bukatyne:
Your question is really the main thing! What does submission mean in Christianity? You will agree with me that Eph 5: 21 has cancelled any notion that submission makes a woman inferior to her husband else they would both be inferior to one another.

In Christianity, submission means 'esteeming others, your neighbor above yourself' i.e. treating others people in this case your husband more than yourself. A husband is called to love his wife and this love is defined in 1 Cor 13: 1 - 13. The submission of the wife is a balance to the husband's love. The husband watches out for the wife and the wife watches out for her husband. They are in sync and part of a whole.
Christians are also called to submit to each other in Romans and told to honor one another in Colossians.
Only mates or colleagues can submit that's why children are never told to submit to their parents but obey them.
Forget all the submission you hear and read about in Nigeria; they are using their own Nigerian Bible.
I do not know what submission means in the cultural context anyways.

This is exactly the type of chicanery I said I had no interest in dealing with.
Ephesians 5:2 is only the concluding part of the full sentence that starts from verse 18.

5:18;And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit
5:19; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord
5:20;Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
5:21;Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

And now, these are the various definitions and meanings of the word 'Submit':

sub·mit [səb mít]
(past and past participle sub·mit·ted, present participle sub·mit·ting, 3rd person present singular sub·mits)
verb
1. transitive verb propose or hand in something: to hand something in or put something forward for consideration, approval, or judgment
Applications must be submitted in triplicate.
2. intransitive verb yield: to accept somebody else's authority or will, especially reluctantly or under pressure
3. intransitive verb agree: to agree to undergo something example; he had to submit to intensive questioning
4. intransitive verb defer: to defer to another's knowledge, judgment, or experience
5. transitive verb argue point: to state or argue that something is the case (formal)

The meaning of 'Submit' in the context of your verse is the definition in bold, submission in that context does not mean placing higher esteem on others over yourself.
In that verse submission means Christians should agree to avoid drinking wine, to sing to the lord, to speak hymns to one another and to give thanks always to god.

Now, Bukatyne, you claimed that Submission in Christianity has only one meaning ie 'esteeming others above yourself'.
Let me tell you why that is false and why the word 'submit' has a different meaning to the meaning you posted.

Definition of Esteem
es·teem [i stm]
transitive verb (past and past participle es·teemed, present participle es·teem·ing, 3rd person present singular es·teems)
1. regard something in particular way: to consider something or somebody as having a particular quality (formal)

It is simply not possible for every single christian to place higher esteem on their counterparts regardless of the the rank or position those counterparts have in the society. That would mean christians have to consider every single one of their fellow christians as having higher qualities or abilities/assets/value than they do.
A king cannot place a higher esteem on his subjects than he places on himself because the very fact that he is king means he is not on the same level as said subjects.
A parent cannot place a higher esteem on their child because they are more intelligent, mature and experienced than that child.
In Christianity, a husband cannot place a higher esteem on his wife because he is the leader of the household.
He is the head of the house.
He rules over the woman and her children and due to this, he is superior to her.

A person in a position of superiority cannot place higher esteem on their inferiors, they can be benevolent over them and they can be kind and merciful to them but they cannot place them in higher esteem because the moment they do that, they defer superiority and authority to whoever they are placing in higher esteem than themselves.

Society cannot exist without ranks and strata and echelons and classes, there has to be a ruler, there has to be administrators and governors and leaders and this would not be possible when every member of the society is placing their subordinates in higher esteem.

And finally, the conclusion drawn from all the points stated above is that the word 'submit' in that verse means something entirely different from what you claimed it means.

Oh bukatyne, I hope my post didn't annoy you?

I hope we're still friends?
Please tell me you're not upset over what I posted.....I need to hear it

De Beauvoir:

This is exactly the type of chicanery I said I had no interest in dealing with.
Ephesians 5:2 is only the concluding part of the full sentence that starts from verse 18.

5:18;And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit
5:19; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord
5:20;Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
5:21;Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

And now, these are the various definitions and meanings of the word 'Submit':

sub·mit [səb mít]
(past and past participle sub·mit·ted, present participle sub·mit·ting, 3rd person present singular sub·mits)
verb
1. transitive verb propose or hand in something: to hand something in or put something forward for consideration, approval, or judgment
Applications must be submitted in triplicate.
2. intransitive verb yield: to accept somebody else's authority or will, especially reluctantly or under pressure
3. intransitive verb agree: to agree to undergo something example; he had to submit to intensive questioning
4. intransitive verb defer: to defer to another's knowledge, judgment, or experience
5. transitive verb argue point: to state or argue that something is the case (formal)

The meaning of 'Submit' in the context of your verse is the definition in bold, submission in that context does not mean placing higher esteem on others over yourself.
In that verse submission means Christians should agree to avoid drinking wine, to sing to the lord, to speak hymns to one another and to give thanks always to god.

Now, Bukatyne, you claimed that Submission in Christianity has only one meaning ie 'esteeming others above yourself'.
Let me tell you why that is false and why the word 'submit' has a different meaning to the meaning you posted.

Definition of Esteem
es·teem [i stm]
transitive verb (past and past participle es·teemed, present participle es·teem·ing, 3rd person present singular es·teems)
1. regard something in particular way: to consider something or somebody as having a particular quality (formal)

It is simply not possible for every single christian to place higher esteem on their counterparts regardless of the the rank or position those counterparts have in the society. That would mean christians have to consider every single one of their fellow christians as having higher qualities or abilities/assets/value than they do.
A king cannot place a higher esteem on his subjects than he places on himself because the very fact that he is king means he is not on the same level as said subjects.
A parent cannot place a higher esteem on their child because they are more intelligent, mature and experienced than that child.
In Christianity, a husband cannot place a higher esteem on his wife because he is the leader of the household.
He is the head of the house.
He rules over the woman and her children and due to this, he is superior to her.

A person in a position of superiority cannot place higher esteem on their inferiors, they can be benevolent over them and they can be kind and merciful to them but they cannot place them in higher esteem because the moment they do that, they defer superiority and authority to whoever they are placing in higher esteem than themselves.

Society cannot exist without ranks and strata and echelons and classes, there has to be a ruler, there has to be administrators and governors and leaders and this would not be possible when every member of the society is placing their subordinates in higher esteem.

And finally, the conclusion drawn from all the points stated above is that the word 'submit' in that verse means something entirely different from what you claimed it means.

Like I stated earlier, I was talking about the Christian view.

if you use dictionary to explain the Bible, you are on your own

The relationship between a husband and wife is definitely different from other Christians and calls for different technicalities.

In Christianity, a man is the head because he is the source of his family just how Mike Adenuga started GLOBACOM. He is responsible for how the family turns out and contrary to popular opinion, a man actually determines how the home should be.

Leaders are to serve their followers and vice versa to make it balanced. Matthew 20: 28 sums it up. A leader is called to serve and not be served. In fact, in the early Church, the apostles were the ones serving the widows and the Church grew, Deacons were appointed to serve the widows.

I am sure that when you hear of Deacons now, you imagine a big title; the office was actually created for service.

The truth is that a lot of things have been mixed with culture and you cannot imagine a 'supposed leader' serving his subordinates.

De Beauvoir: Oh bukatyne, I hope my post didn't annoy you?

I hope we're still friends?
Please tell me you're not upset over what I posted.....I need to hear it

It did not dear

*e-Hugs*

bukatyne:
Like I stated earlier, I was talking about the Christian view.
if you use dictionary to explain the Bible, you are on your own
The relationship between a husband and wife is definitely different from other Christians and calls for different technicalities.
In Christianity, a man is the head because he is the source of his family just how Mike Adenuga started GLOBACOM. He is responsible for how the family turns out and contrary to popular opinion, a man actually determines how the home should be.
Leaders are to serve their followers and vice versa to make it balanced. Matthew 20: 28 sums it up. A leader is called to serve and not be served. In fact, in the early Church, the apostles were the ones serving the widows and the Church grew, Deacons were appointed to serve the widows.
I am sure that when you hear of Deacons now, you imagine a big title; the office was actually created for service.
The truth is that a lot of things have been mixed with culture and you cannot imagine a 'supposed leader' serving his subordinates.

I not only used the dictionary, I broke down my explanation to tally with common sense.
If your christian definitions do not agree with common sense then something is seriously wrong somewhere.
Also, many christians will definitely not agree with your explanation of submission; the men especially, so you're just basically stating your personal opinion of what that verse means. you are not stating the general christian view.

And you said that a man is only a leader because he provides for the family; do women not provide financial support for the family as well? Do they not go through unthinkable pain to bear children and do they not sacrifice their lives and comfort to take care of the children? Why aren't they also leaders if that is the case?
A leader is meant to serve his family but that doesn't mean he is inferior to them, as the leader, he makes the final decisions in the home, he guides and directs and he sets rules to determine how his followers should live and only a person in a position of intellectual superiority is supposed to assume a leadership role.
You can't have a dumbass leading those that are clearly superior to him.

If Yahweh made men the default leaders in households, that means that Yahweh thinks men have better intellects/better brains than women and Yahweh thinks men are naturally better leaders than women and he also thinks women can never make better leaders than men

How then can men and women be equal when men have been placed in a position of determining how women live their lives and women do not have the same privilege?

De Beauvoir:

I not only used the dictionary, I broke down my explanation to tally with common sense.
If your christian definitions do not agree with common sense then something is seriously wrong somewhere.

You cannot use common sense to judge the Bible. 1 Cor 2: 9 says 'God uses the wisdom of this world to confound the wise...' You cannot explain the spiritual with the carnal/physical

De Beauvoir: Also, many christians will definitely not agree with your explanation of submission; the men especially, so you're just basically stating your personal opinion of what that verse means. you are not stating the general christian view.

Do not confuse what the Bible says to what Christians will do/ not do.

Every Christian knows fornication and adultery is wrong; yet many still do it etc. Also, a lot of people mix religion with Christianity because they are ignorant of what the Bible says.

The Biblical love and submission is not master - slave relationship or equal/unequal relationship.

De Beauvoir: And you said that a man is only a leader because he provides for the family; do women not provide financial support for the family as well? Do they not go through unthinkable pain to bear children and do they not sacrifice their lives and comfort to take care of the children? Why aren't they also leaders if that is the case?

I never said a man is the leader because he provides for his family; as a matter of fact, even if a man does not provide, he is still the head of his home. I said he is the head because he is the source. ideally, a man should have a vision of his destiny, how he wants to achieve it and then he marries a woman who together they will achieve and help each other make heaven and vice versa for the wife too. A man will have weaknesses that will be strengthened in his wife and vice versa. That is where the concept of two becoming one etc. stems from.

The virtuous woman/wife of Proverbs 31 provided for her family too. I think being an house wife is not even Biblical. A Christian wife is to care financially for the widows around her. She definitely needs to be able o provide for herself before she can achieve that

De Beauvoir: A leader is meant to serve his family but that doesn't mean he is inferior to them, as the leader, he makes the final decisions in the home, he guides and directs and he sets rules to determine how his followers should live and only a person in a position of intellectual superiority is supposed to assume a leadership role.
You can't have a dumbass leading those that are clearly superior to him.

A leader is not inferior to his wife because he serves her just how a woman is not inferior to her husband because she submits to him. Leadership in Christianity esp. in martial setting is different from the conventional leader we know. A man is to lead his family by example and he leads his family together with his wife. It is like a King/ Queen relationship. Do you think the King will see his Queen as one of his subjects
E.g. Jesus is the leader of Christians; Do you know how He achieved that?
By showing us the kind of life he wanted us to live;
By dying on the cross for our sins;
By empowering us to live like Him;
By interceding for us when we fail etc.

De Beauvoir: If Yahweh made men the default leaders in households, that means that Yahweh thinks men have better intellects/better brains than women and Yahweh thinks men are naturally better leaders than women and he also thinks women can never make better leaders than men

How then can men and women be equal when men have been placed in a position of determining how women live their lives and women do not have the same privilege?

A husband does not sit down to determine who his wife lives like she is his child; they correct each other mutually in love to achieve a common goal.
Ecc 4: 10 - 16 explains it better; it is a scratch my back I scratch your back situation; however, if a man wants to live as if he is alone, he is absolutely free

bukatyne:

You cannot use common sense to judge the Bible. 1 Cor 2: 9 says 'God uses the wisdom of this world to confound the wise...' You cannot explain the spiritual with the carnal/physical

You start your post by saying we cannot use common sense to judge the Bible then you proceed to explain your point with common sense?
That doesn't follow, you either use your human knowledge in interpreting the Bible or you discard it completely. You can't pick and choose.

Do not confuse what the Bible says to what Christians will do/ not do.

Every Christian knows fornication and adultery is wrong; yet many still do it etc. Also, a lot of people mix religion with Christianity because they are ignorant of what the Bible says.

It is a generally accepted fact in Christianity that fornication/adultery is wrong so that analogy is inappropriate. What isn't accepted by the majority is that husbands have to place their wives over themselves because Ephesians 5 verse 21 asks christians to submit to one another. The definitions of submit vary and alternate definitions are used by Christians all over the world so your own explanation for that verse is nothing but your personal explanation. It isn't the generally accepted christian explanation. Besides it's not like the verse is accompanied by a footnote explaining what 'submit' means. That verse is open to different explanations because of the absence of further clarification in the bible.
You came up with that explanation because it is what you are most comfortable with and because you want to believe the Bible is all for gender equality.

The Biblical love and submission is not master - slave relationship or equal/unequal relationship.


I never said a man is the leader because he provides for his family; as a matter of fact, even if a man does not provide, he is still the head of his home. I said he is the head because he is the source.

Source of what exactly? And again, your own personal explanation of what the 'Bible love and submission' means is what you wrote up there. I know many christians that would disagree with you on that.

A leader is not inferior to his wife because he serves her just how a woman is not inferior to her husband because she submits to him. Leadership in Christianity esp. in martial setting is different from the conventional leader we know. A man is to lead his family by example and he leads his family together with his wife. It is like a King/ Queen relationship. Do you think the King will see his Queen as one of his subjects
E.g. Jesus is the leader of Christians; Do you know how He achieved that?
By showing us the kind of life he wanted us to live;
By dying on the cross for our sins;
By empowering us to live like Him;
By interceding for us when we fail etc.

Lol, a leader is superior to his subjects. That's why he has been placed in charge of them.
In Christianlty, a man is superior to his wife that's why he is in charge of her and her children. Fine, he may consult her regularly
to know what she likes and what she thinks before he takes final decisions but the fact is that the final decision rests with him as the head of the house, it doesn't rest with the woman. He can consult his wife for her opinion but if he does not like her opinion then he is free to discard them. That is a priviledge he enjoys as a leader.
He may not necessarily be discarding his wife's opinion because he doesn't care about her, no. On the contrary he could be doing that because he genuinely believes that he has a better plan than she does and wants the best for her. In the end, whatever stands is what the man wants. If he agrees with wifey then they both follow her opinion, if he disagrees then they both follow what hubby wants because he is the leader and that is a priviledge he solely enjoys as the leader.
Do you now see how women are not equal to men in Christianity? If there was equality, men wouldn't be given the sole responsibility of leading households and making final decisions. the fact that leadership position is exclusively reserved for males implies that Yahweh believes that men are better decision makers than women since the responsibility of making final decisions in the home rests solely on the shoulders of men.

And yes, a queen is part of the king's subjects. She is married to him does not mean they are equal or that he wouldn't rule over her.

bukatyne:

It did not dear

*e-Hugs*

(((((((hug back))))))).

So glad that you're understanding and forgiving of my argumentative ways.

Love u sweetie

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Hmmm what's going on? I see De Bothered is now chattin' sh1t. She has now taken up arms against this thread and decided to defend the foolish ideology called feminism. She starts of by attack the bible and it's anti feminist stance.
Not realising that My stance on feminism is not based on some fairy tale book but it's based on the half truths and down right lies of feminism itself!

De Beauvoir:

You start your post by saying we cannot use common sense to judge the Bible then you proceed to explain your point with common sense?
That doesn't follow, you either use your human knowledge in interpreting the Bible or you discard it completely. You can't pick and choose.



It is a generally accepted fact in Christianity that fornication/adultery is wrong so that analogy is inappropriate. What isn't accepted by the majority is that husbands have to place their wives over themselves because Ephesians 5 verse 21 asks christians to submit to one another. The definitions of submit vary and alternate definitions are used by Christians all over the world so your own explanation for that verse is nothing but your personal explanation. It isn't the generally accepted christian explanation. Besides it's not like the verse is accompanied by a footnote explaining what 'submit' means. That verse is open to different explanations because of the absence of further clarification in the bible.
You came up with that explanation because it is what you are most comfortable with and because you want to believe the Bible is all for gender equality.



Source of what exactly? And again, your own personal explanation of what the 'Bible love and submission' means is what you wrote up there. I know many christians that would disagree with you on that.



Lol, a leader is superior to his subjects. That's why he has been placed in charge of them.
In Christianlty, a man is superior to his wife that's why he is in charge of her and her children. Fine, he may consult her regularly
to know what she likes and what she thinks before he takes final decisions but the fact is that the final decision rests with him as the head of the house, it doesn't rest with the woman. He can consult his wife for her opinion but if he does not like her opinion then he is free to discard them. That is a priviledge he enjoys as a leader.
He may not necessarily be discarding his wife's opinion because he doesn't care about her, no. On the contrary he could be doing that because he genuinely believes that he has a better plan than she does and wants the best for her. In the end, whatever stands is what the man wants. If he agrees with wifey then they both follow her opinion, if he disagrees then they both follow what hubby wants because he is the leader and that is a priviledge he solely enjoys as the leader.
Do you now see how women are not equal to men in Christianity? If there was equality, men wouldn't be given the sole responsibility of leading households and making final decisions. the fact that leadership position is exclusively reserved for males implies that Yahweh believes that men are better decision makers than women since the responsibility of making final decisions in the home rests solely on the shoulders of men.

And yes, a queen is part of the king's subjects. She is married to him does not mean they are equal or that he wouldn't rule over her.

Like I said earlier, things way are in the Bible is different the 'world'

Ok, let's do this: Quote 1 cor 13: 1 - 8 and break it down...

That is what is expected from husbands

bukatyne:

Like I said earlier, things way are in the Bible is different the 'world'

Ok, let's do this: Quote 1 cor 13: 1 - 8 and break it down...

That is what is expected from husbands

Corinthians?
Are you kidding me?
The same Corinthians that was a series of letters specifically written by Paul and addressed specifically to no other set of people than the Corinths of his time?

To hell with all this.
You know what bukatyne?
I actually want you to believe that christianity supports gender equality so I won't try to change your mindset any longer.
I know quite well that women are only subordinates to men in Abrahamic religions (and no amount of arguments can change my knowledge of that fact) but I won't argue with you cos I want you to believe you are a man's equal.
It's best for the world if Christian women believe they are equal to men, so go right ahead and tell as many christians as you can that Christianity is a religion of gender equality.

More power to you girl

This is for the defender of sluts and whores!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7QNw1LRJv4

I believe that there should be mandatory paternity tests. Yet the feminists (especially the black ones) will never champion that cause. Notice how a white woman believes in mandatory paternity tests. Typical really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBrduXeH3M8

I agree with that!!
as soon as the baby is born a paternity test should be conducted.

Because stories and laws like this....

Child Support Law Requires Man To Pay For Another Man's Child
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html

= bullshidd and should NEVER happen!
I have brothers (and Lord willing will have son/s) and I would go
mad if some sleazy woman decides she wants to trap them like that.

Here is another:

Marine says he paid $30K in child support for daughter who isn`t his
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/22082942/man-pays-15-years-of-child-support-for-daughter-who-isnt-his

For more than a decade, former Marine Romel Smith says he's paid nearly $30,000 in child support for this little girl who's now 15 years old--but there's a catch.

"When the child was four and a half years old I decided to get a DNA test due to a little prompting from my mother. I got the DNA test and it proved that the little girl was not mine," said Romel Smith.

Fox 32 News is not revealing the teen's identity since she's underage.

Court documents show Smith fought his case all the way to the state Supreme Court which ruled that a man who signs a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity cannot later seek to undo the acknowledgment on the basis of DNA test results.

"My lawyers were going to court for me while I was overseas in the Iraqi war and I got told about it while I was over there and honestly I almost cried," said Smith.

"There would be less cases in the parentage court system and the child support court system if there were mandatory DNA testing. Whether or not the legislature will go that far, I don't know," said Attorney Masah SamForay

that's FOOLISHNESS!

*Kails*:
I agree with that!!
as soon as the baby is born a paternity test should be conducted.

Because stories and laws like this....

Child Support Law Requires Man To Pay For Another Man's Child
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html

= bullshidd and should NEVER happen!
I have brothers (and Lord willing will have son/s) and I would go
mad if some sleazy woman decides she wants to trap them like that.

*Kails*:
Here is another:

Marine says he paid $30K in child support for daughter who isn`t his
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/22082942/man-pays-15-years-of-child-support-for-daughter-who-isnt-his

This meme sums those posts above

There's a HUGE difference between a Feminazi and a Feminist. The feminist movement was extremely necessary at the time of its birth, and in some cases/places it still is!

EnlightenedSoul: There's a HUGE difference between a Feminazi and a Feminist. The feminist movement was extremely necessary at the time of its birth, and in some cases/places it still is!

What can I say?

God bless you.

Like I told the OP earlier, a nazi anti-feminist is the same as a feminazi.

They are both extremes

Black Kenichi:


This meme sums those posts above

black, i'm telling you! some of these women are T-R-I-F-L-I-N-G

EnlightenedSoul: There's a HUGE difference between a Feminazi and a Feminist. The feminist movement was extremely necessary at the time of its birth, and in some cases/places it still is!

True,
but feminism has really done more harm than good esp. to women of color.

This made front page?

To this day folks still got issues with human equality.

Smh.

I am a proud feminist and think that people need to screen mofos they are fucking before blaming feminism or anything for their lack of good judgements.

Real talk.

You wouldn't need a paternity test if you keep your legs closed.

Black Kenichi: This is for the defender of sluts and whores!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7QNw1LRJv4

And sluts and whores have joysticks as well.

Smh at the religious debates.


Common sense is definitely not common these days.

*Kails*:


True,
but feminism has really done more harm than good esp. to women of color.

Explain plz?

Mrs.Chima:
Smh at the religious debates.


Common sense is definitely not common these days.

*Kails*:
black, i'm telling you! some of these women are T-R-I-F-L-I-N-G

At the bolded - Some!? More like most. Most feminists are just trifling bints! They've achieved equal pay, the right to education and their supposed "sexual freedom". Yet they still want more.
Feminists say they believe in equality and equal rights yet they only complain about not enough women in top paying jobs. I've not heard one feminist complain about not enough women doing the grimy jobs like garbagemen, pest exterminators, sewage works etc. Where are the feminists "righteous" complaints about the the f*cked up family court system in the USA which is clearly biased in favour of women!?

Feminists don't want equality but favouritism!

EnlightenedSoul:

Explain plz?

It has broken up so many homes and ruined so many black relationships, it's not even funny!

Our men have become emasculated not just by EXTREME feminism's key weapon the GUILT TRIP....

(btw chima i do not consider you a fem-nazi i know you stand for womens' rights and i am down for that)

...but also that we have a culture or system in america that teaches our young girls that the help of a man
is not necessary. How so?

Well, for starters in America when a woman is being financially taken care of by her man, and she does house work..she is looked at as weak and dominated. Her own womankind would put her down and act as if her living the "old fashioned way" is the equivalent to being a slave. Because of that culture of women not wanting to allow men to be men (acting as the provider, protector...the MAN) the average American mother has to juggle more than one job to make ends meet and if she does have a decent paying job the affects are still the same...less time with the kids to bond. Kids with no bonding from either parent are vulnerable to a lot of hardships in life: relationships wise, respecting the law, and emotionally speaking.

And our gov't is in on it as well. Look at the welfare systems! Are you aware that with certain benefits you HAVE
to be a single mother in order to feed your family? If " you are granted money, section 8 housing; etc etc should "they" find out a man is helping out, even if he is making minimum wage they will cut you off completely. Now what is a mother to do with children and no father in the home? And then we wonder why our kids are out of control. Period point blank there needs to be an equal balance between a man and a woman.

And what does that mean for the men? It renders them to be quite useless, am I right?

Another problem EXTREME feminism causes is the "uppity negress syndrome"....
It's okay to promote the "independent woman" thing...but we cannot get too carried away with that.
Because if you have a good job, nice car, and you can afford to have a roof on your head but have you nose so high you can't see anything in front of you you shouldn't wonder why you are part of the 72 percent of single women also why you can't keep a man to save your life. Such sisters are the reason a lot of brothers have jumped ship.
When they say they want "foreign women", uppidity negresses will cry foul...not realizing it's their attitudes and constant belittling of their brothers that is forcing them into the arms of other races of women.

Black Kenichi:
At the bolded - Some!? More like most. Most feminists are just trifling bints! They've achieved equal pay, the right to education and their supposed "sexual freedom". Yet they still want more.
Feminists say they believe in equality and equal rights yet they only complain about not enough women in top paying jobs. I've not heard one feminist complain about not enough women doing the grimy jobs like garbagemen, pest exterminators, sewage works etc. Where are the feminists "righteous" complaints about the the f*cked up family court system in the USA which is clearly biased in favour of women!?

Feminists don't want equality but favouritism!

@bold spot on!!

I know there is A LOT of v@ginal envy/hatred in this world.. i know this.
But the p3nis envy is out of control! When you have an entire government going from one extreme,
to another and being HARD on their latest victims for fear of pissing off another demographic, we have a huge problem.

I've made my jokes about men, heck there was a time when I wondered if any good men existed...but as I got older and was able to talk to more men (esp. brothers) I have come to realize things are not always what they seem. All men are not out to "get us" and it doesn't help we've created a culture to despise any man with any sort of power.

I think black women need to re-evaluate what we/they want. If we want laws to protect our rights and our humanity cool, but that is where it should end. FFS: We are NOT at war with men....just a few azzholes.

And let me just throw this out there: the feminist movement was NOT originally meant to include black women.
that should tell us something...that this is nothing more than a power hungry popularity club that has gotten out of control. These same EXTREME feminists aren't doing jack shyt to protect the kids born to the same families they've successfully broken up.

And that's real talk.

*Kails*:


It has broken up so many homes and ruined so many black relationships, it's not even funny!

Our men have become emasculated not just by EXTREME feminism's key weapon the GUILT TRIP....

(btw chima i do not consider you a fem-nazi i know you stand for womens' rights and i am down for that)

...but also that we have a culture or system in america that teaches our young girls that the help of a man
is not necessary. How so?

Well, for starters in America when a woman is being financially taken care of by her man, and she does house work..she is looked at as weak and dominated. Her own womankind would put her down and act as if her living the "old fashioned way" is the equivalent to being a slave. Because of that culture of women not wanting to allow men to be men (acting as the provider, protector...the MAN) the average American mother has to juggle more than one job to make ends meet and if she does have a decent paying job the affects are still the same...less time with the kids to bond. Kids with no bonding from either parent are vulnerable to a lot of hardships in life: relationships wise, respecting the law, and emotionally speaking.

And our gov't is in on it as well. Look at the welfare systems! Are you aware that with certain benefits you HAVE
to be a single mother in order to feed your family? If " you are granted money, section 8 housing; etc etc should "they" find out a man is helping out, even if he is making minimum wage they will cut you off completely. Now what is a mother to do with children and no father in the home? And then we wonder why our kids are out of control. Period point blank there needs to be an equal balance between a man and a woman.

And what does that mean for the men? It renders them to be quite useless, am I right?

Another problem EXTREME feminism causes is the "uppity negress syndrome"....
It's okay to promote the "independent woman" thing...but we cannot get too carried away with that.
Because if you have a good job, nice car, and you can afford to have a roof on your head but have you nose so high you can't see anything in front of you you shouldn't wonder why you are part of the 72 percent of single women also why you can't keep a man to save your life. Such sisters are the reason a lot of brothers have jumped ship.
When they say they want "foreign women", uppidity negresses will cry foul...not realizing it's their attitudes and constant belittling of their brothers that is forcing them into the arms of other races of women.

Feminism was initially meant to free women from the unfair conditions in which they found themselves. I don't necessarily consider myself a feminist, forget about a feminazi BUT do you feel that society would've been better off without it (i.e the feminist movement)?

Is it the fault of the movement that some women chose to go down the negative route?