Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00151)

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
> I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes
> that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he
> believes men are superior, and that a woman can write an article in response
> saying that men and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways
> that she considers women to be superior, and the same man, responding to
> both, can call the male author a "sexist bastard" and call the post of the
> female author "brilliant."  Maybe the name of this list should be renamed
> "Crusading for Feminism."  It is my understanding of Theosophy that it
> considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal.

If you actually believe the above to be an accurate characterization of
your post and hers ... well, then I guess you "win". I find it
interesting, however, to see a post from the one who claims that men are
superior when it comes to "logic" using that logic as a tool of *emotional
reaction*. Is the above your demonstration of the elevated nature of the
male perspective? You actually *counted* the points the woman made - to
use in a post that seems almost completely motivated by and drenched in
(gasp) emotion? Good grief.

And the "balance" argument is terribly old. It arises whenever anyone
attempts to alter an existing power structure. End affirmative action! It
"biases" things towards blacks and women - we need "balance" instead,
where everyone has an equal chance ... wonderful sentiments if one ignores
the last few dozen centuri *Actual* "balance" comes about when equal
weight is placed on both sides of the scales ... and if for a considerable
amount of time there was *severe* imbalance in one direction ... the
process of achieving "balance" must of necessity be sloppy - and may well
appear at times to attemt to swing wildly from one direction to the other.

You think Alan and others are being "matriarchal"? Well, if the current TS
status quo is your idea of "balance" you have absolutely nothing to worry
about - this list has a small number of voices that have a place to speak
on this list ... but whose opinions will never be published in
Theosophical publications, and which are now - as they have always been -
completely marginalized and ignored by Headquarters ... who dismisses them
(as you do) as cheap emotionalism. You really think the ideal of Theosophy
is *balance*? You really *want* it? Then tell me why we all, men and
women, according to the Three Objects, are still forming the nucleus of a
"Brotherhood", and investigating the powers latent in "man". How is this
perceived to increasing numbers in the world? As a "balanced"
organization? As a "matriarchy" (for goodness sake)? Or as just another
old thoroughly patriarchal society? OOOOOOOoooooooohhhhhhh, will you
actually go further and say that this whole thing about gender neutral
language is just a "fad" (I *love* that one)?

Your posts seemed intended to provoke, provoke, provoke, and finally
resulted in a woman responding apparently precisely in the way you believe
women respond. And then act like you are some poor defenseless guy getting
beat up on by feminists. I'd feel sorry for you, but that wouldn't be
logical.
								-JRC