₦airaland Forum

...I missed some bits in my haste. These are just courtesy responses and not part of the main convo.

bukatyne:
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.

Mandatory tithing is a part of the law and for Christians done away with. Believers are enjoined to give according to their hearts desires with no compulsion. Anyway, what if I claimed "God spoke to me about tithe", would it trump your reading of scripture? Regardless, I studied tithe inside out - it's what actually led me to NL - unless you have your own study to hand, please don't go there with me .

The local church is always headed by a plurality - of male - elders. Nowhere in scripture is a single person mandated to "rule" a congregation. That is the rule although I can see some atypical situations.

The Lord turned water into wine, was He an enabler of sin? Paul said "take a little wine for your infirmities sake". Wine is alcoholic and proven to be medicinal. The sin in alcohol is irresponsible/inappropriate/over consumption. Gluttony is also a sin - does that make food a sin ?

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

Really?

Equal agency?

Yes, in a polygamous setting the desires and wills of the multiple-side spouses are all compromised by each other. A biblical/monogamous marital union will not have that problem - only the wills/desires of the two are in play. Does not have anything to say about roles and responsibilities - please ask rather than wilfully mis-ascribe things. It's another area you need to work on.


TV

ApexTitan:
I will repeat the point I have been trying to make again: In a marriage between a man and a woman the man is best suited to assume the leadership/dominant role. His very nature expects and demands that of him. If this notion is difficult to understand then perhaps the following statement should, upon careful consideration, make things clearer; in a marriage the woman is best equipped to play the child bearing role. This is not to say that this is the woman's only role but when question of child bearing is considered in a man/woman relationship this lot falls squarely on the woman. In the same vein questions of dominance/leadership fall squarely on the man. [In making this statement I am in no way implying that women are incapable of assuming any kind of leadership position, far from it, this assertion of male dominance is pertinent within the dynamics of inter-gender relations which in this case is marriage!]



You are still operating under a faulty premise. Men and women are not equal. They are complimentary. Just as the heart is not equal to the lungs and the eyes are not equal to the ears so are men not equal to women. By their very natures their existential experiences and functions are markedly different and yet complimentary as a whole.

As a man I am of the conviction that womanhood, true womanhood and not the caricatures that it is forced to assume today, is of the uttermost importance to humanity. A vitalising and ennobling influence as can be found nowhere else lies with the woman. I have no intentions of belittling her stifling her potentials, I am only calling out a misconception that is the root of much that has gone wrong with our world today.

Had to log back in to appreciate this post.

Ace!

TV

Bukatyne, I thought you'd abandoned the discussion

Listen, you really must marshal your arguments better, and rebut more precisely. Half the time I'm convinced you either misread, or knowingly misinterpret what I write . And please quit the appeals to emotion and whiney spiritualising, they ruin the little good work you do

Again; I have said that your take on the scriptural view on marriage omits certain specifics, and indeed, it knowingly wills them away. To do this you have to ignore certain verses altogether and put a spin on others.

My contention is that this arises due to your imbibing the feminist ideology. That is all the discussion required - anything extraneous should be left aside, or at least genuinely further the discussion at hand.

Emotionalism such as "TV does not sit on the board of heaven" does not progress this discussion - not that you know that for certain ! And neither does spiritualising it by saying "God told me.

Indeed, God can tell an individual to tithe for a season or a reason, but it does not mean that tithing is mandatory for all Christians, and now all scripture has to be revised to make this practice doctrine.

So, more than happy to have this discussion, but only if you can keep it tight. As ever you are free to refrain.

1. Is a wife to obey her husband?
2. Does the role of husband come with authority over his household - including his wife?


TV

bukatyne:
.

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

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}

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

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

ApexTitan:
An astute observation you made right there. Every notion, even in its most inchoate form, of male dominance is opposed by feminist ideology so you will see a blatant reinterpretation of clear scriptural texts to support the feminine imperative.

Blatant doesn't even begin to describe it It's an ideologically led form of scriptural miss-appropriation presented as profound insight. Only it's profoundly wrong and easily demonstrated at every point. I hadn't - is there even a need? - really begun to dissect it.

Even the introduction of a term like "equal rights" into a discussion about biblical marriage is a dead give-away. It's so clear that feminism has infected everything even the church.

ApexTitan:
Male dominance offends the sensibilities of today's modern woman. The world in which she lives in affords her improved economic agency and this forms the basis for today's woman to challenge the systems developed from our biological and cultural heritages.

Which is the real rub. The biological imperatives that shape those cultural morés will not go away - regardless of the whole new orthodoxy designed to deny those very realities.

ApexTitan:
Equalism is the cover story which the feminist ideology needs to gain its way to gender dominance... and so to lead is now reinterpreted to mean submission. The husband is now to submit to the wife. The end game here is male subordination and female dominance!

It's clear to anyone who takes the time to give it the barest scrutiny, that it's a grab for power and privilige - or rights without consequences or responsibilities. A husband "earns" his "leadership", which is actually "submission, service and love" - and his wife is the arbiter of how and when he has earned it. Can you make this up?

The real funny things are;

1. Male authority (even in the form of benign leadership) is normal, and what most women prefer
2. Except those with the spirit of "desire to rule over him", which is what feminsim essentially is anyway. Around since the garden !
3. Once a woman can usurp authority over a man she quickly learns to despise him
4. Except as an extremely rare exception, there cannot exist a purely egalitarian relationship anyway - there is always a power differential

Wierdly enough, for #4, even two men or two women do not typically exhibit egalité, both relationship types which are many times more violent than male/female ones, hence my belief that feminism and gayism are closely twinned.

mikkyphp:
1000000000 likes....

Cheers


TV

bukatyne:
Forgive me, I am tired of This back and forth.

We do not see eye to eye and it is a miracle we have been civil So far.

We will keep going in circles even If we are saying the same thing because you are hell bent on proving What is not There.

Bukatyne is a feminist and So bla bla

However it works for you, fine.

My husband and I are both Christians and our marriage is working beautifully. We are also not gunning for your heaven So don't be concerned If our workings is scriptural or not.

I would also appreciate If you don't twist my posts to suit your points next time we discuss. I find it very frustrating communicating with you when you do So or quoting a portion of my posts.

Stop twisting your own words either. If you want to paint a pictures of yourself on NL, write posts that put you in that light.

Keep welding the phantom and detachable veto power you have. Anyways I would say it is better to be a devil on NL and a saint at home than a saint on NL and a devil at home.

Goodnight and regards to your family.

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

I now see you are persisting with your coded denial of husband leadership - fully towing the feminist line by re-interpreting the meaning of lead. Leading is now by "submitting to you", "setting an example" and "serving you" .

As noted I also set an example and serve my family, but leading is a distinct function in it's own right, not a corollary of, or dependent on example & service.

bukatyne:
I have equal rights in my marriage, no need demanding it I married well

I get you - no one has "veto power", hence your rejection or pretend confusion at the term "authority" and claiming equal rights. In fact like I said before, as you make his "phantom leadership" dependant on how you view his example and service, you are in fact the one with authority, contrary to scripture .

1 Peter 3: 1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

Tell us do you obey your husband (oya tell us there is never a question of obedience, as you always agree - or better still, he is so busy serving you, there is no need ) As your point below implies;

bukatyne:
We put in all our resources and take decisions based on the reality on ground. I am assuming a healthy home and all indices are open to all stakeholders.

bukatyne:
Do you know the meaning of dispassionately, even anger is passionate

Do you? "Devoid of feeling or emotion".

bukatyne:
I am not covering up anything neither is mis-application of the scripture colouring anything. I got many advices I discarded because I knew they were not Christianly . I follow my husband's lead (how he behaves). It is right I treat him the way he does to me too

No, it's part of your same justification. By demonising leadership/authority to mean tyrannical, dictatorial and monstrous, you can effectively reject it.

bukatyne:
You continually demonstrate you are worthy of authority aka earn it. Yet when I said men earn their leadership constantly (Heck The Trinity did and still do), it is like I was blaspheming

To demonstrate does not mean to earn. I have no need of earning it. I know what it is, what it entails and act accordingly. As the scripture I quoted above clearly shows; short of sin, you obey regardless of your husbands perceived worth

bukatyne:
Try not to prove your worthiness for one month and see the change (abeg don't try it o, I love hearing romantic stories)

Answered above - you are trying to muddy the waters. Whatever my wifes reaction to my actions - good or bad - it does not weigh on my authority.

bukatyne:
Your wife trusts you, that is the normal standard and it is earned by constant loving, leading by example and unselfishness and not because you are the head or ultimate authority.

As per the scripture above - not earned - accorded by virtue of marriage, which makes me the head.

bukatyne:
When you trust someone, even when that person errs, your trust/love is a basis for your decisions and thoughts. (I know my husband loves me but he did this because he is not perfect).

Answered.

bukatyne:
I trust my husband very much too and I know he loves me so much so I understand where you wife is. You need to continually prove yourself worthy to keep her there.

Answered.

bukatyne:
Having the interest of your family at heart helps make the best decisions for both parties

Regardless, it's not the basis for authoratative leadership. Which you deny.

bukatyne:
A husband leads, I agree
Your authority jugunu (which you have not proved, no)
Besides, you said your wife is not inferior to you and you do not believe your marriage is completely egalitarian even though the headship/authority rarely crops up, then what is she?

There you go again, try to demonise it
No, my wife is not inferior, but she is not equal in authority - and when authority is in view or called for, I wield it.

bukatyne:
Just as we are one with Christ and the whole church being the bride of Christ (even though I cannot call you a co-wife as it is one bride), the leadership of a husband is not same with the world view of leadership.

Please stop - we are well aware of your sophistry !


TV

Stillfire:
How isn't interdependence feminist? In relationships, interdependence is the degree to which members of the group are mutually dependent on the others. No one is being made to look less or superior than the other. Is that not what feminism is all about?

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.

Stillfire:
What's the problem with the word Subservient? Is it not a synonym to submissiveness? Conforming to the will of authority?

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


TV

bukatyne:
How does equal rights negate male leadership? Doesn't your wife have equal rights with you? Or does equal rights appear when it suits the discuss? I remembered it was one of the points you used to counter polygamy.

"Rights" are not something I actually think about, or consider the way to frame marriage. But no, my wife does not have equal rights with me - due to the fact that I have veto power .

Polygamy denies women equal agency as it's not just the two of them in the union. Please read my "educative posts" more closely. Read them repeatedly like you are preparing for an exam !

bukatyne:
Sorry, not my business what feminist thought-leaders think of marriage. Feminism has been defined and I agree with it and identify myself as someone who has such beliefs. Whatever anyone thinks is what they think. My church has an idea of what a home should look like; it is their business. That is why it is a thougt/idea. Even if it is a commandment, no one can force me to obey.

Which is what I made clear to you in the first part of the post - feminism demands "equal rights" within marriage at it's core. The leaders are glaringly hostile towards it - even worse.

bukatyne:
1. I do not know what you mean by overall responsibility; yes I agree husbands are the leaders of their homes
2. Yes a woman does
3. I do not know what you mean by authority here
4. Yes and no
5. See Answer 1.
6. No

Authority is what headship implies. I'll go with your answers.

bukatyne:
Do you make this call even if it is something you have no idea about?

"Not knowing" does not mean I cannot probe and question or make a call based on my wifes superior knowledge or expertise. And if there is a valid consideration not satisfied, I can still veto.

bukatyne:
Even if you are making this call, how do you make it? Digging more merits for what you want to do? Looking at if it is critical to you or her or you just say, we are going my way because I am the head?

Please read the post fully. It is not necessarily about her or me, it's about us and our.

Feminisms basic mistake is that it's gynocentric. In claiming to seek equal rights in marriage, it has now weighted it against men. Effectively causing men to turn away - harming them both. Thinking holistically for the whole, benefits the individual, thinking selfishly for the individual harms the whole - damn I'm good !

bukatyne:
You have even answered part of my question. You go her way because it is more important to her; could it be that you make the last call because it is important to you or something you know well about and not necessarily because you are the head or sole authority (which obviously you are not)

I am the head and ultimate authority (leader), but not the sole authority as in "expert". Read my post. It pretty much covers everything. A manager at work does not have to have the most knowledge before he makes certain calls - and these may override someone with more technical or expert knowledge.

bukatyne:
If you do not find her position compelling... I like this your post; just like examination that has objective and theory parts; you keep dropping answers in one part of it.

You like all my submissions !
My helpmeet helps me. Or else what's the point? She brings all her resources to the table.

bukatyne:
Now I ask; if your wife's position is compelling, will you say that 'I am the head', I don't care about your suggestion/points and we go my way?

No, if my wife's position is compelling, I will say "I am the head, I think we should go with your very compelling idea. Well done mama "

bukatyne:
So when you are not welding this headship/leadership, what happens?

Merry-making & Mojo

bukatyne:
And of course, it is welded in your dreams and maybe on the bed

Asked and answered.

bukatyne:
If your wife is like the people who are turning the head to where the neck wants, you would probably be doing her wish the few times her points don't 'compel' you

Nope, I listen to her intently, but veto calls are made dispassionately. I'm a man.

bukatyne:
And I 100% bet that when you are even 'welding' it, it is with a soft voice and cunnily. Like my husband will say, 'I know how to get you to do what I want sometimes' and be 100% certain it is not by barking or authoritatively...

Those who truly possess and know how to wield authority do not confuse it with force and have no need to bark to wield it.

bukatyne:
I have and leadership in the home (Christian) is not like worldly leadership; it is by example and to serve. I learnt a number of excellent things etc. from my husband doing them to me. I see most reference to leaderships as a call for the husband to do has he likes (surely the things the wife cannot reciprocate).

Whatever the mis-application by people of the scripture, it does not warrant you resorting to the same tactics in reverse to correct. In the same vein, you misconcieved notions about authoritarian or dictatorial leadership do not colour it for all of us. I serve and set an exampe, I also lead. Don't cover-up the imperative to "lead".

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.

bukatyne:
And one advise, stop painting yourself like a monster in a bid to show you are an 'authority welding husband'; you are not a picture for it.

You have the hang-up about authority and hence associate it with monstering. I am fine, as is my wife.

In all you have finally admitted that the husband leads - totally contrary to the feminsist position. So I have no qualms. You may have to explain yourself to FrancisTony, who believes it should be completely egalitarian !


TV

Bukatyne, when did you become an epistleer !

bukatyne:
Is there anywhere feminism is said to be antimarriage?

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.[This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

The basic Wiki definition – “equal rights” in marriage demanded by feminism is contrary to male leadership outlined in the scriptures.

And all your posts on this issue are clearly in accord with feminism. You always blanket anything that ascribes leadership in the marital home to males. Be it by making submission = love, or headship =source, or playing on mutual/reciprocal respect, you inherently deny it. That is feminism subsuming Christinaity

But even beyond that, feminsist thought-leaders are largely against marriage and even hostile towards it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_marriage#The_feminist_approach

Bukatyne, no need for story, please answer the questions;

1. Is there a scriptural notion of men being the designated leader or having overall responsibility in the marital home?
2. Does a wife submit to her husbands headship?
2. Does he have authority over her or is authority/headship somehow "equally shared"?
3. Does submission = love?
4. Does head = source and have no implications for leadership or authority?
5. Even if spouses put one another first, love and respect each other, does this mean there is no question of leadership in the marital home?

I love my wife, and quite often I give leave to her wishes/preferences/desires, I don’t expect blind obedience. I’d be rather sad/worried if she didn’t analyse my take on things and/or have positions/counter-analyses of her own. Although I get that she trusts me implicitly ! I have never raised my voice, hands or used foul language in her presence.

I make her a nutribullet smoothie most mornings and often a tea at night , I have a chore allocation distinct to hers and also carry out many that overlap – like bathing TV02. Sometimes depending on how we are both placed, I may even perform some of hers.

And my wife will confirm all of this, but the fact remains, that if there is an important issue on which we do not agree. I make the call. Everytime. Even as I work to make my wife and children happy, I do not lose sight of my authority and leadership role.

For holidays for example, I’ll specify a few requirements and my wife will research. She returns say 3 locations which all fit the criteria, I’ll typically ask what she prefers, I’ll then probe her reasons why, outline any considerations or concerns I may have, we’ll discuss and perhaps agree. If not, I will almost certainly go with what she wants – as a holiday is simply not that important and I have outlined basal requirementsll

For important issues, even minor ones sef, as we just like yakking , we thoroughly discuss, but if we are not in agreement and I don't find my wifes position compelling, I command and my wife heeds/submits/obeys.

And like I've said previously, headship/leadership/authority is not in veiw with every interaction - or even very often - it's not master/slave or owner/employee. But when it is, I wield it !


Please answer the questions, and the initial charge about your exegetical denial of male leadership in the home.


TV

bukatyne:
You believe men and women are equal?

Absoutely, but they are not the same, different on practically every level and in so many ways. And they have some designated roles and specific duties within marriage. Leadership is one such - and it sits with the male

Stilly, Stilly, Stilly, a good effort, but not one that convinces me there is any merit in feminism.

Firstly, you have hared totally down the wrong track with your notions of chivalry. As the definition you posted describes it is a code of behaviour derived from moral, societal and religious codes - all of which recognise the inhenret difference between male and female, hence affording them the courtesy chivalry demands.

While chivalry is a European word, the notion of courtesy and protection towrds women is rooted in all men and cultures - even if it's form is different.

Most ironically feminism drives out chivalrous practice in men by it's strident insitence on equality/sameness.

Stillfire:
Yes I believe in the interdependence ideals of marriage, where an assigned role to each species is NOT seen as less or more important to the other. That interdependence in itself is Feminist.

And no one has said the roles make either superior have they. They are just different and clearly aligned to our complimetary natures. And pray tell how interdependence is feminist?

Stillfire:
I cannot feign ignorance on the societal, religiously and cultural expectations of a wife to be subservient to the husband. Such cultural expectations is not one of interdependence, but dependency.

Oh please! "subservient"? Which religion do you speak of, I can hold brief for Christianity and confidently say "it aint so Joe"

Stillfire:
That itself has placed an hierarchy and places men as superior to females. If males are superior, are you as a woman an inferior species? Because that is clearly what you are telling me.

Nope, not a hierarchy, no notions of superior or inferior, but order and harmony. You are seeing things here.

Stillfire:
Fela is apt in my description. He is not a gentleman. A gentlemen is a chivalrous and a courteous man. Maleness is not personified as chivalrous in African culture, he is authoritative and women are to open doors for him instead. For an African woman to be using chivalry as a reason why she does or doesn't believe in feminism is laughable at its best.

Examples of chivalry

1. Opening doors

A guy who takes the time to come around and open the car door for you is a keeper, not to mention a commodity this winter.

With certain states getting up to five inches of snow an hour, do you want to be left standing outside in a blizzard while your date gets nice and toasty in the driver’s seat?

Recognize and appreciate a guy who puts your comfort and well-being first, even if it’s just for a few extra seconds.

2. Saving the last bite of food

They say the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. So, when he saves the last bite for you, it’s basically him saying he likes you more than whatever meal is in front of him. Which, for the record, is a lot.

3. Spending time with your family

A guy who shows an interest in your baby photos, coaches your little brother on how to throw a football and compliments your mother’s cooking is a guy who’s in it for the long haul. These are small gestures, but they speak volumes about his intentions.

4. Suffering through a girly movie

When a man volunteers to endure a girly show or movie because he knows you’ll enjoy it, he earns major bonus points. (Even more if he does so without complaining or expecting something in return.)

5. Sending flowers

I’m not talking about the $100 bouquet you get on Valentine’s Day. I’m talking about the grocery store assortment he picked up on a random Tuesday while thinking of you. There’s just something about unexpected flowers that makes a girl smile.

6. Walking on the outside of the sidewalk

The first time someone does this, you will probably be confused. But then you’ll start to question how come other men in your life have never been concerned about positioning themselves in such a way that you’d be protected should curbside tragedy strike.

It’s not a must, but it’s certainly nice to have.

7. Kissing your forehead

Sure, if you’re hoping to date someone and he does this, it can be a dreaded sign of sibling-like affection.

But, if you’re in a long-term relationship and your guy does this, it’s a small gesture that can make you feel adored.

8. Putting your jacket on

Does the above sound African to you?

It doesn't have to. These are secondary "feelgood" or beta traits in the male-female dynamic. Non of these in and of themselves will attract you to a man or make you consider him as your husband. These are after the deal has been done. And African men demonstrate chivalry in a way African women understand and respond to.

Stillfire:
The African male considers it his duty to provide, the other qualities that is important in the sustenance of the marriage is none of his business.
Chivalry should be left for oyibos to debate whether they want it or not.
That discussion has nothing to do on an african forum.
Unless we can define it in our own African way... a man pounding yam is very chivalrous!

I answered this in opening.


TV

I may or may not touch on other points raised here, but I simply couldn't let this pass, especially since it went unchallenged and has been repeated so often some people may well take it as gospel.

Bukatyne, your submission below is an example of the tortured exegesiss one needs to engage in to claim to be a Christian and a feminist. Although you may well claim adherence to the basics of feminism i.e. esentially "equal opportunites & access", as do I, by way of what's written in the bible, another central tenet of feminism, is it's antipathy for marriage, which it views as a vehicle for oppressing women.

The bible is clear - through both the old and new testaments - that headship, i.e overall authority in marriage, lies with the husband. A self-purported christian feminist - Feminianist - will always struggle at this point, reject one or the other, or as you have done warp one in order to contain the other. But essentially end up as neither fish nor fowl. Or as Pickabeau1 likes to frame it "oil and water don't mix".

bukatyne:
Submission: Has had people in stitches for ever;

This is simply not true, there has never been any contention over male authority/headship in marriage, until feminism brought it's views to bear. And your giving primacy to feminist ideology is what begets your "stitch" with scripture.

bukatyne:
that is one is the reasons men are opined to be superior to women

Anyone who opines thus is mistaken, we are all equal in Christ, creationally and in our value to God - Genesis 1:27, Galations 3:28, 1st Corinthian 12:13 (amongst others). You introduced the term "superior".

Just as my son - due to age - would be charged with greater responsibilty in the absence of both parents. Tasking him with greater responsibility and thus affording him the corresponding authority does not make him superior to his sister - likewise husband and wife.

bukatyne:
Ephesians 5:21 says we should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Sorry to non-believing Bible folks...)

The apology should be extended to believers , this is just shoddy - in the interest of equality I have to apply the same level of rebuke I would to a man !

Ephesians 5:21 is talking in a general fellowship context; there are at least two other texts which spell out the dynamic in a Christian marriage. The first you simply could'nt have missed as not only does it come right after the verse you quoted, it actually contextualises it .

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife,
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Titus 2:5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands
1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands,

bukatyne:
and the love God expects from husbands in in 1 Cor 13. Submission really is esteeming your husband above you or putting him first; Love is esteeming your wife above you or putting her first. A couple practice this and there is a balance and they are in heaven.

First asserting that marital submission is mutual (essentially rendering it meaningless), by utilising a generalist text, ignoring numerous marital specific ones, and then making it sounds like the husbands call to love - as if the wife is nowhere called to love? - makes him a servant to his wife - as he "puts her first" - is essentially making her his head

It's essentially a compound error (or a comedy of them ), as you first claim submission is mutual, you then equate submission to love and then "equalise" them as demands on both parties.

It's a particualr pernicious error, as it effectively denies the God ordained creational differences and the nuance given to ensure we best flourish in our mutual "complimentarity".

Understand and follow where your beliefs and thinking lead you. You are effectively denying the difference between the sexes. It's why feminism and the gay lobby are effectively twinned - both deny the inherent nature of males and females, which are asymetrical but perfectly aligned.

bukatyne:
I am very proud to be a feminist and have a loving home ( I guess I can have it all) and like Coco says, I do not apologize for it.

Yes, you are indeed a feminsit as stated, and I will not even venture so far as to question the love in your marital home. But no, your position is not the christian one, and no matter how loving your home is, if ordered according to your exposition, it is simple not in accordance with scripture.

bukatyne:
I am also trying to see how feminism = not getting married or been a bad wife . Feminism is a lifestyle which should affect the way you relate with people and your ideals in life.

Like I said earlier, feminsim is opposed to marriage, seeing it as oppressive. So whilst being married although questionable, is certainly possible for a feminist, the required dynamic of a feminist marriage is not possible for a Christian husband and wife.

bukatyne:
I am a feminist, I believe men and women are equal and translate that into my everyday life.

A fallacy, as from a Christian perspective at least, no one has stated that they are not; what are in view are headship and authority.

bukatyne:
And do, I do not have to announce to everyone, my actions speak for me

And the questions begged with regard "actions" within marriage are;

1. Does a wife submit to her husbands overall authority/headship?
2. Does he have authority over her or is authority/headship somehow "equally shared"?


TV

Ewuro4:
TV01 .. Yesohoo there're kids involved. @your friend's example (happily E.A) isn't the case for every man out there. I saw him at the ice cream shop and we talked a bit. He literally lives in hotel suite and the whole divorce is taking a toll on his psyche. He looked scruffy ( a physician ). You can sense he's holding up because of those kids. And I'm afraid he's going to lose them eventually because he's moving out of the province. I said lose them because of another man involved in their ( kids) lives, he (other man) basically plays a dad role. Though the first child was quite rebellious and rude to him ( rude by my own definition, calling him by his first name like a slave ).

There's always "damage". And I don't think I've seen one where the kids weren't hurt and confused. My friend was very lucky. His case is certainly not typical of the ones I know of.

You see them, glazed eyes, uninterested at gathering, associating with other men who have suffered the same and venting against women and the court system. I hate divorce, I detest home-wreckers

Ewuro4:
As per the boy toy .. It's his what now, third summer? and the whole neighbourhood housewives are looking forward to his seasonal show of shame I'm very certain my other neighbour is busy watching him via her crazy translucent glass. The dude mows lawn almost naked while she's out and about the yard kissing him to shame us all

The funny thing is that divorce has been shown to be catching. It kind of trends and there are lots of women tempted to destabalize their homes as they personally have nothing to lose as the law essentially affirms and rewards their choices - no matter how damaging to others.

Please update us when; he moves on, someone else moves in, another neighbour ploughs the same route,or the guy gets involved with a friend or neighbour. You lose religion and the anchor it provides families, and you lose families

Ewuro4:
I had an argument with hubby in our bedroom and my daughter mustve overheard us (bloody ac/heat vents) and studied our countenance throughout the week. The next thing she said at the dinner table was shocking " you guys should not tear this family apart like **'s " . She's friend with neighbour's daughter since they're toddlers so I wonder what she's feeding her? If a neighbour's divorce can have that much impact on her, I wonder how many therapy sessions the impacted kids will attend per week.

I no go lie - I try and limit contact we have with non-traditional familes. TV02 already knows all his first cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents, what a wife, husband, son and daughter are. No time.

Ewuro4:
You should see the kids crying during drop offs, oh my. very sad. I have many occasions rushed out to carry the youngest with a treat to console them. He just drives off without looking back, I'm sure he's teary too.

Ewuro4:
The whole marriage institution is a game for some. I could care less though. Honestly, it's not my business how other people run their lives. I'm only worried about the children involved. That's my only consern.

Yes but the climate of marriage and the examples by others affect everyone and become internalised by impressionable youngsters. Marriage is a societal artefact and we have to maintain it together. All marriages affect marriage overall - even if it's not readily apparent.

I'm vexed jor. What with the Irish and all recently.


TV

craziebone:
that's just a near by hole into which feminists run to hide anytime their excesses are being pointed out to them. They become ashamed of their hate and run back like a threatened rat into that hole.

Da.y.uum chil' = you on form tonight; introducing a depth and analysis that means lots of holes are needed right now . Likes just aren't good enough for some posts.

While you are at it, please explain to them how it would make obvious sense to educate men first were there was an issue of limited resources. They are the ones tasked with maintaining the lineage - taking wives and forming families of their own. And they are the ones who were not just marginalised, but all but ostracised if they didn't have the wherewithal to do so.

It made exact sense and was for the most good. But I suppose that was a time when common sense prevailed and the overall good was always in view. Now we have blindly followed, shoddy ideologies, that focus on the desires of a few at the expense of all.

There were always forms of "customary discrimination" in most societies, and at the real sharp end, it was men that bore the brunt of it.

Good effort dude.


TV

keni315:
oh, you are a parent already

Yes I am - but I was talking about my parents !

TV

Ewuro4:
TV01, wow @ your memory. This one is a Caucasian though. Did I tell you another man moved in already? Truth be told, he's hot. Hubby seem to get along with him already (buddy buddy rubish) . Men

I recall you mentioning there was a man on the scene, not sure if he had moved in. I remeber it was qucik, quick too.

My first response is don; tthese guys have any cojonés ? But if there are kids involved, he may not be able to see them if he is anything less than amenable to his ex and her toyboy.

I actually have a friend who was booted out as his wife wanted to trade - the usual he is not ambitious enough/worthy of me rubbish. It was a wierd one one as he was so gentle, she couldn't even pin DV on him, so he slept downstairs in a spare room for over a year while the divorce was proceeding. He pleaded with her throughout. How odd must that have been for kids?

The twist. She married some low paid dorky looking oyinbo (which Naija man wants someone after multiple children?). He hooked up with the most gorgeous multi-ethnic woman and has never been happier. He dated a Naija girl before the new one, but she was pushing for marriage and he wouldn't budge, so they parted.

He says his ex-wife was not only a ghastly person, but a "crapshag", and the pleading was just because he doted on the children. They share custody, so there's no reason for him not to be jovial.

Ewuro4:
As per TV02, Its a stage they always outgrow (infact you'll beg for it later) . Just lay down your own rules regarding his fork quest ( "TV , only 3 bites and you're done okay? " kids respond well to ground rules, that I know.

You should even be thankful he's eating your meals. Some kids won't touch their parents meals with a long stick
I ordered 3 diff wings (honey garlic, Buffalo, breaded ) yesterday , my eldest didn't come close to my me while my middle & her minion finished the whole honey & breaded before I say jack. I give them 4 years tops before they join her (first) trend.

It's a cool beautiful Monday morning here ... Enjoy the rest of your day folks.

Cheers J. I just get the sense that the brother is outsmarting me and I need to lay down markers now I like your rules thingy though. I'm more the "Arican dad who barks direct orders and expects to be obeyed". He's always negotiating? I mean he's barely 3, who taught him to do
that?


TV

keni315:
What will you do or what did you do when watching a kiss scene with your parent

I usually cover their eyes or ask them to temporarily leave the room - you wan make dem spoil !


TV

5minsmadness:
.

Let's take the UK for example. I attended the talk in the large city firm where I work. I ask myself which similar large city firm - Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, JP Morgan etc. - will knowingly have a policy of paying women less than men? In this day and age, in the West?

What about State ministries such as the DoJ etc, especially when this kind of discrimination is actively legislated against? Or The police, army etc.? The NHS is the worlds 3rd largest employer - last time I checked - anyone in the NHS feel there is a discriminatory pay policy in place?

How about academia? - those bastions of liberal progressive policy? What about the school system or in supermarkets, or for tranport system employees? Why don't they name and shame - and prosecute - any company found guilty? Simply because it doesn't happen.

Most of any pay gap would be explained by 2 things;
1. Womens choices
2. Mens harder work (and probably smarter )

You know the funny thing, for the lat 10 years I have had exactly 0 dealing with a male in HR. It's all women!!! In payroll, women, in training, ladies, in comp & benefits, females, HR advisors all na madams.

There is only one concievable conclusion. If there is a pay gap, and if any part of it can be attributed to discrimination against women, then it's women who are the perpertrators.

QED


TV

^{...perhaps it's footballers wages unbalancing the whole thing !}

5minsmadness:
And that's all you could come up with despite the manifold explanations.
It's either English is difficult for you or you deliberately refuse to admit u made an error.
Either way, your 'sir' title has been revoked.
You are no different from the rest.

Had to sit through a mind-numbing talk about equality, diversity and inclusion a few weeks ago. The old "pay-gap" trope was rolled out - I think it was cited as "72%".

Does it exist? probably. Is it the result of discrimination? unlikely. Is it institutionalised? please, if anything, it's action against it that is. Even if it was, would I care? Not overly, in all likelihood any extra men were making would be spent on women and children anyway.


TV

naijababe:
To teach children to share, you should not only share your own meals but you should share his too, especially food groups that are considered favourites and sometimes try to eat more than your fair share of this favourite. My kids never really had a problem with sharing but my son had anger issues and I always try to mirror his behaviour back in the simplest way he can understand, he is much better at not lashing out and throwing things when angry now. Best wishes...............

....hmmmm, cheers.

He doesn't have any problems sharing, in fact whenever he's eating or snacking he's usually quite insistent that I "have some daddy". And if I ask there's never a problem.

He likes fish - something I agitated for - and now whenever he spots it being prepared or ready, he gets a glint in his eye - in fact any food he likes. I thought I was safe yeaterday, as he had already eaten rice & plantain with broccoli and carrots. He then asked for extra rice, which I gladly gave him thinking he'd be too full to tax me. Not only that, he had actually raided his mum before I ate.

I can't let this guy outsmart me, I've already lost ground to him in electronics/gadgets. Although I may come back to you about "anger". He has the occassional tantrum which I deal with in the traditional way . That plus sanctions means he's responding well - but I'll keep an eye out for that as it's not something I've really envisaged.

I having red bream tonight. Tuesday it's "almost raw" tuna, hopefully that will put him off. We will know who is great white and who is orca !


TV

tearoses:
Bro Tveeeeee happy Sunday o! Hope you are all doing good.

We are all well thanks - having some issues with TV02 sha . When I invite him to eat with me - trying to teach him sharing - he now insists on having his own fork - thwarting my efforts to feed him a few small pieces then shoo him away!

And it's worse than I thought. Yesterday I was prepping my salmon and he come up and said "I set a placemat for you daddy". I was so pleased. Little did I know he had a cunning plan

I now sat down to eat ), and he suddenly appeared - fork in hand. And while I was busy cycling from fish to salad to rice, my man just attacked the fish. "Ah, ah" I said, "sharing daddy" he replied. I then had to change my whole chop strategy so as not to lose out on fish !

My daughter is still on milk, but how will I cope with the two of them when she grows teeth My wife just laughs and doesn't appear to grasp how serious this is . Please I need advice, no abuse 0

tearoses:
Ive seen women who "enjoy" their status. Especially the ones who took their partners to the cleaners and are getting heaps of child support and the family home.
They go out and have sex when they feel like, (usually with other womens husbands) and generally just do what they want, when they want. . . usually the owambe "yellow pawpaw" ladies at parties every week.

Those ones are not my main thrust. As it's not like they simply had children without committed fathers - or more iportantly being able to extract support from the fathers.

It's just like you've outlined it, a conscious decision to use the laws to effect their own selfish needs and desires. So whilst, she may be happy, men and children still suffer , so from a "flourishing point of view, it's still sub-optimal.

It's a growing trend. Ewuro4 mentioned one of her neigbhours who did such. It needs it's own thread.

tearoses:
There are also some who are milking the system for all its worth. I personally know of one. A man in her life will put a stop to her benefits so she is "happy" to pop kids but with no resident man.

Apart from Sweden and perhaps some other Scandinavian countries, I know of no country with a benefits system that allows a woman to dispense with the need for a man.

Although to note your point, if the man is effectively deadbeat, she may live relatively better without him. Again, kids suffer (or put another way, do not do as well) just from the absence of a father. I guess benefits + something from the fathers sha? Although will it go where it should - on the kids? As no one checks

tearoses:
These women think they are enjoying now, but it is later on that they will realise how stupid they are.

I agree. Even with exceptions. And do not feel it should be normalised or considered a choice without consequences.

tearoses:
Of course there are others living in poverty, stigmatised, lonely, unhappy and crave to be in a happy and fulfilled relationship. One of the many things that marriage offers is companionship. A widow/widower will tell you how much they miss this.

When I was a church rat, the hassle I got from single mothers almost drove me out. All because I showed kindness to their kids. That alone is a big draw - help with the kids, especially sons. Help with the costs and companionship and support.

One really painful thing is that when families rally around a single-parent family, both the parent and child have an amplified sense of what they are missing !

The data is incontrivertible. Single-parenthood is a big indicator of poverty. Not to mention how much hardwork - with little or no respite - it must be. My wife is always asking how they cope or why anyone would choose that?


TV

Dheartless:
TV01 what say you to this?

in response to the last mention directed at me.
if we refer to the bible in total, we will build many contradictions, so it is better we stick to verses in relation to the topic.

in addition to silvofitz post
some version of bible used word like
*unfaithfulness
* immorality
instead of fornication,
-we know a wife can be unfaithful in more than one way.
-we know "immorality" doesn't specify sexual immortality ( and we know all sexual immorality are not just sleeping with another man other than a husband)

There are no contradictions in the Bible. Formulating policy or doctrine on the basis of 1 verse is always going to be problematic.

What does unfaithfulness cover apart from sexual fidelity? You make it sound wide-ranging, hence subject to interpretation, and therefore pretty much a divorce charter. I don't agree and have heard nothing to change my original position.

Silvofitz:
Point 3. Irreconcilable differences that could endager the lives of the couple mean sharp differences that could provoke assaults, or even, arsons, dangerous acts that could lead to the death of the couple. This is what Jesus referred to as the hardness of their hearts in Matthew 19 : 8. If the disagreement is so sharp that could lead to death, Moses okayed divorce.

I don't agree with this - at least not in this form. It's too subjective. In any event, separation should be considered first and if it does result in divorce, it still precludes marriage.

kelechiMarie:
I think apostle paul also wrote that you can divorce an unbelieving spouse. Correct me if i'm wrong,thanks

Apostle Paul said almost the exact opposite, "one is not to leave a disbelieving spouse if they are willing to stay". It touches on the unbelieving spouses salvation and sanctification of any children.

What he did say is "if an unbelieving spouse departs, one is not under bondage". That is the possible exception I referred to in my initial post.


TV

pickabeau1:
Interesting.. have u seen the original 3 films
Im halfway through part 1

Is it in two parts? Na Nollywood production . Abajo!
Abeg, review it here - book/film reviews were always part of our mandate here.


TV

Kimoni:
I am happy you owned up to the stigmatization, you did exactly what I was thought you would - defend ur stand as against denial, so I quite appreciate you for that.

Deny? It was in situ before I came along and will be extant long after I'm gone. And as I explained in an earlier post to moca, even if we remove any notion of shame or stigma - even if we valorize it - it will not change their circumstance or situations.

Neither will it change mens "preferences" in the first instance - although it is possible some men could be "socialised" to express a preference for SM's.

Kimoni:
I jumped to the highest heaven when I read your opening statement - TV is all for equality without denying the differences. ..yayyyyyyy The promise land is not far away after all. Henceforth, you only need to back this statement up in subsequent post.

I have never in my time on NL, said or championed anything different. Now contrast this with the "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" brigade, who predicate every discussion on "equality", which they don't actually appear to understand or rightly apply.

Kimoni:
On single motherhood, you need to realize that majority did not set out to be single mothers. Infact, the more experienced you are in the game, the less likely you'll become a single mother. I read recently Wizkid babymama saying she became a single mother at 19, her very first sexual experience, she didn't even realize she was pregnant until after 5 months. Now compare her to a 25 year old lady who has carried out 10 abortions, and she got pregnant each time her contraceptives fail. Which would you go for if you were to choose? Some things in life are not really what they seem like.

Single-motherhood does not ambush anyone, neither is it an airborne or otherwise infectious disease . It happens as a result of choices, decision and actions. These can be moderated, and properly done so, it should be an unfortunate exception, not the fast trending norm we now see. Most things in life are exactly what they seem

In all likelihood, neither of your two candidates would meet threshold requirements. Even if they were the last two women on earth, I still have a third option. I demonstrate value and live my worth !

Kimoni:
I still don't agree that single motherhood makes you desperate or decrease your eligibility, I honestly don't see any difference between them and any spinster out there. It's your character that matters at the end of the day. I have seen guys running after single moms like kilode.
Single motherhood does not decrease, neither does it increase your eligibility. It will only affect a woman when she has been brainwashed by people like TV or she allows herself to wallow in self pity. Your future is in your hands!

Per desperation, I have said nothing. many unmarried women - and men - are desperate. That is to do with their own internal dynamic and personal circumstances.

As for eligibility, there is a reality on ground - take a straw poll of posters on this thread if you please. If SM-H has no bearing, why do you see guys running after them like kilode? If it makes no difference, shouldn't that be same for all girls? Plus you presume that they are chasing them for marriage?

Kimoni:
I honestly don't know if I preach equality, feminist kind of equality I mean, maybe co-incidentally. I don't practise equality in my home and I see no reason to. If I can eat my cake and have it, why shouldn't I? My husband is the head of the home and we both have our respective roles and responsibilities. This is a pre-requisite for any gathering of humans, innit? But headship comes with lots and lots of responsibilities which I am never shy of pushing to him. Why shall I shy

~ I don't pay any type of bills
~ I don't pay school fees, the kids don't bear my fathers name, right?
~ I don't even know how much the house rent is and I don't care to know
~ when my car breaks down anywhere, anytime, all I do is call him, tell him my location, pick a cab home, the rest is history
~ when taking a walk together, he walks on the outer side of the road
~ when robbers come (we've had two experiences of this), his headship comes into full play. I go to my children's room, lock the door and we all start praying for daddy from there. At that point, his responsibilities will be to ensure all doors are well locked, all lights off, and necessary calls etc
~ when we go out together, I don't pay. Why the heck should I pay when the head is there??
~ Peradventure he tells me he is broke, I open the Bible and read my favourite part to him - "a man who cannot provide for his home is worse than an infidel". Trust me, this verse works like magic.

Why should I give up all these benefits and so much more? naaaaaa. I'll continue calling him the head and he'll continue providing all these. No modernization in my family. He likes the title and I like the benefits. Like you rightly said, we appreciate our differences.

Sounds pretty much like my set-up. And isn't too dissimilar to most. Men working hard to priest, provide and protect their families. One reason why the feminsit type equality doesn't wash is the dynamic between male and female;

Your DH and my wifes DH , have to pull out the stops to deliver. No excuses. It's hard, but they see it as their role and responsibility. If they fall short they know it and carry that burden - even if no one says a thing. If they deliver they are proud and satisfied - duty done.

If the roles are reversed, the woman feels resentment at having to carry the man. As women typically need to look up to their men - consider them high (absolutely) or higher (relatively) status - respect and attraction is prone to fail. As much as we like to shout "equality", no woman wants a man she has to carry.

There is "customary discrimination" along the whole continuum of male/female relationships. Even in it's crudest form, it's for the common good, for societal flourishing. Feminisms attempt to equalise things at every point is doomed to failure as I pointed out above. And in any event, feminism is now more about privilege without consequence or attendant responsibility for women - and at the expense of men.

I'll tell you this for free - at any point in history and in any place over time, I'd much [refer to have been an averagely attractive and accomplished female than a poor man. For a man there is zero - and less than zero - privilege in poverty.

Kimoni:
In every other facet of life, should I say I have been lucky not to have encountered gender discrimination? Maybe yes or maybe I just won't allow it.

What I see more is women naturally taking the backseat when there is really no need to. Could be due to long years of brainwashing and cultural impediments.

I grew up believing that what a man can do, a woman can do better. That quote used to be very popular back in the days and it was my favourite quote growing up. So on a personal level, I have never believed or made to believe I am in anyway inferior to a man. I don't have that mentality and maybe this is where some of my beliefs will align with feminist's(not the extremist like free the nipples o). And this is why I mostly have no issues when their education bothers on women empowerment. And if they wish to extend it to their respective homes, lucky husbands they got. I pass on that level. What I really don't get is why you guys are vehemently against it? I would think they are doing you a favor wanting to share some of your responsibilities. But like I said earlier, I don't know too much about feminism as to understand a lot of intricate issues.

Where feminism is about equal opportunities and access for women fine, but it's long past that and is quite frankly descending into absurdity.

Kimoni:
On my research papers, hehhehehehe if NL will permit, a distinction won't be a bad idea.

Please post results !


TV

pickabeau1:
who has seen the new mad max


just got the three original films to get the whole idea

can you believe how young mel gibson was
im halfway thru the first film

https://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/0d/df24a084aa11e1bcc4123138165f92/file/five-things-you-might-not-know-about-mad-max-on-the-33rd-anniversary-of-its-release.jpg

Read that Charlize Theron is the real star of this film - Max is portrayed as the sidekick - i.e. the film has been given a mythical female superhero.

TV

moca:
So u of all people use nairaland as a yardstick?
Common!
I knew quite a lot of them and they don't find it easy at all. Societal cum family stigmatization and vulnerability. Name them.

I have. One that just lost her job now.
Had to lobby for a friend to take her as a temporary assistant(an offer he had already given to somebody else)
I guess she needs it more cos of her baby.

It's u guys. Instead of u to wear protection,u will deceive the gal for skin to skin. After,u will dump her.

Moca please help me tell them - maybe they'll listen to an experienced woman like yourself.

Even if there is no shame or stigma associated with single-motherhood, the reality remains that;

1. It won't change their circumstances - as I've stated, they are more likely to live in poverty.
2. The outcomes for the children will still be on the whole poorer than for kids in two parent - and hence likely more prosperous - homes
3. Most importantly the missing input from fathers will exacerbate things - meaning more criminality in boys and promiscuity in girls.
4. Men will still prefer women who are not single mothers.

I'm also sure they'll take heed if you advise no push-ups before marriage !

How family, hope well. I would have asked after your condition, but some may discern an ulterior motive

Ekú weekend


TV

coogaluta:
Address me as aluta-always!
Revd kwa Badt girl like me
I'm glad you and the kids are happy...may the joy in your family never cease....

Aluta it is.
Bad girl turned good !
I've been spamming the section with pictures - if you'd returned a few days earlier...


TV

kandiikane:
I do not want to believe you are a stup!d individual, I reckon you should stop playing about and be honest for once.

...1


TV

FrancisTony:
Boring.

I'm done with senseless back and forth.

The proud possessor of an ideology he can barely articulate...way to quit....don't worry we are here to support you as you feel your way to full unrestricted manhood .

TV