🚀 go-pugleaf

In <344446CC.199EAE5@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >> In <34425F38.BB6FDC48@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>
>> >> (edit)
>
>> >> >Male and female submit to each other.
>> >>             -------
>> >>             Men submit to god; the woman to her husband.
>> >>             ---------
>> >It has been proven to you that your claimis not true, yet you
continue
>> >your mindless mantra.
>> >Your claim is quite flaky.
>
>It's still flaky.
>
>> >> >This does not mean subservience, it means service.
>> >>
>> >>             ---------
>> >>             Gender aparthied service.
>> >>             ----------
>> >
>> >It has been proven to you that your claimis not true, yet you
continue
>> >your mindless mantra.Your claim is quite flaky.
>
>It's still flaky.
>
>> >> >It's the same 100-100 percent discussion we had before.
>> >> >50-50 relationships don't work, because they are
>> >> >selfish.
>> >>
>> >>         -------
>> >>         That's fine;  I don't mind 100-100, just so my roles
>> >>         aren't prescribed.
>> >>         ----------
>> >
>> >"Roles" are prescribed, to a certain degree,but are not as you say.
>> PKers>and their wives>believe marriage is a sacred partnership.  You
>> >just think it's a business relationship.
>>
>>             ----------
>>             Not at all; when roles are prescribed by patriarchy,
>>             the woman is always subservient or submissive to that
>>             patriarchy.  I won't have my roles prescribed based
>>             on gender.  I don't respect folks who do.
>>             --------------------
>
>Roles, in the sense you consider (which is labor and money)are
prescribed>jointly and agreed on jointly throughout "good"
>marriages.  Roles of love, charity, and service aren't the
>kind you are considering.

            ----------
            Calling "power" by another name (service) doesn't
            change what it is.  
            --------------------
>
>Here's a thought.  Before entering into a marriage, one ought
>to consider the conditions under which the marriage would
>simply become too much, and divorce ensue.  This is an
>examination of heart and conscience.  If those conditions
>are likely to happen, perhaps the marriage ought not to be
>entered in to.

        -----------
            If that were the case, marriage would become obsolete.
            That's because good reasons to leave a person exist.
        ------------
>
>
>
>> >> >Relationships in which each respects the other
>> >> >100 percent of the time do work, they are based on
>> >> >love and service to each other.
>> >>
>> >>             -------
>> >>             Fine, as long as my roles aren't defined I don't
>> >>             mind mutual service.
>> >>             ---------
>> >
>> >> >The husband and wife promise to love, honor, and cherish.
>> >> >"Submit" means to give in, to give and take, to sometimes
>> >> >say "OK, I'll do it your way."
>> >>
>> >>             ----------
>> >>             So fine;  I'll submit to _god_; the man can
>> >>             submit to me...his wife.
>> >>             -----------------
>> >
>> >You really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?
>>
>>             ----------
>>             No. Do you?  I just happen to enjoy my equality.
>>             -----------
>
>You took your falsehood about submitting, which has been refuted,
reversed>the roles, and said it was ok.

            -----------
            Not really;  I was showing YOU how foolish submission
            to the other gender really is.  In actuality, I wouldn't
            want that role, nor would I be with someone who wanted
            power over me.  
            -------------
>
>
>> >>  It also means to contribute>100 percent of ones effort to the
>> health> and hapiness>of the family.
>> >>
>> >>             ----------
>> >>           That's simply not possible...realistically.  One must
>> >>          also contribute to one's employers, one's friends, etc.
>> >>          Nice thought tho.
>> >>             ---------------------------
>> >
>> >One must find a balance among them all.  A spousewho spends too
much>> time>in service to an employer>will find that the family
relationship> suffers-all too>common, eh?
>>
>>             --------
>>           Very true;  my comment was only concerning your unrealis-
>>           tic idea that one can give 100% to family.
>
>This is not 100 percent of physical labor or dollars;the factors you
seem>to consider.  this is 100 percent of>one's love.  Most folks can
recognize when they are not>loved.  The challenge is to find the love
in each person's>heart and use it for good.

            ----------
            I don't give 100% of my love to my family.  I also have
            friends I dearly love.  In fact, love is something over
            which most people have little control.  How we invest 
            in that love is more easily controled.  Certainly ex-
            pressing love for one's family is important.  
            -------------------------------
>
>>
>>               Because it's
>>             physically impossible to do that, you are now talking
>>             about "balance" which most everyone favors.  Balance in
>>             all things, including the division of roles...not by
>>           gender, but by balance.  If either mother or father spends
>>           too much time on work or family, balance is not provided.
>>             ---------------
>
>Money roles, labor roles-I agree with you.
>
>The role PK talks about is love, one men have
>(in general) not done well at.

            -----------
            Men are certainly free to develop that which they need
            to improve, but they don't need CONTROL over their wives
            to learn to love.  The only thing control teaches is       
            more control.  When you love someone, really love them,
            the primal motivating factor is not control.  You want
            the best for that person without control.  There is an
            old saying that if you have a bird on a string, if you
            free that bird, and it comes back to you, it is yours
            forever;  I subscribe to that theory.
            ----------------------------------------------
>
>> >> ><snip>
>
>> >And you have only guessed that it is so.
>> >It is not, yet you continue your mindless mantra
>> >making up myths.
>>
>>             --------
>>             .....and you always end your posts in denigration rather
>>             than real argument.
>>
>>                 Lefty
>> >
>
>Your comments about submitting are a mantra.
>Repeated again and again in spite of reasoned
>arguments to the contrary, to which you don't
>respond.  I think these myths you try to shout
>through are more denigrating than my feeble
>attempt at figurative language.

            ------------
             I have seen no reasoned argument to the contrary.
             You have not been able to refute the one of the
             tenets of PK is that the husband must submit to
             god while the wife must submit to the husband.
             You continue to say that they submit to each other;
             I've heard you;  you still haven't answered my
             arguement.
             -------------
                
                Lefty
>
>--
>Al Davis ***** A Displaced Cub Fan in DC ***** adavis@seas.gwu.edu
>I like two teams:  The Cubs and whoever is playing the Mets
>Vote Santo into the Hall of Fame!
>Let's play two!
>
>