Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00109)

kymsmith@micron.net wrote:

>Tom wrote:

>>I would not want to count on an emotional leader to win a war for me.
>
>We have for centuries (you know, that me-first, anger stuff, I have a bigger
>u-know-what). . .I'm sick of it, too.  Let's give the ladies a try.

Besides this being at least as sexist as anything I have said, does this
mean that you would advocate pacifism, which only encourages aggression?  It
is strength that prevents and/or wins war, not weakness.


>men and
>women are capable of both types of thinking.  No, I'm against the
>discriminatory, exploitative, "negative" generalizations.  Generalizations
>that all people are intrinsically good, or all people are equal in their
>humanity, or men and women are capable of both types of thinking are, to me,
>"positive" generalizations.

"Generalizations that all people are intrinsically good, or all people are
equal in their
humanity, or men and women are capable of both types of thinking" are
expressions of opinions about human potential.  To characterize expressions
of opinion about what is actual as negative generalizations implies either
that you believe that uniqueness and diversity do not exist or that it is
somehow evil to see anything but homogeneity.


>No, Tom, less and less people are willing to take this kind of ignorant
>crap.  It has caused untold suffering, pain, and division.

How has not regarding men and women as identical caused more "untold
suffering, pain, and division" than falsely accusing others of prejudice,
obliterating into meaningless such words as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism,
and homophobia, has?


>You know, the goal of theosophy is Compassion - oh yes! that illogical,
>emotional, sappy concept.

You demonstrate that you do not believe that the goal of Theosophy is truth,
since to characterize me as believing that compassion is emotional, sappy,
and illogical is patently dishonest, and demonstrates the very antithesis of
the Theosophical ideals of objectivity and open-mindedness.  Your whole
article, in refusing to consider the possibility that apparent philosophical
differences are actually semantic differences before jumping to conclusions,
reeks of the very emotionalism that I have said is a typically feminine
weakness.