An advice from an older woman to a younger one:

"Don't learn how to do things better than your husband. A man needs to think he knows more than his wife so she will respsect him and depend on him. It makes him feel more like a man. "

What do you think about this advice?

How long would women keep massaging men's ego ?
The advice is clearly for her generation.
WTF
Mtchew.

Balderdash! Excellence doesn't automatically breed contentiousness. So, an aristocratic woman will never turn bad just because she's better than her husband in some areas of life, and a man who'll only feel respected when he's better than his wife in everything, illusorily or realistically, simply has low self-esteem.

This is my take on that advice:

Please if you are a man, but you need your wife or any woman to reduce her intelligence or creativity for you to feel more like a man, you suffer from multiple complexes. One of them is INFERIORITY.
Go fix yourself. You don't know who are(IDENTIFY CRISIS)

LordKO:
Balderdash! Excellence doesn't automatically breed contentiousness. So, an aristocratic woman will never turn bad just because she's better than her husband in some areas of life, and a man who'll only feel respected when he's better than his wife in everything, illusorily or realistically, simply has low self-esteem.

LordKO has said it all!

Then the man wonders why he is slow and toiling without success.

The principle of marriage is 'one shall chase 1,000; two shall chase 10,000'.

How does a woman become an actual helpmeet when she can't develop herself to be in the best form?

Na dem sabi.

lucianotawinji:
This is my take on that advice:

Please if you are a man, but you need your wife or any woman to reduce her intelligence or creativity for you to feel more like a man, you suffer from multiple complexes. One of them is INFERIORITY.
Go fix yourself. You don't know who are(IDENTIFY CRISIS)

Multiple complexes

An advice from old woman to young woman in 1906.

You forgot to add year of the advice sir.

Issoryt wetin musa no go see for gate.
All this men of nowadays that want to share responsibility with their wives abi which husband is she talking about?

She may be an old woman, as you said, but she is not wise or doesn't live in this modern time.

Very funny.

[s]

Biglittlelois:
Very funny.

[/s]

lucianotawinji:
An advice from an older woman to a younger one:

"Don't learn how to do things better than your husband. A man needs to think he knows more than his wife so she will respsect him and depend on him. It makes him feel more like a man. "

What do you think about this advice?

Not Nairaland men oh. Ha!

They want a woman to earn more and cater more but remain submissive. That's only when she can earn the price of being called a virtuous woman.

UjuJoan2:


Not Nairaland men oh. Ha!

They want a woman to earn more and cater more but remain submissive. That's only when she can earn the price of being called a virtuous woman.

Since submission is an equal variant of love - I know that they simply differ in names and applications due to biological necessities - you inversely said:

- That a man who makes money more than his wife shouldn't treat her with love (goodness).

- That a woman shouldn't be considered resourceful and reasonable if she doesn't earn money directly.

- That a man should always block any means his wife can use succeed in her pursuits so that she won't make more money than him and become a thorn in his flesh.

What a mentality - submission shouldn't be mistaken for servility! That you postulated can't sustain a mutual healthy marriage because it lacks altruism. Altruism remains the soul of oneness, and there can't be mutual healthy marriage where there's no oneness.

The reason most marriages haven't been able to stand the test of time or have been in shambles isn't far-fetched.

Anyway, I'm only sorry for men who aren't resourceful, discerning and established, and those who don't see the value of women beyond their material/physical possessions.

A virtuous/an aristocratic woman has no rival - whether or not she earns money, she'll still be herself. Whenever I see a conscientious woman automatically I see an aristocratic/a virtuous woman, whether or not she proclaims it.

LordKO:


Since submission is an equal variant of love - I know that they simply differ in names and applications due to biological necessities - you inversely said:

- That a man who makes money more than his wife shouldn't treat her with love (goodness).

- That a woman shouldn't be considered resourceful and reasonable if she doesn't earn money directly.

- That a man should always block any means his wife can use succeed in her pursuits so that she won't make more money than him and become a thorn in his flesh.

What a mentality - submission shouldn't be mistaken for servility! That you postulated can't sustain a mutual healthy marriage because it lacks altruism. Altruism remains the soul of oneness, and there can't be mutual healthy marriage where there's no mutual altruism.

The reason most marriages haven't been able to stand the test of time or have been in shambles isn't far-fetched.

Anyway, I'm only sorry for men who aren't resourceful, discerning and established, and those who don't see the value of women beyond their material/physical possessions.

A virtuous/an aristocratic woman has no rival - whether or not she earns money, she'll still be herself. Whenever I see a conscientious woman, automatically I see an aristocratic/ a virtuous woman.

I can't tell if you are being mischievous by drawing conclusions and making inferences that in no way reflect what I said or mean (or even think).

In any case, I don't think submission is a variant of love so the whole premise of your comment is flawed.

UjuJoan2:


I can't tell if you are being mischievous by drawing conclusions and making inferences that in no way reflect what I said or mean (or even think).

In any case, I don't think submission is a variant of love so the whole premise of your comment is flawed.

Just agree that you erred. To err is human . . . I only dissected and extrapolated your postulation.

UjuJoan2:


I can't tell if you are being mischievous by drawing conclusions and making inferences that in no way reflect what I said or mean (or even think).

In any case, I don't think submission is a variant of love so the whole premise of your comment is flawed.

you people are busy speaking engrish

UjuJoan2:


I can't tell if you are being mischievous by drawing conclusions and making inferences that in no way reflect what I said or mean (or even think).

In any case, I don't think submission is a variant of love so the whole premise of your comment is flawed.

you people are busy speaking engrish

LordKO:


Just agree that you erred. To err is human . . . I only dissected and extrapolated your postulation.

No, you jumped to conclusion without cause. Just agree that you erred!

What a mentality - submission shouldn't be mistaken for servility! That you postulated can't sustain a mutual healthy marriage because it lacks altruism. Altruism remains the soul of oneness, and there can't be mutual healthy marriage where there's no oneness.

The reason most marriages haven't been able to stand the test of time or have been in shambles isn't far-fetched.

Anyway, I'm only sorry for men who aren't resourceful, discerning and established, and those who don't see the value of women beyond their material/physical possessions.

A virtuous/an aristocratic woman has no rival - whether or not she earns money, she'll still be herself. Whenever I see a conscientious woman automatically I see an aristocratic/a virtuous woman, whether or not she proclaims it.

Submission is actually same as servility, at least in literal terms. Which is why I said I don't think submission is a sign of love.

Marriage is a partnership. You should never imagine because your wife is a woman you know better or she ought to defer to you. Being strategic in decision making has absolutely nothing to do with gender. If truly, one's intention is the progress of this family, then common sense dictates that the one who is more strategic should defer to the other, irrespective of gender.

This means that a man can as well be submissive in a marriage, nothing says it has to be the woman.

If men are truly objective and not carried away by their ego, they would understand that a woman being docile and 'submissive' doesn't mean she loves you. And when a woman pushes to get things done her way, because she knows it's the best option, that doesn't mean she doesn't love you.

UjuJoan2:


No, you jumped to conclusion without cause. Just agree that you erred!

As ma sister wey you be, let me agree on your behalf dat you erred - agree to disagree.

LordKO:


As ma sister wey you be, let me agree on your behalf dat you erred - agree to disagree.

If you say so . . . Let me be a 'submissive' woman and agree with you.

UjuJoan2:


No, you jumped to conclusion without cause. Just agree that you erred!



Submission is actually same as servility, at least in literal terms. Which is why I said I don't think submission is a sign of love.

Marriage is a partnership. You should never imagine because your wife is a woman you know better or she ought to defer to you. Being strategic in decision making has absolutely nothing to do with gender. If truly, one's intention is the progress of this family, then common sense dictates that the one who is more strategic should defer to the other, irrespective of gender.

This means that a man can as well be submissive in a marriage, nothing says it has to be the woman.

If men are truly objective and not carried away by their ego, they would understand that a woman being docile and 'submissive' doesn't mean she loves you. And when a woman pushes to get things done her way, because she knows it's the best option, that doesn't mean she doesn't love you.

Foremost, my dissection/extrapolation as I mentioned isn't about your personality , no, it was about your postulation OK.

Meanwhile, submission can't be the same thing as servility, instead it's an equal variant of love - submission and love both have altruism and deference as core components:

- Marriage isn't partnership, however spouses in marriage are partners.

- Submission doesn't negate liberty, it simply entails exercising liberty within the confines of decorum. A submissive woman can't be docile rather she's fair-minded. So, a fair-minded wife is automatically a submissive wife.

- Contentiousness in contrast to submission negates decorum and exercises liberty outside the limit of decorum, while still feels entitled to the benefits of submission which operates within the confines of decorum.

- Servility on the other hand isn't entitled to liberty at all, it's all about kowtowing. It takes a servile woman to be docile.

LordKO:


Foremost, my dissection and extrapolation as I mentioned isn't about your personality , no, it was about your postulation OK.

Meanwhile, submission can't be the same thing as servility, instead it's an equal variant of love - submission and love both have altruism and deference as core components:

- Marriage isn't partnership, however a couple in marriage are partners.

- Submission doesn't negate liberty, it simply entails exercising liberty within the confines of decorum. A submissive woman can't be docile rather she's fair-minded. So, a fair-minded wife is automatically a submissive wife.

- Contentiousness in contrast to submission negates decorum and exercises liberty outside the limit of decorum, while still feel entitled to the benefits submission which operating within the confines of decorum.

- Servility on the other hand isn't entitled to liberty at all, it's all about kowtowing. It takes a servile woman to be docile.

Semantics . . . .

Why not find a word for what you are describing, rather than using 'submission'.

You can't change the meaning of a word based on wishful thinking.

UjuJoan2:


Semantics . . . .

Why not find a word for what you are describing, rather than using 'submission'.

You can't change the meaning of a word based on wishful thinking.

LOL, I've observed that most women don't like to hear the word "submission."

Alennsar:
Issoryt wetin musa no go see for gate.
All this men of nowadays that want to share responsibility with their wives abi which husband is she talking about?

UjuJoan2:


Semantics . . . .

Why not find a word for what you are describing, rather than using 'submission'.

You can't change the meaning of a word based on wishful thinking.

What is wrong with the word 'submission'?

At least, from a Biblical perspective?

LordKO:


LOL, I've observed that most women don't like to hear the word "submission."

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

So you see why I said you need to find another word for what you are describing. Maybe humility, or respectful. Not submission.

It's okay to submit to a boss because he or she is your superior. But 'submitting' to a spouse because he got biologically lucky (not because he is actually superior) is where I have a problem.

bukatyne:


What is wrong with the word 'submission'?

At least, from a Biblical perspective?

I don't think the word submission should be used in a marriage because I think marriage should be a partnership (or at least people in a marriage should be partners like oga KO said )

The idea that automatically a woman has to defer to the authority of the husband because he is superior just rubs me off the wrong way. Especially since most families are living in terrible conditions because the man feels it's his God-given right to lead, even when be has failed woefully at it and the wife would probably do better if given the chance.

For instance, my husband wanted to embark on a project years ago and I advised him not to. It was afterall both our resources irrespective of who earns it. Eventually he went ahead and did it and I had no option but to 'submit'. Eventually everything I predicted came to pass and we lost a small fortune in that venture. And no, I'm not a prophetess or gifted with the power of seeing the future. I'm just better at being practical and thinking objectively.

Needless to say, I stopped being 'submissive' after that.

UjuJoan2:


I don't think the word submission should be used in a marriage because I think marriage should be a partnership (or at least people in a marriage should be partners like oga KO said )

The idea that automatically a woman has to defer to the authority of the husband because he is superior just rubs me off the wrong way. Especially since most families are living in terrible conditions because the man feels it's his God-given right to lead, even when be has failed woefully at it and the wife would probably do better if given the chance

There is no superiority in a marriage relationship, just two lovers with different roles.

Love is putting the wife first.
Submission is putting the husband first.

When the man doesn't love his wife and thinks/puts himself first while expecting a submissive wife, then it is a problem.

Ditto the wife.

bukatyne:


There is no superiority in a marriage relationship, just two lovers with different roles.

Love is putting the wife first.
Submission is putting the husband first.

When the man doesn't love his wife and thinks/puts himself first while expecting a submissive wife, then it is a problem.

Ditto the wife.

How is 'submission' putting the husband first? Even when he is clearly making a mistake? Sometimes you need to save a man from himself even at the risk of being termed querulous. That, I think, is truly putting him first.

There is no superiority in a marriage so why assign the role of submission to one person. Shouldn't that even be a role borne by both parties?

Love should be mutual in a marriage and submission should be eradicated.

UjuJoan2:


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

So you see why I said you need to find another word for what you are describing. Maybe humility, or respectful. Not submission.

It's okay to submit to a boss because he or she is your superior. But 'submitting' to a spouse because he got biologically lucky (not because he is actually superior) is where I have a problem.

Ujujoan, don't tell me that your boss is superior to your husband. A boss is only superior to their subordinates within the ethics of responsibility, not ethics of conviction. You don't owe your boss ethics of conviction which you owe your husband, and vice versa - ethic of conviction is superior to ethic of responsibility. In fact, a gold collar professional only accepts mutual ethics of responsibility - it's only blue and white collar job holders that observe non-mutual ethics of responsibility.

Meanwhile, submission is a compound word, just like the action love which is its equal variant, it's encompassing and almost meaningless without its constituents (selflessness, humility, etc goodness in general).

UjuJoan2:


For instance, my husband wanted to embark on a project years ago and I advised him not to. It was afterall both our resources irrespective of who earns it. Eventually he went ahead and did it and I had no option but to 'submit'. Eventually everything I predicted came to pass and we lost a small fortune in that venture. And no, I'm not a prophetess or gifted with the power of seeing the future. I'm just better at being practical and thinking objectively.

Needless to say, I stopped being 'submissive' after that.

Perhaps he didn't listen to you because he felt he alone earned those resources and hence it was his final decision to make.

LordKO:


Ujujoan, don't tell me that your boss is superior to your husband. A boss is only superior to their subordinates within the ethics of responsibility, not ethics of conviction. You don't owe your boss ethics of conviction which you owe your husband, and vice versa - ethics of conviction is superior to ethics of responsibility. In fact, a gold collar professional only accepts mutual ethics of responsibility - it's only blue and white collar job holders that observe non-mutual ethics of responsibility.

Meanwhile, submission is a compound word, just like the action love which is its equal variant, it's encompassing and almost meaningless without its constituents (selflessness, humility, etc goodness in general).

Okay, so submission is NOW a compound word? Lol. I told you to just find another word biko. Don't change the meaning of a word using anectodes and baseless analogies.

In any case, if submission has humility and selflessness as it's constituents that means a man is also honour bound to be submissive to the wife, just like a wife is bound to love her husband.

The Bible says a man should love his wife, does that mean a woman's role is NOT to love?

So also, a woman being submissive doesn't mean a man should not be either.

A boss's authority is of course as it relates to then job, not by ethical or moral standards. And a man is not ethically superior to the wife just because she is a woman.