Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00493)

 Richard Ihle-->
 >Then something else started bothering me:  Given that it is so obvious that
 >~brotherhood~ is a "male-associated" word once it is pointed out, why was
it
 >possible that it could have included females for so long without most
people
 >giving it much of a second thought?  Were the people of past generations
 >stupid or what?

Kym-->
No, they were products of their time. Double Duh!!!

R.I.-->
Well, yes, of course.  (Triple Duh!!!!! and/or perpetual plus one. . . .)
 However, what I was trying to explore a little is the possibility that there
may be something a little more theosophical ("psychogenetic') under the
surface with these peculiar language developments.  Forget the people of the
past; I still find it intriguing that ~I~ was able to think of terms like
~brotherhood~ and ~mankind~ for so many decades ("for-so-long junk") and
never doubt for a second that they also included women.  Was I stupid or
something, Kym?  [The crowd murmurs in disbelief as Tyson's opponent drops
his guard.]

R.I.-->
 >In other words "female writers" could be those who are still
 >tainted by the desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal
 >package" and "male writers" from another.

Kym-->
What?

R.I.-->
In other words "female writers" could be those who are still tainted by the
desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal package" and "male
writers" from another.

R.I.-->
 >HPB may have even regarded the female-included usage as an ongoing
 >healthy reminder to the males of her day that they ~couldn't~ expropriate
for
 >themselves a universal term like ~brotherhood~.

Kym-->
Wow! I admire your attempt at "anxiety-reducing rationalization."  That's
 some whopper conclusion - quite creative really.

R.I.-->
You're probably right:  I had some anxieties about the fact that HPB might
have been as stupid about the ~brotherhood~/~mankind~ language problem as I
was.  However, since I said ~may~, it can at the most only be a whopper
~possibility~, not a "conclusion."

R.I.-->
>I don't know how it looks to you, but I see lots and lots of older women who
naturally >seem to add the famous "male problem-solving mode" and older men
who also become >quite comfortable in so-called "female pattern-following."
 Grandma or Grandpa--what's the >big difference after a certain point?

Kym-->
Ask Grandma and Grandpa.  And you know, golly gee, Richard - some of us
young ones (girlie ones) have managed to already "add" the "famous male
problem-solving mode."  No, wait! let me wrestle with my homones here and
get clarity of mind - I think, yes, I do indeed think that lots and lots of
women, could it be all women?, are just plain BORN with that "famous male
problem-solving mode?"

R.I.-->
A little punctuation lesson from the RANDOM HOUSE HANDBOOK for you, Kym:  "It
may be necessary now and then to put a word within quotation marks to show
that you don't share a certain attitude [p.293]."  Thus, ~my~ quotation marks
around "male problem-solving."  (I even put ~so-called~ in front of "female
pattern-following" to further alert readers.)

Anyway, I can assure you that I did not invent these fairly common
psychological descriptors from the past, nor do I find them even remotely as
compelling as the gender-related brain hemisphere differences I already said
I was very suspicious of.  My point was that even with any such presumed
differences, it is my personal observation that the sexes seem to grow more
alike as they age, from wherever they may have started (my mother and father,
for example, even having sort of reversed their roles in many respects
somewhere along the line).  Golly gee, Kym, you don't have to prove to me
that you were BORN with every famous and wonderful quality. . . .

R.I.-->
 >I sort of think HPB would have been offended by the demotion of her psyche
 >to the level of either sex.

Kym-->
 No, I think "Madame" would be offended that you are using her as an icon to
 justify the continued use of archaic and insulting verbiage.  I can picture
 her actually laying upon your head a mighty thump.

R.I.-->
No, I have to disagree with you here, Kym.  I have always thought that HPB
would have liked me a lot.  For one thing, we both probably belong to that
ever-shrinking "Brotherhood" (remember the lesson on quotation marks) which
seems to refuse to look at the the world either tunnelled-visioned down
through the urethra or with the mere, winking glance of the vagina. . . .

Actually, I can picture HPB dressing my head wounds with great solicitude and
affection after I have had one too many "genteel" discussions with ~you~,
Kym.

Kym-->
In the theosophical spirit,

Kym

R.I.-->
In the theos-l spirit,

Richard