🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3447CF3B.E5E714C9@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>You present this "leadership" as a henious
>aspect of interpersonal relationships, which it
>is not.  If leadership is a poor thing, let's start at the
>top and get  rid of the President, Vice-President,
>Speaker of the House, etc.

My objection is not to the word "leadership."  Here, let me highlight the
portions that I find objectionable...

>Mr. Evans takes on male complacency, and incites
>them to *spiritual* leadership.  This is something you
>have no concept of, since you used those "........"s
>to take out parts you don't understand.
>
>> ". . . sit down with your wife and say something like this, "Honey, I've
>> made a terrible mistake. .  . I gave up leading this family, and I
>> forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.".
>>  . . I'm not suggesting you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> take it back . . . there can be no compromise here. If you're going to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> lead, you must lead . . . Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If "the lady" wants to be led, then this is all well and good.  If not, I
still haven't heard a straight answer about how these men are to go about
"taking" back their "leadership" when the woman isn't interested in
following.

>>
>>          -- Tony Evans, co-editor of Seven Promises
>> of a Promise Keeper in "Spiritual Purity" chapter of
>> Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, p. 79-80.
>>
>> ". . . I believe that feminists of the more aggressive persuasion are
>> frustrated women unable to find the proper male leadership. If a woman
>> were receiving the right kind of love and attention and leadership, she
>> would not want to be liberated from that."
>>
>>          -- Tony Evans
>
>His opinion.
>
>Before you condemn it, read it.
>Who are these "more aggressive persuasion" feminists,
>note he didn't say *all* feminists.

Yes, I know.  In about 2 decades of seeing phrases like this, I've come
to realize that "feminists of the more aggressive persuasion" is a code
word for "feminists who don't agree with what I'm saying."

I'll leave it to Evans to show me that he is not using the code phrase in
this manner by applying it to individuals.

>What do you have against love, attention, and leadership?

Nothing at all.  My life is filled with the stuff, both giving and
receiving.  My objection is to the tired old myth that "those" feminists
just need a good man leading them.  It was bollux in the '60s, and it's
just old bollux now.

>I do not feel oppressed, myself, when I follow the leadership
>of our Boy Scout Troop Scoutmaster.  

You volunteer to follow your Scoutmaster, he does not "take" the role.

>Nor do I feel oppressed when I follow my wife's leadership.  Are you for
>anarchy?

If anarchy is the pattern that works for a given married couple, then
sure.   

>> "Don't you understand mister, you are royalty and God has chosen you to be
>> the priest of your home?"
>>
>>          -- Tony Evans, co-editor of Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper in
>> The Progressive, August 1996.
>
>A priest is a servant.  What's your problem?

A priest is a serveant of Diety, not of the congregation.  If you don't
believe me, just look at who kisses who's ring.

Or just look at the other part of the sentence, where the term used is
"royalty."

>> "The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who
>> have been overly influenced by women."
>>
>>          -- Tony Evans, co-editor of Seven Promises
>> of a Promise Keeper in The Progressive, August 1996.
>
>An opinion, it has some truth in it.

Of course it's an opinion.  That something is opinion does not move it
beyond the realm of critique, nor make it inadmissable as evidence of
what their teachings are.

And we just flat-out disagree about the amount of truth to it.

>What are you afraid of here?

I've seen what you get when you pump men up with a fear of being "overly
influenced by women" and becoming "sissified."  It's not my idea of a
good way to bring up men.

>> There was also the op-ed in the CHicago /Trib/ a few weeks ago.  It was
>> written by a female minister who had a parishoner who became a PKer.  He
>> stopped coming to Church.  When she asked him about it, he told her she
>> was no longer his pastor, because the PKers had told him that the proper
>> order of things is "men lead, women follow."
>
>That man made a mistake.Of the many men who went to DC,
>you would not have to search very long
>to find a sinner with an incomplete or
>false idea or philosophy.  Do you now
>take this one mistaken fellow and apply
>it to millions?

His action seems quite in line with Evan's statements.  When the PKs show
me positions and statements to the contrary, then I'll not take the
fellow as the rule instead of the abberation.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love 
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. --  The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.