🚀 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:

 <snip>


> >> >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.

Ephesians 5:20-21, again.

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

Your opinion is fine.  It's quite
a different matter to offer your opinion
as to another's thoughts or motives,
when they have stated much in
opposition, even offered proof,
yet you continue your mantra.

<snip>

>            ----------
>             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.  :]

So a lifelong commitment to
a faithful partner is an unethical choice?
Sorry about the personal experience.
Almost points to the need to keep
ones eyes wide open before marriage,
and half closed thereafter.

<snip>

> >You are establishing your opinions as quite

> >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?
>             ----------------------

Not true.  You need to prove this one.

Perhaps the PK web page listing the seven
promises might help.

 http://www2.promisekeepers.org/7p.htm

> >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?
>             ---------------

I deny it. You prove it.

<snip>

> >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?
>             ----------

I called it equal, posted evidence,
you called it sexism, posted none.
By the way, acts may be sexist, but
I believe you need to have some
important conversations
with people before you call *them*
sexist.  This is a character judgment,
and you must know their character
before making it.  Most people are
*a little* sexist-even you and I.  Only a few
are shamefully, harmfully sexist.

> >> >'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

All those you mention whichcorrect the effects of past
discrimination.

This news group is full of them.

--
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!