Brilliant move. Have a panel to discuss expanding leadership opportunities for Buddhist women and…well, take a look.
Featured panelists – James Coleman, Gary Gach, Charles Prebish, Christopher Queen, Paul David Numrich, Justin Whitaker, Eisel Mazard. Photos go: man, man, man, man, man, man, man.
Hmm.
Rita Gross, an author and dharma teacher, wonders what they were thinking.
Earlier this week the website Patheos published a panel on the topic “2014 Religious Trends: Expanding Leadership Opportunities for Buddhist Women—Which Way Forward?” The panel introduction ended with this question: “What are the risks and benefits of opening Buddhist leadership to women?” As a Buddhist-feminist scholar who has watched and participated in the rise of female leadership in the Buddhist world for the past four decades, I have my own question to ask in response: Risks? What risks? What could possibly be dangerous about women taking leadership roles in Buddhism? We have been doing so in large numbers for quite some time and nothing untoward has happened to Buddhism or to Buddhists as a result.
Oh come now. To talk about it only in terms of benefits would be unbalanced and extreme. You can’t expect them to just say “it’s time to do much more to expand leadership opportunities for Buddhist women” and then go on to do just that. They have to fret and consider and wring their masculine hands over it first. Changing the status quo without considering the benefits and the risks is never ever permissible.
Far more serious and problematic, however, is the fact that this panel discussion on Buddhist women includes no women! Seven men—but no women—were called upon to discuss the “risks and benefits” of opening Buddhist leadership . . . to women! Rather than solving any of the centuries-old problems of Buddhist male dominance and patriarchy, such a panel only perpetuates it. Someone who didn’t know better but encountered this panel might draw the conclusion that Buddhist women are too passive to speak for themselves and lack the knowledge to do so.
Maybe, but on the other hand if you had women on the panel someone would be sure to pop up and say the women were there only because they had the right genitalia.
I do not fault the seven men who wrote short essays for this panel, in part because I suspect that they were not informed ahead of time that only men had been invited to contribute. I know some of these men and know that they themselves are supportive of expanding leadership opportunities for Buddhist women. But I most definitely do fault whoever put this panel together for unbelievable levels of ignorance and arrogance. If this were 1970, not 2014, such an all-male panel might be explicable, even relevant. But in 2014, it is too late to speak and act as if men alone are still in charge of everything and can creditably speak for and about women, as if no women were confident and competent enough to speak for themselves, and hadn’t already begun to transform Buddhism into its post-patriarchal future.
I suppose whoever it was just figured it was more of a guy thing.
They couldn’t find a single woman to be on a panel?
I find the concept of Buddhist leadership to be, um, problematic — but perhaps I’m just not enlightened enough to grok that.
(Even the Dalai Lama makes it very clear that he is but a humble monk!)
Al Dente
You’re working under the assumption they looked for women to be on the panel.
Why does this seem familiar….something…oh yeah.
http://jezebel.com/5885672/congressional-birth-control-hearing-involves-exactly-zero-people-who-have-a-uterus
Protip for men genuinely interested in helping advance the cause of women: If you get contacted to participate in a conference on . . . just about anything, really, make a point to ask “Who else have you invited to be on the panels?” before jumping straight to the ego-satisfying “You betcha!”
If the answer comes back indicating a dearth of women participants, politely decline, and have handy a list of women in the relevant field or subject you can give the organizers to call about participating. If there’s still room later, indicate you’d be happy to hear from them again.
Still learning,
Robert
Desert Son @4, seems to me that your professional tip would result in men genuinely interested in helping advance the cause of women being excluded from such a conference.
(So, not just women, but their advocates would be non-participants)
@ 5 John Morales
I don’t see the reason for your pessimism. If what Gross says is true:
… why would it be more likely that the organizers would seek less genuinely interested men, than get a clue and contact some women?
John, that’s a fair point, but what’s the alternative? Show up and hope that you’ll get an opportunity to be an “advocate” for women on an all-male panel organized by people who couldn’t be bothered to make a real effort to get women on the panel? How much confidence would you have that any meaningful dialogue is going to come out of such a panel?
It might be tempting to show up and say “well, one good way would be to put women on panels like this. I suggested some, but the organizers didn’t bother,” but it’s kind of bad form to trash your hosts.
Silentbob @6, there is no pessimism in my observation, only logical entailment.
(Though now that you mention sentiment, I add that I find Desert Son’s advice to be optimistic beyond warrant in its expectation)
screechymonkey @7, I propose no advocacy towards any action, but I certainly am much more impressed with your alternative (bad form though it may be) in terms of expected efficacy than with the original.
(Indeed, it was the first thing that occurred to me)
John Morales at #5 and #8:
Men interested in helping wouldn’t be able to attend? Why not? Not necessarily appearing on the panels, or perhaps not appearing on as many panels as they’ve historically enjoyed the privilege of, but that doesn’t by default prevent them from attending the conferences as audience members, does it? Or am I missing something?
****
screechymonkey at #7:
Maybe more hosts need to hear that kind of thing as a way to encourage them to pay more attention to exactly that issue.
My optimism showing through again, perhaps.
Still learning,
Robert
Desert Son @10, you’re right; I should have written “… excluded from participation …”.
I take your point that such a man could probably attend without participating.
Hey, look again: the concept of strong, dominant women was never excluded.
One of the panelists is named Queen.
In many schools of Buddhism, and all of the traditional ones, women cannot attain nirvana. The best that a Buddhist nun can hope for is to earn enough good karma to be reincarnated as a man: then, and only then, can she be freed from samsara.
It would seem that, despite their claim otherwise, the school putting on this conference feels the same way.
At the same time, a disturbing rise in abuse and inappropriate conducted has highlighted a need for greater attention to teacher-student relations and physical and emotional well-being.
For an almost-geological value of “at the same time”, perhaps. Scandals in the Zen-iverse were business-as-usual even before the San Francisco Zen Center fired Richard Baker-roshi for sexual (and other) power-abuse 31 years ago.
John Morales,
No worries about accidentally excluding properly brought up men. The answer lies in the John Scalzi method. He will not accept guest speaker invitations unless it is confirmed that a goodly number of women are already booked. He announced that very publicly and seems to have come to no harm.
The question must be asked: Are women invited to the conference as attendees? If so, will there be a separate seating section for them? We must weigh all the risks of such participation in advance, and a thorough discussion is warranted.
I think the definitive point was made by #13 Gregory here.
That is, like Mormonism before 1978 (anti-black), most mainstream forms of Buddhism are OFFICIALLY bigoted (anti-female) as a matter of religious dogma. It’s not the organizers of the conferences that are the central problem. The central problem is that they are adhering to the religious beliefs of some very UNENLIGHTENED groups, i.e., mainstream Buddhists.
That is, it is not enough to condemn such conferences. It is a moral necessity to condemn the central beliefs of mainstream Buddhism. I don’t mean to offend any people, and my condemnation applies to #NotAllBuddhists, but a decent respect for the opinions of humanity compels us to this condemnation.
Obviously, parallel logic needs to be applied to all other bigoted faith positions also. But notallreligions, just many of them worldwide.
I am reminded of this cartoon by Tim Kreider.
There truly is no country (nor religion) for women.
Grantly, it’s also similar to this:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/07/01/hundreds-wearing-dresses-turn-out-to-discuss-the-role-of-women-in-saudi-arabian-society-today/
John Morales @ #6: I actually have extensive experience in this, and I can tell you that you are mistaken. Just about every time that I get invited to speak at a conference or a panel, I do pretty much exactly what Desert Son suggests. I ask, “Who else is going to be speaking?” If the lineup is overwhelmingly white, I say that I’m not willing to speak at conferences or on panels that are overwhelmingly white, and I offer to give suggestions of people of color who I know to be good speakers. I have yet to have organizers say, “Never mind, then, we withdraw our invitation.” So far, they have always said some version of, “Oops, you’re right, we’ll diversify our lineup,” and they often accept my offer of suggestions for speakers they may not be familiar with.
Admittedly, I’m a data point of one. But it would surprise me to find that I’m alone in this experience. There is a large spectrum between “totally clued into social justice, to the point where one needs no reminding or education about it” and “completely resistant to social justice and uninterested in taking any action on it.” So the fact that organizers haven’t yet invited many women to participate doesn’t automatically mean they don’t want women to participate — and it certainly doesn’t mean they’ll withdraw their invitation to the person who reminds them about it, and instead extend it to someone else who doesn’t care.