Timbuktou:
It was, basically, a booty grab. The strongest got all the pum he wanted by just going after. Violence over booty was the norm and in the interest of peace and longevity, civility was introduced, marriage was established as a means of possession(because the woman couldn't protect herself) and boundary-marking.

Do you have any evidence of this?

ihedinobi2:

Do you have any evidence of this?

I have none on standby, but google will not disappoint

pickabeau1:
Bro..no need arguing with someone who does not believe in male headship
You should know the proponents of fluid family roles by now



Timbuktou

Actually, I argue to educate other brothers who are interested in the truth but are on the fence.

Timbuktou:
Actually, I argue to educate other brothers who are interested in the truth but are on the fence.

Ok

Cool

This metrosexual,90s man crap has caused confusion

pickabeau1:



This metrosexual,90s man crap has caused confusion

Indeed. And it behoves upon us to play our part, setting things aright.

Lol

Thanks, everyone, for pitching in. Very much appreciated indeed.

Much of what has been said makes a lot of sense to me and I'm inclined to bow to pretty much everything. But I am hesitant.

My hesitation comes from here: what men are in relation to women. And vice versa.

I am a Christian and can only speak as one. That is not to say that I don't know that there are other ideologies nor have the capacity to understand them. I do know that they exist and I understand pretty much every one I know, which exceed two, by the way.

I agree that the home is the foundation of society. I agree that man and woman in marriage form the very fabric of society. I agree that women have certain natural inclinations and that men do too. However, I think that there is something missing so far in this picture.

The picture I see thus far puts me in mind of the perpetual motion machine: a perfect, lossless machine that keeps itself going forever. Man marries woman to raise kids that can perpetuate the first generation's values. Kids repeat the process. And their kids repeat the process. And THEIR kids repeat... You get it. It goes on. Why? What's the point? Why does a society of even perfect values exist at all? What's all that about?

Perpetual motion machines don't exist in nature. Every natural thing decays and energy is lost in every system through waste in one way or another. Does society exist just to keep on existing or is there more to that story?

I think there should be more or else why not really just break the limits? What difference does it make if we change the status quo? Society may implode if I actually do what I like and act "irresponsibly"? What is that to me? I'm sure nature can figure itself out, why do I need to sacrifice my pet desires to perpetuate something just because it's gone on forever? Or because it should keep going on forever so that society can go on forever too?

Here's what I think. Society exists for a reason. Humanity exists for a reason. That reason is why marriage makes sense at all.

The proposal in my ideology is that mankind was designed to run material reality and constantly improve it, make it better in every way conceivable and drive it to greater and greater heights of productivity. The male species was specifically designed for this outward purpose and the female was designed to counter-balance him.

Let me explain...

Timbuktou:
I have none on standby, but google will not disappoint

I doubt that there is any such history. But if you can find it, I'm totally willing to entertain the possibility.

Any male human or anyone who has had to deal with a male human knows that the definition of maleness is strength. There is, in the raw, a daring, a near-craze for adventure, a hunger to rule and a total aversion to being ruled in males. Someone repeated to me recently a popular sentiment about men, that we'd sooner spend all day driving around town than ask someone for directions. Of course, we eventually tone down tendencies such as this as we grow up and mature.

And that is exactly my point. Men do build civilizations, there is no doubt of that. But strength with nothing to protect turns destructive. We men could band together and build amazing things and celebrate tonight and then tomorrow morning either go to war over who should control it or simply burn it down because we're bored. At best, we'd simply abandon it. The very worst is when we come to love it (which we are quite apt to do too) and then turn our strength toward protecting it. We then weigh other human lives against it and it will be found more valuable. We would war merely on the suspicion that someone would want to hurt it.

Yes, love does not exist in solitary situations. In my ideology, it is why God said that it is not good for the man to be alone. Loneness breeds terrible things. And when the entity in which it breeds these things has the powers that males possess by design, you'll understand where wars come from. And how we are still greatly restrained from unleashing unimaginable terror on the world around us.

I think the woman was designed specifically to give man a weakness. To make him "needy". Without that, he would be a cruel ruler of the material world. A woman softens him. Gives his strength something to protect and because of the woman's peculiar nature (which I deliberately will not describe yet) this protection goes further to envelope the world he's supposed to rule.

I know, friends, I do know that there are natural imperatives in women that make it seem like a man absolutely has to go back to existing like he never had his strength (bones) reduced. You look at a woman and see how much power she can wield over you and what loss you can suffer as a result and the man's natural response is: I will not yield. It's normal. Expected even. No man in his right mind will take kindly to a threat to his power over himself. No man. The man has to be out of his right and proper mind. But.

The truth is, man has to have a "weakness", a softness, a vulnerability, or he will destroy not only the world in his charge but himself as well. This is a fact. The beauty of lone manly strength is the beauty of dawn. After the dawn, the brightness burns itself to ashes. Because men are not nurturers. We are guides. We are leaders. We are rangers. We are adventurers. We are explorers. We are builders. Commanders even. But it takes something else to haunch down and care for the things we find, the massive things we build, the knowledge we capture. Something that is not strength or, well, in today's politically correct world is called a different kind of strength. But no, it is not strength, it is imagination, an unfettered ability to enjoy the existence of things, a childlike wonder and an ability to rejoice.

It is womanhood...

Ihe

All you have said is what has been said

Set a generation for the improvement of that society

Or am I not getting what you don't agree with?

It's a poor comparison but it is useful enough: if maleness is science, womanhood/feminity is art.

Men are designed hard. Even biologically. We are built to subdue. To rule. But women? They're built to enjoy. To revel. It is that power to enjoy that makes them nurturing. They have the ability to accommodate, to care for, to tend fragile things and treat them with tender affection because they can enjoy them in a deeper and broader way than men can. They are not built to fight, to subdue, to range, to exert authority. That does not any more mean that they cannot do any of those things than it means that men cannot tend fragile things too. We are speaking in general terms here. There are exceptions because there are always special situations that teach us things we would not learn if they never happened.

As I have said, women are the softer species, the weaker species and they are also the species made specially to make men weak. I don't think that I need to pull out examples of powerful men or men great for one thing or another who have been humbled by a woman or apparently ruled by her, or if you want to split hairs, by their love for her. We all know that nothing affects a man as much as a woman. The two most powerful religions on earth - Christianity and Islam - make a huge deal out of women. In the one, they are to be cared for like a tender flower and given what they need to flourish; in the other, they are a reward to yearn for and aspire to. In some others, there is a reason that much emphasis is placed on sex, if not to abstain, it is to indulge indiscriminately. Men are fixated, in a way, on women.

And this, in my ideology, is a good thing. Having someone (not some thing, a very important distinction to note) is massively important for men. A person that a man loves in the consuming, open, unashamed manner that men can love women, is a person for that man to protect. And if that person has that ability to accommodate and enjoy the inanimate things around them then those things around them will become something for the man to protect as well.

In other words, the existence of women is to enable a man love the world that he was built to rule and guide into an ever-expanding destiny of goodness. This is what I think that we missed so far.

If we appreciate that properly then we can better define the relationship that exists between men and women and how either side can manage this relationship.

For example, that either sex has some natural imperative does not automatically mean that certain behaviors are in order. Say, a woman wants security and thus will always marry up (obviously this interests me, it always has). The imperative is not in itself a bad thing. What is is the use of it to excuse bad behavior.

Women were designed with a particular bent to enjoying life in its fullness. This is good, not bad. Now THIS is bad: Stealing. And whenever you take something you have not worked for and which was not freely given to you, you have stolen. When a woman has not toiled with a man to build anything but thinks that she is entitled to a wealthy husband and therefore shall not be distracted by broke, "jobless", dudes, she is not merely being a woman, she is being a THIEF.

Of course, a man can work hard and build a fortune and marry a woman and practically hand it over to her even though she never knew him when he was breaking his back building it. That is not a bad thing. She does no wrong accepting such a gift. It is a gift. And in time she will prove her worthiness or unworthiness of it (if the man did not already prove it in some way beforehand).

pickabeau1:
Ihe

All you have said is what has been said

Set a generation for the improvement of that society

Or am I not getting what you don't agree with?

I'm sorry. I was writing in parts. The answer is in the latest installment. In short, it is not for the improvement of the society itself. It is for the improvement of the world that that society lives in and interacts with.

ihedinobi2:

I'm sorry. I was writing in parts. The answer is in the latest installment. In short, it is not for the improvement of the society itself. It is for the improvement of the world that that society lives in and interacts with.

Yes

But it starts with the basic unit.. Family

The big picture you r talking of is noted too

ihedinobi2:

I doubt that there is any such history. But if you can find it, I'm totally willing to entertain the possibility.

Not exactly detailed, but check the link below. I'll scour for something more concrete.

cas.umkc.edu/econ/_resources/OIE/readings/Veblen/Articles/women.htm

There is the matter too of emotions. A man masters his emotions. He is not led by them. This is true. Men are not creatures of emotion by default. But that is why women exist. To bring in the softness or weakness that emotions carry.

A man must be clear-headed in his decisions. However, it is not a good day for a man who cannot be emotional for a woman he cares for. I have read on here about men who have endured terrible treatment from women they have loved. And I have sympathised with the idea that they have acted less than men in enduring such things. However, I think that the larger picture was missed in that idea. Women make us emotional. That is as true as the first truth I just stated. And it is not a bad thing that they do.

I think that what is proper is for a man, knowing what the cost of becoming weak is, should carefully pick his woman before turning his emotions loose. Oh, there will be a tug on them when she shows up. A mighty one too. But men, not being emotional by default, have a sticky lock on them and thus are safe until they choose her for some reason. Once they do, they can forgive her even for murdering their mother. This is a natural imperative in men. It is good even if it can work out in bad ways.

And that is another example I think we need to get clear with. It is acceptable for a man to actually be weak toward the woman he loves. It is not true that a man has to practically be aloof and never show "weakness" to maintain respect from his woman. Yes, women hate weakness. But women are also nurturers and, although we forget it very easily, the first person the woman is built hungering to care for is her man. And when he is always alright, she really is no more than an extra appendage, a very nice but completely useless one.

And the man is back to square one. Strong with no one to protect. Because when a man is only protecting things, non-human things, he will value human life beneath them and sacrifice the very leadership of the world for the world and thus destroy the world he should preserve and renew.

Being a Christian, I will draw from the prime example of marriage in the Bible. Christ and the Church. You probably know that in the Christian worldview Christ is the most powerful being in existence. He conquers even Death. But in the moments of his deepest trials, who does he take with him? The Church. In Gethsemane, there were Peter and James and John. Yes, they slept but note the gesture. He goes to the Cross alone. Yes, some fights a man must face alone but who takes his body down and cares for it until he reclaims it? The Church. Who does he first show himself to even before presenting himself to the Father after destroying the power of Death? The Church. Who does he entrust the rest of his work to? The Church. He is by no means weak, not even a little, but the Church has seen him even in his weakest moments. That is her privilege as his bride.

I will not stretch the narrative any further. My point is simply that women, women who are mature and ready to be trusted as women do not need a man to either have status, wealth, 24-hr strength and decisiveness. They need him to know that he is the king and that she's there to help him rule.

Being king means that he has a sense of responsibility and is actively pursuing the fulfilment of his responsibilities. It is not the kind of job or the job title itself or even the existence of a job per se. It is not how much is in the bank account or how he always knows where to go on a date. It is his sense of responsibility. That is really what calls women to a man. The fact that he exudes a sense of purpose. She will typically worry about this and that but a man unwavering in his sense of purpose regardless what the circumstances are keeps even the gold-digging ones (who would have already moved on) orbiting.

A man is a man because he knows what the world needs him for. Every other thing is added along the way and a woman will stick like glue simply because this purpose does not change. And a man like that hardly ever sees women that don't see that sense of purpose.

Edited.

pickabeau1:



Yes

But it starts with the basic unit.. Family

The big picture you r talking of is noted too

I would rather not repeat the whole thing I wrote again. My point is that you start a family because you have a responsibility. The woman is meant to help you fulfill that responsibility. The children are meant to expand that responsibility. Thus, much that has been said that pretty much makes the man a little apart and the woman less of a vital part of his destiny is quite wrong. A woman's job is to help a man fulfill the responsibility for which society itself exists at all.

ihedinobi2:

I would rather not repeat the whole thing I wrote again. My point is that you start a family because you have a responsibility. The woman is meant to help you fulfill that responsibility. The children are meant to expand that responsibility. Thus, much that has been said that pretty much makes the man a little apart and the woman less of a vital part of his destiny is quite wrong. A woman's job is to help a man fulfill the responsibility for which society itself exists at all.

OK....cool

Good job, Ihe.

pickabeau1:

What if the biz fails
Remember headship is not based on providence

If she cannot submit to his authority even if she is the business brain...the relationship is a no brainer

Not every business succeeds
Not every one is cutout to be an entrepreneur

This woman was given a launchpad to realise her dreams yet envy and strife is causing her to lose focus


Even a bank will collect interest...mind you

@Pickabeau1
If(emphasis on the IF) the money was a gift then he has absolutely no rights to impose himself on the business, she has to be the one to permit him. Banks don't give gifts, they give loans, that was why I asked. If you want to be able to control something, don't give it out as a gift.

if the captain of a ship does not set a course, why should he complain about the path it takes?That said, sometimes to regain control you need to steer in the direction of the storm/disturbance not against it.

The biz has not failed so far with the wife running it, has it? I agree with you on the submission part but where we part ways is how the fella should go about it. Taking the businesses from her will not solve what I think is the major issue in their relationship, he is not living up to his position as head. The woman has turned into what she is in some part due to frustration, If the only problem they had was that she was rude, disrespectful etc I'd suggest that her wings be clipped but that isn't the case here. Homie is 37 and does not have a vision for his family...we need to remember that.

An important aspect of leadership is knowing when to be forceful and when to be tactful, as TV01 said, he first needs to up his status in order to win her back, you can't do this with agidi, it has to be with the guile of a lover/toaster, he has to worm his way back into her heart. A woman isn't a mule to be broken, she is to be coaxed. He has to show her why she believed he could look after her and the future offspring. That is what makes him a leader.

Timbuktou:
Good job, Ihe.

Thank you

I have to say Ihedinobi nailed it!
As NL resident hermaphrodite , I think I'm the most unbiased judge on here.

The truth is nothing melts a woman than seeing her 'strong' man get all 'soft' and 'weak' for her and her alone. I know y'all keep going on and on about 'see-finish syndrome' but I guess this is where picking the right and sensible woman comes in! All these maintain the head, be the boss, show her you have the muscle approach is very excellent when still playing games. There comes a point and a woman that you should not be scared to reveal your weaknesses to. As a matter of fact, until you are able to let your woman know that she is your biggest weakness, with 100% confidence that she'll never use that fact against you, you're still chess players, nothing more!



*retires to mat* biko, can we invite chikas into this room? Too much testosterone in the air

netotse:

@Pickabeau1
If(emphasis on the IF) the money was a gift then he has absolutely no rights to impose himself on the business, she has to be the one to permit him. Banks don't give gifts, they give loans, that was why I asked. If you want to be able to control something, don't give it out as a gift.

if the captain of a ship does not set a course, why should he complain about the path it takes?That said, sometimes to regain control you need to steer in the direction of the storm/disturbance not against it.

The biz has not failed so far with the wife running it, has it? I agree with you on the submission part but where we part ways is how the fella should go about it. Taking the businesses from her will not solve what I think is the major issue in their relationship, he is not living up to his position as head. The woman has turned into what she is in some part due to frustration, If the only problem they had was that she was rude, disrespectful etc I'd suggest that her wings be clipped but that isn't the case here. Homie is 37 and does not have a vision for his family...we need to remember that.

An important aspect of leadership is knowing when to be forceful and when to be tactful, as TV01 said, he first needs to up his status in order to win her back, you can't do this with agidi, it has to be with the guile of a lover/toaster, he has to worm his way back into her heart. A woman isn't a mule to be broken, she is to be coaxed. He has to show her why she believed he could look after her and the future offspring. That is what makes him a leader.

OK......it may work
This dream killer is a bit of work


Alutacontinua
Chika for what?

They have their myriad threads

Pls leave them and this thread out of it

One final thing. In my particular experience I've seen a rather weird contradiction. I've seen that a man can love without holding back. That he can expose himself completely to one woman and still somehow be able to cut her completely out of his life if he needs to.

Complete trust and open communication are vital to the marriage or pro-marriage relationship. If you have read up some literature on the relationship between a CEO and his COO it should have thrown that fact into sharp relief for you. As I have pointed out, marriage does not exist for its own self. It exists to make something else possible. Therefore when itself threatens that thing it threatens its own existence. This is a vital lesson that today's men need to relearn.

Like Timbuktou and pickabeau1 were saying, metrosexuality is not a good description for men. Men do not exist to please women. They are designed with an imperative to but that is because women are necessary to the purpose of their existence. You want a woman with whom you can fulfill the whole reason you exist. Not just any woman.

The time does come when the decision to let a woman go because no matter what you do she just doesn't align with the purpose of your existence. It's like firing your COO. It's not an easy decision to ever make. And it's one you don't want to make wrong. It is also an emotionally involving one. You must never make the decision lightly. Never throw a woman out unless she threatens the purpose of your existence. And when she does, you should give her at least one chance to get her head back in the game. Although you must always be careful what you trust a woman who has betrayed you once with.

As soon as it is clear that your COO is not interested in executing your vision, there really is no reason to keep them on your team. It is important to understand that the COO is nearly the CEO in power. They can rip your whole team apart and scuttle everything you've built. It actually is imperative to rip them out of your team when you have proved that they're no longer on your side.

This is one of the things that I totally agree with. A man cannot let pleasures and conveniences make his decisions for him. A woman is everything to a man so he cannot afford to choose unwisely or to be weak about correcting his choice pre-marriage.

I felt the need to emphasize this part because of how powerful a man's love typically is. Like I said, a man in love can forgive practically anything. For this reason a man must be very clear about what he needs in a woman and thus what he does not need and in fact what he must not have. As soon as an association violates the very reason he opens up in complete vulnerability to a woman it is contrary to any good sense to maintain it.

@pickabeau1, I've read some of the thread and I think - in agreement with a bunch of us here - that the guy should react as though he has no wife. Whether he'll move out for a little bit and start something and prove himself to himself and to her or he'll stay and prove himself to her is entirely up to him. I would leave if I could. Call it a trip.

But I'd plan it. I'd pick out a place, conceptualize a business by myself. It need not be big. Just something that I have never done before maybe. Work at it for a while and build it into something. When I'm satisfied that I can actually do something as a man I'll go back home. I'll let her see it when it's something I can be rightly proud of.

The man was spoiled as a kid and not taught the point of work. That's not his fault really. His wife's frustration does not come from need but from an absence of purpose. He needs to go and see what life is like and mark out a place in it for himself. As soon as he does she'll typically fall in line.

As a Christian, the one firm stance I had was NSBM. It worked wonders. Many women use sex to control a relationship. Once devoid of this tool, many are simply left exposed as lacking any depth or real quality. I seen others where the woman will give sex, then withdraw it to speed things up or otherwise manipulate the man

Face-palm.
Choi

No problem


Guess we see things from different angles

You see a woman who is lashing out to make her man step up in her own words

I see an ungrateful choleric woman who got a luanchpad to set herself up from her phlegmatic hubby's efforts and now tramples on him

He now believes her words about him and now deprecates himself

You all talk of business business

What if the business fails as 80 percent does
He should wait until success before he takes charge of his home?

No problem


Ihedinobi2

5minsmadness:

Face-palm.
Choi

Lol. Yes nau. I can attest to that. Once a woman has got over her virginal fear of sex it's one of the easiest tools of manipulation she deploys. That and her domestic skills.

I've been safe because I've a leash on it and because my domestic standards are crazy high. I actually trained myself to be a little more tolerant there.

pickabeau1:
No problem


Guess we see things from different angles

You see a woman who is lashing out to make her man step up in her own words

I see an ungrateful choleric woman who got a luanchpad to set herself up from her phlegmatic hubby's efforts and now tramples on him

He now believes her words about him and now deprecates himself

You all talk of business business

What if the business fails as 80 percent does
He should wait until success before he takes charge of his home?

No problem


Ihedinobi2

Actually no, I don't see that. I see Job's wife. And I promise you she's probably my least favorite woman in the whole Bible.

I actually care more about the man here. In fact, I don't care about the woman at all. It's because he is in doubt of himself that I made that suggestion. He needs to discover himself and the definition of a man is in what he can do in the face of odds.

When he has got the clear identity he needs he can decide what to do with her. Until then she's not his problem. That's what I think.

ihedinobi2:

Lol. Yes nau. I can attest to that. Once a woman has got over her virginal fear of sex it's one of the easiest tools of manipulation she deploys. That and her domestic skills.

I've been safe because I've a leash on it and because my domestic standards are crazy high. I actually trained myself to be a little more tolerant there.

I said Choi because I've been a victim

ihedinobi2:

Actually no, I don't see that. I see Job's wife. And I promise you she's probably my least favorite woman in the whole Bible.

I actually care more about the man here. In fact, I don't care about the woman at all. It's because he is in doubt of himself that I made that suggestion. He needs to discover himself and the definition of a man is in what he can do in the face of odds.

When he has got the clear identity he needs he can decide what to do with her. Until then she's not his problem. That's what I think.

Fair enough

5minsmadness:

I said Choi because I've been a victim

Eyah, sorry bros. Pele.

pickabeau1:


This just skirts the issue


There is a battle on the horizon

He either faces it now or wait till she's so strong and leaves him

Women are extremely status conscious and constantly re-evaluating, especially those in the throes of hypergamy - who are more likely to act on changes or indeed, have a plan in their minds from the outset.

If she got with him from the beginning solely as a platform for her ambitions (or as a failsafe), he may have been on countdown from day 1. It's just a matter of her biding her time and choosing her moment. She'll stay as long as long as it serves her purpose to do so.

https://www.nairaland.com/1935277/making-choice#26908237

Here's a woman who was essentially planning such - her own long-term comfort, well-being and security first and foremost.


TV

Now at the bolded, we are doing some RCA (Root Cause Analysis)

This kind of woman will always be compliant when the man is richer than her or her status is still low

Immediately her status is upgraded, the next thing is that he is not ambitious

You nailed it

Nice one

TV01:



Women are extremely status conscious and constantly re-evaluating, especially those in the throes of hypergamy - who are more likely to act on changes or indeed, have a plan in their minds from the outset.

If she got with him from the beginning solely as a platform for her ambitions (or as a failsafe), he may have been on countdown from day 1. It's just a matter of her biding her time and choosing her moment. She'll stay as long as long as it serves her purpose to do so.

https://www.nairaland.com/1935277/making-choice#26908237

Here's a woman who was essentially planning such - her own long-term comfort, well-being and security first and foremost.


TV