🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> 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)
>

this is the gist of the discussion, the rest was snipped:Me:

> >> >> >Male and female submit to each other.

Lefty:

> >> >>             -------
> >> >>             Men submit to god; the woman to her husband.

Lefty then continues to ignore

quotes, references, and people
who give her evidence contrary
to her fantasy.

> >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.
>             --------------------

Refering to something incorrectly again and againmay brain wash a few, but
not many.

> >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.
>         ------------

Some reasons are legit.

Some are selfish.

I asked my wife under what conditions she might leave
me, she said if I attacked her.  She asked the converse;
I said never.

> >> >> >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.
> >> >>             ---------

You called it power above.  You've contradicted yourself.

They are different.

> >> >> >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.
>             -------------

Service is not power.  It seems to be a conceptyou do not find a great deal
of familiarity with,
either in discussions of military service or spouses
serving each other.

> >> >>  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.

I meant, you love them 100%.  If you lovea friend, does that mean you
withold love from
family?


>                   In fact, love is something over
>             which most people have little control.

Really?  When Christ says "love one another", did

he mean "when you find it within your power?"

>                   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.

Who said they did?

> The only thing control teaches is
>             more control.

Who said control was an objective?

> 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.
>             ----------------------------------------------

Gestalt is bunk.  It addresses desires only,

without any of Maslow's "self actuallization"
or realization that acts of charity can be
healing, even enlightening.

> >> >> ><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 acknowledged any comment,quote, or suggestion to talk
personally with
those about whom you make claims.

>              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.

Did, too.  You made this up, I gave references.

You snipped them or ignored them.

>              You continue to say that they submit to each other;

And provided evidence.  Where is yours?

>              I've heard you;  you still haven't answered my
>              arguement.
>              -------------
>
>                 Lefty
>

Answered it more times than I can count.

--
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!