Premanand Maharaj’s misogynistic sermon: regulation of the sexuality of women through holy sermons
Premanand Maharaj (born anirudh Kumar Pandey), a popular religious guide, recently gave an explanation of the purity of marital purity and accused most of the women to be unclean. Premanand said: “Of a hundred women, only four women who have lived a pure life can be dedicated to a man.” A viral video recorded Vrindavan’s spiritual leader Premanand Maharaj and made comments about the “Impurity” young women Nowadays that most are romantic or sexually involved and are therefore “impure” and only a few “pure” women remain. Before that, other religious leaders such as Aniruddhachacharya, also known as ‘Pookie Baba’ Sexual decisions of womenPresent The men bring 25-year-old women home who, according to him, “were together with several partners”.
Due to their sexism, both comments received a counter reaction of feminist and egalitarian masses. However, it is important to dive deeper and the origins of such sexist interpolations and the problematic social implications of such comments and the way they continue to shape the social sphere by means of the instructions of moral discourse on sexuality. ‘
Binary construction of female sexuality
‘The first implication of such comments is the reproduction of the binary file of the behavior of women. Since the mainstream religions have often built up the sexual purity of women. Women are often characterized in binary files, either as non -trustworthy shifts or as a cushion, submissive mothers. This dynamic is supported by sermons and guidance that are offered by religious authorities in which even the everyday behavior and behavior (dress, associated freedoms) can get under religious reviews.
Premanand Maharaj (loan: x/@Radhakelikunj)
First of all, it seems to be an appreciation of the “moral” sexual behavior of women and men. However, this appreciation has two main problems. First, the value of a woman is reduced to her sexual purity and the content of her conscience, your knowledge and dignity is transferred as a result of her chastity as a result of her chastity. Second, it becomes inevitable and legitimate to mock and exclude the “impure” of the moral and holy balls.
Women were traditionally considered through a dichotomous framework of the non -trustworthy, sexual and morally questionable fusion or the submissive, buzzing maternal figure.
Women were traditionally viewed by A dichotom frame of the non -trustworthy, sexual and morally questionable Seditor or the submissive, kehusche maternal figure. Nowhere is this more striking than in the Christian Bible with her two important female characters: Eva and the Virgin Mary (Lam, 2007). These two opposing archetypes refuse the agency and autonomy of women and reduce them to instruments of male moral order. Women who express autonomy, be it through clothing, romantic relationships or sexual authorities, are slandered as a threat to social order, while submissiveness is idealized as virtuous.
This control over sexuality is articulated in terms of purity and chastity. In addition, this preference for purity between partners on men and women in heterosexual relationships, in which women are socialized in order to internalize guilt and fear of their body, while men are subsequently or openly excused for sexual curiosity. For example, the comments from Premanand Maharaj implicitly set sexual experience with impurities and feed directly into such binary files. ‘
Lower agency undermout
‘Such comments of moral women sexuality often without an accountability for their consequences. The result is a gender -specific order in which women are both the carriers of moral doom as well as the guardians of local honor, neither the role of the role that was selected autonomously. The women’s agency takes away the preaching and proponent of discourse on the based discourse in terms of marriage and limits its ability to be divorced. It even makes the monogamy virtuous, preferable and moral and thus forms the basis of marriage as a sacrament that can never be deported, and deprives women.
(Image: Facebook/ @@ aniruddhaachachhary Maharaj)
The punishment for deviations from ideals results from several fronts. For example, a woman who is considered to be promiscuitive can be welcomed with a significant social mockery and attacked with labels that reduce their credibility and reduce “value”. In sexual attacks, female victims are often in court as well as the defendant. In addition, the divine legitimacy makes it worrying, since justice becomes difficult to grasp if this discrimination is divisional. Women are not only silenced by law or in the family, but also by the weight of the sacred authority. In such contexts, the search for reparation can be seen as a challenging God’s will, which makes mentally transferred and sinful.
Such comments moral women sexuality often without an accountability for their consequences. The result is a gender -specific order in which women are both the carriers of moral doom as well as the guardians of local honor, neither the role of the role that was selected autonomously. The women’s agency takes away the preaching and proponent of discourse on the based discourse in terms of marriage and limits its ability to be divorced.
This instance from the Ramayana, in which Rama behaves irresponsible towards Sita by delaying her, and if he finally does it, she questions her chastity, that Warring had more to do with Ravana with his own honor than to protect his wife. In response to this, Sita Rama calls “low” before carrying out the process through fire. When he returned to Ayodhya, Rama tries to save his reputation from public criticism by leaving his wife instead of defending her innocence (((King, 2013). ‘
Maintaining the patriarchal control of the sexuality of women
Such sermons can also be contextualized as mechanisms of social control over women and their sexuality, as Ambedar pointed out how endogamy had to be enforced in order to maintain the use of the box, and that it was necessary to control the sexuality of women. These remarks seem to be a continuation of Manu’s laws when he preached: ‘X. 2nd day and night women have to be kept dependent on men (their families), and if they combine sexual enjoyment, they must be kept under control (manusmriti, as cited by Ambedar). ‘and’ X. 45. The husband is declared one with the woman, which means that there can be no separation when a woman is married. ‘
(Image: Facebook/ @@ aniruddhaachachhary Maharaj)
Comments by Holy Authorities translate patriarchal social imagination into social laws and legitimize unequal gender relationships. It induces patriarchal behavior that gains legitimacy from religion, as was the case with Manusmriti. Some may argue that in such comments, the maintenance of inner purity, since sexual activities could morally affect the conscience. In contrast, none of these religious authorities or mainstream religions want women to follow celibacy that would differ from the social role of mother and woman who are reserved for them. Religious authority therefore enables repeated sexual activities, but condemned a mutual, non-monogamous relationship as a sign of deterioration, not because of the damage caused, but because it falls outside the prescribed control and property structures. One can even question the preachers of purity for their silence on non -matters of marriage traffic or marital rape. Doesn’t the husband or men worsen?
Celibacy in some traditions serves as ideal, but for the majority of religious mainstream discourses on sexual purity, the danger about non-monogame connections is built up, especially those outside the sanction of marriage. These discourses rarely prioritize the real concern about the well -being of women or the supposed “evil consequences” of sexual activities; Instead, they encode a view of sexual morality, in which power, regulation and social order are anchored in patriarchal norms.
Maintaining the “purity” is mainly a project of social control, which is often rather rooted in patriarchal fear and maintaining authority than in a universal moral or spiritual standard in terms of sexuality.
Maintaining the “purity” is mainly a project of social control, which is often rather rooted in patriarchal fear and maintaining authority than in a universal moral or spiritual standard in terms of sexuality. This is obvious because repeated sexual intercourse within a monogamous marriage rarely, if at all, is subject to religious allegations. However, sexual intercourse with various partners is often constructed as “contamination”.
These findings therefore lead us to the conclusion that rules are structured to emphasize control and exclusivity instead of an intrinsic moral breakdown that is connected to the gender itself. In addition, the “purity” ideal is disguised against women: The concept of deterioration is almost unique with female sexuality in non -monogamous contexts, while male indiscretion is often minimized, apologized or even sanctified in historical or biblical environments. ‘
Jatin Mathur is anthropology absolvent and master student of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics. His interests lie in the sociology of education, psychological anthropology and the study of identities with a broader commitment to questions of social justice and marginal.
