₦airaland Forum

...I'm back...hard rowing session tonight. I absolutely hate the thought of it and dread it's approach - do it once a week. But I'm always tremendously pleased when I complete it, and can scarce walk for a few minutes afterwards. I do 10'000 metres. Long ting. Red bream and salad to replenish. Now back to our discussion;

Stillfire:
This is not our language, you know. The English language is clear on what submission means. I did not define it.

That is simply an unhelpful and reductionist approach. We have the whole of the scriptural narrative regards the husband and wife dynamic. At the very least we can see that the flip side of the submission coin is love.

At a time women/wives were basically considered chattel, that was an unheard of novation - not to mention affording women equality by insisting on monogamy. Something some other religions and cultures still don't do today.

Stillfire:
Therefore, if there are times the woman gets her way, in the English context she is not practicing a submissive behavior (a behavior that does not speak up or challenge a point) but rather an assertive behavior where sometimes you lose and sometimes you win. Agree or not?

Totally disagree, for the following reasons;

1. Your language betrays an adversarial approach to family decision making - or indeed, any domestic relationship. "Gets her way", I can't speak for those who approach things thus - burger marriage, processed meat relationship

2. I really don't get an approach that is both reductionist and extreme. So if a woman does not "slavishly" obey her husband, she is not submissive? Is there anything in the bible to indicate that a wife should not have input, discuss, advice or counsel on decisions that affect the family as a whole? Or does the demand of a husband to love, honour, cherish and nurture his wife like his own flesh even remotely suggest treating her like a slave or expecting her to adopt the posture of one?

This is no more than the projection of persistent - and bad - cultural norms or personal sour experiences onto scripture. No one can honestly read the bible, specifically the instructions to husbands and wives and the narrative around spousal relationships from OT to new, and come to the conclusion you've reached - I vehemently disagree sef.

Stillfire:
Christianity might try to twist the word but it is sufficient to say on that premise of the English context and definition, Christian women are not submissive because today they have the rights to speak up

Christianity does not twist, it balances and it contextualises. Marriage does not hinge solely on submission, any more than it hinges solely on love. And Christian wives have always had the right to speak up - that does not mean they are not or cannot be submissive.

Not just, woefully reductionist and unnecessarily extreme, but poor exegesis to form and reject a theology of marriage on the literal/secular interpretation of one word. That's agenda/ideologically driven..fe...fe...fem... !

Stillfire:
And if we were to debate this in the law court, the correct term would not be submission to define the christian woman.

You can debate the literal meaning of submission till the cows come home.That will not give you an accurate rendering of the biblical injunctions or scriptural narrative around marriage.

Stillfire:
You did not answer my question on why the church has taken a 360 degree in not following Paul's ideology in silencing women in church. That is an exemplary criteria of being submissive as a christian woman.

An oversight apologies. I see it as submissive to male leadership in the church - they are not to speak as in to take the lead or assume authority over adult/mature males. 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12.

To me it makes sense and aligns with submission in the home. It's why I don't agree with female elders/pastors - which could give rise to a weird inversion of the authority principle. A church is really just an aggregation of families.


TV

babygirlfl:
One of the ways Christ showed his love to the church is by dying and atoning for the sins of the church. The bible asked men to love their wife the way Christ loved the church so much so that he died for the church. Men are supposed to love their wife so much as to die for her and even for her sins. Women were asked to submit and Jesus did not die for those worth dying for. He died for sinners.

I still see no clear point - about either love or submission

A man loves his wife and is willing to sacrifice himself for her - or her "sins" - does that sacrifice have any redemptive or salvific value akin to that of The Lord? Will a man dying for his wifes sins save her or him? More practically, is a husband a "get out of jail free" card

If a wife commits murder and her husband willing accepts - and is allowed - to take the punishment in her stead, what does that say? Moreso about the wife than the husband? Can a husband demonstrate love in any way other than "atoning" for a wifes sins? Or dying for her.

How does a man love a law-abiding wife !

You see why I questioned the implication of what you stated earlier. It simply makes no theological or practical sense - that I can figure - you really need to explicate.

babygirlfl:
I don't know how many Nigerian men will do it but none have done it so far.

This is something you cannot know, and hence a claim you cannot make. Not least because it's based on something that makes no real theological or practical sense - unless of course you are able to simply explain it.

babygirlfl:
I have not said whether or not the bible said a mans love qualifes submission. It's my opinion that only such men deserve submission.

And that's fine to a degree, but if your position is not biblically derived, why do you conclude the necessity of a husbands willingness to sacrifice himself for a wifes sins like the Lord - from the bible

You appear to be making a non-biblical case using the bible .

babygirlfl:
My points was never about submission. My points was about men loving their wife so you are the one that got this all wrong. Remember our discussion started by me quoting when you said nobody have talked about men being asked to love their wife. You are the one bringing submission into it.

I said nobody disputed the bibles command for men to honour, love, respect, cherish and nurture their wives like their own flesh;

1. Bible based
2. In relation to submission - and more particularly the acceptance/rejection of a command for wives to submit

That is what this thread is about, so I am not sure where you are going with this


TV

bukatyne:
https://www.nairaland.com/2421673/ladies-what-understand-term-submission/1#35411532

Apologies, it was mine 7th post or thereabout....

Get well soon

Tim asked if you agreed with the Bibles stance on submission - without stating what that stance was. So in your agreeing 100%, I don't know what exactly you are agreeing too.

My question was simply stated, a simple answer to that and we are good to go.


TV

bukatyne:
I have given my opinion in my first post on this thread

I asked you a question...

How are you and family?

This is your first post on this thread - https://www.nairaland.com/2421673/ladies-what-understand-term-submission#35402011
Please answer as asked so I am clear, or provide a link for me to follow.

Everyone is well thanks, albeit we are wrestling with hayfever.


TV

bukatyne:
What is your definition of 'Submission'?

Since the dictionary definition doesnot apply

Does the bible state that women are to be submissive to the leadership of their husbands and to accord him final authority in their home?


TV

^{...Bukatyne, you are greeting me with qweshun...how Yoruba is that. How is Oga !}

babygirlfl:
actually only one answered

Feel free to pose any relevent or subsidiary questions.

babygirlfl:
Most men wouldn't die for their wife.

You state that as a fact, at best it's your opinion. But one could also ask; would most women die for their husbands? Or are most wives worth dying for?

babygirlfl:
Christ loved the church so much that he died on behalf of the church to atone for their sin. Men where asked to love their wife as God loved the church.

So are men to love their wives by atoning for their sins? Really? You need to provide further insight here, as I cannot fathom what you mean by this. Or should I say, to the extent I can, I cannot believe what you appear to be implying.

babygirlfl:
Please lets not mix Nigerian and English men up. These two group of men are so so so different. I believe the English man loves more genuinely.

Is this like an attempt to detonate the discussion ! You are now introducing race and culture into the mix - when we are talking faith/religion

And again, you really need to be explicit here. I've looked at this statement repeatedly and at best it sounds like a wholesale slur on black men. Not only claiming they are pathologically incapable of genuine love, but as a corollary implying they can't even be christians ! Just say it - "the black man, child of a lesser God !

babygirlfl:
I know English men who married women who are terminally ill of cancer. How many Nigerian men will do that. These men love genuinely. I read the story. It was touching. I shed a tear and marvelled. Only these kind of men deserve to expect submission.

Huh? This is just sentimental. It's marriage, but not for the reasons it was instituted. At best it has therapeutic value for the woman

And again, you don't know how many Nigerian men would or wouldn't do this And again, the bible does not predicate a womans submission on a mans love - or on a womans qualifiying him or his actions as worthy of her submission - which is an error you repeatedly make.

babygirlfl:
Funny enough, these kind of men don't even care about submission. It's the Nigerian cheating man that would force submission.

More emotionalism - you are yet to agree that submission is demanded, or that it is demanded unequivocally, before you move on to whether loving men care about it or not. Or its actual dynamic.

And why does a discussion of what the bible says on submission demand you to characterise Nigerian men as "cheating". Not that cheating obviates the command. One can simply avoid Nigerian "insert spiteful characterisation here" men !

You really have presented nothing to show that submission is not demanded and spent a lot of time slurring black/Nigerian men to prove it's not justified


TV

Stillfire (couldn't quote you due to the error in your quoting me),

Marriage outside christianity tenets have worked for some people.

I acknowledged that – that is not the point in dispute. It is primarily Christianity and the bibles position on submission. Not even the practicalities or particulars of submission, but if it is actually required. But how can we get to the practicalities or the particulars, when it is wholesale rejected as a command?

There are already two christian views on this subject...

Nope, there is just the one correct reading. Feel free to point out an alternative and I’ll respond. In any event, why is rejecting scripture the answer to misreadings of it?

The argument from Precious bro was that submission come first before love. I had to remind him that despite both genders are independently called to do their own bit, nothing comes before love in the Christian faith. Do you or do you not agree?

I believe I actually made that point - in fact I have done so repeatedly

What you forgot to mention is that Dominant behaviors are not the exclusive of men. In some marriages today, some women are better off leading the institution.

But for a harmonious balance we need masculine and feminine traits. For a woman to “dominate” means the man must reciprocate in a supplicatory manner. And that’s fine from one point of view, but note the following;
1. It will likely kill the love/respect the woman has for the man - hypergamy has been mentioned
2. It’s essentially an argument for “genderlessness”
3. And it’s not egalitarian is it?

Only kids wants to have the final say all the time. In adult relationships you win some you lose some, life goes on.

That is your prejudice speaking. No one has said leadership means the husband always has the final say. Niether does is mean there are win-lose situations. Good leadership typically forestalls win-lose situations - it's why it's needed .


TV

PreciousBro:
Nicely said TV01, that is why my argument with coogar was centred on "Intelligence not being the whole and all" reason ascribed or the determinant for submisiveness because two people, being intellectually different or with the intelligence compatibility margin width of the pacific ocean can still relate, communicate, love each other and marry.

Thanks.
I've been clear on my thoughts around intelligence, or any other supposed criteria. But if it's key for a women, she should be happy with her intendeds IQ - as she is to submit regardless.

PreciousBro:
Damn! Why do you women cringe with disgusts ,fear and annoyance by the mention of submissiveness ?

It's a deadly retro-virus. Man made like HIV and deadlier than ebola. Those infected should be quarantined. It's called feminism !

PreciousBro:
Men are not bad na lol, we love our women and we don't make it a slavery affair when our wives are to submit to us like TV01 opined, its complimentary and it is something that binds nd completes us as a couple with love and peace.

Leave them - by demanding equality in men who are truly men, or getting it from men who have been taught to supplicate to women, women get less than they should and not what they want .

PreciousBro:
Bottom line is , when it comes to disagreement, pride,ego and power struggle, the woman ought to place hers down for her man. His ego should come first. That is where the need to submit comes into play....

I don't agree here. A mature man - which is the pre-requisite for being a husband, not intelligence - will not let his family affairs be a matter of pride or ego. Funnily enough, when a woman is dragging authority with him, there are more likely to be times of conflict and power play.


TV

babygirlfl:
I asked a question one time and not many men answered.

Not many? So some did? If the question was worthy of exploring, why not pursue it?

babygirlfl:
Most men that also claim to love their wife don't love her as Christ loved the church.

How did you ascertain this? And even if they don't, the biblical injunction on women to submit to their husbands is not dependent on their husbands first loving them, or on their determining if their husbands have "earned" their submission or his leadership

babygirlfl:
How many men can die for their wife's sin. How many men here will die in place of their wife if she was sentenced to death for committing murder.

Really? Perhaps think about how you phrased those questions. I spoke of the make-up of males and females - not that one requires great insight, deep biblical understanding or even spiritual discernment to know this; in times of danger men typically put women first - at the expense of their own lives if need be.

What happened on the Titanic? Abi you haven't watched that movie a zilion times ! Women and children first - it's universal, not just Christian. Women do not put themselves in danger for their husbands or members of the opposite sex in any way near the same rate as men.

You are in the UK, so this is near to home for you - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140847/Just-tell-children-daddy-loves-Fiancee-tells-hero-father-used-body-shield-bullets-shot-four-times-stomach-terror-gunmen-Tunisian-massacre.html

babygirlfl:
Also you don't hear people talk about men loving their wife because you hardly see women opening a thread like this asking what it means to love.

That's besides the point - no one is disputing it are they? At worst, there'd be a discussion around the particulars, not the actual command


TV

It's funny how no one - male or female - has ever disputed the biblical injunction of men to love their wives. To cherish them, honour them and treat them like their own flesh.

Why then is there so much clamour and rebellion against the call for women to submit to their husbands? The bible is clear, wives are to submit unreservedly to their husbands. Not due to the fact they are older, richer, taller, from better backgrounds or more intelligent - just by virtue of the fact that he is your husband.

Even if he is not loving you as the bible commands - or as you wish . Although it is obviously easier to do so if he is. But doing it becuase he is, is not obedience, it's eye-service, and again is not a pre-requisite for your submission, that is by virtue of the fact that he is your husband.

What haven't we heard in order to wish away the clear instruction to submit? Everything from attacks on Paul, to re-interpretation of scripture, to butchering of the same; from "submission is mutual", to "submission actually means love".

What is it about a woman being led by her husband that cuts aginst the make-up of males and females? When indeed, it is actually perfectly aligned with our individual make-up and complimetary design. Why is the clamour for "equality" - which as I've pointed is rarely possible, even with the best intentions - and not for women to lead?

Afterall, thats what most are submitting and others affirming - even if only implicitly. I particularly like those who claim their husbands "earn" leadership . Pray tell, who decides when he's earned it? Where and in what type of relationship does the leader get graded by those lesser in authority?

Do direct reports determine the pay of their managers or is it the other way round? Those who truly determine the "earnings" of their husbands, are in fact leading those marriages - be it by stealth or manipulation.

As ever, people are free to live their relatiosnhips as they see fit - and they can deem them successful by their own criteria. But the bible is clear, and for good reason. I take no exception to peoples individual dynamic and arragngements, only to peoples butchering of the scripture.

I read one thread where someone told Pickabeau1 that when they couldn't agree, they called on a 3rd party - can you make this stuff up .


TV

Stillfire:
Don't bring me into this o. I don already post my behavioural pattern on the opening page.
Relationships can exist without the submission principle. I mean if we look at the statistics atheists marriages survive better than christian marriages. What does that tell you? You do not need to apply the submission principle to have a successful marriage. My relationship understands that both parties have equal, legitimate rights. It has served me so far in my relationship.
Submission requires that the wife be silent and yield to authority. Simple English. Every other thing is no more submission.

Stilly, how far? Pondering your submissions here - not your usual high standard .

1. First your claim of atheist marriages doing better than christian ones is at best reaching - not least because lots of people tag themsewlves christian in a merely cultural sense.

2. Even if we could objectively distinguish between atheist and christian unions, there is no way of knowing which do or do not incorporate submission into the dynamic of their union, or which fail due to incorporating it - or not, as the case may be.

3. Your equating submission to unquestioning servility/slavery is at best disingenious - no one has ever claimed that. It's even worse when you take a wordly definition and then try and apply it in a christian context.

4. Worse because of your own acknowledgment that love is paramount in christianity. The flip side of the submission coin - within marriage - is of course love. One can never treat as a slave or servant one that he or she loves.

Stillfire:
Mr Man, I hope you don't think I'm in support of you sha. Nothing comes before love as a christian. The foundation of Christianity is LOVE!

Outside of what christinaity outlines for marriage, no one has said that a marriage cannot work without submission. It depends on the worldview and personas of those involved.

Having said that, it is worth noting a number of things;

1. Females are drawn to men of higher status - more tellingly they respond to dominant behaviour (not force or aggrssion, more like assertiveness, boldness and other alpha traits). Even more importantly it feeds a mans attractiveness to a woman. A marriage with a supplicating man at home and a dominant male boss/colleagues at work, or church (outside the home in short) is in possible danger. Hence why some women stray or are tempted to - or use the old "Pastor says" argument to deal with their husbands.

2. There are typically no egalitarian relationships. Even with same sex couples, one typically assumes a senior/leadership/dominant role. So women claiming equlity/equal rights in marriage are probably not talking out of a lived experience, or lying, or of course forming baddest e-fem that ever liveth !

Let me mop up here


TV

All things being equal, I would say it is. No gainsaying. It gives you that much more time and leeway to do pretty much everything.


TV

tearoses:
TV01 your help is needed pls.
Its to do with nutrition advise

..sup Sis?


TV

RoyalRoy:
A man may not want you just for procreation alone but for companionship and other things.

True, he may or he may not - but surely that's a question that can and should be be asked - regardless of fertility - at this stage?

RoyalRoy:
Telling him is just like giving him a heart ache.

And not telling him may do just the same. Only it will be when he has been misled - and who knows for how long. Telling him now allows him to make an informed decision, and prepare himself for what may lie ahead should he decide to proceed..


TV

^{...bellong...dey regulate go jor !}

...Falcons are fumbling . Let me vent on FT !

FrancisTony:
Okay, are you saying that whenever you obey your wife, then it automatically mean submission?

It would if I did, but I don't obey my wife - and she wouldn't be as insolent as to order me - she calls me Lord !
- Ask your aunties here on NL which of them has husbands that obey them

FrancisTony:
This submission ish is overhyped, aswear.

It's not overhyped at all - some seek to wish it away, others feel it's important to resist them.

FrancisTony:
Head means the "pillar" who gives an assertion for something to be done.
As the head, husband brings out an/a opinion/matter and seeks the wife advice, before proceeding not rushing to do it because she's an inconsequential subordinate.

You see why you are totally out of your depth;
- husband is a pillar that gives an assertion So a wife cannot be the originator of concepts? Mine can, yet she still submits
- and wherever it originates, who says it cannot be discussed - and why does this mean hubby is not, leader with authority?
- who has called women inconsequential? A helpmeet a partner, an accomplice . Vital, crucial, irreplaceable. To the left boy !

FrancisTony:
- To me, a woman becomes a slave or dormant dumbkopf when she swallows whatever her husband says hook-line and sinker because he's a man even though they are all senile.

Who has said authority and leadership by one, with obedience by the other implies a doormat or "dumbkopf"

FrancisTony:
Have you forgotten the dual nature of Christ?
He was both God and Man on earth.
His flesh ate, praye
d, slept etc

Divinity of Christ
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said to Him. "My Lord and my God!".

His flesh wasn't equal to God because God never die(s).

What has this to do with the fact that he submitted himself - you are grasping at straws and all over the place - I almost feel sorry for you !

FrancisTony:
I refuse to insult you Tv01

How pious - after slurring my mother and father, you are now attempting to claim the high ground - in lieu of a decent argument on submission. For your information, you are unable to insult me !

FrancisTony:
Like they say, charity begins at home.
Husband and Wife should respect each other equally as bible commanded.

How does mutual respect between husband and wife mean a husband cannot lead and have authority over his household - including his wife. Or that a wife cannot obey her husband.

Did Abraham' "commanding of his household - Genesis 18:19 mean he did not respect his wife? 1 Peter 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. Did that mean there was no mutual respect?

You don't actually have an argument on biblical submission do you - just a blind ideology of "sket saving"

FrancisTony:
By the way, do you care to explain what submission means in your own context apart from respect?

I don't have to - the question is, biblically is submission and obedience demanded of wives, and is leadership and authority vested in husbands?

You and your like keep insisting that submission is mutual for spouses, submission = love, head =source or = pillar, but deny the repeated testimony of scripture that the answer to that question is an obvious yes.

Ploys to introduce terms like inconsequential subordinate, dumbkopf and slave, or doormat are of your own prejudice. Nowhere does the bible instruct or show in it's narrative that that's what submission and obedience are or demand.

Your performance is even poorer than the Falcons display tonight - red card !


TV

Stillfire:
I just remembered my mills and boon, harlequin, historical romance, etc days...tehehehe

You too?...I used to relentlessly devour M&B...all my early game was learned there...


TV

Mbkite:
Cynthia has almost all that Emeka wants in a woman. She(cynthia) scored 9 on a scale of 10 based on the qualities he(Emeka) has outlined for a future wife. She is educated, caring, decent, religious, hardworking, supportive and respectful. The only challenge Emeka is having is Cynthia's age, she is 33 while he is 29. He is just afraid of the unknown and the possible consequences of this age factor. Emeka really wants to settle down with Cynthia. Matured advice please.

The real issue here is Emekas faulty grading system. Age should feature - and prominently - as a "quality "in his criteria. Recalibrate and avoid making the same mistake in future - on my scale a "4 year" older women scores a big fat zero !

Young and nubile is the way to go


TV

FrancisTony:
You are wrong!
There's nowhere bible opined that children should submit to their parents.

Exodus 20:12
Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

You are confused FT; Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right - does one not submit as an act of obedience

FrancisTony:
Bibe simply wrote that Children should honour their mother and father.
Keyword - honour , that's some kind of adulation not how Wife was commanded to submit to her husband.
The only thing I adhere is that, Man is the head of family .
Submission should be reciprocated afterall, even bible said;

I've shown your first assertion to be wrong
Your second is illogical - how can a wife submit to her husband if they are both at once submitting to each other
Your third begs the question "what does it mean to be head" - |I've heard some funny ones for that interpretation

FrancisTony:
Ephesians 15:31
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
How can their be unequality between a flesh? huh? That's akin to saying God the father, God the son and God the holyspirit aren't equal just because they are different.

You are totally lost here - the fact that men and women are equal has nothing to do with this - divine order demands men lead homes and women & children submit. Simples.

Even The Lord humbled himself to submit to the Father - although they are equal
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

FrancisTony:
Yes they do!
In the sense that a good/righteous ruler contacts his subjects before taking a decision.

And if he does not? Do they cease to be the ruler? You are straining - that's why I suggested an exercise regime for you

FrancisTony:
What of, "submitting to one another" in that verse.
Pray tell, what "one another" means.

Does submitting to one another mean everyone submits to everyone else in every instance in all relationships. Can't you see how absurd you sound and how obtuse you are being?


TV

I asked you this;

TV01:
If submission is in al instances reciprocal, why is it actually needed? And why would there be any need for a qualifier of "wives submittring to husbands" immediately afterwards?

You responded thus;

FrancisTony:
I don't know; My bible opined so.

Ephesians 5:20
20. giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

The bible nowhere - and certainly not the verse you quoted - states that submission is in all instances reciprocal. Indeed, it can't. It is where "submission is demanded", such as for husband and wife.

If it did, elders would submit to deacons, or parents to children, or christian masters to servants. Do you see how absurd your reading is now?

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Do the rulers/governemnt now submit to the citizens? No, as the verse following clearly shows;
Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

The thrust behind Ephesians 5:21 is more about the attitude of submission - in the fear of God - demanded by those you are to obey/submit to. So in as much as a wife submits to her husband, there is a way to do it, not grudgingly or with an attitude.

FrancisTony:
I have an incomparable avalanche of bible knowledge - it's not a man thing but human.

So no, the bible opined nada, and it seems like the "avalanche is on top of you and not within - someone dig this person out

So I repeat,

TV01:
FrancisTony, please don't willfully misunderstand the bible. Or reinterprete it to garner likes !

For you edification - https://www.nairaland.com/2351801/feminism-joke-nigeriafor-now/6#34377924


TV

...Morrin ES, had to like this for it's sheer depth. We need a whole suite of like buttons .

EnlightenedSoul:
We're not talking of so-called limiting factors - although you like to boast of this wider window men supposedly have that they actually don't have by much if you take into account 'trivial' things like, oh IDK, the child's health and mental cognition (here we assume we're working with 'quality' sperm to begin with, regardless of age). We're talking of 'want' here.

True, sperm quality decreases with age - but that can be mostly overcome by taking a suitably nubile spouse !

EnlightenedSoul:
Men generally not only want children more, they want more of them. Studies show that they even anticipate more happiness at the thought of having them! Women, on the other hand, generally report relatively lower anticipatory levels, and self-report lower levels of happiness and quality of life in literally every area of life after having had said children - even if they don't necessarily express regret in their choices.

I won't gainsay your assertion. But desiring treasures or precious things that come at relatively little cost is to be expected, no? I would love 10 kids, truly - but the limiting factor - physically - is my wife (ignoring our circumstances).

Indeed, your statement only shows that the cost to women is so much greater, hence the actual joy is somewhat reduced relative to men. Or are you saying that men love children more than women? There is no equivalent to "feeling broody" for men.

EnlightenedSoul:
Due to patriarchal conditioning, which waxes even stronger in the African setting, many men whole-heartedly believe they are worth a not and have failed immeasurably if they cannot successfully produce human trophies to live on after them when they're dead, to serve the function of passing on their genes/family name, etc. Women are brought up to please them in providing these 'heirs', the societal pressure of which to do so remains incredibly immense as well. Reason fertile men are more prone to swiftly divorcing infertile woman, some still having no qualms laying the blame squarely at the woman's feet when he - the man - is the culprit (for fear the spread of the delicate news will spell certain shame, and dawn the beginning of his own 'emasculation' as he sees it).

Man are at once status driven and more far-sighted than women. The maternal instinct is just that - a desire to birth. Whereas, men like to build an empire, strengthen a lineage, ensure bloodlines and kinship ties are maintained. We are back to the "men build empires" assertion .

The truth is, most men work tirelessly to provide for the wives and children. Seeing that their efforts feed into and perpetuate something greater than them makes it all worthwhile. In the "monkey dey work,baboon dey chop" adage, it's the men that are doing the work.

Children have always been the raison d'etre of marriage, and the main benefit to males from embracing it. Not that I personally condone dissolution due to childlessness. And I also note both parties do so, and if it's the man "at fault", some women are not beneath "presenting" him with offspring regardless .

EnlightenedSoul:
Perhaps oddly understandable in a weird way since men and women do not contribute an even fifty-fifty to the existence of a child. They only contribute fifty-fifty to the chromosomes (and that’s assuming no trisomies, etc).

The woman contributes:

1. 23 chromosomes
2. Mitochondrial DNA
3. The child’s entire first cell - the sperm does not survive fertilization
4. Forty weeks’ gestation
5. And for those who breastfeed, the child’s first nourishment for the next several months to a year/two after birth.

The man contributes:

1. 23 chromosomes

Child-rearing too is generally left largely to the woman, motherhood being the "crown of her glory". Fatherhood? Not so much. Traditionally, it's been rather coldly attributed to (in order of importance):

1) His ability to sire - the more the better as a sure sign of virility (= prowess = manliness). Reason it would be of no surprise if the aforementioned irresponsible man with 20 kids on federal assistance were to BOAST of having fathered his entire ghetto without the intention of having anything to do with them in any way/shape/form.

2) His ability to fund - explicable.

3) The hard disciplinarian - starring as stern step-in for the 'primary' caregiver.

And then, lastly, pulling from my own experiences, how unrealistically early men tend to express their desire for children, leaving me to...

...wondering how the heck that premature bomb crept it's way into a casual conversation? This included, but was not limited to the occasional wistful interjection/speech on what they expected/wanted of their imaginary future children.

All this does is buttress my point about the cost and risk being much greater for women - whilst the outcome in terms of their percieved quality of life is actually poorer - meaning it's simply easier for men to have higher levels undampened desire.

EnlightenedSoul:
Men want children more, because society has made it their highest-most function within the patriarchal dynamic. Simply put, a man is what he can put forth, i.e, produce. It's almost as if their very claim to manhood hangs in the balance!

Really? Pray tell, what is a womans highest function - in any societal dynamic. !


TV

Stillfire:
Buhahahaha. I hope the bats in the cave kick you out of their natural habitat.

Love it Stilly .

But you realise that when "feminism" finally screws everything up, you'll join us in the cave - and resume your natural role as we rebuild. Although I was talking tongue-in-cheek, as I don't think it wil get that far before womens natural instinct to police other women and protect patriarchy will re-assert itself .


TV

FrancisTony:
Even bible opined that submission should be reciprocated before saying women should submit to their husband.

FrancisTony, please don't willfully misunderstand the bible. Or reinterprete it to garner likes !

If submission is in al instances reciprocal, why is it actually needed? And why would there be any need for a qualifier of "wives submittring to husbands" immediately afterwards?

I think we should add workouts to your rehab - drop, and give me 50 press-ups. We need to work on your concave chest and weedy arms - as well as your bible knowledge. Building a "whole man"


TV

crackhaus:
I was answering the OP's question about if I (the reader) would adopt a wife's surname.

I get that. Just a general lament.

crackhaus:
Feminism hasn't triumphed yet, not when there are still guys like me living on earth...I can assure you of this

Feminism can't ultimately triumph - not least because women themselves prefer patriarchy !

crackhaus:
However I don't think feminism made him (them) adopt a woman's surname, they just pvssy-whipped... and the thing about being pvssy-whipped is that it doesn't last forever, they'll come back to their senses soon enough.

Feminist ideology - or rather it's advance - means men are being socialised according to it's dictates. Hence the "whipping". They are doing well for the moment sha, with lots of betas, white knights and all ranks of "save-a-skets" working tirelessly on their behalf.


TV

Moana:
so you think its very logical to blame a decision made by a man on an ideology that promotes equal rights for women. only on NL

...surely it was at least a joint decision? At least your sister answered you;

Shollypopzz:
Yay for feminism! Though matriarchy isn't a new concept, I am going to attribute the man's decision to feminism.

I wonder why men are so threatened by male feminists. (That is a lie! I know why )

SMH @ the women condemning this man's decision...... I want you females to take a minute to see how fvcked up that is.

TV

Etosonc:
should i do, celebrate on any date in feb. or forget about birthday?
ADVICE PLS.

Speak to NL's most famous leapling tearoses aka chaircover.


TV

...stinginess !


TV

crackhaus:
Not going to happen.

I'm afraid it has/is

crackhaus:
That's not Zoe Saldana in that pic.

No, it's Ben Martin (nee Coghill) - husband of Rowan - one of a new breed of men, who are taking their wife's surname.

The last of his name, forsaker of the bloodline, the kinship, ties, the culture and heritage of his fathers. A sign of the feminised, limp-wristed, males that these days pass as progressive and open-minded men - presumably a genital swap will be forthcoming

I's all over Cracky - feminism has triumphed. Lets find a cave somewhere, gather the troops and live out our time reminiscing about the good old days - when men were men and women made sure dinner was on the table !


TV

coogar:
i thought ovarian cancer is contagious.
so this mirenia coil still favours the men in the long run? the inventor must be a misogynist - how discriminatory can one be to think of this kinda crazy idea.

Presumably it uses powerful chemicals to warp the womens normal bodily - reproductive function?

I once had a girlfriend who insisted on going on the pill. One of the really attractive things about her, was her great skin. That went first. Bad acne. "Small price to pay huh? Afterall, it wasn't on my tab was it? Then I found a prettier one .


TV

Kay17:
So there is unequal pay to the disadvantage of men??

Yes - and how timely a question - men are seriously underpaid relative to women in Tennis . That is not even customary discrimination, as it has no greater purpose. It's "spiteful" discrimination.


TV

bukatyne:
Like I told ESoul, biology is different from perception

But biology must colour perception small na?

bukatyne:
Yes, women have less window for birthing (The chances of an older man birthing a kid with down syndrome/ other health factors are higher) however, a ttcing man does not think of biology . A Yoruba saying ' your child is you breaking even; your grandchild is your profit'. A man is probably thinking I can birth later (biology) after he has had his kids.

There are age-related risks for both male and female - The "freezing eggs" thread was really enlightneing.

bukatyne:
I honestly wonder when men say their wives must have XYZ kids when they are practically contributing minutely to the process

Men are probably more concerned about providing. And women still have to worry about provision - even if just to ascertain that it will be made.

bukatyne:
2 (preferably one of each) is now the new trend in town.

No one can legislate for this. I know someone with 3 girls - after saying no more after 2, they tried one last time for a son. In the "not child-friendly" West, it' driven by economics and convenience. Childcare for one child can swallow up a whole salary !

bukatyne:
Different case altogether
Read of a crazy girl who had 15 for about 9 men.
Some people are wack.

It's still easier for a man to huge numbers of children - there was a program on telly about it a month or 2 ago. One even went out clubbing wiht his first born to score new chicks !


TV

coogar:
happy fücking days....
i don't longer need to wait 3-5 days every month to do my civic duties to my partner.

Quickly pops back in to note that "as ever it favours men"...especially those that want responsibility-free engagement with women. And notice, who bears the risk of any side-effects? Sounds like discrimination to me


TV

shaybebaby:
Get with the times, the mirena coil in some instances stops the menstrual flow.

Drops mic...flees.........


TV