🚀 go-pugleaf

In <344545be.27652068@news1.ibm.net> sarsok@ibm.net (Gary Paul Sarsok)
writes: 
>
>In Genisis,

>It was the woman who sinned against man's law, and the man that sinned
>against God's law. And so it must be that women must not interfere in
>the roles of a husband and vice versa. We are fundamentaly broken
>because of the first sin. 

        -----------
        hehehee....what if we go back to the garden so that Eve
        can politely decline?

        -----------



And women in this time and era, are trying>to subsume roles under the
guise of equality, when in effect it is>domination/castration they
really desire.

        -----------
        We don't need to castrate you to demand equal opportunity.


 It should be obvious that in>other cultures that became effeminate the
culture was doomed.

            -----------
            Do you think it was wearing all that jewlery that did it?
            -------------


 As the>tide of more effeminate men and role reversals with women
predominate>our culture, it will be the death knoll of our civilisation
as it has>been for others who embraced paganism.
>
>..gary...

            -----------
            Or it could provide a real artistic difference in window
            treatments.

                Lefty
>

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
<6267gu$gkh@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <623fk9$gf1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>writes:
>>Why can't a women inherit from her father?  And why do you assume that
>any>specific man can?
>
>            -----------
>            I was speaking of history, when women were not allowed
>            to inherit.  It was very important that women married
>            well, and not  for love.

Oh, okay--I'll buy that.  So, you agree that they have the ability to do so
today, right?  We can't base political agenda on the [distant] past, can we?
I mean...I guess wer're gonna have to give every Indian a free ride, since
it was our forefathers of 500 years past that claimed this land for
themselves.

Also...let's not forget about the blacks.  My goodness...since my great,
great, great-grandfather may have had slaves, by all means--let's make
present-day people pay for it.  See what I'm getting at?

>>Women today have LOTS of opportunities, and choices.  There's no more
>reason>for the 'women are a victim' sydrome.  This is the 90's
>now--trying to>pretend that the women of today and the women of 60
>years ago are the same>is ridiculous.

>            -----------
>            Trying to pretend that in the few short years since after
>            WWII......

WW-II...which we entered in 1941...which was 56 years ago...I'd say that's
more than a few 'short' years ago.  That 2 complete generations (to the age
of 30).  You can't even begin to compare the women of today to the turmoil
of the people of 1940.

> women can somehow magically catch up to male business own-
>ership is what's ludicrous.

Hmmmm.  I think you're asking the impossible.  But, not for the reasons that
you would conjure.

Probably the main reason is that there simply aren't as many working women
and working men.  How can you expect to see the 'same amount' of female
managers and such, as there are men, when there aren't even enough working
women to equal that?  That doesn't make sense.

To see the equal 'number' of women in the same jobs would mean that the
majority of 'working women' would have to be in leadership/managerment, etc.
How fair is THAT??  Why should the majority of working women be in those
positions?  Shouldn't it be fair?  Let's say there's 10% of total working
men in managerment--then, to be fair, there should be no more than 10% of
working women in management...true?  Anything more, and THAT would be
unfair.

In <34457DB2.31E3C519@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Jean Coyle wrote:
>
>> Alan Davis wrote:
>> > Jean Coyle wrote:
>> > > Marg Petersen wrote:
>> > > > >In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> > > > ><adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> > > > >>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>>             So fine;  I'll submit to _god_; the man can
>> > > > >>>             submit to me...his wife.
>> > > > >>>             -----------------
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>You really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?
>> > > > >
>> > > > Interesting how the role reversal (husband submitting to wife
>> > > > and wife submitting to god), is NOT acceptable but the reverse
>> > > > is?  Hmmmmm, things that make one pause.
>> >
>> > > good point Marg ! look out the word that rhymes with rich that
women
>> > > get called a lot here when they've made a point will probably
start
>> > > flying next.
>> >
>> > > Jean
>> >
>> > Not really a good point, because she
>> > disagreed with something I never said.
>> >
>> > Don't be frightened, Jean, not everyone is as evil as you
>> > believe.
>> >
>> she made a very valid point Alan. If what PK is advocating is so
>> great, what woukd be wrong with reversing it.. Women submit
>> to God, men submit to their wives ?
>>
>> Jean
>
> Not really, because PK advocates nothing of the sort.
>
>Ephesians 5:20-21 says husbands and wives ought to
>submit to *each other*.  What does this mean, other than
>give in from time to time?  Lefty's false paradigm, which Marge
>echoed and you agreed with, is not the PK advocacy.


            ----------
            You still haven't refuted the PK policy that men 
            submit to GOD, and wives submit to husbands.  
    
                Lefty

In <3445831A.29939D3@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> In <34444F0F.64A60679@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >> In <620v2h$ojc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson"
>> <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>> >> writes:
>> >> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
>> >> <61uo09$360@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>> >> >>In <61ukb6$hro@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson"
>> >> <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>> >> >>writes:
>
><snip>
>
>> >Perhaps, teach our children thedifference between love and lust?
>>
>>         ---------
>>             I agree with that.
>>
>
>There's one.<snip>
>
>> >> >Hmmm...I dunno.  I'm not 'sold' on this whole 'counceling'
thing.>> It>> seems odd that life went on, mostly happily, for
thousands of> years> without professional 'councelors' to tell
everybody what they're >> feeling.  I'm not>so sure that I put much
stock into that notion.
>> >
>> >I'm sold on it.  The counseling may take the placeof a culture that
>> has so>come to endorse divorce,>that it has lightened it's opinion
of
>> marriage as well.
>
><snip>
>
>>        ------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Or, as well, because society has endorsed getting out as equivalent
to>> >working it out.
>>
>>         ---------
>>         Absent domestic abuse, I'm all for counseling.
>>             ------
>
>There's two.
>
>> >> >>           Also, I think we have to
>> >> >>         recognize that some folks are simply not cut out for
>> >> >>         marriage.
>> >> >
>> >> >Now, THAT I agree with.
>> >>
>> >>             Lefty
>> >
>> > Me, too.
>
>There's three.
>
>Lefty, you are a genius.

            ---------
            If we were to continue this argument in matters of 
            definition of all those glorious agreements, you 
            might simply label me the Queen of the Corn. That's
            what my two beautiful children call me.

                :]

                Lefty

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <34457DB2.31E3C519@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >Jean Coyle wrote:
> >> Alan Davis wrote:
> >> > Jean Coyle wrote:
> >> > > Marg Petersen wrote:
> >> > > > >In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> > > > ><adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> > > > >>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> > Not really a good point, because she
> >> > disagreed with something I never said.
> >> > Don't be frightened, Jean, not everyone is as evil as you
> >> > believe.
> >> >
> >> she made a very valid point Alan. If what PK is advocating is so
> >> great, what woukd be wrong with reversing it.. Women submit
> >> to God, men submit to their wives ?
> >>
> >> Jean
> >
> > Not really, because PK advocates nothing of the sort.
> >
> >Ephesians 5:20-21 says husbands and wives ought to
> >submit to *each other*.  What does this mean, other than
> >give in from time to time?  Lefty's false paradigm, which Marge
> >echoed and you agreed with, is not the PK advocacy.
>
>             ----------
>             You still haven't refuted the PK policy that men
>             submit to GOD, and wives submit to husbands.
>
>                 Lefty

 I've given you Bible references and quotes,
they are still in this thread.
you've given nothing but your fear filled myth..
Seems you can't be convinced that these
refute your argument.  Where did you get
this PK policy from, anyway?

--
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!

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <34457E13.8F059111@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> In <34444E16.916DAEBC@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >Marg Petersen wrote:
> >> >> >In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> >> ><adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >> >>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> >>             ---------
> >>             So, it isn't true then that PK expects men to
> >>             submit to god....while wives submit to men?
> >>
> >>                 Lefty
> >> >
> >
> > You are correct, it isn't true.  I recommend Ephesians 5:20-21.
>
>             ----------
>             I can't find my bible;  it's either boxed up in
>             my garage, or given away with my other illusions
>             of childhood.

And the dog ate my homework.

If you can't find it, follow this or some other
PK threads-it's been quoted several times.

>                                     The Muslim religion also doesn't
>             preach veils, but that doesn't stop them from putting
>             their women in them.  In the same sense, the goals
>             of PK is to have women submit to their husbands.

I suggest you need to prove this or admit your error.


--
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!

Marg Petersen wrote:

> In article <34457DB2.31E3C519@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
> Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> >Jean Coyle wrote:
> >> Alan Davis wrote:
> >> > Jean Coyle wrote:
> >> > > Marg Petersen wrote:
> >> > > > >In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> > > > ><adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> > > > >>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

<snip>

> >> > Not really a good point, because she
> >> > disagreed with something I never said.
> >> > Don't be frightened, Jean, not everyone is as evil as you
> >> > believe.
> >> >
> >> she made a very valid point Alan. If what PK is advocating is so
> >> great, what woukd be wrong with reversing it.. Women submit
> >> to God, men submit to their wives ?
> >>
> >> Jean
> >
> > Not really, because PK advocates nothing of the sort.
> >
> >Ephesians 5:20-21 says husbands and wives ought to
> >submit to *each other*.  What does this mean, other than
> >give in from time to time?  Lefty's false paradigm, which Marge
> >echoed and you agreed with, is not the PK advocacy.
>
> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the wife
> submitting to her man.

You have bought into Lefty's myth.  PK has no such "theory."

How long have you been studying PK?
What are your references?
I've offered quotes, references, and people
to talk to to refute this.

>  I don't want to have to go through my
> husband to get to god, thank you very much.  Course, HE doesn't
> believe in a god of any kind.  Mine, now, lives in my oak tree.
> A very *personal* goddess.  :-)
>
> Marg

I thought only *nuts* came out of oak trees. ;-)

--
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!

In article <3446E9CC.C7388BEF@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>, Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> 
> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> >             I can't find my bible;  it's either boxed up in
> >             my garage, or given away with my other illusions
> >             of childhood.
> 
> And the dog ate my homework.

Nice one, Cyril!  :)

I found this funny.  Partly, I guess, because we don't even have a
garage.  There is a room that was supposed to be a garage, but it's
really a cross between a large playroom and a place where three dogs
and three of our cats jump all over one another constantly.  Partly
also because the idea of having only *one* Bible struck me just as
funny.  Right in front of me on the bookshelves as I type this I can
see *two* King James versions, one Catholic Bible, a New Testament
("Good News for Modern Man"), and a vest-pocket-size New Testament
and Pslams.  Plus a Cruden's Concordance, the Dead Sea Scriptures,
Elaine Pagels's *The Gnostic Gospels*, and a *Lost Books of the
Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden.*  Oh, and a Koran, a Book of
Mormon...  and *De Gospel According to Mark, Done Into De Sussex
Dialect*.  Plus two more Bibles elsewhere that belonged to my mother,
a big family Bible, another pocket-size New Testament, a New Testament
handed out free at *Stand in the Gap* two weeks ago...  Gee, if all
three of our dogs ate a whole Bible apiece, I'll bet we'd still have
a dozen left.  Having only one Bible seems as amusing to me as having
only one Guinness Book of Records or World Almanac (the 1973 edition!).

         Gordon S. Little
     (Gordon.Little@bull.com)

In article <6267gu$gkh@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> 
> In <623fk9$gf1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
> writes: 
>
> >Women today have LOTS of opportunities, and choices.  There's no more
> reason>for the 'women are a victim' sydrome.  This is the 90's
> now--trying to>pretend that the women of today and the women of 60
> years ago are the same>is ridiculous.
> 
>             Trying to pretend that in the few short years since after
>             WWII (when many women joined the workforce en masse) that
>             women can somehow magically catch up to male business own-
>             ership is what's ludicrous.

The idea of "catching up" is what's ludicrous.  On the one hand, women
never will "catch up" to men in business ownership, because there will
always be larger numbers of men who prefer to take the risks and put in
the energy and dedication necessary to running a business, while larger
numbers of women prefer to contribute to society in other ways.  On the
other hand, the notion that women started from zero and had lots of
"catching up" to do is just as silly.  Numbers of women have always
supported themselves in business, dating back hundreds of years to the
time when women (especially widows with children) necessarily made an
independent living in numerous ways, whether as laundresses, midwives,
seamstresses, or by trading in a huge variety of goods.  Both Elizabeth
Blackwell and Elizabeth Garrett, the first women to qualify as
physicians in the U.S. and the U.K. respectively, ended up founding
their own hospitals a hundred and thirty years ago, in spite of a
social climate that was generally opposed to women going into the
professions.  Women have run businesses all through this century.
Take a look at Margaret Carlson whatshername, who runs one of the
biggest travel agencies in the world today.  Changes over the last
generation have increased the number of women running businesses.  But
they don't change the underlying pattern all that much, with its two
basic features: that there have always been successful women in business
-- but never as many as men.

         Gordon S. Little
     (Gordon.Little@bull.com)

In article <6266r4$c1p@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, 
leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> 
> In <344545be.27652068@news1.ibm.net> sarsok@ibm.net (Gary Paul Sarsok)
> writes: 
> >
> >In Genisis,
> 
> >It was the woman who sinned against man's law, and the man that 
sinned
> >against God's law. And so it must be that women must not interfere in
> >the roles of a husband and vice versa. We are fundamentaly broken
> >because of the first sin. 
> 
>         -----------
>         hehehee....what if we go back to the garden so that Eve
>         can politely decline?
>         -----------

The question is, would she?

My reading of Genesis 2 and 3 is a bit more radical than Genesis 1.  I 
think there's a lot of truth in the Bible, if you read it with a bit of 
imagination.  Genesis 1 is a pretty obvious -- and pretty *good* -- 
description of the Creation.  OK, it got one or two things in the wrong 
order -- like, how can you have the earth bringing forth grass *before* 
you get around to sticking the sun in the sky to provide sunlight for
photosynthesis?  And the time scale was a bit off.  Only six days?  But 
what the heck; if you turn to Ps. 90:4,  it says "For a thousand years 
in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the 
night."  What are a few billion years to God?  Just like a week, really.  
What's a time scale between friends?  :)

In other ways, it is a good description of the Creation.  It starts with 
the Big Bang ("Let there be light!"), goes on to describe the 
condensation of the Earth from fluid matter, and even gives a hint about 
all life on earth originating in the seas.  (Gen. 1:21 notes that "the 
waters brought forth abundantly" every living creature that moveth, 
including, significantly, "winged fowl.")  It's a lot better than the 
creation myths some primitive people came up with, about giant dragons 
laying eggs that hatched into the Earth and the like.

Most people can see that much, but it's when we get to Genesis 2 and 3 
that we find an interesting parable about Man's origins from ape 
ancestors.  Adam and Eve were really apes.  They lived in a "garden" 
with trees (primeval forests), scampering around naked.  They apparently 
subsisted on a chiefly vegetarian diet, the fruit of these trees.  It 
was Eve who was tempted by watching some other creature (which may or 
may not have been a serpent) to eat "the fruit of some tree" that was 
formerly not part of the ape regimen.  Clearly what was happening was 
that as the forests contracted, these apes were forced to seek out some 
new food source they were not previously dependent on.  Whether that 
meant moving out onto the savannahs, or (according to a very plausible 
theory) into a more watery environment for a time, it could well have 
been a female who took the very first step in this direction to find a 
new food to feed her hungry infant.

Paraphrasing Neil Armstrong, that was "one small step for an ape, but a 
giant leap for mankind."  It led our first ancestors out of the "Garden 
of Eden," but once they had left, they could never return -- just as 
Genesis says.  They changed their lifestyle, and took the first step on 
the long upward journey toward humanity.  There were benefits, but there 
was a cost as well.  They were warned that if they ate the fruit of the 
forbidden tree, they would surely die.  And die they did.  They died as 
a species.  They were no longer mere apes; but in time they were reborn 
as humans.  They were told that it was the Tree of Knowledge; and 
knowledge and intelligence are what they acquired, what we have today, 
in consequence of eating its fruit.  It was the Tree of Knowledge of 
Good and Evil.  By eating its fruit, they gave up what some call 
"innocence," and others call "ignorance," but above all they left behind 
their old, happy-go-lucky animal ways in which they never worried about 
such things as morality, and acquired a new human awareness of 
themselves and of the consequences of their acts, including such ideas 
as "right" and "wrong."  These new abilities helped them to survive, and 
more, to survive so well that in time we have dominated the entire 
Earth.  But with our newfound awareness we have also acquired new, 
almost Godlike responsibilities, and new worries.  Acts, including the 
eating of "forbidden" fruit, are not always definable as "right" or 
"wrong," but they all have consequences we must judge.

It was as they ventured out also that they "realized they were naked," 
and invented clothing to protect them from more hostile climates.  
Genesis 3 condenses millions of years of evolution and exploration into 
a single day.  But the story it tells is still true.  Creationists ought 
to read their Bible to find the truth instead of perpetuating silly 
stories about men's footprints being found alongside dinosaurs'.

If it was a female who "committed the original sin" and tempted a whole 
tribe of our ancestors out of the "garden," the consequences fell on 
males and females alike.  "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat 
bread."  Life was no longer the old, happy business of plucking fruit 
off trees or grabbing an occasional small animal or insect to supplement 
the diet.  It meant hard work, scavenging, hunting, ranging farther even 
for gathering, and in time the labor of farming.  "Unto the woman he 
said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow 
thou shalt bring forth children."  This was the consequence of physical 
changes in body shape: upright walking, and giving birth to the larger 
head that goes with higher human intelligence.

"And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."  
I don't personally see marriage as a ruling of husband over wife; 
ironically I think this is a masculine view that some women (feminists 
especially) take advantage of for their own gain, where there is 
actually an exchange of needs taking place and a great deal more 
equality of power than either chauvinists or feminists want to admit.  
But it is a long-term relationship of interdependence; and it's 
certainly true to say that by stepping into this new lifestyle, females 
gave up much of the independence that female apes have, and a great deal 
more sex *equality* -- on men's side -- was realized.

         Gordon S. Little
     (Gordon.Little@bull.com)

In article <6274og$g7m@cass.ma02.bull.com>, Gordon S. Little <> wrote:
>In article <6247oo$6eb$1@kira.peak.org>, goddess@kira.peak.org (Marg
>Petersen) wrote:
>> 
>> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the wife
>> submitting to her man.  I don't want to have to go through my
>> husband to get to god, thank you very much.  Course, HE doesn't
>> believe in a god of any kind.  Mine, now, lives in my oak tree.
>> A very *personal* goddess.  :-)
>
>So let me get this right.  Your husband is a hardheaded atheist, but
>you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden...  :)

Hardheaded?  I guess one could call a bald man that.  :-)
For myself, no, I haven't seen any evidence of fairies in the garden,
though that doesn't mean they don't exist.  However, the Goddess,
now I believe she does exist and she lives in my oak tree, as I
said.  Course, that isn't the *only* place she lives, but she
does inhabit it from time to time.  

>         Gordon S. Little
>     (Gordon.Little@bull.com)


Marg

-- 
	Marg Petersen    Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
	    goddess@peak.org	http://www.peak.org/~goddess
     "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway

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 conceptyou 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.
        --------------
>
>> >> >>  It also means to contribute>100 percent of ones effort to the
>> >> health> and hapiness>of the family.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>             ----------
>> >> >>       That's simply not possible...realistically.  One must
>> >> >>       also contribute to one's employers, one's friends, etc.
>> >> >>       Nice thought tho.
>> >> >>             ---------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >One must find a balance among them all.  A spousewho spends too
>> much>> time>in service to an employer>will find that the family
>> relationship> suffers-all too>common, eh?
>> >>
>> >>             --------
>> >>        Very true;  my comment was only concerning your unrealis-
>> >>        tic idea that one can give 100% to family.
>> >
>This is not 100 percent of physical labor or dollars; the factors you
 seem>to consider.  this is 100 percent of>one's love.  Most folks can
 recognize when they are not>loved.  The challenge is to find the love
>> in each person's>heart and use it for good.
>>
>>             ----------
>>             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 lovea 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.
            ----------
>
>
>>                   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?
                -----------

>
>>                   How we invest
>>             in that love is more easily controled.  Certainly ex-
>>             pressing love for one's family is important.
>>             -------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>            Because it's
>> >>           physically impossible to do that, you are now talking
>> >>           about "balance" which most everyone favors.  Balance in
>> >>           all things, including the division of roles...not by
>> >>        gender, but by balance.  If either mother or father spends
>> >>         too much time on work or family, balance is not provided.
>> >>             ---------------
>> >
>> >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.  
            ------------

>
>> 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.
                -------------------------
>
>           > 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.
                ------------
>
>> >> >> ><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?  Isn't it true that they encourage
            spiritual submission of women to their husbands?
            That's what I've heard.
            -----------

>
>>              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?

                Lefty

In <3446E937.CC740CD7@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
(edit)

> I've given you Bible references and quotes,
>they are still in this thread.
>you've given nothing but your fear filled myth..
>Seems you can't be convinced that these
>refute your argument.  Where did you get
>this PK policy from, anyway?

            ---------
            From the speeches made in PK meetings reported by the
            free press.

                Lefty

In <3446E9CC.C7388BEF@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> In <34457E13.8F059111@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >> In <34444E16.916DAEBC@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >> >Marg Petersen wrote:
>> >> >> >In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> >> >> ><adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >> >> >>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> >>             ---------
>> >>             So, it isn't true then that PK expects men to
>> >>             submit to god....while wives submit to men?
>> >>
>> >>                 Lefty
>> >> >
>> >
>> > You are correct, it isn't true.  I recommend Ephesians 5:20-21.
>>
>>             ----------
>>             I can't find my bible;  it's either boxed up in
>>             my garage, or given away with my other illusions
>>             of childhood.
>
>And the dog ate my homework.
>
>If you can't find it, follow this or some other
>PK threads-it's been quoted several times.
>
>>                                     The Muslim religion also doesn't
>>             preach veils, but that doesn't stop them from putting
>>             their women in them.  In the same sense, the goals
>>             of PK is to have women submit to their husbands.
>
>I suggest you need to prove this or admit your error.

            ----------
            Prove what, that the muslim religion doesn't demand
            veils or that it makes it a practice for women to
            wear them?

                Lefty
>

In <6269cs$1j1@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
writes: 
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
><6267gu$gkh@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <623fk9$gf1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson"
<jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>>writes:
>>>Why can't a women inherit from her father?  And why do you assume
that
>>any>specific man can?
>>
>>            -----------
>>            I was speaking of history, when women were not allowed
>>            to inherit.  It was very important that women married
>>            well, and not  for love.
>
>Oh, okay--I'll buy that.  So, you agree that they have the ability to
do so>today, right?  We can't base political agenda on the [distant]
past, can we?>I mean...I guess wer're gonna have to give every Indian a
free ride, since>it was our forefathers of 500 years past that claimed
this land for>themselves.

            ----------
            Sure;  I'm all for living in the present;  however, in 
            doing so, if you forget the past, you are doomed to relive
            it.  We have to learn from our mistakes.  Today women own
            property;  that isn't going to change.
            ---------------------------------------
>
>Also...let's not forget about the blacks.  My goodness...since my
great,>great, great-grandfather may have had slaves, by all
means--let's make>present-day people pay for it.  See what I'm getting
at?

            ---------
            I do indeed.  In the same sense that we can't compensate
            blacks for the social injustice they experienced, we also
            can not expect those same blacks to have the same family
            values as their Chinese peers.  The reason for that is
            because HISTORY does shape our evolution.  The same kinds
            of oppression that separated the slave from his child 
            also created fewer family values than the Chinese who
            worked together as families.
        --------------------------------------
>
>>>Women today have LOTS of opportunities, and choices.  There's no
more>>reason>for the 'women are a victim' sydrome.  This is the 90's
>>now--trying to>pretend that the women of today and the women of 60
>>years ago are the same>is ridiculous.
>
>>            -----------
>>            Trying to pretend that in the few short years since after
>>            WWII......
>
>WW-II...which we entered in 1941...which was 56 years ago...I'd say
that's>more than a few 'short' years ago.  That 2 complete generations
(to the age>of 30).  You can't even begin to compare the women of today
to the turmoil>of the people of 1940.

            ---------
            Can you expect women who have only been working en masse
            for 56 years to compare to men who have always worked
            outside the home?  Can you expecte women who were not
            (at one time) allowed to own property to men who always
            were?  I don't think so.  In the same breath, we can't
            simply redistribute the wealth;  that only leave equal
            opportunity.
            -----------------------
>
>> women can somehow magically catch up to male business own-
>>ership is what's ludicrous.
>
>Hmmmm.  I think you're asking the impossible.  But, not for the
reasons that>you would conjure.
>
>Probably the main reason is that there simply aren't as many working
women>and working men.  How can you expect to see the 'same amount' of
female>managers and such, as there are men, when there aren't even
enough working>women to equal that?  That doesn't make sense.

            ---------
            Women are just about 50% of the workforce.  I don't 
            expect to see the same number of female managers;  I
            do expect to address bias so that equal opportunity
            may apply to prevent a continuation of male only 
            ownership/employment. 
            ----------------
>
>To see the equal 'number' of women in the same jobs would mean that
the>majority of 'working women' would have to be
inleadership/managerment, etc.>How fair is THAT??  Why should the
majority of working women be in those positions?  Shouldn't it be fair?
 Let's say there's 10% of total working>men in managerment--then, to be
fair, there should be no more than 10% of>working women in
management...true?  Anything more, and THAT would be>unfair.

            =============
            Equal opportunity doesn' mean equal result.  If a woman
            doesn't have the merit (without bias), she doesn't deserve
            the job.  The real question remains the one of prevention
            of bias.
            ---------------------
>
>
>               Lefty
>

Daniel B. Holzman wrote:

> In article <3446E897.70081BCB@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
> Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:



> >> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the wife
> >> submitting to her man.



> >You have bought into Lefty's myth.  PK has no such "theory."
> >How long have you been studying PK?
> >What are your references?
> >I've offered quotes, references, and people
> >to talk to to refute this.
>
> I need look no further than their own writings:

You need to look further into these writings.  Whatyou have presented includes too
much "...."
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.

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!"
>
>          -- 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.

What do you have against love, attention, and leadership?
I do not feel oppressed, myself, when I follow the leadership
of our Boy Scout Troop Scoutmaster.  Nor do I feel
oppressed when I follow my wife's leadership.  Are you for
anarchy?

> "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?

> "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.

What are you afraid of here?

> 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?

> -
> 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.



--
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!

In <3447CF3B.E5E714C9@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>
>> In article <3446E897.70081BCB@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
>> Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the wife
>> >> submitting to her man.
>
>
>
>> >You have bought into Lefty's myth.  PK has no such "theory."
>> >How long have you been studying PK?
>> >What are your references?
>> >I've offered quotes, references, and people
>> >to talk to to refute this.
>>
>> I need look no further than their own writings:
>
>You need to look further into these writings.  Whatyou have presented
includes too>much "....">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.

            ---------
            Leadership that is only male, precludes female leadership;
            how hard is it to understand that?  Last time I looked, it
            was still possible to have a female president/vice.  
            ----------------------------------------
>
>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.

            --------------
            Leadership is a new code word for male supremacy?
            ---------------
>
>> ". . . 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!"

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

            --------
            Yes, the opinion of ONE PKer....only one.  :]  That
            is what started the wearing of veils in Iran, and the
            methods used by Taliban.
            ---------
>
>Before you condemn it, read it.
>Who are these "more aggressive persuasion" feminists,
>note he didn't say *all* feminists.

            ----------
            Why would he have to?  The idea that rebellious women can
            be "cured" by a good fuck has been expressed since
            the dawn of time.  This is hardly anything NEW.  The
            only difference is that the fuck is spirtual rather
            than physical.
            ---------------------
>
>What do you have against love, attention, and leadership?
>I do not feel oppressed, myself, when I follow the leadership
>of our Boy Scout Troop Scoutmaster.  Nor do I feel
>oppressed when I follow my wife's leadership.  Are you for
>anarchy?

            ----------
            Is it the PK stance that you must follow your wife's
            spiritual leadership in the self-same way she must 
            follow yours, or are roles assigned.  (I already know
            the answer, but I'm not sure you're willing to admit
            it).  Equality is not anarchy.
            ===================
>
>> "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?

            ----------
            The priest gets the duty of service and all the RIGHTS
            that accompany the title.  Trying to portray it only
            as duty, is doing a disservice to those who want the
            REST OF THE STORY.

            ------------
>
>> "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.

            ---------
            How is it possible to be "overlyinfluenced" by those
            who comprise over 1/2 of humanity.  Shouldn't that
            huge group have just over 1/2 of the "say" in how
            we conduct ourselves.
            -----------------
>
>What are you afraid of here?
>
>> 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."

            -------
            YUP
>
>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?

            ---------
            In the same way that a few Muslims make women wear 
            veils, having nothing to do with the listed precepts
            of the religion, PK has their own agenda which includes
            the submission of women.  We don't buy what you're
            trying to sell, a white-wash of bigotry.

                Lefty
>--

In <Pine.SUN.3.96.971017140332.22835A-100000@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> Tracy
Hornschuch <browntr@engr.orst.edu> writes: 
>
>On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Alan Davis wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Hey I can go for getting rid of the Speaker of the House... :-)
>
>I just had to say that... Tracy


            ----------
            Why do you think it is necessary?     :]

                Lefty

In <34457E13.8F059111@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> In <34444E16.916DAEBC@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >Marg Petersen wrote:
>> >> >In <34434198.83F2C373@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> >> ><adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >> >>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> >>>             So fine;  I'll submit to _god_; the man can
>> >> >>>             submit to me...his wife.
>> >> >>>             -----------------
>> >> >>You really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?
>
>
>
>> >> Interesting how the role reversal (husband submitting to wife
>> >> and wife submitting to god), is NOT acceptable but the reverse
>> >> is?  Hmmmmm, things that make one pause.
>
>
>
>> >I said both the reverse and the original were wrong.
>
>
>
>> >Next time, pause before posting.
>> >Ephesians 5:20-21 says submit to
>> >each other.  This means love and provide
>> >charitable acts for each other.  Lefty's
>> >paradigm is wrong, she's been refuted
>> >no end, yet continues her blather.  Her role
>> >reversal is wrong, and your application of
>> >her role reversal logic to all men is also wrong.
>
>
>
>>             ---------
>>             So, it isn't true then that PK expects men to
>>             submit to god....while wives submit to men?
>>
>>                 Lefty
>> >
>
> You are correct, it isn't true.  I recommend Ephesians 5:20-21.

            ----------
            I can't find my bible;  it's either boxed up in
            my garage, or given away with my other illusions
            of childhood.  The Muslim religion also doesn't
            preach veils, but that doesn't stop them from putting
            their women in them.  In the same sense, the goals
            of PK is to have women submit to their husbands.

                    Lefty

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!

In article <6247oo$6eb$1@kira.peak.org>, goddess@kira.peak.org (Marg
Petersen) wrote:
> 
> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the wife
> submitting to her man.  I don't want to have to go through my
> husband to get to god, thank you very much.  Course, HE doesn't
> believe in a god of any kind.  Mine, now, lives in my oak tree.
> A very *personal* goddess.  :-)

So let me get this right.  Your husband is a hardheaded atheist, but
you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden...  :)

         Gordon S. Little
     (Gordon.Little@bull.com)

In <628sn0$rjf@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
writes: 
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
><62855f$8t0@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <6269cs$1j1@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson"
<jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>>writes:
>>>
>>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
>>><6267gu$gkh@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>>            Sure;  I'm all for living in the present;  however, in
>>            doing so, if you forget the past, you are doomed to
relive
>>            it.  We have to learn from our mistakes.
>
>Agree with you 150%.  The problem is that today, everything is based
on>politics, and individual 'wants,' rather than what is for their
'good.'  We>don't do things based on the knowledge we've learned in the
past...we do it>for political reasons.  Most of us are doing it right
now...every day, and>aren't even intelligent enough to see it.

            ----------
            I don't agree. Most humans use what they've learned from
            the past, and integrate that with new information.  At
            least that's been my experience.  Calling something a
            "political reason" is nothing more than expressing a
            philosophy, just like we humans have always done.
            ------------
>
>>>Also...let's not forget about the blacks.  My goodness...since my
>>great,>great, great-grandfather may have had slaves, by all
>>means--let's make>present-day people pay for it.  See what I'm
getting
>>at?
>
>>            I do indeed.  In the same sense that we can't compensate
>>            blacks for the social injustice they experienced,
>
>Who is 'they?'  I seriously doubt there are too many people living
today>that were 'injusticed' into slavery.  What are we talking about?

            ----------
            We are speaking of the generations of separation 
            of black families because of slavery; would you
            expect that those who are told to live without
            family for generations, recover overnight.

  Let me get
>this right...you want to 'compensate' somebody, for something that
somebody>a LONG time ago experienced?  Heck...we may as well go ahead
and startgiving anybody with Ottoman heritage our paychecks...afterall,
the>Byzantines took their whole empire away.  The Romans, too.  Heck,
the way I>figure it, you owe ME everything you own...many of my great,
great, great,>great grandfathers and family were wronged.  Is that not
a point?
    
            If you can read what I've said, you'll see that 
            I've not asked for any compensation.

>
>>            also created fewer family values than the Chinese who
>>            worked together as families.
>
>Which, sadly enough, is something our country no longer has.  Based on
>'history,' we're already on the downfall--massive pornography, people
OVERLY>concerned about what they think their own likes or rights should
be, instead>of what is good for the GROUP or the town, or the nation,
very high divorce>rate, acceptance of homosexuality in society, 
declining military, seperated>parents with no core, family
infrastructure, society making up more and more>holidays and people
making excuses NOT to work.  It's already>happening....if you read The
Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reicht, and the Rise>and Fall of the Roman
Empire, you will see this as a common theme.  The next>book?  The Rise
and Fall of the United States.

            ---------
            That sounds like the doom and gloom scenerios offered
            by militia-unibomber types.  It's a screed and not an
            argument.  Society always has problems;  lumping them
            all together (AS YOU SEE IT) and saying "aint it 
            awful" doesn't accomplish anything.
                ---------------------------
>
>>>WW-II...which we entered in 1941...which was 56 years ago...I'd say
>>that's>more than a few 'short' years ago.  That 2 complete
generations>(to the age>of 30).  You can't even begin to compare the
women of today>>to the turmoil>of the people of 1940.
>
>>>Probably the main reason is that there simply aren't as many working
>>women>and working men.  How can you expect to see the 'same amount'
of>female>managers and such, as there are men, when there aren't even
>>enough working>women to equal that?  That doesn't make sense.
>>
>>            ---------
>>            Women are just about 50% of the workforce.
>
>I question that number, and would like to know what the actual factual
>percentage is.  For every woman you can name that works, I can name 2
that>don't.  However, their husband does.

            -----------
            Well, that's to be expected; you and I would have different
            experiences in that since we don't travel in the same 
            circles.  
            -------------

>
>>             I
>>            do expect to address bias so that equal opportunity
>>            may apply to prevent a continuation of male only
>>            ownership/employment.
>
>Equal opportunity...I have to play 'the bad guy' on this one.  Do you,
>honestly, seek "equal opportunity," or do you seek "special rights?"
>Should a man get paid leave/vacation time to spend the first 6 weeks
with>his newborne? 

            ---------
            That would depend upon the company, would it not?  I
            would support such a plan.  
            ======================


I think he should, if the woman does.  Should a woman have to
>register for a military draft?  I think she should, since the man
does.

            --------
            So do I.  Men are being discriminated against and
            should fight for their equal rights.
            -------------

>(And, as such, there can be no excuses like, "I can't go to the
military...I>just had a baby," or "I can't go...I'm pregnant."  Or, "I
can't go...I don't>want to."  A man can't use any of these excuses...I
would LOVE to stay home>with my newborne, but if I'm called, I have a
job to do.

        ----------
        I would agree with you that where men and women are similarly
        situated they should be treated the same.  Gestation is simply
        NOT a similar situation.  Pregnancy isn't an excuse; it's 
        a fact of life.
            -----------------------


 [By the way, this
>is an example of not being selfish and caring about "my personal
rights,">rather what is good for the country.]  And, if you're after
'equal>opportunity," then you will find this to be fair, too.)
>
>>           Equal opportunity doesn' mean equal result.  If a woman
>>           doesn't have the merit (without bias), she doesn't deserve
>>          the job.  The real question remains the one of prevention
>>          of bias.
>
>You're right...I agree.  And THAT is where the problem is.  Why are
>standards lowered for the woman?  It's called "gender norming," and
"racial>norming," and that is exactly the root of the problem.  In
today's day and>age, you are not allowed to say that somebody
"...doesn't have the merit.">That, in itself, is a bias these days and
will cost you.

            ----------
            Actually including women in the standards is part of
            getting rid of bias against women.  
>
>I appreciate the comments...keep 'em coming.

            ----------
            You too.

                Lefty
            
>
>
>
>

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
<629h8q$ev6@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>            I don't agree. Most humans use what they've learned from
>            the past, and integrate that with new information.  At
>            least that's been my experience.  Calling something a
>            "political reason" is nothing more than expressing a
>            philosophy, just like we humans have always done.

No, I can't agree with that.  Through my experience, I have found that, more
and more daily, people make excuses and decisions based on a political
agenda.  They no longer care about anything except what is "...what I
deserve because I am a [woman][black][man][minority][sick of society][a
boisterous person].  I really don't think people 'think' anymore.

>>Who is 'they?'  I seriously doubt there are too many people living
>today>that were 'injusticed' into slavery.  What are we talking about?
>
>            ----------
>            We are speaking of the generations of separation
>            of black families because of slavery; would you
>            expect that those who are told to live without
>            family for generations, recover overnight.

Not at all.  But lets keep a grip on reality here...I never got the chance
to be 'close' with my great, great grand-father....and i seriously doubt
that my family is "suffering" because of it.  Are you suggesting that some
family is 'suffering' because somebody (several hundred) years ago was
seperated from his wife?

>            If you can read what I've said, you'll see that
>            I've not asked for any compensation.

What exactly are you saying, then?

>            That sounds like the doom and gloom scenerios offered
>            by militia-unibomber types.

Well, I appreciate you lumping me into that same pile.  I don't think I've
generalized and placed you into any stereo-types...I would appreciate the
same consideration.

>            It's a screed and not an
>            argument.  Society always has problems;  lumping them
>            all together (AS YOU SEE IT) and saying "aint it
>            awful" doesn't accomplish anything.

Hmmm...it IS an arguement...and only the ingnorant would say otherwise.
(sorry if that offends.)  There have been SEVERAL hundred publications and
writings on this subject...I can get you some links to them if you wish.
It's not the way that I see it...it's the way that a LOT of people see
it...and that list is growing more and more daily.

>>>            Women are just about 50% of the workforce.

>            Well, that's to be expected; you and I would have different
>            experiences in that since we don't travel in the same
>            circles.

That is true.  I'll try to find out the true numbers for our discussion.

>>Equal opportunity...I have to play 'the bad guy' on this one.  Do you,
>>honestly, seek "equal opportunity," or do you seek "special rights?"
>>Should a man get paid leave/vacation time to spend the first 6 weeks
>with>his newborne?

>            That would depend upon the company, would it not?

No...it shouldn't.  If an agency or organization is going to offer that to
the woman, then it should equally be offered to the father.

>            I would support such a plan.

I am very glad to hear that.

>I think he should, if the woman does.  Should a woman have to
>>register for a military draft?  I think she should, since the man
>does.
>
>            --------
>            So do I.  Men are being discriminated against and
>            should fight for their equal rights.

Hmmm...refreshing to hear.

>>(And, as such, there can be no excuses like, "I can't go to the
>military...I>just had a baby," or "I can't go...I'm pregnant."  Or, "I
>can't go...I don't>want to."  A man can't use any of these excuses...I
>would LOVE to stay home>with my newborne, but if I'm called, I have a
>job to do.

>        I would agree with you that where men and women are similarly
>        situated they should be treated the same.  Gestation is simply
>        NOT a similar situation.  Pregnancy isn't an excuse; it's
>        a fact of life.

Indeed.  But let me ask you this--let's say I'm a co-worker...is it fair
that you get 'knocked up,' and get a PAID ABSENSE from work for simply being
pregnant and having a kid, when I can't possibly get the same benefit?  Why
on earth should I have to "cover your work" for you because you're out
reproducing?  I didn't get you pregnant..I haven't forced you into a
pregnancy...I haven't decided to have kids...YOU have.  Why does the rest of
you shop/office have to PAY for what you've decided?

>>>           Equal opportunity doesn' mean equal result.  If a woman
>>>           doesn't have the merit (without bias), she doesn't deserve
>>>          the job.  The real question remains the one of prevention
>>>          of bias.
>>
>>You're right...I agree.  And THAT is where the problem is.  Why are
>>standards lowered for the woman?  It's called "gender norming," and
>"racial>norming," and that is exactly the root of the problem.  In
>today's day and>age, you are not allowed to say that somebody
>"...doesn't have the merit.">That, in itself, is a bias these days and
>will cost you.

>            Actually including women in the standards is part of
>            getting rid of bias against women.

Wholey incorrect!  Having somebody meet the 'standard'...whether it's a man
or a woman should not matter--THAT is the way to get rid of bias...against
EVERYBODY!  Meet the standard...don't discriminate against others because
somebody can't meet the preset standard.

In my line of work, there is (unfortunately) a LOT of bias against
women...because they don't have to meet the same standard that men do...it
is "gender normed."  There is a LOT of disgust towards them because of it.
The key to eliminating the bias is to eliminate the double-standard.

jrdyson@pipeline.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~jrdyson

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. 

In <344A8AEF.D09140DE@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
(edit)

>What he should take back is his ROLE.

            -----
            Does taking back his ROLE do anything to alter
            HER chosen role?  Does it preclude her from having
            equal authority in the home?  What IS his ROLE, that
            hers is not?
            -----------

    
>
>A role which feminists have long since complained that
>men don't do well enough at, and that is the contribution
>to raising his family.  A ROLE which would far lessen
>the number of divorces, deadbeat dads, and spousal abuse.
>
>Why do you object to men becoming better husbands and fathers?
>
>>             I'm not going to
>>             quote again what others have already provided.
>>
>>                



                When you finally answer my questions (and those
                of others) regarding the role segregation of
                pk perhaps we can have a more meaningful conversation.

                    Lefty
    
            

In <344A8970.4556FC4F@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> In <3447CF3B.E5E714C9@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
>> >Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>> >> In article <3446E897.70081BCB@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
>> >> Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> >> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the
wife
>> >> >> submitting to her man.
>
>
>
>> >> >You have bought into Lefty's myth.  PK has no such "theory."
>> >> >How long have you been studying PK?
>> >> >What are your references?
>> >> >I've offered quotes, references, and people
>> >> >to talk to to refute this.
>> >>
>> >> I need look no further than their own writings:
>> >
>> >You need to look further into these writings.  Whatyou have
presented>> includes too>much "....">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.
>>
>>             ---------
>>           Leadership that is only male, precludes female leadership;
>>          how hard is it to understand that?  Last time I looked, it
>>             was still possible to have a female president/vice.
>>             ----------------------------------------
>
>Leadership is gender neutral.  Wise people become leaders,
>>or know when to follow good leadership.

            ---------
            The question then becomes one of whether or not WOMEN
            in the PK mindset can ever become "wise people".
            ---------------
>
>> >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.
>>
>>             --------------
>>             Leadership is a new code word for male supremacy?
>>             ---------------
>
>You're still making up nonsense.

                --------------
                Are all the leaders in PK male?  That's not
                too difficult, is it?
                ------------
>
>Leadership is gender neutral.  Wise people become leaders,
>>or know when to follow good leadership--regardless of gender.

            -----------
            So how many female group leaders are now installed
            in PK?
            --------

>
>> >> ". . . 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!"
>>
>>             ----------
>> >>
>> >>          -- 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.
>>
>>             --------
>>             Yes, the opinion of ONE PKer....only one.  :]  That
>>             is what started the wearing of veils in Iran, and the
>>             methods used by Taliban.
>>             ---------
>
>Bunk.  Strawman argument.  Can you think of
>no other argument than to try to link those who
>disagreee with you to criminals?  Have you run out of
>knowledgable things to say?

                ---------
                Those who support the Taliban are NOT criminals; they
                are LEADERS....male leaders who refuse to allow women
                to compete in the workplace or school on an equal level
                with men.  Whatever makes you think they are criminals?
                -----------------------
>
>> >Before you condemn it, read it.
>> >Who are these "more aggressive persuasion" feminists,
>> >note he didn't say *all* feminists.
>>
>>             ----------
>>            Why would he have to?  The idea that rebellious women can
>>            be "cured" by a good **** has been expressed since
>>            the dawn of time.  This is hardly anything NEW.  The
>>            only difference is that the **** is spirtual rather
>>            than physical.
>>             ---------------------
>
>Please tone down your language.

            --------
            No.
>
>There are gentlemen and ladies present.

            --------
            If they are adults, they will have to get used to the
            fact that there are all kinds of words in the world;
            in that regard, the grown-up thing to do would be to
            get on with it.  If you're a child you can avoid all
            sorts of language and simply pretend language you don't
            like doesn't exist...in the same sense that you can 
            pretend PK is about equality.
            ---------------------------
>
>Besides, the conversation was with respect to
>defining who these aggressive feminists are.
>I'm sure not all women are "aggressive feminists."
>
>> >What do you have against love, attention, and leadership?
>> >I do not feel oppressed, myself, when I follow the leadership
>> >of our Boy Scout Troop Scoutmaster.  Nor do I feel
>> >oppressed when I follow my wife's leadership.  Are you for
>> >anarchy?
>>
>>             ----------
>>             Is it the PK stance that you must follow your wife's
>>             spiritual leadership in the self-same way she must
>>            follow yours, or are roles assigned.  (I already know
>              the answer, but I'm not sure you're willing to admit
>>             it).  Equality is not anarchy.
>>             ===================
>
>Stop guessing what I might or might not say.
>
>Your stereotyping will only lessen any good points
>you might have.  I've told you that there is no
>"mandate" for one to follow another.  The only mandate
>is to follow the wisdom of God.  Both men and women have
>been called saints.  Wisdom is gender neutral, though in
>several books of the Bible it is referred to as "she."

            ----------
            I have asked you a direct question.  You have failed
            to answer. 
            -------------
>
>> >> "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?
>>
>>             ----------
>>             The priest gets the duty of service and all the RIGHTS
>>             that accompany the title.  Trying to portray it only
>>             as duty, is doing a disservice to those who want the
>>             REST OF THE STORY.
>>
>>             ------------
>
>Or to those who might make it up?
>
>What RIGHTS do priests get?

                ---------
                The right to be the spiritual leader in their homes,
                at the exclusion of women in the same role.  You still
                haven't answered my question.
>
>I suggest, none other than the right
>to choose to follow God.  What other
>rights do you think that they have that
>frighten you?

                -----------
                I need not be frightened about a group of men who
                want the right to lord over women;  that's nothing
                new;  it's as old as the bogeyman.  You still haven't
                answered my question.
>
>> >> "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.
>>
>>             ---------
>>             How is it possible to be "overlyinfluenced" by those
>>             who comprise over 1/2 of humanity.  Shouldn't that
>>             huge group have just over 1/2 of the "say" in how
>>             we conduct ourselves.
>>             -----------------
>
>So are you saying that all women are feminists?

            --------
            No.  I'm saying that all women have the right to 
            equal protection.
            -------------
>
>> >What are you afraid of here?

            -------------
         Nothing.  Empty "phallacy" only makes me angry...not scared.
            ---------------
>> >
>> >> 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."
>>
>>             -------
>>             YUP
>
>I disagree with him.  He has committed the same order
>>of misinterpretation as NOW saying
>that women have the right to make false
>rape allegations.

                ----------
                If that is the case, why aren't you supporting total
                inclusion of women in the process?  You still haven't
                answered my question.
                ============
>
>> >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?
>>
>>             ---------
>>             In the same way that a few Muslims make women wear
>>             veils, having nothing to do with the listed precepts
>>             of the religion, PK has their own agenda which includes
>>             the submission of women.  We don't buy what you're
>>             trying to sell, a white-wash of bigotry.
>>
>>                 Lefty
>
>Please stop with the comparisons of those whohold ideas with which you
do>not agree>to criminals.  Your stereotyping lessens>the strength of
any other argument you might>make.

            ----------
            To what court must members of the Taliban report viz a viz
            their criminal culpability?  BTW, you still haven't        
            answered my question.  Perhaps you realize you can't.

                Lefty

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <344A899A.C284B607@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> In <3446E937.CC740CD7@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >
> >> (edit)
> >>
> >> > I've given you Bible references and quotes,
> >> >they are still in this thread.
> >> >you've given nothing but your fear filled myth..
> >> >Seems you can't be convinced that these
> >> >refute your argument.  Where did you get
> >> >this PK policy from, anyway?
> >>             ---------
> >>             From the speeches made in PK meetings reported by the
> >>             free press.
> >>
> >>                 Lefty
> > Care to provide a reference?
>
>             ---------
>             No...others have provided you quotes ad nauseam regarding
>             men taking back authority.  Why should I look it up to
>             quote it again.  You didn't answer them;  I have no reason
>             to expect you would answer me.
>
>                 Lefty

Quotes from one source, Mr. Evans, which
says nothing about your premise that "a man
submits to God, a woman submits to a man."
.
Some in this newsgroup who have read or heard
the speech in it's entirety have acknowledged that
it should not inspire the fear or outrage that has been
expressed.  Did you read or hear the entire speech?
Are you talking about one man's
words only, or do you have any more?

You have provided NO evidence that it is
PK "policy" that a man submits to God and
a woman submits to a man.  It's just stuff
you made up.

Why are you so worried about men trying to live
honorable lives and be good husbands and fathers?

It would seem to me that a feminist would be quite
happy to see a man be responsible.  Seems to me,
though, from all your posts, that you want men
to be subject to law rather than be more responsible
through changing their hearts and minds.

--
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!

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <344A8970.4556FC4F@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> In <3447CF3B.E5E714C9@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> >> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >> >Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
> >> >> In article <3446E897.70081BCB@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
> >> >> Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:


<snip>

> >>             ---------
> >>           Leadership that is only male, precludes female leadership;
> >>          how hard is it to understand that?  Last time I looked, it
> >>             was still possible to have a female president/vice.
> >>             ----------------------------------------



> >Leadership is gender neutral.  Wise people become leaders,
> >>or know when to follow good leadership.



>             ---------
>             The question then becomes one of whether or not WOMEN
>             in the PK mindset can ever become "wise people".
>             ---------------

The answer is, "of course."  Why do you pose this question?
The question in my mind becomes, why you
automatically question the motives of
people who are just trying to be better
husbands and fathers.

<snip>

> >>             --------------
> >>             Leadership is a new code word for male supremacy?
> >>             ---------------



> >You're still making up nonsense.



>                 --------------
>                 Are all the leaders in PK male?  That's not
>                 too difficult, is it?
>                 ------------

All NOW leaders are women.
All leaders of your investment group are women.
All Girl Scout leaders are women.
NOT all Boy Scout leaders are men.
Not all PK leaders are men.
The point is not the gender, but
the goals.  You have questioned,
even made up, what you think their
goals are.


> >Leadership is gender neutral.  Wise people become leaders,
> >>or know when to follow good leadership--regardless of gender.



>             -----------
>             So how many female group leaders are now installed
>             in PK?
>             --------

How many females can help PK
men with their number one sin, that
of sexual indiscretion?  How many women
are GLAD that their husband is being told
to shape up by other men?

> >> >His opinion.



> >>             --------
> >>             Yes, the opinion of ONE PKer....only one.  :]  That
> >>             is what started the wearing of veils in Iran, and the
> >>             methods used by Taliban.
> >>             ---------



> >Bunk.  Strawman argument.  Can you think of
> >no other argument than to try to link those who
> >disagreee with you to criminals?  Have you run out of
> >knowledgable things to say?



>                ---------
>                 Those who support the Taliban are NOT criminals; they
>                 are LEADERS....male leaders who refuse to allow women
>                 to compete in the workplace or school on an equal level
>                 with men.  Whatever makes you think they are criminals?
>                 -----------------------

The accusations of criminal behavior made in
these threads.  Besides, which PK person said they
"refuse to allow women to compete in the workplace
or school on an equal level with men?"

> >> >Before you condemn it, read it.
> >> >Who are these "more aggressive persuasion" feminists,
> >> >note he didn't say *all* feminists.



> >>             ----------
> >>            Why would he have to?  The idea that rebellious women can
> >>            be "cured" by a good **** has been expressed since
> >>            the dawn of time.  This is hardly anything NEW.  The
> >>            only difference is that the **** is spirtual rather
> >>            than physical.
> >>             ---------------------



> >Please tone down your language.



>             --------
>             No.

Please?

> >There are gentlemen and ladies present.



>             --------
>             If they are adults, they will have to get used to the
>             fact that there are all kinds of words in the world;
>             in that regard, the grown-up thing to do would be to
>             get on with it.

Or ostracize those who engage in sexual harassment and vulgarity.

>                                   If you're a child you can avoid all
>             sorts of language and simply pretend language you don't
>             like doesn't exist...in the same sense that you can
>             pretend PK is about equality.
>             ---------------------------

Or, I can tell you that you can probably
think of something more intelligent to
say than your vulgarity. Your vulgar
language will only lessen the effect of
any good points you might have

> >>             ----------
> >>             Is it the PK stance that you must follow your wife's
> >>             spiritual leadership in the self-same way she must
> >>            follow yours, or are roles assigned.  (I already know
> >              the answer, but I'm not sure you're willing to admit
> >>             it).  Equality is not anarchy.
> >>             ===================



> >Stop guessing what I might or might not say.



> >Your stereotyping will only lessen any good points
> >you might have.  I've told you that there is no
> >"mandate" for one to follow another.  The only mandate
> >is to follow the wisdom of God.  Both men and women have
> >been called saints.  Wisdom is gender neutral, though in
> >several books of the Bible it is referred to as "she."



>             ----------
>             I have asked you a direct question.  You have failed
>             to answer.
>             -------------

Perhaps I'll quote it again (from 10 lines above):

"I've told you that there is no
"mandate" for one to follow another.
The only mandate is to follow the
wisdom of God."

If this is insufficient, please comment,
but don't make up a claim that it was not
answered.

> >>             ----------
> >>             The priest gets the duty of service and all the RIGHTS
> >>             that accompany the title.  Trying to portray it only
> >>             as duty, is doing a disservice to those who want the
> >>             REST OF THE STORY.



> >>             ------------



> >Or to those who might make it up?



> >What RIGHTS do priests get?



>                ---------
>                 The right to be the spiritual leader in their homes,
>                 at the exclusion of women in the same role.  You still
>                 haven't answered my question.

What exclusion?  And how do you
account for "those who would be great in
God's kingdom must be the servants of all?"

> >I suggest, none other than the right
> >to choose to follow God.  What other
> >rights do you think that they have that
> >frighten you?



>                 -----------
>                 I need not be frightened about a group of men who
>                 want the right to lord over women;

You haven't proven this, only accused
people of it.  People who only want to be better husbands
and fathers.

>                              that's nothing
>                 new;  it's as old as the bogeyman.  You still haven't
>                 answered my question.

Answered, and quoted again.

"I've told you that there is no
"mandate" for one to follow another.
The only mandate is to follow the
wisdom of God."

<snip>

> >>             ---------
> >>             How is it possible to be "overlyinfluenced" by those
> >>             who comprise over 1/2 of humanity.  Shouldn't that
> >>             huge group have just over 1/2 of the "say" in how
> >>             we conduct ourselves.
> >>             -----------------



> >So are you saying that all women are feminists?



>             --------
>             No.  I'm saying that all women have the right to
>             equal protection.
>             -------------

So what does "influence" have to do
with that?  Are you mandating AA
for "influence?"   And what equal
protection do any US citizens not
have?

> >> >What are you afraid of here?



>             -------------
>          Nothing.  Empty "phallacy" only makes me angry...not scared.
>             ---------------

Lighten up.  There's nothing to be angry about.

<snip>

> >I disagree with him.  He has committed the same order
> >>of misinterpretation as NOW saying
> >that women have the right to make false
> >rape allegations.



>                 ----------
>                 If that is the case, why aren't you supporting total
>                 inclusion of women in the process?  You still haven't
>                 answered my question.
>                 ============

Answered above.

Which process are you talking about?

Free assembly?


> >> >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?



> >>             ---------
> >>             In the same way that a few Muslims make women wear
> >>             veils, having nothing to do with the listed precepts
> >>             of the religion, PK has their own agenda which includes
> >>             the submission of women.  We don't buy what you're
> >>             trying to sell, a white-wash of bigotry.
> >>
> >>                 Lefty



> >Please stop with the comparisons of those who hold ideas with which you
> do>not agree>to criminals.  Your stereotyping lessens>the strength of
> any other argument you might>make.



>             ----------
>             To what court must members of the Taliban report viz a viz
>             their criminal culpability?  BTW, you still haven't
>             answered my question.  Perhaps you realize you can't.
>
>                 Lefty

Answered above.

Prove that PK has as it's goal the submission of women.

You can't.

Prove that PK says man submits to God,
and woman to man.

You haven't.

Good bye, Lefty.

This thread is beyond repair.

--
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!

Max Burke wrote:
> 
> > On 19 Oct 1997, Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> > > In <3448F285.E3D438F6@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> > > <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> > > >
> > > >               In the same sense, the goals
> > > >               of PK is to have women submit to their husbands."
> > > >
> > >             ---------
> > >             It has already been brought to your attention that PKers
> > >             have stated that the man should go home and tell his wife
> > >             he's taking back the authority in the family, that he
> > >             ISN'T ASKING....he's taking it back.  I'm not going to
> > >             quote again what others have already provided.



> 
> If the Promise Keepers are going to 'take back the authority' in their
> family, supposedly from their wives, who gave the wives the right to
> take over the authority in the first place, and what right (all things
> supposedly being equal) did she have to take it in the first place.
********************************************
Maxie,

 Who said the women took anything, could
be they have to because the old man becomes
complacent of his place, this puts it in
her hands so the shit gets done...

 Your reverse logic is getting a little
dry.

john.
*******************************************

> On 19 Oct 1997, Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> 
> > In <3448F285.E3D438F6@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> > <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
> > >
> > >               In the same sense, the goals
> > >               of PK is to have women submit to their husbands."
> > >
> >             ---------
> >             It has already been brought to your attention that PKers
> >             have stated that the man should go home and tell his wife
> >             he's taking back the authority in the family, that he 
> >             ISN'T ASKING....he's taking it back.  I'm not going to 
> >             quote again what others have already provided.  


If the Promise Keepers are going to 'take back the authority' in their
family, supposedly from their wives, who gave the wives the right to
take over the authority in the first place, and what right (all things
supposedly being equal) did she have to take it in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Those men are most apt to be obsequious and conciliating abroad, 
who are under the discipline of shrews at home.

Washington Irving (1783�1859), U.S. author. 
The Sketch-Book, �Rip Van Winkle� (1819�20).
-- 
MLV@ihug.co.nz
Replace MLV with mlvburke to email me

SAA (stertoursssa@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Scott A.Renner wrote:
: > 
: > >>>>> At 10:02 10/13, Tracy Hornschuch <browntr@engr.orst.edu> said:
: > >
: > > ...I just need to find someone who is open like me.  I don't mind a
: > > husband who feels as if he's a *leader* in the household, but he will
: > > have to know that we, as a couple, will have to talk about all choices
: > > for the household and must agree on the answers.
: > 
: > I chopped a lot out of what I thought was a very nice post.  I've been
: > reading and writing in the USENET groups for nearly fifteen years now.  I
: > haven't often felt that my posts were doing any good.  More often it seems
: > I'm writing for people who have their minds made up.  This feels good.
: > Thanks.
: > 
: > Many people hear PK speak of the husband as the leader of the home, and
: > think of the Great Leader of Korea, or Hitler leading the German nation.
: > That is, they associate leader with tyrant.  Let me give you two other
: > images of husband-as-leader that I think are a better fit to what PK has in
: > mind:
: > 
: > * You are climbing a mountain.  Your husband is leading, setting the pitons
: >   to help you when it's your turn to climb.  Of course, you are belaying
: >   him, keeping him safe as he climbs now.  And, of course, you both decided
: >   that you wanted to climb the mountain.
: > 
: > * You are finding a path through a swamp.  Your husband is leading, trying
: >   to pick the best path through.  If you happen to see that the ground is
: >   more solid to the right, then of course you'll tell him, and maybe you'll
: >   both go that way instead.
: > 
: > --
: > Scott A. Renner <sar@nym.alias.net>         ==================================================================================

: Okay, Scott....Imagine this.  You want to climb Mt. Everest.  You are an
: inexperienced mountain climber and the only available guide is a highly
: experienced woman.  However, you MUST lead HER up the mountain because
: you were BORN a male  and she was BORN female.

: Sort of paints a different picture.  Doesn't it?


One problem with this: marraiges are usually with people at the same level
(in terms of "skill" & experience).
The "experienced" climber would be translated as a father, mother or mentor. 


: SAA
: ============================================================


--jp--
--
j.p. paulus                               4625 N. Kenmore Avenue  #2
shadowm@ripco.com                              Chicago IL 60640-5024
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shadowm/index.html         773/784-5640
    ********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************

Daniel B. Holzman (holzman@xochi.tezcat.com) wrote:
: In article <3446E897.70081BCB@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM>,
: Alan Davis  <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
: >
: >> No, sorry, PK theory has the man submitting to god and the wife
: >> submitting to her man.
: >
: >You have bought into Lefty's myth.  PK has no such "theory."
: >
: >How long have you been studying PK?
: >What are your references?
: >I've offered quotes, references, and people
: >to talk to to refute this.

: I need look no further than their own writings:

: ". . . 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!"

:          -- 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


: "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.

: "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.

: 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."

The problem i had with that article was that the minister just seemed to fly
around rhetoric.  The Bible was not given as any kind of authority. If the
minister felt she had authority, she should have showed him scripture why
she could lead as a minister. (i.e. references to prophtesses, Lydia & other
prominient women in Paul's letters)


--jp--


: -- 
: 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. 

--
j.p. paulus                               4625 N. Kenmore Avenue  #2
shadowm@ripco.com                              Chicago IL 60640-5024
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shadowm/index.html         773/784-5640
    ********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************

In <01bcddbb$30a9f9c0$73a11dcb@default> "Max Burke"
<Max_Burke@nowhere.com> writes: 
>
>
(edit)

>If the Promise Keepers are going to 'take back the authority' in their
>family, supposedly from their wives, who gave the wives the right to
>take over the authority in the first place, and what right (all things
>supposedly being equal) did she have to take it in the first place.

        ----------
        She had the EQUAL RIGHT as her husband to take authority...
        .....and still does.

            Lefty

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

>             We are speaking of the generations of separation
>             of black families because of slavery; would you
>             expect that those who are told to live without
>             family for generations, recover overnight.

How about 130 years. Is that long enough?

If not, how long will be long enough?

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> 
> In <01bcddbb$30a9f9c0$73a11dcb@default> "Max Burke"
> <Max_Burke@nowhere.com> writes:
> >
> >
> (edit)
> 
> >If the Promise Keepers are going to 'take back the authority' in their
> >family, supposedly from their wives, who gave the wives the right to
> >take over the authority in the first place, and what right (all things
> >supposedly being equal) did she have to take it in the first place.
> 
>         ----------
>         She had the EQUAL RIGHT as her husband to take authority...
>         .....and still does.
> 
>             Lefty
*************************************************

 Face it, the women always have to take the
reins, because of Male Complacency.

 Who gives them the power to mess it up after
the women got it straight.

  I don't think women have any worries over
the Pk, Once they see how the women got it
going, The Boys will beat feet back to the Tube..
bar, golf club, toy room...[male bonding sites]

 with this phrase singing behind them...

   " Ok Honey what ever you say..."

john.
**************************************************
Aaaaaah Wam bam thank you mam.

In article <344E0EF0.DF8@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>,
Gerard S. Harbison <gerry@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> wrote:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>>             We are speaking of the generations of separation
>>             of black families because of slavery; would you
>>             expect that those who are told to live without
>>             family for generations, recover overnight.
>
>How about 130 years. Is that long enough?
>
>If not, how long will be long enough?

Well, according to Asian philosophy, nothing is really important
(or resolved or settled) until it has gone "unto the 3rd generation.
So.......perhaps in another 50 years or so, we might just be there.
Or maybe not.  A lot depends on the attitudes of all concerned,
including yours.

Marg



-- 
	Marg Petersen    Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
	    goddess@peak.org	http://www.peak.org/~goddess
     "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway

In <62lbro$9dg$1@ttis.thomtech.com> send@me.no.spam (Tom Revay) writes:

(edit)
>
>It's clear that slavery, and its legacy, are heinous.  But it seems to
me that  there were disruptions in my family's history that occurred
substantially >later than slavery was ended in the United States. 
Furthermore, the >degredations suffered by my ancestors, that included
having one's family >killed and village burned in war during this
century, were quite comparable in >terms of the pain and havoc they
created among these people to what was >suffered by the
African-Americans who survived slavery.

            ----------
            No, they were not.  Slavery and a  denial of personhood
            to an entire group of people over several centuries is
            much more destructive than individual wrongs.  If you
            (today) show a 5 year-old black child a picture of 
            a little white girl and a little black girl, they will
            be able to pick out the "pretty" one.  Does that tell
            you anything?
            -----------------------
>
>This hardly minimizes what any of these people have gone through.  But
...
>
>.. it's odd that nobody asks me what my feelings are on my family's 
>disruption. Yet I seem to get along, all the same.
>
>..................Tom

            --------
            Tom, your heritage and mine have little in common
        with the kind of denial slavery, over several generations
            can bring.  I am not even qualified to try to imagine
            it.....I'm white.  My  auburn hair and blue eyes
            give me entrance anywhere.  No one would arrest me for
            shoplifting ....or ask for my ID if I weren't in my home
            girl neighborhood at the wrong hour.  I might suggest
            that race/gender free hiring is the most appropriate
            answer to racism.

                Lefty

Tom Revay wrote:

> But she was lucky.  My wife has an extremely common Irish name, and though
> they can trace themselves back to the Famine, that's where their history ends.
> The 1840's is as far back as they can go.

That's not unusual. Even if they could trace them back a generation or
two before the famine, the Penal Laws that essentially outlawed the
Catholic Church in Ireland would prevent there being any parish records,
etc. much before 1800.  You may recall that Frederick Douglass, after
visiting Ireland in 1848, said that the condition of the people was so
bad it made him ashamed to plead for an end to slavery.

(There's another problem in that most civil records pre-1900 were burned
in the Custom House fire in 1921. (You may remember it from 'Michael
Collins'))

I can trace the Harbisons to about 1800. Because they were Catholics,
there are only fragmentary records before that, though we know they came
over from lowland Scotland in the 1690s.


> 
> And me?  I know nothing about my ancestry before about 1870.  That's a shorter
> time than many African-Americans can trace their ancestry.

Genealogy works best for the scions of the rich or middle class. Few
people noticed when or how the peasants lived or died.

In article <62ockg$nju@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <leftylu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>            can bring.  I am not even qualified to try to imagine
>            it.....I'm white.  My  auburn hair and blue eyes
>            give me entrance anywhere.  No one would arrest me for
>            shoplifting ....or ask for my ID if I weren't in my home
>            girl neighborhood at the wrong hour.  I might suggest
>            that race/gender free hiring is the most appropriate
>            answer to racism.

I've been stopped on the street by uniformed police and asked to produce
my ID, and in broad daylight to boot.

I've gone into stores to buy varies pieces of high-priced gear and noted
how eager the helpstaff were to be of service to me rather than leave me
unattended.

Being white is no bar to not only being able to understand these things,
but to experience them.
-- 
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. 

In article <34524cd6.57184472@news1.ibm.net>,
Gary Paul Sarsok <sarsok@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>:}
>>:}Genesis 3:2-3  "And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the
>>:}trees of the garden we may eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in
>>:}the midst of the garden God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, lest ye
>>:}die.'"
>>:}
>>:}"God hath said."  Not "Adam hath said."  God's law, not man's.
>
>Genesis 3:14
>The Lord asked the woman "Why did you do this?" 
> She replied, " The snake tricked me into eating it."

You're going to have to provide a little exegesis here to explain how
this might be construed to refute the notion that Eve broke God's law,
not Adam's.

>And so it is in this day and age.. some things never change. 

You mean that the man blames his sin on the woman and the woman cops to
it?  Nah, I've seen men take responsibility for their own fuck-ups.
-- 
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. 

In article <34525e46.61648940@news1.ibm.net>,
Gary Paul Sarsok <sarsok@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>}
>>:}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 have seen for about 4 decades what happens to the family when
>women have come to the feminist misperception that child rearing is
>slavery. Women and children are the bigest victims of divorce laws
>advocated by feminists.

You've rather oversimplified things, confusing a fringe perception of
some feminists with the perceptions of most feminists.  Robin Morgan
herself is a mother.  My mother is a feminist.  What the majority of
feminists have come to correctly percieve as slavery is not motherhood,
per se, but compulsory motherhood, motherhood as the one and only way
that a woman may be valued societally, motherhood undertaken for reasons
other than a desire to be a mother.

>>:}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.
>
>What have you seen? Men who want more involvement with their wives
>and children? 

Actually, no.  I've seen men who want more involvement with their wives,
but only if they can have it in a "I lead, you follow" capacity.  I've
seen men who throw them selves into their work and neglect their children
because child-rearing is "woman's work," and Gods forbid someone look at
them and think them unmanly.  I've seen men who are willing to be with
their children, but only in the context of the "fun-guy", leaving the
less pleasant parental roles like "disciplinarian" or "person who gets up
and makes breakfast for everyone" to the wife -- or ex-wife.

The men I've seen honestly want move involvement with their wives --
involvement as equals, that is; the men I've seen want more involvement
with their children *as real fathers* have been men that don't give a
rat's ass if someone thinks them unmanly, or if they might have traits
commonly associated with femininity, such as nurturance or empathy.

>Matricarchal alternatives are more anarchal to society than patriarchy. 

It is a small mind indeed which can only conceive of "matriarchy" and
"patriarchy" as ways to organize a family or a society.  The family I
grew up in is neither, so I *know* those aren't the only models around.

>Look at the jungle in Africa, or in the ghettos of 
>America where women are much more heavily burdened. It is when 
>males feel sissified, as you so eloquently describe it, that they
            ^^^^^^^^^
>become more violent and impotent and less responsible.

You misspelled "absent", hope this helps.

You'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about in the
jungle, but the problem in the ghettos aren't that the men aren't in
charge, the problem is that they're not *around*.  It isn't that the
women are in charge, it is that they're *unaided* -- and I haven't seen a
ghetto I'd classify as a matriarchy yet.
-- 
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. 

I seriously doubt that the American Press is Free.. they are
bought and paid for like everyone else in politics. MOst assuredly
they have an agenda which is not the finding of Truth but of
bending it for their own purposes. 


On 17 Oct 1997 17:42:42 GMT, leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:

>:}In <3446E937.CC740CD7@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
>:}<adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes: 
>:}>
>:}(edit)
>:}
>:}> I've given you Bible references and quotes,
>:}>they are still in this thread.
>:}>you've given nothing but your fear filled myth..
>:}>Seems you can't be convinced that these
>:}>refute your argument.  Where did you get
>:}>this PK policy from, anyway?
>:}
>:}            ---------
>:}            From the speeches made in PK meetings reported by the
>:}            free press.
>:}
>:}                Lefty

..gary...

Pax Tecum

Kde vira tam laska. Kde laska tam mir.

PGP Key:8E16 8188 07B8 B99A 5AA4  2580 0AB0 19CC F1B8 EC49

On 20 Oct 1997 17:18:27 GMT, leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:

>:}            ---------
>:}            The question then becomes one of whether or not WOMEN
>:}            in the PK mindset can ever become "wise people".
>:}            ---------------

Feminists certainly are uninclusivable from this minority group...  


>:}>
>:}>Leadership is gender neutral.  Wise people become leaders,
>:}>>or know when to follow good leadership--regardless of gender.
>:}
>:}            -----------
>:}            So how many female group leaders are now installed
>:}            in PK?
>:}            --------

How many men are in the Daughters of the American Revolution? Gee are
you criticising them too?


>:}
>:}>
>:}>> >> ". . . 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!"
>:}>>
>:}>>             ----------
>:}>> >>
>:}>> >>          -- 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.
>:}>>
>:}>>             --------
>:}>>             Yes, the opinion of ONE PKer....only one.  :]  That
>:}>>             is what started the wearing of veils in Iran, and the
>:}>>             methods used by Taliban.
>:}>>             ---------

Perhaps a bit of modesty in this sewer of Western Culture would be a
good thing..do you like the tramp look?  As a matter of fact, the
veils were worn throughout the area including Israel. 


>:}>Please tone down your language.
>:}            --------
>:}            No.
>:}>
>:}>There are gentlemen and ladies present.
>:}
>:}            --------
>:}            If they are adults, they will have to get used to the
>:}            fact that there are all kinds of words in the world;
>:}            in that regard, the grown-up thing to do would be to
>:}            get on with it.  If you're a child you can avoid all
>:}            sorts of language and simply pretend language you don't
>:}            like doesn't exist...in the same sense that you can 
>:}            pretend PK is about equality.
>:}            ---------------------------

Strident femi-nazis will stoop to any low to advocate their message of

spiritual death. Language is of no concern, modesty and decorum have
no role.. for them Civilized behaviour has no bounds and they will be
condemned to the ash heaps of civilized society and history. The evil
they embrace has only a short time longer.  

             ----------
>:}>>             The priest gets the duty of service and all the RIGHTS
>:}>>             that accompany the title.  Trying to portray it only
>:}>>             as duty, is doing a disservice to those who want the
>:}>>             REST OF THE STORY.

What rights do priests have that you desire?  You are not obligated
nor have a right to what is not yours to have. Is your insatiable lust
for equality so difficult to sustain, that you think you have a right
to anything you want. It is not for the service of God, that you want
what is not yours, but the service of your ideology. Ideology is the
feminist religion, with no concern to what is divinely inscribed in
our souls and conciences. You have eaten of the fruit, again.  


>:}>>
>:}>>             ------------
>:}>
>:}>Or to those who might make it up?
>:}>
>:}>What RIGHTS do priests get?
>:}
>:}                ---------
>:}                The right to be the spiritual leader in their homes,
>:}                at the exclusion of women in the same role.  You still
>:}                haven't answered my question.
>:}>
>:}>I suggest, none other than the right
>:}>to choose to follow God.  What other
>:}>rights do you think that they have that
>:}>frighten you?
>:}
>:}                -----------
>:}                I need not be frightened about a group of men who
>:}                want the right to lord over women;  that's nothing
>:}                new;  it's as old as the bogeyman.  You still haven't
>:}                answered my question.
>:}>
>:}>> >> "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.
>:}>>
>:}>>             ---------
>:}>>             How is it possible to be "overlyinfluenced" by those
>:}>>             who comprise over 1/2 of humanity.  Shouldn't that
>:}>>             huge group have just over 1/2 of the "say" in how
>:}>>             we conduct ourselves.
>:}>>             -----------------
>:}>
>:}>So are you saying that all women are feminists?
>:}
>:}            --------
>:}            No.  I'm saying that all women have the right to 
>:}            equal protection.
>:}            -------------
>:}>
>:}>> >What are you afraid of here?
>:}
>:}            -------------
>:}         Nothing.  Empty "phallacy" only makes me angry...not scared.
>:}            ---------------

Perhaps you recognize in yourself, phallacy envy that causes your
anger to be transferred to males.


>:}                ----------
>:}                If that is the case, why aren't you supporting total
>:}                inclusion of women in the process?  You still haven't
>:}                answered my question.
>:}                ============

What should one be so threatening and cause anger in femi-nazis with
men who only want to talk about their feelings about their manhood
with each other. Oh thats right that must be only a woman's periphery.
Are you going to advocate that all those woman's rights groups should
be disolved because they are sexist and gender uninclusive or just poo
poohed as a small extremist group of radicals?


>:}>>             ---------
>:}>>             In the same way that a few Muslims make women wear
>:}>>             veils, having nothing to do with the listed precepts
>:}>>             of the religion, PK has their own agenda which includes
>:}>>             the submission of women.  We don't buy what you're
>:}>>             trying to sell, a white-wash of bigotry.
>:}>>
>:}>>                 Lefty

Nobody cares if you buy anything, for no real men wants to buy
extremist ideological feminist mind-numbing family disorientating
bigotry. Your opinions show that they are predisposed to anger
and suspicion of anything that is male orientated and even slighly
ideologicaly incorrect in your narrow jaundiced opinion. 
   


..gary...

Pax Tecum

Kde vira tam laska. Kde laska tam mir.

PGP Key:8E16 8188 07B8 B99A 5AA4  2580 0AB0 19CC F1B8 EC49

On 18 Oct 1997 03:25:50 -0500, holzman@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel B.
Holzman) wrote:

}
>:}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 have seen for about 4 decades what happens to the family when
women have come to the feminist misperception that child rearing is
slavery. Women and children are the bigest victims of divorce laws
advocated by feminists.

>:}
>:}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.

What have you seen? Men who want more involvement with their wives
and children? Matricarchal alternatives are more anarchal to society
than patriarchy. Look at the jungle in Africa, or in the ghettos of 
America where women are much more heavily burdened. It is when 
males feel sissified, as you so eloquently describe it, that they
become more violent and impotent and less responsible.


..gary...

Pax Tecum

Kde vira tam laska. Kde laska tam mir.

PGP Key:8E16 8188 07B8 B99A 5AA4  2580 0AB0 19CC F1B8 EC49

Unfortunately for your arguement Gordon,
When "personkind" was tested by temptation,
and chose evil over the Word, it was not the
cause of all that is good in this world, but rather
the eclipse reeason and moral disorder, and the
begeting of evil in human affairs.


On 17 Oct 1997 09:51:09 GMT, (Gordon S. Little) wrote:

>:}In article <6266r4$c1p@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, 
>:}leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>:}> 
>:}> In <344545be.27652068@news1.ibm.net> sarsok@ibm.net (Gary Paul Sarsok)
>:}> writes: 
>:}> >
>:}> >In Genisis,
>:}> 
>:}> >It was the woman who sinned against man's law, and the man that 
>:}sinned
>:}> >against God's law. And so it must be that women must not interfere in
>:}> >the roles of a husband and vice versa. We are fundamentaly broken
>:}> >because of the first sin. 
>:}> 
>:}>         -----------
>:}>         hehehee....what if we go back to the garden so that Eve
>:}>         can politely decline?
>:}>         -----------
>:}
>:}The question is, would she?
>:}
>:}My reading of Genesis 2 and 3 is a bit more radical than Genesis 1.  I 
>:}think there's a lot of truth in the Bible, if you read it with a bit of 
>:}imagination.  Genesis 1 is a pretty obvious -- and pretty *good* -- 
>:}description of the Creation.  OK, it got one or two things in the wrong 
>:}order -- like, how can you have the earth bringing forth grass *before* 
>:}you get around to sticking the sun in the sky to provide sunlight for
>:}photosynthesis?  And the time scale was a bit off.  Only six days?  But 
>:}what the heck; if you turn to Ps. 90:4,  it says "For a thousand years 
>:}in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the 
>:}night."  What are a few billion years to God?  Just like a week, really.  
>:}What's a time scale between friends?  :)
>:}
>:}In other ways, it is a good description of the Creation.  It starts with 
>:}the Big Bang ("Let there be light!"), goes on to describe the 
>:}condensation of the Earth from fluid matter, and even gives a hint about 
>:}all life on earth originating in the seas.  (Gen. 1:21 notes that "the 
>:}waters brought forth abundantly" every living creature that moveth, 
>:}including, significantly, "winged fowl.")  It's a lot better than the 
>:}creation myths some primitive people came up with, about giant dragons 
>:}laying eggs that hatched into the Earth and the like.
>:}
>:}Most people can see that much, but it's when we get to Genesis 2 and 3 
>:}that we find an interesting parable about Man's origins from ape 
>:}ancestors.  Adam and Eve were really apes.  They lived in a "garden" 
>:}with trees (primeval forests), scampering around naked.  They apparently 
>:}subsisted on a chiefly vegetarian diet, the fruit of these trees.  It 
>:}was Eve who was tempted by watching some other creature (which may or 
>:}may not have been a serpent) to eat "the fruit of some tree" that was 
>:}formerly not part of the ape regimen.  Clearly what was happening was 
>:}that as the forests contracted, these apes were forced to seek out some 
>:}new food source they were not previously dependent on.  Whether that 
>:}meant moving out onto the savannahs, or (according to a very plausible 
>:}theory) into a more watery environment for a time, it could well have 
>:}been a female who took the very first step in this direction to find a 
>:}new food to feed her hungry infant.
>:}
>:}Paraphrasing Neil Armstrong, that was "one small step for an ape, but a 
>:}giant leap for mankind."  It led our first ancestors out of the "Garden 
>:}of Eden," but once they had left, they could never return -- just as 
>:}Genesis says.  They changed their lifestyle, and took the first step on 
>:}the long upward journey toward humanity.  There were benefits, but there 
>:}was a cost as well.  They were warned that if they ate the fruit of the 
>:}forbidden tree, they would surely die.  And die they did.  They died as 
>:}a species.  They were no longer mere apes; but in time they were reborn 
>:}as humans.  They were told that it was the Tree of Knowledge; and 
>:}knowledge and intelligence are what they acquired, what we have today, 
>:}in consequence of eating its fruit.  It was the Tree of Knowledge of 
>:}Good and Evil.  By eating its fruit, they gave up what some call 
>:}"innocence," and others call "ignorance," but above all they left behind 
>:}their old, happy-go-lucky animal ways in which they never worried about 
>:}such things as morality, and acquired a new human awareness of 
>:}themselves and of the consequences of their acts, including such ideas 
>:}as "right" and "wrong."  These new abilities helped them to survive, and 
>:}more, to survive so well that in time we have dominated the entire 
>:}Earth.  But with our newfound awareness we have also acquired new, 
>:}almost Godlike responsibilities, and new worries.  Acts, including the 
>:}eating of "forbidden" fruit, are not always definable as "right" or 
>:}"wrong," but they all have consequences we must judge.
>:}
>:}It was as they ventured out also that they "realized they were naked," 
>:}and invented clothing to protect them from more hostile climates.  
>:}Genesis 3 condenses millions of years of evolution and exploration into 
>:}a single day.  But the story it tells is still true.  Creationists ought 
>:}to read their Bible to find the truth instead of perpetuating silly 
>:}stories about men's footprints being found alongside dinosaurs'.
>:}
>:}If it was a female who "committed the original sin" and tempted a whole 
>:}tribe of our ancestors out of the "garden," the consequences fell on 
>:}males and females alike.  "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat 
>:}bread."  Life was no longer the old, happy business of plucking fruit 
>:}off trees or grabbing an occasional small animal or insect to supplement 
>:}the diet.  It meant hard work, scavenging, hunting, ranging farther even 
>:}for gathering, and in time the labor of farming.  "Unto the woman he 
>:}said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow 
>:}thou shalt bring forth children."  This was the consequence of physical 
>:}changes in body shape: upright walking, and giving birth to the larger 
>:}head that goes with higher human intelligence.
>:}
>:}"And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."  
>:}I don't personally see marriage as a ruling of husband over wife; 
>:}ironically I think this is a masculine view that some women (feminists 
>:}especially) take advantage of for their own gain, where there is 
>:}actually an exchange of needs taking place and a great deal more 
>:}equality of power than either chauvinists or feminists want to admit.  
>:}But it is a long-term relationship of interdependence; and it's 
>:}certainly true to say that by stepping into this new lifestyle, females 
>:}gave up much of the independence that female apes have, and a great deal 
>:}more sex *equality* -- on men's side -- was realized.
>:}
>:}         Gordon S. Little
>:}     (Gordon.Little@bull.com)

..gary...

Pax Tecum

Kde vira tam laska. Kde laska tam mir.

PGP Key:8E16 8188 07B8 B99A 5AA4  2580 0AB0 19CC F1B8 EC49

In <345262d4.62816049@news1.ibm.net> sarsok@ibm.net (Gary Paul Sarsok)
writes: 
>
>On 16 Oct 1997 23:09:24 GMT, leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>>:}In <344545be.27652068@news1.ibm.net> sarsok@ibm.net (Gary Paul
Sarsok)
>>:}writes: 
>>:}>
>>:}>In Genisis,
>>:}
>>:}>It was the woman who sinned against man's law, and the man that
sinned
>>:}>against God's law. And so it must be that women must not interfere
in
>>:}>the roles of a husband and vice versa. We are fundamentaly broken
>>:}>because of the first sin. 
>>:}
>>:}        -----------
>>:}        hehehee....what if we go back to the garden so that Eve
>>:}        can politely decline?
>
>Why..? You still are tricked by the serpent. There is no paradise for
>those who do not repent.
>
>>:}And women in this time and era, are trying to subsume roles under
the>>:}guise of equality, when in effect it is domination/castration
they>:}really desire.
>>:}
>>:}        -----------
>>:}        We don't need to castrate you to demand equal opportunity.
>
>The question is not of equal opportunity, but rather the destruction
>and distorting of human nature.

            --------
            I can't speak for your human nature, but it is mine
            to approach this world as fully human, with the same
            rights as any other human.  I work outside my home
            on an equal basis with my male peers.  Doing otherwise
            would distort MY HUMAN NATURE.
            -------------------------------
>
>>:}
>>:}
>>:} It should be obvious that in>other cultures that became effeminate
the>>:}culture was doomed.
>>:}
>>:}            -----------
>>:}       Do you think it was wearing all that jewlery that did it? 
:]
>>:}            -------------
>
>Ask the Greeks and the Sodomites.

                --------------
                Since women comprise over
                50% of our humanity, how can we not "feminize" our
                culture?
            ----------------------------
>

In <345268c4.64335435@news1.ibm.net> sarsok@ibm.net (Gary Paul Sarsok)
writes: 
>

(edit)>
>More femi-nazi revisionist history.. Most of humanity before 1910
>lived on farms where men and women worked together.

            ---------
            Who OWNED those farms?  Who had title?



 It is only the>last 80 years when the Industrial Revolution became the
greater >source of jobs, that labor laws and equality of employment
even began>to be considered as the family became fragmented and
dehumanized.

            ---------
            Before employment outside of home/ranch/farm, you only
            need to look at property ownership to establish the 
            power source, he who holds the beans.
            ------------------


>And it was not much before this era that not all men were allowed
>to own real estate. You slant your arguement as though women in the 
>work place was an age old problem, it was not.
>
>..gary...

            -------------------
            It was certainly a big problem to those women who were
            married to spousal abusers and had no way to leave be-
            cause they were unable to either own their own property
            or work.  Even when women COULD own property most pro-
            perty was titled to men.  

                    Lefty
>

Tracy Hornschuch (browntr@engr.orst.edu) wrote:
> 
> And the God set punishment onto Adam for heeding the voice of his wife...

Interesting ... Eve was punished for not listening to her husband, then
Adam was punished for listening to his wife.

... Sounds about right ;-)

-- 
+-----------------------------------------///----------------------+
|                                    |   ///                       |
|  Now that that's settled, can we   | Mike Hartigan               |
|  proceed with lunch?            \\\| hartigan at interaccess.com | 
|                                  \\\///                          |
+-----------------------------------\\\/---------------------------+

Tracy Hornschuch (browntr@engr.orst.edu) wrote:
: On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Gary Paul Sarsok wrote:

: : Never in Genesis does God speak to Eve.  God did not tell her not to
: : eat the fruit, Adam told her what God said, at least as far as
: : Scripture records the event.  That is why the Church refers to it as
: : Adam's sin.  He was given the law by God and when he broke it, he
: : sinned.  Eve broke with Adam in not keeping the law he passed down to
: : her.

: True, it is no where mentioned that God spoke to Eve in Genesis... but it
: is not mentioned that Adam told Eve not to eat from the tree.  In fact it
: is the serpent who asks Eve if it is true that God said to not eat from
: the tree.

: It was a sin done by both Adam and Eve.  We (women) are to pay for the
: sins of Eve by multiplying our sorrow and conception.  We are to bring
: fourth children onto the Earth.  We shall have desire for our husband, and
: he shall rule over us.... It's in Gensis.

: And the God set punishment onto Adam for heeding the voice of his wife...

Even more than heeding the voice of his wife....Adam chose to disobey the
explicit command of God! The thing is...Adam was there WITH Eve when she was
tempted...and he did nothing.  He could have simply asked God "What's up?"
But he chose not to...

: Tracy

: browntr@engr.orst.edu                   | tracyh@teleport.COM
: http://www.engr.orst.edu/~browntr/      | http://www.teleport.com/~tracyh/

: "Have you told your children you love them today?"

: "The only safe computer is a dead computer"
: "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense"

--jp--



--
j.p. paulus                               4625 N. Kenmore Avenue  #2
shadowm@ripco.com                              Chicago IL 60640-5024
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shadowm/index.html         773/784-5640
    ********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************

Marg Petersen (goddess@kira.peak.org) wrote:
> In article <345dd1e1.83455183@news1.ibm.net>,
> Gary Paul Sarsok <sarsok@ibm.net> wrote:
> >Dialectic Materialism is not the soul of human nature, nor is any
> >other economic model. The point today is not ownership but
> >what is destroying the family, and dehumanizing our children.
> >When life is just a matter of dollars, children denied of their
> >mother, will feel cheated, and they are cheated, just so that
> >feminists can feel fullfilled. It is bad enough that men must
> >be away from their families, but when women accept the
> >same, their children will suffer.
> >
> So, what you're saying is that men wish to/have to/need to
> accept being away from their families but women must NOT follow
> their *bad* example?  Oh, how convenient.  

No -- what he is saying is that it is undesirable for men to be away from
their families.  Worse still, is when women must also be away from their
families.  There's no way you can rationally argue against that unless you
are a proponent of the concept of parents deferring their parental
responsibilities to the 'Village'.

Your response reminds me of my children demanding to be allowed to be as
destructive as their siblings in the name of fairness.

-- 
+-----------------------------------------///----------------------+
|                                    |   ///                       |
|  Now that that's settled, can we   | Mike Hartigan               |
|  proceed with lunch?            \\\| hartigan at interaccess.com | 
|                                  \\\///                          |
+-----------------------------------\\\/---------------------------+