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

Re: Q's and ponderences

Feb 06, 1997 03:11 AM
by John Straughn

>> From: Thoa Tran <>
>> Yawn...this verbal sparring is getting boring.  I say us women meet the
>> misguided men physically, and have a go at it.  I have to warn you, if you
>> run away in the middle of a fight, I will have to chase after you.  Chances
>> are, unless you are also a runner, I will catch you.  When I engage a bull,
>> I always finish the job by thrusting the sword into his heart.  Afterward,
>>I boil him, slice him, dot him with butter, and top him with a sprig of
>>mint. No, actually, that's Ann's recipe for sexist men who turned into

I have never been a sexist, even in my pre-carrot days.  You may have
considered me a sexist, but that is only speculation.  If I were a woman, and
posing as a man on this newsgroup, would I still be a sexist?  Maybe I am a
woman and I've been playing with you all along.  And maybe I'm not really a
carrot now.  Maybe I'm actually a cabbage.  Ya' know, bunnies eat cabbage too.
 Anyhow, blahblahblah, I don't see how you could consider me a sexist.  I have
no definite descriptions and definitions of a "woman", just as much as I have
no definitions of a "man".  I do have speculations of which I like to share
with others so that I may recieve more background on the subject, but none of
the "definitions" which I relay are written in stone.

Let me take some of this back.  Kinda.  In referring to women, a "woman" is
defined as "a female human being".  "Female:  designating or of the sex that
produces ova and bears offspring".  "Human:  a hominid having an opposable
thumb, the ability to make and use specialized tools, articulate speech, and a
highly developed brain with the faculty of abstract thought".

And that's all a woman can be truly and unarguably defined as.  Period. Dot.
End of story.  Nothing else can be related totally to a woman or a man,
without argument, except VERY general physical description.  No woman is the
same, just as no man is the same.  "Feminine" and "masculine" are terms which
have been accepted and are widely used to mean certain things.  To argue with
me about the degredation of "feminine" meaning "weak" is not going to change
the definition in Webster's Dictionary.  (I hope they have changed this
definition by now.  I'm looking in a fairly old book)  I do not use the words
feminine or masculine because of their degrading meanings, on both sides.
Good and bad are relative, no matter what they are describing.

The really sad thing is that the last time I tried to make an example of the
equality that men and women share, I got a message saying "oh, boo hoo."
Perhaps compassion simply does not exist anymore in women or men.  Or perhaps
"masculine" and "feminine" should be redefined?  Maybe masculine should refer
to compassion and weakness, and feminine should be defined as bold, strong,
and vigorous.

>From what I've noticed so far is that the women who feel that they are
oppressed seem to think that they should be treated as though they are both
masculine AND feminine, i.e. compassionate bold strong vigorous, etc, but that
men should never have any weakness whatsoever.

Chauvenists may be sexist, but don't examples like these just make feminists
Which is worse?

The Triaist


[Back to Top]

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