Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999
Oct 04, 1999 04:00 AM
> Note that your sources (quoted below) are almost entirely death in
>CHILDBIRTH, not spousal abuse (unless you are about to say that
>pregnancy IS spousal abuse, in which case you follow a brand of
>postmodernism which has no place in a Theosophical discussion list).
For brevity's sake, please see my post reponding to Grigor connecting early
marriage and childbirth to spousal abuse.
Regarding you statement about my "brand of postmodernism" (whatever that
means): Fortunately, Bart, you do not control what can be discussed on a
Theosophical discussion list.
> And most men didn't have the right to vote until the 19th century.
Bart? WHO was making the LAWS of society in the 19th century? I'm not
even sure if you statement is correct, however, for argument's sake I will
assume it is and respond with the following: Voting wasn't necessary
because there was no need for it - what was considered democracy did not
include ethnic minorities or women. It was the classical "good ole boys
network." Male aristocrats, including the revered Founding Fathers, ran
the whole show.
Give me a break.
> Look at the context of the sentence; the idea is that a man can
>impregnate a woman who is not sexually aroused,
What!? Are you saying that this is what Genesis was suggesting in stating
that a man shall "rule over" his wife? I've never heard that before. Nor
have I gone back and consulted the chapter to check this theory out - I
shall do so.
>but a woman cannot
>become pregnant from a man who is not sexually aroused, at least until
>technology fixed that little problem.
Oh, well that throws the Biblical story of Lot and his daughters right down
the toilet. It's about time.
> Islam is not mainstream Western culture, nor a source of it.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world; it does not matter
whether or not it is the source of "anti-woman" sentiment. The sources of
Western culture, Greece and Roman, were no more benevolent in their
treatment of women. Did you know that, on the wedding night, men did not
engage in vaginal intercourse with their wives, but, instead sodomized
them? Hardly a kind act towards a woman who knows nothing about sex. The
founders of Western culture and their outlook towards women, marriage,
society, and the like, is outlined in the book series "A History of Private
Life: from Pagan Rome to Byzantium." The maltreatment of women cannot
solely be blamed on a "misinterpretation of the Bible."
>> In Jewish tradition, a woman (if you can
>> call a 13 year old a "woman")
> In ancient farming communities, you did. And a 13 year old male was a
Men do not give birth; therefore, the marriage contract is less endangering
for a male.
>> was to be chosen from the "family line" to
>> ensure "purity" of such family line. Clearly, both the family and society
>> believed and propagated the custom that a 13 year old was to become subject
>> to her husband's rule. These customs are more than 300 to 400 years old -
>> unless my math is in error.
> No. You are just taking misinterpretations of language, and applying it
>to a history of which you have no record except what some scholars used
>"postmodernist interpretation" which is another term for "we made it up
>because it suited our politics".
Well, then the Rabbi's I have spoken to are "postmodern." I doubt they
would concur, but if you insist. . .. I may agree with you if I had heard
this from only one or two, but, in order to write one of my academic papers
on Judaism, I was required to speak to no less than five sources and I
received the same interpretation (on this particular subject) of Jewish
>> Women, in the 1800's, were not allowed to go attend universities and were
>> often prevented from attending any kind of public school at all.
> And that was the period when women WERE the victims of oppression, due
>to technology making the previous male-female relationships unnatural.
How was this oppression due to "technology?"
>> present day, medical insurance will cover Viagra for men, but not birth
>> control for women.
> It will also cover reconstructive surgery for mastectomies, but not
>penile enlargement. It's the difference for restoring a natural
>condition, and preventing it.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that performing mastectomies are "restoring
a natural condition" (which I agree) and that penile enlargement is
"preventing" a natural condition? This doesn't make sense. How is penile
enlargement preventing a "natural" condition. I fail to see how the
ravages of cancer and the desire for a bigger penis fall into the same
category. A penis, no matter what size, still has sensation - a woman
loses a fundamental part of her sexual pleasure when she loses her breasts,
gaining only a visible, and often, unsightly scar.
>Of course, that is assuming that your
>statement is right; every medical insurance plan I have ever been on
>includes sterilization procedures for both men and women.
Bart, sterilization is not the form of birth control most women desire.
They would like to retain their choice on when to have children. If they
know they do not, sterilization is fine - but placing sterilization and
controllable birth control in the same category is not practical, nor very
> Did you ever hear of the statistician who drowned in a lake with an
>average depth of two feet? Before I accept your statement (do you have a
>source for the Justice Department statement?)
Yes, the Justice Department.
>I would have to see if
>there are any other factors involved (for example, are you lumping 1st
>degree murder, 2nd degree homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary
>manslaughter, and accidental killing all in one lump? If that is the
>case, then the statistic is bullshit, combining apples and oranges.
This is far too lengthy to go into; besides, Bart, I honestly believe you
know exactly what I am talking about. If there are any women in your life
you care about, I suggest you learn a bit more regarding societal treatment
of women. If something should happen to a woman you love, ignorance of
what faces them will not be helpful in their case. You will be surprised
at the difference in treatment men and women receive in institutions such
as medical, legal, academic, and, dare I say it?, car repair.
>> It is true that men and women view the world
>> differently due, mainly, to societal treatment, but to write "sacred" text
>> to only a select group of folk is irresponsible. Too many highly quoted,
>> revered, and directive texts are written by and for men - and the people of
>> present day continue the cycle of perpetuating that line of thought.
>> Instead of examining spiritual texts in a more panoramic "world-view" - the
>> same old quotes are tossed around, expected to address today's society.
> And your suggested solution?
To think about what is really being said in story or statement meant to
teach and if it will aid both males and females in their desire and pursuit
of spiritual growth. You may remember the story "A World Without a Woman"
by R. Bates, in the Theosophist (October 1879). It's supposed to be a
story praising the virtues and value of women, but it has some puzzling
"(Soron telling his brother, Lyoro) Soron states that a woman is a "female
man" and goes on to say about women - "Neither superior nor inferior [to
males], but different. Her faults are not his, neither are her qualities.
She cannot boast of courage, nor he her gentleness. She has not his power
of diligent application, and he lacks her quick intuition. He leans to the
material side of life, she has a deeper feeling for its poetry and
aspirations. She relies on his strong arm and strong will, and he turns to
her as the tranquil light that illumines his heart and home. Rivalry
between the sexes is worse than useless, for their interests are identical,
and nature designed them to form but the two halves of one harmonious whole."
We may agree with the last statement, but is it wise to accept the
statements that men are materially oriented and lack gentleness? Is it
wise to accept that that women cannot boast of courage and lack diligent
application? For me, these untruths mar the truth of the story. In
present day, statements such as these should not be tolerated. A story
meant to teach something beautiful and profound, yet, it manages to also
teach untruths. Even if a person learns that rivalry between the sexes is
useless (a good lesson), he/she may also walk away with harmful stereotypes
of men and women. Connecting this back to my main peeve: I believe the
statement offered by the Caucasus did the same thing.
> Why not? My standard test for gender bias is to reverse genders, and
>see if the situation still works out the same (an excellent example is
>the Tom Hanks movie, "Big", where if you reverse the gender of the title
>character, the sex scenes have a far more sinister aspect in our current
Sorry, I never saw that movie.
> Which shows that you clearly do not understand the saying. It is not
>"salted assualted and insulted by his wife", it is "salted, assaulted
>and insulted by the INSTITUTION of holy wedlock", unless, of course, you
>think it is OK for a wife to beat her husband (I don't).
The institution of marriage is a male and female (or, for homosexuals, same
gender). We may want to refer to it as an institution to compartmentalize
the people involved in it, but it still involves a man and a woman. They
are the ones who will experience joy or pain.
Bart, you have way overstepped in suggesting that I may advocate the abuse
of a woman (or anyone). If it had come from someone newer to this list, I
could have taken it in stride and tried to clarify. You, however, have been
on this list long enough with me to know that I would never endorse such a
>> The men who wrote this quote paid NO heed of
>> women when writing it. Those of us who claim to be educated need to
>> examine a bit more deeply currently acceptable "words of wisdom." Do such
>> "words of wisdom" apply to most people and will they work in current daily
>> life? Do such "words of wisdom" promote peace and harmony, or violence and
> There is a difference between "words of wisdom" and a joke. Those who
>buy the radical femnist revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, have
>yet to learn the difference.
Are you suggesting that the Caucasus quotation was a joke? I am not
attacking Grigor, as I have stated before in a post to him. I am taking
umbrage with the statement itself. Or was this just an opportunity to bash
feminists? I know it's popular these days, and lord knows, some feminists
deserve to be redressed, but not all feminists are daffy. Just as I am
aware that not all men oppress women. For instance: Alan, a companion
theos-l participant and a male, certainly cannot be accused of being
insensitive to women - so I have an example of enlightened males right on
this list; hence, I can never believe that ALL men are oppressors.
>> Since it
>> was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain
>> anonymous in their time but to be female?
> They did not "blend in"; they kept themselves separate unless it was
Then why did they have to choose to be males? I still do not understand
why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just fine.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application