hi Yong Peng

I think they are two different issues.
1) Whether some situation is gender biased or not
2) Whether the Buddha was revolutionary in admitting women.

I think the answer is yes to both.

In regards to articles, there are heaps out there. Here are two:

Tsomo, Karma Lekshe

"Is the Bhikshuni Vinaya Sexist?" in Karma Lekshe Tsomo (ed.), Buddhist
Women and Social Justice Ideals, Challenges and Achievements, 2004.



Wawrytko, Sandra A.

�Sexism in the Early Sangha: Its Social Basis and Philosophical
Dis-solution�

in Charles Wei-hsun Fu and Sandra A. Wawrytko (eds.) Buddhist Behavioral
Codes and the Modern World: An International Symposium, 1994.

On 3 March 2010 00:20, Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...> wrote:

>
>
> Dear Bankei,
>
> I believe this discussion requires some understanding of the socio-cultural
> settings of Buddha's days, and the development of the Sangha (and the
> Vinaya) under the direct ministry of the Buddha.
>
> Again, I have to admit little knowledge of the Vinaya. So, I do not expect
> an "explosive" discussion, and I suppose there are good articles, books,
> etc. that we can share with each other on various views and opinions.
>
> Accepting female monastics was something very bold or revolutionary of the
> Buddha, and none of his contemporaries is known to have done the same. In
> fact, in those days, even certain men were denied rights to worship, let
> alone women. So, for the Buddha to accept female disciples into his order
> was breaking one big taboo of the ancient Indian society.
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Bankei wrote:
>
> I think this has to be a case of gender bias, as it is making one gender
> subordinate to the other gender. These rules on apply to women who already
> had many vinaya rules more than the men.
>
>
> > However, we are also aware of the eight garudhamma rules, which somehow
> place the bhikkhunis on a "lower tier" than their male counterparts. Is this
> a special case of a gender bias?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]