Why traditional roles of submission and provision should not exist in a modern marriage [Opinion]

Let's attempt to put an end to the topic of submission and gifts in modern relationships.

The topic of submission and provisions is a popular one

The debate on whether a woman should submit to her husband or boyfriend and whether a man should be the one solely providing has been raging for years, especially in the African and African-American community.

Submission

Oxford Dictionary defines submission as "the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or the will or authority of another person."

If we take this definition apart, you will see phrases like 'yielding to a superior force or will', which indicates the superiority of one person over the other, and by extension, the other has to yield or accept whatever is said or asked.

So, if a man [believed by many to be the superior] says, "Go and pound yam for me" at 6 a.m., a woman has to do so. If he says "quit your job," the woman has to agree.

While this might have worked when life was much harder and women owed their existence to the protection and provision offered by men who went through dangers to bring food home and protect their communities, it hardly makes sense now that the dangers of living out in the wild does not exist and men and women work to provide for their families.

However, some men have not evolved from wanting women to do as they please, even though society has evolved. Almost every day, we hear news of African men beating and burning their wives for not preparing their meals.

True, most men want to be respected, but submission and respect are different things entirely. Submission seeks to control while respect is conferred based on status.

I agree that men should be respected and that includes women not saying hurtful and abusive words to them, listening to their opinions and treating them with kindness; but men should not seek to control women.

In a romantic relationship where there is love, sacrifice, forgiveness and compromise will flow freely without one person demanding it.

Provision

The whole point of feminism is so that men and women can have equal rights; so why are women still stuck on men providing for them, even when they have good-paying jobs?

It's understandable if she doesn't have as much money as he does, but it's foolhardy for a woman to be reliant on the man for sustenance.

In modern marriages, what we have is a partnership, two people coming together and pooling their resources to make a home.

Some women feel that men have to take care of them to have access to them, they call it 'princess treatment.'

While I agree that love has an element of giving and sharing and a man who loves you will provide for you and shower you with gifts, giving and sharing material things like money is not love, it can even be a form of manipulation and control. You might be blinded by the money when he has very little redeeming qualities and in any case, he should not be the only one giving and providing.

What I mean is seeking out only rich men to 'spoil' you is akin to sex work, and expecting men to buy you everything you desire is entitlement.

Why don't you spoil and take care of him with material things? Why is it his sole responsibility? Don't you have a job? Don't you work for money? Why do you need him to spoil you while you do nothing for him? Such reasoning is against the tenets of feminism.

Love is deeper than gifts; it is a desire to commit to you and do you good, and treat you with kindness for the rest of their lives; and if your definition of kindness is material things, then you have a poverty mindset.

A modern marriage is a marriage of equals: there is mutual love, compromise, respect, and the pooling of finances.

You don't submit to get love, or love to get submission; nor do you provide to get love or love because of provision.

Anything else is taking us back to less desirable times, especially for women.