Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00524)

In an earlier post, referring to the all-pervading use of masculine or
male terminology to which many modern people object, someone wrote:

"And here, in the present, we now accept these terms as generic and all-
inclusive in the racial, religious, and sexual sense."

Of course I and others disagreed, but the anachronistic language still
survives and is defended with a tenacity that suggests to many of us
quite clearly where the defender is coming from (ie, male superiority
and patriarchalism).

However, the fact *is* that the above quote *was* true in the late 19th
century when the "core" literature of latter-day theosophy was being
written.  And so the question is, "Why?"

Was it because the 19th century writers really did see a hierarchy
dominated by white males as the "natural order" of things?  If they did,
we might have to wonder just how much of the "core" theosophical
writings are suspect in their assertion of eternal truths - unless of
course this form of domination or control IS the natural order of
things.

Do gays have a Great Pink Brotherhood?  :-)

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk