Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,161,012 members, 7,845,273 topics. Date: Thursday, 30 May 2024 at 02:38 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Romance / Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? (5305 Views)
Hi, Am A Student, I Need A Guy To Provide For Me, I Will Satisfy Him / Guys Should Make It Their Duty To Always Provide For Their Girlfriend / What To Provide For Ur Girlfriend As A Student (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by Nobody: 4:01am On Jan 05, 2010 |
harakiri:I see. . . . lucky her |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by ancel(m): 4:07am On Jan 05, 2010 |
@harakiri: Sincerely, I think we need to consider the fact that although advancements in the modern society seem to be remoulding traditional roles in content, the roles have never really shifted in context. So, whether you have a traditional viewpoint or a modernistic viewpoint, it will be wise to consider the context and not the content. Examining the content of the roles can be confusing if you try to look from those two viewpoints at once. IMO, considering the contexts of the roles: basically the man is the inward-to-outward person of the family, he controls what comes in and goes out of the home, and how it comes in and goes out; while the woman is the inner-person who controls/manages/improves resources within the home and ensures that the man's efforts are not wasted. If you critically examine these contexts from a traditional viewpoint, one may say that the man is the sole provider and the woman should sit at home to take care of it. But from a modernistic viewpoint we know this can't always be so. And that is where responsibilities come in. In summary, I will say, it is the responsibility of the man to ensure that the contexts he ought to fulfill are properly catered for, and it is the responsibility of the woman to see that the contexts she ought to fulfill are not neglected. Whatever means they will agree upon to process their contextual roles is left in their hands e.g. a medical surgeon wife who is always very busy STILL has the contextual role of ensuring her family looks presentable. If she will get a clothier to examine their wardrobes from time to time, or she will do it herself on some free weekends, is another matter. An husband who just lost his job has the responsibility of looking for how to get his family's needs fulfilled till he gets a new job, even if his wife is an oil tycoon. The plan may or may not involve speaking to her about it (or for a sensible wife, she volunteering to help), but his responsibility is to ensure that the family does not lack. And let me add, for the other thread, it is compulsory for the wife to KNOW that her husband's clothes need to be clean, that is her contextual role. If people see a married man at work, with a rumpled or dirty shirt, or a married man who is famished and growing lean, the first questions are "I thought he is no longer a bachelor? Is his wife ill? Does he have marital problems?" and similarly, an unkempt wife or a wife who cannot afford to attend to female necessities will be asked such questions, and kids who are kicked out of school for fees will never be asked about their mum, it must be the dad, unless they have a single parent. There. A long post. I hope my points about contextual roles and responsibilities are clear. There is no hard and fast rule, I believe. |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by ebonyking: 4:16am On Jan 05, 2010 |
@ michelin89 You said it all shying away from our individual responsibility in any giving relation;marriage or courtship won't anyone. And so the better everyone(guys & babes) starts facing the the there are some responsibilities that are un-debatebly ours in the relationships that we currently find ourselves, the better for us all and for our children. |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by harakiri(m): 4:40am On Jan 05, 2010 |
^^^Okay @NL Is it compulsory for a man to provide for his family? |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by GL(f): 4:48am On Jan 05, 2010 |
i can't say it is COMPULSORY because if a man earns 30k/month and the wife earns 300k/month obviously the onus is on her to be the breadwinner. however, my experience is that having a woman as the breadwinner of the family emasculates most men. and that causes problems in the family, i can't get married to a man who can't provide for a family. that's my personal choice though. but if after marriage we're in a situation that calls for my stepping into the bread-winning role, i would willingly do that. harakiri: i don't consider myself a feminist, but i'm all for equal rights. i think this thread is quite different from the washing husbands' clothes thread. usually whether a woman decides to take on the traditional female roles or not, she is still responsible for them. when a woman can't cook/wash, she employs maids, nannies and cooks. she doesn't expect the man to do the housework. if a man can't provide for the family, the woman does. and even while providing financially she still remains responsible for ensuring the housework is done. how's that for equality? |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by ancel(m): 4:52am On Jan 05, 2010 |
@GL: I beg to disagree with you. You explained in detail how the woman can cover up for her roles when she is deficient by getting maids, nannies, etc (and not calling her husband to do those things?) but in the deficient guy's case, you glossed over it and said that when the guy can't provide for the family the wife will handle it. How's THAT (the imbalanced view you presented) for equality? |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by harakiri(m): 5:00am On Jan 05, 2010 |
ancel: I thought i was the only one who noticed that. |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by GL(f): 5:10am On Jan 05, 2010 |
ancel: when a woman cannot cook/wash/clean, she employs and supervises the maids. she takes total responsibility for the maid's work, she still plans the meals. the man doesn't have to take up the housekeeping role. when a man cannot provide, the wife takes over his role and provides. she STILL continues to play her role in housekeeping whether it was doing the job herself or supervising the maids. i really shouldn't call it inequality anyway, because it's just an unfortunate situation. and the average nigerian guy would do all he can to provide financially. my point was just that the costs of a man's inability to provide are different from the costs of a woman's inability to do housework. and that at the end of the day the woman bears the brunt of anyone's deficiency. |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by ancel(m): 5:16am On Jan 05, 2010 |
GL: GL, the above assertions are totally unfounded, I must say. What happened to the guy who "hustled", the one who probably did some illegal runs (and got caught or not by the law) or bent some rules at work in his favour, or the guy who borrowed and was immersed in bad debt, for the sake of his family? What happened to the guy who asked his elder brother to loan or give him money to save his neck in financial crises, just like the woman who asked her young niece to live with them and reduce her workload? And yet you speak as if the wife is the one who always saves the day, while still upholding her end of the deal. I do not like how you seem to be bending the resolution of all marital crises in the direction of the wife. The conjectures you proffer are entirely spurious! |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by harakiri(m): 6:57pm On Jan 05, 2010 |
And the question remains : Is it compulsory for a man to provide for his family?Is it a must?Is it by force?Can't he just sleep at home all day while the woman works 18 hours of the day? |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by harakiri(m): 7:28pm On Jan 05, 2010 |
Why do people frown when a man refuses to provide for his family and yet some people (feminists naturally) support the idea that it is a woman's right to abandon all her duties in the home? Why? |
Re: Is It Compulsory For A Man To Provide For His Family? by Nobody: 8:27pm On Jan 07, 2010 |
harakiri: After reading thru all ur post,i seem to almost agree with Your position on this matter so far(especially about all those feminist). The truth is,as a MAN,it is compulsory u provide for your family cuz if for any reason watsoever u dont.u are DONE!!!!!! even the best of the wife(ves) will show their Husband(s) HELL!! if u dont. And as for roles,if a Man is comfortable with a woman who can cook, wash d clothes and perform her other God Given roles effectively,GO AHEAD and MARRY her,or if u are comfortable with a woman who would assign all these roles to maids and servants and all the Man has to do is to make all the money,fatten her account,give her a car to ride around and enjoy His money,GO AHEAD and MARRY her.SHIKENA!!!!! |
Is My Girlfriend Double-dating? / Naija Lady Trends On Instagram As She Flaunts "Massive Everything" -LOL / 6 Tips That Could Help Delay Ejaculation In Men
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 43 |