I am not sure how to say this without sounding like a cultural chauvanist, buuut, one of the most frightening things about someone like Sister Nirmala is that her strong positions on things like abortion and poverty simply reinforce some of the most negative gender stereotypes for women and children in India and around the world. Poor women are poor by the 'grace of god', and 'must accept' their physiological reproductive role as the primary guidance for all their actions while on this earth. The subordination of women in 'natural' and 'god'given'. Now, if someone wants to become a nun and accept this, that's fine with me, but I cringe when they shout such suppression out for the rest of the world to emulate. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 97-09-13 16:31:13 EDT, Doug writes: >Mother Teresa's successor, a Brahmin-born Nepali now known as Sister >Nirmala, seems more frankly appalling than her predecessor. From the NYT >story by Barbara Crossette - web version (the print version ran something >had the Brahmin ID right after one of her remarks on the beauty of poverty): > ><quote> >At a news conference Friday, Sister Nirmala reaffirmed a few of her >predecessor's more controversial tenets. She said that abortion was >unthinkable even in cases of rape. And she said that she, like Mother >Teresa, was not interested in what caused poverty, which she described as >"beautiful," or in changing the social environment in which it thrives. > >"Poverty will always exist," Sister Nirmala said. "We want the poor to see >poverty in the right way - to accept it and believe that the Lord will >provide." ><endquote> > >Doug
