₦airaland Forum

Where's Pocohantas my Woke-Christian sista. Come and flex more muscle for me.

Bala Ciroma is a refined officer, but the news is fake. Unfortunately, peradventure he gets the post in the future, the banana pill may be too slippery for him to overcome.

No, provided that you aren't acting from the place of egoism/self-absorption and pride/conceit. Conscientiousness is golden.

Life becomes a lot easier and meaningful always whenever one bases their condition of associating closely with others on mutual ethical leanings rather than conventional dictation.

Barrister Kingdom Okere is after something most of you don't know, he's learning the rope very fast, so it doesn't matter whether or not he wins the electoral case.

Mariangeles:
Is that like a frat?
I do mind.

I don't think you've what it takes to be a full member, at least not at the moment. It's actually a decentralized non-religious and non-organizational Order, its name notwithstanding, so it's not a frat too.

Mariangeles:
Oh...

Do you mind being a member or are you already a member of satellite campus?

Mariangeles:
So you sabi find trouble like this...?

Trouble ke! What you called trouble is actually called "light gospel" in our Order.

pocohantas:
Better stop fornicating, this one conscience is biting you. Judgement day will be straight to hell.

No need for me to de boda, as I get sista like you from Woke-Christian wey go dey for gate of heaven, na ihm be say heaven sure for me. Na because I get sista like you for Woke-Christian, na ihm make I no wan join any conventional religion.

pocohantas:
Trying so hard how? We done follow go church before? Find your fellow (woke) christians biko. I am not one of you.

See as you wan try pull muscle for me. LOL.

Stay safe.

pocohantas:
I didn’t say you ain’t entitled to yours. You are not pitying me, just keep me out of your assumptions and inference. I am sure you have never seen me in your church or any church.

Thank you!

Whenever I see you trying so hard to . . . I just laugh. Anyway, as always, anything for you as ma sista wey you be.

UjuJoan2:


I'm not worried about scripture quoters..

Even Jesus Christ was judged for having his own interpretation of the scriptures.

Na ma correct sista wey you be. LOL.

pocohantas:
Biko o, no mention me for una nonsense Christianity talk. I have never told you I am a christian let alone a woke one.

Na my own mind I type. If the shoe fits, by all means wear it.

The only person who's always entitled to her own opinion but others aren't entitled to theirs. Make I pity you sha . . . keep quiet though.

bukatyne:
LordKO,

I sincerely hope NEVER to be a member.

Amen.

If only you knew that pleasure abounds in our Order; a trial may convince you.

bukatyne:
Hmmmmm so true.



I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You'll not make a good member of the Order.

solite3:
You shouldn't even mention God neither the bible, It is clear you don't give a damn about God neither his word.
By their fruit they shall be known.

when you are not ready to obey God, the Spirit of lies is waiting to do the interpretation.

Micah 2:11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.

Jeremiah 23:26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

Don't mind Ujujoan. She and I, including Pocohantas and some others too numerous to mention, are members of an Order offhandedly called "Woke-Christian." Actually, we don't belong and practice the same Christianity people like you and Bukatyne practice, even though some do identify as true Christians and some others do not identify with any religion.

In our Order, majority enjoy exercising liberty on the periphery of decorum but still feel entitled to enjoy the benefits true Christians who exercise their own liberty within the confine of decorum enjoy, unfortunately minority members are opposing such idea thus the quasi-fracas you have witnessed here. Anyway, we are doing everything possible to put our house in order.

One who stirs up a hornet's nest is called a preacher in the Order. As a preacher, my goading word is submission; whenever I intentionally wish to stir up a hornet's nest, I look for where someone drops it and fuel a fracas by dissecting and extrapolating it in accordance with the rules of the Order.

UjuJoan2:
The marriage we are discussing is Christian marriage, not based on ethics but based on the scriptures.

So if we are referring to Christian love and Christian submission, then only grace from God can give both man and woman the ability to live the life required in a marriage.

You are mixing up a whole lot of concepts and confusing yourself. Ethics does not require laying down your life for your wife, but Christian marriage does.

Again I say, choose a side and stick to it. Stop running all over the place trying to prove a pointless point. I know it negates all that you are as a man to acknowledge that you can learn something from a woman, albeit inferior. The fact that you refer to yourself as a 'Lord' gives me an insight as to the kind of person you are. That's why you say with one breath that submission is selflessness, and say with the other that it's feminine and too derogatory to use for a man.

Get over yourself already biko . . .

Your delusion of persecution is an open secret, which is obviously occasioned by conceit and egoism - low self-esteem is a bad thing.

And stop projecting your mental parochial husband towards me or "Nairaland men" who, according to you in your deluded mind, equate servility to submissiveness/virtuousness; two of you fit each other - crass and expedient elements.

Maybe, you can now see that no one person has monopoly of toxicity - conscientiousness is golden. Learn to exercise your liberty within the confines of decorum. Grace is a product of ethics, by the way, and for your small mind you're more Christian than I might have ever been.

I remain a proud egalitarian.

UjuJoan2:
I'm not confused about the type of love under discussion, we are talking about love in a marriage, not even erotic love, but the kind of love Jesus described when he said men should love their wives the way he loves the church.

Now Jesus gave up his life for the Church, even while we were yet sinners. Do you think every 'sane' man has the capacity to love his wife so? Without grace?

A sane man doesn't automatically equate to good husband, just as a sane woman doesn't automatically equate to good wife. So, I refer you to one of my previous posts where I stated that not all men have the attributes of love, just as not all women have the attributes of submission; this by extension means that not all men have the capacity to love their wives, same also as not all women have the capacity to be submissive to their husbands.

Meanwhile, one doesn't automatically need "grace" to love his wife; one's ethical leanings will always determine his capacity to love or otherwise.

In summary, mutual healthy marriage is for men and women who're of strong ethical leanings, regardless of their belief systems. Oneness remains the soul of marriage, and there can't be oneness where there's no mutual altruism - conscientiousness is constant.

UjuJoan2:
So it all boils down to biology right?? You see why I say the premise is flawed?

Have you ever met someone who is truly incapable of loving someone else. Not because he or she doesn't want to, but they 'cannot'. Does such a person not deserve to be loved? To understand that of a person and love them anyway is the true unconditional love.

To be able to love selflessly takes grace. The grace that comes only from God. Not every man is blessed with such grace.

Every sane human being loves other human beings unconditionally. However, it's one thing to love someone, but it's an entire different thing to fall in love with that same person and stay in love with the same person.

Don't mistake countable love for uncountable love, or agape love for marital and erotic love.

Love is ambiguous, don't forget.

UjuJoan2:
Again, I need to understand why submission is feminine. And love is not masculine?

LOL. Don't tell me that you don't know the unspoken law of mutuality; both love and submission are products of goodness, so for mutuality to take place in goodness it breeds love and submission - biological necessities. In order words, the same way we've male and female is the same reason why love is masculine, and submission is feminine. Once more, neither of them is superior to each other - yet equality doesn't negate leadership.

UjuJoan2:
Okay, so submission is NOW a compound word? Lol. I told you to just find another word biko. Don't change the meaning of a word using anectodes and baseless analogies.

In any case, if submission has humility and selflessness as it's constituents that means a man is also honour bound to be submissive to the wife, just like a wife is bound to love her husband.

The Bible says a man should love his wife, does that mean a woman's role is NOT to love?

So also, a woman being submissive doesn't mean a man should not be either.

A boss's authority is of course as it relates to then job, not by ethical or moral standards. And a man is not ethically superior to the wife just because she is a woman.

Submission just like love (countable love) has neither been a feeling nor a stand-alone word - of course, their end products breed good feelings. And like I also said before, submission is an equal variant of love - a man cannot love you without being conscientious at least in his dealings with you and having altruistic interest in you. Love isn't a woman's forte, submission is because it's feminine. Love (man) isn't superior to submission (woman), and vice versa - yet equality doesn't mean absence of leadership.

But then I understand where you're coming from citing what you said transpired between you and your hubby - but don't forget that that shouldn't be standard.

Truth is that not all women possess the attributes of submission, same as not all men possess attributes of love.

UjuJoan2:
Submission - the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.

So you see why I said you need to find another word for what you are describing. Maybe humility, or respectful. Not submission.

It's okay to submit to a boss because he or she is your superior. But 'submitting' to a spouse because he got biologically lucky (not because he is actually superior) is where I have a problem.

Ujujoan, don't tell me that your boss is superior to your husband. A boss is only superior to their subordinates within the ethics of responsibility, not ethics of conviction. You don't owe your boss ethics of conviction which you owe your husband, and vice versa - ethic of conviction is superior to ethic of responsibility. In fact, a gold collar professional only accepts mutual ethics of responsibility - it's only blue and white collar job holders that observe non-mutual ethics of responsibility.

Meanwhile, submission is a compound word, just like the action love which is its equal variant, it's encompassing and almost meaningless without its constituents (selflessness, humility, etc goodness in general).

UjuJoan2:
Semantics . . . .

Why not find a word for what you are describing, rather than using 'submission'.

You can't change the meaning of a word based on wishful thinking.

LOL, I've observed that most women don't like to hear the word "submission."

UjuJoan2:
No, you jumped to conclusion without cause. Just agree that you erred!



Submission is actually same as servility, at least in literal terms. Which is why I said I don't think submission is a sign of love.

Marriage is a partnership. You should never imagine because your wife is a woman you know better or she ought to defer to you. Being strategic in decision making has absolutely nothing to do with gender. If truly, one's intention is the progress of this family, then common sense dictates that the one who is more strategic should defer to the other, irrespective of gender.

This means that a man can as well be submissive in a marriage, nothing says it has to be the woman.

If men are truly objective and not carried away by their ego, they would understand that a woman being docile and 'submissive' doesn't mean she loves you. And when a woman pushes to get things done her way, because she knows it's the best option, that doesn't mean she doesn't love you.

Foremost, my dissection/extrapolation as I mentioned isn't about your personality , no, it was about your postulation OK.

Meanwhile, submission can't be the same thing as servility, instead it's an equal variant of love - submission and love both have altruism and deference as core components:

- Marriage isn't partnership, however spouses in marriage are partners.

- Submission doesn't negate liberty, it simply entails exercising liberty within the confines of decorum. A submissive woman can't be docile rather she's fair-minded. So, a fair-minded wife is automatically a submissive wife.

- Contentiousness in contrast to submission negates decorum and exercises liberty outside the limit of decorum, while still feels entitled to the benefits of submission which operates within the confines of decorum.

- Servility on the other hand isn't entitled to liberty at all, it's all about kowtowing. It takes a servile woman to be docile.

UjuJoan2:
No, you jumped to conclusion without cause. Just agree that you erred!

As ma sister wey you be, let me agree on your behalf dat you erred - agree to disagree.

UjuJoan2:
I can't tell if you are being mischievous by drawing conclusions and making inferences that in no way reflect what I said or mean (or even think).

In any case, I don't think submission is a variant of love so the whole premise of your comment is flawed.

Just agree that you erred. To err is human . . . I only dissected and extrapolated your postulation.

UjuJoan2:
Not Nairaland men oh. Ha!

They want a woman to earn more and cater more but remain submissive. That's only when she can earn the price of being called a virtuous woman.

Since submission is an equal variant of love - I know that they simply differ in names and applications due to biological necessities - you inversely said:

- That a man who makes money more than his wife shouldn't treat her with love (goodness).

- That a woman shouldn't be considered resourceful and reasonable if she doesn't earn money directly.

- That a man should always block any means his wife can use succeed in her pursuits so that she won't make more money than him and become a thorn in his flesh.

What a mentality - submission shouldn't be mistaken for servility! That you postulated can't sustain a mutual healthy marriage because it lacks altruism. Altruism remains the soul of oneness, and there can't be mutual healthy marriage where there's no oneness.

The reason most marriages haven't been able to stand the test of time or have been in shambles isn't far-fetched.

Anyway, I'm only sorry for men who aren't resourceful, discerning and established, and those who don't see the value of women beyond their material/physical possessions.

A virtuous/an aristocratic woman has no rival - whether or not she earns money, she'll still be herself. Whenever I see a conscientious woman automatically I see an aristocratic/a virtuous woman, whether or not she proclaims it.

ImaIma1:
Falling in love with your friend is awesome and makes life and marriage easier.

I am a beneficiary of this

So ImaIma1 wey I de mobilize my village people to come follow me go and pay her bride price tomorrow don marry finish.

Balderdash! Excellence doesn't automatically breed contentiousness. So, an aristocratic woman will never turn bad just because she's better than her husband in some areas of life, and a man who'll only feel respected when he's better than his wife in everything, illusorily or realistically, simply has low self-esteem.

Unfortunately, your husband is a crass and expedient man - crass and expedient people and subjugation are inseparable because nothing else gives them joy more than when they subjugate anyone close to them or anyone they can, all because of their low self-esteem/delusions of persecution and egoism/self-absorption. As a fair-minded woman, citing your submission here, you shouldn't have married him in the first place because two of you aren't of the same ethical leanings. 

Anyway, one of the most effective ways to put him where he belongs, if you don't want to remain perpetually subjugable to him, is to give him a dose of his own toxic. Of course, that will result to mutual open enmity between two of you, so it entails that you do some formal and legal arrangements to restrain him from meting out any heinous act against you before embarking on your action, else he'll snuff your life through physical combat and otherwise. 

Alternatively, consider to drop the idea of buying the said property from your friend, regardless of how enticing the offer may be and also keep your savings away from your husband and demand fairness from him, henceforth, if he wants peace to reign in the union; to show his readiness for mutual fairness, he has to start by reverting the previous grievous but amendable mistakes he had already made, like putting your name in any of the previous properties he acquired without your name. If he'll be ready to embrace fairness, in both words and actions, give him your best in everything always, because fair enabled peace is priceless.

Bitter truth, he'll not change for good, instead, he may change from an open enemy - crass and expedient person - to a frenemy - hypocritical disingenuous person. Attribute can't be changed, only attitude can be changed - he's exhibiting his attribute not an attitude. Personally, I'd say either give him a dose of his own medicine the way you may deem fit or resign your fate and take to perpetual servitude, after all, some people do derive pleasure from being subjugable.

Marry an expedient woman at your own peril.

Your father is a narcissist - your biased disposition as your submission connotes notwithstanding. In fact, his obvious narcissistic personality and your biased disposition have already made it a little difficult to know whether or not his allegation against your mother is correct - anyway his quasi-lack of sense of responsibility shows that he isn't the only one with a draining weakness in that union/family.

All the same, the best way to neutralize toxicity of a narcissist is meting out carefree attitude against him/her continually, while still giving your best - although carefreeness is best implemented from a physical distance.

More kudos to the Inculcator General of the Federation.