pocohantas:
I don't believe a man should be a sole provider, but I believe he should be the major provider, given that we all know 80% of the time, the women handles childearing, nurturing and running the home alone!

You agreed to "men being men, and women being women," or else, people will learn, but men being (major) providers and women bearing the bulk of non-financial labour, evidently, isn't beneficial (especially to women). It's the reality, but it's not a healthy arrangement. And there are plenty people who do not conform to that unhealthy set-up, hence my point. They are not being "men", and they are not being "women." Their marriages are working fine without "man bring money; woman bring body" and the whole shebang.

Goodluck on finding a man that would sometimes be a woman and allow you be the man.

What does this mean, I'm honestly trying to understand? You mean a man who would carry a child to term and raise them with me being a 'provider' to him?

pocohantas:


They will learn...

There have been successful marriages (or at least by the couples' definition) and there will continue to be successful marriages that do not run on this "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" stuff that y'all are prescribing sha. It doesn't even translate to real life where the lines of characters/personalities are blurred.

The fact that you that don't even believe a man should be an 100% provider is telling that you concede to compromises on the gender roles. They are not "fixed rules".

Newusername:
Why will a man get married if he is not ready to provide? From what I know, provision is the primary duty of a man while nurturing is the primary duty of a woman.

Why, as a man and father, will nurturing your own kids not be a primary duty to you? Will heaven fall if you're both responsible for providing and nurturing?

daneni1:
Let us all know that roles can be flexed but can't be changed.

Roles can be flexed but can't be changed...so a man can become feminine when he loses his job, and a woman can become masculine when she steps in to take care of the family, in other words? Okay.

I would have thought it's never possible for these "masculine/feminine roles" to be switched before lol.

Proserpina:
No A woman shouldn't hold her food money when she's getting married.

That's totally unheard of.

So you want to get married, and you will not be financially buoyant? Is that what you're saying? If you cannot comfortably take care of your own daily needs and feeding and all, you will get married? In today's world? Nah, if you think that's realistic in any way, godspeed to you then.

There's nothing uncommon about what I'm saying or that's outrageous- everybody should be a responsible adult. There's nothing y'all are suggesting that our mothers haven't tried and gone through. Yet we see how their marriages mostly are.

and we shouldn't project notions like this because in the long run we would end up selling ourselves short. A man is to provide while a woman is to nurture when you say everybody should hold food money then that's not marriage.

No, you saying a man should provide while a woman nurtures is you selling yourself short rather, because I noticed you're not even saying the man should also support you in nurturing? You want to share in his own 'role', while your own is solely yours? Why work at all, since it's not a woman's place to contribute? Because at what point will your job and deference to your boss outside clash with your wifely duties at home to your husband? Unless you're recommending being a supermom who can balance all these together.

Years ago I use to share your perspective but after careful analysis of the women with such mentality end I retracted. [b]You see women heavily pregnant still joggling between works to meet up with her quota of the family's finances.[/b]See men are straight being whatever you project is what they will hold on to and they will demand of you till the last straw.

My baby, this outcome is the result of "supporting him while you do yours." Don't you see the correlation? You either chip in or don't chip in at all. And if you want to chip in, make it significant so you can know that you did something. It is not the 'separation of gender roles' that'll make a man not demand provision of you 'till the last straw, it is because he is an inconsiderate person and can equally demand the last of your emotional labour until the last straw. I'm not coming from a career/independent/providing vs. homemaker/stay-at-home/non-providing place. Dropping money down can never match school runs; diaper runs; schoolkids' runs; house runs; domestic and extended family runs, and sex runs. Is it presenting yourself as a nurturer, too, that they won't exploit? If all those runs are solely for you to do, then why do you still want to chip in and support him? It's like you want to be seen as being both independent and traditional, when you can just stick to one thing you want to be. Be both homely and providing, or outsource to a nanny and enjoy your lives as a couple, or one's duties doesn't cross into the other's at all.

Men are natural provider it is in them to provide if you take that away from them, they will look for another outlet to experience that fulfillment. It's why you see them leaving their percentage sharing wives at home to "take care" of 22 years ladies.

This is another point. The 22-year-olds are not doting nurturers to these men. They leave their virtuous, 'non-equal' homemaker wives too to run after businesswomen. So, again, it is not doing or doing gender roles that'll stop men from doing or demanding whatever they want. Thinking it's only 'independent' women they leave alone at home is just a coping thought lol.

It's good to support but don't ever project yourself as a co -provider.

Again, semantics. Supporting him in providing is not co-providing?

The society you are won't even acknowledge it so why bother?

But they also ask a 'nurturing woman' what she has contributed to a man's life, if he wants to divorce her later on after years of marriage. And they also blame a nurturing woman for turning the minds of the children away from an emotionally absent father.

It IS having things in your name, having a paper trail of major financial contributions to the home that ensures that one is not kicked out and left with no properties in the end should a man decide he wants divorce, at least.

On the sex part. See the woman has the right to claim that just as the man has the right to calm money. Sex is different in marriage, it becomes more of a responsibility so if she sees it as a big deal, let her be. There's no need for anyone to sound politically correct about it.

Let's bring it to the street...

You dey fvck person, you no take care of the body you dey fvck, who does that? Even the usual sex worker gets down under a roof with fan/AC and good bed after eating and drinking. Shey na married woman supposed dey knack on empty stomach? Abegii !
If the lady takes sex off the table because her husband does not provide she's within her right same way a man can quit providing if the wife is not performing her duties. It's what they both offer.[/quote]

No wahala. As to this one, I believe the men have come and will come up with perfect arrangements for that.


Someone up there said the man should only provide when he needs sex. I mean, sex lasts for a few minutes, an hour at most. So maybe they'll come up with a measurement rooster for how much provision will get a period of sex.

And saying this is what a particular couple choose to do is quite different from saying this is what all couples ought to do as "man and woman", else their marriage is a waiting disaster.

That's my own grouse. It is not a one-size-fits-all thing.

MrBrownJay1:
whether a man provides for the family or not, he is entitled to mounting his wife.


so technically, well all is good she has sex with husband, and if business is not great, no sex for him. what kind of narrow minded yeye nonsense is this?!

You using entitlement to mounting is the only ish I have with.


But I genuinely cannot wrap my head around sex being something a woman give to a man.

So if I was married to someone, and things started going rough for them, I'll not have sex with them even if I want it?

Proserpina:
No be me ooooo

I just find it absurd that guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why marry when you are not ready to provide? .

Lol... So make we dey hold food money now when we are going to husband's house .

Nothing wey person no go read for NL

Lol. Everybody should hold food money when entering marriage. Mature adults should marry with a sense of responsibility and the knowledge that they'll take care of each other and mutually provide and "equally" (or at least to the extent that one party doesn't always do something in a one-sided way) help and support or cushion each other in places where the other is unable to fill in.

The only sensible "repayment" for being taken care of is to take care of the other person in turn, not sex. So yeah, the wording and the mentality of the submission is so wrong, when the marriage is not a brothel where the man has to be "buying" sex continually from the wife by providing. If you (not you personally) won't have sex with him because he doesn't provide, he could also choose not to provide because you've decided not to have sex too (so who should do which first?)

Everybody was providing for themselves before marriage. Everybody has had sex before marriage. Why are conditions now being placed on it inside marriage? Placing a price tag on these things makes it seem as if the two of them will be getting something exclusively that they have never gotten before the marriage- providing for a person that has never been provided for/having sex with a person that has never had sex.


This is why I dislike the whole "traditional" set up along 'bring this, I bring this,' because one person is going to be benefitting more than another.

To have sex, and to provide, and to do every other thing else isn't exclusively the domain of a gender. If the man picks up the bill because he's good with numbers, as a person, fine. If the wife cooks because she loves it, alright. And whenever, if, the wife is pregnant, the husband providing, feeding or taking care of the wife shouldn't entitle him to labour or sex from her - doing those should be an expression of love from him, the way the wife has been doing same for him. But if it's all commodified and made transactional, what exactly will the wife give in turn when she's healing from childbirth and cannot cook, clean, have sex or "support" whenever she can? She'll employ a nanny to fulfil her 'wifely duties' lol?

I get why they'll make a mountain out of a molehill of this - the OP's mentality is closely tied to why men feel unfulfilled when they cannot financially provide. So if a man is unable to bring the bacon home for whatever reason, a woman should withdraw sex and intimacy and respect and all? But then we tell them not to tie that value to their pockets, and to other things like their personality and brain. Mind you, I am not defending a completely, deadbeat useless man without value and is a leech. I am not saying a wife should continue being a virtuous, sufferhead to a man who brings nothing to the table. We all look for values in people. I am only saying "money" is just one of the many usefulness of a person (or man) and if they do not have that, they do not become useless.

Proserpina:
If I come for you now, you will start screaming deal or agreement.

Na your comment?


Modified: Ohh, okay. I thought you made the original post. Sorry, I mixed up the comments on the thread.

Semantics as far as I'm concerned.

Like someone who's just trying to make the best of the end of the short stick of the patriarchal deal they got. Like "stooping to conquer" and "men are the head, women are the neck" kind of thing. It sounds so soullessly transactional to me. Not to mention the points being all over the place.


And like, how do you "quantify" stuff you do for each other and make it match? So sex is the "payment" for being taken care for? And when a man takes care of you, he's entitled to sex? 'Sacred sex' seems wildly contradictory to 'I can't give you free knack if you don't take care of me.'


What the bride price is also doing there, I don't know. If bride prices doesn't give the man access to A and B and C, what's the point? 'Just because you paid bride price, you can't...' for something that runs into millions based on cultural dictates is just so laughable lol. You cannot demand someone be a piper and also want to tell them how to play the tune nau lol.

OasisX:

Come and teach me how to be this funnily unbothered.

joseph:
So the community Obi donated that Borehole to, is in Niger Republic?

Whatever happened to the say "anything that is worth doing, is worth doing well?"

It's even how you people are judging this Obi's action in isolation to other BIG BIG meaningful things he has been doing.

If one person did E, and another person who has done and has been doing A, B, C and D comes to do the same E, trust me, my reaction to them will never be the same thing. It is not hypocrisy or speaking from both sides of my mouth. It is contextual. And as Izz ou pointed out, if you have a big "office," I will expect bigger things from you. So why tf should an elected HOR member and a citizen who doesn't hold any official post be judged with the same metric?


We do not criticise politicians INDEPENDENT of their track records, and public achievements.

larride:
Is anyone following this Paul Graham tweet attributing everyday english word to GhatGPT?

Nigerians has been roasting him since morning.

It's an interesting discuss especially for writers

I've been in a persistent state of mental gloom and intellectual restlessness from the morn high to night nigh. 😂


No, like what's really my fate? 😩


Lol...I've only ever pitched a foreign publication repre— oh, God. A guy that's an editor for HuffPost sha asked for pitches, and I sent mine. I was rejected. It's only a one-time experience so I cannot exactly think this AI or no AI thing is a reason; I don't have many experiences, and there are certainly some Nigerians that write for these people. I just can't help but wonder how many other Nigerians have lost one or two opportunities due to their *mechanical writing.* I cannot even remember how I wrote the email, but knowing me...

Omo. 😂

It'll be so so fuçking jarring have to pause and start my thought process to filter out "big words" that naturally come to my head.

OasisX:


....una dey pay attention to Irrelevancies a lot. How una dey practice Religions in Nigeria eh?! LOL!

It is exactly BECAUSE of the way religion is practiced in Nigeria that managements should be careful in how they approach religions.

Oya, why the difference now? It's literally doesn't make sense. Like what is the point?

Fonts do serve purposes.

OasisX:
........is anything really wrong?! Contents are same, except changing of heading, purpose of letter and dates.

Lol... what's the point of different typefaces then? Since they're basically announcing the same thing. Should there not be a uniformity in official fonts? One obviously can see/tell that one is not like the other. Yeah, it's not a "disaster-causing" kind of thing. It's not so big enough to lead to an issue, but it's also not subtle enough to be missed by people's sensibilities. One is prettier than another and that belies thoughtfulness and preference/reverence/deference. Whichever.

izzou:
He should add Friday and wrap it up.

Honestly. 😂


Watin remain for the week again?

Peak humour 😂

Ellexy:
😭😭😭😭

😂😂😂😂

Ellexy:
Woye not Oasis X....

E say Twitter will open an office in Nigeria soon? 🤣🤣🤣


Nah, I need his brand of highness; that's a level of delusion I aspire to.

folake4u:
You're a lucky girl. ☺️☺️

Please 🤣🤣.

I almost forgot I was reading about 'celebrities'. 😭


Of course, they have access to the best cosmetic surgeons. I was almost fooled thinking it's good genes and that they are aging well. 😂


They look good, though; really good.


I wish them both well.

OasisX:


......I will bring the Eclipse to your doorstep dear, ain't an Oasis for a joke. If I could bring water to the desert, nothing gonna stop me from bringing Sun and Moon to your home as special gift to a special one.

Oh, Shakespeare is shaking in his grave 😭😂.


Oasis the wordbender 🤣.



But this is so sweet fr 😊.

OasisX:


.......that's the koko má Odogwu.

Anyway, Oasis my love, the only soothing spring in the scorching slate of my life as a Nigerian woman, are we not going to fly to America to see the solar eclipse? 🥺🥺


I want to see it so bad. Do you think we can still make it cross-continent if we leave now?

OasisX:
.....thanks for the clarification and I strongly respect our traditions. However if I may, for learning sake, ask a question sir. Is it necessary to re-hand her over to Akeredolu family?!

She is married to the family and definitely part of the family for life already. I am just curious to know why its necessary to perform the rite, but I still maintain my respect for all traditions regardless.

You people are/were talking about a woman lol?


I missed the conversation.