₦airaland Forum

Kay17:
Didn't you just say this

TV01:
The whole notion of forced equality is not even the real discussion here. In fact, I feel employment, wages, etc. largely reflect male/female choices and some forms of customary discrimination are actually a good thing.

Yes, I also said this;

TV01:
Some forms of customary discrimination made sense and would still be understandable for the overall good. Although I'm not calling for it's re-introduction, or am even certain we could roll back the tide.

TV01:
Customary discrimination was not simply males favoured over females. Customary discrimination is - all things being equal - prefering a married man with kids over a single woman, or a single man. It's women and children first! And it would make sense in the medical profession.

Of course no one is fighting cutomary discrimination where it adversely affects men !

TV

Kay17:
@bolded, how do you know that? The feminists clearly show they don't. Do you still think there is no unequal pay in the labour market in Nigeria?

Not Nigerian feminists - they love kids and marriage die Our two feminist stalwarts here were both engaged before 20 !

There is no structural or institutionalised pay disparity.


TV

bukatyne:
In our culture, men want children as much as women or more.

Not more, not less, exactly the same? Wanting as an express desire and the effort and timings are totally different. The limiting factors are mostly heavily weighted for females. It's why men can have harems. And children are more biological imperative for women and status for men.

bukatyne:
In discussions, I even find out that men also want more children than women.

Of course we do. We have very little risk and only really have the burden - shared - of provision. Do you know what childbirth can do to a woman? I have a cousin who had 4 by CS. Here the max is 3. I would not have 4 CS' for anything. 1 sef

Yes na. I would love 2 more, 4 sef. But that's effortless for me to say and almost effortless for me to do. One area I don't demand obedience - and wifey has said no more . Truth is, I wouldn't allow it. What even I went through - which was nothing comparitively - I can't go through again. But if I could have multiple wives, why not?


TV
^{...and in the West you can have the kids and escape the burden if you are able to act irresponsibly. Some men have 20}

EnlightenedSoul:
That's basically implying that the animal would certainly rather get screwed than stewed, no? That because you "mollycoddle it like a child", it wouldn't be too farfetched to seek other 'favors' of it? See the personalization there? Aside from conjuring a disturbing picture, it's an inaccurate assumption which fails to dismiss the irrationality behind the act. Scientifically speaking, animals give off pheromones that are designed, at given times, to trigger sexual responses in the opposite sex. These pheromones are within-species pheromones, so just because something in your effed up mentality attracts you to the beast as an "across-species lover", it means not that the beast indeed wants, or is designed to have sex with you. Blegh.

"Irrationality" cannot be introduced as a criteria . It's about feeling, autonomy, consent, harm, etc. It can be and has been demonstrated that the animals are "happy". Tails wagging furiously . And likewise for any notion of "design" or "functionality" or "blegh". There are rational reasons (design, functionality, outcome) against homosex and incsex. But these are never brought to bear. Why should they be here?

EnlightenedSoul:
I looked him up. He lost a lot of long-time supporters because of it, and even his revisionary statement wasn't well received. In any case, he's an outlier.

Outlier? No way - he's establishment. Mark my words, he will be honoured with an order/knighthood at some point. And more to the point he is feted by the liberal elite. He acts as a very good stalking horse.

EnlightenedSoul:
Scandalous coverups among the high-ranking are hardly a novel thing. Despite it all, it never smells of possible legalization. In fact, it's almost-meticulously covered up, and when aired the public response is always one of outrage.

Agreed. But the cover-ups are not because they think it's wrong or to clean up quietly, but, because they know it won't be acceptable - at the moment. But it's clear their are hignly-connected rings, who engage in this immorality. Establishment figures spanning politics, church, police, media, entertainment etc. For them it's expedient to do so, it means people aren't on alert. They actually dispose of some child abuse victims, but all we have are missing child reports.

EnlightenedSoul:
As earlier mentioned, it does fit the bill - objectively speaking. Still, it would require lobbying, and we've no reason to believe that ince.stuous people even desire an out-of-the-closet lifestyle, so to speak. It's unique in that it goes beyond the personal level (of the two involved), and awakens entire families to the 'issue'. If it does, they should be sterilized.

One thing that is out there now is that increased visibility and agitation creates acceptance. Be it by making it appear normal or wearying those who resist (especially if they are persecuted for doing so).

Deny them rights by sterilizing them. All it does is increase the risk of genetic defects, they are stil there and non-related couples still give birth to children with genetic defects. It's a more obvious case of discrimination than homosex.

EnlightenedSoul:
We're derailing OP's thread, I think..

It's al about the traffic = OP is MIA . Sholly 0!!!!!!!!!


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
'Tis a lie, this point. So much so that I exit the sidelines to address it all its own. I'm actually more and more convinced that men want children more fervently than women do. And I'm not basing this purely off my own experiences.
Ponder on it.

Pondered, wondered and gon' dered (sorry, best I could do off the cuff !)

Can't be true as a biological imperative. Women have shorter windows and limited opportunity. A womans fertile years are limited relative to a mans. A woman can only be pregnant to delivery once for any 9 month duration.

Men can impregnate as many as they can lie with. The delivery risk (non-existent for men) and post-delivery burden is greater on women also. Simply put, spermatozoa is cheap, the effort minimal, risk low and the burden comparitively light. The male urge is more for "expression", the female for "conception". Nothing to engender fervency in men !

Culturally, it's still women who show more fervency - although men do as well. Men don't have ot work against the clock as much for marriage or children. They handle the pressure better as a result and find more solace/respect in status - apart from marriage.

You need to share - insightfully - on this or take a strike for trolling !

Kay17:
You do not agree with Coogar on most of his points then?

I'm not parsing Coogars points, I'm parsing yours - which I find to be all ideologically driven but not grounded in reality. Patriarchy is normal - it's what women want! Men are mean tto lead and dominate, there may be a few exceptiosn, but overall, we flourish best that way.


TV

Kay17:
This is a classic example of eating your cake and having it. How are you able to deny a fact and at the same time justify it! It is a remarkable talent! The bolded will not make any sense except it justifies a difference. And the coloured is even worse! What is the customary discrimination if not for what feminists are crying against!!

No it is not. Equality is forced even where there are clear differences or when the outcomes are poorer. How can that make sense?

Customary discrimination was not simply males favoured over females. Customary discrtimination is - all things being equal - prefering a married man with kids over a single woman, or a single man. It's women and children first! And it would make sense in the medical profession.


TV

Kay17:
Ok. Since that is the case, don't you think women who want to break that cycle of marry, get pregnant and rear babies; and have professionally fulfilling lives, are morally justified and courageous? Women should be taught well that marriages are farces and they would have more fulfilling lives without marriages, right?

There is all sorts of wrong with this statement;

1. It women who want babies most - not men
2. Women can combine both satisfactorily - even if some sacrifice is required
3. Marriage is not a farce - on the contrary, it's the basal building block of harmonious and flourishing societies
4. Yes, I suppose some women could live fulfilling lives without marriage. Some. Refer to point 1.
5. Per #4, why would those lives not be even more fulfilled with marriage?

The only categorical distinction in humans is male/female. Not black/white, straight/gay, or any other. The whole biological difference, functioning and purpose is geared towards child-rearing - not fulfilling careers.

I don't deny a form of fulfilment from a career, but it should not be considered a substitute or alternative to a family. And certainly not as worthy, moral or courageous

Most Western industrialised countries are facing a ticking demographic time-bomb due to falling fertility. They are simply not breding at replacement rates (approx 2.2 babies p/w). Japan and Germany are particularly bad - where's carefreewannabe for her daily diss !

Society can't just be about women, neither can it be ordered solely on a notion of equality.

coogar:
that was exactly what i told my GP the last time i visited. i told him the ratio of male to female admission in the medical schools should be a mandatory 2:1 in favour of the men. the women don't stay long in that profession and this is why there's always a shortage of doctors in the medical field!

In the UK that conversation is shut-down everytime. No one even has the liver. Wetin e talk?


TV

Kay17:
SO you agree there is unequal pay in Nigeria? Why then did you bother me to search for the evidence proving so?!

I don't believe there is institutionalised gender pay disparity in Nigeria. Even moreso, in the West. There may be vestigial bad practice here and there, but even that likely cuts both ways to some degree.

It's mostly about choices, ability and ethic. And if anything, trying to force equality is producing poorer overall outcomes, as I noted in my previous post.

Some forms of customary discrimination made sense and would still be understandable for the overall good. Although I'm not calling for it's re-introduction, or am even certain we could roll back the tide.


TV

The whole notion of forced equality is not even the real discussion here. In fact, I feel employment, wages, etc. largely reflect male/female choices and some forms of customary discrimination are actually a good thing.

As Coogar has pointed out for the STEM courses, it's instructive to note the case in medicine. About 60% of female Dr's in the UK leave the profession within 10 years. Another large cohort opt for P/T work.

Outcome; serious backlogs in GP's surgeries and a resultant influx into A&E, causing real pressure. As more women will soon be admitted to medical school than men, it means added funding to train, what will be a smaller cadre of Dr's.

The rates of attrition mean that essentially, two women have to be trained to fill one slot? Raising problems with funding the training in addition to the reduced service delivery. PC means it can't even be discussed without howls of protest.

Why shouldn't men be given preference here? It's clear there is more to this than performance at the time of admission - 18'ish - when girls tend to be slightly ahead of boys (in terms of requirements and how they present).

Equality as a stand alone notion does not necessarily serve the best interest of the whole and shouldn't be zealously pursued without wider consideration.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
It's obviously not an issue of consent with animals, per se. It cannot speak. It's abuse! There's a stark difference between eating your thanksgiving turkey as you ought and fo.ndling it, mind you A difference between using your beast of burden to carry loads for you, and painfully over-burdening it. Between properly caring for and owning a pack of dogs, and forcing them to tear each apart for your affection, scraps of food, and your betting pleasure. If a certain animal's purpose is to feed you, the least you owe it is a swift death. If certain beasts are suited to carry your loads, the very least you owe it is food/water/care, and a reasonable load. But to engage in intercourse with a beast, tell me how does one reconcile this? It's abuse, and not its purpose.

Abuse? According to inter-species lovers, it's the exact opposite. Without wanting to gross anyone out, how does one characterise the excitement of a dog with a female human as abuse. Or an animal that is mollycoddled - housed and fed like a child - due to it's intimate relationship with it's master as immoral?

They claim the animals are not only willing, but enjoy it. And why would you think animals would prefer death or short, brutal lives as beasts of burden, to that kind of care and attention.

EnlightenedSoul:
Those links aren't satisfying, tho. Did you read those comments on Debate.org? And that bit on the PIE() drama(s) that occurred in the 80's. Do you see that they're backtracking, confessing wrongs?

No, they test public sentiment and re-set accordingly. Homactivist Peter Tatchell claimed an age of 9 is both good and beneficial, when it didn't go down well with the public, he tactically revised this to 14. They advance on many fronts.

EnlightenedSoul:
It's clear that isn't probable at all. Frankly, it's causing me to view the UK as some kind of underground pedophile cesspool (I think I'm kidding). It's not possible. Someone in the UK should please come speak to this...

And you wouldn't be far wrong - ask anyone. We've had a festering situation where numerous high-ranking members of parliment have been implicated for years. All the informants have been intimidated, police investigations have been short-circuited, and "public enquiries" have gotten nowhere. No one has been charged.

Files handed to a government minister went missing, only for said minister to die, at which point it's revealed said minister was the subject of the file . There was widespread knowledge in Westminister about others - Cyril Smith for instance - he lived large till he died. Only then did it come it to public attention.

What about Jimmy Saville? Decades of abuse covered up. And on such a scale, and by such a public figure, he had to have enblers and co-conspirators. The whole of the British establisment/elite is implicated. Abeg Damiso, Coogar, please, am I being sensationalist here?

EnlightenedSoul:
There are already some prostitution joints in Nevada and the like. I believe I've driven past a prominent one on one of my visits there. Honestly, its eventual legalization is only to be expected - it's consensual, involves no abuse w/ regulation, and has business potential.

No brainer - like I said, it's not exactly criminalised now. regardless of the curren tlegal position.

EnlightenedSoul:
I actually know some polyamorous couples, and it isn't a particularly new lifestyle btw. Besides, many self-professed monogamous couples are practitioners of polyamory on the sly - perhaps some/all humans simply weren't built to withstand a 50 year relationship/marriage with one person (we used to live shorter lives, and monogamy in itself is a fairly new concept). In.cest is another thing entirely. If ever fully accepted at all, it will take a veryyy long time whereupon I trust the participants will be swiftly sterilized, or at least ought to be in my express opinion! It poses a societal health/genetic threat.

The arguments for legalising incest pretty much mirror those for homosexuality - and pass your own test - consent and non-abusive, no?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/34/9/e11.abstract
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/david_epsteins.php

EnlightenedSoul:
Hmm.

We will go from Hmm to SMH !


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
You're reaching, don't you think?

No.

EnlightenedSoul:
Shed them in whatever light they may within the media (that of the so-called 'loving caring relationship' if they wish), but neither consent nor abuse has ever been a glossed over issue with the LGBT movement.

Consent? For animals? When did turkeys vote for christmas ? The only consent that matters is "the age of". It's already out there - in Govt and amongst the general populace, and obviously homactivists;

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/lower-age-consent-14-1979-home-office-report
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-age-of-consent-be-lowered-to-13

EnlightenedSoul:
Who is changing the age of consent to nine?

As above...small, small...

EnlightenedSoul:
If anything, I reckon it's prostitution that's most likely next on the legalization route. Perhaps even in.cest at some point if we're stretching it far, and being extremely radical with it. Little else fits the bill, and there's absolutely no reason to assume consent and abuse will suddenly become minor impediments, or of little regard or consequence in common law as you've been stipulating. Law and order simply cannot stand thus.

Prostitution, I agree, but it is already treated benignly anyway. Polyamoury etc are all on the cards. As for incest, please, that too is already beeing seriously discussed. You may be more sheltered than I am !

EnlightenedSoul:
As you say - we shall see.

Probably while we are both still on here. Expect a mention some time in the near future .


TV

Kay17:
You yourself have shown countless times why the woman is an inferior object/entity which deserves domination and domestication.

. You people have reduced me to smileys today.


TV

Shollypopzz:
Babez, how far?

First of all, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Bruce Jenner is just another transgender. In fact, I think his choice to change is very selfish. If you are going to change, change before you have kids. Change before you deceive women into thinking you are who you are.

Look at his kids. Imagine how this decision affects them; Their father is now their mother??

I bet you that if this was an African American family, Bruce and the entire Katrashian family will not receive the praises they receive in the media today. They would be called ghetto and all sorts of names.

Kim got famous from a porn tape. She got pregnant for a rapper while legally married to another man. Khloe married a coke addict and Kylie is a high school drop-out. She is 17 and dating a grown man aged 25; she is a social media slut who posts naked pics like her older sister for attention. Kourtney has two kids out of wedlock. Rob is an overweight bastard who is sexually attracted to his sister- Kim.

Bruce/Caitlyn is NOT a hero, he is not the first transgender and he would not be the last. Nothing he has done is courageous, he is selfish. After three wives and five kids, you realize you do not feel like a man? Fvck him to the power of infinity! He is a damaged man who failed his kids.

Sholly 0!

You have catalogued lots of sin, but nothing illegal - or beyond the pale liberally speaking - are you now born-again !


TV
^{...and in some ways this comes across as a race-tinged hate-rant}

Kimoni:
Stop playing catch up

It's not about the bro' or the ho' - it's clear the OP does not possess the requisite maturity to be involved in a full-on adult relationship. And certainly not with someone who is not wholesale commited to her and her wellbeing - who coul dat least be gentle with her as she grows.

How far? How et familia. Come, did you pass


TV

bukatyne:
@OP:

If You are the lady in your profile then it will be safe to assume

1. The only thing you have going is your beauty/body

2. You have absolutely nothing to offer a potential husband

3. You are very ambitionless and visionless

4. You have no self worth or self esteem.

5. You are a disgrace to your family.

6. That guy is obviously rich and you have seen him as a step out of real/perceived poverty.

It also applies If you are not the one.

When you are saner, read all your posts on This thread and imagine your younger sister or friend reasons like This.

You sound like you were dropped on your head as a baby.

Infact, marry the man ASAP Or better still, you both should marry the guy same day....saw one wedding invite like that a while ago here.

Perhaps I would have been nicer If I was the first to comment or If you did not drop your subsequent posts.

Bukatyne


TV

Busybody2:
Hello

Holá - where you been? - as my boy always asks me !

bellong:
Young lady, you are on a ride share.

It is either you are happy being the main/side chick or you dump him ASAP.

The choice is yours. With all the naked indices, I wonder why it is difficult for you to know that you are sharing that thing between his legs with another chick who could be the main chick.

When we tell you to zip up, you call us old fashion/school. Now, you are soul-tied to him and cannot think straight.


The summary of my epistle is that you don't have a boyfriend but a servicing agent.

NB: Is he the rich guy that cheats?

Disclaimer: if you believe the most men cheat mantra, you will sell yourself cheap to any cheat. Disciplined men don't cheat.. The undisciplined men cheat.

Sometimes I'm glad when I play catch-up. This is one of those times . Well put Belly.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
Different from LGBT, pedophilia and beastiality carry two controversial, deadly-to-the-cause undertones that wide-scale society, however liberal, can never accept with open arms:

1. Abuse.
2. Consent.

These two points are pivotal to the success of any liberal cause. Which is why associations such as NAMBLA will forever remain an object of avid disgust/rage, and shunned by the populace at large.

Those are at best minor impediments - in fact, I believe I covered them off already.

1.
All they have ot show is that the relationships are in some ways beneficial. A claim that has been made for "intergenerational relationships".

2.
Minors can give consent - especially if the age of consent is lowered so that they are no longer minors. That is also being pursued. Currently 9 is seen as the target. Ultimately it wil be removed altogether.

NAMBLA and the homosexual lobby it is part of are just being practical in making it appear seperate - for the time being.

It's all out there - anyway, we shall see.


TV

shaybebaby:
In as much as I love the rationale, with homosexuality I disagree. Whether or not it is deviant, the main crux for me is that both parties find themselves attractive and are capable of giving consent( of sound mind, no influence, legally recognised as able to act and make decisions as a person in their own right- not a minor), then it nobody's business as to the mechanics of their sexual activity.

I know you have your mrs, I know she is a consenting adult because she is now legally married to you, however I do not know if you tie each other up in bondage gear suspended from the ceiling or just go about it the good old fashioned way. Either way it is none of business because it has no impact on me personally.

The rational wasn't about "homsexuality" per se, or how deviant it is/isn't. It's about taking a socially unacceptable practice and normalising it. Homosexuality - and bestiality - has always been with us, it's about how it is culturally accepted and how to change that. The template applies.

And the "none of my business" notion doesnt cut both ways when a new orthodoxy is enforced. People who woul drather make homosexuality none of their business are forced to endorse or facilitate it.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
I realize I shouldn't have said "the West" all inclusively. I had no idea Denmark was into screwing sheep a year prior, or that there exists something called an "animal brothel".

News to me too. I'm soooo sheltered .

EnlightenedSoul:
Do you think there's a trend of moving towards, or away from it? In any case, I highly doubt it could ever gain mainstream acceptance. Definitely not in the U.S.!

But there doesn't have to be a trend - just a powerful enough lobby. We have seen that with homosexuality. It's quite a simple template;
Rename it, i.e. peadophilia, is now called "inter-generational love". And homosexuals have "loving caring relationships

Then think about casting it as a "right", and something that does not hurt anyone - which indeed is even beneficial to the couple. And focus on the "loving" bit, with no mention of the actual practices - no matter how much of a disease vector it happens to be.

Pop them into mainstream media - films, tv etc. - and always portary them as cool and right on. In direct contrast to clumsy and awkward "normal people"

Have the chattering liberal classes distil it as the new orthodoxy and police, persecute and punish any dissent. Embed it into your laws like the Irish - voilá, you are good to go.

Take any liberal cause - aka sexually deviant behaviour - rinse and repeat.


TV

Kay17:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/13/women-equal-pay-gender-gap-stories-work

Even in developed countries which are supposed to have surmounted the challenges, the ugly problems still exist. The main difficulty is accessing the level of discrimination in equal pay because payrolls are often private records of most workplaces. The workplaces have a legal right to protect and preserve their privacy. In Nigeria, there are hardly dedicated think-tanks that can accumulate the necessary stats AND most info on unequal pay are from informal channels.

BUT it is clear that the Nigerian society does not run short of prejudice against women! There is enough fuel -- prejudice to float all sorts of woman-hating vessels around. The prejudice is the main cause of the social injustice to women.

No it does not.

There is no structural impediment to women being paid the same - and it is illegal to discriminate. Any differences are down to choices and negotiating power. And, and, men work harder - and are able to work harder - than women. Fact!

As noted in one of the examples you posted, there used to be what is known as "customary discrimination" in favour of married men. Something that is no longer practised now, but not something I see as problematic - as the benefits always went onto wives and children anyway.

What is also clear is that due to lots of affirmative action, younger women in the West are now out-earning men of the same age.

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841740/Now-women-30s-earning-men-time-female-workers-staving-gender-pay-gap-having-family-later-life.html


TV

^{...racial discrimination is a way bigger problem than "gender" discrimination.}

If there was no problem - or at least potential problem - she wouldn't be asking for advice would she?

Marry this guy, and if his uncle blackmails you to sleep with him upon pain of exposure, what will you do? Remember he wanted to resume the affair when you met again - despite the fact that he was married with children. He who sins with you, will sin against you.

How are you sure that no one else knows about the affair? Go to your intended and tell him - which you should have done yourself when things got serious. And please makes sure you answer any questions truthfully and don't leave out anything that may be considered salient.

You will be liberated, and should you both proceed, totally confident in your husbands love and acceptance, on a platform of trust - the best foundation for your life together. If he truly loves you and wants a future with you, it's a small thing to get over - NOW. Afterwards it won't be so easy.

All the best


TV

...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