🚀 go-pugleaf

In <620go4$bbl@nbdchc4.bnr.ca> tigger@bnr.ca (Jeff Skinner) writes: 
>
>
>In article <19971013152216.24568.qmail@nym.alias.net>, Scott A.Renner
<sar@nym.alias.net> writes:
>
>_]
>_]2. There's a typo that makes this question hard to answer as
written.  But_]   I'll try.  Yes, because PKers *are* taking the
leadership role in the>_]   household.  No, because that role does not
mean what you think.

            ---------
            It doesn't really matter what the role means; if only
            men can have that role, it becomes exclusionary and
            places women in an inferior postion viz a viz that
            role.  Think of it this way, if I tell my son that 
            ONLY my daughter can take out the trash, he would 
            want to know why.  Historically, men have found that
            gender specific tasks come equipt with gender specific
            perks, i.e. like have a penis and being able to own
            property constitutes voting rights.

            -------------
>_]
>_]PK critics consistently misunderstand the meaning of "authority" and
>_]"leadership" in the Christian context.  Look at Matthew 20:25-28 to
see
>_]what I'm talking about:
>_]>_]    Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the
rulers of the_]    Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials
exercise authority>_]    over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever
wants to become great_]    among you must be your servant, and whoever
wants to be first must be>_]    your slave-- just as the Son of Man did
not come to be served, but to_]    serve, and to give his life as a
ransom for many."

            ------------
            If men are the slaves, and women must submit to the
            slave, is woman not then lower in status than the
            slave?
            -----------
>_]
>_]    Christian authority and leadership are about service, not
domination.

            ---------
            Yes "service" does not come without perks;  the President
            is supposed to also serve his country; yet he is also
            Commander in Chief.  Words can indeed be deceiving.
            --------------------
>
> That's an excellent summary of the root misunderstanding, but not an
easy>distinction to communicate. If you are thinking in individualistic
terms>which is the way most North Americans are raised to think)
>then it really is win/lose : either one partner dominates, or the
other does.>The model you are describing is that both partners are
submitting their>wills to a higher authority, something most people
have not experienced. 

            ---------
            Both parties are submitting to doctrine that men submit
            to God, women to men.  It doesn't get much clearer than
            that.  The "higher authority" appears to desire patriarchal
            perks.
            -----------------------
>
> I also think that compromise on issues of major principle is not a 
>viable way to make a family work. If one of the partners (be it the
>man or the woman) believes that he/she has a clearer vision at a
particular>time of what is essential and that his/her partner is
confused, then it is>failing in responsibility not to press for what is
right. 

            ---------
            What difference does that make?  The one who makes the 
            poor decision may agree or disagree with the one with the
        clear vision (if female), thus even though the MAN will accept 
            criticism for that choice, he drags his family down
            with him.  No thanks;  I'd rather have a V-8 along with
            my equality.

                Lefty