The SES's attitude towards Women has never been fully explained to me, so I can't really comment
Well, Bella, a current adult student at the Brisbane SES school has described it thus:
Bella wrote:Yup, women obeying men (specifically their father or husband) is suggested as the ideal. The father or husband is said to embody the Absolute, so the wife is to assume she is obeying the will of the Absolute. The woman is said to embody nature, or the universe?the wife is (generally speaking) supposed to provide the "heart" in the relationship while the husband (generally speaking) provides the reason.
Bella wrote:NYC, I've found that "obedience" can be - and is - interpreted on quite a few levels. Ideally, it means that the husband's or father's word on a subject is final.
So according to Bella the SES teaching is that men should be the decision-makers.
Martyn, in your short time in foundation group have you noticed that while there are a few female tutors they are ALWAYS assisted by women? It would throw a kink in the SES worldview for a female tutor to have a male assistant. Just not natural, don?t you know.
Bella is not talking about what the SES taught in the 70s, or five years ago, she posted that in august of last year. The org seems to have moved in a progressive direction in some ways, for example accepting the idea of women working outside the home, but the doctrine does not allow for women to be ?the boss.? The Senior Tutor could never be a woman. Why?
Bella wrote:"Men have greater access to reason, and need to cultivate emotion. Women have greater access to emotion, and need to cultivate reason."
That?s the premise, and then the trick is to define ?reason? & see if you agree that men have more of it.
All above quotes can be found on: