Re: We are who?
Oct 16, 1996 09:45 PM
by John Straughn
Dr. A.M.Bain writes:
>In message <199610160307.XAA27311@envirolink.org>, John Straughn
>>>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.
Ok, Alan, I'll make sure to check you off on my list...:)
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application