Dec 11, 1996 10:42 PM
by Art House
>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, <snip>
You stated more than "one way in which <you> believe men are superior."
You stated that "it is natural for men to dominate women, since they are
stronger, both physically and volitionally." You stated that women are
more emotional than men, emotion causes impulsive responses, and
therefore men are better leaders. You stated that "masculinity is
active and dominant, and that feminity is passive and submissive", and
"men are generally predominantly masculine, and women are generally
predominantly feminine"; therefore men are more active and dominant, and
women are more passive and submissive. That makes how many points women
are inferior? Physical strength, volition, logic, leadership, and
action. We can ignore physical strength, because, as I said before, one
can be a great leader from a wheelchair. However, portraying women as
inferior in volition, logic, leadership and action basically tells us
that if you were to consider a man or a woman for ANY job, then you
would have to pick the man. In fact, under your characterization,
advertently or inadvertently, a man would make a better mother. On top
of that, you stated that men dominate over women, and that women like it
><snip>...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, <snip>
April was not trying to point out women's superiority. She was trying
to point out what the mindset of men, feeling like they should dominate
over women, have caused. She also was debunking your theory of men's
superiority by pointing out details of why men are not as superior as
you supposed (by pointing out the irrational acts of some men), thereby
contradicting your idea that men are more rational than women. That is
a far cry from saying that women are superior.
>It is my understanding of Theosophy that it
>considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal.
>From what I stated above regarding your points on male superiority, I
don't think you were striving for balance.
>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."
In your post in Theos-L 750, you stated that "competition is necessary
for growth." In a competition, somebody has to win. Are you saying
that you realize that winning is necessary for growth, but that you do
not share in that approach? I can't think of a discussion more honest
than someone calling something a duck if it walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck.
><snip>Were my facts inaccurate?
><snip>My post offered facts, which no one has disputed.
What facts? Facts according to the world of Tom? I kept on seeing
other's posts which makes yours illogical. You started out with vast,
generalized statements regarding men's superiority. Now you are
protesting that you were only pointing out that men and women are
different, and that some of us are attacking you. Read your words
>Responding to an honest opinion with a personal attack IS cheap
>emotionalism. Such responses should be marginalized. I hope Headquarters
>continues to ignore them.
I'd rather have cheap emotionalism than sexism and prejudice any day. I
hope that your sexist attitude would also be marginalized. In our
household, we like to be honest by saying, "Who're ya foolin'? I'm
callin' ya! I'm callin' ya, uh-huh!"
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application