Anyone commenting on this thread should please try as much as possible to avoid insults and to respect other people's views.

Try to present your point(s) and counter-arguments as neatly and politely as possible.

It's everyone's choice to determine how they live their life.

But the problem I have is that many of our young men and women seem to be hypocritic about their opinions on feminism.

A man claims to hate feminism but he still wants his wife to share the financial burden with him. My brother, you can't eat your cake and have. No matter how rich your wife is, if you want to be the leader of your house you must be paying the bills and buying the loaves.

Not only that, he also lacks many leadership traits. For example, do you know that as a leader you shouldn't be exchanging words with your follower(s) in times of hot emotions.
Also, you shouldn't be addressing issues with emotions. A leader puts rationale before emotions.

Leadership is about management and manipulation for general good. You must be able to manage your wife's emotions and finances, you must also be able to manipulate her to do what you want without brute.

Sometimes, the reason why women disrespect their husbands isn't because the woman lacks manners but because there's nothing to respect in the man. And this isn't all about money, in fact it isn't mostly about money.

So, you can't eat your cake and have it. If you want to be the leader of your house, you need to earn it!

For the women...hmmm

I have just one Yoruba proverb for them:

Anyone who is enough to feed you is enough to send you on errand

If you want to claim alpha female, there's no problem. It's your choice. But with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Don't form alpha female and still be expecting baby-boo to treat you like a fragile vessel.
I believe this is clear enough.

In conclusion
It's up to everyone to choose the type of life they want; an alpha male or an alpha female. But know that you can't eat your cake and have it.

So you need to understand the trade-offs of your chosen lifestyle and ideology and be prepared to live with it.

Thanks for reading.

Well said ☺️

You ended up saying nothing new.

donstan18:
You ended up saying nothing new.

Shows you know almost nothing about the art of writing.

Writing isn't basically about saying something new, it's about saying things in a new way.

Look at the movies you watch and the music you listen to, what's new in their core message? Nothing. Yet you watch them. Why? They say same old things in new fascinating ways. That's the beauty of a writer.

Thanks for reading.

No, it isn't everyone's choice to determine how they live their life, because liberty doesn't invalidate decorum - so, a sane person is expected to live/strive to live a conscientious life. Liberty without decorum is a disease.

On feminism, provided that it propagates egalitarianism, not female gender subjugation of the male gender, I'm a proponent - this means that personally I don't hate real feminists, but I sure loathe wannabe feminists. Of course, equality doesn't automatically mean absence of differences - all human beings are equal, but males and females are different biologically.

Now, as a man who doesn't hate feminism and sees the idea of a husband and wife sharing bill, instead of either party who's privileged volitionally and joyfully doing what's necessary at any given time without undervaluing the other person because of it, as an abomination, I disagree with your posit that by virtue of assuming leadership of the house, that a wife who's the means shouldn't take financial responsibility or make financial contribution in the house. In almost all settings, people don't automatically assume leadership position just because they're financially buoyant than others - only egotistic and/or egoistic people do such - such can only happen where insane people gather.

Meanwhile, no, a leader doesn't always put rationale before emotion, instead he does put rationale above sentiment and feelings - emotion is different from sentiment and feelings. Conscientiousness is the major hallmark of a leader - a good/sane leader.

Also, no, leadership isn't about manipulation - manipulation in any guise is unhealthy - but it's about diplomacy. Diplomacy is different from manipulation. So, leadership is about diplomacy and management.

On the other hand, a woman can be an alpha female and still be deserving of fragile vessel-like treatment - a strong-minded, altruistic and discerning/intelligent woman is an alpha female, and she deserves the best.

this table you want to shake. hmm

LordKO:
No, it isn't everyone's choice to determine how they live their life, because liberty doesn't invalidate decorum - so, a sane person is expected to live/strive to live a conscientious life. Liberty without decorum is a disease.

On feminism, provided that it propagates egalitarianism, not female gender subjugation of the male gender, I'm a proponent - this means that personally I don't hate real feminists, but I sure loathe wannabe feminists. Of course, equality doesn't automatically mean absence of differences - all human beings are equal, but males and females are different biologically.

Now, as a man who doesn't hate feminism and sees the idea of a husband and wife sharing bill, instead of either party who's privileged volitionally and joyfully doing what's necessary at any given time without undervaluing the other person because of it, as an abomination, I disagree with your posit that by virtue of assuming leadership of the house, that a wife who's the means shouldn't take financial responsibility or make financial contribution in the house. In almost all settings, people don't automatically assume leadership position just because they're financially buoyant than others - only egotistic and/or egoistic people do such - such can only happen where insane people gather.

Meanwhile, no, a leader doesn't always put rationale before emotion, instead he does put rationale above sentiment and feelings - emotion is different from sentiment and feelings. Conscientiousness is the major hallmark of a leader - a good/sane leader.

Also, no, leadership isn't about manipulation - manipulation in any guise is unhealthy - but it's about diplomacy. Diplomacy is different from manipulation. So, leadership is about diplomacy and management.

On the other hand, a woman can be an alpha female and still be deserving of fragile vessel-like treatment - a strong-minded, altruistic and discerning/intelligent woman is an alpha female, and she deserves the best.

Wow, such a long response. I feel intimidated to respond but since I'm the OP, I feel obliged to respond.

Firstly, true everyone should live a reasonable and sane life. But what do you do to an adult who chooses to do otherwise? As long as you're not the government you have no authority over the person. All you can do is talk, write and pray. Hopefully, the person will yield.

Other than that you'll have to leave the person to live their life.

Secondly, I don't believe feminism promotes egalitarianism. At its core, feminism suspects men. Men are guilty until proven otherwise. Feminism says men marginalized women from their roles in the society. Men wrote social values and religion laws to marginalize women and treat them as inferior.
So your understanding of feminism seems to be erroneous.

Also, regarding egalitarianism. An egalitarian society isn't a society of equal rights. That's practically impossible. Children and adults can't have equal rights. So also the learned and ignorant can't have equal right. Else, you would tell me that it's okay for a Stark illiterate to become a professor in the university. So, your understanding of an egalitarian society is quite erroneous (from my perception).

Rather an egalitarian society is a society where everyone has equal access to their rights. As professor in the university you have your rights, as a child you have your rights, as an adult you have your rights, as a woman you have your rights and as a man you have your rights.

The differences in our rights are based on natural factors that can't be changed. For example, it would be inappropriate to give men maternal allowances in their place of work.
So also, in a society where me are expected to be the bread winner, it would be inappropriate to give women children allowances and similar financial aids.
I hope you get it.

Thirdly, for me (and this is strictly personal), I'm responsible for the finances of my house. My wife has a job but I don't obliged her to do any spending. Sometimes she may wish to buy something from her money for the house but she knows it's just charity. If she decides not to buy it from her money I won't raise a brow.

On the other hand, she knows it's her responsibility to take care of the house. I assist her many times but of I don't she doesn't raise a brow.

This division of responsibilities is more like touchstones and guidelines. We don't do deontology.

Regarding your understanding of leadership, I won't go there. Many debates have occurred between more knowledgeable people and yet the concept of leadership remains unexplained.

Finally, regarding being an alpha male or not. I don't know what you mean by an alpha male or alpha female.
But what I mean by an alpha male is one who bullies his wife (verbally, physically or emotionally). Therefore an alpha male is a male that abuses the leadership position he has in the house.

And what I mean by an alpha female is the one that doesn't respect her husband. Rather she thinks respecting her husband is a sign of weakness.

In conclusion
The home/family is an institution and every institution without a leader will definitely be in anarchy.

Our men should learn to lead with love and respect while our women should learn to follow with perseverance and understanding.

Hopefully, our family institutions will turnaround and head for the right direction.

Thanks for reading.