Sixfeetbelle:


Feminism is not saying you shouldn't get married. Feminism is saying you should be an independent person, not relying on a man for things you should be able to give yourself.

Please understand the difference.

Sixfeetbelle:


Feminism is not saying you shouldn't get married. Feminism is saying you should be an independent person, not relying on a man for things you should be able to give yourself.

Please understand the difference.

plusfield:

I once had this conversation with an American feminist and I saw that their idea of feminism is TOTALLY different from what Nigerian females mouth as feminism. Infact, she went on to berate and denigrate feminists in Nigeria as being a confused lot.
Do you know that as a true feminist, she wouldnt allow a man pay for a meal for her. She wont allow a man even grant her any favours because she's a woman.
But Nigerian feminists are the opposite. They claim independent when it favours them and still insult men when they dont confer any favours or advantage to them as women.

onlyfacts:


You can't be a feminist and be married, that's double standard. Folks abroad are now realizing it.

Please if you have the time watch this 2 mins 48 seconds video from the Guardian news UK to see reasons why.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRYzl6o0xks

Sixfeetbelle:


That's their own cup of tea. Different terms for different people.

My own understanding and beliefs will allow marriage and still make it wonderful. That most men are against feminism doesn't mean that all are.

Ps: I did not watch the video. One person's argument about it makes no difference for me.

onlyfacts:


Of cause we can agree to disagree.

my reasoning though is along the lines of objectivity.
Feminism can only have one true meaning, same also as it applies to marriage. It can't have multiple meanings hence what we practice isn't truly feminism but something else of our own invention, which in my opinion should be properly named.

Sixfeetbelle:


What I meant by my initial comment is that feminism has types and it's broader than just "women being independent". It involves so much more. Same way sexuality is not only just two types, but encompasses a whole lot of other types.

There are extreme cases of feminism that won't support marriage no matter how understanding the husband is. It just won't work. But there are other "softer" types that allows a woman to run the house along with the husband who is understanding of the situation. It requires a man who's not too "bound" to traditional roles as dictated by the society. An "exposed" man, if you'd please.

The problem most people have with making it work is when the wife steps over the line or when the man switches to a more traditional mode of running a home.

onlyfacts:


I get your points and the angle you are approaching this.

But that notion has its flaws. Feminism came in waves (not types) to be precise. Though you can say it, if we aren't being too technical.

First wave had it's goals, same as second, third and now fourth. Each wave cancelled out the previous ones and their meaning.

Due to this feminism is an ever evolving concept but it's evolution is based on the wave. Radical feminist are majorly third and fourth wave feminist. Maybe your type is second wave feminism but that concept of feminism is now outdated with third and fourth wave concepts of feminism.

This I wanted to bring to your notice hence my objection to any loose term being called feminism or the feminist movement now. It's either third wave or the current emerging fourth wave feminism.

Sixfeetbelle:


Okay.

So what's your point exactly?

onlyfacts:


Of cause we can agree to disagree.

my reasoning though is along the lines of objectivity.
Feminism can only have one true meaning, same also as it applies to marriage. It can't have multiple meanings hence what we practice isn't truly feminism but something else of our own invention, which in my opinion should be properly named.

Magnoliaa:


If two lesbians decided to stay together for eternity replacing every single patriarchal elements and objects in a lavish ceremony and traditions, customs, etc., with women and 'feminine'/humanistic trifles and are feminists in a first world -- would that count as marriage?

What single, true meaning does marriage have? Who defined it -- naturally, culturally or divinely? And why does it matter?

Nazgul:

We weren't talking about a lot of divorced women...we narrowed the discussion to getting married as a feminist which I replied that you're most likely not to experience happiness cos a lot of men would be pissed of with her feminist attitude.

Divorce and unhappiness exist and will continue to exist in marriages...being a feminist is one of the numerous vehicles that will ensure you experience it.

onlyfacts:


There is a divine standard for marriage, also a standard for traditional as well as secular marriages. They aren't all one and the same, the real question though is which came first?

For divine standard of marriage, it involves two adult Male and female coming under divine oath to be a family and even raise one too.

For cultural marriage, it also involves two or more adult Male(s) and female(s) coming under traditional rites to be a family and raise one too.

For secular marriage, it either involves two adults irrespective of gender or even an adult and an object coming under constitutional laws to be a family and to raise one too.

Now religion is as old as man, of which the Bible's standard is the most adopted. So I'll say marriage as an institution set up by God as found in the bible has the greatest merit out of all forms of it being practiced today.

onlyfacts:

You can read the bible for yourself and see if the idea of feminism can be applied to a biblical marriage and its requirements.

To outline them:
the bible states that man should LOVE his wife as he LOVES himself, while a wife should in turn SUBMIT or have a DEEP RESPECT for her husband.


the bible states that man is the HEAD of the family(while stating that the man should not LORD himself over the wife but do so in reasonableness), and not the man and wife being HEADS of the family. It says it's a union of two people where one is the head and the other the helper and not an equal partnership.

Those are the two obvious ones from the bible, contrary to the feminism ideology of equality of the sexes in marriage.

In addition, you can view this video that explains why you can't be a feminist and be married and why it's double standard. It touches on other aspect, traditional/cultural and even secular too.

it's a 2 mins 48 seconds video from the Guardian news UK to see reasons why.

Ps: the reasons given in it may have nothing to do with biblical marriage but more of societal or cultural


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRYzl6o0xks

Magnoliaa:


- Feminism extends beyond focus of marriage. So, yeah, there are aspects of it that fits into a biblical model.
- If you're telling me that the Biblical model for marriage is based on inequality and the subordination of women, then and only then will I agree that it is incompatible with feminism.
( - Where in the Bible are men called to oppress, beat, deny, discriminate, hold back and hold sexist notions about women?)
On submission
Ephesians 5:21-33 is a blueprint for a Christian household, so you can't interpret any verse outside of its relation to others. In addition, you can't explain any chapter or book of the Bible as solely existing, without referencing and juxtaposing with other (previous) chapters/books. (Jesus said He did not come to bring peace; said He came to give us abundant life; He said we'll have tribulations and be persecuted in life; also said we have authority and can reign as kings in life — are all these contradictions and confusions?)
The Bible has never commanded men to abuse power and lord over anybody, instead the theme you'll find when studying verses having to do with authority and obedience is balance. Balance from INFORMED people, who are thoroughly subjected to God Himself. Submission (and how you're trying to frame it here) as the (sole) prerogative of the woman doesn't stand when you consider instances of biblical and present-day Christian women leading and living full lives. If they are doing so successfully, and charged to be submissive, then that submission has nothing at all to do with causing a stunted growth in the humanity of women — in contrast to what culture has rendered women: financially, morally, socially, psychologically, etc., caged.
'Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.'
This is a command to everybody. Unless the "subject" up there and the "subject" in 'Wives, be subject to your husbands...' carry different meanings, husbands will also at a point come to be subjected to their wives, people around them. While I believe there's a reason both sexes are commanded to give different things, it doesn't preclude them from wanting what they are told to give (i.e., wives desiring respect and husbands desiring love).
- Co-piloting/captaining/comparable helpmeet: I'll summarize my stance on this as regards to the two heads, bosses thingy: A pilot cannot have a mechanic on board with him; a doctor cannot have a food vendor in the operating room next to him. The only people they can have beside them is a person of equal knowledge, ability, experience, etc., (since they are CO-.) So a marriage cannot run smoothly when you have a woman who is beneath and isn't everything the man is. Of course there are TWO heads (a female opposite of a male sailor and pilot) in actuality, but you seem to be factoring an automatic struggle because husbands and wives are equally aware, when it's simply about making mutual decisions. A person cannot be a COMPARABLE HELPMEET if they are not like you are and possess the same things you own. A person that do not know cannot fill in (and if you say you'll teach and mold them, then they cease to be a natural meet). The friction you're expecting to happen would only be because of an absence of respect, love, value, compromise (which men are seriously lacking in if you're honest) -- not because of the equality of the couples. They are simply lacking in interpersonal skills, it's not because they are two full humans. What you're defining is 'two heads' WHO clashes. There is nothing disproving the possibility of 'two heads' that work seamlessly.
-
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them... And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

You should change your view on what equality means, and what being in Christ means if you think women are sub- in God's eyes and made simply to exist in men's shadows.
PS: do you know that Adam and Eve didn't do a wedding, paid bride price (or some shit) and didn't hassle about husband's surname is this or that?? Didn't even wear white/black symbolizing purity/corruption (and the rest of those things in the video you posted)? So, I'm going to spin your points around and for myself, claim that Adam and Eve's marriage actually is greatest example of equality in marriage. Feminism rejects those patriarchal bits; Eve's marriage doesn't hold any of those patriarchal bits and baggage.
That 'first' marriage doesn't hold any cultural undertones and influences. None whatsoever. So? Is that not a kind of marriage in which the woman is completely free?

onlyfacts:

...and the wife "SHOULD HAVE DEEP RESPECT OR submit wholeheartedly" to her husband.
There is a reason those two major points are stressed for husband and wife out of all the others. In case you havent thought of it ask yourself, why is God's key address for husbands in marriage to LOVE their wives as themselves? And why is God's key address to wives in marriage to DEEPLY RESPECT or SUBMIT to their husbands?

So back to topic,

As regards the TWO HEADS, the bible clears that too. 1 Corinthians 11:3. Its states the head of a woman is the man. It doesnt support your motion of TWO HEADS, I'm sorry to say this - but TWO HEADS is a secular concept, can never be biblical.

Adam and Eve had a wedding or what did you think the poetry in Genesis 2:23,24 was about? I know you were joking

So in conclusion if you want to go the TRUE CHRISTIAN WAY, embrace women's rights, be pro-women (I technically didn't want to use feminism, its not exactly the same thing) in areas like work, school, in the society to get what you deserve but in the context of marriage - leave it out, it doesnt hold up according to the bible. I hope by now you understand that is not oppression but God's way of doing his thing.

I hope this msg meets you well.

Magnoliaa:


I also capitalized the first part of the quoted, for emphasis. Submission/deep respect are used interchangeably. Now what that mean is out of the way...

I don't wish to go into what God commanded couples to do in marriage and its reasons — that's for me to deliberate on.



I meant two heads in its natural, literal sense since the examples you were bringing were about two bosses, pilots and captains and all... A board of directors analogy or a company 'co-founded' by two budding university students I think fits in this case rather than the VP/CEO example. There's still a power imbalance embedded in the latter. Doesn't fit a marriage model. As for the Bible verse, in any case, no matter how it's interpreted, transliterated or subjected to theological methodology by both liberal and conservative Christians, one thing is evident: it doesn't speak of a sub- nature of woman.

Now, though, the misinterpretations, etc., seemingly gender-specific Bible passages have been subjected to and used to keep women in check is another issue. There are far-reaching consequences resulting from the misapplication of such verses.

I don't have the time to go into details too—on you saying equality only matter in other places except in the home and church.




Adam and Eve did no wedding such as the ones we have now... In our culture and age, what they had wouldn't fit into the description of a wedding...



Anyhow @ bolded. I do not see any distinction.

And surely a feminist can be married... It's left for her to define and decide/navigate the factors between biblical and cultural "realities" she wants to manifest in her life and marriage.

PS: I get most or some of all the rest of what you're saying and so I cut them out.

onlyfacts:



As for the fourth point, like I said embrace women's right, be pro-women, I am too but you have FREE WILL and you can be a feminist but keep abreast with all it entails.

Magnoliaa:


More like what its fundamental and basic, core concepts entail... It's individuals that identify as feminists.

onlyfacts:


I read this too. Can't say i really grasp all you wanted to relay but for most part I get the broader message. You are following the movement as a feminist

Magnoliaa:


You said, "keeping abreast with all it entails." As if suggesting that my (every) action, decision, etc., must be in tandem and synchronized with every feminist('s) act, etc., out there. That's what you're saying?

I mean the basic tenets of feminism is what stands. Individuals identify with the movement, and so their behaviors cannot pass all the time for what is feminist or not.

onlyfacts:



I get you now. Please take my next words as an advice: Whatever is worth doing, is worth doing well.

People in the past created the mess women are experiencing today and people even now are still reinforcing it. If christianity was truly practiced the way it should be maybe women wont feel so oppressed. But unfortunately it wasn't. They adulterated Christianity by mixing it alongside their own western traditions, the same way here in Africa and Nigeria, Christians are still holding Christian values on one hand and traditional/cultural values on the other hand. Just like water and oil it wont mix well, one will corrupt the other.

So this brings me to feminism, overtime this mixing of feminism with other ideologies may only serve to corrupt it. If you are a true follower and believer in the feminist movement, please adopt it in full. If you truly believe in it and you compromise in someway then that wont be cool. I hope you get me

Magnoliaa:


Of course. ...so long as humans aren't perfect, their shortcomings and all will always find their ways into whatever they do.

One can only do so much; add their effort/contributions, etc., to what others have done — in a movement, religion and so on.

onlyfacts:


I like how you gave allowance for any shortcoming, it is necessary, afterall to err is human nature

Magnoliaa:


Hapi Xundae.

Keep it holy and don't fornicate or lead anybody to sin.

Remain blezzed.