I take serious issue with Robert Zeis’ column “Promise Keepers’ positive message: NOW has gone off the deep end” on October 7. I admit that I do not agree with the opinions of Mr. Zeis, but I cannot condemn a person for his or her opinions.

I cannot, however, allow uninformed opinions to go unheeded. He stated in the column that “The Promise Keepers see men as a part of the family, not as the head.”

In a section of the Promise Keepers literature “Seven Promises” entitled “Reclaiming Your Manhood,” Tony Evans, a senior pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, puts it this way: “Sit down with your wife and say something like this: ‘Honey, I’ve made a terrible mistake. I’ve given you my role.'”

Evans continues, ” … 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.” (Time magazine, October 6, 1997).

How can one not construe that to be a statement of domination? So many Promise Keepers relate personal stories about patterns of abuse in unhealthy marriages before their experience.

How could these oppressed women not welcome and end physical abuse? I imagine they do see Promise Keepers as a salvation, but the form of control has figuratively changed its boots, in my opinion.

He also insinuated offense for the “National Organization for Wackos,” which is, in his opinion, a “radical extremist” organization that does not properly represent American women.

First, to me name-calling implies that one’s argument is too weak to support facts and is a spiteful last resort. Second, I find this ironic, with Mr. Zeis’ personal attacks on Patricia Ireland and her “minions,” considering that Bill McCartney, the founder of Promise Keepers, is a radical conservative extremist.

McCartney is so much so that he was attacked by the American Civil Liberties Union for instating mandatory pre-game prayers for his University of Colorado football team.

He also has been an outspoken political figure supporting anti-gay rights legislation and other issues that intrinsically “belong” to the ultra-conservative radical right-wing political set.

NOW, however, has not chosen attack him personally; they are simply vocalizing their dismay at what appears to be a step backwards for women’s human rights.

I am a feminist. This has nothing to do, however, with being a man-hating, “anti-family,” “bra-burning throwback to the 1960s,” as was implied in the column.

I simply believe women are capable of making their own decisions and need no more guidance than the average man. I hope Robert Zeis, along with a lot of other misled people, will realize that is the issue and will concentrate on becoming informed rather than ridiculing others.

Naomi Bremer

Senior

Chemical engineering