Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00175)

Dear Kym,

Your voice is very much appreciated, but know that some of us have been
trying, in vain, to have some of the dated Theosophical language modified to
conform with more modern ideas & ideals, because, indeed, when they
formulated "The Brotherhood of Man", in the last century, Sisters didn't
count for much, even though several of them were running the Theosophical
Society. To me, as a woman, even as a female older woman, who should be used
to being thought of as a 2d class person, deifying the "Brotherhood of Man"
is offensive. I'm neither a man nor a brother, but an equally valuable
female human being, and I resent, along with all other women ... and many
men ... any idea that insinuates that I'm not equal, if a little different
... and vive la difference!

Just about a year ago, not quite, Wheaton was changing the wording of some
of our bylaws. They changed around something on the first object, but we
couldn't get them to do anything about "Brotherhood". It seems there is
objection from International Headquarters, and so "Brotherhood" stayed. I
can't see any young people of today be anything but turned off by an
organization which says it champions "Brotherhood" as its highest ideal.
If you'll have a look at the way we reworded the 3 objects when we formed
Theosophy International, I can't quote what we say verbatim, but we talk
about "The Human Family". Also our TI set-up is no longer hierarchical, and
we had to twist Alan Bain's arm 10 times, before he would accept any
leadership functions at all.
Also, supposedly, theos-l is supposed to get away from theosophical
provincialism. All Theosophical factions are welcome, and most are
represented. If we still sound provincial, I would chalk that up to the
various members who write in. To me, Theosoophy is eclectic, but that's not
everyone else's view.

Liesel