A response to Hari-kirtana prabhu’s comment re: Srila Prabhupada said women are less-intelligent. Can we support this?
By Hari-sauri dasa
Many thanks to Hari-kirtana prabhu for his thoughtful response to my submission on the relative intelligence of men to women. He has clearly done a little homework and I appreciate his reminder that we have to be careful when we cite scientific findings as support for our preaching work. His admonition that “one small slip on the scientific slope (in this case, asserting that testosterone suppresses oxytocin to prove that a man’s biological response to stress is different than a woman’s) is enough to undermine our credibility with educated people and, with it, the credibility Vedic scripture as axiomatic, infallible, and of Divine origin” is well taken. It reminds me of an exchange we had with Srila Prabhupada on a morning walk on December 8th 1975 in Vrindavana:
“Nevertheless, despite his often humorous critiques and sometimes general condemnations of the modern materialistic scientists, Prabhupada cautioned us that any attempt to preach on a scientific basis must be done expertly. When Alanatha, a European devotee, told him of plans to publish a magazine in Sweden with articles challenging the material scientists, Prabhupada warned him. “Don’t write anything nonsense. It must be very solid. Otherwise you’ll be laughing stock. One must be confident before challenging others. In all stages he must be able to defend himself from the opposing elements. Then such challenge is all right. We are confident that this soul cannot be manufactured by any material combination. Therefore we can challenge. And we can defend ourselves in any stage.”
(Transcendental Diary, Vol. 1)
I admit that in my extemporaneous oral submission to my class at the MIHET I did not cite any specific scientific findings or authority when I asserted that oxytocin levels in men are inhibited by testosterone thereby causing a different response than women when dealing with stress. Had I written an article on the subject I would surely have taken the time to do so.
Hari-kirtana prabhu will no doubt be happy then to hear that I do in fact have scientific sources for the statements I made.
Hari-kirtana’s source, a lady who he does not name but gives the credentials of, states that “I did some research on your question and your thesis appears to be false. While women do indeed produce somewhat more oxytocin than men, testosterone does not inhibit production.”
However, according to my source material, an article from The Sydney Daily Telegraph, dated August 9, 2002:
“The University of California Los Angeles study found that special bonds between female friends apparently produce a calming effect that does not occur in men. The American study found that women’s friendships counteract the day-to-day stress with a “cascade of brain chemicals”, leading them to seek and maintain friendships with other women. Until this research, scientists believed that, during stress, hormones are released that tell the body to stand and fight, or to flee– an ancient survival mechanism. Researchers now suspect that women have a more extensive behaviour store that neutralizes the “flight or fight” response and instead encouraged them to gather with other women. During this bonding session the female body produces more oxytocin (the same hormone that is released during breast feeding), which has a calming effect. American researcher Laura Cousin Klein says the calming response does not occur in men, “because testosterone, which men produce in high levels when they are under stress, seems to reduce the effects of oxytocin. Oestrogen seems to enhance it.” Prof. Klein, now an assistant professor of Bio-behavioural Health at Penn State University, said the release of oxytocin in women in times of stress encourages her to “tend children” or “gather with other women”. “When she actually engages in this tending or befriending, the studies suggest that more oxytocin is released, which counters stress and produces a calming effect. This calming response does not occur in men.”
Klein is not alone in her assertion:
“Newcastle University (Australia) lecturer Melissa Monfries wrote her honours thesis on friendships and is at present conducting research with a colleague on gender sociology. “This Amercian study reinforces what women have known for centuries,” Dr. Monfries said. “They have simply been able to identify a physiological example. “It is consistent with some of the tenets of socio-biological research in the animal world and how it translates into the human world. “Research has been around since the 1970s that women do talk to each other more [than men] and that serves as a buffer for stress.” … It was two women who triggered the research into how women deal with stress. Dr. Klein and a colleague, Shelley Taylor, were talking one day about how men tended to isolate themselves at times of stress, yet women sought out other female company. The results of their research, which showed that women respond to stress differently from men, has significant implications for health.”
The article cites another expert in the behavioral field to confirm these findings:
“Australian psychologist Jonathan Toussaint, state manager of Interrelate and an expert in men’s relationships and behavior, said the latest American research “makes a lot of sense”. “The need for women to fill the emotional gaps in relationships such as marriage by developing these strong bonds of friendship with other women is very real. “Women by their very nature tend to be relational. You only have to look at little girls at play – they are extremely happy talking with each other about stuff that boys find silly,” he said. “Most women are happy to have a chat over the fence, while men tend to be doers – they would rather go and kick a football around or go to the pub.” Mr Toussaint said women’s response to stress “encourages disclosure to other women.”
To cite another completely different source, here’s something from ABC News, SciTech section from September 21, 2004:
“[Nancy Forger of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst] “At least 100 sex differences in male and female brains have been described so far,” said Forger. “They keep cropping up in animal and human studies.” So what lies that the root of the male-female variability? In mammals, testosterone appears to be a main player. Forger’s work in mice has shown that as mammals develop in the womb, testosterone and related hormones trigger cell death in some regions of the male brain and foster cell development in other regions. In this way, the hormone sculpts the male brain and how it will differ from the female version. Remove or add testosterone to mice shortly after birth, and their brains develop according to the presence of the hormone, regardless of their sex. These kinds of studies are impossible to do in humans, but some have looked for testosterone’s effects in the brain by comparing people of different sexual orientations. Testosterone in Finger Lengths Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University, was part of a recent study that looked at the ratio of finger lengths in heterosexual women and women with strong homosexual identities. The idea was gay women may have more traces of testosterone, and this might be evident through other signs. “We found that lesbians we studied had a more masculine-looking pattern of finger lengths than straight women,” he said, explaining that in masculine hands, the index finger tends to be significantly shorter than the ring finger. “The evidence is getting pretty good that testosterone can change the likelihood of sexual orientation which develops later in life.” Incidentally, the same research didn’t produce as clear results when gay and straight men were analyzed. This kind of research remains controversial, as does any work that looks for explanations for human behavior in the brain. But most researchers looking into differences of the brain are quick to point out that there are many more differences in the brain just between individuals than between groups of people or between the sexes. “Men and women are more the same than different in the brain, without a question,” said Forger. “But,” she added, “little differences can go a long way.”
Of course, the above studies are a fairly new field in science. The above article, by Amanda Onion, opens with this observation:
“Men and women may really be from the same planet, but research is yielding mounting evidence that our brains are more different than we might think. From the way we record information to how we process language to the size of our brains and different regions of the brain, clear differences have emerged through animal studies and the use of technology such as brain scanning. Scientists are also trying to get at the roots of what may be behind these differences by looking at the effects of chromosomes and hormones at work in lab animals. And this is just the beginning. Jill Goldstein, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, argues that social climates have only recently made such research acceptable. “When I was growing up, to say there were sex differences in the brain, you weren’t even supposed to talk about it,” said Goldstein. “I think we’re living in a time now when we can look at what some of these differences are without saying they are necessarily deterministic.”
From the above it follows then that there is likely to be disagreement among scientists themselves about the functions of male and female bodies and how this affects the psychological make-up. Hari-kirtana prabhu’s source, who is not identified and who does not cite the sources of her research, has one opinion, which is also tentative (she opens with a classic scientist’s hedge “I did some research on your question and your thesis appears to be false”); there are other scientists such as the half dozen mentioned above who may disagree.
Nevertheless I feel comfortable in using such scientific findings as confirmation of Srila Prabhupada and the Vedas’ statements that women are relatively less-intelligent than men. There are other studies which have established that male brains are on average 10% bigger than female, which according to some researchers, means men are on average more intelligent than women. This is of course another example cited by Srila Prabhupada.
Despite the controversial nature of such research, as long as the work of some prominent scientists is amenable to our purpose, we can use it.
It would be nice if we could just cite the Vedas as our only evidence, but the problem is that modern man has little faith in them, and even, as I mentioned in my original submission, some so-called followers of Srila Prabhupada have such doubts. In an age where empirical evidence is supreme and in the face of political pressure these “followers” are reluctant to assert the truth of our authorities’s statements. It is therefore prudent to use scientific research where possible to convince the minds of the intelligent class that the Vedas are reliable and authentic. Srila Prabhupada himself did this in his Isopanisad:
“Vedic principles are accepted as axiomatic truth, for there cannot be any mistake. That is acceptance. For instance, in India cow dung is accepted as pure, and yet cow dung is the stool of an animal. In one place you’ll find the Vedic injunction that if you touch stool, you have to take a bath immediately. But in another place it is said that the stool of a cow is pure. If you smear cow dung in an impure place, that place becomes pure. With our ordinary sense we can argue, “This is contradictory.” Actually, it is contradictory from the ordinary point of view, but it is not false. It is fact. In Calcutta, a very prominent scientist and doctor analyzed cow dung and found that it contains all antiseptic properties.”
In conclusion I will say that had I written an article, I would have done much more research and cited my sources. Since the topic came up unexpectedly in Mayapur I took a more extemporaneous approach. Still, I think the argument holds up well and I would not be inclined to change it at this stage.
Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa
Dear Hari-sauri Prabhu:
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
At the moment I clicked the “Say It!” button I realized that I had forgotten (AGAIN!) the very valuable instruction given to me years ago by my friend and (when I am exceptionally fortunate) mentor, Lakmsi Nrsimha Prabhu: if you think something’s amiss, always ask questions before you make a comment or a criticism. I should have written to you directly to ask about your sources before publicly offering my own. And your reply shows me that I should take my own advice: though qualified to offer one of many opinions on this controversial area of science as she may be, my friend is a practitioner who does not have the same research credentials as the sources you have cited and therefore does not publish such research herself; offering her name would have done nothing for the reader looking for authoritative published sources. In the interest of brevity I lifted the essense of her reply to me without citing her sources: my objective was not to trump you on sources but simply to demonstrate how one may paint one’s self into a corner by playing the “science” card. Having done more homework than I, you have clearly played the “science” card appropriately so I respectfully fold my hand.
Please accept my sincere expression of gratitude for acknowledging my intent insofar as being careful when citing scientific evidence in support of sastra is concerned and for taking the time to provide all of us with the extensive background material that provided the foundation for your excellent extemporaneous presentation.
Your humbled servant, Hari-kirtana dasa
Can you refute this based on sastra? I don’t see even any need for this comparison.
Krishna says - “Unfortunately–for them–there are statements where Krishna says ‘stri, sudra and dvija-bandhu’–these classes are all less-intelligent.”
Sudra, dvija-bandhus are less intelligent.
Stri are less intelligent.
In Kali-yuga, most of us are sudra. So, men are less intelligent in Kali-yuga.
Therefore, men and stri both are less intelligent.
Therefore, it is difficult to compare man and woman as both are less intelligent.
Haribol! PAMHO.
Pardon me for repeating myself from my comments on the original article, but I feel that the topic deserves some clarifications. I hope this is useful.
The main question was differences in intelligence. Intelligence in itself is a debateable and difficult item to quantify scientifically. For example, a questionaire designed to test and quantify intelligence may be skewed to favor men or women, based upon cultural differences, such that one is measuring sexual traits rather than intelligence per se. In some ways, comparing male versus female intelligence is like comparing apples to oranges.
Brain electrical conductivity rates across a neural network have been suggested as an objective measure of intelligence, and it turns out that these data correlate well with standardized IQ test results. There is a consistent and demonstrable difference in male and female physical intelligence, and certainly there are underlying physical differences involved, Kali-yuga notwithstanding. Biochemical differences are effectors upon an already underlying sex-typed brain structure. These work in cooperation, biochemistry and anatomy, and cannot be easily seperated as to which is the main casual factor in expressed behavior.
Nonetheless, rather than utilizing controversial speculation on biochemistry and behavioral effects for preaching, which data are notoriously interpretable to suit one’s thesis, I have presented brief information from IQ studies which are broad- based and widely accepted and repeateable across cultures; ie that there is a wider variance in men’s intelligence relative to the norm as opposed to women’s intelligence. This means that there will be, in a population of 100, several genius level men and several low-IQ men, while women’s intelligence is such that there will be mostly average-level intelligences. Genius and low IQ will be much less frequent than among a similar population of males, regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc. Thus, men will appear to be smarter, as we will have noted the exceptional geniuses, not the averages.
The conclusion is that some men are smarter than women, but also that some are dumber, and that there is more variation amongst males than women. Thus, one can say that indeed, men are smarter than women, at least those in the extremes of the bell curve. They are also dumber. Take your pick for the required “spin”.
HKHR !
Tamoharadasa, MS, Aud. ( C)
G Mittal has responded:
Krishna says - “Unfortunately–for them–there are statements where Krishna says ‘stri, sudra and dvija-bandhu’–these classes are all less-intelligent.”
1. Sudra, dvija-bandhus are less intelligent.
Stri are less intelligent.
In Kali-yuga, every one is sudra. So, men are less intelligent in Kali-yuga.
Therefore, men and stri both are less intelligent.
Therefore, it is difficult to compare man and woman as both are less intelligent.
We may find many men claiming that they are great. But honestly speaking, in Kali-yuga men are at the level of sudra of dvapara, treta and sata-yuga. Therefore, not only women but also men are less intelligent.
Here’s my reply:
This sounds like good logic, but unfortunately Srila Prabhupada doesn’t agree with it.
What is G Mittal (sorry you haven’t given you first name) saying here? That men and women in Kali-yuga are in fact equal in intelligence?
Here’s my own logic on the matter:
1) Srila Prabhupada was not talking about other yugas, he was talking about Kali-yuga. He didn’t say that in the three previous yugas men were more intelligent than women, and in this age, everyone is less-intelligent so men and women are the same.
2) As men have lost their intelligence by the onslaught of Kali-yuga, women have suffered a corresponding loss also. So the comparative difference remains.
3) Even though sudra men are less-intelligent, sudra women are more so. Similarly, brahmana men are more intelligent than brahmana women etc.
For example in the purport to Srimad-Bhägavatam 6.17.34-35 Srila Prabhupada says: “Thus Lord Siva tried to convince his wife, Parvati, that her cursing of Citraketu was not very sensible.
Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the higher statuses of life-in fact, even between Lord Siva and his wife. Lord Siva could understand Citraketu very nicely, but Parvati could not. Thus even in the higher statuses of life there is a difference between the understanding of a male and that of a female. It may be clearly said that the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the understanding of a man. In the Western countries there is now agitation to the effect that man and woman should be considered equal, but from this verse it appears that woman is always less intelligent than man.”
In my article I attempted to provide some scientific findings to support Srila Prabhupäda’s statements. It does exist and when people become more objective and honest, they will accept it.
As his followers it is our duty to uphold his statements, not use information that he himself has given us, and by our own logic arrive at a different conclusion. That will not help us.
Your humble servant,
Hari-sauri dasa
How is it possible to state something as axiomatic with proof based on scientific data? Even if one poseses a cache of scientific data, the understanding of that data is subjective, open for debate and tested. Take for instance Hari Sauri Prabhu’s example. He produces scientific data that supports the study of oxytocin in women. That women produce oxytocin, and that it causes certain behavior is definatley supported with data. However, the affect it has on general intelligence isn’t axiomatic, and is not indicated in the given references. It may be that this is Hari Sauri Prabhu’s logical assumption based on his understanding of the scientific data and scripture. That’s perfectly fine as long as he’s not caliming it to be anything but that. Using scientific examples to point out the difference between the male and female brain/body can be useful in certain preaching situations and farily self evident. But to use scienctific theory in support of an axiomatic truth, contradicts its potency as axiomatic.
Hari sauri prabhu, in your above comment you raise a point that I’d like to clarify: for me there is no hardship accepting the basic principle that men are more intelligent than women. However there’s on thing I can’t quite get. You wrote:
3) Even though sudra men are less-intelligent, sudra women are more so. Similarly, brahmana men are more intelligent than brahmana women etc.
Working from this basis, I’m hard pressed to conclude that a brahmana woman is less intelligent than a sudra man, or a ksatriya woman is less intelligenet than a sudra man, based on the principle of “women are generally less intelligent than men.” Does sastra make any reference to this? It’s as plain as day to me that women with ksatriya-like qualities, and those with brahminical qualities, are more intelligent than a man with predominantly sudra qualities. It doesn’t make sense to me that a woman who is trained in spiritual culture and scripture (such as a brahmana woman) or a woman with a sharp intellect and strong leadership qualities is immediately considered “less” intelligent than a sudra man, who often doesn’t have the wherewithall to scratch himself without supervision, what to speak of doing anything substantial :) And I’m speaking about women acting within their varna and ashram: not about women who step out of the protection of the varnasrama system and assume the role of Prime Ministers of countries, or other such examples.
Perhaps you can address this point?
“Prabhupada: In, actually, in Bengal, Bengal has lost its original culture. In other provinces the brahmana class, they are keeping very strictly the original culture. Even a brahmana would not accept foodstuff prepared by his wife, because woman is considered sudra. The woman, when she becomes the wife of a brahmana, then she is called brahmani, but she’s not offered brahminical culture. She remains as sudra. So therefore a strict brahmana does not accept foodstuff prepared by his wife. Still there are in U.P. The wife will arrange for cooking, and he’ll sit down and cook dal, capatis. Then he will eat, and whatever remains, that is there, that will be taken by her. But he will not take foodstuff cooked by his even wife.” Room Conversation–August 2, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm)
Yes, we know women are included in the sudra category. But you’re forgetting that so are all residents of Kali-yuga, so what does Prabhupada even mean by what he says above, when elsewhere he states clearly that all who take birth in Kaliyuga are sudra?. I don’t think small, out of context quotes from Folio, which anyone can snip, are really what constitute answers. I can easily snip the one where Prabhupada says, “It is clear the women are the intelligence in this movement” and send you all into a tailspin :)
Nice quote Babaji. Now the husbands will end up doing all the cooking :)
One point to note - the Lord ate food cooked by women, e.g. Sarvabhauma’s wife, Sathira Mata. And of course, so did Srila Prabhupada. (Phew)
…and Srila Prabhupada had women cooking for deities, something that had the caste brahmanas reeling, no doubt ….
Sri Garga-Samhita | Oraciones Selectas al Señor Supremo | Devotees Vaishnavas | Dandavat pranams - All glories to Srila Prabhupada | Dandavat pranams | Santos Católicos | El Mundo del ANTIGUO EGIPTO II | El Antiguo Egipto I |Archivo Cervantes | Neale Donald Walsch | Sivananda Yoga | SWAMIS | Hari Katha | Hinduismo | Biografías
Comments • [comment feed]