ihedinobi2:


This just caught my attention.

Actually, Igbos (and humans at large, I think we'll find) tended to depose gods and their whole religious system from time to time. So there's a likelihood that if the white man did not come, we would still not be worshipping many of those gods. As a matter of fact, if they didn't come, we may have gone to them eventually and brought Jehovah home to Igboland, or Allah, or Buddha. Humans have always experimented like that. We've been looking for God a long time. It's locked into our nature to do so.

We don't create versions of God really. Not exactly. What we do is try to account for various experiences of him. Is it weird that peoples worlds apart like the Igbo and the Romans agreed that fertility was a feminine expression of life? The Romans had a female fertility god just like the Igbo. The Hindu recognize female gods as well. With that elevation to the pantheon of the female, and even the tendency to yoke the kings of each pantheon with a powerful queen, don't you think that it is not exactly a male idea of female suppression to eventually bow to a single unaccompanied God who is addressed with male qualities? Is it perhaps just simpler to look at him that way?

I don't think religion puts women down at all. Well, most religions anyway. Islam does. But Christianity? The idea that Christianity does is so ludicrous. In Christian philosophy or thinking, God made it clear from the beginning that the woman was made for the man, not the other way around. And yet, that very fact proved that man needs woman and cannot take her for granted. Before she existed, God said about her absence in the man's life, 'it is not good', the only thing about his work of creation that he found unacceptable.

The agitation for equality with man is, from a Christian perspective, very puzzling. It makes no sense because apart from the fact that you can never equate different things, woman is in an incredibly privileged position. She is made so important to the man that it is instinctive for him to forego his life and comfort for her to have both for herself. As a matter of fact, the man is always under a pressure to make her as important as God to himself. That makes it so weird that women want to be more. What more can you become? Men have broken old friendships and alliances over women, gone to war over women, died deaths - sometimes foolish, shameful deaths, over women, given up their pride over women. What more do women want then?

Is it the right to a career? The right to pick up guns and go to war too? The right to stand up when you pee? The right to knock back as many cans of beer as you like? The right to sleep with as many men as you like? The right to proposition men you find attractive? I really don't see what is being fought for here. *shrugs*

@bold:

Depends on your perspective:

Muslim men have put up nice reasons as to why their women are treated the way they are.
Muslim women have said severally that their religion places them on a very high pedestal.

Muslims have also said women are treated inferior in Christianity... remember Paul's women should not talk, should learn in quietness submission, etc. etc. yarns? My bunkmate in sec schl used those verse to taunt us when we descended into Christian/Muslim arguments. Small pikin things

The esteeming of women or not depends on where you stand from.

How are you doing?

Feminism for now allover the world is a joke. The type of equality they fight for is sickening these days.

Let me be clear, no Christian can be a feminist, its impossible.

Another annoying thing is when we now have waves of feminism with some clearly opposite in beliefs.

TV01:
Ironically, no matter what you claim, that's exactly what it isn't in practice. It denies interdependance in procreation for one - reproductive rights are arrogated to the woman, at the expense of the offspring or male.

And it has re-worked marriage /family law, so that it's now an unnatractive proposition for men. That is privilige and rights without responsibiity.

Please read my post to Bukatyne above. The word "submissiveness" in Christian marital context means nothing like that.


TV

Mr TV. I have realized we have chosen what we want to believe. You have decided to believe the worsttttttttttt out of feminism . And that is 100% fine by me. I have given the definition of interdependence. And that also is 100% feminist to me.

Stillfire:
Mr TV. I have realized we have chosen what we want to believe. You have decided to believe the worsttttttttttt out of feminism . And that is 100% fine by me. I have given the definition of interdependence. And that also is 100% feminist to me.

...I must have missed it. I remember an "assertion" or as you say a "definition" of interdependence - but no real examples of how feminism engenders it.

Please provide an example - like I did.

Danke


TV

bukatyne:


@bold:

Depends on your perspective:

Muslim men have put up nice reasons as to why their women are treated the way they are.
Muslim women have said severally that their religion places them on a very high pedestal.

Muslims have also said women are treated inferior in Christianity... remember Paul's women should not talk, should learn in quietness submission, etc. etc. yarns? My bunkmate in sec schl used those verse to taunt us when we descended into Christian/Muslim arguments. Small pikin things

The esteeming of women or not depends on where you stand from.

How are you doing?

I think you should have asked her why she thought that Islam placed her and other women on a high pedestal. If you did, you might not still think that perspectives determine what truth is. Regardless where you stand, the truth will not change.

I actually researched Islam and still plan to go further into it and other religions. My findings so far are not very flattering for women.

Regarding what Paul wrote, I started a discussion on a Christian forum about it recently but had to call a halt because it was too much work for my overworked brain. It still is. For now, I will mention Sarah who called Abraham her lord and is seen to refrain from speech when men came visiting and even spoke to her. That same Sarah held power with even God. When she demanded that the mother of her husband's son be removed from her household along with the son, do you remember what happened? Even God pled her cause and Abraham did as she asked. So the idea that Paul's command that women not speak in the church somehow disempowers women is quite ridiculous, even disingenuous. I am yet to meet the woman who cannot alter her husband's state of mind regarding things. If a woman can thus affect a man, does she not then have a powerful say in the goings-on in the arena where only men are allowed to speak? I really don't have the energy to go into the matter in-depth for now. I wish I did though.

I'm doing fine o, just dealing with work pressures. How are you and hubby?

ihedinobi2:


I think you should have asked her why she thought that Islam placed her and other women on a high pedestal. If you did, you might not still think that perspectives determine what truth is. Regardless where you stand, the truth will not change.

I actually researched Islam and still plan to go further into it and other religions. My findings so far are not very flattering for women.

Regarding what Paul wrote, I started a discussion on a Christian forum about it recently but had to call a halt because it was too much work for my overworked brain. It still is. For now, I will mention Sarah who called Abraham her lord and is seen to refrain from speech when men came visiting and even spoke to her. That same Sarah held power with even God. When she demanded that the mother of her husband's son be removed from her household along with the son, do you remember what happened? Even God pled her cause and Abraham did as she asked. So the idea that Paul's command that women not speak in the church somehow disempowers women is quite ridiculous, even disingenuous. I am yet to meet the woman who cannot alter her husband's state of mind regarding things. If a woman can thus affect a man, does she not then have a powerful say in the goings-on in the arena where only men are allowed to speak? I really don't have the energy to go into the matter in-depth for now. I wish I did though.

I'm doing fine o, just dealing with work pressures. How are you and hubby?

This is not about me and you, it is perception (Giving a dog a bad name and hanging it). I actually did a research about the stand of women in the Bible about 3yrs ago so I know what it says.

Check the Muslim section to idea of what Muslims explain on the stand of their women.

Was just pointing it out to you when you said Islam discriminate against their women.

We are good, thanks

Small small with work; solider come, solider go, barracks remain

AND

Work has never and will never finish

bukatyne:


This is not about me and you, it is perception (Giving a dog a bad name and hanging it). I actually did a research about the stand of women in the Bible about 3yrs ago so I know what it says.

Check the Muslim section to idea of what Muslims explain on the stand of their women.

Was just pointing it out to you when you said Islam discriminate against their women.

We are good, thanks

Small small with work; solider come, solider go, barracks remain

AND

Work has never and will never finish

I get that. I just don't think perception decides what actually is. It only is what you see. I know what Muslims say about their religion. I also know what Muhammad said about it. My position is merely that if the whole world were Islamized it would be a horrible place for women.

Nne, the thing about responsibility is that you can't just walk away from it o. There will always be work but this one is my own. Once I've got it done, I'm going for vacation somewhere in Asia where nobody speaks English or Igbo or any language I understand. Lol.

ihedinobi2:


I get that. I just don't think perception decides what actually is. It only is what you see. I know what Muslims say about their religion. I also know what Muhammad said about it. My position is merely that if the whole world were Islamized it would be a horrible place for women.

Nne, the thing about responsibility is that you can't just walk away from it o. There will always be work but this one is my own. Once I've got it done, I'm going for vacation somewhere in Asia where nobody speaks English or Igbo or any language I understand. Lol.

Your personal stuff?

Na die be that...

I laugh when people say... working for a boss is more time consuming than working for yourself.

Goodluck to you

See... going to Asia? one of the perks of working for yourself.

bukatyne:


Your personal stuff?

Na die be that...

I laugh when people say... working for a boss is more time consuming than working for yourself.

Goodluck to you

See... going to Asia? one of the perks of working for yourself.

Lol. Believe it o!!! Ha! We all work for someone o. But to take responsibility to build a whole business is not a light decision to make. You work for the most bosses that way. You work for the whole society (creating an acceptable product), for your employees (na for Naija wey employers fit say money no de to pay you and I come no get dat mindset; plus you have to think about helping them gain professional value while working for you), for your BoD (you don't go and yarn anyhow to people on your board, you think every syllable you'll say to them through and make sure you're not about to waste their time), for your creditors (if you have any), for your shareholders (if you have any.

When I took on the job I knew what it was though so I was ready for it. But still, I'm going to some obscure island in Asia where there's no phone when I finish, lol.

ihedinobi2:


Lol. Believe it o!!! Ha! We all work for someone o. But to take responsibility to build a whole business is not a light decision to make. You work for the most bosses that way. You work for the whole society (creating an acceptable product), for your employees (na for Naija wey employers fit say money no de to pay you and I come no get dat mindset; plus you have to think about helping them gain professional value while working for you), for your BoD (you don't go and yarn anyhow to people on your board, you think every syllable you'll say to them through and make sure you're not about to waste their time), for your creditors (if you have any), for your shareholders (if you have any.

When I took on the job I knew what it was though so I was ready for it. But still, I'm going to some obscure island in Asia where there's no phone when I finish, lol.

It is well with you

I pity my CEO sometimes when stuff happens but I remember the salary and the pity vanishes

bukatyne:


It is well with you

I pity my CEO sometimes when stuff happens but I remember the salary and the pity vanishes

Amen o.

Lmao!

That's exactly what I have to figure out a way to avoid o. It's like building a conventional family out of unconventional elements. While planning this company I've been told that I'm doing it wrong for caring about cost of living for my prospective employees. But then I can't help wondering how people whose lives are difficult can be productive.

I often think of farming as a way to see how businesses work. Smart farmers put the best seed in the soil and give the best fertilizers and care to them because that's how you get the best yield, not by reducing what you can put in. Of course, when you're just testing out new ground to see what it is capable of you may not put in your entire cropping, but you'll certainly not find out how it will work by not putting anything in. You plant a small portion of the land with some of your best seed and give it the closest attention to see what happens and based on your observations decide whether to put in more next season.

But sometimes we're a little too greedy or suspicious or cynical to keep these small lessons in mind.

Or maybe I'm just too idealistic. Lol. The funny things people say.

ihedinobi2:


Lmao!

That's exactly what I have to figure out a way to avoid o. It's like building a conventional family out of unconventional elements. While planning this company I've been told that I'm doing it wrong for caring about cost of living for my prospective employees. But then I can't help wondering how people whose lives are difficult can be productive.

I often think of farming as a way to see how businesses work. Smart farmers put the best seed in the soil and give the best fertilizers and care to them because that's how you get the best yield, not by reducing what you can put in. Of course, when you're just testing out new ground to see what it is capable of you may not put in your entire cropping, but you'll certainly not find out how it will work by not putting anything in. You plant a small portion of the land with some of your best seed and give it the closest attention to see what happens and based on your observations decide whether to put in more next season.

But sometimes we're a little too greedy or suspicious or cynical to keep these small lessons in mind.

Or maybe I'm just too idealistic. Lol. The funny things people say.

From an employee's perspective:
1. Have a levelled salary scale per level and department. All officers in accounting should earn same thing.

2. Reward smart work and not sycophancy

3. Let everyone feel as part of the vision.

4. Let appraisals be across departmental

5. Let reward and bonuses be fair across board. If you give managers N1m, nothing stops an officer getting up to N400m or dependent on a ratio. Not manager collect N4m and others collect N40k, the foot soldiers do most of the foot work

6. Put a system in place to get genuine feedback from employees. I Remember the first skip level meeting. I attended (direct meeting with the CEO by random selection). I was very green and decided to keep quiet and learn. Some people kept talking about their issues like a witch confessing. Before we got downstairs, the affected bosses had heard everything. . I quickly learnt that skip level is really meeting with CEO + ghosts aka your bosses. Some bosses even ask for feedback

7. When I think of others.

8. Goodluck, wisdom and favor

bukatyne:


From an employee's perspective:
1. Have a levelled salary scale per level and department. All officers in accounting should earn same thing.

2. Reward smart work and not sycophancy

3. Let everyone feel as part of the vision.

4. Let appraisals be across departmental

5. Let reward and bonuses be fair across board. If you give managers N1m, nothing stops an officer getting up to N400m or dependent on a ratio. Not manager collect N4m and others collect N40k, the foot soldiers do most of the foot work

6. Put a system in place to get genuine feedback from employees. I Remember the first skip level meeting. I attended (direct meeting with the CEO by random selection). I was very green and decided to keep quiet and learn. Some people kept talking about their issues like a witch confessing. Before we got downstairs, the affected bosses had heard everything. . I quickly learnt that skip level is really meeting with CEO + ghosts aka your bosses. Some bosses even ask for feedback

7. When I think of others.

8. Goodluck, wisdom and favor

Kai! You could set up a consultancy, you know. Lol. Thanks for the tips. I'll keep them all in mind. I assumed though that #1 is the popular practice. Are people paid disparately on their levels?

Thank you o jare. I need those @ #8. I can never have too much of them.

TV01:


You introduced an interpretation of scripture which attempted to reconcile feminist ideology and Christian doctrine. I disagreed with that and explained why.

This is not primarily about your home – or mine. Nothing has been twisted, your points have been clear and clearly wrong IMO. And I have taken care to outline my points – even when you make reference to prior discussions I can barely recall.

This isn’t about you, it’s about the obviously feminist reading of scripture you present. Through a mix of scripture and your own marriage you have clearly stated as follows;

“A husband leads by submitting, setting an example and loving his wife”
“One has equal rights in marriage and decisions are always jointly taken”
“Submission = love” – with an emphasis on love as the determinant

You have found no place for distinct male leadership, wifely obedience, or differences in authority - all scriptural. You reject all those notions, and usually not in a plain manner, doing so stylishly.

Even more oddly you allude to a husband earning leadership, which is not actually distinct, but a function of submitting, setting an example and loving his wife. Effectively placing the wife as the authority in the home.

Feel free to refrain or quit, but whenever you post what I consider to be scripturally suspect, I retain the right to respond.

Greet Oga


TV

You find a woman to be inferior to a man? if however you find her merely different from a man, why does she assume a lower position in the matrimonial arrangement?

Do you think love can exist only between equals?

ihedinobi2:


Kai! You could set up a consultancy, you know. Lol. Thanks for the tips. I'll keep them all in mind. I assumed though that #1 is the popular practice. Are people paid disparately on their levels?

Thank you o jare. I need those @ #8. I can never have too much of them.

Abi o!

Gave a friend of mine a title for his short movie need to open a consultancy firm truly

Some companies have become next generation and pay according to..... (you name it)

So A is earning 20k, B is earning 30k and C is earning 60k all doing same thing at the same level.

Some have even gone gangster and request for your previous payslip.

Meaning If you miss it from the beginning, na God o!

coogar:


yes!

You're a clown

coogar:


how can you see God when you have attended owambe parties 20 times more than you have been in a church?

God is everywhere.omnipresent remember

Before I respond let me say this; I'm a marriage advocate, there is no gainsaying that - here on the Family section anyway. That does not mean that I subscribe to, or endorse every model of marriage.

Nor does it mean I ever mean to be prescriptive about how individuals go about their marriages or feel that I am able to appraise the dynamic of those marriages.

And neither do I feel the need to comment on or quantify the love or happiness therein - not least because they are at best subjective, and not actually integral to any definition of marriage. So if a woman in a polygynous union or a man in a polyandrous one claim to be madly in love and deliriously happy, I have no reason to question or dispute that.

Kay17:
You find a woman to be inferior to a man?

No, and not only have I not alluded to that, I have plainly stated the opposite - that I don't, not that she's superior .

Kay17:
if however you find her merely different from a man, why does she assume a lower position in the matrimonial arrangement?

The pejorative use of the word "lower" is for you to tackle on your own. I said no such thing and hold no such view. As men and women are "different", but complimentary, so are their attributes, relative strengths, roles and responsibilities.

Kay17:
Do you think love can exist only between equals?

As you can see, my first response somewhat obviates this question.

The model I subscribe to and endorse is biblical marriage. Hence, I am always ready to challenge and be challenged on it's particulars. The scriptures clearly outline certain responsibilities and authority to the husband in plain contradistinction to an expectation of submission and obedience from his wife.

If anyone has pejorative notions or preconceived positions as to what those terms imply, or how they are meant to play out on a union, again please tackle those in your own time, projecting them into debate here just makes things drag.


TV

TV01:
Before I respond let me say this; I'm a marriage advocate, there is no gainsaying that - here on the Family section anyway. That does not mean that I subscribe to, or endorse every model of marriage.

Nor does it mean I ever mean to be prescriptive about how individuals go about their marriages or feel that I am able to appraise the dynamic of those marriages.

And neither do I feel the need to comment on or quantify the love or happiness therein - not least because they are at best subjective, and not actually integral to any definition of marriage. So if a woman in a polygynous union or a man in a polyandrous one claim to be madly in love and deliriously happy, I have no reason to question or dispute that.

No, and not only have I not alluded to that, I have plainly stated the opposite - that I don't, not that she's superior .

The pejorative use of the word "lower" is for you to tackle on your own. I said no such thing and hold no such view. As men and women are "different", but complimentary, so are their attributes, relative strengths, roles and responsibilities.

As you can see, my first response somewhat obviates this question.

The model I subscribe to and endorse is biblical marriage. Hence, I am always ready to challenge and be challenged on it's particulars. The scriptures clearly outline certain responsibilities and authority to the husband in plain contradistinction to an expectation of submission and obedience from his wife.

If anyone has pejorative notions or preconceived positions as to what those terms imply, or how they are meant to play out on a union, again please tackle those in your own time, projecting them into debate here just makes things drag.


TV

Good good.

In a relationship amongst equals, because you have clearly said women are neither inferior nor superior to men, therefore are equals to men; neither of the equals needs to assume a submissive position for the obvious reason of being equals. Their status does not allow. Since you have accepted this basic premise, why then do you advocate for a submissive position for women?!

ihedinobi2:


The agitation for equality with man is, from a Christian perspective, very puzzling. It makes no sense because apart from the fact that you can never equate different things, woman is in an incredibly privileged position. She is made so important to the man that it is instinctive for him to forego his life and comfort for her to have both for herself. As a matter of fact, the man is always under a pressure to make her as important as God to himself. That makes it so weird that women want to be more. What more can you become? Men have broken old friendships and alliances over women, gone to war over women, died deaths - sometimes foolish, shameful deaths, over women, given up their pride over women. What more do women want then?

By privileged position, what does that mean? Is she above or below the man?!

@ the bolded, men have done the same for money, properties, fame and any other object.

Kay17:
Good good.

My post are always good - don't you remember from our unfinished chat on abortion !

Kay17:
In a relationship amongst equals, because you have clearly said women are neither inferior nor superior to men, therefore are equals to men; neither of the equals needs to assume a submissive position

I didn't say they had to, neither did I say it could not "work" - another subjective term - if neither of the two adopt a "submissive" or the corresponding "authoritative" position. Did you not read my intro and endng?

What I said - and my position is - biblically, the husband is head of the home, tasked with overall leadership with the attendant authority. I have no issue with others subsribing to a different model. My challenge is against a re-interpretation of the Christian one.

Kay17:
for the obvious reason of being equals. Their status does not allow. Since you have accepted this basic premise, why then do you advocate for a submissive position for women?!

See above. I don't know about "position", it's more of an attitude, but like I said, your notions of what submissive means in the Christian context need to be thorougly parsed.

Your position is very progressive and PC sounding, but would be a rare exception even in a non-Christian setting. Human nature and the dynamics of relationships between men and women mean it's very rare that there is not someone "wearing the trousers" in a relatiosnhip.

If it's not the man, it's most likely the woman, even if it's by stealth manipulation. Even in same-sex pairings, there is typically a parody of normal male-female pairings, with one taking the lead/being dominant.

It's also worth noting that attraction in women is in part stimulated by a notion of her mate having higher status. And the respect she accords him rests to a great degree on that status - exactly why the bible enjoins wives to respect their men.

For men, being men is a large part dependent on them beaing allowed or tasked with being so. Many women whine that men are intimidated by successful women. Actually, to a large degree they are not - they just feel that such a relationship will be hard due to the dragging of headship.

That in a nutshell is why Western marriages crash so frequently. The more like a man the woman is, the more frustrated they both get. Subsuming biology to progressive ideology and PC notions. It's why we strive here . Most of the women now can't engage in a debate without predicating their position on the notion of "equal rights"

Not to personalise it, but please tell us that all your own relationships have been totally egalitarian. Or better yet, let any woman on NL come and tell us her marriage is such


Oh the sacrifice


TV

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female-led_relationship
http://www.aboutflr.com/Guided-Training.html
http://wife-led-marriage..co.uk/2013/07/blog-post.html}

TV01:

Your position is very progressive and PC sounding, but would be a rare exception even in a non-Christian setting. Human nature and the dynamics of relationships between men and women mean it's very rare that there is not someone "wearing the trousers" in a relatiosnhip.
If it's not the man, it's most likely the woman, even if it's by stealth manipulation. Even in same-sex pairings, there is typically a parody of normal male-female pairings, with one taking the lead/being dominant.
It's also worth noting that attraction in women is in part stimulated by a notion of her mate having higher status. And the respect she accords him rests to a great degree on that status - exactly why the bible enjoins wives to respect their men.
For men, being men is a large part dependent on them beaing allowed or tasked with being so. Many women whine that men are intimidated by successful women. Actually, to a large degree they are not - they just feel that such a relationship will be hard due to the dragging of headship.
That in a nutshell is why Western marriages crash so frequently. The more like a man the woman is, the more frustrated they both get. Subsuming biology to progressive ideology and PC notions. It's why we strive here . Most of the women now can't engage in a debate without predicating their position on the notion of "equal rights"

You, sir, speak nothing but the truth. In all human relationships, whether they be inter gender or of the same gender, in whatever form the relationships assume there is always a dominant party! It's funny how with all it's sophistry the equalist/feminist movement overlooks - or should we say denies? - this fundamental fact.

The idea that all parties in an inter-gender relationship are co-equals is a canard promoted and supported by people who fail to objectively study the dynamics of human relationships. In acting on this misguided notion of co-equality many western marriages and families, as you rightly pointed out, have wrought severe visceral damage on themselves. From the coarsening of the female gender to the effeminisation (sp?) of the male gender - all in the bid to "level the playing ground" and bring about equality, the damage is deep.

I think that it is pertinent that proponents of feminist and equalist movements in Nigeria observe the effects of the cause they champion in places where these ideologies have a stronghold. They will see that picture is anything but pretty.

TV01:

My post are always good - don't you remember from our unfinished chat on abortion !


I didn't say they had to, neither did I say it could not "work" - another subjective term - if neither of the two adopt a "submissive" or the corresponding "authoritative" position. Did you not read my intro and endng?

What I said - and my position is - biblically, the husband is head of the home, tasked with overall leadership with the attendant authority. I have no issue with others subsribing to a different model. My challenge is against a re-interpretation of the Christian one.

See above. I don't know about "position", it's more of an attitude, but like I said, your notions of what submissive means in the Christian context need to be thorougly parsed.

Your position is very progressive and PC sounding, but would be a rare exception even in a non-Christian setting. Human nature and the dynamics of relationships between men and women mean it's very rare that there is not someone "wearing the trousers" in a relatiosnhip.

If it's not the man, it's most likely the woman, even if it's by stealth manipulation. Even in same-sex pairings, there is typically a parody of normal male-female pairings, with one taking the lead/being dominant.

It's also worth noting that attraction in women is in part stimulated by a notion of her mate having higher status. And the respect she accords him rests to a great degree on that status - exactly why the bible enjoins wives to respect their men.

For men, being men is a large part dependent on them beaing allowed or tasked with being so. Many women whine that men are intimidated by successful women. Actually, to a large degree they are not - they just feel that such a relationship will be hard due to the dragging of headship.

That in a nutshell is why Western marriages crash so frequently. The more like a man the woman is, the more frustrated they both get. Subsuming biology to progressive ideology and PC notions. It's why we strive here . Most of the women now can't engage in a debate without predicating their position on the notion of "equal rights"

Not to personalise it, but please tell us that all your own relationships have been totally egalitarian. Or better yet, let any woman on NL come and tell us her marriage is such


Oh the sacrifice


TV

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female-led_relationship
http://www.aboutflr.com/Guided-Training.html
http://wife-led-marriage..co.uk/2013/07/blog-post.html}

The biblical position you endorse, sounds to you not just as the natural way of things but divine way of things, isn't it? Now on what premise is the headship granted to men? Of course it is not arbitrary, right?

ApexTitan:


You, sir, speak nothing but the truth. In all human relationships, whether they be inter gender or of the same gender, in whatever form the relationships assume there is always a dominant party! It's funny how with all it's sophistry the equalist/feminist movement overlooks - or should we say denies? - this fundamental fact.

The idea that all parties in an inter-gender relationship are co-equals is a canard promoted and supported by people who fail to objectively study the dynamics of human relationships. In acting on this misguided notion of co-equality many western marriages and families, as you rightly pointed out, have wrought severe visceral damage on themselves. From the coarsening of the female gender to the effeminisation (sp?) of the male gender - all in the bid to "level the playing ground" and bring about equality, the damage is deep.

I think that it is pertinent that proponents of feminist and equalist movements in Nigeria observe the effects of the cause they champion in places where these ideologies have a stronghold. They will see that picture is anything but pretty.

Now if you think there is always a dominant party, do you also think the dominant party is always the man? If not always the man, why decline the dominant women their rights?

Kay17:


Now if you think there is always a dominant party, do you also think the dominant party is always the man? If not always the man, why decline the dominant women their rights?

[Warning, this comment may be politically incorrect for some readers, ApexTitan leaves it here regardless]

I think that in relationships or unions such as marriage the dominant party should be the man. I say this because his gender, the masculine gender, is best equipped to assume the leadership role. A whole host, if not all, of masculine traits easily lend themselves to leadership.

I am however aware that in many cases, as is also encouraged by modern day liberal ideologies, the woman assumes the dominant role. This is unnatural and I think the campaigns encouraging this are misguided. In playing the dominant role a woman is acting out of step with the traits that she is blessed with by nature.

It is important to note that because the genders are inherently different the question of dominance is best viewed from the perspective of the unique traits that are assigned to the specific genders. This is not a matter of rights and liberties as one may wrongly assume.

ApexTitan:


[Warning, this comment may be politically incorrect for some readers, ApexTitan leaves it here regardless]

I think that in relationships or unions such as marriage the dominant party should be the man. I say this because his gender, the masculine gender, is best equipped to assume the leadership role. A whole host, if not all, of masculine traits easily lend themselves to leadership.

I am however aware that in many cases, as is also encouraged by modern day liberal ideologies, the woman assumes the dominant role. This is unnatural and I think the campaigns encouraging this are misguided. In playing the dominant role a woman is acting out of step with the traits that she is blessed with by nature.

It is important to note that because the genders are inherently different the question of dominance is best viewed from the perspective of the unique traits that are assigned to the specific genders. This is not matter of rights and liberties as one may wrongly assume.

So all men are natural born leaders?

Kay17:


So all men are natural born leaders?

Of course not. To generalise like that would mean we conflate two different ideas. In the context of marriages the leadership role is best carried out by the man.

Kay17:
The biblical position you endorse, sounds to you not just as the natural way of things but divine way of things, isn't it? Now on what premise is the headship granted to men? Of course it is not arbitrary, right?

Yes, I appeal to the divine and to nature - and nature indeed attests to the divine. Anywhere in nature - particularly the higher mammalian - species where females dominate, they are the very rare exceptions rather than the rule.

I heartily endorse AT's post and quote it here;

ApexTitan:
I say this because his gender, the masculine gender, is best equipped to assume the leadership role. A whole host, if not all, of masculine traits easily lend themselves to leadership.

The bible is clear regardless of the revisionist approach of some;

1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life....

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression...

Generally, men are more analytical and strategic, women more intuitive and emotional - it's why women bang on about self-esteem (essentially a feeling), rather than character, which is what determines a man .

And of course their is the dynamic between male and female - it is exactly these traits of leadership/dominance that attracts women. And as I've explained plenty, the dynamic becomes skewered when the female is dominant - not to say such pairings cannot "work".

The West is fast feminising their men and socialising them to believe that egalitarianism is to be fostered amongst the sexes. It's simply not working. Women are more privileged than they have ever been, but unhappier that ever.

Marriages have difficulty holding and the institution itself if almost devoid of real content. Men are "going their own way in droves. Mess about with the divine writ, natural/biological imperatives and the consequent social morés at your own peril !

I've said, please enjoin NL women who are dominant in their homes or whose marriages are egalitarian to come and testify.


TV

ApexTitan:


Of course not. To generalise like that would mean we conflate two different ideas. In the context of marriages the leadership role is best carried out by the man.

Thankfully you saw how ridiculous that generalization was. Even in any context a bad leader will demonstrate bad leadership skills and make bad decisions because leadership in marriage or a family or at the workplace rely on the same leadership skills. So men are not natural born leaders, instead it spreads wildly between men and women. Therefore a skilled leader in skirts can be as good a leader in trousers.

Since men and women are equals and both can exhibit leadership skills, why place barriers against women. Maybe you need to admit you do not understand the vibrancy of womenfolk and instead try fixing her in a predetermined box.

TV01:


Generally, men are more analytical and strategic, women more intuitive and emotional - it's why women bang on about self-esteem (essentially a feeling), rather than character, which is what determines a man .

TV

Where did you get the above fact?

I feel guilty asking all the questions. But it is an endeavor for better understanding. I think women are too prejudiced by predetermined basis of a woman. Women actually constrain themselves towards the definition of what a woman ought to be. I think all humans have an innate drive for freedom, whether the liberating freedom or self destructive freedom. Humans do not like to be restrained, to the point that we accept only justified authorities. Imagine the State decides to curb your freedoms to have a family or own property, the instinctive man/woman instantly revolts. But that is for new threats.

In some cases, the restraint preexists but it is when one is conscious of it and its unjustified nature, one rebels.

BRB.

TV01:

You introduced an interpretation of scripture which attempted to reconcile feminist ideology and Christian doctrine. I disagreed with that and explained why.

ok

TV01:
This is not primarily about your home – or mine. Nothing has been twisted, your points have been clear and clearly wrong IMO. And I have taken care to outline my points – even when you make reference to prior discussions I can barely recall

.

Unfortunately, you are not the determinant of right and wrong intepretation. The Scripture has no one interpretation in certain issues and people flow as they are led. When I tell people that God told me to stop wearing trousers, they look at me like seriously(I am a fanatic); When my cousin's wife sees me, I am one way to hell (earrings, makeup and braids); a pastor once said a woman wearing bracelets, earrings, make-ups etc. cannot be born again. Everyone will be judged according to their motives as long as you have the Holy Spirit in you

TV01:
This isn’t about you, it’s about the obviously feminist reading of scripture you present. Through a mix of scripture and your own marriage you have clearly stated as follows;

“A husband leads by submitting, setting an example and loving his wife”

I never said a man leads by submitting;

yes I said he leads by setting an example and loving his wife. Ever heard the word 'Christian' it means Christ-like or the phrase 'what will Jesus do'?. A person who is Christ like is expected to follow the example of Christ; follow His footsteps etc. If I remember correctly, the Bible says the husband is the head of the home/wife how Christ is the head of the Church. Tell me, who taught you the godly virtues you learnt today? By whose power do you have them?

Would it be wrong to say a wife should be 'husbandlike'?

TV01:
“One has equal rights in marriage and decisions are always jointly taken”

Absolutely 100%

Like I asked earlier,

if you and your wife make suggestions and the best is taken (irrespective of whose), how is that sole decision taking? By saying 'I am the head and I think .... well done Mama'? is that what makes you the decision maker?

TV01:
“Submission = love” – with an emphasis on love as the determinant

In the practical sense.... yes

And love is the determinant abi didn't you read the We love Jesus because He loved us first... while we were yet sinners, Christ did for us. Our love/submission to Christ is as a result of the love God/Jesus showed to us else He would have waited till we repent before sending Jesus.

TV01:
You have found no place for distinct male leadership, wifely obedience, or differences in authority - all scriptural. You reject all those notions, and usually not in a plain manner, doing so stylishly.

I have no place for distinct male leadership.

I believe in husband's leadership.

Wifely obedience? I would say submission instead

difference in authority? you mean the one you pick and drop or the one you rarely use? No

TV01:
Even more oddly you allude to a husband earning leadership, which is not actually distinct, but a function of submitting, setting an example and loving his wife. Effectively placing the wife as the authority in the home.

Ok, a husband does not earn leadership/submission, he only makes himself worthy of it

Worthy = deserve = earn

Even God who created us didn't stand in heaven and commanded everyone to turn to Christ; He actually sent His only begotten son to die. That son forsook His heavenly Glory, came to the earth poor, was ridiculed by the people He created and died the most shameful death in His time for us to turn to Him.

Even God/Jesus earned our worship.... Even Jesus earned the right to be called the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

Nobody gives you on a platter, you earn make yourself worthy of it.

I not only wield authority, I continually demonstate that I am worthy of it. I was not joking when I said that my wife implicitly trusts me. Even if not to make mistakes - I am not perfect - it's certainly to have our family' best interest at heart at all times.

Does the bolded sound familiar?

Making yourself worthy of something means you earn it or you make yourself deserving of it.

TV01:
Feel free to refrain or quit, but whenever you post what I consider to be scripturally suspect, I retain the right to respond.

Like I said earlier, you are not on the board of directors of heaven to determine what is scripturally suspect; You do not believe in tithing/ sole Pastorship or head of a local assembly or that drinking alcohol is a sin. All those are also scripturally suspect to me.

TV01:
Greet Oga

Tv

Regards to your family

And a husband and wife has equal agency in their marriage?

Really?

Equal agency?

LMAO