🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <344581EE.D26513BA@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >
> (edit)
>
> >Service is not power.  It seems to be a concept you do not find a great
> deal>of familiarity with,>either in discussions of military service or
> spouses>serving each other.
>
>         ---------
>             Who has more power, the military spouse SERVING his
>             country or his stay at home--follower wife who can't
>             secure a career because they move from post to post.
>         --------------

You deny and denigrate the choice of these women

to be with the men they love.  Is power your  primary love?

Neither have got it too good as far as power goes, in the
long run.  The service member, even after a successful
career, may have difficulty securing a job.  And the pay ain't
that great in the Armed Forces, anyway.

Many wives secure employment - should they choose -
at military bases or in localities.

<snip>

> >>             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 love a friend, does that mean you
> >withold love from>family?
>
>             -----------
>             No.  I don't see what any of this has to do with
>             the limitation of roles.
>             ----------

Roles are not limited.  Men, in general, have limitedthemselves for other
temptations.  The PK recommendation
is to get back into the role of being a loving husband and father.
This has nothing to do with your arguments of subservience.

> >>                   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?"
>
>                 ---------
>                 It goes with the territory.  A mentally imbalanced
>                 person might have a difficulty knowing what that
>                 meant, let alone fulfilling it.  "Love one Another"
>                 looks great on a greeting card;  in practice it's
>                 quite complex, is it not?
>                 -----------

Only if one chooses to make it that way.Simple acts of charity are quite
loving, and
not complex at all.  Love is quite simple, I think.

> >> >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?
>
>             -----------
>             From what I've heard, Pkers who have told men to go home
>             and TAKE the authority in their family.
>             ------------

Have you read the actual test?You have the quote mixed up.Another poster in
these threads thought
the same until he went and got the entire
article.  If I can find it I might send it to you.

> >> The only thing control teaches is
> >>             more control.
> >
> >Who said control was an objective?
>
>                 ----------
>                 Telling men to go home and explain to thier wives
>                 that allowing them to have authority in the family
>                 was wrong.....to retake that authority.....that
>                 is the desire for CONTROL, for good or ill.
>                 -------------------------

Again, you have the quotes mixed up.

Back to the stacks, counselor.

> >           > 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.
>
>                 -----------
>                 I don't see it as an act of charity.  I see it as
>                 a lifestyle without the need to subscribe to blame
>                 (or guilt) for perpetuation.
>                 ------------

I believe that a guilt free life is impossible,we make too many mistakes.
A life with
forgiveness, for me, is preferable.  It acknowledges
our foibles, and gives us hope for the future.
Gestalt revels in guiltless self aggrandizement, with
certainly lesser concern for the welfare of others..

> >> >> >> ><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.
>
>             ----------
>             Isn't it true that PK wants men to be the authority
>             in their homes?

Nope.  Look it up.

> Isn't it true that they encourage
>             spiritual submission of women to their husbands?

Nope. Look it up.

>             That's what I've heard.
>             -----------

Perhaps you should go to the horses mouthinstead of the horses nether
region.

> >>              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.
>
>             ----------
>             You have stated that each submits to each, but you
>             have not been willing to admit that the submission
>             is a division of power where men are accountable to
>             god and wives are accountable to husbands in the
>             roles prescribed.  Or, are you trying to tell me
>             that PK has a new agenda?

They never had this one.

--
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!