🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> 
> In <343D1593.E482EB6@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> >> In <343C4E5B.2B070F33@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> >> In <343BD1C1.BE6D6213@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

[snp]

> >>            -----------
> >>             That's true.  I was refering to the discovery
> >>             of their reasons for wanting an inferior position.
> >
> >And what inferior position would that be?Surely you don't mean a
> lifelong>sacred>partnership with a committed spouse, do you?
> 
>             ---------
>             If that includes submission to her husband, that
>             is exactly what I mean.

It is inferior, as near as i can tell.  According to the
Bible, there is only one and one way to become a Xian...
unless you are a woman in which case you submit not only
to your god but to whatever man is in your family (if not
married then father or brother, or brother-in-law if
widowed) and you submit to your god *through* your family
(according to some sects).  This smacks of placing someone
else before god, which is also wrong, but women aren't
"good enough" to talk directly to god.  There are several
other "special" conditions placed on women to make them
holy.  I don't know how any of these special conditions
can lead to any other conclusion than that that one and
only way to be a Xian isn't sufficient for women; that
they are believed to be inferior.


> >>             I suspect it has more to do with financial security
> >>             and the protection of  family and patriarchal
> >>             social status than it does with anything else,
> >>             but if I wanted to discover WHY they choose in-
> >>             feriority, talking to them would make sence;  I
> >>             don't have much interest in why they choose it.
> >
> >That's your suspicion.  any evidence,even anecdotal, to support it?
> >>Didn't think so.
> 
>             ---------
>             Nope;  I think I've admitted it was just my suspicion,
>             did I not?  Surely your not suggesting that we, who
>             post, can't post our unsubstantiated opinions, labeling
>             them as such.

Well, now, this is something you might be able to pick
up on if you had read more of their material :-)  When
one of there leaders can say something like "feminism
is just women taking responsibility where men have
shirked it, and the only loving thing to do is take it
back so that women can get on w/ the business of being
feminine" then, yes, i'd say it has to do w/ maintaining
the patriarchy!


> >>             I only have interest in the rules of the game and
> >>             what that might mean to women who choose to be
> >>             equals.
> >>             ---------------------------
> >
> >Feminists offer nothing to women who wantmen who are lifelong,
> committed>partners.>They are called second class citizens.
> >If you talked with them, you might>find they totally disagree with you
> >about your mistaken perception of>their position.
> 
>             ----------
>             They might indeed.  Those with a vested interest in
>             patriarchy need to support it, unless they seek a
>             more ethical choice.  It often means giving up privilege.
>             I know that from ......personal experience.  :]

Well, and among those who call themselves feminists are those
who do believe in having lifelong, committed partners who
happen to treat women as equals.
[snip]

> >>             -----------
> >>             They are perfectly within their rights to disagree.
> >>             I have no problem with that.  What they say and
> >>             do has, in itself, placed women in a position of
> >>             subordination.  To borrow a phrase from Covey,
> >>             it's in their "mission statement".  :]
> >>             -------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >You are establishing your opinions asquite flaky.  They have published
> >their>mission statement, and you have made up
> >what you think their mission statement is.
> >If you have their mission statement, please
> >quote them.  Perhaps in your next post
> >you could include a reference.  Otherwise,
> >apologize for your character assassination
> >of people whom you have never met and
> >your mis-statements about what you think their
> >objective might be.
> 
>                 ---------------
>                 PKers have stated one of their seven rules as
>                 female submission to men, with a male submission
>                 to god;  what more do I need?

Lefty? character assassination?  No.  I think PKers
are doing just fine on their own.  When their actions,
the fruits of their actions, match up w/ what they
claim to believe then they might have some credibility.
So far they only seem to be becoming more and more
entrenched in stereotypical masculinity, making it
more and more difficult for men and women to communicate
w/ each other.  Doesn't look like "unity" or "pro-
family" to me.  YMMV.

NOTE:  "YMMV" stands for "Your Mileage May Vary", in
case you didn't know.  This usually indicates that
the writer knows full well that the perception and
reality of what was just written can vary an awful
lot, but that you won't be shaking the writer from
his/her words because that *is* reality wherever
the writer is.

[snip]

-- 
FSDM #0.1/2	Komrade Snapperhead, 2nd Mate

My opinions; not my employer's opinions.