Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00665)

In message <961026013631_1879596103@emout16.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com
writes
>Why should modern women have to put up
>with this has-been?  I don't know.  Maybe because it can't be changed without
>turning THE THREE OBJECTS into THE THREE OBJECTS--REVISED.

They shouldn't have to put up with it - and why shouldn't the three
objects be the three revised objects?  Other organisations move with the
times and still retain their integrity - enhance it even.
>
>Will the modern women see this one word and think that the Theosophical
>Society is just another male-dominated organization?  Maybe some will, I
>don't know.

It's not a question of "maybe some will" but of "many already do."  Your
post here seems to be reinforcing the idea of a male-dominated
organization.

>  On the other hand, maybe some will stay long enough to look the
>"B" facts--Blavatsky,

Heav smoker (now untheosophical) meat-eater (now untheosophical) user of
"colorful" language (extremely untheosophical).

> Besant,

Manipulator and manipulated, supporter of "new" doctrines, supporter of
CWL in connection with his self-admitted acts of child abuse.  Believed
that a young Indian boy was the reincarnation of the Christ.

> Bailey

Seems saner than some - but a *naughty girl* for going it alone and
finding her own master!  Very untheosophical behavior.

> Burnier etc. and conclude something
>quite different about the real Who's Who in the Society, past and present. .
>. .

Some thoughts on conclusions that might be reached above.
>
>Anyway, I call upon your sense of kinship, siblinghood, fellowship etc. not
>to hate me for standing alone, obdurate, and behind-the-times with this one
>idea.

OK. But I think you are either confused or very very wrong. If I hated
you for your opinions, I would not like to know me.

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