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

One more time - to Ben

Feb 05, 1997 10:23 PM
by kymsmith

Ben wrote:

>By vain, I mean thinking purely in terms of their personality rather than
>their Soul nature.

I asked you in a previous post: Are you asking if women feel that they are
being exploited when it comes to having children?  What do you mean when you
say "are they simply being vain?"

You ignored the first question and answered the second.  I am taking your
response to my "vain" question as insinuating that women who choose not to
have children are thinking "purely in terms of their personality rather than
their Soul nature."  Is my assumption correct?  If it is, I find it
insulting.  People are here for many different purposes.  It is offensive to
even consider that a woman who decides against having children, for whatever
reason, is not cognizant of her "Soul nature."

I also asked you "What or who are "the male personality defects?"  You
ignored that question, too.

>When I said "used as vehicles" I was simply asking whether the vehicles that
>women are presently residing in today will be the mediums through which the
>impulses for the next race will act. Women may not be the next "child
>bearers" it is only likely that they will be from a historical perspective.

Should women become obsolete in the process of having children, it would
follow that the need for men in the process of having children would also
become obsolete.  Should that occur humans would no longer be humans, we
would become something else altogether.  Perhaps the question should be,
then, what will humanity as we know it become?  The male/female question is

You wrote in a previous post:

>I realise that prostituting their vehicles for the
>male personality defects would be considered wrong, but why are they so
>negative towards men?

What did you mean by the term "prostituting?"

>The "path of least resistance" to me is the point within the circle.

Your answer to my question about what the "path of least resistance" was
leads me into further confusion.  You wrote: "If it is could it mean that
men with greater "life-force potential" try to follow the path of least
resistance. If this is the case are women selfish if they try to restrain
the flow of force? If this is the case what does this mean for the race

What does the "point within the circle" mean when taken in context with your
original question?

I also asked you: "You're wondering why women want to attain more "power" or
"life-force?" What do you mean "try to restrain the flow of force?"  You
failed to address these questions along with the others I noted.

You are coming across as a male who thinks the female is little more than a
humorous, pesky, and clueless entity.  Is this your intention?



[Back to Top]

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