Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00060)

liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote:

>At least it was Brotherhood 120 years ago, when anybody who was anybody was
>a man. Women weren't considered to be very much, they were just beginning to
>make a racket to be counted. At that time, when the man was the boss,
>everybody thought of our universality as a Brotherhood ... women as well as
>men. It was the style of the times. Well, it's not the style anymore.

I see no reason to hold on to antiquated language.  Even if the idea that
certain words have certain effects supposedly entirely due to their sound, I
find it hard to believe that this effect is independent of its currently
accepted meaning.  If the word "Brotherhood" is understood to exclude women,
it should be changed.