot work) and the displays of wealth have become obscene.
Our very impression of what "beauty" is has been corrupted by this trend and what many societies now believe is beauty is a highly impractical and dysfunctional human being (e.g. women without hips who cannot breed without invasive surgery), fashions which make ordinary functions impossible.
And I think there are very fair grounds to point a finger of criticism as some elements of the BK Sindi community of the 1930s/40s in this area, e.g. one daughter when she got married had a clause in the contract that she never need walk on ground that was not carpeted, more than one always wore new dresses and "donated" their old ones to the poor, even the Om Mandli had submissive servants etc.
Yes, we have patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies but they both amount to much the same this ... a castes above other castes exploiting the lower ones. There is nothing wonderful about a matriarchal society if it is equally exploitative and disempowering, especially of women of lower castes ... gareeb jee joy jag jee bhaajaayee, chao dhiya khey, ta sikhey noonha etc. Ditto, in Sindhi society, abuses of the "husband" (read Dadi not Daddy) were accepted ... murs ta phado, na ta jado.
Therefore ...
10s of 1,000s of years of evolution do not disappear just because one is enculturated into the Brahma Kumaris. As we have seen many times, many sub-conscious and conscious desires still flow underneath the white saris and are acted out in a variety of manners.
Lekhraj Kirpalani, or whoever the "spirits" behind the BKs are, took love and sex out of the equation ... AFTER HE HAD HAD HIS FILL ... and by taking love and sex out of the equation increased the amount of available resources perhaps 500% or 700%. This was a business strategy. Stop women breeding and having to expend time and energy bring up children ($250,000 in developed nations over 18 years, $16,500 in India), and you have all that time and energy to spend expanding the business of the cult.
Fine ... as an expansive business strategy, it is a good one.
800,000 devotees equal 400,000 couples, equals 1,200,000 children, equals a saving to "the BK community" of an equivalent of $300,000,000,000 (300 billion) over 18 years ... or $16,666,666,666 per year.
- I'd guess that is close to the BKWSU actual annual economy.
But human beings aren't just mechanical tools ... unless they have been brainwashed and hypnotised ... they have emotions, feelings, biological and sociological urges, e.g. to reproduce and replicate their required communities. Communities within which they are fed, houses and protected and care for them at the end of their lives. This is an even stronger instinct in Asian societies, especially where there is no social welfare safety net.
Now you must see where I am going with this. 90% of BKism is just recreating society, but a society at which they are at the top of ... and protected and cared for at the end of their lives. See how much emphasis is placed on "respecting" elders ... why? Because the middle management want to be respect when they get old!!!
Brahma Kumari women still "make babies" ... it's only just that they make adult babies, infantile BKs and grow them up in "greenhouse" environments within their centres. Luckily for mother BKs, many of them mature quickly and bring in wealth with them.
And there are all sort of gender confusions, with males playing female roles and females playing male roles.
I would venture out to say there are many Brahma Kumari women who are ... covertly perhaps ... of the gold digger tendency. I would venture out to say, there is a big proportion of Brahma Kumarism which is gold diggerism under a subtle veil.
You can take the women out of the Bhaibund, but can you take the Bhaibund out of the women?
A separate analysis of BKism should be made observing how the women, and their servant or subservient male wives, have sublimated, replicated and corrupted reproductive instincts and desires, and the nature of their social building ... or climbing. For example, how where there are not sufficient males within the leaders caste within BK society, certain females have to adopt male roles as breadwinners.
What it all suggests is ... plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
- There's a play on words going on here, "to dig" is to like, grasp or understand.