₦airaland Forum

african1:
I never said it was all African men, but it is also not Somalis alone. My Nigerian friends get mad at the same girl when she goes out with the white guy, and the girl aint even Nigerian. So I have made the assumption it was an African thing.

Likely to be more about exposure (or the lack of it) than anything else.
Probably also has to do with class.

Clearly this sort of thing won't bother men or women (African or otherwise) if they have allowed themselves to relate to a broad range of people. The class thing comes in because the boys you saw in the mall are probably from an environment where social etiquette is not a priority.

corrall:

There is nowhere in his statement that says he once gave her. I am responding to what i can see that he typed and not on assumptions.[b] He said she is his financial pillar, which to my understanding means some one there to help you financially.

If you read my statement, you would see that we are saying the same thing as 'building - up' is giving n taking. To my understanding he is taking and not giving, if she were your sister will you advice her to stay?

Don't get me wrong, I am not against building up with your man, i am doing that already with my fiancee. What i am against is being with a man that only sees you as his financial pillar and therefore wants to spend the rest of his life with her.

He didn't actually write that she was his financial pillar.

tpia@:
science has not yet advanced to the point where men can get pregnant, unfortunately for you and your type.

keep hanging in there- the day will come.

There's an implicit assumption here that men WANT to get pregnant.

I bought the book a couple of years ago but never finished reading it. Recent topics have made me pick it up again.

He certainly condemns the unbalanced approach to prosperity that a lot of preachers now follow. He speaks against the various gimmicks that preachers use to raise money. He speaks against the way the concept of the old testament first fruits has been used by preachers to raise money even though the new testament principle of first fruit is completely different.

Generally, he just seemed concerned that preachers and church congregants alike had become too greedy and too focussed on money by doing things like "naming their seed", "giving to get", expecting a literal 100 fold return. He did some maths to show that if the 100 fold return was literal, then many Christians should be trillionaires by now.

It seems many preachers ignored this book though.

1 Timothy 6:5 leads us to conclude that godliness should not be seen as a means to profit.

It cannot be right to validate riches that are down to large congregations/millions of followers. Heeding the call to minister to people should not be a source of vast personal fortunes.

From memory, I think the woman's name comes first. With weddings/marriages, it seems there are many conventions that still exist long after people have forgotten the reasons for those conventions in the first place.

On a more general note, this topic amongst others that I've seen here e.g. should the woman take her husband's last name, would you accept a proposal without a ring etc appear to be symptoms of a wider trend.
There seems to be quite a growing emphasis on "ceremonial" rights and privileges. Scary.

Praying God's best for the substance of all marriages.

Classic case of substance vs form (facade).

It is more important to fight for the substance of equality, than to fret over the facade of equality.

Having said that, in the original post, it seems strange to call off a wedding because the woman doesn't want to change her name.

As an aside, it was a Channel 4 program, not BBC.

Hey there. I live in the U.K. as well and this thought has been on my mind as we're expecting our first child (never too early to start planning ).

From what I've seen, I'm inclined to go for an independent school, unless we're able to get our child(ren) into a state school rated as 1 by Ofsted. However, the independent schools can be quite expensive, so one needs to choose carefully and adjust lifestyles accordingly.

A mixture of the Ofsted report and personal recommendations from parents is the best way to find out about the quality of schools.

If you learn any more, I'd be quite interested to hear your thoughts as well. It's one of those things that cause anxiety for parents.

Ujujoan:
You know if I had the time, I'd draw up an opinion pool here and we can stop guessing!

We all know that men will always see house chores as helping out their wives. I don't know why we shouldn't be allowed to see financial contribution as helping you guys out! :-\

WORD x2!!!

Man contributes to chores, woman contributes to finances - first hurdle crossed.

The next hurdle now is whether we can "see" these contributions in the right light - for another discussion.

Ujujoan:
Seriously? You really want to argue that most men will want to help with house chores as much as most women will want to work?

Try and be a lil objective here ok? Women don't just like to 'depend' just for the heck of it!

But contrary to popular belief, we are human beings too . . .

I wouldn't like to argue that at all. I don't have the statistics, and in being objective, I don't want to make them up.

What I've said, based on anecdotal evidence, is that there are circles in which men and women are now adapting to the new responsibilites that the changing society dictates.

I then further said that I think a greater % of men in the developed world are willing to share household duties than men in the developing world.

Ujujoan:
8 out of 10 women will rather work today than stay at home to be full time HWs.

But pray tell, how many men will be willing to do house chores on a rotational basis with their wives

1 in 10, 5 in 10, maybe 8 in 10.

90% of statistics are plucked from thin air.

There are differences, depending on country. I would guess that a greater % of men in the developed world are willing to share in household chores than men in the developing world.

Ujujoan:
We acknowledge that times are a-changing, but men have refused to change with it.

A man and woman works from morning till evening, and yet the woman is expected to be up all night, alone, doing baby duties. While the man 'rests'!

So my questions is . . . when does the woman 'rest' from her own work?  

But if a man 'provides' for her and lets her work flexible hours, she can have time to 'rest' once in a while!

Certain men have refused to change with the times, likewise certain women have refused to change. Each one blaming the other for their refusal to change in a never ending cycle.

In other circles, men and women are embracing this change, with women having a more significant economic input into the family and men having a more significant domestic input.

Each one can "provide" and "rest" according to their God given talents.

jay bee:
At the end of the day all the above gets thrown outta the window if their is love but i just frown upon a woman that doesn't let things happen naturally/freewilly but harbouring thoughts of "It's my right a wife that you must provide bla bla bla". Just so wrong on many fronts.

I for one never demand from any ladies so i expect to be treated the same

This sense of entitlement is cultural and has its roots in the period when economic wealth belonged to men with women having little access to it.

Now that society has rightly progressed and has opened up women's access to this economic wealth through education and careers, it's surprising that there are many women still steadfastly holding on to this "I must be provided for", "My money is to take care of me" sort of attitude.

The social contract called marriage. I don't envy those that have gone in/are planning to go in with "small print" included on their own contract.

I won't pretend to know the whole story. However, let's not deceive ourselves that owning a private jet is some sort of necessity.

There are companies (e.g. Net Jets) that can tailor their service to peoples' private flying requirements without the client needing to own a jet. Paying for just the hours used brings down the cost considerably.

Owning a private jet comes with a certain prestige, and I suspect this prestige/grandeur (whatever one might call it) is a motivator.

Sagamite:
The law does say the child should be given to the mother in case of divorce. It is default position unless you can give any reasons why she is less capable.

My understanding is that this isn't law, but a default convention that most judges take in a divorce. Again, just my understanding, but in theory a married couple who are both on the child's birth certificate have equal custody rights, but judges step in when they don't present an amicable arrangement.

I have to qualify the above by confessing that I am not a lawyer and I'm also speaking from the U.K. so basing this on what I understand of U.K. law.

Not meaning to detract from the main discussion point.

Sagamite:
Judges are only and can only act within the parameters and guidelines the law sets for them. They are not misintepreting, otherwise Appeal courts will overturn.

They are just following the stewpid law.

Partly true. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it is often difficult, especially in civil law, to set such strict parameters that it leaves judges little room to manoeuver. For example, the law doesn't explicitly state that custody should be given to mothers in the event of a separation (at least to the best of my knowledge), however this seems to be the norm.

So it's not so much a case of misinterpretation. I get the feeling that there's a certain societal factor in some judgements which is what I was referring to in saying that some judges interpretations were perverted when compared to the original intent of the law.

pro01:
Rephrase: It is often Man that's 'guilty' of not hiding his infidelity. Any notion that man is more guilty of the very act (albeit justifiably so!) than woman is absolute fallacy of epic proportions. But then that's a matter for another thread altogether.

Lol! pro01, you must have seen a lot of things.

pro01:
Nigerian women are materialistic and greedy enough as it is; introducing such laws would usher in unprecedented debauchery and chicanery amongst this deceitful lot. First, men don't just divorce their wives for nothing in these parts, so why should the women fear if they don't have skeletons in their cupboard? In 99% of the cases where a comfortable/rich man files for divorce, it is often becuase of her infidelity/demonic nagging or something similar no Nigerian man divorces a good enough wife simply because he is tired of her egusi soup,

pro01, don't be so harsh. We all know that the Nigerian society is male dominated. It is often the man that's guilty of infidelity and some of the cruelest ones will kick a wife that protests too much out.

I think this debate is quite useful. A lot of legislative changes come first from changes in societies thinking, which is fostered by healthy debate. The different points of views I've seen are quite interesting and allow one to see alternatives which one can agree or disagree with.

With regards to the settlement laws themselves, we have to separate what we see in the West from what we see in Nigeria and other developing countries.

The dependant partner (which normally tends to be the woman) DEFINITELY needs protection in these developing countries. Clearly, divorce laws and their application needs to be strengthened to protect the dependant partner. There are real cases of women being thrown out with nothing, having been housewives throughout their prime years.

On the other hand, in many Western countries, divorce settlements, which were originally intended to protect such people have now become an avenue for some to be greedy. The case of Heather Mills is interesting because she was already a mini celebrity and could be considered upper middle class in her own right before she married Paul Mcartney. However, when the time for divorce came, she was still entitled to and went for some of his millions.

This debate is very healthy and valid, although I also agree that there are many other aspects of divorce that shouldn't be neglected, another thread perhaps.

Claus:
A number of parents who are trying to give subatantial assets to their children during their lifetime are now looking for ways to protect those assets from future ex wives and husbands. This is not right.

To clarify my point above, these are parents trying to protect the assets given to their children from the childrens' future ex wives and husbands.

The divorce settlement laws are a valid way to protect any partner that was the dependant in a marriage.

These laws have now been perverted. I suspect it is not so much the law that has been perverted, but the interpretation by judges, seeing as settlements just seem to keep increasing.

I think it's unreasonable to argue otherwise. Some people have entered the Forbes richest 1000 just from divorce settlements. This is not right.

A number of parents who are trying to give subatantial assets to their children during their lifetime are now looking for ways to protect those assets from future ex wives and husbands. This is not right.

However, where the West needs to tone things down with divorce settlements, Nigeria and other developing countries need to step it up a bit because women are being treated very unfairly in most of these developing countries.

pro01:
For the first part in bold, I have to ask again: what kind of 'sacrifice' does a multi-millionaire's wife have to make that entitles her to his millions after divorce? What 'sacrifice' did Tiger Woods' sillly wife have to make? Since when did raising one's children in an atmosphere of supreme comfort and luxury. . .surrounded by cooks, cleaners, garners and assistants become a 'sacrifice'?

As for the second part in bold, I don't see what is the 'sacrifice' in being a housewife to a billionaire (for instance). Many of such housewives earn more (by way of allowances) than female executives in good companies (ask Oluremi Tinubu, Sade Okoya, or Daisy Danjuma). And husbands in Nigeria don't just end marriages because they are bored with their wives; it is often as a consequence of infidelity on the wives' part (e.g. Caroline Danjuma, nee Ekanem), which makes the husbands kick them out justifiably without a penny. These issues should be put in proper perspective. The only situation that warrants divorce settlements are such that involve joint acquisition of the fortune by the couple (e.g. Cosmas and Charity Maduka, i.e. Coscharis).

BUT: If the wife was just the typical 'I must marry a rich man' kind of harlot, then under NO circumstances whatsoever does she deserve even a slice of the man's fortune in the event of a divorce.

If you read a bit earlier on in my post you'll see that I did acknowledge that the system has led to some people being unfairly entitled to a lot of money. In a couple of fairly recent cases in England, the divorce settlement took account of the man's current assets as well as his future potential earnings, which to me is grossly unfair.

We are therefore agreed on your main points above. I write further because I think you may be painting the entire argument with just one brush.

I believe that most anti divorce sentiments come from the fact that it is only the multi-million $/£ cases that are publicised. The average day to day cases of divorce are far harder to make judgements about.

I speak from another, mainly Nigerian end of the spectrum. By sacrifice, I mainly refer to a woman sacrificing her own career. The real life example that I have is of a woman who gave up her career at the 3rd/4th child  because that's what the man wanted. When the marriage came crashing down, he just kicked her out with nothing. This is the scenario you get when there are no laws protecting a dependent spouse, or where such laws are hardly enforced. It certainly needs to be corrected. By the way, it is not often the case of a woman's infidelity that makes the man kick her out. In a male dominated country like Nigeria, a man will kick his wife out for any reason, real or imagined, even if he is the one with many women outside. Infidelity on the part of the woman was certainly not the reason in my example. In fact it was the man that already had another woman and kids outside. He eventually moved those ones in to become his main family.

Apart from the career sacrifice of a woman, I also find that when children are involved, the argument is no longer simple. If a relatively rich man allows his ex-wife to wallow in poverty simply because that's how he met her, then the psychological impact on the kids is immeasurable. They'll probably end up deeply resenting their father.

The principle behind the divorce settlement is that if one partner is reliant on the other financially (for whatever reason) during the marriage, then if the marriage breaks up, provisions should be made for the dependent partner.

It becomes even more important when the dependent partner made some sacrifices and where there are kids involved.

Unfortunately, it has become an avenue for SOME in the western world to get entitlement to money that they knew nothing about.

Having said that, the Nigerian (or maybe African) situation is extermely bad. A man can tell his wife that he wants her to be a housewife since he's earning enough to take care of the whole family. Ultimately, if he wants to end the marriage, he can just kick her out. That is a situation that certainly needs to be addressed. Although these cases can be pursued in court, the social stigma and slow legal process means that some women don't bother and then just end up suffering in silence.

It's quite an amusing story, but it's not true.

It was reported by wazobiareport.com who specialise in spoof stories that are a caricature of of how things are.

nuella2:
Prayer its a tool in our hands, we can change anything with our prayers. God bless you. Have a great weekend.

Thanks. I agree with you. Have a great weekend too.

^^^
Exhale. We all pray.

nuella2:
Alot of people dont know their place in the body of christ. What did you do about a pastor coercing people, did you report to an higher authority or you simply got angry and walked away. See, God gives us opportunities to perfect each other, some1 might be doing that based on i want to hit a target and not thinking of how the pple feel when nobody says anything to him or her. If everybody gets angry and walks away from something we can change with our prayers and reporting the matter. We need more brave pple in the body of christ, pple that can improve lives when they can perfect it. We all have our parts to play. Getting angry and abusing people will not make a different but seeking Gods face on how you can be a change to something that should be changed. Success is impacting your world with your personality, its someone becoming an addition to a person or people.

You're right, and that's why I don't do that. I certainly didn't get angry and walk away.

It's easy to give instructions on what to do about a pastor's coercion. However, where I was, the culture was of unquestioning loyalty to your pastor and this was supported right to the very top. This was why the pastor was brave enough to coerce his entire leadership team.

I was the one in the midst of it all and you'll just have to take my word for it, there were no internal mechanisms for reporting to any higher authority.

If you see former members of certain ministries coming out to air their views on forums like Nairaland, it is for that precise reason, no one gives them the time of day inside the ministry. That is why some people walk away, they find themselves getting nowhere by reporting to higher authority.

nuella2:
^^^
Correct. The church of christ is being perfected daily always remember that. In the church i attend if my pastor ever hear that members were forced to give that leader will be in trouble. People should give with a conviction and a willing attitude, when they are forced they start murmuring and complaining and that giving may not be rewarded and that could bring doubt to the message of giving. It works but giving should be based on revelation and conviction.

That is the key word, "IF". If the pastor ever hears, what if it is the pastor himself coercing people to give. That is the experience I had.

Also, even if we are convinced that a senior pastor would deal with any such incidents, I am not aware, based on the ministry I was in, of any procedure that was defined and well communicated to all members about reporting such abuse.

nuella2:
Giving is basically an act of worship, love and surrender to God.

I certainly agree with this and that's why I believe there should never be coercion when it comes to giving to God.

I have however experienced serious coercion in the ministry I used to attend. This was due to financial targets that had to be met and is one of the pitfalls of this prosperity gospel.

People should be taught to be generous and they will give based on their understanding. Once coercion sets in, it is clear that the giving message is no longer a way to help the individual, it then becomes a form of fund raising!

Educating people about financial matters is a good thing. Both in and out of church, when you see people being empowered financially, so that they don't have to keep seeking help and can actually turn around to help others, it is a source of joy.

However, that is not the issue at hand. For those of us that stand against this prosperity gospel, the concern is that the main message being sent out to people, regardless of their level of income is to GIVE, especially to their "ministry".

I don't dispute that there are financial or business seminars in church. These are good and I have been to some of them.

However, there is a part of this prosperity message that convinces people that giving to the "ministry" is their way out of poverty, thereby turning the church into some sort of financial investment vehicle.