🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
>
>> >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 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.
            --------------------
>
>> >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.
            -----------
>
>>  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.  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.
            ---------------
>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> >I said nothing of the sort.  I suggest that  a mind set in which
a >> partner>bales when the going gets>tough is a breach of promise.
>> >>
>> >>             -----------
>> >>             It really depends upon the promise, and the actions
>> >>             of the parties.  Each case is unique;  that's why
>> >>             those who CLAIM a breach of promise have to go to
>> >>             court to see if it realy was one, and that's only
>>                where fault is at issue.
>> >>
>> >>                 Lefty
>> >
>> >And that is also why a partnership that does
>> >not include a real promise is destined to break
>> >up.
>>
>>             ---------
>>             I agree with that;  those who only say "I do" when they
>>             mean "I do, for now" are doomed to break up. That simply
>>             doesn't explain the inequity of PK.
>>
>
>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
>