Billy Graham in heaven?

[Vorpal]

at least if you believe the divorce stories in the papers (hah!), I have a sneaking respect for those who are prepared to take active measures to put family before career.

Active steps could include, I dunno... just not having sex with someone you aren't married/committed to?

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept that it is appropriate for two men to be alone together for business purposes, but not a woman and a man. Not only could a man just as easily (though perhaps not as likely) cheat with a man as a woman, it is completely unfair to women. I have little respect for those who can't trust themselves and/or their female colleagues.

What about a woman executive in a male-dominated field? Does she constantly have to have an aide at her side to do her job? Or protect male sensibilities. No wonder women aren't promoted. A company has to hire two people to get one What about women working in skilled trades, as carpenters, plumbers, etc.? How could they possibly do their jobs, either working with male colleagues, or going into the <gasp> homes of actual male customers.

I think this article takes a couple of points OTT, but I am largely in agreement with it... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... 889ba1a567

[pete75]

at least if you believe the divorce stories in the papers (hah!), I have a sneaking respect for those who are prepared to take active measures to put family before career.

Active steps could include, I dunno... just not having sex with someone you aren't married/committed to?

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept that it is appropriate for two men to be alone together for business purposes, but not a woman and a man. Not only could a man just as easily (though perhaps not as likely) cheat with a man as a woman, it is completely unfair to women. I have little respect for those who can't trust themselves and/or their female colleagues.

What about a woman executive in a male-dominated field? Does she constantly have to have an aide at her side to do her job? Or protect male sensibilities. No wonder women aren't promoted. A company has to hire two people to get one What about women working in skilled trades, as carpenters, plumbers, etc.? How could they possibly do their jobs, either working with male colleagues, or going into the <gasp> homes of actual male customers.

I think this article takes a couple of points OTT, but I am largely in agreement with it... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... 889ba1a567

If a male member of staff consistently refused to work with female colleagues at my place of work they'd be taken through the disciplinary process and eventually dismissed. Since we don't have anyone who does that it would only be a new employees who would. They'd be sacked during the probationary period.

[Vorpal]

If a male member of staff consistently refused to work with female colleagues at my place of work they'd be taken through the disciplinary process and eventually dismissed.

It is unfortunate that many people in the USA do not see this as problematic behaviour. But it complicated by the fact that these men do not refuse to work with women (for which they could legally be dismissed), but they refuse to work in certain limited circumstances involving women. And furthermore that this is something seen as admirable by many US Americans.

[Pastychomper]

Some years ago I knew a woman who was occasionally given lifts by a mutual (male, married) friend. She used to insist on going in the back of the car unless there was someone else present, saying she thought that was more appropriate. It felt like an insult to him, but he put up with it. Over time there were some hints that she felt attracted to him, so I came to suspect that she was trying to avoid situations that would encourage her feelings to escalate in a direction she didn't want. I also learned she had personal reasons to be extra-sensitive to that kind of risk, none of which she should have had to mention, so I both salute her stance and think she was justified in using propriety as an excuse.

I do think that every adult should be able to keep his/her feelings under control and work well with others, but that is not the same as assuming that everyone can or does. If an individual doesn't want to be alone with members of the opposite sex I don't find it offensive, any more than I would if an ex-smoker refused to stand near the smoking shelters.

[Vorpal]

I do think that every adult should be able to keep his/her feelings under control and work well with others, but that is not the same as assuming that everyone can or does. If an individual doesn't want to be alone with members of the opposite sex I don't find it offensive, any more than I would if an ex-smoker refused to stand near the smoking shelters.

You seem to have equated being alone with a member of the opposite sex to something that is hazardous to health.

[Pastychomper]

You seem to have equated being alone with a member of the opposite sex to something that is hazardous to health.

That wasn't my intention. I was referring to the fact of certain things being more "tempting" for some people than for others, not specifically to the nature of the hazard. The hazard from standing near a smoking shelter is miniscule to zero for most of us, even if we don't like the smell, but an ex-smoker might absorb enough nicotine to reawaken an old habit. Similarly, in my previous example, the man saw no problem being alone with the woman but she perceived a hazard, likely for the reasons described.

The point I was trying to make is that some people avoid some situations because they consider themselves to have a weakness, not because they think there's something wrong with others.

To come back to the topic, if BG wouldn't be alone with any woman outside his own family that is a pretty extreme choice, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he saw women as somehow untrustworthy. That is one of several possible explanations, and without knowing much about him, it doesn't strike me as the most plausible.

[Vorpal]

To come back to the topic, if BG wouldn't be alone with any woman outside his own family that is a pretty extreme choice, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he saw women as somehow untrustworthy. That is one of several possible explanations, and without knowing much about him, it doesn't strike me as the most plausible.

Actually I said above that I'm sure he did it to avoid any appearance of scandal.

But he also said that it was woman's destiny to be wife, mother, and homemaker. Under those circumstances, avoiding being alone with a woman is hardly going to limit anyone's career aspirations or anything, is it?

[pete75]

It is unfortunate that many people in the USA do not see this as problematic behaviour. But it complicated by the fact that these men do not refuse to work with women (for which they could legally be dismissed), but they refuse to work in certain limited circumstances involving women. And furthermore that this is something seen as admirable by many US Americans.

I do think that every adult should be able to keep his/her feelings under control and work well with others, but that is not the same as assuming that everyone can or does. If an individual doesn't want to be alone with members of the opposite sex I don't find it offensive, any more than I would if an ex-smoker refused to stand near the smoking shelters.

The point is a male and a female may have to work alone together to get the job done. If the man refuses to carry out the work in those circumstances he will be in breach of his contract and disciplinary procedures would follow ending in dismissal if he refused to change his ways.

[Cyril Haearn]

Bob Holman was an exemplary christian I think, try googling his obituary in the Guardian

[pete75]

Bob Holman was an exemplary christian I think, try googling his obituary in the Guardian

You're not wrong.

[mercalia]

Bob Holman was an exemplary christian I think, try googling his obituary in the Guardian

BH
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/15/bob-holman-obituary

now what a comparison with the American Way of doing it as exemplified by BG?

BG- just one letter away but a world apart
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/billy-graham-wrong-side-history

One is a saint the other arguably an anti-christ, a false prophet?

Some thing very deeply wrong with the USA

[Mike Sales]

There is of course no heaven, but if there were and Graham was admitted, I think it would reinforce the saying, "Heaven for the climate, but Hell for the company."

[hondated]

He failed to fire up the UK as a Christian nation. It just didn't happen. Maybe he had some impact in the USA, but not here.

I think probably his biggest victory here was influencing Cliff Richard to become a christian. And what surprises me about that is that when Jet Harris ( Shadows) later on in his life encountered problems CR attitude towards him to me didnt appear to be very christian.

want to elaborate?

Supposition on my part in that CR didnt include JH when they reformed for a Tour. On a wider point IME the majority of devout people I have ever met can only ever offer criticism rather than support when mutual friends find themselves in some sort of issue or problem.

[Cyril Haearn]

Positive thread alert

I read an article by Bob Holman in the Guardian, thought 'I could do that!', typed a cycling article, sent it in, it was published and paid for. A second article likewise, I was quite proud of myself

[Cyril Haearn]

I was at a seminar about Gunter Grass, a German author who died a few years ago, it was explained that a deceased person is viewed differently, certainly there was a lot of interest in the months after his death, I imagine that at this very minute several students are planning to do their doctorates about him, the view of him will develop and change over time, think of Shakespeare

Literature analysis is a fairly quiet and unexciting business mind, fortunately, not like a rally in a stadium with thousands of excited participants