Acidosis:
1. All these theories don't work with a woman in love. Women "submit" naturally and willingly to a man they consider deserving and responsible.

The question is why are you hell-bent on changing this natural phenomenon with an idea you haven't practised yourself in your home?

Interesting claims you make!

"Women submit naturally and willingly to a man they consider deserving and responsible", so why do women who don't conform to the above exist then? Are these women abnormal in the spectrum or what?,

You regard it a "natural phenomenon" yet nature reveals it is not of her at all, this since there are equally women who fall outside of that pattern you claim.

In western and more advanced society for instance, women are rarely found engaging in such unions for obvious reasons revealing that what you attach to nature probably has more to do with societal factors than nature.

Novemberaura:
1. I can assume you're a feminist from all your comments.

2. I just want to ask you this, if you meet some textbook guy who loves you truly and genuinely. Does all those little and big things we all read about men showing love to their women and offcourse doesn't cheat or abuse you, I mean if he's everything or maybe most thing an average girl will want in a man, helps you out support and encourage you, protects you etc. Would you or would you not drop your feminist agenda. Just answer me honestly cuz it will help a brother

3. Cuz sometimes I see feminism as a defensive mechanism women use to avoid abuse from men other times I see it as a way to get back at men for possibly past ugly experiences.

1. I am not a feminist.. I am a Jesus-sian... there is a huge difference.

2. I would never advice anyone to submit in any circumstance to another human.

3. Your issues with feminism are those, your issues.

Kobojunkie:
Submission - a Master/Slave bond - does not apply in my life so the obvious answer to all questions regarding it is NO.

Another type of bond is that born of a partnership where both partners are either "equally yoked" or otherwise, depending on their agreement. I favor this type of bonding instead.

---

Why can't a man submit too?

Why must it be a woman submitting and not a man submitting?

Why do you teach your sons that submission only applies to your women? Why do you raise them to believe women are to be relegated to slave status while men sit as masters over them?

P.S. - Submission in a union defines a Master/Slave relationship

That is your personal definition not the reality.

Kobojunkie:
So in your view, a woman simply doesn't submit in love or marriage, she submits to most every man she respects, regardless of the nature of the relationship between them?

Anyways, within the confines of marriage, why again is submission by the man expressed differently from that of the woman?

My position about submission is clear in my previous response to you. Your first paragraph is you deliberately misinterpreting what i said for reason I don't know.

Submission is expressed differently because men and woman are different. If this answer seems too complicated or unacceptable to you, then take your grievance to God.

Acidosis:
That is your personal definition not the reality.

There is nothing personal about that ....

sub·mis·sion
/səbˈmiSHən/

1. the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.

Even the use of the word submission in scripture depicts a Master/Slave relationship.

---

Why can't a man submit too?

Why must it be a woman submitting and not a man submitting?

Why do you teach your sons that submission only applies to your women? Why do you raise them to believe women are to be relegated to slave status while men sit as masters over them?

P.S. - Submission in a union defines a Master/Slave relationship

pansophist:
1. My position about submission is clear in my previous response to you. Your first paragraph is you deliberately misinterpreting what i said for reason I don't know.

2. Submission is expressed differently because men and woman are different. If this answer seems too complicated or unacceptable to you, then take your grievance to God.

1. I did no such thing. Instead I asked a question to verify your claim given that it is possible for a woman to respect more than one man in her life, kind of the same way some say it is possible for a man to love more than one woman, only that there is a bit ambiguous.

2. Well, typically the main differences between men and women has to do with reproductive parts... men have outies where women have innies. Why do these physical differences matter where submission is concerned?

Kobojunkie:
1. I did no such thing. Instead I asked a question to verify your claim given that it is possible for a woman to respect more than one man in her life, kind of the same way some say it is possible for a man to love more than one woman, only that there is a bit ambiguous.

2. Well, typically the main differences between men and women has to do with reproductive parts... men have outies where women have innies. Why do these physical differences matter where submission is concerned?

1. Yes it's possible. Love and faithfulness are two different things, and loving someone without being faithful to them is known as cheating. A woman (or a man), can love more than one person. Or else, how would polygamy or polyandry be justified?

2. The differences between men and women can't be understood narrowly (physically only) via your expression of outies and innies. I can literally name at least hundred differences between men and women spanning from biology, psychology, temperament, physique etc.

Kobojunkie:
Interesting claims you make!

"Women submit naturally and willingly to a man they consider deserving and responsible", so why do women who don't conform to the above exist then? Are these women abnormal in the spectrum or what?,

You regard it a "natural phenomenon" yet nature reveals it is not of her at all, this since there are equally women who fall outside of that pattern you claim. In western and more advanced society for instance, women are rarely found engaging in such unions for obvious reasons revealing that what you attach to nature probably has more to do with societal factors than nature.

When you talk about western women, please make it clear. You can't speak for all western women. We have seen some that fell in love and foolishly sent their life's savings all the way from the U.S. to Nigeria, Congo, etc. Some left their families behind to be with the one they love. Many have done despicable things for love. Submission is the least any reasonable woman can give a responsible man.

Submission is respecting your husband's point of view, it's affirming and respecting your husband's leadership and acknowledging him as the head of the home. E.g., when someone is to represent or speak for the family in a public gathering, a submissive wife would not go ahead and grab the microphone to speak for the husband or the entire family. On the other hand, the head would not have to seek the consent of his wife to speak in this situation. That's the difference. He's the head and presumably knows all.

Submission is allowing your husband care for you (even when you can take care of yourself as all adults should). You're not a tree. You need someone to spoil you and treat you like a baby. This treatment is not for slaves but submissive women who have come to the realization that love is everything and the basis of humanity.

pansophist:
1. Yes it's possible. Love and faithfulness are two different things, and loving someone without being faithful to them is known as cheating. A woman (or a man), can love more than one person. Or else, how would polygamy or polyandry be justified?

2. The differences between men and women can't be understood narrowly (physically only) via your expression of outies and innies. I can literally name at least hundred differences between men and women spanning from biology, psychology, temperament, physique etc.

1. The word you used in regards to women is respect, and in that case, a woman can respect even men she is not married to nor romantically involved with. And this lead me to my earlier question which is "So in your view, a woman simply doesn't submit in love or marriage, she submits to most every man she respects, regardless of the nature of the relationship between them?".

Sure, a man is able to "love" more than one woman but then when we consider the kind of love - romantic, faithful, familial etc., and that may end up going everywhere and nowhere fast. Hence the reason, I decided not to pursue this..

2. So, according to you, these differences - biology, temperament, physique, psychology etc., all come together to influence how a man submits in relationship to a woman. Then why then are some men out there able to submit to their women in pretty much the same way some women submit to their men? Here on nairaland they are referred to as SIMPS but they exists with all the differences you claim yet able to submit as some woman are.

Acidosis:
1. When you talk about western women, please make it clear. You can't speak for all western women. We have seen some that fell in love and foolishly sent their life's savings all the way from the U.S. to Nigeria, Congo, etc. Some left their families behind to be with the one they love. Many have done despicable things for love.

2. Submission is the least any reasonable woman can give a responsible man.

3. Submission is respecting your husband's point of view, it's affirming and respecting your husband's leadership and acknowledging him as the head of the home. When someone is to represent or speak for the family in a public gathering, a submissive wife would not go ahead and grab the microphone to speak for the husband or the entire family. On the other hand, the head would not have to seek the consent of his wife to speak in this situation. He's the head and presumably knows all.

4. Submission is allowing your husband care for you. You're not a tree. You need someone to spoil you and treat you like a baby. This treatment is not for slaves but submissive women who have come to the realization that love is everything and the basis of humanity.

1. I don't recall mentioning anything about western women so I don't know where you are attempting to shift this conversation to.

2. Why?

3. Why is the husband "head of home"? Shouldn't the wife's point of view be accorded the same level of respect? Why is the husband the leader?

4. Doesn't the wife also care for the husband? Why do you prescribe this treatment for these submissive women??

Kobojunkie:
1. I don't recall mentioning anything about western women so I don't know where you are attempting to shift this conversation to.

2. Why?

3. Why is the husband "head of home"? Shouldn't the wife's point of view be accorded the same level of respect? Why is the husband the leader?

4. Doesn't the wife also care for the husband? Why do you prescribe this treatment for these submissive women??

1. Your words "In western and more advanced societies, women are..."

2. ...because submission for a woman is a by-product of love.

3. I have given you a real life scenario to drive my point. Don't bother me with "why" or "how" questions. If you want to contest that view, give real life situations that apply to you.

4. How does an unsubmissive woman care for her husband? Don't tell me unsubmissive women do dishes and laundry. That's "slavery", according to you.

pansophist:
Well not married, but dating a feminist. They are the best kind of women to be with, that if she is truly a feminist. Not the hypocritical ones we all dislike. My ex, for example, does take me out and pay for herself, or for us sometimes. She recognized my struggle as a man and doesn't even believe in nonsense such as patriarchy, because she is aware of and acknowledges her female privilege.

We dated when I was in uni, and of course, broke like hell. She made my life far easier in school, as she will bring all kinds of food stuff from her mother and grandmother and land at my place. She is a good person, feminism or not. Also, many of these so-called feminists are just fronting, they usually melt when real men show up, especially when they won't tolerate that toxic feminism.

She does domestic stuff since it's one of the ways she can show that you love and cares for me. I will probably call her the type of feminist that was preached in the 90s, the older, matured, and humane version, not the idiots that populate feminism now. She even hates what feminist has become these days and will rather call herself an egaliterian. If you meet this kind of woman, then go ahead and marry her.

I don't know why people are asking you on why you're dating a Feminist and that she doesn't submit. One of the many reasons why I take Nairaland comments with a grain of salt is because I know that If you listen to what people say on social media, you will lose your path in life.

First of, women have different Ideals. A lot of women can be feminist but their ideals are not the same overall. Some women are agreeable while others are not, some believe their husband is the head of the home while others disagree. Some feminist believe in sharing bills in a large extent while others believe that It is still a man's job to do that. If you read Chimamanda response in her 2013 TED Talk and I quote "Beyoncé’s Type Of Feminism ‘Is Not Mine’". You can't tell people what is Feminism to them or not, what you practise in your own household is your business.

In the real world, no woman on this thread who is married is not submitting to their husband. Everyone can come online to form Voltron but the reality is that you cannot co-exist with a man who is a provider financially, and secures his family with the Voltron mindset. It is only broke men with nothing going on for themselves that don't take authority in their homes.

Even if you're RedPill, if you take that RedPill mentality to your household, you will lose woefully. You cannot show constant tactics from RedPill theories to your spouse and expect things to work, you have to tone it down a lot and accept reality that your spouse is not that person.

Imagine Beyonce trying to tell Chimamanda what Feminism should be practised in her own house hold.

Acidosis:


1. Your words "In western and more advanced societies, women are..."

2. ...because submission for a woman is a by-product of love.

3. I have given you a real life scenario to drive my point. Don't bother me with "why" or "how" questions. If you want to contest that view, give real life situations that apply to you.

4. How does an unsubmissive woman care for her husband? Don't tell me unsubmissive women do dishes and laundry. That's "slavery", according to you.

.....Na you get plenty time to dey waste.

Acidosis:
1. Your words "In western and more advanced societies, women are..."

2. ...because submission for a woman is a by-product of love.

3. I have given you a real life scenario to drive my point. Don't bother me with "why" or "how" questions. If you want to contest that view, give real life situations that apply to you.

4. How does an unsubmissive woman care for her husband? Don't tell me unsubmissive women do dishes and laundry. That's "slavery", according to you.

1. My mistake!

I oniy used that to show that your claim that submission is of "natural phenomenon" holds no water as what you described does not apply to all women, not even to the women out there.

2. But given that not all women submit in love, what does that tell you of this claimed "by-product of love"?

Also, since not all men submit in love, again what does that tell you of this "by-product of love"?

3. Your so-called real-life scenarios obviously won't make sense when processed by someone who don't see or view these things as you do. Hence the reason for the questions.Why is the husband "head of home"? Shouldn't the wife's point of view be accorded the same level of respect? Why is the husband the leader?

4. Is it that you think a woman’s ability to care for a man resolves down to whether she is submissive to him or not?

Is that the same with a man caring for a woman as well?

Doing dishes and laundry as slavery - where do you have me stating this abeg? When men do dishes and laundry in their parents homes , while single or living with roommates, is that also slavery?

truthsayer009:


Not against feminism, but it doesn't make any country rich. Countries become rich because they manage their resources properly.

Just to let you know, U.S. has world's highest rate of children living in single-parent, Baby-mamas you mentioned, Fatherless kids etc. They are rich because they manage the resources they have. Nigeria doesn't.

Moreso, China has a very large population but they channel their man-power resource into production and manufacturing.

You guys say a lot of FALSE statements online, LIE unprovoked and women would come and cheer you up.

Feminism means valuing women in education and the workforce. It lets them to pursue careers without discrimination.

Feminism also is correlated with lowering birth rates. You empower women, and more of them choose skilled careers over just pumping out babies. It also means contraception use is higher.

We will go through a great amount of pain as a country in the upcoming decades because our population is about to EXPLODE. we will be one of the most populous nations in the world. We do NOT have the education systems, food systems, jobs, money, and so much else to take care of these millions and millions and millions of people.

Get this - in 2050, nigeria will be THE THIRD MOST POPULOUS COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Our population will DOUBLE in just THIRTY YEARS. (going form 225 million in 2022 to 411 million in 2050 - UN stats, look it up)

Reducing our birth rate is crucial for our survival. We need to have less kids - and NOW. Getting more women in the workforce is $$$$. Getting them educated is $$$$. Women cannot work or study and birth baby after baby at the same time. It is one or the other.

Feminism means our survival. With such a young and overpopulated country, at terrible war is almost inevitable. Resources will be scarce. It could make the congo wars look like nothing.

If you don't believe in feminism, that's your choice, god bless you. But please hear me out that WE NEED TO STOP HAVING KIDS. I realize that's a separate issue than what we were talking about. But feminism GREATLY contributes to it.

Kobojunkie:

Your so-called real-life scenarios obviously won't make sense when processed by someone who don't see or view these things as you do.
Hence the reason for the questions.Why is the husband "head of home"? Shouldn't the wife's point of view be accorded the same level of respect? Why is the husband the leader?

Well, you're not that person. When I meet a married woman who's the head of her home, I will respond accordingly based on the individual's real life situation.

If you know any woman in that situation on Nairaland, kindly tag..

ReadingIsWealth:


Feminism means valuing women in education and the workforce. It lets them to pursue careers without discrimination.

Feminism also is correlated with lowering birth rates. You empower women, and more of them choose skilled careers over just pumping out babies. It also means contraception use is higher.

We will go through a great amount of pain as a country in the upcoming decades because our population is about to EXPLODE. we will be one of the most populous nations in the world. We do NOT have the education systems, food systems, jobs, money, and so much else to take care of these millions and millions and millions of people.

Get this - in 2050, nigeria will be THE THIRD MOST POPULOUS COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Our population will DOUBLE in just THIRTY YEARS. (going form 225 million in 2022 to 411 million in 2050 - UN stats, look it up)

Reducing our birth rate is crucial for our survival. We need to have less kids - and NOW. Getting more women in the workforce is $$$$. Getting them educated is $$$$. Women cannot work or study and birth baby after baby at the same time. It is one or the other.

Feminism means our survival. With such a young and overpopulated country, at terrible war is almost inevitable. Resources will be scarce. It could make the congo wars look like nothing.

If you don't believe in feminism, that's your choice, god bless you. But please hear me out that WE NEED TO STOP HAVING KIDS. I realize that's a separate issue than what we were talking about. But feminism GREATLY contributes to it.

The fact that we are going back and forth on this doesn't just make any sense.

Nobody is arguing that the rate of child birth in Nigeria is not rising, but that is secondary. The primary issue that determines the progress of the country at large is economic/financial decisions of a country.

BRO, you can choose to support feminism or go against It, It doesn't trump the fact that managing a country economically drives more impact by just saying people should have less babies. There is something called human-resource, which China is using to their advantage. We don't have manufacturing industries, export products, nothing works in terms of our exports in Nigeria.

BRO, Nigeria is the way it is because the resources aren't managed well. We aren't even the most populous country in the World.

UAE, Qatar and Saudi who are majorly muslims managed to build their economy from the 80s to early 2000s and now a giant economy. Yes, they have oil and they managed it properly as opposed to us.

This is simple economics we did in secondary school, I want to believe you are just arguing for argument sake.

You can agree to disagree abeg. I don't have strength.

pansophist:


When a woman respects a man, she is submissive to him. When a man loves a woman, he is submissive to her. The keyword here is submission, which men and women express in a different ways.

1. You got good points here, maneuvering through it to arrive at the explanation you are trying to make is not easy. It is more like a nuanced post, however, twisted as your choice of words didn't do full justice/conflated the whole issue, thereby making it seem as if the post is telling something else.

2. Submission can only be demonstrated by one person or people to another of higher authority. When women are submissive and respect their husbands or spouses, love and care will certainly flow to them from who they accord respect and honor.

3. Women's submissiveness is the input while men's love and care are the output in regards to that input. Since it is men that are bringing a commitment to the table, which is the final seal of any sexual relationship, it is expedient that the input takes place first.

4. Commitment is power; it encapsulates the desires of a woman, hence, she is submissive towards it. Submissiveness is not because the woman is weak, irrelevant, or dumb. It is an action that shows that she recognizes the importance of commitment.

5. The term: submissiveness shouldn't be exchanged for the two. One must be submissive for the other to rule efficiently and the one that holds the mantle of leadership should recognize the one that stands behind helping in whatever possible way.

6. Submissiveness can be abused by the leader or withheld by the follower, the same way love and care can be abused by followers or withheld by the leader. And this can happen as a result of many factors, howbeit, hypergamy and male promiscuity are the pioneers of such factors.

7. So, when a leader and a follower are in a union, being submissive should only be used for the follower as there can't be a show of submissiveness by both sides. Instead, love and kindness.

PS: This is just me trying to make your points more explanatory. Nevertheless, it is almost the same thing we are saying.

Thanks.

CaveAdullam:
1. You got good points here, maneuvering through it to arrive at the explanation you are trying to make is not easy. It is more like a nuanced post, however, twisted as your choice of words didn't do full justice/conflated the whole issue, thereby making it seem as if the post is telling something else.

2. Submission can only be demonstrated by one person or people to another of higher authority. When women are submissive and respect their husbands or spouses, love and care will certainly flow to them from who they accord respect and honor.

3. Women's submissiveness is the input while men's love and care are the output in regards to that input. Since it is men that are bringing a commitment to the table, which is the final seal of any sexual relationship, it is expedient that the input takes place first.

4. Commitment is power; it encapsulates the desires of a woman, hence, she is submissive towards it. Submissiveness is not because the woman is weak, irrelevant, or dumb. It is an action that shows that she recognizes the importance of commitment.

5. The term: submissiveness shouldn't be exchanged for the two. One must be submissive for the other to rule efficiently and the one that holds the mantle of leadership should recognize the one that stands behind helping in whatever possible way.

6. Submissiveness can be abused by the leader or withheld by the follower, the same way love and care can be abused by followers or withheld by the leader. And this can happen as a result of many factors, howbeit, hypergamy and male promiscuity are the pioneers of such factors.

7. So, when a leader and a follower are in a union, being submissive should only be used for the follower as there can't be a show of submissiveness by both sides. Instead, love and kindness.

PS: This is just me trying to make your points more explanatory. Nevertheless, it is almost the same thing we are saying.

Thanks.

so I have the very same simple questions for you. Why can't a man submit instead?

Why must it be a woman submitting and not a man submitting?

CaveAdullam:


1. You got good points here, maneuvering through it to arrive at the explanation you are trying to make is not easy. It is more like a nuanced post, however, twisted as your choice of words didn't do full justice/conflated the whole issue, thereby making it seem as if the post is telling something else.

2. Submission can only be demonstrated by one person or people to another of higher authority. When women are submissive and respect their husbands or spouses, love and care will certainly flow to them from who they accord respect and honor.

3. Women's submissiveness is the input while men's love and care are the output in regards to that input. Since it is men that are bringing a commitment to the table, which is the final seal of any sexual relationship, it is expedient that the input takes place first.

4. Commitment is power; it encapsulates the desires of a woman, hence, she is submissive towards it. Submissiveness is not because the woman is weak, irrelevant, or dumb. It is an action that shows that she recognizes the importance of commitment.

5. The term: submissiveness shouldn't be exchanged for the two. One must be submissive for the other to rule efficiently and the one that holds the mantle of leadership should recognize the one that stands behind helping in whatever possible way.

6. Submissiveness can be abused by the leader or withheld by the follower, the same way love and care can be abused by followers or withheld by the leader. And this can happen as a result of many factors, howbeit, hypergamy and male promiscuity are the pioneers of such factors.

7. So, when a leader and a follower are in a union, being submissive should only be used for the follower as there can't be a show of submissiveness by both sides. Instead, love and kindness.

PS: This is just me trying to make your points more explanatory. Nevertheless, it is almost the same thing we are saying.

Thanks.

Thank you!

Straight forward with no confusion whatsoever.

Kobojunkie:
so I have the very same simple questions for you. Why can't a man submit instead?

Why must it be a woman submitting and not a man submitting?

A man can submit, as long as you're the full provider and also responsible to lead and protect your family in times of danger, but then that goes against the problem that you are also the nurturer, It means you are carrying 2 people's responsibility which is not fair on you.

1. So it means you will be working to provide, while you will also be a nurturer and the carrier of babies who also goes through the 9 months process that would be repeated many times depending on number of kids.

2. The man can do chores, but house chores is not the point of focus because taking care of kids requires more than chores.

Do you truthfully want to handle both?

Please do not quote me with Bible Verses, I take God beg you, Please!

truthsayer009:
▪︎A man can submit, as long as you're the full provider and also responsible to lead and protect your family in times of danger, but then that goes against the problem that you are also the nurturer, It means you are carrying 2 people's responsibility which is not fair on you.

1. So it means you will be working to provide, while you will also be a nurturer and the carrier of babies who also goes through the 9 months process that would be repeated many times depending on number of kids.

2. The man can do chores, but house chores is not the point of focus because taking care of kids requires more than chores.

1. But many woman already do exactly what you described and more, so why are the same women to submit to men? Why can't a man submit to men instead?

2. Taking care of kids requires more than chores?

Is submissions simply about the doing of chores?

Kobojunkie:
1. But many woman already do exactly what you described and more, so why are the same women to submit to men? Why can't a man submit to men instead?

2. Taking care of kids requires more than chores?

Is submissions simply about the doing of chores?

1. Yes, but i can guarantee you 100% that those women despise their husband and don't submit to them in any way. No woman willingly submits to a man who doesn't provide and protect his family or a dead beat father. NONE.

You can quote me any where about this.

2. Taking care of kids requires more than chores, it requires your full attention.

A. Picking them from school, or dropping them off? B. making sure their homework is done? C. checking on them to ensure they are safe? D. Ensuring medical checkups are done regularly?

I know the word submission is making you angry, there is nothing I can do about it. Sorry.

My job is to explain which I have done.

truthsayer009:
1. Yes, but i can guarantee you 100% that those women despise their husband and don't submit to them in any way. No woman willingly submits to a man who doesn't provide and protect his family or a dead beat father. NONE. You can quote me any where about this.

2. Taking care of kids requires more than chores, it requires your full attention.

A. Picking them from school, or dropping them off? B. making sure their homework is done? C. checking on them to ensure they are safe? D. Ensuring medical checkups are done regularly?

3. I know the word submission is making you angry, there is nothing I can do about it. Sorry.My job is to explain which I have done.

1. So what you are invariably saying is that submission does not work as a bonding option in all marriages then?

2. Ok, so why can't a man equally do all that for his own kids?

3. I suggest you don't quit your day job yet cause you don't seem to have talents for mind reading.

Why can't a man submit instead to his woman? Why must a woman be the one to submit?

Kobojunkie:
1. So what you are invariably saying is that submission does not work as a bonding option in all marriages then?

2. Ok, so why can't again can't a man equally do that and more?

3. I suggest you don't quit your day job yet cause you don't seem to have talents for mind reading.

Why can't a man submit instead to his woman? Why must a woman be the one to submit?

Alright I have answered you enough.

Cheers.

Kobojunkie:

Alexander Pope - a very wise man opined in a poem "that a little learning is a dangerous thing"! This is evident in all your posts on this thread thus far. Every single person that tried to engage you get the same line of rigid closed-mind defense. You quote and misinterpret bible verses to suit your skewed narrative and constantly refuse to re-examine your views to give room for a more qualitative debate. Not like I care if reflect or not, but having to read the exact same mundane question (that was answered variously) over and over again is sickening. And if your defense is that nobody has given you the answer you wish to get, then it will suggest that people engaging you don't suffer the dementia you seem to have to keep addressing the same stupid question repeatedly.

I must admit that I like how annoying you are with this your disposition because it is really bemusing to say the least. What's more, I see how you appear to be too clever by half because to open-minded people, your points might make plain sense. However, an intelligent mind can easily see through all of it as shitty bullshit laced with logical fallacies and errors in analogy. Let me answer the question you've been regurgitating in the same colour of your madness with this simple analogy below.

Electricity requires a positive and negative charge to switch on a light bulb. Similarly, men and women are different and the man is definitely the positive line (outside God, everything on earth was created for/by and around a man). So, "how come some (effeminate) men submit to their wives". That is because you can choose to switch the colour of the lines or even use the same colour of wire and it will still work. However, one MUST still be positive while the other negative. Two positives will cause disaster while two negatives wont produce light. Let's be mad together!

I usually wont comment on a thread if it wont appear on the front page but, I had to make this exception to challenge the OP to ask himself if he can cope with the likes of you and your contentiousness every time and everyday that he will have to relate and/or live in the same space with you... therein lies his answer.

What's tha business?

No matter how pretty or sexy, I personally see feminists as men... the unpleasant men! And I treat them as such with no regards, no chivalry of any kind and will only relate with them if I cant avoid to - in a strict formal way (after all, that's what they demand for, right?).

Today's feminists aren't about fairness in the struggle for access to opportunities and the reward system of the society. As soon as a man enters the picture, a feminist's competitive mode switches RED on - a problem will definitely arise unless she gets her way even if she doesn't make sense! Countries with 5times Nigeria's population don't have as many poor people as Nigeria, however the feminist's emotional brain has already transmuted a feminist agenda into an existential threat as can be seen up there.

That we should stop having kids... very funny! However, it is her body and she will sleep with whomever, wherever and whenever even if you will find out about it!

What kinda woman will tell you that she cant cook for you and the children (her children) because she is not your maid - food that she will also eat o.

She cant groom her kids or clean her house because she is not your slave (a word they love to misuse in their defense).

She wants to breastfeed the (her) child for 3months or less because she wants to preserve her body and return to submitting to another man at her office (boss).

When it comes to childbirth, she will specifically insist on CS not because there is any issue or complications against natural birth.
Because she has slept with so many men, she has lost the ability to pair-bond and so, it doesn't register on her head to care about bonding with you or the child.

When a feminist tells you she loves you, it means "you should be glad that I chose to identify with you" (because I know I can ride on you). Stop providing that service or benefit she's getting from you and you'll see what her "I love you" truly means.

It is crazy what some weak men put up with mehn (unfortunately, there will always be a supply of such effeminate men raised by toxic single women)... I cant deal or ever consider that normal.

What's tha business?

DirtyGold:

Alexander Pope - a very wise man opined in a poem "that a little learning is a dangerous thing"! This is evident in all your posts on this thread thus far. Every single person that tried to engage you get the same line of rigid closed-mind defense. You quote and misinterpret bible verses to suit your skewed narrative and constantly refuse to re-examine your views to give room for a more qualitative debate. Not like I care if reflect or not, but having to read the exact same mundane question (that was answered variously) over and over again is sickening. And if your defense is that nobody has given you the answer you wish to get, then it will suggest that people engaging you don't suffer the dementia you seem to have to keep addressing the same stupid question repeatedly.

I must admit that I like how annoying you are with this your disposition because it is really bemusing to say the least. What's more, I see how you appear to be too clever by half because to open-minded people, your points might make plain sense. However, an intelligent mind can easily see through all of it as shitty bullshit laced with logical fallacies and errors in analogy. Let me answer the question you've been regurgitating in the same colour of your madness with this simple analogy below.

Electricity requires a positive and negative charge to switch on a light bulb. Similarly, men and women are different and the man is definitely the positive line (outside God, everything on earth was created for/by and around a man). So, "how come some (effeminate) men submit to their wives". That is because you can choose to switch the colour of the lines or even use the same colour of wire and it will still work. However, one MUST still be positive while the other negative. Two positives will cause disaster while two negatives wont produce light. Let's be mad together!

I usually wont comment on a thread if it wont appear on the front page but, I had to make this exception to challenge the OP to ask himself if he can cope with the likes of you and your contentiousness every time and everyday that he will have to relate and/or live in the same space with you... therein lies his answer.

What's tha business?

Notable read

DirtyGold:
No matter how pretty or sexy, I personally see feminists as men... the unpleasant men! And I treat them as such with no regards, no chivalry of any kind and will only relate with them if I cant avoid to - in a strict formal way (after all, that's what they demand for, right?).

Today's feminists aren't about fairness in the struggle for access to opportunities and the reward system of the society. As soon as a man enters the picture, a feminist's competitive mode switches RED on - a problem will definitely arise unless she gets her way even if she doesn't make sense! Countries with 5times Nigeria's population don't have as many poor people as Nigeria, however the feminist's emotional brain has already transmuted a feminist agenda into an existential threat as can be seen up there.

That we should stop having kids... very funny! However, it is her body and she will sleep with whomever, wherever and whenever even if you will find out about it!

What kinda woman will tell you that she cant cook for you and the children (her children) because she is not your maid - food that she will also eat o.

She cant groom her kids or clean her house because she is not your slave (a word they love to misuse in their defense).

She wants to breastfeed the (her) child for 3months or less because she wants to preserve her body and return to submitting to another man at her office (boss).

When it comes to childbirth, she will specifically insist on CS not because there is any issue or complications against natural birth.
Because she has slept with so many men, she has lost the ability to pair-bond and so, it doesn't register on her head to care about bonding with you or the child.

When a feminist tells you she loves you, it means "you should be glad that I chose to identify with you" (because I know I can ride on you). Stop providing that service or benefit she's getting from you and you'll see what her "I love you" truly means.

It is crazy what some weak men put up with mehn (unfortunately, there will always be a supply of such effeminate men raised by toxic single women)... I cant deal or ever consider that normal.

What's tha business?

I couldn't agree more

DirtyGold:
1. However, one MUST still be positive while the other negative. Two positives will cause disaster while two negatives wont produce light. Let's be mad together!

I usually wont comment on a thread if it wont appear on the front page but, I had to make this exception to challenge the OP to ask himself if he can cope with the likes of you and your contentiousness every time and everyday that he will have to relate and/or live in the same space with you... therein lies his answer.

What's tha business?

1. I think the fact that the union that is marriage also implies an agreement between a man and a woman already more than covers as far as your negative and positive analogy. My question does not center around that at all since just as you are admit, a man is just as able to submit much as a woman is.

The other stopped short of admitting that submission is not meant for all marriages. What do you think of this?

2. You deride men who submit in marriage as thoughts suggest the act an insult, why ? Why must it be the woman doing the submitting and not the man?,

Kobojunkie:
so I have the very same simple questions for you. Why can't a man submit instead?

Why must it be a woman submitting and not a man submitting?

Because men and women are not EQUAL!

And that when it comes to the intersexual dynamics, COMMITMENT IS THE FINAL SEAL, and it is men that own commitment. Men can fvck different women without committing, and women can fvck different men without gaining commitment. It is the men that commit that are the real deal for women because they will get taken care of till death, and these men are their retirement plans.

In leadership, men are the true leaders and are more pragmatic, rational, and logical than women. History books are scattered in all libraries, you can read some. Yeah, I know of Cleopatra, Amina, etc. But if you look within, these women's powers were a result of the foundation laid by men.

Thanks.

efficiencie:


Feminists believe men and women are EXACTLY EQUAL. So if you marry a feminist you are not the head of the house; she is not going to submit to you and she will have absolute control over her time, body and money just as you do. She decides how many children she wants because it's her body and it's her choice. She is not going to be your cook. She will not be your cleaner and she will not be your assistant. She has absolute control over how she dresses and how she presents herself. She is not subject to you, her husband, in any way. A nanny will raise your kids for you because she will be busy with her career and education. Her standards are high performance, ultra intelligent and accomplished men and she will not sleep or rest until she beats that standard. You will forever be a beta male to her because the alphas are her standard and her ultimate ambition is to beat the alpha males to become the supreme alpha female.

Marry a feminist at your own risk!

Exact description!