Re: Who's on top?
Dec 12, 1996 05:01 AM
by John Straughn
>The Triaist wrote:
>>I honestly don't know where you are coming from. You say that you find
>>ignorance in my posts, yet you do not point out where the ignorance reveals
>>itself. You also say that I call forth divine wisdom as an ally.
>No, John the Triaist, I said - sometimes - people use it to back up their
>theories. I quote myself - "sometimes even calling forth the 'divine
>wisdom'." No, I appreciate the fact you didn't use it.
I see. I took it as meaning everyone at one point or another had called up
divine wisdom as an ally. IOW - interpreted it as sometimes people instead of
some people sometimes. My bad. I bow my head and apologize profusely. (No
>>Perhaps you thought that my allegory was inadequate? Or maybe
>>inappropriate? You say that I hold harmful prejudices.
>I think you do hold harmful prejudices. You say "society is going from one
>extreme to the other" when, indeed, women are actually losing rights they
>once had (abortion rights; affirmative action; the passing of the welfare
>bill and the ability to receive welfare: the primary economic source many
>women have in leaving abusive relationships; funding for Legal Aid has
>become almost non-existant: the primary source for poor women involved in
>domestic trauma, job discrimination, and sexual harrassment - and I'm NOT
>utilizing these for a political debate, they are just good examples of how
>women are not as in good a shape as so believed).
Perhaps(no, definitely) I wasn't making myself very clear. These are present
concerns for women, and should be properly addressed. But men are faced with
prejudiced decisions as well. (Custody battles favored toward women; abortion
rights (it's the father's child as well); welfare (which is MUCH harder for a
single man even with children to recieve); Job discrimination (i.e. "female"
jobs: bank tellers, secretaries/clerks, social workers); Medical research
(Breast Cancer vs. Testicular cancer, for instance); and others). Men have
just as much going against them as women. It's just that men, for fear of
being accused of losing their "masculinity" choose not to say much about it.
>You say "for ages" women have been considered the manipulator, the
>protector, the power. Well, if your theory is true, that makes women not
>only those, but damn stupid as well.
For a woman in an abusive relationship, yes, that would be stupid. Not
everyone in the world is the same. Some men are the power in the family.
However, think of this. If a man slaps a woman across the face because she
slapped him (which is something I would never do, but this is hypothetical)
and she calls the police, the man will be thrown in jail. In court the man
will testify that his wife hit him first. Ya know what happens? The judge
laughs and says "Three years". That sounds like power to me. The woman has
the power to make one phone call and the man is ruined for life. Now we can
change this a little. Let's just say the man doesn't slap her back and calls
the police on her. One of two things will happen. One, the wife will say she
is sorry when the police arrive and everything will be settled. Or two, the
wife will say, "He slapped me first because (place story here). The man gets
hauled off to jail, etc etc. "Stupid" women do not utilize this power yes. I
put stupid in quotations because I don't like the word. It is not always
stupidity, but extenuating circumstances. (i.e. lack of welfare aid like you
mentioned.) But I'm sure you understand where I am coming from.
>Do you really believe that women, if they truly held the "power" would allow
>themselves to be treated as they have "for ages?" My god, John the Triaist,
>you say we protest "chavinism" because we want to keep men unaware of our
>power? That doesn't make any sense. We protest because so many women are
>suffering. . .look around. . .look at the Islamic countries, look at the
>O.J. verdict (delivered by mostly women), look at the laws which have passed
>recently, look at some of the interpreted divine wisdom. Do you really
>think all this is because women have the "power?" It is more true that some
>women don't use the power they have, such as voting (never, ever, should one
>vote for someone soley because of gender, that's insane), or speaking up
>when they have been violated.
Men suffer as well. Men suffer when they are forbidden custody of their
children simply because they are not the mother. Men suffer when they can't
get federal aid because they are not women with children (sometimes because
their children were taken away by their ex-wives). There are more homeless
men than women in this country sitting out on the streets freezing to death
left only with a hat to collect change in and a bottle of whiskey. Why?
Because a woman can have a kid and get welfare, farm homes, and food stamps.
O.J.? O.J. got off because he was famous and he had a lot of money. Some
even say he got off because he was an African American and people didn't want
another riot. He didn't get off because he was a man. He beat his wife (it's
kind of obvious) just as many other men have. Those other men were put in
jail for a long time. That was because they weren't famous football players
and millionaires. They were put in jail BECAUSE they were men hitting women.
Women do have a lot of power in many countries, but not all. Do they use it?
Sure they do. Do you think men would deny themselves custody of their own
children if they had "power"?
>You imply in another post that I am sexist (quoted below). I assure you I
>am not, I have never believed men are inferior to women. What I am saying
>is the reasons for sexism are non-existant - both men and women are equal,
>not identical. Why those two words have been confused on this list is
>perplexing (and I'm not referring to you here).
After reading this particular post, I withdraw any implications I have given
that you are a sexist. I made the remarks I made because you seemed to place
a lot of emphasis on the oppression of women while disregarding the oppression
that men face as well. For instance, the remark you made directly below
implied that sexism ONLY referred to the oppression of women by men, and
because you wrote this, I assumed that you thought it was true.
>>>divine is called pantheism; the philosophical thought that women are
>>>inferior to men is called sexism; and on we can go.
>The Triaist replys:
>>Not exactly true. The philosophical thought that one sex is inferior to
>>the other is called sexism. Let's not try to confuse everybody now.
>Yes, you are right, it means viewing either sex as inferior (although I
>don't think very many would have been "confused").
That remark was very cynical, and was given under the impression that you were
a hypocrite. I apologize. That goes for the one below as well.
>But I am very confused by what you said in two different posts:
>You say in post - Re: Sexism: (to me) "Perhaps before you start accusing
>others of being sexist, (even though i must say that the author of the
>article to which you replied most difinitely fits the description.), you
>should alleviate the problem within yourself."
>Then you say in post - Matriarchial Theosophy: (to Tom) "I wish others on
>this list would realize this, and rather than attack you, and call you crazy
>and sexist, try to understand you, while you try to understand them. (I'll
>point out here that I don't believe I have yet seen you DIRECTLY demean
>anyone on this server, but many have done this to you)."
I said that he "most definitely fit the description", I did not call him a
sexist. Ok, that's close enough to it I suppose. But you have taken my
comment in "Matr" somewhat out of context. I told him directly in that post
that I did not agree with his statements and that they were just as sexist in
nature as the ones posted by others on the ng. I agree with you that the
remarks made by him were sexist, and that by making those remarks, he fits the
description of a sexist. But I must say that because of your own remarks
about men being oppressors while disregarding those that are oppressed, you
come across as a sexist as well. (Which is why I made the comment: "Perhaps
before you start accusing...")
>Do you wish me to be less honest, less direct? What's the difference between
>me saying he's sexist and you agreeing with me? And, if Tom demeans women
>and Kym is a woman - is he excused because he didn't say Kym specifically
>(directly)? And, if I demean men, and John the Triaist is a man - am I
>excused because I didn't say John the Triaist specifically (directly)?
I have never excused Tom from anything. I have never excused you from
anything. And I have never excused myself from anything. (As I stated at the
closing of "Matr.", I am not perfect, and I have the bad habit of judging
others (which I am desperately trying to rid myself of)). But, starting now,
I would like to excuse EVERYONE, and I would like everyone to excuse everyone,
so that we may express ourselves without being demeaned and insulted. (At
least as little as possible.)
>Actually your allegory is interesting and in the spirit of it, I can only
>say: Your move, John the Triaist.
:) ...My rook is in position, Kym. The clock is ticking.:)
(Wow, I had to crack my knuckles for that one.)
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application