I saw this on Twitter and I'd like to know your thoughts.


Tweets by @doreenGLM

I just don't know what the allure is to accepting a future with someone who thinks he has the right to make the final decision on your life.

When women who have not yet experienced marriage, speak about "hoping to be good and submissive wives" I am almost always positive they have
No idea how difficult it is, to have reached a certain age where they have experienced independence and the self validation of being captain
Of their own ships, and having to suddenly deal with accomodating an outside opinion that might be selfishly motivated.

Suddenly, fighting
For what you want, makes you seem like one of those "bitter feminists" who go around thinking they can upend the natural order of things.

How did you get here? You thought submission was going to be easy. You thought "letting a man be a man" would not reduce you this much.

You thought you wouldn't feel this defiant and challenged. You thought he wouldn't expect THIS MUCH from you. You thought he would be fairer
.

Now you have to make even moreadjustments to keep the peace in your home. Now you have to accept that even trying to politely assert your
Opinion, causes him to stiffen up and tell you, "You have started again". The best thing to do now is just Pray and also work on being a

"Better wife", because being a "better you" is no longer as important. Being a wife trumps working on building self validation, and pride in

Making decisions to advance your own life. Now he gets to feel the self validation of the both of you. He can feel like the man he is. He is

Not only proud of his ability to control his life, but he can also control your own life too. He is a man, he makes decisions that are final
He walks around more confidently now because he knows there is a place he can go, where everyone is obedient. Where he can see the challenge

Flash in his wife's eyes, yet watch it leave with a quirk of his eyebrow. She becomes more unsure and anxious, while he becomes more

Confident. God has made her more of a better woman, she starts aligning herself to women in the bible who were meek and obedient. She Convinces herself that they are her heroes. If they could do it, so could she. She has a good job and contributes financially to her home,

But work is different from home. At home she is transformed over 2000 years back into the role of one of her heroes in the Bible.
If you are dating any man who has a passion for the idea of a submissive wife, if you have any love for preserving yourself, leave that man.

So many women are in church trying to deal with the MISTAKE they made of entering a more traditionally structured marriage. It is PAINFUL.

Don't believe the hype, being single is infinitely BETTER than losing yourself to someone who is so selfish that they don't grieve it.

How can you the person who claims to love you, want a meeker version of you? How can they want you to boost them up at your own expense?

How can they be okay with you becoming a child, dependent on their approval, when they met you as a fully functional adult? It is wrong.

Listen to me, do not make this mistake of thinking marriage has to be that hard or this difficult. It only is because you cannot be yourself

You are not a "better woman" because you learned how to "obey better". You have been broken by another person and it is EVIL.



also check out http://thegirlslikeme.com

God bless you...

A wife is suppose to obey her husband that's the norm.

Having a pencil or sharpener down there is not the basis of who's 2 b submissive or not. There r guys out there who care less as 2 if d lady is submissive or not. Compatibility is d watch word here. U cn't b dating a guy who loves nothing more than a girl who jumps whenever he commands it and expect 2 challenge him.

, the tragedies of the mentally emancipated woman imprisoned by ancient conventions, smh. It was easier then. When a girl would marry, naïve and incapable, at sixteen; when all she could do was depend on a husband for everything, even her raison d'etre; she would accept a life of submission to him with gratitude. But now, when women have access to the tools to survive independently - education and life skills, when they have begun to have ambitions for themselves, it is inhumane to expect them to silence the spirit inside them that has already begun to breathe and grow.

People point to the Bible whenever they're uncomfortable with change. They selectively try to trap people in a time capsule to keep them in check, so they emphasize static codes. They focus on the 'what' rather than the 'why'. If you focus on the 'why' you can understand objectives, and principles that can evolve over time to suit the prevalent zeitgeist, so long as the objective is met. if you focus on the 'what' you stand the risk of encountering conflict - forcing an obsolete model on an incompatible platform. We live in a very dynamic world, evolution is inevitable. Denying it is counter productive, because instead of people to fit themselves into a tiny cage they've long since outgrown, they'll become suspicious of it, and rebel against it.

That's a really nice article. Well written. Thanks for sharing it.

Like Tok2008 wrote once,

'A partner', an amazing one for that matter, na e make sense pass.

As much as submission is cool and all, I'd like to hear her views, weigh it together, and decide what's best, argue abit, still have each other's backs.
Not one that, any suggestions i make, na 'yes sir' i go dey hear. .

Like that coming to America movie, when they picked a wife for Eddie Murphy, and the wife was like "anything the prince wants/likes, that's what i want/like"

Lol

Trash! There's nothing wrong with a man that wants a submissive wife, or a wife that's submissive to her husband. Submissiveness isn't a vice rather its a good attribute. . . It takes effacement to be submissive. Neither being submissive equate to being subjugable nor being a first between equals equate to being a master. Mutual conscientious libertarians won't encounter any problem in a union of this structure.

However, there's everything wrong with a man that wants a slave as wife, or a wife that allows herself to be enslaved. Only a domineering man longs to subjugate his wife, and only an omega class woman can endure his small-mindedness.

OP, next time don't mix up submissiveness with slavery. It's an abomination to advice women to run away from men that expect them to be submissive. Only wannabe feminist - conceited, narcissistic and contentious women - or outright feeble-minded women that supports popular opinions without practicing them will agree with the OP.

lol....the crap continues

the Bible said submit.... why not drop christainity and live your life as you want?

why give yourself stress? live submission to those who can accomplish it, and go your weak ways

when you talk of feminism, remove religion from it,because it makes your stupidity glow

it's that easy

Wonderful article.
Thanks for sharing.

LordKO:
Trash! There's nothing wrong with a man that wants a submissive wife, or a wife that's submissive to her husband. Submissiveness isn't a vice rather its a good attribute. . . It takes effacement to be submissive. Neither being submissive equate to being subjugable nor being a first between equals equate to being a master. Mutual conscientious libertarians won't encounter any problem in a union of this structure.

However, there's everything wrong with a man that wants a slave as wife, or a wife that allows herself to be enslaved. Only a domineering man longs to subjugate his wife, and only an omega class woman can endure his small-mindedness.

OP, next time don't mix up submissiveness with slavery. It's an abomination to advise women to run away from men that expects them to be submissive. Only wannabe feminist - conceited, narcissistic and contentious women - or outright feeble-minded women that supports popular opinions without practising them will agree with the OP.

this is the meaning of submission

submission

noun

the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.





so with respect to this, don't you think the emboldened part of your comment is kinda contradictory? Mutual conscientious libertarians would function well in a relationship where two people compromise in different ways for each other by considering the point of view of each other and coming together to create the best option.
Rather than in a relationship where one person is expected to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled.

unless you don't understand the meaning of the words you used.

lilmax:
lol....the crap continues

the Bible said submit.... why not drop christainity and live your life as you want?

why give yourself stress? live submission to those who can accomplish it, and go your weak ways

when you talk of feminism, remove religion from it,because it makes your stupidity glow

it's that easy

True. I agree. A Christian, Muslim, or Jewish feminist is an OXYMORON!

But, wait, this is the 21st century. Most people don't believe in God. Yeah, you read that right. They DON'T REALLY BELIEVE in God, as their actions show. They might believe by word of mouth, but their life styles betray their true beliefs and priorities. Most just believe for EMOTIONAL MASTURBATION [having a romance as a female, or bromance as a male, with God, because they're emotional cripples who need a sky daddy as a crutch] while ignoring the commandments and demands the religion makes of them. That's why our religious youths commit fornication repeatedly without batting an eyelid. And that's why a Christian can also be a feminist, because, in truth, he's a just Christian by name!

Christianity is a dead religion. The zombie has just refused to vanish and would stagger on for a few more years, or maybe another century or two, but it would definitely disappear! Can you imagine anyone being a Christian five centuries from now?! It's clearly IMPOSSIBLE, given modern trends.

People now value MONEY and FREEDOM, more than stüpid religions. The era of control is coming to an end.

---

Tozara

Proudgorgeousga:




this is the meaning of submission

submission

noun

the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.





so with respect to this, don't you think the emboldened part of your comment is kinda contradictory? Mutual conscientious libertarians would function well in a relationship where two people compromise in different ways for each other by considering the point of view of each other and coming together to create the best option.
Rather than in a relationship where one person is expected to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled.

unless you don't understand the meaning of the words you used.

Foremost, submission is akin to slavery (especially in the context you used it herein), thus, the main reason why I termed your OP as trash - your choice of the word wasn't proper. Submissiveness is the euphemism of submission on this subject.. . What sane and sound men expect from their wives is submissiveness. You need to understand that as nouns there's a tiny but important difference between submission and submissiveness. While the former is the act of submitting ( meaning that you have no choice whether your opinion/action is correct or not) the latter is the state or quality of being submissive (meaning that you have a choice but agree only because you're understandable).

This tiny but important difference between the two words necessitate the importance of the attribute self-effacing (a woman that doesn't posses effacement as attribute should try and acquire it as an attitude, except one that stupidly nurses the idea of wearing the headship crown in her marriage) - and, of course, men are expected to be effacing too where and when necessary. Before I go on, personally, I am an egalitarian, therefore, I know that being first between equals doesn't mean a master and his servant, I stated this clearly in my OP. Also, like I said in my OP (scantly though):

- Being submissive doesn't equate to being subjugable.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man (I have to assume that you have a sane and sound man) wouldn't consider your opinion which is superior to his to stand as a decision.

- Being submissive won't deprive you equality before your man.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man will expect you to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled, no - not when you have superior opinion or your action is conscientious.

- Meanwhile, when and where your sane and sound man allows your opinion, which is superior to his to stand as decision, that automatically means that he's submissive to you too. So, you can see that submissiveness is like a two way traffic light.

Now, I hope you will see the feasibility of my "mutual conscientious libertarianism" propagation. 90% of troubled marriages/relationships have their root in ethical disparities, so just a change of ethical philosophy will save a whole lot of them. . . When you hear people say that they're divorcing because of "irreconcilable differences" what they mean is that they've ethical disparities without understanding it, and this can easily be solved.

Bless the Op, Lord.

LordKO:


Foremost, submission is akin to slavery, thus, the main reason why I termed your OP as trash - your choice of the word wasn't proper. . . What sane and sound men expects from their wives is submissiveness. You need to understand that as nouns there's a tiny but important difference between submission and submissiveness. While the former is the act of submitting ( meaning that you have no choice whether your opinion/action is correct or not) the latter is the state or quality of being submissive (meaning that you have a choice but agree only because you're understandable).

This tiny but important difference between the two words necessitate the importance of the attribute self-effacing (a woman that doesn't posses effacement as attribute should try and acquire it as an attitude, except one that stupidly nurses the idea of wearing the headship crown in her marriage) - and of course men are expected to be self-effacing too. Before I go on, personally, I am an egalitarian, therefore, I know that being first between equals doesn't mean a master and his servant, I stated this clearly in my OP. Also, like I said in my OP (scantly though):

- Being submissive doesn't equate to being subjugable.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man (I have to assume that you have a sane and sound man) wouldn't consider your opinion which is superior to his to stand as a decision.

- Being submissive won't deprive you equality before your man.

- Being submissive doesn't mean that your man will expect you to compromise all the time and yield to be controlled, no - not when you have superior opinion or your action is conscientious.

- Meanwhile, when and where your sane and sound man allows your opinion which is superior to his to stand as decision, that automatically means that he's submissive to you too. So, you can see that submissiveness is like a two way traffic light.

Now, I hope you will see the feasibility of my "mutual conscientious libertarianism" propagation. 90% of troubled marriages/relationships has their root in ethical disparities, so just a change of ethical philosophy will save a whole lot of them. . . When you hear people say that they're divorcing because of "irreconcilable differences" what they mean is that they've ethical disparities without understanding it, and this can easily be solved.

the article is for those that believe compromise is women's job in relationships. Majority of people who passionately preach submission or let me use your own "submissiveness don't believe it required from men too and LOTS of people believe that. So I'm all for mutual give and take in relationships. Therefore one sided "submissiveness"no matter how you define it is trash.
a willing slave is still a slave

From my experience most men that are passionate or obsessed with the word are usually arrogant /self absorbed and have no plans of reciprocating.

personally I do not think effacement is a good attribute to pocess. I'd rather it is replaced with modesty. I would rather not be in a relationship where I would have to become invisible to please another person.

overall I now understand your perspective better even though I don't agree.

But how can people still have these expectations of women when even governments the world over have adjusted themselves to more humane structures. It used to be that a Monarch would lord it over his subjects. But through time, it's accepted that human beings are not made for that kind of treatment. Now, democracy is being embraced and autocratic governments are seen as evil. Why are we insisting on keeping the evil in homes? Families should also transition to a more democratic model.

It might not have been so in biblical times but we haven't let the bible stop us from abolishing other distasteful practices like slave trade. Why is there suddenly a line?

Proudgorgeousga:


the article is for those that believe compromise is women's job in relationships. Majority of people who passionately preach submission or let me use your own "submissiveness don't believe it required from men too and LOTS of people believe that. So I'm all for mutual give and take in relationships. Therefore one sided "submissiveness"no matter how you define it is trash.

From my experience most men that are passionate or obsessed with the word are usually arrogant /self absorbed and have no plans of reciprocating.

personally I do not think being effacement is a good attribute to pocess. I'd rather it is replaced with modesty. I would rather not be in a relationship where I would have to become invisible to please another person.

overall I now understand your perspective better even though I don't agree.

LOL @ "I would rather not be in a relationship where I would have to become invisible to please another person" this statement can only be made by either a domineering man/woman or a wannabe feminist - conceited or narcissistic woman. In Igbo parlance we do say "an alpha dog that falls on the ground for its equal isn't because of fear" - this is an example of what effacement is all about. Its not a servile attribute. Embrace diplomacy.

Actually, one thing with all domineering, conceited and narcissistic people is that in spite of their boisterous and arrogance persona they're always timorous. The most confident and intelligent people I know always choose to appear self-effacing.

Meanwhile, the crux of your article is "If you are dating any man who has a passion for the idea of a submissive wife, if you have any love for preserving yourself, leave that man." and this is contrary to your claim herein. You see, no one person has monopoly of wisdom, so we all should always endeavor to learn where and when necessary. Maybe you will have to rewrite your article.

LordKO:


LOL @ "I would rather not be in a relationship where I would have to become invisible to please another person" this statement can only be made by either a domineering man/woman or a wannabe feminist - conceited or narcissistic woman. In Igbo parlance we do say "an alpha male dog that fall on the ground for its equal isn't because of fear" - this is what effacement is all about. Its not a servile attribute. Embrace diplomacy.

Actually, one thing with all domineering, conceited and narcissistic people is that in spite of their boisterous and arrogance persona they're always timorous. The most confident and intelligent people I know are always self-effacing.

Meanwhile, the crux of your article is "If you are dating any man who has a passion for the idea of a submissive wife, if you have any love for preserving yourself, leave that man." and this is contrary to your claim herein. You see, no one person has monopoly of wisdom, so we all should always endeavor to learn where and when necessary. Maybe you will have to rewrite your article.

My assertion has to do with the word you used which is effacement. You should have used a better word. A modest person do not have to posses effacement as an attribute neither is he/she arrogant.

having a healthy dose of self-esteem is not narcissism neither is it arrogance.

so I repeat I will not become invisible or walk on eggshells to just please another person.

meanwhile you just picked out one line of the article to attack using it as the basis of the whole article even after I explained that my view of the article (as I'm not the author )is that it is for those who passionately believe it is the duty of only one party to submit.

NightHound:
But how can people still have these expectations of women when even governments the world over have adjusted themselves to more humane structures. It used to be that a Monarch would lord it over his subjects. But through time, it's accepted that human beings are not made for that kind of treatment. Now, democracy is being embraced and autocratic governments are seen as evil. Why are we insisting on keeping the evil in homes? Families should also transition to a more democratic model.

It might not have been so in biblical times but we haven't let the bible stop us from abolishing other distasteful practices like slave trade. Why is there suddenly a line?

On point.

Blackhawk01 come online on whatsapp asap!

Proudgorgeousga:


My assertion has to do with the word you used which is effacement. You should have used a better word. A modest person do not have to posses effacement as an attribute neither is he/she arrogant.

having a healthy dose of self-esteem is not narcissism neither is it arrogance.

so I repeat I will not become invisible or walk on eggshells to just please another person.

meanwhile you just picked out one line of the article to attack using it as the basis of the whole article even after I explained that my view of the article (as I'm not the author )is that it is for those who passionately believe it is the duty of only one party to submit.

Self-effacing is the ultimate self-esteem, just as simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Actually, one isn't expected "to be invisible or walk on eggshells" per se, rather, sanely one's expected to know where and when to apply diplomacy. Diplomacy embedded with faithfulness is the key to understanding and understanding breeds love.

Meanwhile, no, literally I hold nothing against your person, my notional usage of OP towards you notwithstanding.

Bye.

NightHound:
But how can people still have these expectations of women when even governments the world over have adjusted themselves to more humane structures. It used to be that a Monarch would lord it over his subjects. But through time, it's accepted that human beings are not made for that kind of treatment. Now, democracy is being embraced and autocratic governments are seen as evil. Why are we insisting on keeping the evil in homes? Families should also transition to a more democratic model.

It might not have been so in biblical times but we haven't let the bible stop us from abolishing other distasteful practices like slave trade. Why is there suddenly a line?

Thank you sir! There's this rational aura around you. You must be one of the sons of Apollo [The God of Reason].

CONSERVATIVES are the idiots of the 21st century! And HYPOCRITES, the beasts of the modern field!

---

Tozara

AlmiqhteeAllah:
Thank you sir! There's this rational aura around you. You must be one of the sons of Apollo [The God of Reason].

CONSERVATIVES are the idiots of the 21st century! And HYPOCRITES, the beasts of the modern field!

Very apt qualification. Nice one, bro.

LordKO:


Self-effacing is the ultimate self-esteem, just as simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Actually, one isn't expected "to be invisible or walk on eggshells" per se, rather, sanely one's expected to know where and when to apply diplomacy. Diplomacy is key to understanding and understanding breeds love.

Meanwhile, no, literally I hold nothing against your person, my notional usage of OP towards you notwithstanding.

Bye.

self-effacing is modesty, you used effacement in your initial post that was what prompted my reply. I guess the misunderstanding is in the grammar used.

Proudgorgeousga:


self-effacing is modesty, you used effacement in your initial post that was what prompted my reply. I guess the misunderstanding is in the grammar used.

Lady, eschew conceit. LOL. Self-effacing is a standard adjective of the noun word effacement, especially in the context I used it. I understand that today is your first day of knowing the word, so you owe me for that.

LordKO:


Lady, eschew conceit. LOL. Self-effacing is a standard adjective of the noun word effacement, especially in the context I used it. I understand that today is your first day of knowing the word, so you owe me for that.

Now you are being condescending. I have already admitted that I misunderstood the word you used that is why I made the the comment about "being invisible" in relationship. so much for being the advocate of "self-effacing ".

Proudgorgeousga:


Now you are being condescending. I have already admitted that I misunderstood the word you used that is why I made the the comment about "being invisible" in relationship. so much for being the advocate of "self-effacing ".

Wow! So you don't recognize either humor or banter when you see one. Don't be too hard on yourself.

They don't like the truth

Marriage will never be blissful if the wife doesn't submit to the man which is not to say the man shouldn't be a responsible man, husband and father.


But the idea that a man and woman is equal under marriage and the man is not the head of the home, that is the joke that will keep laughing at their faces.

@op, there are many guys like us that don't want our ladies to submit to everything we say. We just want you to be open to reasoning, and also to correct us in love when we are wrong, and also to accept correction when you are wrong. We should be able to sit down and reason together to agree on the best way forward on every issue. But you have to make up your mind on what you really want so that you will not start seeing the guy as less of a "man" because he yields to some of your views.

So, look for a guy who is not crazy about you being submissive and enjoy your marriage.

Jman06:
@op, there are many guys like us that don't want our ladies to submit to everything we say. We just want you to be open to reasoning, and also to correct us in love when we are wrong, and also to accept correction when you are wrong. We should be able to sit down and reason together to agree on the best way forward on every issue. But you have to make up your mind on what you really want so that you will not start seeing the guy as less of a "man" because he yields to some of your views.

So, look for a guy who is not crazy about you being submissive and enjoy your marriage.

You are making the submissive thing sound wrong and misinterpreting it at the same time. Also you should have emboldened the part i did.


Being submissive is not the same as being a Yes woman to everything he says. It's about respecting him as the head of the home. That does not mean if he errs you wont call him to order with respect due to a man that is the head of your home. There is a difference mister.

To the lady that wrote that twitter post, I'd like to ask, of what business is it of yours if a woman decide to submit to the whims of her husband?

I believe people should learn to mind their business. If a woman decide to be a slave to her husband, it's nobody's business. And, if the likes of you decide to rebel against your husbands, it is still nobody's business.

Bottom line, we should all learn to mind our business. Period.

trustyshoess:
They don't like the truth

The truth according to who/whom?

Might I add, in today's world, the post modernist era, the truth is mightily said to be relative.