From: george@brooks.ics.uci.edu (George Herson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: L. Ron Hubbard was an egregious sexist.
Message-ID: <28A1D783.13882@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 8 Aug 91 23:45:08 GMT
References: <1991Aug8.064116.12676@cs.UAlberta.CA> <4744@beguine.UUCP> <1991Aug8.200303.22826@cadence.com>
Reply-To: george@ics.uci.edu (George Herson)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 56
Nntp-Posting-Host: brooks.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Aug8.200303.22826@cadence.com> deej@cds8613.Cadence.COM (Jim Howard) writes:
>In article <1991Aug8.064116.12676@cs.UAlberta.CA>,
>userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>
>[...statements by myself, Steve, and Elizabeth attesting to the sexual
>  equality observed in Scientology deleted...]
>
>>    Jim, Steve, and Elizabeth have evidently overlooked the following
>> passage in L. Ron Hubbard's book _Scientology: A New Slant on Life_
>> (1965), Chapter 9 "A Woman's Creativity", page 52 in my copy:
>>
>>          "... a society in which women are taught _anything but_
>>       [Hubbard's italics] the management of a family, the care
>>       of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society
>>       which is on its way out.
>>          "The historian can peg the point where a society begins
>>       its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take
>>       part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business
>>       affairs, since this means that the men are decadent and the
>>       women are no longer women.
>>          "This is not a sermon on the role or position of women; it
>>       is a statement of bald and basic fact."
>>
>>    I'm quoting somewhat out of context (the chapter as a whole is in
>> praise of women's social role); but it's nonetheless clear that L. Ron
>> Hubbard was an egregious sexist.
>
>  It sure looks like my statement was wrong - I said  "There do not
>need to be any Amendments to state this, as it has always been this way."
>Apparently, this is not the case (I've NOT been in Scientology forever,
>I had no right to make such a sweeping statement).  BUT, I've examined
>MY copy of S:ANSOL, and not only is the text mentioned not included,
>Chapter 9 is of a completely different title!  There is NO chapter entitled
>"A Woman's Creativity".  I don't know the date on my edition, but I
>know it's newer than 1965.  So, it seems obvious that whereas some older
>versions of this book went out with these suppressive statements, this has
>been rescinded, and the newer versions make no such statements as to a
>woman's "role" in society.

But doesn't this prove the possibility of other fundamental errors in
Scientology, and the fragility of Scientology's "bald and basic fact"s
in the face of changing political climes?  LRH's works are beginning
to sound less like gospel than PR for a money-grubbing brainwash
organization.  Or do you have a better explanation for the drastic
change in attitude you claim?

>         ~ deej ~              | (If I were expressing Cadence's opinions, )
>Jim Howard -- deej@cadence.com | (they'd probably make me wear a tie...    )
>                        Flames cheerfully ignored.
>"Do you feel more like you do now than you did when you first got here?" -- ???

--
George Herson
george@ics.uci.edu (714)856-5983 	 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(
UCalifornia Irvine, Info&CompSci          REALITY IS INFINITELY PERFECTIBLE
If it feels good--believe it.		 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(