🚀 go-pugleaf

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:
>> >> >> In <61eodj$g8m$1@Mars.mcs.net> karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
>> writes:
>
>> >> >> >(edit)
>
>> >Nope, only that your refusal speaks to your
>> >>choice to remain ignorant.  You did once post something
>> >to the effect "I guess you would have to check with
>> >the wives."
>>            -----------
>>             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.


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

>
>>             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.  :]
            ============================================  
>
><snip>
>
>> >Pkers have disagreed with you ad nauseum,
>> >>you post fantasies about what you *think*
>> >they are doing, rather than what they *say*
>> >and *do*.
>>
>>             -----------
>>             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?
            ----------------------
>
>I think if you ever intend to argue before a judge,
>you'd best find one sympathetic to your
>hearsay.  Last I checked, it's inadmissible.

            ------------
            What is "inadmissible" the fact that PK has, as
            one of its tenets, female submission to men?
            ---------------
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >Your honor!  I object! Calls for speculation!
>> >> >(as do all your posts on this subject, Left)
>> >>
>> >> In your opinion.
>> >
>> >You've posted no facts, only your guesses.
>> >
>
>Still no facts, or even quotes;only biased, sexist opinions.
>
><snip>
>
>> >Separation of church and state appears nowhere in
>> >the Constitution.  It first appeared in a letter from Thomas
>> >Jefferson to a New England Episcopal bishop.  The Supreme
>> >Court talks about the 'establishment' clause, not the 'separation'
>> >clause.
>>             ----------
>>             I'm glad you know where to find it.  Now what?
>>             -----------
>
>Don't espouse laws prohibiting the free expression ofreligion, I won't
>espouse any respecting an establishment of it.
>
>>                 ---------
>>                 Would you expect a free black man in Africa expect
>>                 to cooperate with those who wanted to enslave his
>>                 friends and relatives.  Or, would you expect con-
>>                 frontation?
>>                 --------------------------
>
>Your comparison is quite disingenuous.
>
>Women married to Promise Keepers are>glad their husbands agree to
'submitting yourselves,>one to another."
>
>It's called "commitment."

            --------
            Ah, but is it EQUAL COMMITMENT....OR SEXISM?
            ----------
>
>> >'This one' being the correction of men's sexist behavior; a
position on>> >which most feminists>and PK take a stand.  PK-through
loving>> >correction, feminists, through fines and jail>terms.
>>
>>             -----------
>>             Does that mean that "loving correction" is going to
>>             replace jailterms for men who abuse, beat and/or
>>             kill their wives?   I mean, they may have been justified
>>             if their wives refuse to submit.
>>
>>                 Lefty
>> >
>
> Nope, and your twist is again disingenuous.
>
>The loving correction is by the brothers who
>help each other keep their promises.  I wasn't
>talking about abuse at all, which is a crime.  I
>was talking about sexism.  You correct it
>with government programs.  Promise Keepers
>do it with the love of Christ, changing one heart
>at a time.

            ----------
            What govt. program do you see as CORRECTING
            sexism?  If you're talking about AA, how
            is PK going to make sure women have equal
            opportunity in the workforce?  I don't want
            to be protected right out of my job.

                Lefty