Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00235)

At 06:48 AM 12/12/96 +0000, TTT wrote:

>Tom Robertson:
>>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."
>
>TTT:
>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?

Competition does not have to be personal.  This is another area in which men
are superior to women.  Men can compete with each other in an impersonal
way, separating a business relationship from a personal relationship, much
more so than can women, who are much more prone to resort to personal attacks.


>Tom:
>><snip>Were my facts inaccurate?
>><snip>My post offered facts, which no one has disputed.
>
>What facts?  Facts according to the world of Tom?

You just did the very thing that I said has been the general response to
what I have said.  "Facts according to the world of Tom?" translates to: "I
do not know how I disagree with you, and I cannot dispute what you say, but
I just find it upsetting."  Why not specifically, impersonally point out HOW
you disagree with me if you do not like what I say?  _All_ facts that I
express are "facts according to the world of Tom."  All expressions of fact
by you are "facts according to the world of TTT."  How is this peculiar to me?


>You started out with vast,
>generalized statements regarding men's superiority.

I defy you to, as you are obligated to now that you have made the charge,
come up with a statement of mine which has the meaning that I believe that,
overall, men are superior to women.  That is a conclusion you jumped to,
probably aided by the feminist agenda on this list which seeks to portray
anyone who says that men are superior to women in any way as sexist, without
sufficiently carefully reading what I wrote.


>Now you are
>protesting that you were only pointing out that men and women are
>different, and that some of us are attacking you.

Would you call being called a "sexist bastard" and being told that I am not
to be regarded as a friend something besides an attack?  I came on to this
list hoping to have discussions which were comparable to what I am used to
by Theosophists, with never a name called and never an opinion discouraged
because it is different, and complete freedom to disagree.  But if my being
regarded as a "friend" depends on how well I conform to the program, I am
not interested in such phony "friendship."  To the extent that whenever
anyone says anything, without first confirming that it will be popular,
there is a risk of a personal attack, discussion will be inhibited.  I
cannot think of anything more untheosophical.