Subscribe to FII's Telegram

The concept of gender roles tend to associate certain behaviour, attitudes and values of a society as appropriate for men and women. Feminists have long fought against this essentializing of both men and women, where the former is seen as closer to culture and rationality and the latter is considered closer to nature and emotionality. This dichotomy that has been created is often derived from and justified on the basis of biological explanations. Biological determinism has been refuted by the feminists and social structures have been cited as the reason for the deep rooted misogyny and prevalent inequality. Religion has been one of the many social institutions that has been perpetuating the patriarchal ideology and keeping it well and alive. Jaggi Vasudev or popularly known as Sadhguru has been harping on these biological, natural and religious explanations to show that the idea of inequality is a myth and any feelings of discrimination is but a result of overlooking the fact that men and women are to engage in complementary activities.

In his article titled, ‘How To Empower Women’, he consistently reiterates the idea that today women are refraining from embracing their feminine side and relentlessly trying to imitate men. His limited understanding of feminism is visible throughout his speeches and writings.

In his article titled, ‘How To Empower Women’, he consistently reiterates the idea that today women are refraining from embracing their feminine side and relentlessly trying to imitate men.

Sadhguru uses all kinds of stereotypes to prove that the world requires a balance of roles and activities between men and women. He associates arts, music etc. with femininity and science, technology, economics with masculinity. Such associations just reinforce the idea that certain acts are only associated with women and re-establishes the hierarchy, whose existence he denies. He asks women to stop seeking a place in the public because efficiency, competitiveness and progress are all linked to masculinity.

Women’s engagement with the outside world, he believes, is the reason for the preponderance of depression in society. He regards this quest for equality as fruitless for women because this forcefulness only creates ugliness and it is women who lose out the most in this because the sensitivity that they require is lost. In doing so, he is only asking women to not speak up against their oppression and discrimination by accepting it as their fate and is encouraging the other half of the population to keep its privileges intact. Like all the ignorant people, he argues for humanity or humanitarianism as opposed to feminism.

It is important to clarify and highlight the fact that Feminism has never tried to establish the idea that women are superior to men. Feminists have never seen masculinity as the goal. To take it as one’s aim is to adhere to the patriarchal idea that men are more adept in the activities of the world than women. Feminism argues for equality, by presenting them with equal opportunities. Feminism does not argue for reverse discrimination. It includes under its banner all human beings, irrespective of their gender identification, who are oppressed and marginalized and are yearning for their voices to be heard.

Sadhguru continuously invokes the idea that men and women are different, which they are without any doubts, but not separate species. But what goes unacknowledged is the fact that these justifications make these differences hierarchical and they involve a failure to connect these to the unjust social structures and institutions. These differences are highlighted because it places one gender over the other and is but a creation of the gender that is enjoying its privileges. As Gayle Rubin rightly points out, “men and women are, of course different. But they are not as different as day and night, earth and sky, yin and yang, life and death.” These differences are only exacerbated to treat them as incomplete halves and used to continue the subordination of women.  

Also read: BJP And Feminism: How Has BJP Been Treating Indian Women?

Sadhguru also argues that it was the alien rule in India that brought in patriarchy. Before the invasions and colonialism, Indian women were completely equal to men. It was only with colonial rule that women were forced inside the house in order to protect them. In this regard, Nivedita Menon’s feminist critique of the golden age becomes relevant, where she rightly points out that this idea is a result of interaction between colonialism and nationalism and shows how the two features that are used to support this belief of female superiority in the golden age – scholarship and property- present nothing but a selective picture of reality. Historical data shows how marginalised women’s position was in the academic space and the women have had no property rights because they are regarded as property, as something that men can circulate.

He believes that technology has brought about equality in the recent times and not philosophies like liberalism and feminism. Women have acquired greater freedom because technology has brought in various transportation that can allow the ‘fragile’ women to travel.

He believes that technology has brought about equality in the recent times and not philosophies like liberalism and feminism. Women have acquired greater freedom because technology has brought in various transportation that can allow the ‘fragile’ women to travel. What he fails to realise is that technology has only brought in divisions. Before the industrial revolution, both men and women worked together at home but it was this revolution that separated the home and the workplace i.e. the private and public domain. This separation only contributed to the devaluation of the women’s work and brought them indoors. The continuous development of technology or the mechanisation of work has only pushed women out of certain important sectors like the electrically operated flour mills have replaced the traditional hand pounding of grains by women and placed this job in the hands of men. To say that men are more suited to work that requires strength has to be called out too because women at home and informal sector do the heaviest of jobs like carrying heavy head loads of water over miles, etc.

His referencing of women as ‘flowers’ is deeply problematic because he sees women as only decorative items that are ‘useful and beautiful’ and without these eye soothing and care giving personalities men will have nothing but to do, because of course women are objects designed to please men.

He regards the division of labour in society as natural because men and women have been given separate responsibilities. He considers motherhood as something that is a natural desire among women. He overlooks the fact that many women may not want to become mothers at all because there is nothing natural, innate about it. His discouragement to venturing into the public space to earn money is also unacceptable at a time when money has come to dominate the world and social relations. Unless women acquire financial independence, there is no way they can come out of the trap of suppression and oppression.

Also read: Celebrity Feminism: In Between Performing And Becoming

In his apparent guidelines for women empowerment Sadhguru continuously uses stereotypes that only reinforce and strengthen sexist ideas and practices. He fails to understand that agency has a monumental role in a person’s life. What he needs to realise is that Women are not trying to be like men. They are just asking for what has been denied to them, which has robbed them of their humanity.


Featured Image Source: New Indian Express

25 COMMENTS

  1. I must say your article clearly showcases lack of rationality and disability of understanding the simple formula of life. This man here has nothing to do with what we are upto yet, he proposes a simple and ascetic path towards an ideal living leading to moksha. But your article seems like Goswami barking and raising illogical deductions and conclusions.
    Kindly reaffirm your stand, but not without proper interpretation and knowledge.

    • Agreed. Some details in the article are completely false. It takes a certain openness to understand what Sadhguru is truly saying. Without that openness, people only make assumptions and conclusions fit to what they want to believe. What he says is reality. As a feminist and a woman, I’ve found his talks very helpful in understanding reality, and empowering myself as a human being, not just a woman. His goal is to elevate humans not being them down in any way, male or female. His goal is to help people see beyond the body, beyond gender and realise their true potential. It is not to bring women down and raise men up.

    • Some of the things you said here are completely false. It takes a certain openness to understand what Sadhguru is saying, without with people will only make assumptions and conclusions to fit their beliefs. His ultimate goal is to elevate humans, regardless of gender to their highest potential. He focuses often in his talks, on seeing beyond the body. Beyond gender. As a feminist and a woman, his talks brought me closer to reality and helped me empower myself as a human being, not as a woman. If you focus more on women empowerment, than attacking people you don’t understand, you can bring in greater change. I wonder why using words like ‘fragile’ to describe women seems so negative to you. Women are more susceptible to injustice because women usually are physically less stronger than men, which is how biology made us. That doesn’t mean we are inferior, it just means we are more fragile and there’s nothing wrong with it. Most people see things in view of concluding instead of understanding and exploring. I think that’s what’s happening with this article.

  2. I agree with you 100%. The second video he is just spewing such non sense. He is harming public more than you can imagine. No, it’s important to acknowledge a female body is a female body and the prejudices faced in work places, public places are happening to a woman’s body. It’s thanks to efforts of feminists women have gained strides in Civic rights. I can’t even begin to explain what’s wrong with his second video.
    Sad that people like this are getting pulpits. He is not even consistent from one video to another.

  3. Extremely well written. His entire brand is based around tenets of patriarchy, belching random mumbo jumbo trying explain science for example. It is way too much if an expectation from him to pay attention or understand Feminism. He is a sham artist, with an excellent marketing team, repackaging spiritual terms and ideas.

  4. I believe women are binding forces at home and at office if required.

    I know women at home who rule the family with their emotional integrity, love and kindness. My own mother who would earn more than my father will finally destroy her own marriage and her only child because she had a better degree is a saddening example.

    FYI the Isha yoga centre is a matriarchal society and I’ve been there.

    Sadguru’s version of feminism is stronger, rational and will make women living forces in the world!!

  5. Let’s first call Islam out for child marriage, halala, Katna, polygamy and ton of others before trying to make innocuous statements made by him sound obnoxious a la Zakir Naik – you can as much thrive on. ambiguity but first clean our homes before raising issue of a non existent garbage in others!

  6. You have missed out on the basics of his conversation which is evident from numerous references in your article. Masculinity and femininity are not the same as men and women as he has said it countless times. A man can be feminine and a woman can be masculine without changing their genders. From evolutionary point of view, you are missing out on how quickly women have found the freedom to disentangle themselves over a period of a single generation. Your last para shows your impatience on a subject which is far bigger than your views.
    I have no intention to change your mind about Sadhguru as you will now vehemently debate it considering you have written an article on the topic but I can tell you that you are missing out on knowledge of one of the best things that have happened to us as a nation. If you want to discuss or debate your case, I am open to it. Just drop me an email.

    • I don’t disagree ,but there were times he actually reinforces stereotypes about gender .I completely disagree with him where he explained the father and son relationship by using analogies like both men need space reinforcing that there should always be an ego war between the two men as they need space rather than considering a possibility that both of them could establish a conducive relationship.

  7. Indian women are starting to appear similar to Western feminists of the 80s. Nothing new.

    The issue is active vs passive; neither has a negative meaning in itself. Both qualities have something to contribute, and some men are becoming passive or expressing another side of their nature and some women more aggressive

    Both men and women have both qualities. Both are necessary in the world. If femininists want aggressive women and passive men – maybe your prayers will soon be answered.

  8. The article is immature and the writer lacks knowledge on other fundamental matter sadhguru explained. Speaking of the videos of sadhguru in the article is like someone entering a cinema hall after the interval not knowing what happened in the first half and judging the movie. Hopeless article.

  9. This is one of the stupidest articles, and I’m not even a fan of Isha yoga. Please stop being a hater and try to solve problems if you can instead of throwing rocks and finding flaws at what other people do. Sad that you are qualified to be a journalist. Pathetic.

  10. A lot of comments claims the article is illogical and calls the writer hater. Yet, they dont give any background or examples on what exactly is illogical in the text. The writer gave a lot of examples , you need to offer a counter argument before you claim it is stupid or personally attacking the legitimacy of the writer.

    This new trend of calling the other side illogical or using you are projecting-clean your room first argument when you disagree must stop.

  11. He is fake doing gimmickry, having knowledge of social and science fields especially Hindu Religion. He knows the art how to make most by selling religion as per modern world but some time his negativeity cimes out as in the case of firbiding females into entering Certain Hindu Tembles (gender bias / #misogyny ) knowing that it clashes with modern values of Morality as per modern world. This negativity is seen from his face having no light.(Compare to #Osho ) How he can be humane, supporting Moodi’s actions towards Hindutwa which are against the secular values and basic constitution of India in which Congress still believes and indulge wide spread protest for it’s violation.

  12. As compare to this Satgru, #Osho is positive , Simple and also true to human nature.Especially when he says that Institution of marriage be abolished with No exception. He argued that 20% couples hate each other so not sincere with each other and even not engaged in sexual relations for years. He is #Vagabond and promiscuous by nature so preach it and also admit it’s practice in his life . He also belives in universal values of virtues and vices, wrongs and rights not hurting any one. It’s his spirituality. He disclosed that his parrents wanted him to lead a life of Monk but he refused( He thinks such abstaining not proper for him self )

  13. It is very sad people with little knowledge get to write article like this. Feminism does not have to be just about women. Every single person has it because we are product of man and women. People who have touched deeper dimension of life can understand what he is saying. We are living in the age of total ignorance and no perception towards life and everyone is trying to get the likes and dislikes and Negativity sells. Please use the tools he has to offer increase your perception before coming to conclusion. We don’t need to love Steve jobs to use iPhone.

  14. It seems like a good idea to criticize everybody that doesn’t agree with you. Bash an old guy,call him ignorant. If you really want equality, take responsibility for your actions first. Stop criticizing elders and look at your joke of an organisation. Anyways,its easy to criticize Hindus,they are not going to order Fatwah on you.

  15. Two things:

    1st
    Black ppl: Black Lives Matter
    Racists: No! All Lives Matter

    Feminists: Women’s Rights Matter
    Sadhguru: No! Everyone’s Rights Matter

    2nd
    Sadhguru is very pessimistic about masculinity. He says that when money becomes the only principle of society the masculine rules. But is that all masculinity is? Is masculinity to dominate others heartlessly with no value for the person, only for the financial bottom line? Is all masculinity, toxic masculinity? NO!

    Masculinity doesn’t cause money to become the only value in society

    Rather, Money as only value in society, causes masculinity to become toxic
    Money as only value in society causes femininity to become toxic, as well.
    It corrupts everything.

    I am much more hopeful about masculinity. What we see now is masculinity under patriarchy and under global capitalism; this is not what masculinity is at its best.

    We must stop money from continuing to be the only value in society, so that we can redeem masculinity, and neutralize the toxins that capitalism has injected into its veins.

    Not: Women’s Rights OR Anti-Capitalism
    But: Women’s Rights AND Anti-Capitalism

  16. TLDR:This article is shallow and unscientific.

    Long story:
    “To say that men are more suited to work that requires strength has to be called out too because women at home and informal sector do the heaviest of jobs like carrying heavy head loads of water over miles, etc.”
    This is unscientific.

    As per scientific finding http://jap.physiology.org/content/89/1/81 Men has 40% higher upper body strength and 33% greater lower body strength than women. Men excel in certain kinds of workloads women are better in others. Thus, muscle is able to deliver greater brute force than women because higher skeletal muscle mass and denser muscle fibres. But men’s muscle exhaust quickly as well while women are persistent.

    “His referencing of women as ‘flowers’ is deeply problematic because he sees women as only decorative items that are ‘useful and beautiful’ and without these eye soothing and care giving personalities men will have nothing but to do, because of course women are objects designed to please men.”

    This is shallow.
    Children are also called “flowers” affectionately and aesthetically are they of just decorative value? Just to please men and women?

    Finally, gender harmony can’t be brought about by distrust and hate as well as neglecting biological substrate that underlie the differences. And denouncing biological determinism of gender has little meaningful to offer when pharmacological differences of drug dosages appear to differ between sexes. Meanwhile referring to Klinefelter syndrome to discredit biological gender is all about making a disorder basis of a yardstick or norm, very much like we don’t say there exists 31 different types of liver, we say one liver and 30 different liver disorders.

Leave a Reply