Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tl00373)

Bart wrote:

>	2) JUST BECAUSE ONE GROUP HAS A DIFFERENCE IN >GENERAL WITH ANOTHER GROUP DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY GIVEN >INDIVIDUAL FROM ONE GROUP HAS THAT DIFFERENCE FROM ANY GIVEN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE OTHER GROUP. 

I get a chuckle out of feeling the need to say that I agree with that,
since I have already written the same thing so many times in the face
of such a determined effort to say that I never did.

>	The problem that many people had with your early posts here was >that, regardless of your meaning, you were saying that we SHOULD judge
>individuals based on generalities. 

By no stretch of anyone's imagination but those who wished to
deliberately mischaracterize what I wrote could that interpretation be
placed on what I wrote, since I explicitly wrote exactly the opposite
many times.  As I said, I could care less about offending those who
are going to be _that_ dishonest.

>Specifically, you were saying that
>women were generally more submissive than men, and therefore women
>should not be in positions of political authority. And that is judging
>individuals by generalities, and at that a generality which is not even
>well-demonstrated.

How is that advocating the judging of individuals by generalities?  If
women are _generally_ (assuming I really have to use such a redundant
word to make myself clear, for which I do not take responsibility)
more submissive than men are (as I believe they are), then _generally_
they should not be in positions of political authority.  How does that
not leave room for exceptions?  The determination of those who insist
on mischaracterizing that to mean that I believe there shouldn't be
exceptions, is, to make a major understatement, untheosophical,
assuming being theosophical has anything to do with seeking truth.
The extent to which those who disagreed with me tried to take the
moral high road and insist, not that I was mistaken, in which case the
discussion might have remained good-spirited, but that I was sexist,
in which case it didn't, was ridiculous.  I immediately lost all
respect for those who thereby clearly demonstrated their own sexism,
and quickly realized that there was no reason to care whether or not I
offended them.  The best I could do in such a situation is make the
most of it and amuse myself by how they thought they were doing the
anti-sexism cause any good.

>	As I mentioned at the time, even among the Lubavitcher Hasidic >Jews, not a group noted for equal treatment of the sexes, their rabbi,
>Menachem Schneersohn, stated that you must treat women as individuals,
>and if a woman is better suited to be a doctor rather than a homemaker,
>than that woman should be a doctor. He also said that if a woman is
>better suited to being a homemaker than being a doctor, even if she is
>capable of being a doctor, she should not be forced into an occupation
>for which she is not better suited.

I'll bet anyone I could find 10 posts of mine that said the same
thing.  Why would anyone subscribe to a list that supposedly discusses
Theosophy and then have _that_ little regard for putting truth first?
I wonder what such people mean by "Theosophy."