Just Repeating Prabhupada

Ever talk to a misogynists, defeat them with the philosophy, but their inability to ever admit defeat lead you to any of the following retorts?

"I am just repeating Prabhupada."

"I'm just following Prabhupada."

"I'm just saying what Prabhupada says."

What devotee, engaged in a spiritual debate, is not trying their utmost to repeat Prabhupada? Everyone is speaking from the perspective they are repeating, as well as following, Srila Prabhupada. Absolutely everyone.

Therefore why anyone make such a comment? It is an unnecessary comment.

It has a purpose though.

What they're in fact saying: "I have absolute authority to say as I have because Prabhupada said it, now I am merely repeating it to you. I am having 100% accurate correctness in this."

What appeared initially as a placid gentle comment (top), is in truth, a concealed belief in their absoluete rightness.

Nothing wrong with genuine repeating of Srila Prabhupada. Repeating him is something that should be done. Make sure it be genuine. Extensively, much is taken out of context when the devotee quoting is attached to their sense gradification of sex or power.

Don't let them pull this. Next time they claim "I'm just repeating Prabhupada," ask them where? Show me the proof. Exact quotes that were not removed from context that resulted in a change of meaning. Srila Prabhupada was not against such inquiry, thus no one should be offended. Factually Srila Prabhupada taught to go to the source of quotes, philosophies too.

After inquiring as such, you will have something (authentic) to work with, because misogynists almost always use various slantings.

Which too is why they rather give a short "I'm just repeating Prabhupada's instructions," rather than prove it. Because then, they no longer have the last word, now feeling "challenged" once asked for evidence.

They dislike this immensely, while can't disagree with such actions because its well-known to be same actions Srila Prabhupada encouraged. Often he'd say to get the text source, and what is it they believe in.

All these "Prabhupada said's." Without knowing a devotee very well, or knowing them but not good friends, a "Prabhupada said" can be misused by them to give maha finality. Ever play the game, telephone? Thus, we want the full quote and its origin.

Once Srila Prabhupada commented: "Prabhupada said, Prabhupada said - Prabhupada never said anything."

Avoid blind following. Know your stuff.

Dig up the data.

.

Wife likes Rape?

Have read some devotees strongly can not understand why other devotees accept every word of Prabhuapda unconditionally. Especially when there be a few, though only a few, like this topic. What they're unaware of, those other devotees know scripture to explain that a spiritual master need not be perfect in "material knowledge" in order to be perfect in spiritual knowledge.

Neophytes tend to be too inflexiable regarding material subjects. With calm maturity, the devotees faith grows, becoming less intereted in the material ideas, and aspires for the spiritual knowledge. Material knowledge can be obtained elsewhere. Srila Prabhupada did not venture as our dentist or doctor, except with a little practical advice of the times which we could take or leave. However, it be his high spiritual position that was perfect and unquestionable for the initiated disciple. Don't feel that way? Then don't take initiation.

When first learning of that rape quote, I became as startled over it as anyone. Its still not my favorite, but necessitates answers.

Actually many answers have been given: Culture has its effect, where one grew up, type of village katha, University attended, how language was taught than, all of these may have carried diverse meanings.

Additional concepts now cibsudered.

Rape may not have meant rape in the same exact context most who do not live in India understand it. This rape of "wife" may now go by a modern vernacular: "Rough Sex." Devotee women are different. Prabhupada explained on many occasions, he was not referring to devotee women, rather materialistic women. Additionally, his humble speech in the Butler church showing respect to all there including women, appears such quotes do not apply to women who are overall spiritual. The rape statement was subject matter not of male sexuality, but women. Had the subject switched to men - while can't put words in Prabhupada's mouth, reality of what we see is men like it. Our philosophy is that everyone's lusty in the material world. Karmi men often try to persuade the wife to dress up in a nurse or maid costume. Role playing. Devotee men should never do like that, simply the desire is there. Rough sex is the next best thing. Men are no exception to liking it.

"But the present age of kali is full of ignorant men. Even those who are born by a brahmana father are, in the present age, no better than the sudra or the women. " SB 1.3. 21

It is not by birth, or by material body, someone is good devotee. It is through actions. Misogynists make clever attempts to confuse, claim he's performing his duty to wife by indulging her in rough sex, because she must like it. REALITY: A) Most devotee women abhor rough sex, are more often offended by it. B) Usually it's fallen men in kali-yuga attracted to rape wife. From reasons of sex, to reasons of violence, and power. C) Prabhupada was not giving an instruction to go home and rape the wife! Never. He was speaking on materialism.

Have recently read about old dictionaries (such as Websters of 1893) holding different meanings to the word 'rape' as opposed to how its used today. To even include in the definition: "friutive," and too: “taking anything — including a woman — away by force” However it also included sexual rape, a definition that seems to have become rougher over the centuries. We've seen some recent changes in dictionaries which many do not like, yet they were made. Most likely when Prabhupada attended University, these older dictionaries, as well as encyclopedias, were what he was given to study from. This of course is not where this topic ends, just worty of attention.

ADDITIONAL-Another point be, the subject matter from the conversation was regarding law and a rape victim, alleging the lawyer of the rapist was clever (sneakily) as in asking the victim if there was even a drop of pleasure. Perchance consequences of her honesty, she replied yes, then the lawyer won the case, back than. It was not justification as rightness, no, only explaining due to biology, the law worked the way it did at that time.

In more recent times regarding child molestation, the child feeling guilty due to feeling some pleasure duing their rape, it has been explained it was not their fault they felt any pleasure. Merely because someone stimualtes such nerve endings of one who does not want it, has some nerve critcizing them for enjoying it when they did not want to enjoy with them!

Even if a grown woman of rape ejoyed a drop of pleasure due to her biology, its not choice, does not make it acceptable. I believe this is what Prabhupada was also getting at, how ridiculous the lawyer was. We do not see Prabhupada, like Rajnesh, encouraging rape. Once read a letter, can't find now, from Malati devi dasi. Her godsister was raped by man who climbed into the ashram window. The woman was horrified. Malati wrote to Srila Prabhuapda after it happened, and what type of letter does anyone think he sent back? That she enjoyed the rape, therefore its her fault too? Nonsense! His letter was one of deep compasstion, understanding, and encouragment. Now that is the truth how Prabhupada believes about rape, not these other slantings.

Its necessary to develop a little understanding of the manner in which Srila Prabhupada spoke, as this is often a problem we see in many conversations. Prabhupada will say something, then devotees will assume he meant something bad, then if they question him, they find out it not to be what he meant at all. Principally, why misogynists love this rape comment so extremely, making sure to publish it all about the internet, when Prabhupada has endless other quotes on celibacy and giving up sex as much more important?

"So actually, married couples should be paramahamsas. Paramahamsa means the topmost stage of sannyasi. Paramahamsa. A sannyasi has got four stages: kuticaka, bahudaka, parivrajakacarya and paramahamsa. .... It doesn't matter whether a grhastha, vanaprastha, sannyasi. It doesn't matter. So when he preaches all over the world, that is called parivrajakacarya. And when he's experienced, he executes the work by his assistants. That is called paramahamsa. So grhasthas are supposed to be paramahamsa." - Sri Vyasa-puja lecture, London, Augt 22, 73

Recently a devotee questioned, what is bad preaching exactly? Who are we preaching to? That karmis don't show much interest in what we say about this, so we are preaching about this to DEVOTEES.

Many misunderstandings he makes here, start with mistake of thinking he understands the rape quote, suggesting devotees should surrender to the idea of rape of wife, when that is not clear understanding at all. Tthough probably what anyone who speaks like this desires to be able to get away with yet still go back to Godhead.

Another mistake he makes is not understanding karmis indeed care, not to look down his nose at them. Preaching to them is how they become devotees. Their opinion matters, especially since Prabhuapda's movement is to be in accordance with Lord Caitanya instructions to give Krishna to every town and village, and not a movement for rape or other excessive sense gratification, for some anyway.

Though many such misognynists do not want that brand of karmis to become devotees, considering them trouble, inferior, a problem they (misogynists) will have to confront in the future. They often consider them someone to keep away from devotional service. However,that is not Prabhupada's philosophy. Therefore it is WRONG.

Misogynists insist on indisputable position of authoritative power, simultaneously behind closed doors craving to rape wife? Oxymoron. Having taken vows of celibacy, they're breaking those vows in this way. Undergoing no sense of guilt as they're just giving her what she likes, he tells himself. Women are not owned by husband, and they are not husbands slave. Women belong to God and guru, Srila Prabhuapda referred to women as "his daughters."

"Yes, you should be proud of having a nice wife like that. And I have handed over my daughter unto you, because I knew it that you will be the perfect boy to take care of her. Recently she was deteriorating in her health, so I was very much anxious about her, therefore, I decided to give her in your charge." Prabhupada letter, Sept 20, 1968

Any misogynists thinking 'handing over his daughter' means they can do with her whatever they want, from maltreatment to rape, they conviently misunderstanding. Women belong to pure Srila Prabhupada and Krishna who is God. Clearly females are devotees who should be treated as such, wanting to maintain initiation vows she took before fire and Krishna, which grants her eternal connection to God and guru. Husband should not make her break vows or think he owns her. Fallen men are wanting so much sex under guises of polygamy and misogynistic rape. Hypocrisy. Prabhupada did NOT give any instruction to rape wife, but clearly gave the instruction of celibacy.

"Don't be childish, that "Yes, I have promised before spiritual master, before Krishna, before fire. All right, that's all right. Let me break." No, don't do that. Don't do that. Don't lose this opportunity. You are now on the point of deathlessness" Srila Prabhupada Lecture on S. Bhagavatam 1.16.8 -- L.A., Jan 5, 1974

It is comprehensible that someone new, or has not delved into it for purpose of uncovering intent, regarding the quotes or commonets on rape, they may not be so easily understood. Many who've been devotees awhile still struggle with tit. However, those who don't want to abuse it, but get to the truth, stop now to consider the following. Pure deovtees like Jesus who walked on water, or Buddha incarnate with his mysticism, and too Prabhupada's spiriutally with his mystical powers, none of these elevated personalities would advocate rape, it doesn't even make sense. Thus we should next know to dig deeper. To look into it from the humble perspective that we are not fully realized, do not always immediately grasp knowledge expressed by such holy personalities. This is not escuse or denail, as this blogger wants truth. Recognizing I'm not pure devotee, not horrid devotee, in between, merely not level of sage. Thereupon, I must further investigate and find out what was truthfully intended.

Something to be considered is an interesting comparrison where the females mentioned there psychologically having attraction to her raper spouse, they were approximately of teenage years, intelligence not fully developed, sense control including the mind, not yet fully developed. Anyone with a teenager in the house knows they can be strongly driven by hormones and not always use their brains when it comes to making choices. Again not justification, just explanation. (Its also why polygamists want to get their hands on virgin underaged girls, because once matured the spiritual female will figure out his level of degradation.)

In modern times how many young girls have thought, when texted by their boyfriend every couple of hours, or receiving a phone call from him every hour, was love? This is a fact, as there are therapists now working with so many such young girls. Even if their boyfriend raped them, and many admited they were raped by such a boyfriend, often they still reamin in love with him, still thinking his activities are proof of his affection for her. However, chronic checking in on her is not love, it is his selifhness, controlling, manipulation, dishonety, and worry she might be cheating on him because he is cheating on her.

In the past there were not counselors to help the girl out of such confusion, it was common to find her a "qualified" husband, though she did not move into his house even after marriage, until she was older. Even than, part of being qualified as Vaisnava meant he did not engage in sex unless they both wanted to have a baby, with all that entails. Thus not a roll in the hay, especially not rape, even for the married priest. Scripture explains the baby often takes on, or is experiencing some of the consciousness of the parents during conception. Therefore to attract a Godly soul to the womb, there is to be a spiritual atmosphere with specific spiritual preparation. Thus pseudo first class followers of Prabhupada thinking this rape quote as instruction, is absurd!

Another perspective to be considered regarding the verse is it appears to be more related to ancient Vedic societal system known as Varnashraa Dharma, one that finds a place in the world for sudras, kstriyas, vyasyas, and brahmana's. There can be all types of people, all forms, and as time went on, various faiths like Hinduism. (Though Hinduism isn't really an ancient Vedic religion.) In such a system the woman get protection that fallen men do not harm her, which is seldom the way most misogynists intend protection. There's is more often bullying, which is not Vedic.

Therefore some points mentioned in that verse may be explained as related to Varnashramadharma, because Varnashramadharam was about keeping civility, it was for the common people of the world, and not for serious initiated persons. It was revealing lifestyles of the distant past, the generalized system that went along with times of long ago, how some young women felt, and how they were protected during their teenage years. Though teenagers of satya yuga for example, were physically more developed than our teenagers. Mysogynosists are not honoring the differences between young teenage woman of ancient scripture, and young teenage girls of kali yuga.

While Srila Prabhupada explained the process of Varnashramadharma, he also explained that in this kali yuga it can not be properly followed (with but a minor exception probably to give a chance to those who kept asking for it). Instead he was promoting Vaisnavism, which is higher than Varnashramadharma. At that time of the past, should a woman not find a husband, her life became difficult. Some may feel rape of that time, one aspect, and not the only aspect, meant she may have never experienced sex otherwise. Not justifying it, just a thought. Immediately to remind any misogynist readers, Vaisnava women who have taken initiation vows should not be viewed in the same manner as ladies of the past, who fit into many categories. Some were not automatically devotees, we do not at least see them mentioned to be always a devotee. Some were. But it appears this quote is more about keeping a moral society, and not an instruction to the initiated disciple, which would be higher.

"When He (Lord Chaitanya) met Sri Ramananda Raya on the banks of the Godavari, the varnashrama-dharma followed by Hindus was mentioned by the Lord. Sri Ramananda Raya said that by following the principles of varnashrama-dharma and four orders of human life, everyone could realize transcendence. In the opinion of the Lord, the system of varnashrama-dharma is superficial only and it has very little to do with the highest realization of spiritual values." -Srimad Bhagavatam Introduction.

Regarding roles of women described in ancient scripture, lets first look back, not that long ago in western countries, maybe a hundred years past, there still existed a stigma for many women who remained unmarried, considered 'old maid.' No longer is that the case. Now some woman do not want to marry or not until much older and have gotten together her life. While misognyists want to live in the past, Prabhupada lived in the present, as a realist. When a female disciple asked him if she should stay home and servie her husband as the Vedic women of the past did, he replied that no, she should not, but instead to use her skills to preach about Krishna.

Misognyists need to be willing to seek purificaiton and see the whole picture. Too often they want to imitate the lifestyle of the past, which Prabhupada warned against copying artifically. Of tha usually want only woman to follow the strictness of the other yuga's, while they remain rascals and bullies. Men thinking they can now rape or abuse and be considered a first class Vaishnava, are cheaters. There are the cheated, and of those who desire to be cheated. Than there are the truth seekers.

Srila Prabhupada's reply to a disciple:

"Regarding your enemy, Mr. Lust: I have noted the difficulties, but we should always remember that Krishna is stronger than any demon, and Mr. Lust, or his father or his grandfather, nobody can do anything provided we take shelter of Krishna very tightly. Now so far your personal matter is concerned, you are a Brahmacari, you can marry at any time, and in New York, all the nice girls, they are actually very suitable for our students, and I encourage that all the Brahmacaris may be very responsible, and marry one of the girls. Because generally the girls desire good husband and a good home, children, that is their natural propensity, so we want to show some ideal householders also. But the proposal that marriage will solve the question of lust, is not practical.

Neither wife should be accepted as a machine for satisfying our lust. The marriage tie should be taken as very sacred. One who marries for subduing lust is mistaken. Because lust cannot be satisfied simply by indulging in sense gratification. It is compared with that extinguishing the fire with large amount of petrol. For the time being, the fire may appear to be extinguished by pouring a large quantity of petrol, but the petrol itself is so dangerous that at any time, it can be in flame. So to subdue lust is a different process. Then you have to take to Deity worship." Letter, Seattle, Washington , 03 October - 1968

Only low class men refuse to elevate themselves, are attracted to ideas it can be religious to rape wife, not wanting to stretch their brain to uncover real meaning. Rather to set off toward opportunity to rape wife whenever he wants, then to blame Srila Prabhupada through misquotes or partial unclear quotes, for their sex and power attachments. Show one comment where Prabhuapda says to his disciple: "You are good Vaisanva husband if you rape your wife." NOWHERE!

They need to admit, they do not understand Prabhupada, with their mundane brain, and his superior spiritual brain. They are drawn to the muck, and never question themeselves. What happened to guilty conscience when they do something wrong? Appears they have none, always must be right. We wonder if their nerve endings have gone dead to not send the message to their brain rape is not spiritual, and to search out the true meaning. Is the only way some of them can feel be through violent actions, to shake their nerve endings awake?

Msogynists, stop lying. Renounce material sex and power; return to celibacy and surrender to Krishna. If unable, then confess the truth, live life as best as possible, but stop corrupting Prabhupada's movement with your falldown conceptualizations.

"Therefore, our duty is to dovetail our acts with Krsna's desire, not to manufacture an action and then declare: "I am doing this action in Krsna consciousness." We have to be very careful to ascertain whether Krsna actually wants it. Such authorized knowledge is instructed by the representative of Krsna. In our prayers of praise to the spiritual master we are singing daily, "If the spiritual master is satisfied, then God will be satisfied. And if one dissatisfies his spiritual master, then there is no way for him to please God." Science of Self Realization, CHAPTER 8

How many in the Brahma Sampradaya line of purest guru's, like Srila Prabhupada, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Goswami, or Bhaktivinode Thakura, all the way back, how many have a reputation for raping? None. Where are quotes to prove they wanted their disciples to rape? Nowhere! Therefore a need to humble the self that we, most everyone who is not pure devotee, accept we not to fully understand the ways of expression of Srila Prabhupada, and he is therefore not approving rape. Its usually men who are all ready rapists, that do not want to see facts of what Prabhupada said here to be more about what was law at the time, or what karmi men or women did at that time, or what was current. Nowhere in accepting devotees that took vows did he ever include rape as acceptable! Celibacy yes, rape no.

Usually men who promote rape quotes and never try to see if they possibly could have misunderstand, are some level of rapist, a crime.

If there still remains confusion over this, for this blooger what is clear, and what is not, this much I am sure of: Prabhupada was not instructing rape, Prabhupada would not talk of these things unless there was a lesson to be learned, some benefit to keep us from the pit falls and assist us some way or other, with relevance to going back to Godhead. Like, watch out for mundane lawyers (there can be spiritual lawyers), and beware that there still are men who like to rape yet take no responsibility for their actions while blaming the woman, and we should watch over a teenager who can't yet make good choices at such a time when hormones rage but they are too young in kali yuga. Conceivably more perspectives can be found. Otherwise I do not see he would have brought it up. We may need to take time to decipher in our more modern language and understanding, but never have read one letter of instruction to a disciple it was ok to rape his wife, or to that wife to surender to rape. Never.

"The institution of varnashrama-dharma is used by selfish men to pose an artificial predominance over the weaker section." -S. Bhagavatam 1:2:13

"Because this human life is meant for God realization. It is not meant for sex enjoyment or sense gratification. It is simply meant for... Here is an opportunity to understand one's constitutional position, that he is spirit soul, and Krishna or the Supreme Lord is also spirit soul. So the spirit soul, individual soul, is part and parcel of Krishna. Therefore it is his duty to remain with the whole." - Srila Prabhupada Lecture, Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.48 - Dallas, July 30, 1975

Devotee means.... http://womeninkrsnaconsciousness.blogspot.com/2010/07/devotee-means.html

.

White Supremists, Male Superiority, Slavery

This one really curls my tail. Misogynists are usually bigots. With their self-imposed outlook of "who they are" (advanced), lining this up as male superiority, it should not be amazing that in addition, they are prejudiced concerning anyone with black skin. Male or female, irrelevant.

"Lower birth," they complain. Then on to blaming Srila Prabhupada. The reality is, they DON'T UNDERSTAND Srila Prabhupada. They understand that which can be altered and brought 'round to serve their sense of pleasures, including mental pleasure. Acknowledged there are a few (very few) quotes where Prabhupada speaks of slavery, and this was startling. Figured it out- We are speaking of the pure devotees way of thinking, not ours, not the material history of slavery abuse.

After figuring that out, amiably discovered a matching quote! Lost it, but read it. Prabhupada's definition of slavery was indeed different from ours! It was in reference to taking care of those who are extremely poor, less fortunate. How many of us have had a friend or cousin who fell on very hard times, we agreed to let them come stay with us for an extended period. Possibly you offered such persons a job on your farm if you have one, more likely to fix up the house, do some carpentry, or whatever you had to offer. No one is to be left a struggling sudra, and those who can, should reach a hand out to help.

Revised- Above its mentioned having read such a quote. Think I just discovered it. "Yogesvara: Yes, when the sudras were seeing that, "Oh, these men, they are keeping us as slaves, and they are making us work just for our food," then they revolted.

Srila Prabhuapda: “No, no. You should keep them such nicely and friendly way, they will never think like that. They will think that you are giving him food and shelter, and you are taking care, giving them protection to their family. Then they will be happy. Then they are happy. When you give them all protection, then they will be happy. Now… Just like in Japan. The industrialists give all men. They give food. They give education. They give shelter. So they work very happily”

"Bhagavan: They like to work.

"Prabhupada: Yes.

"Bhagavan: It’s not that people like to be idle.

"Prabhupada: I have seen. And the Dai Nippon directors, they live very poorly, but still, they do not like to give up the service because they are assured of their family, protection, medicine, food, education. They did not like. Never mind, it is not very luxurious. Still, they stick. That I have seen." -Srila Prabhuapda, Morning Walk Conversatin, Rome Italy, May 27 1974,

Srila Prabhupada preformed the marriage ceremony of Sudama das (Afro-American man) to Cintamani devi dasi (white woman). He would not have done so if he were prejudiced in the least. "Just like I am talking with you," I am not talking with your shirt. I don’t look to your shirt, whether you have put on a white shirt or black shirt. That is not my concern. I am concerned with you as a living being. This is our philosophy. We don’t take account of the outward shirt and coat." - Srila Prabhupada, July 5, 1972

Evident that the concept of the pure devotee Srila Prabhuapda's of this subject matter be vastly different than our own. Making next, a great deal depending upon how we the conditioned soul view and addresses these topics. An example of the world may be, taking a pet to the Veterinarian, one can honor the Vet for becoming one, or can make a disrespectful remark: "What’s wrong, couldn't cut it in medical school for human beings?" Clearly the wrong perspective!

There are difference in men, women, cultures, more. If we recognize them as mere difference no one will become puffed up, thus respect will remain for all concerned. A woman can not lift tremendous heavy items. (There's exceptions, but not alluding to exceptions). A man can't have a baby. No matter how hard he tries, he can not become pregnant or give birth. Short of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Only if a human being lets it go to their head and view 'difference' as 'inferiority vs superiority,' does trouble arise. More importantly, its materialistic, not spiritual.

Often we start our learning in relationship to what we identify with - our material body. That is step number one. Prabhupada used various practical examples to help us relate (though not about black vs white). A child first learns, what are "ears?," by touching his own ears; soon learns not to hurt others when he discovered bumping into a wall hurts him. Next the child learns to love their local community by first learning love at home from mum and dad. As they grow, what they learn can expand into greatness, if it is correctly taught in the beginning. One leading to the next. Often starting with our own body, our own community, our own experiences.

A professor of college has a higher position in life than his or her students usually have. We recognize that as a basic fact. Later students may become a professor, simply first, one starts from the humble position.

Our reality is that of living in this world. Case in point: we go to a doctor only to find out we require a specialist. Are we to think the specialist is a higher birthed person then the doctor who went through at least 8 years of medical school? Nonsense. Thus it is not pure understanding of Veda that uses caste system to put blacks, women, Latino, or others, in inferior categories. While that's present in other religions like Hinduism, but its not what Srila Prabhupada taught. We really need to take time out to learn, or become aware of, differences between Hinduism and Krishna Consciousness, assuring we follow Prabhupada's instructions only. (Respect to Hindus. This isn’t about you, rather devotees following Prabhupada accurately.)

If the definition of slavery used by GHQ and other misogynists is accurate, then why do we not see Srila Prabhupada owning any slaves? It is because misogynist men would not want to jog their brain & think outside the box, to accept their western ways of understandings are even western, when they are. They do not want to admit their way of thinking is wrong. Can not admit Prabhuapada speaks in unusual ways, ways many may initially not understand but those with pure hearts want to hear the higher, accurate, understanding.

Those who love the idea of owning slaves rather pass off their contamined desires as spiritual. Yet it is not part of Vaisnava lineage to own slaves. Who owned them? Not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Goswami, not BhaktiVinode Thakura, no one. Thus when we see Prabhupada speak of it, he is using different meaning, refering to mood of helping out the desperate as if giving them a job.

Srimad Bhagavatam explains in it's introduction:

"The system of varnashrama-dharma is more or less based on moral principles. There is very little realization of the Transcendence as such, and Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu rejected it as superficial and asked Ramananda Raya to go further into the matter."

Srila Prabhupada was never prejudiced! Bhakti-Tirtha swami, Afro-American, was initiated by Prabhupada. He took him on as his disciple full-fledged. Bhakti Tirtha has since left his body (passed away), he shall not be the main topic, and all respect to those who were close to him. The guru/disciple relationship is very serious thing. If the disciple does not make it back to Godhead, the guru must comes back to save him all over again. Do the misogynists believe Prabhupada was a bigot yet willing to come back, if needed, return to this material world of birth and death to again pick up any of his numerous Afro-American disciples? (Or Latino, or women, or white.)

Prabhupada reveals highest knowledge:

"He may be a man, he may be a woman, he may be a sudra, he may be a brahmana or he may be black or he may be white. Everyone can approach to the highest platform of devotional service. It is open field." - Srila Prabhupada, Bhagavatam Lecture, Montreal, 19 August 1968

"The system of caste, or varnashrama-dharma, is no longer regular even amongst so-called followers of the system." Srimad Bhagavatam 2:4:18

Misogynists, you proudly admit to bigotry, enjoy intimidating others - keeping them beneath you, and are not following His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, regardless how often you deceptively insist you are. However, you're doing a terrific job at ruining his reputation on the net. Then again, you can only speak according to your level of realization: HINDSIGHT-

http://womeninkrsnaconsciousness.blogspot.com/2010/06/hindsight.html