Replying to LO26533 --
Was "botherhood" intentional, Sajeela? A freudian slip?
I'm with you, though, and glad you challenged the "brotherhood" word. It
isn't about political correctness. It is about identifying the language
that continues to evoke privilege and to oppress others. So, brothers,
free yourselves. And you can't be truly free until each one of us
(sisters and brothers) are free.
Even Confucius is cited thus: "A hundred women are still worth only half a
Even great thinkers had their mental models, eh?
"A human being is part of the whole called by us 'universe,' a part limited
in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as
something separate from the rest^×a kind of optical delusion of
consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to
our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our
task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of
compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its
beauty." -Albert Einstein
>Linguistically, the terms "freedom" and "equality" become oxymoronic when
>you link them to only half of humanity,i.e., 'botherhood". Of course no
>priviliedged male in their right mind will EVER aknowledge my point,
>thus, if I had one of "those" I suppose my remark would be as powerful as
>p__sing in the wind.
"Richard Holloway" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.