A high level of communication?

[Guest guest]

> >If you were not a member of the conferance, I guess it is hard to prove

you

> >wrong. But I have to admit that I would be surprised if you don't agree

> with

> >their general anti-woman-agenda... Can you prove me wrong about that?

>

> I personally never found it an anti-woman agenda but rather a discussion

on

> the proper role of a woman in society. And of course, if we disagree with

> you we have an anti-woman bias.

 

I guess this is not a basis for a discussion between the two of us, since we

obviously see the world and sastra through different eyes. I just wanted to

get clarification whether you support the GHQ-mood or not, and I don't have

much doubts about that any longer.

 

Since several devotees have requested that we don't even use your exact

accusations to me as a referance, I will not quote it directly. I am sure

you know by now which sentance I mean, though.

 

Well, you certainly made your point clear, even if I don't think you have a

clue of what you are talking about, and your choice of wording is so

repulsive that even I am shocked (I was just defending Madhava Gosh some

time ago when he used some dirty words, not because of the words themselves,

but because I know him and thought it could be excused).

 

I believe that your text manifests an attitude towards women which is so

perverted that if you don't show that you got it you should be thrown out of

any so-called devotee-forum.

 

I am not a person who thinks that women are generally superior to men, and

that men should just dance when asked to. But I have perceived that there is

no reason to believe that women cannot be more intelligent and have a better

power of judgement than men. The point is: You cannot judge a person

completely just because the person took birth in a male or female body.