Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00163)

JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu> wrote:

>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".

If anyone considers this to be an inaccurate "characterization" of her post
and mine, I would be interested in knowing the basis for their opinion,
since my "characterization" seems pretty straightforward to me.  The
reference to "winning" implies a personal approach that I do not share.  I
am interested in honest, substantive discussion, not "winning."


>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*.

Logic neither rules out, nor is ruled by, emotion.  How was my response
ruled by emotion?  Were my facts inaccurate?


>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.

A point is "drenched in emotion" if it does not offer facts or substance,
but gets personal instead.  My post offered facts, which no one has
disputed.  Alan responded, and continues to respond, to my expression of my
honest opinions with personal insults.  I reserve the right to point out
such untheosophical behavior.


>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.

The idea that attempts to arrive at balance require apparently imbalanced
efforts makes sense. Regardless of its destructive effects, that might give
more legitimacy to feminism that I had thought.  It reminds me of a radio
talk show I was listening to immediately after the Crime Bill was passed in
1994, outlawing some semi-automatic weapons.  The host was ranting and
raving about how they had sold out our 2nd Amendment rights, but my response
was that the optimal balance is some point between outlawing all weapons and
allowing all weapons, and that this bill, in spite of its heading in the
direction of outlawing all weapons, may have actually brought us closer to
the optimal balance.


>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.

Responding to an honest opinion with a personal attack IS cheap
emotionalism.  Such responses should be marginalized.  I hope Headquarters
continues to ignore them.


>Your posts seemed intended to provoke, provoke, provoke, and finally
>resulted in a woman responding apparently precisely in the way you believe
>women respond.

If the definition of "intending to provoke" is "being willing to say what
one honestly believes, without being concerned with how popular it is," then
my posts were intended to provoke.