Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00328)

kymsmith@micron.net writes:
>It has been suggested the arguments regarding "Sexism" is unimportant in the
>Theosophical scheme of things.  Really?  How are we going to "help humanity"
>if every time we speak we unnecessarily offend a great number of them.

Rather I feel that every time we speak why do people have to feel that their
sex is so important, that they must be offended unnecessarily.  I am male,
yes, but if I was female, I doubt that I would feel any different about the
situation than I do now.

>Those who find "political correctness" tiresome are simply lazy.  How are we
>going to help humankind if we can't integrate basic concepts of equality?
>We know this - Theosophy will first be identified by those who practice it,
>and if they practice in offensive ways, then Theosophy will be dismissed as
>just another "us against them" belief system.  Yes, I am aware that for many
>Theosophists, the fewer that know of Theosophy, the more special that makes
>those of us who do.  But what does that say about us, what does that say
>about Theosophy?

I've got kind of a major question ...do we all believe that the "highest"
aspect of women(to humor those who need it) and men are their atman ...which
is not something individualized, but, in a way, is "shared" by all.  Without
sex.  Without race.  What is the purpose of the above-mentioned "practice"
other than to attain and/or become this aspect?

>I am also amazed that there is more outrage at the "spell" post than there
>was at the post it was in response to.  Did most of you really read the post
>that prompted the "spell" post (yes, I will acknowledge a few (too few) did
>find it offensive, and the best posts speaking up were from men)?  After
>reading many of the responses addressing the "girls," I sincerely hope the
>black people among us don't request audience in regards to the terms "White
>Brotherhood."

I don't believe I read the "spell" post, but I had thought about the "White
Brotherhood" having that little hint of racial discrimination...good
call...shall we add this to our list of complaints?

>Also, some seem to actually think I really put a "spell" on Maurice (I have
>gotten some pretty violent private posts on this subject - one claimed
>"women will use any and all means to emasculate men, including magic" - uh,
>ok. ..)  It is clearly un-Wiccan to ever "curse" anyone, (so is the use of
>effigies) and only those ignorant of Wicca would ever declare that such was
>acceptable to Wiccans.  Funny how those who screamed the most about people
>who can't take a joke freaked out the greatest after reading the "spell"
>post.

I actually did find Alan's joke somewhat amusing ...I just chose his post to
make a serious example of what had been going elsewhere.  Just a bad choice of
"reply" I suppose.:) "An it harm none; do what thou wilst."  The perfect code
..I'd be perfectly happy with it if it wasn't for my innate need for
complexity.

>I am disturbed too how even some women on this list are willing to accept
>non-equality.  A woman even doubted the female body was as good as the man's
>(although that post was readdressed eloquently by a male, proving that men,
>when they so choose, are capable of seeing women as equals without feeling
>any personal threat - a sign of personal and mental strength - and yes, it
>goes both ways).  Didn't HPB, and I'm fuzzy on this, express the thought

The blatant unequality of the past has little to do with habitual usage of
words.  It shouldn't matter if someone writes he, she, or person ...ugh.  Ok.
For all those offended by the use of "sexually discriminative proper nouns",
please make a note of something.  I do not think of myself as being any higher
than you, whether you are female, male, black, white, hot-pink, or a
hermaphrodite.  But I am not going to waste my time going back and making sure
that every time I write something, I'm not offending someone who has an
overactive ego.  If you don't want to be offended, think of it this way.  When
you die, you lose your sex.  And if you're reincarnated, you might even be a
different one.  And if you become enlightened, you'll realize that it just
..doesn't ...matter in the end.

>Do any of you really know someone who speaks only in the "feminine," as was
>eluded to in a post or two?  If the terms really don't matter, why don't we
>try an experiment - speak only in the feminine - and see how long it takes
>before males, and perhaps some females, suggest we are somehow
>discriminating against the male essence.

Yes, it would happen, and probably on a much more drastic level.  Because men
have an ego too.  And it's widely known to be a little "bigger".  I would slap
the same comments onto those complaints, however, because what I'm trying to
get at is, by worrying about it, you're feeding your lower manas, and are
therby tearing yourself away from "enlightenment".  Whether you're male or
female, you're still feeding your lower self by worrying about physical and
lower-mental "discrimination".

>'Tis such a thing, I now think, as Theosophical fundamentalism.  And I am
>despondent with this new found knowledge.  It is as was suggested in a wise
>post - that in the beginning, in the first discovery of Theosophy, the
>excitement and idealism pour forth, the false-assurance that the ideas are
>so refined, so insightful, they could never be tarnished, that those who
>claim to believe in them probably act and speak accordingly.
>
>God, I hate being so naive.  And it has, perhaps, happened to me - as
>Baudlaire said, '...do not let me be like those I despise.'
>
>
>Kym (aka - "Witchie-poos")

Thank you, Kym, it was a pleasure.
*bow*

---
The Triaist