[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Dec 12, 1996 08:52 AM
by Tom Robertson

At 03:01 AM 12/12/96 +0000, Liesel wrote:
>Dear Tom Robertson,
>What is it you are trying to tell us? I don't understand. The only thing
>that makes any sense to me is the phrase that we should strike a balance. I
>think that's what Assagolio implies as well.

Liesel, I do not see how I am saying anything different from what you said
in the following article of a few days ago:

>To repeat what I've written on theos-l several times before, I think what we
>should come to is a male god (essence) and a female god (essence) ruling
>together. On earth, I think, as does Roberto Assagioli, that instead of
>classifying what male traits are and what female traits are, which greatly
>overlaps anyway when you start looking at individual people, I think that
>every human being should contribute to the common good whatever his/her best
>abilties allow him/her to contribute. Some women are good business people
>and some men enjoy being house husbands. I used to know a man who was very
>nurturing, whether with his prize roses, or his patients. He was also very
>gentle, but let me assure you he was unmistakably a man. The work to be
>done, whether in society or in a marriage, should be done by whoever enjoys
>it most, and if it's not enjoyable, it should be shared.


The implications in this article, with which I agree, are just as "sexist"
as anything I have written.  The phrase "some women are good business
people" implies that, in general, men are better business people than women,
which seems obvious to me.  The phrase "some men enjoy being house husbands"
shockingly implies that more women enjoy housework than do men.  Suggesting
such a inegalitarian concept on such an enlightened forum as this, populated
by many people who consider making distinctions and comparisons to be the
worst evil, took a lot of courage, that it is so obviously true
notwithstanding.  And what a sexist implication it is to mention that you
actually knew a nurturing man, as if they were hard to find!  After all, men
and women are identical, and, since there is at least one nurturing man in
the world, that, following the logic of some of those who are more
enlightened in this group, means that men are just as nurturing as are
women.  Again following more current logic, since you imply that you believe
that women are generally more nurturing than are men, you must mean that
women are better than men.

Anyway, to get back to reality, I am not saying anything very profound.  If
the idea that men and women are different is news to anyone, then they could
probably not be convinced that the sky was blue on a sunny day.  "Without
distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color" does not mean that all
groups of people are identical, except possibly potentially.  By now, I am
far more concerned with how those who call themselves Theosophists are
trashing the name by their behavior.  If there is any one thing that
Theosophy stands for, it is for open, free, rational discussion in a spirit
of brotherhood, which is destroyed by personally attacking those who
disagree.  Just the emphasis of some individuals in this list is amusing.
The ugliness of spirit expressed in personal attacks is sanctioned by
silence in response, but whoever believes that men are superior to women, or
that women are superior to men, in any way, is not a true Theosophist.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application