Question:
>Frankly, I can’t think of why anyone would object to Promise Keepers. >They have a simple philosophy: we made promises to our wives and >we intend to keep them. It is true that the founder(s) of PKs are >conservative men, but (as the Time article points out) the group has >made every effort to avoid politics. Perhaps, Mr. Low, you can educate >me; in what ways, by word or deed, is PKs "sexist and intolerant"?
The Promise Keepers instruct their members to go home and sit down with their wives and say "Dear, I have made a serious mistake. I have let you have too much of the power in this relationship. I am going to take it back now." They are told to do this in a firm and loving way and to beware against the conversation turning into a discussion of this issue; it is an announcement followed by a discussion of the changes inthe couple’s life that this decision will entail. One of my neighbors was married in a relatively liberal church; their marriage vows did not include her promising to obey him. He went to a PK meeting and came home and had the above conversation with her. When she expressed her concern that he was changing the rules from an egalitarian relationship to a patriarchal one, he told her that is they were to make their marriage work, that was how it had to be. When she pressed farther, a PK "elder" spoke with her and told her that if she didn’t go along with these new rules, then her husband could not be a man, but only a castrated shadow of the man he was meant to be. Note that I do not object to couples running their marriages along traditional patriarchal lines, or along radical egalitarian lines, or by referring all decision to their dachshund. What I object to is an organization telling men that they have the right to unilaterally change the rules in a marriage by virtue of the fact that they are men, and that women are not entitled to any say about their own marriages. In my observational experience, PK has been very good for some marriages, and good for some men. But the basic premise is one of a traditional set of promises, and only one model for a viable marriage. I see working marriages of all types around me, and I see broken marriages of all types around me. The ones that work, near as I can tell, do so because two things are true: (1) both parties agree onthe ground rules for their particular marriage, and (2) both parties are committed to working at the marriage in both good times and bad. If the marriage isn’t working, then to fix it, I believe you have to address both issues. If one party wants to change the rules of the marriage, that should be okay, provided both parties agree to the new sedt of rules. But the PK philosophy says that only one partner has the right to set the rules for the marriage. I consider Pk to be sexist because it preaches that there is only one viable model for a marriage and because it asserts that only one of the partners can decide what the shape of the marriage should be. And the partner who can do this is determined by his sex. Marcy — Marcy Thompson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I can’t resist even though I am off the topic. Are you saying there was > actually a time that younger people listened to the advice of older > people? > When my two oldest became teens I thought it was really ironic that I > felt like I finally had figured out some things about life….and then > realized they weren’t about to listen….so any *wisdom* I had gained > fell on deaf ears. I kept walking around saying "What is the point of > learning this stuff…they won’t listen!" 
> Now that my youngest is 16, I don’t feel like I have any *wisdom* at > all…..must be that you only think you have the answers when you are in > your 30’s. > Wonder how old those Shamans were? 
*Disclaimer* I’m not commenting on your practices at all, I’m giving this as a generality. In those societies where elders were respected, (the particular terminology refers to Native American, though I’m sure that’s how it is in most tribal cultures) everyone respected their elders. How can we expect our children to respect our elders when we don’t respect them ourselves? When they see us belittling our own parents or parents-in-law, how can we expect them to respect us? It reminds me of a little tale I heard a while back… (My own words) An older man was getting frail, and was no longer able to care for himself. His son wasn’t able or willing to fully care for him, so he told his son to help him take the grandfather into the woods to die. They carried him on a type of gurney. When they returned, the son brought back the gurney with him. His father wasn’t sure why he did this, and asked him why. The son replied, "So I can have something to carry you into the woods when you get old." Our children are going to treat us the same as we treat our parents and others around us; if we treat others with respect, they will treat us with respect. Of course, this too is a generalization, and we can’t fully counteract the conditioning they receive in the world-at-large; thus, teenagerhood. Just my own thoughts on the subject…. Janell
Response:
>Please do not flame me on this, but I put this question to you: Why when >at the helm with Louis Farakhan(sp?) was the million man march heralded as >so wonderful and the PKers vilified by the media and NOW and some American >public, if the two wanted to accomplish the same goals? i.e., respect for >themselves, being better husbands, fathers and community members? Just >curious.
Since you ask, many feminists are quite critical of Louis Farrakhan, including many African-American women, because of his anti-semitism as well as his sexism. But I have never heard that he urged men to go home and take control of their lives by subordinating their wives. Maybe he did, but I never heard it. May I ask you a question too? Why is a household like a ship, needing a captain? Why isn’t it like a friendship, needing twe equals, or like a business, needing partners? Just curious. — Jane Lumley
Response:
>>How will the Promise Keepers make your life less pleasant? What impact
do you expect them to have on you personally?<< Answer: None. Because, for example, I won’t let them restrict my daughter’s access to abortion. If, however, I sat idly by and said: "What a fine bunch of men – what they believe is there own business," they’d have a president in office and a stacked supreme court before anyone would notice. So I speak out. I’m impacted by their existence, their article in Time, their Nightline coverage; it serves to legitimize a belief system which I find dangerously rooted in ignorance and intolerance. I’d rather have the members of the society around me running their lives based on things we can agree exist, rather than self-contradictory myths. I’m tolerant of anyone who will listen to reason, and admittedly intolerant of people so eager to follow *anything* that they are utterly blind to their myth’s shortcomings. – Ron Low Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
> It’s easy enough to "not listen" to PK. It’s harder to go on with one’s > life after they have organized their looney minority into a political force > which can make our lives less pleasant. While I’m not a NOW fanatic, > either, I heartily endorse those who might protest an assemblage of wackos > and highlight – for the rest of us – the beast’s unattractive underbelly.
You are mistaken about the intent of PK. At the recent rally in D.C., one of the first things that the organizers said was "we are not a political movement". The Times article also mentioned this. Why do you refuse to believe this? And why the harsh, angry tone of your post? "Looney minority"?? Reports are that there were well over a million people who attended (although, unlike "political" organizations who always want to promote their numbers, the PK’rs themselves haven’t been particularly concerned with the actual head count). What other organization can match that? AFAIK, there has _never_ been an event in D.C. that has attracted so many people. Since my last post, I have spoken to someone who attended, one of my brothers-in-law. In fact, he attended in ‘96 and ‘95 as well. He readily acknowledged that PKs believed that men and women were different by nature. He also verified that PKs believed that men were (according to God’s plan) the natural head of household (gasp!). But most of all, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary (here in this NG) he pointed out that almost universally the wives are supportive of their husbands becoming members of PKs. PKs are not wife-beaters. They do not cheat on their wives. And they take care of their families, meaning they use their salary not to gamble or drink etc. but to put a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their family’s backs. That’s probably good enough for most wives. Lastly, one of the marriage vows is to "honor" your wife. To make a major family decision without consulting her does not "honor" her, and I doubt a PK would do that. The husband would listen to her input, and make a choice based on what he felt, and what she added. Do you think that husbands don’t already make choices that their wives don’t like? At least with PKs, decisions will be discussed. The good caused by PKs far outweighs the bad. Marriages will last longer, and their quality will be improved. More children will be raised by both their mother and their father (or is that not politically correct anymore?) And because it is a non-political force, those who don’t like the philosophy can simply ignore it, That’s right, Mr. Low, you can ignore it and it won’t affect your life whatsoever. The "wackos" as you call them aren’t plotting to unseat your favorite liberal politician. The "looney minority" are doing nothing to make your life "unpleasant". They have a point of view you don’t like. So that’s fine, you can speak out against them, that’s the American way, first amendment and all that. But no lies, please. They are not a political group, and they have done absolutely nothing to make your life "unpleasant" in a meaningful way. Mike
Response:
(For brevity, I snipped an entire conversation between Trevor and Marcy re: Promise Keepers)… When it comes to PK’s, it seems as though there may be good and bad things with respect to the family. Some wives may be very happy to see the changes that overcome their husband after a PK rally. Then there are wives who are content in their relationships and are confronted by husbands who have had a "revelation" during a rally, who wish to change the "status quo" in order to instill their dominance in the relationship. PK is not the magic elixer for all situations, but I respect the group’s right to have their ideals. That is, as long as it doesn’t affect my life. My concern is where the group enters the political forum. I know that most men involved in the PK’s state that they are not political, however I have heard some disturbing discussions among their top members and their critics. One comment (paraphrased) was that "we do not have a problem with the U.S. Constitution as long as it agrees with God’s laws". This is where the situation gets sticky. Any group can have their ideas and an individual is free to follow that group. That’s our right as citizens of a free society. But it’s the constitution that guarantees this right. A group that suggests there is a higher law threatens my freedom. While I realize that the majority of Americans are Christian, I will always be concerned about groups who have an agenda that would make any other belief illegal. Do I need to mention that our country’s creation was based on a separation of church and state ideals? It is one of the beauties of our founding fathers’ masterpiece. As I said, I have heard many discussions in which PK’s deny political involvement. Why then, do I keep hearing otherwise? I have heard some discussions of the end times, Christians being in power and leading our country to the promised land; taking over the country to bring us back to a level of decency, etc. I have no quotes, no proof. Just things I have heard in passing. Does anyone have more specific information? I am certainly concerned about the state of our country and the lack of morality. But I don’t see how creating a "second string" of citizens (isn’t that what would happen if women were forced to defer to their husbands?) is the answer. Someone (husband or wife) does have to have the final say when it comes to family decisions, but I feel it should be the person with the most knowledge of the specific situation, rather than "The Man". So I don’t particularly agree with the PK’s. I simply won’t become involved with them. As long as they don’t interfere with my rights. Laurie
Response:
>I don’t think its been shown or proven that the PKers are "wackos" or any >kind of "beast".–
I have volunteered to play drums about a dozen times in the last two years at the Christian congregation my sister attends. (I did it to keep my sight-reading and musicianship up between paying gigs.) At first, I found their mission to be quite palatable – with an unusual emphasis on living a fulfilled life – but after I discovered some of their intolerant leanings, I told them I couldn’t help them anymore. These people were ardent supporters of PK. When I describe people as wackos, It’s from my own experience and not from broad-based statistically significant observations. – Ron Low Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
Ron, I don’t think its been shown or proven that the PKers are "wackos" or any kind of "beast".– – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>…[paraphrasing a PK spouse involved in a TV debate] "If you are > against abortion, don’t have one, [likewise] if you don’t agree with the > PKers don’t listen." The NOW member was tongue-tied and it was hilarious > to watch her try to recover,… >>> > It’s easy enough to "not listen" to PK. It’s harder to go on with one’s > life after they have organized their looney minority into a political force > which can make our lives less pleasant. While I’m not a NOW fanatic, > either, I heartily endorse those who might protest an assemblage of wackos > and highlight – for the rest of us – the beast’s unattractive underbelly. > – Ron Low > Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. > non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
Ron, You may want to point out to your wife that merely sending your daughter to s.school won’t help if you two are not involved also. Why would your daughter place any importance on it if you don’t? Just a thought and of course MHO. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>. . . Whatever happened, if you had access to someone old enough, you > could probably get advice as to how [the tribe] handled it [before] and > survived. . . .>> > Brilliant, hate-to-snip-em, clarifying observations. > So, who would be interested in being in a tribe today? I’m serious. Is > there a need for a non-religious "religion." Getting back to my point (I > didn’t start this thing just to bash Promise Keepers), is something already > filling that need? > You got your: > Turtles Lions Club Rotary Kiwanis Knights of Columbus > 4H Unitarians Toastmasters Country Clubs etc. > What are these folks up to? Would any of them be able to help me? See, > my wife suddenly thinks our 5 y/o should go to Sunday school. I think she > just wants us to become part of a "congregation" to meet people. > Both my wife and I were Sunday schooled. I guess I shouldn’t object to my > kid getting some exposure to Christianity, if only so that she can reject > it for her own reasons and not mine. I fear that some folks who get born > again as adults do so because they never had to sit through the drudgery of > a sermon not geared to their cognitive level as a child. When they become > adults and find they are overcome by the stresses of adult responsibility, > the whole bible-thumping, everybody-loves-everybody revival might hold a > greater appeal. It might get a firmer grip than if introduced in childhood > – when the need to lean on something other than yourself and family, and > blame a higher power for things, was less compelling. > – Ron Low > Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. > non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>…[paraphrasing a PK spouse involved in a TV debate] "If you are > against abortion, don’t have one, [likewise] if you don’t agree with the > PKers don’t listen." The NOW member was tongue-tied and it was hilarious > to watch her try to recover,… >>> > It’s easy enough to "not listen" to PK. It’s harder to go on with one’s > life after they have organized their looney minority into a political force > which can make our lives less pleasant. While I’m not a NOW fanatic, > either, I heartily endorse those who might protest an assemblage of wackos > and highlight – for the rest of us – the beast’s unattractive underbelly. > – Ron Low
What do you mean by "It is harder to go one with one’s life after they have organized their looney minority into a political force which can make our lives less pleasant?" How will the Promise Keepers make your life less pleasant? What impact do you expect them to have on you personally? Just wondering. Helen
Response:
>>. . . Whatever happened, if you had access to someone old enough, you
could probably get advice as to how [the tribe] handled it [before] and survived. . . .>> Brilliant, hate-to-snip-em, clarifying observations. So, who would be interested in being in a tribe today? I’m serious. Is there a need for a non-religious "religion." Getting back to my point (I didn’t start this thing just to bash Promise Keepers), is something already filling that need? You got your: Turtles Lions Club Rotary Kiwanis Knights of Columbus 4H Unitarians Toastmasters Country Clubs etc. What are these folks up to? Would any of them be able to help me? See, my wife suddenly thinks our 5 y/o should go to Sunday school. I think she just wants us to become part of a "congregation" to meet people. Both my wife and I were Sunday schooled. I guess I shouldn’t object to my kid getting some exposure to Christianity, if only so that she can reject it for her own reasons and not mine. I fear that some folks who get born again as adults do so because they never had to sit through the drudgery of a sermon not geared to their cognitive level as a child. When they become adults and find they are overcome by the stresses of adult responsibility, the whole bible-thumping, everybody-loves-everybody revival might hold a greater appeal. It might get a firmer grip than if introduced in childhood – when the need to lean on something other than yourself and family, and blame a higher power for things, was less compelling. – Ron Low Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
>It is true that the founder(s) of PKs are >conservative men, but (as the Time article points out) the group has >made every effort to avoid politics. Perhaps, Mr. Low, you can educate >me; in what ways, by word or deed, is PKs "sexist and intolerant"?
All the kneeling isn’t the half of it. Sexist: No involvement by women in the governance of their organization, belief that a woman is only a man’s helpmate in the household, no tolerance for a woman’s right to choose when to have children… Intolerant: Refusal to acknowledge minorities as equal (they only encourage harmony; not the same thing as equality), no tolerance for gays, no respect for non-biblical religions, no respect for atheists… Political: As revealed in internal memos; they are waging – through their collaberation with Pat Robertson – a campaign for presidential office in 2000, they’ve openly refused to deny this as a future direction… This was all in the Time article. Not too flattering. – Ron Low Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
>>It is true that the founder(s) of PKs are >conservative men, but (as the Time article points out) the group has >made every effort to avoid politics. Perhaps, Mr. Low, you can educate >me; in what ways, by word or deed, is PKs "sexist and intolerant"? >All the kneeling isn’t the half of it. >Sexist: No involvement by women in the governance of their organization, >belief that a woman is only a man’s helpmate in the household, no tolerance >for a woman’s right to choose when to have children…
It’s an organization for men to be better husbands. Last time I checked, the definition of husband was a male. Another definition of helpmate is partner. The orginal Hebrew renders helpmate to be a partner "to walk along side," sounds equal to me. If you are talking about abortion….yes, they are pro-life. >Intolerant: Refusal to acknowledge minorities as equal (they only >encourage harmony; not the same thing as equality), no tolerance for gays, >no respect for non-biblical religions, no respect for atheists…
Actually, one of the missions of PK is racial reconciliation, which in my book bespeaks an equal relationship. As for tolerance, I don’t hear a lot of tolerance for the PK perspective coming from the media and other opponents. What some people call tolerance is actually intellectual promiscuity. What do you call respect? You are entitled to believe what you want. I respect that. It doesn’t mean that I believe that you are right. When two people take a stance with diametrically opposed viewpoints, *someone* has to be wrong. Respect says, "I believe you are wrong, but you are entitled to your viewpoint and I would die for your right to believe it." >Political: As revealed in internal memos; they are waging – through their >collaberation with Pat Robertson – a campaign for presidential office in >2000, they’ve openly refused to deny this as a future direction… >This was all in the Time article. Not too flattering.
When Louis Farakhan marched on Washington, saying similar things about black men assuming leadership roles, he was hailed as a hero. What’s the difference? I also don’t remember anything in the Quoran encouraging tolerance……why isn’t he castigated for this? Even if they were planning a campaign to endorse an candidate…..is this not America where such a thing is allowed? Is this illegal, immoral, or fattening? Doesn’t NOW similarly endorse candidates? Or is this only tolerated if the position is liberal? Am I missing something? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->- Ron Low
Response:
First of all, the article I’m responding to has a message id as I mention this because I’m snipping a lot further down, and I want to make sure everyone can find the original!
|> > [HUGE snip to save bandwidth] |> > |> > You translated ‘leading this family’ into ‘having power in this relationship’. |> >Is that valid? Do you know what Tony Evans had in mind when he wrote about |> >’leading [a] family’? If so, what _does_ he mean? Leadership in a family is |> >a rather nebulous concept which could mean anything from being a titular |> >head of state to micromanaging evry move of the other family members. |> |> I’m sorry, but I do not seem to have made myself clear. I was not |> paraphrasing that quotation, although it is an interesting one which |> I had not seen before and I thank you for posting it. I was *quoting* |> what my neighbor-the-Promise-Keeper told me. Ah! I see! Sorry about that – I thought the quote might be useful anyway. It does sound as if _someone_ did that translation, though. Hmmmmm. |> > [my school question snipped] |> |> I don’t know what the NOW answer would be and I don’t care. NOW is |> not part of my marriage, nor is Promise Keepers. |> |> Let me be very clear, because several posters and emailers have |> misinterpreted me. I am not arguing for egalitarian marriages, |> or against them. Nor am I arguing for husband-led marriages. Right. I understood that the first time, actually, even if my understanding didn’t shine through my post. The question does have relevance, though, in explaining why PK is so popular with both husbands and wives (more on that below). |> My objection to PK is not that it encourages and supports people |> who want to have husband-led marriages, but that it (from what |> my neighbor tells me) encourages *all* husbands to redefine their |> marriages in this way. Hmmmm (more below). |> [description of neighbor's case snipped] |> How different couples organize their marriages is none of my |> business. I know very happy, apparently solid marriages where |> one or the other partner clearly holds the bottom-line decision- |> making power. I know good marriages where what these people with |> the school problem would do is to keep looking for a solution |> that would satisfy both of them, and where if one of them really |> had to give, the determination of which one would depend on a |> number of factors and probably be unpredictable by an outside |> observer. |> |> What I think is that marriage is hard at times, and more power |> to every couple that finds a model that works. For couples who |> agree that the PK model will work for them, I have no doubt it |> is a good organization to provide support for the husbands. For |> couples who both agree they want to live some other way, then |> PK is probably neither appropriate nor attractive as a source |> for support for the husband. I think that this issue is the most important reason why PK is so popular. The whole concept of ‘who breaks the ties’, etc, and how to determine that is very rarely discussed anywhere (AFAIK). PK is attractive because they say ‘Look, here’s a problem, and here’s the solution’. In a lot of cases, I think they must be right. (It’s very hard to explain their popularity with wives without this being true). There must be a lot of marriages where authority is not clearly defined, and is the subject of a lot of disagreement. Their ‘one size fits all’ solution is a viable solution to the problems associated with decision making when the two parties don’t agree. It is not necessarily the solution that everyone approves of, but it _is_ internally consistent. In the case of a marriage where they haven’t thought about decision-making, and where conflict has arisen, then the PK solution would seem wonderful simply because it eliminates a lot of problems. (Notice ‘eliminate’ rather than ’solve’ ) Needless to say, the analysis above does not involve questions of good/bad, right/wrong, or in any way involve justice or morality. Simply from a practical point of view, PK’s solution to marital authority is simple, easy to implement, and is therefore attractive. What you are proposing is the ‘thinking (wo)man’s solution’, which involves a lot of work, and quite a bit of thinking. That’s a much harder sell! Also, the difficulties in implementing it may make it much less marketable than the simple ‘man is final authority’ solution. The idea that each marriage is different implies that the members of each marriage must determine what they think is best, which involves a lot more effort than simply agreeing to someone else’s rules. Also, having an ‘authority’ lay down the law might be good in cases where the couple really aren’t able to agree. |> However, from what I know of PK (obviously, I have never been |> to a meeting and I don’t belong; again this is second-hand news |> from a committed member of the group), they don’t think that |> the decision about how to arrange a marriage is a joint decision; |> they think it is the husband’s decision, and they think there is one |> right decision for all husbands in all marriages. I think this is |> disrespectful of the wives who do not agree that this is how they |> want to live. Ummmm, yes, the wives might be a bit unhappy with it (as in the case of your neighbor) 
. I think it comes from disobeying the rule ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. PK is out to help men take responsibility for their families, and become more resonsible adults. One of the goals of PK is to stem the rising tide of family breakdown, and their methods will be at least partially aimed at achieving that. What happens when these methods are applied to men/marriages that _don’t_ have serious problems? Since they are trying to solve a non-existent problem, then the results could be decidedly strange. Perhaps the moral of the story is that, for marriages that aren’t on the rocks, the wife should be consulted before the husband gets involved in PK! (You’d think that would happen anyway, actually, in a healthy marriage). |> YMMV of course. I hope I was more clear this time. Your clarity was excellent. I hope I haven’t offended you (or anyone else) with either of my posts on this subject! I think that PK has been extremely helpful in the lives of many men, and would like to see it continue to grow and help families, but I am not a member myself (although my wife wanted me to go to one of the mtgs when we were living in New York!). I have always felt them to be slightly anti-intellectual in some way, although my unease has never been based on quotes I can dig out of a book (so nobody ask me for evidence! ) Cheers, Trevor Dolby #include <net/disclaimer.h> - Tel: (44 | 0) 1962-815107 (245107 internal)
Response:
>>>…[paraphrasing a PK spouse involved in a TV debate] "If you are
against abortion, don’t have one, [likewise] if you don’t agree with the PKers don’t listen." The NOW member was tongue-tied and it was hilarious to watch her try to recover,… >>> It’s easy enough to "not listen" to PK. It’s harder to go on with one’s life after they have organized their looney minority into a political force which can make our lives less pleasant. While I’m not a NOW fanatic, either, I heartily endorse those who might protest an assemblage of wackos and highlight – for the rest of us – the beast’s unattractive underbelly. – Ron Low Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
: Yesterday on one of the Sunday news shows (Meet the depressed?) they had a : pro/con session with a wife of a PKer and a spokesperson for NOW. Cokie : Roberts put a great question to the NOW sperson she said "with all respect, : like the bumper sticker says "If you are against abortion, don’t have one", : if you don’t agree with the PKers don’t listen" the NOW member was : tongue-tied and it was hilarious to watch her try to recover, then she : launched in to why the PKers are anti-woman, but was never able to provide : anything concrete to support this. Ten I feel sorry for the NOW spokesperson who was so poorly prepared. Perhaps Patricia Ireland should have gone herself – she’s never at a loss for words. It’s not a question of the people who know the dangers of PK not listening; it’s the ones who don’t. The very idea that a) men "should" be automatically in charge just because they’re men and b) the PK’ers want to "take back this country for Christ" is anathema to those of us who are neither inequalitists nor Christian. My dh is not a PKer and I am not much : for belonging to a giant organization like the PKers, but what could their : philisophy hurt? If it takes root improperly, there are many women who will be trampled on, & many men who will be overwhelmed. The I will make no apologies for the fact that my dh is the : head of our household. I’m glad your household structure works for you. I just hate to see it spread all over the media for the more impressionable as they only way to be. Now my husband and I are more of a committee. We respect each other’s judgement too much to make unilateral decisions w/out the other. : Please do not flame me on this, but I put this question to you: Why when : at the helm with Louis Farakhan(sp?) was the million man march heralded as : so wonderful and the PKers vilified by the media and NOW and some American : public, if the two wanted to accomplish the same goals? i.e., respect for : themselves, being better husbands, fathers and community members? Just : curious. Very astute, but you missed something. Firstly, Farrakhan is in the enviable position of being able to do pretty much what he wants as long as it is not egregiously bigoted. No one wanted to be accused of racism by coming out against him. But, secondly, there is a crucial differernce between the MMM & the PK: the MMM *didn’t* say they were trying to establish Islamic-inspired male-over-female dominance, or that they were trying to "take the country for Allah." That, in Christian terms, is what is behind PK. Susan Cohen — "Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
Response:
> >Frankly, I can’t think of why anyone would object to Promise Keepers.
Big snip>> of interesting post. > I consider Pk to be sexist because it preaches that there is only > one viable model for a marriage and because it asserts that only > one of the partners can decide what the shape of the marriage should > be. And the partner who can do this is determined by his sex. > Marcy
I totally agree with you. Those kind of proclamations send shivers down my spine. Here’s to equality in any kind of relationship. Eayner Garner
Response:
> >Frankly, I can’t think of why anyone would object to Promise Keepers. > >… in what ways, by word or deed, is PKs "sexist and intolerant"? > The Promise Keepers instruct their members to go home and sit down > with their wives and say "Dear, I have made a serious mistake. I have > let you have too much of the power in this relationship. I am going > to take it back now."
If that’s true, then I’m no fan of PK. But perhaps the real message intended to be sent is "Dear, I have forced too much responsibility on you in this marriage, and I am now ready to take on my own share". > One of my neighbors was married in a relatively liberal church; their > marriage vows did not include her promising to obey him.
I don’t think it takes a liberal church not to include "obey"! No mainstream church ever says that anymore, do they? I think the best vows would be (for both partners): "Love, honor and respect" > What I object to > is an organization telling men that they have the right to unilaterally > change the rules in a marriage by virtue of the fact that they are > men, and that women are not entitled to any say about their own > marriages.
Actually, my understanding is that PK is devoted not to "changing the rules" but merely living by the already-existing rules; the marriage vows. At least, that’s the theory. It is also significant that such a high percentage of wives approve of the organization. > But the PK philosophy says that only > one partner has the right to set the rules for the marriage.
Maybe this is a distinction without substance, but the PK philosophy is not that "one partner has the right to set the rules", but that there is an already-existing, natural law (the law of nature and the law of God) that has set the rules. Of course, you can argue (without any objection from me) that these "natural law" rules were set forth during a time when women were regarded more like children (and property) than adults. Thus, antiquated (including Biblical) concepts of "natural law" are subject to serious philosophical attack. Mike
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I can’t resist even though I am off the topic. Are you saying there was > actually a time that younger people listened to the advice of older > people? > When my two oldest became teens I thought it was really ironic that I > felt like I finally had figured out some things about life….and then > realized they weren’t about to listen….so any *wisdom* I had gained > fell on deaf ears. I kept walking around saying "What is the point of > learning this stuff…they won’t listen!" > Now that my youngest is 16, I don’t feel like I have any *wisdom* at > all…..must be that you only think you have the answers when you are in > your 30’s. > Wonder how old those Shamans were? > *Disclaimer* I’m not commenting on your practices at all, I’m giving > this as a generality. > In those societies where elders were respected, (the particular > terminology refers to Native American, though I’m sure that’s how it is > in most tribal cultures) everyone respected their elders. How can we > expect our children to respect our elders when we don’t respect them > ourselves? When they see us belittling our own parents or > parents-in-law, how can we expect them to respect us? It reminds me of > a little tale I heard a while back… (My own words) > An older man was getting frail, and was no longer able to care for > himself. His son wasn’t able or willing to fully care for him, so he > told his son to help him take the grandfather into the woods to die. > They carried him on a type of gurney. When they returned, the son > brought back the gurney with him. His father wasn’t sure why he did > this, and asked him why. The son replied, "So I can have something to > carry you into the woods when you get old." > Our children are going to treat us the same as we treat our parents and > others around us; if we treat others with respect, they will treat us > with respect. Of course, this too is a generalization, and we can’t > fully counteract the conditioning they receive in the world-at-large; > thus, teenagerhood. Just my own thoughts on the subject…. > Janell
I hope everyone realized that what I wrote concerning how old the Shamans were was meant to be funny. Just thought some humor would lighten things up in here! Sorry! Helen
Response:
Yesterday on one of the Sunday news shows (Meet the depressed?) they had a pro/con session with a wife of a PKer and a spokesperson for NOW. Cokie Roberts put a great question to the NOW sperson she said "with all respect, like the bumper sticker says "If you are against abortion, don’t have one", if you don’t agree with the PKers don’t listen" the NOW member was tongue-tied and it was hilarious to watch her try to recover, then she launched in to why the PKers are anti-woman, but was never able to provide anything concrete to support this. My dh is not a PKer and I am not much for belonging to a giant organization like the PKers, but what could their philisophy hurt? I will make no apologies for the fact that my dh is the head of our household. You cannot have a ship without a captain and in our house that is my husband. If I really want something or feel strongly about something my husband is always willing to listen and I’d say 99% of the time it goes my way. I think it is wonderful that the members of the PKers feel better making the public committment and I commend them for it. Please do not flame me on this, but I put this question to you: Why when at the helm with Louis Farakhan(sp?) was the million man march heralded as so wonderful and the PKers vilified by the media and NOW and some American public, if the two wanted to accomplish the same goals? i.e., respect for themselves, being better husbands, fathers and community members? Just curious. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->How to Become A Better Husband, Father & Friend! Guaranteed ! ! ! >. . .Have you been to Promise Keepers. . .? > I just read the Time article. It’s not too flattering. > Why does everything that has to do with being a "good" man, parent, > human,… whatever; always come back to mythology, voodoo, and mumbo jumbo? > Could there be such a thing as a "fellowship of integrity" which, like a > church, would have congregational meetings and a supportive community, but > which would just stress goodness, industriousness, etc., without the > sexism, intolerance, and knealing? > Is that what 4H is? How about AA? Back where I grew up, they had this > club called The Grange that my sisters went to before we moved away. > Just fishing for thoughts on where people draw from for the moral > authority to guide their families. > – Ron Low > Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. > non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >|> > [snip] Perhaps, Mr. Low, you can educate >|> >me; in what ways, by word or deed, is PKs "sexist and intolerant"? >|> >|> The Promise Keepers instruct their members to go home and sit down >|> with their wives and say "Dear, I have made a serious mistake. I have >|> let you have too much of the power in this relationship. I am going >|> to take it back now." They are told to do this in a firm and loving >|> way and to beware against the conversation turning into a discussion >|> of this issue; it is an announcement followed by a discussion of the >|> changes in the couple’s life that this decision will entail. >|> [snip] > According to another post, the actual quote is: > Newsgroups: soc.men > [snip] > Tony Evans, one of the most dynamic Promise > Keepers speakers, wrote in his contribution > to the official Promise Keepers treatise, "Seven > Promises of a Promise Keeper," under the > heading "Reclaiming Your Manhood": ". . . sit > down with your wife and say something like > this, `Honey, I’ve made a terrible mistake. I’ve > given you my role. 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!" > [snip] > You translated ‘leading this family’ into ‘having power in this relationship’. >Is that valid? Do you know what Tony Evans had in mind when he wrote about >’leading [a] family’? If so, what _does_ he mean? Leadership in a family is >a rather nebulous concept which could mean anything from being a titular >head of state to micromanaging evry move of the other family members.
I’m sorry, but I do not seem to have made myself clear. I was not paraphrasing that quotation, although it is an interesting one which I had not seen before and I thank you for posting it. I was *quoting* what my neighbor-the-Promise-Keeper told me. > In my opinion (which may not have anything to do with Tony Evans, PK, or >reality in general), it is illuminating to look at what happens to family >decision-making when a crunch time occurs. For instance, suppose that the >husband and wife cannot agree on which school (if any) to send their >eldest child to. Further, let us suppose that the school year is going to >begin in three days, and the parents still can’t agree. What should they >do? > The PK answer (AFAIK) is that the man’s view should prevail. I am not at all >sure what the NOW answer would be. This situation is almost certainly included >in the definition of ‘leadership’ as used by Tony Evans. Unfortunately, I’m >not sure what else _is_ included. Clearly, situations where immediate action >is required would be, but beyond that it is rather unclear.
I don’t know what the NOW answer would be and I don’t care. NOW is not part of my marriage, nor is Promise Keepers. Let me be very clear, because several posters and emailers have misinterpreted me. I am not arguing for egalitarian marriages, or against them. Nor am I arguing for husband-led marriages. My objection to PK is not that it encourages and supports people who want to have husband-led marriages, but that it (from what my neighbor tells me) encourages *all* husbands to redefine their marriages in this way. My neighbor is an interesting case. His wife is furious, because from her point of view, the marriage was working well before and now it is not. Being a nosy person, I asked him if he had been unhappy before and he said no, it was just that he found the PK socializing and philosophy attractive, and if this was what it took to be a real Promise Keeper, then by golly, that is what he’s going to do. So here we have a marriage that seemed to both parties to be working well, for something like 13 years, and then the husband decided to change the rules because of a rush of energy he experienced while hanging out in the Kingdome with a zillion other husbands. You may say (and you may be right) that he must not have been as content as he thought (and thinks) he was, or he wouldn’t have felt the urge to change. That’s not my point; my point is that he went to some event where he was told and convinced that the way he was conducting himself in this marriage was wrong. How different couples organize their marriages is none of my business. I know very happy, apparently solid marriages where one or the other partner clearly holds the bottom-line decision- making power. I know good marriages where what these people with the school problem would do is to keep looking for a solution that would satisfy both of them, and where if one of them really had to give, the determination of which one would depend on a number of factors and probably be unpredictable by an outside observer. What I think is that marriage is hard at times, and more power to every couple that finds a model that works. For couples who agree that the PK model will work for them, I have no doubt it is a good organization to provide support for the husbands. For couples who both agree they want to live some other way, then PK is probably neither appropriate nor attractive as a source for support for the husband. However, from what I know of PK (obviously, I have never been to a meeting and I don’t belong; again this is second-hand news from a committed member of the group), they don’t think that the decision about how to arrange a marriage is a joint decision; they think it is the husband’s decision, and they think there is one right decision for all husbands in all marriages. I think this is disrespectful of the wives who do not agree that this is how they want to live. YMMV of course. I hope I was more clear this time. Marcy — Marcy Thompson
Response:
: I can’t resist even though I am off the topic. Are you saying there was : actually a time that younger people listened to the advice of older : people? Maybe you mean that in a facious way, but yes, when they had to live in a closed society under the supervision of all of their relatives, I’d guess that indeed, the elders would have been an everpresent, and much stronger influence. : When my two oldest became teens I thought it was really ironic that I : felt like I finally had figured out some things about life….and then : realized they weren’t about to listen….so any *wisdom* I had gained : fell on deaf ears. I kept walking around saying "What is the point of : learning this stuff…they won’t listen!" I guess it depends on the teen. As a kid, I was alway looking for consultation on my issues…. just never found adequate counsel. : Now that my youngest is 16, I don’t feel like I have any *wisdom* at : all…..must be that you only think you have the answers when you are in : your 30’s. Mark Twain had a good comment on just this subject. He said, "When I was 16, I thought that my father was the stupidest man ever born. Then by the time I was 21, it seemed to me that he was actually pretty smart. It AMAZED me to think of how much he had learned in just 5 short years." — Elaine Gallegos
Response:
>How to Become A Better Husband, Father & Friend! Guaranteed ! ! ! >. . .Have you been to Promise Keepers. . .?
I just read the Time article. It’s not too flattering. Why does everything that has to do with being a "good" man, parent, human,… whatever; always come back to mythology, voodoo, and mumbo jumbo? Could there be such a thing as a "fellowship of integrity" which, like a church, would have congregational meetings and a supportive community, but which would just stress goodness, industriousness, etc., without the sexism, intolerance, and knealing? Is that what 4H is? How about AA? Back where I grew up, they had this club called The Grange that my sisters went to before we moved away. Just fishing for thoughts on where people draw from for the moral authority to guide their families. – Ron Low Levity is the dearth of gravity. Brevity is the height of clarity. non-commercial e-mail always welcome
Response:
: Is that what 4H is? How about AA? Back where I grew up, they had this : club called The Grange that my sisters went to before we moved away. : Just fishing for thoughts on where people draw from for the moral : authority to guide their families. : – Ron Low This is an interesting question. I believe that in hunter/gatherer society, we can find much of our roots of social development. We lived in tribes then, numbering up to about 60 individuals. The spiritual heart of the tribe was said to be the Shaman. These wise men, (sometimes the Shaman was a woman) were thought to be hyper aware of the forces of nature. Humankind was also thought to be part of nature. Old people were also valued for their life experience. We lived in extended families, so that it was normal to live with ready access to your grandparents and other relatives. As life could be very harsh, and very brief, it took a very clever person indeed to make it to old age. The Elders and the Shamen were considered to be very valuable assets to the tribe. Whatever happened, if you had access to someone old enough, you could probably get advice as to how they handled it and survived. The elder could outline effective behavior within the group. They could tell what behaviors were irresponsible, and would lead to the tribe’s downfall. The elder was well respected enough to prevent foolish behavior from destroying assets, or tribe members. — Elaine Gallegos
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : Is that what 4H is? How about AA? Back where I grew up, they had this > : club called The Grange that my sisters went to before we moved away. > : Just fishing for thoughts on where people draw from for the moral > : authority to guide their families. > : – Ron Low > This is an interesting question. I believe that in hunter/gatherer > society, we can find much of our roots of social development. > We lived in tribes then, numbering up to about 60 individuals. The > spiritual heart of the tribe was said to be the Shaman. These wise men, > (sometimes the Shaman was a woman) were thought to be hyper aware of the > forces of nature. Humankind was also thought to be part of nature. > Old people were also valued for their life experience. We lived in > extended families, so that it was normal to live with ready access to your > grandparents and other relatives. > As life could be very harsh, and very brief, it took a very clever person > indeed to make it to old age. The Elders and the Shamen were considered to > be very valuable assets to the tribe. Whatever happened, if you had > access to someone old enough, you could probably get advice as to how they > handled it and survived. > The elder could outline effective behavior within the group. They could > tell what behaviors were irresponsible, and would lead to the tribe’s > downfall. The elder was well respected enough to prevent foolish behavior > from destroying assets, or tribe members. > — > Elaine Gallegos
I can’t resist even though I am off the topic. Are you saying there was actually a time that younger people listened to the advice of older people? When my two oldest became teens I thought it was really ironic that I felt like I finally had figured out some things about life….and then realized they weren’t about to listen….so any *wisdom* I had gained fell on deaf ears. I kept walking around saying "What is the point of learning this stuff…they won’t listen!" Now that my youngest is 16, I don’t feel like I have any *wisdom* at all…..must be that you only think you have the answers when you are in your 30’s. Wonder how old those Shamans were? Helen
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.