₦airaland Forum

mojeer678:
Really?

The intellectual level of folks on NL is indeed worrisome, OP and commenters alike.

Are women fowls? Laying eggs like poultry?

The correct and accurate term is oocyte.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oocyte?s=t
http://www.webmd.boots.com/menopause/guide/premature-menopause

Professor, we welcome your gargantuan intellect and look forward to many years of enlightenment !

Help yourself to lipstick or nuts as appropriate !


TV

aisha2:
There are no rights in marriage. These are things you discuss and agree on before you marry.

So sweeping and emphatic, albeit a totally wrong statement? Apart from the fact that OP wasn't referring to marriage per se, marriage is exactly about rights. It fomalises the rights and responsibilities of the couple towards one another.

aisha2:
You have no rights in marriage, your right stops where your partners right starts. What happens in marriage is fairness, compromise and understanding and mutual respect and not who has rights or not

And repeated for good measure?

If there are no rights in marriage, then what distinguishes a married couple from a non-married couple?


OP, the couple are free to embrace the dictates of the faith or traditions, forge their own path or reach a compromise.


TV

vivalableue:
Ex: I live in a bilingual city where the majority speaks French. Daddy and I are both fully bilingual, but speak English. So, for the success of the kids were decided they would be better in a French school whilst learning English at home. No problem right? Wrong! I saw far my oldest was experiencing done speech delays and stuttering... At the pre-kindergarten level I enrolled him in a bilingual English school... Dad was livid, he expected our son to follow the program we put him in. But, I insisted that he stay in the school. Time goes on and, not to mine but dad's surprise, they started giving him speech therapy. His language improved,and to my delight he began conversing in French to strangers on the street (bus drivers, cashiers etc)...

So although his father felt like his decision was being usurped, he trusted me to make the right choice, and had my back. We now feel confident that once our younger one will begin school, both can start at the French ones with no difficulties.

Bolded 2 - He was usurped as you noted in Bolded 1.

There is a head in your home - it's you Congrats !

As I have always stated, feminists aren't after "egalitarianism". Simply becuase no such thing exists in the human dynamic. They ultimately want the headship mantle.

Women do not love and respect men they can ride - even if they stay together.



TV

Mintayo:
Wish i could give this more than one likes!

Graciás

swaggzo:
you may have my username and password.
At least that makes it two.

Not sarcastic, not funny. Are you high on panty fumes !


TV

vivalableue:
If you are keen in knowing my POV... Here it is; in my family you contribute to its success by using your strengths to uphold others weaknesses. For example, the Daddy is a chef, so naturally he cooks most of the meals. I love to build and I'm an IT professional, so I make sure everything is in running order when it comes to that. He's a morning person so he brings the kids to daycare/school in the morning, I finish work with energy so I take the kids top the park in the afternoons. He's better with lists, so he organizes the shopping and trips. I have a better grasp of numbers, so I calculate savings and bills. We both take care of the kids and discipline them in 1 voice regardless of who takes charge in that instance. He doesn't need my cowering myself to feel like a man, because he knows that we appreciate whatever he does for the family. I don't emasculate him for watching the food channel, he doesn't make fun of me for being obsessed with every Tech convention. The kids are allowed to discover their God given talents without feeling the pressure of "not for girls/boys" stigma. So Ya... That's our family unit.

So because you both work to your strenghts - which makes absolute sense - there is no head? Or your husband is not head as you also make decisions, bear responsibility and take charge of certain things?

destante:
the way I see it, the head of the home are the directors of the home. And it would be difficult to alienate either the man or the woman from it. While the man is a symbolic head, he is also by responsibility the director of the house alongside the wife. The way they carry out such role is just different. I believe if any bad decision gets made, the buck won't stop with the man alone, the wife will share too. So the man and the woman are both "heads" of a family

The man is the "symbolic head" and yet they are both heads? So, if accountability and responsibility can be assigned to both, both must be heads - although one symbollically !

zeb04:
If there is a decision to make,the one who is more knowledgeable in that aspect makes the final say.. at least that's the way it is where am from.

And if the most knowledgeable makes the decision - and I agree that makes absolute sense - why does that have anything to do with headship?
Or put another way, does making decisions imply headship or ultimate responsibility?

donroxy:
The Op is an Opportunist not a feminist .....

https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif


TV

amokeme:
Marriage scares me...

It shouldn't. Start by learning about what it is and for. Then understand the expectations and character pre-requisites for a fulfilling union.

Best
TV

Holá Men,

Watched the CL highlights yesterday – was back really late and had supper in front of the telly. Bayern were looking very machinelike – in a Terminator sort of way.

Chelsea looked formidable – even if against relatively lightweight opposition. And whats with City? Totally nervy and swagless in Europe. Alarmingly beta?


TV

SirShymex:
Well, I honestly don't think there's a contradiction in my post. Relationships/marriages should be more of a partnership/teamsport, with assigned roles for everyone involved - and a team-leader/captain - without anyone being submissive.

There is a contradiction. I pointed it out the first time and you've repeated it here. Without answering my charge. Why is there a need for a leader if there is no "submission"?

SirShymex:
And in the case of relationships/marriages, men are naturally the leaders due to their innate temperament - and effectively being raised consciously/subconsciously by the society and whatever family set-up they came out from to always take the lead/initiative.

...and yet more on leaders - what do leaders do? What are leaders for??

SirShymex:
Once you start asking for submissiveness, then you've effectively made yourself infallible. And more like a God-like figure, who can never do no wrong. However, it takes two to tango, and you need the other party to always get involved, for ideas sharing. While still maintaing your different roles within the set-up. Submissiveness takes that away completely and, creates a docile robotic-figure. And the inertia is going to delegate more responsibilities to you as a leader.

I have to assume you read my post before writing this - but just in case;

TV01:
Submission does not mean silence. It means full dialogue and agreement - and where agreement cannot be reached, the buck has to stop with someone - Dadddddyyyyy !

SirShymex:
The three biggest qualities of a good leader are: listening skills, open-mindedness, and sensitivity to other people's ideas. So, when you ask for submissiveness, while in effect making yourself an infallible God-like figure - then you have negated those qualities.

First, in light of how I defined submission, none of this makes much sense.
Second, when you are in the crucible of marriage you will realise the biggest quality required from a leader is to actually lead.
Third, when shots have to be called and decisions made, or in a crises, start being all "sensitive" and see how your spouse takes it !

SirShymex:
The word "submissiveness" itself is medieval, and you can never run a partnership, team, and/or team-sport with that. Let me use team sport to buttress my point: in team sports, you can only be submissive to the coach - not team-captain. With the team-captain, you share ideas. So, are you taking the leadership position of the team coach, or the team-captain? If you want the role of the team coach - then you've to re-apply and become your partner's father. However, if your position is synonymous with that of the team-captain, which is what it should be - then you honestly can't ask for submissiveness.

Your incorrect interpretation of submission apart, I like the sports metaphors. Having both boxed and played team sports. So again, in a pinch or a clutch situation, after a huddle - or before one - what does a captain do.

SirShymex:
Anyway, I've always been the de-facto lead in all my relationships, as the male figure. However, I've never asked anyone to be submissive to me. It's always about sharing ideas, delegating roles, and me taking the initiative after effective communication/discussion with my partner. Before doing anything, it's my responsibility to ask her about what she thinks. And that's something you can't do with a submissive figure.

Presumably she "acquiesced" to your taking the initiative or did you ask permission for that !

Please stop it.

Even if the feminist push appears to be for equality, it never is. Relationships can be quite egalitarian, but there is always a power dynamic and a natural division along gender lines - even in SS relationships.

And as a man, the male/female dynamic suggests you are on shakey ground if you don't take charge. Even the crypto-feminists are wired to respond to status and leadership qualities in men.

The ones shouting for death to gender roles either don't have men or are paired with betas ! Why don't you ask them?


TV

coogar:
TV01, na she be that?

Na I'm 0!
Totally submissive, young and nubile - eggs fertilised - in fact, I may have to make an appearance in the expectant fathers thread !


TV

carefreewannabe:
Nobody has seen any pics.

Keep pretending

...can I get a witness !


TV

coogar:
you used to be bubbly & graceful - what happened to you? did you suffer a monumental heartbreak

It's called "hitting the wall". Many women can't deal with it. And they hate to hear the truth about it. They simply wake up one morning and realise that their value as a spouse is plummetting like the DOW on Black Monday - it can be a sickening realisation.

Probably not helped by seeing the pic of my wife - frozen eggs don't make you more attractive.

We continue to warn them


TV

carefreewannabe:
If I was as ugly as the woman you quoted, I would also blame nature.

Yeah, avoid the words of a prophet of your religion

carefreewannabe:
TV, a 40+ man who pretends to be posting pics of his wife to help defend his bruised ego.

I knew you saw the pic....made you green with envy huh? It figures, since then you've been so foul mouthed. Like you said, blame nature !

carefreewannabe:
40 + man behaving like a teenager.

I checked with all my "large age-gap" peers - funny what a nubile young woman by your side does for your well-being and energy levels.


TV

carefreewannabe:
I swear, I want to marry myself.

Then, unfreeze two eggs and mix - please come back and tell us whether you end up with an omelette or a baby !

You are seriously struggling and on the edge.


TV

The generational dissonance is due to a number of things.

The older generation of women tended to be submissive - and to the extreme - without anything - or even ill-treatment - in return. The current generation typically want to be at least "equal" in authority, blur the lines between roles and responsiblilty and some believe earning power should be a key determinant of "leadership".

Both are recipes for relatively unhappy or broken marriages.

Submission does not mean silence. It means full dialogue and agreement - and where agreement cannot be reached, the buck has to stop with someone - Dadddddyyyyy !

I mostly give leave to what my wife wants, but if there's ever an impasse, I make the call - and take full responsibility.

SirShymex:
Rather than say "submissive" using "compromise"/"understanding" would be better. Once you start asking women to be submissive in today's world, then it sounds more like asking them to be slaves. Men don't need slaves - we just need women to understand their unique role(s) in the family, and be able to compromise.
The role of women folks is to be the helper, and the housekeeper, without necessarily being submissive. While male folks are the provider, and patron/chaperone of the family. Both parties just need to learn how to perform their roles better, and effectively.
Personally, I don't want a submissive woman. I want someone who can be a helper and a good mother to my kids. A housekeeper. Someone to challenge and stimulate me mentally, while still respecting me for being the head/patron of the family. And most definitely a good cook.

Have you ever been in a relationship that did not have a de facto lead - other than an extremely casual one? Even homosexual relationships display a power dynamic.

You contradict yourself in the bolded - if there is no submission, why is there need for a head?.


TV

carefreewannabe:
If you had been week educated in a sane country like I, you would have been able to check that his sources are older than mine.

Ignoramus.

I never said anything about source. Coogars point was the control basis.

It's only Tuesday and you are already having a bad weekend !


TV

coogar:
yes, we are discussing how much effect do older dads have on birth defects. there are other variables that weren't looked into in the older studies.

•the maternal age of the partner of the older dad
•prenatal care initiation,
•maternal smoking
•drugs during pregnancy.
•alcohol drinking during pregnancy

all these factors were not put into consideration in the older studies. they just plated statistics on the kids with the birth defects and the age of the dads.....they even ignored the age of the mothers. how's that accurate enough?



yes, they ignored it....according to this research.


There has been a long-running debate about the association between paternal age and birth defects. Some studies have failed to adequately control for maternal age, and have suffered from high levels of missing paternal age, raising concerns over selection bias.

This paper analyzes an anonymously case-controlled dataset with 98% complete parental age data, originally collected to investigate the association between parental exposure to birth defects.

In our methods the cases and controls were matched on maternal age to within 6 months, and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio associated with a 10-year increase in paternal age.

Our results showed the estimated odds ratio for a birth defect pregnancy associated with a 10-year increase in paternal age was 1.13, 95%CI (0.85, 1.52). There was no statistically significant evidence of an association between paternal age and birth defects, but the estimated association was positive. The size of the estimated effect is considerably smaller than the effect of maternal age.

If Coogars point above are true - essentially earlier studies did not control for other variables apart from Paternal age, then the onus is on CareFreeWannabe to produce some that do.

It's likely - especially in the West, where men are typically shamed into marrying older women - that older father simply meant older mothers.

Please, do quick - this is getting interesting, I may have to revise my estimate of the male window


TV

coogar:
you must have been born spiritually blind.

[img]http://igniss.blog.hr/slike/l/autizam_sizofrenija_i_dijabetes_s_muskom_dobi.png[/img]

on the graph says A S D(red line)

a = autism
s = schizophrenia
d = diabetes



this is the research results....


BACKGROUND: Although the association between maternal age and the risks of birth defects has been well studied, the evidence from population data linking paternal age with birth defects was limited and inconsistent.

METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 5,213,248 subjects from the 1999-2000 birth registration data of the USA. Multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the independent effect of paternal age on all birth defects and 21 specific defects groups after adjusting for potential confounding of maternal age, race, education, marital status, parity, prenatal care initiation, maternal smoking and alcohol drinking during pregnancy.

RESULTS: A total of 77,514 (1.5%) birth defects were recorded in the study cohort. The adjusted odds ratios were 1.04 (1.01, 1.06), 1.08 (1.04, 1.12), 1.08 (1.02, 1.14) and 1.15 (1.06, 1.24), respectively, for infants born to fathers 30-35, 40-44, 45-49 and over 50 years (test for trend, P = 0.0155),

when compared with those infants born to fathers aged 25-29 for any birth defect. Advanced paternal age was associated with increased risks of heart defects, tracheo-oesophageal fistulaoesophageal atresia, other musculoskeletal/integumental anomalies, Down's syndrome and other chromosomal anomalies.

Fathers under 25 years of age were also at increased risks of spina bifida/meningocele, microcephalus, omphalocele/gastroschisis and other musculoskeletal/integumental anomalies.

CONCLUSIONS: Infants born to older fathers have a slightly increased risk of birth defects. Young paternal age is also associated with slightly increased risk of several selected birth defects in their offspring. However, given the weak association, paternal age appears to play a small role in the aetiology of birth defects.

Hmmm...

Although this study sounds plausible, I don't think I can objectively write of all the other studies. Even the last two links Carefreewannabee posted (not the Daily Mail ones), seemed scientifically conclusive that age was a factor in male fertility a lá sperm quality.

Maybe we should be looking for something more recent? Althpugh there seems to be a body of evidence to support age related deterioration in men - or are we quibbling over how much, not if?


TV

coogar:
there's little or no truth in the biological clock of men. several other researches have proven there's no significant risk of down syndrome in men older age unlike the women. a woman's biological clock ticks 1,000 times faster than that of men.

[img]http://igniss.blog.hr/slike/l/autizam_sizofrenija_i_dijabetes_s_muskom_dobi.png[/img]

look at the red line(men) and black line(women). whose is worse?? there are hundreds of researches on the internet & in the cases where autism or down syndrome was found with older men, it was because the older men married older women.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12771769/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6220960/?i=4&from=/19449414/related

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19449414/?i=8&from=/12771769/related

I don't agree with the bolded.

There is a biological clock for men - even if it's only in terms of the quality of their sperm. Although I see your point in terms of an absolute ability to procreate.

I'd also agree that a mans clock (and thus window) is slightly more favourable and probably more amenable to lifestyle change enhancements.
And as noted, a couple with two older partners has even more risks and potentiual issues along the procreation chain.


TV

I wasn't arguing for or against. I plainly stated I hadn't been aware of that fact?

cococandy:
lol. I meant I wasn't arguing against your point that older men have a bigger window of opportunity.

I wasn't making that point. Just that both males and females have windows, and we should be aware and aim for as close an overlap as possible for best results

Which is the point I made, older woman - yonger man couples are relatively few??

cococandy:
and I agreed with you.

Ok

The fact that "eggs" are not "aged" as such and sperm are, is not the whole story in procreation.

cococandy:
almost the whole. But not the whole story

Not if you consider fertility, conception, gestation and delivery. There are potential risks and problems at every stage.

As per my post above, age in women is about capability/fertility, in men it seems to be more about quality

cococandy:
agreed to an extent. Asides from fertility issues women generally get better with age too. personality wise. Everyone does. Life humbles us all.

"Better with age" probably comes to bear on nurture as opposed to procreation. And older fathers usually possess the exact same age related improvements as older mothers.


TV

jumzzy448:
@Carefree, can you please cut the op some slack. Stop this your I know it all attitude.

Please go easy on Carefreewannabee and allow me to admit my part in her sour attitude. The serious rinsing I've been giving her as NL' foremost Femnivore has wreaked havoc with her normally placid mood !

TV

cococandy:
I'm not arguing that. Nor am I interested in numbers or proportion.

I wasn't arguing for or against. I plainly stated I hadn't been aware of that fact?

cococandy:
Older men marry younger women more easily than older women marry younger men(in my side of the world)

Which is the point I made, older woman - yonger man couples are relatively few??

cococandy:
I only used such examples so that in each case, it is clear who's contributing the aging gametes.

The fact that "eggs" are not "aged" as such and sperm are, is not the whole story in procreation.

cococandy:
But even older male/older female mating poses a risk of birth defect and which is more often than not a fault from the aging sperm and not the eggs.

As per my post above, age in women is about capability/fertility, in men it seems to be more about quality

cococandy:
I'm talking the biological aspect not the social one.

And that's perfectly fine and understood, but the two work in tandem, and for a reason !


TV

Just read through all the links. Interesting, although nothing new in an overarching sense – both men and women have optimal marriage/childbirth windows - but informative in the additional detail and the insight given to the hows and whys.

As women age, fertility wanes, but the quality of their eggs – of which she receive a full complement at birth – does not.

As men age, the quality of the sperm produced – as production is continuous – reduces, and they are more likely to pass on DNA mutations to any offspring.

Obviously if the mothers copy of the affected gene is fine, there is a decreased risk of the bad gene being passed on. It also seems, that where they are passed on, paternal bad genes are more likely to lead to miscarriages.

The effects seem to start showing in men around 40 (but could be earlier?) and are more noticeable by the time they hit their 50’s. It’s also very much lifestyle and environment driven.

A healthy lifestyle of good eating, exercise and the like should enhance the quality of sperm. Some of the chemicals in the food chain and contaminants everyday items certainly give pause for thought.

For women, as they age, it’s the ability to conceive that wanes. For men, it the quality of their sperm. You have been warned. GO out and marry. Marry well and with understanding. Try and do it in as timely a manner as possible.

Strong marriages, healthy homes , flourishing societies.

Brought to you by the BeFoRe^c Foundation.



TV

cococandy:
This bit is true. I know it to be true.

When Older male- younger female versus older female -younger male couples mate, it is more possible to have birth defects from the former group than the latter

We all know that men also have a "window of opportunity" when it comes to marriage and childbirth. Although I hadn't actually heard the above before - but assuming it's true - all the more reason for men and women to consider and engage marriage in a timely fashion.

One thing though, what is the proportion of "older female - younger male" couples (and I don't mean a relatively small age gap)? A rather small percentage I'd wager - and even smaller when you think in terms of "marriages/real committed relationships".

Cougars feeling funky are hardly likely to be in permanent/long-term relationships with children in view. It's more likely the young bobo has his fill of her and then finds himself a nubile young filly to procreate with .


TV

swaggzo:
hahaha.. He undercover aye?? :p

No Balls!


TV

carefreewannabe:
All you do here is to force your narrow-minded views on people by means of cheap propaganda that denigrates women and determines their value by age and their ability or disability to push out babies.

Who cares about what you admire?

Tell it someone who cares.

No Content! No Gifs!!


TV

BananaBender:
LMAO! Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Is this a joke? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Pulling the sympathy card huh?? Sholly denigrated my wife, my wife's parent and all. *cry-cry*

You insulted your wife when you made this comment:
"They simply cannot touch Mrs TV01 - not in pedigree, heritage, character, demeanor, graciousness or beauty. My delightful wife epitomises all that deep down they aspire to be, but even deeper down realise they can never attain to.

How can an admixture of desperate and ageing singles, bitter and lonely divorcees, plain-faced lesbians (yes, I know cheesy!)low brow, low rent, low class and low bred, damaged & limping, treadless purveyors of slut-ho doctrines even stand"

Your high standard having wife must be so proud of the above. Yep, you weren't referring to me but when you insult women, I take that very personal.

Wait, are you okay? Are u hurt?



Mr Jesus-Jesus, why are you lying. You're the christian here, right? How can I run from you, my post was probably 15min apart at most.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha, plus I was busy making fun of you offline. Who hasn't met a happily married feminist?? Where does he live?


[img]You first pretended not to have seen the pic – ok, I’ll afford you the benefit of the doubt – you then tried to make it about my wife and my caring about your opinion of my wife ![/img]

aaaawww, see dude, I didn't know I hurt your feelings like this oh. Bwhahahahahahaa, we were obviously running on a different frame of mind.

If you truly posted a picture of your wife, how come no one made a comment about it? I don't think anyone saw the picture but hey, you can prove me wrong, post again.

I made it about your wife?? Refer to the post above, bwahahahahahahaha This dude is crazy.



Bwhahahahahaha You are pulling every sympathy card you can get.



You are delusional, and not smart either.

Babble, my one line response is babble?? I don die with laughter

Let's start from the beginning. This time I promise to refresh the page every second, promise to respond within 5min.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, I am laughing so hard right now. LML.

No Pic! No Contest!! No Surprise!!!


TV

@betterbest,

It can't be easy and I wouldn't wish your predicament on anyone.

Forgiving infidelity, while in itself is highly commendable, it does not of itself restore trust. The truth is, you should have put a stop to progressing the relationship – not necessarily ended the relationship - at that point and not resumed progress until you were satisfied that your WTB fully appreciated the error of her ways, was totally repentant and trust had been restored.

Glossing over the issue and “progressing” only left it to fester. You continued on to marriage without true pause for thought, reflection and healing. I can only advise you to re-trace your steps to the point of infidelity and work to rebuild the trust. You cannot rightfully divorce her – you married her with full knowledge.

As a man, you need to fully get to grips with what happened and be sure within yourself that it was indeed an error – never to be repeated. Your wife’ role will be perhaps more important here.

If you don’t, you’ll never fully appreciate your wife or enjoy your union. You have no reason to doubt her faithfulness since you married, so please focus your efforts on restoration, rather than reflecting on the past.

Why needlessly suffer and blight your present and future – and remember your child - for something that can be consigned to the past – where it belongs?

This thread may help. https://www.nairaland.com/1284024/broken-dejected-found-out-wife#15631088
And I expantiated here; https://www.nairaland.com/1284024/broken-dejected-found-out-wife/2#15635959


All the best


TV

^{I hope other men can learn, that “love”, while important, does not sustain marriage in or of itself. OP has rightly stated that trust is the pillar. I hasten add to that other things, such as, shared aspirations, commitment and honest communication and rightly calibrated expectations.}

carefreewannabe:
In your bush.

Wasn't your wife 30+ when you married her? Didn't she accept your proposal without properly knowing you?

I'm struggling to grasp the point you are making Whatever my Wife' situation, I made my choices, and took charge for my preferences with full understanding when we married - as did she. All I do here, is outline my thoughts on how other men and women interested in marriage can best do the same.

Up until now, I’ve always admired your devotion to your cause - even if I see it as woefully flawed - and willinglness to discuss factually without resort to ad-hominem.

For some reason – and most unfortunately – you seem to have departed from your previous standards. I thought the addition of well-timed gifs was for the most part an improvement, other than that, it’s been all downhill.

Like I said, you are presenting as increasingly wild and desperate. Presenting very little for this Femnivore to feast on - please give me a break - or perhaps take one yourself


TV

Shirley07:
Did Christ say children and daddy are one?
It's a wonder how you claimed to be the head when your intelligence isn't up to a pinch of salt because if it was, you would understand the sentence 'Love comes with submission'. In other words, it means you can't love without submitting. However, you can submit without any ounce of love. The earlier you realize you're such a dunce, the better.
Also, if that brain of yours can't grasp what I meant by every christians is required to have Christ as their role model, then that brain is a waste of space already because I never said only christians have Christ as their role model like you were insinuating. However, all christians must be like Christ because christian itself means to have a christ-like nature. It's a waste of time conversing with you anyway.
And let me repeat it to you, I imbibe Christ's doctrine and yeah, Christ was a feminist. There are many things he did in the bible that showed he was one. For example, he didn't condemn the adulterous woman that was brought to him because he realized the hypocrisy of the men that brough her, afterall she didn't commit the adultery with herself yet the man who was with her wasn't brought forward by the hypocrital men. No wonder Christ asked them to cast stones if they are without sins.
Another is talking with a samaritan woman which was forbidden according to the jewish law which finds it degrading for a man to converse with a woman let alone, a samaritan.
There's also Mary madgalene, whom the disciples had issues with and labelled her as wasteful yet had no qualms associating and eating merringly with Zacchaeus, the publican. Anyway, we're all aware of how Christ shut his disciples down.
Not to also forget the two Lazarus' sisters, Martha and Mary. According to the scriptures, Mary was being reprimanded by Martha for learning under Jesus' feet instead of her to be in the kitchen but Jesus shut Martha up. And according to the jews in those days, anyone that learned from a rabbi is expected to be a teacher and Jesus obviously aware of this, had no qualms teaching Mary, the way he did with his disciples.
And the greatest is telling the hypocritical pharisee that husband and wife are one flesh, which means no one has the right to treat the other the way he/she likes but to treat each other as one body, just like he is one with God and the Holy Spirit. So, Christ was a feminist and by his grace, I'm one. I repeat Feminism brought about women emancipation and you can shove that into your ass.
That said, if you can't see where Paul addressed christian slave masters in ephe 6:9 to lessen their threatning on their slaves, then that eyes of yours is better off being shot because it's useless. Like I said earlier, I don't blame you because if you were a slave, you won't be here dribbling out saliva to drive a point. What am I even saying? you're better off being a slave because that primitive brain of yours reason like one.
Moreover, there are many things Paul said in the bible that were contradictory to Christ's teaching. For example, Christ said anyone that call his brother a fool is deem for hell but Paul didn't heed to that warning. Christ also said we shouldn't swear nor boast but Paul had no qualms doing such.
Whatever, carry go with your paul's doctrine but I'm for Christ, a feminist!

My, my, my, you really are confused/delusional aren’t you

You’ve charged Paul with being;
1. A champion of slavery
2. A misogynist
3. Anti-Christ

Whilst to you Jesus The Christ is;
1. A role-model
2. Social Justice Warrior (SJW)
3. A good man (according to your friend and fellow "Feminianity" devotee CarefreeWannabe)

If you would only know Christ as God Incarnate, Lord, Saviour and Master (did that hurt ?), your eyes would open. Till then…

Paul never said a word that contradicts the teaching of Jesus my Lord & Saviour – or that didn’t echo God’s eternal plan. He merely gave more detail of the working of the church and relations between husbands & wives, men & women and the brethren.

It’s a shame that you have to assassinate the character of The Apostle Paul, merely to suit your feminist beliefs. It’s instructive that you have not been able to quote any scripture to back up your claims. Just a long, tired, easily discredited narrative – that you clearly learnt second-hand.

Christianity and The Gospel nowhere and in no way subjugates women or brings anyone into bondage. Men and women are equal in worth, value and in the sight of God. And don’t forget, Christianity emancipated women! You are your ilk are in bondage…to a devilish ideology.


TV

^{**NL foremost Femnivore - on a turkey shoot **}

Shirley07:
I don't aspire to be a trophy wife.

Trophy wife na beanz?
Do you think just anyone can be a trophy wife?

You need to be cultured, well-spoken, properly maintained, possess fine deportment, be easy on the eye and committed to being a "wife in the true sense of the word .

From what you've displayed here, even Gollum would look at you and say "at best, she makes a good case for charitable polygamy"


TV

^{**NL' chief Femnivore - snacking & flossing**}