Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00487)

Anytime anyone is demeaning anyone is not right especially anyone who
subscribes to the First Object of TS and has been exposed to theosophy.

This is all the more so in a *public* forum such as this.

Kym, you have stated more eloquently what I could myself have said on this
issue.

IMO Jake owes a public apology to Kym.

mkr
====================================================

At 09:00 PM 8/29/1998 -0600, you wrote:
>Jake wrote:
>
>>      Are you for real?  How many "Marshalls" do you know who are women?
>
>Before your post (the one I responded to previously), I had no idea what
>"Sutraman's" birth name was - so how could I possibly know what gender the
>person was?  The name "Marshall" was never entered into the discussion I
>was referring to - at least, that I recall.
>
>>'And
>>if one is not sure it is an insult anyway.
>
>Not being sure if one is male or female through e-mail is an insult?  First
>time I've ever heard that - nor do I believe it.
>
>>Also the guy posted on theos-talk a
>>"rap" or free lance verse of a sorts about his appeal for various sorts of
>>women - rather catchy.
>
>I've no idea to what post you're referring to here.
>
>>I don't know what world you live in, but if someone
>>unjustly gets implied to have a gender identity problem around here, they
>>might get killed for it.
>
>"Gender identity problem" does not even enter into this discussion - we're
>talking about people not knowing - via e-mail - whether one is male or
>female.  Gender-identity is an entirely different subject and issue.
>
>>I think you are not for real....  Maybe this petty
>>criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic
ruse to
>>come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise.   Are you just
>coming
>>on to me Kym?   Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50,  so set
>>your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested.
>
>Why is that many men think that when a woman (or a man) disagrees with them
>or thinks them vacant in particular areas of thinking that the woman is
>"just coming on to them?"  That is an amazing and ridiculous train of
>reasoning and has often resulted in women being subject, due to this crap,
>to very dangerous situations.  Maybe some men on this line will think your
>reference is funny, but I do not.
>
>Let me make it clear to you, Jake:  1) I think you were out of line and
>facts, and just plain unfair, in your attack upon Dallas (I may be guilty
>of that myself).  2) There is NO solicitation for sex, or any other kind of
>personal relationship, in my post to you (nor has there ever been nor will
>there ever be) and for you to infer publically that it is IS a major, and
>unacceptable, insult.
>
>Finally, your statement "typical femine masochistic ruse" is filthy and
>dead wrong.  Your opinion of women (which includes not only me, but the
>wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers and all other females who are held
>near and dear in the hearts of men on this list) is revolting.
>
>End of thread. - No, on second thought, I'm out of here altogether.  I'm
>sick to death of men thinking this way and other men standing by while it
>happens.  This isn't the first time you've (and one or two others) spouted
>off like this (espousing views very detrimental to women) - and no one else
>besides me spoke up about it.  Silence is responsible for many tragedies in
>this world - and when those who claim to be "theosophical" spew or stand
>silently by when it is happening right in front of them need some serious
>'looking-in-the-mirror' time.
>
>And to those of you who may have been upset at such degrading references to
>women (or any other person or group), but decided to stay silent figuring
>it wasn't worth it - I ask you to ask yourselves "Not worth it to whom?"
>
>
>Later, gentlemen,
>
>
>Kym