We are who?
Oct 16, 1996 02:10 PM
by Dr. A.M.Bain
In message <199610160307.XAA27311@envirolink.org>, John Straughn
<JTarn@envirolink.org> writes
>>Just to be the naughty person that I am - why not have she, her, woman or
>>women as a generic and all-inclusive term?
>If it had always been generally accepted, I would say, yes, go ahead and use
>those terms. But Ann, don't get me wrong, I know where you are coming from.
>But the facts are that when those terms were implemented, women WERE NOT
>equals. They were, but they were not seen as so. But even so, those terms
>were used in the past and this is the present. And here, in the present, we
>now accept these terms as generic and all-inclusive in the racial, religious,
>and sexual sense.
No "WE" don't. Count me out - and a great many other people. Certainly
45 members of Theosophy International, one of whom provides this list
for us all to use.
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
