Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00373)

----------
> From: John Straughn <JTarn@envirolink.org>

> The "girls" term was used purposely, but not to refer to all women.
Rather,
> to women who constantly bring up serious issues and distort them to
childish
> ends ...I'll explain this through this post.
>
> >But isn't that the point?  The "girls" aren't happy.
>
> That is because they are too worried about their sex, rather than their
atman,
> which I feel is most important.

IMHO, being concerned with one's self-respect is absolutely necessary to
reaching enlightenment.  Balance is necessary in all areas of life.  There
is an imbalance if one half of humanity feels that they  are being taken
advantage of, in any way, and looked or talked down upon.  For humanity to
reach the next level, on a global level, there is going to be a long period
of readjustment in which the Piscean era of  duality is going to be
replaced with the Aquarian ideal of equality.  True, it's going to be
uncomfortable and often scrappy for many people, but there is no stopping
it.  The Aquarian energies are pouring in and the women's movement for more
equality is part of that.

I realize you must find this inconvenient and disturbing to your personal
spiritual search, but it's something that we are all going to deal with for
a long time.  One hundred years from now people willl wonder what all the
fuss was about, because they will have gotten used to the ideas that were
presented in John Crocker's excellent article.  Back at the turn of the
twentieth century, it must have been annoying and amazing that women
actually had to gall to want to vote or be a part of Masonry.

I believe, with my whole heart, that if everyone was more concerned with
their atman, than this whole issue of equality would be unnecessary.  If
men and women everywhere were living the life of the soul, rather than
their personalities, this would be a vastly different planet.  However,
this is not the case, and we must go with the flow of evolution for the
majority of humanity.

If you are reaching for a higher level, then I applaud your efforts.  No
doubt,as you do so, your attitude towards others will become one of joy,
love and freedom.  There will be no sense of racism, ethnicism, sexism,
ageism or any other ugly ism.  You will see people as they truly are, as
shards of God incarnated in human bodies to work things out on the physical
level.

> called sexual harrassment.  I have yet to see anyone on this mailing list
say
> , "Hey Ann, how about you and me jump in bed"?  THAT is very different
from
> writing "he" rather than "a person" or even "he/she".

You haven't seen my private posts. : -)
>
> When I write "he" I am not looking down on women.  And I surely don't
look
> through them as, I know, many men do.  But this bantering about a word
which,
> when written, normally means "all people", is very childish indeed.

Perhaps it seems childish to you, but a whole mindset is in the process of
change.  As I said before, it will take time and will be uncomfortable.
It's always hard to change.

Again, you use the word "childish" to refer to those that want to change
the language to reflect more equality.  Isn't that a rather condescending
term?  Is that the way you feel about the people who are involved in that
movement?  Dr. Bain is a hearty advocate of changing language and he
strikes me as a mature, learned man, as about as far away from a "child" as
you can get.

> If men
> were complaining about it similarly, I would call them boys.  I've
written why
> it was childish in a previous post.  If you missed it, I would be happy
to
> write it again.

Having read it once, I understand.

-Ann E. Bermingham