₦airaland Forum

sukkot:
all ndigbo men

Bbajide Okeowo sounds like a yoruba name. no?

Emmahunk:
Still one good thing about Nigerian lovers, they might be stingy, bossy, etc but will never think of killing you.
What a waste! RIP

WRONG. She wasn't killed because she dated a white man, she was killed because she dated a man capable of killing. And some Nigerian men in the US also kill - David Ochola, Babajide Okeowo, Moses Egharevba, Christopher Ndubuisi, Godfrey Nwodo, Caleb Onwudike just to name a few.

You said that you do not want to tell your family, but it might be good to tell at least one person. Tell a true friend or family member, someone who can call you and check up on you from time to time. Might be better not to tell too many people yet, as they may take sides and make things more difficult. Don't make too many decisions about your marriage now, we sometimes make irrational decisions when our minds are clouded with emotions.

Please stop thinking about suicide. I know this is a lot to deal with, and you mind is probably in overdrive, but your children need you. You said you wouldn't want another woman to come into their lives and maltreat them, so suicide is not the answer. Focus your energy on the kids, they are unselfishly yours. They may not be able to offer you words of comfort, but their presence alone will bring you some comfort.

If you are a christian or muslim then you know what must be done - be merciful, be forgiving, and be prayerful. Pray for serenity and strength. Once again, I know this seems like a lot to deal with, but there is a way out, and you are going to find it and be happy again. Don't forget to tell at least a friend, someone you know will be very understanding, will not judge you, and will be there to talk to and check up on you very often. Once you are out of this rut, you can then decide if the marriage is worth saving. You have my most sincere condolences, and I wish strength during this difficult time.

Her dress in the first pic is beautiful

ROSSIKE:
You have no clue what you are talking about. The land redistribution program was an unqualified SUCCESS. It is another BBC MYTH that the land was only distributed among Mugabe's ''cronies''. STOP reading BBC and other mainstream reports on Zimbabwe. That's the first step towards gaining a real understanding of what's going on there.

Of course the only rebuttal you can come up with is that people do not have an idea what they are talking about, and that your opposition is only reading propaganda and dabbling in myths distributed by BBC. Because it is only you who knows the truth. Right? I'm going to need an argument more substantial than that. An argument whereby you claim that your opposition doesn't know what he/she is talking about is no argument at all. I think I've had enough of this for today. Goodbye.

Shymm3x:
Blimey!

Let me digress for a bit: not to sound disrespectful or whatnot, based on the rebuttal you posited - I believe your mentality and folks with same understanding of things, are the same reason why the rest of the world has left African behind. See international-politics/global-relations is most times a zero-sum game and that's what realpolitik is about. So sometimes you just have to damn the short-term consequences and do what's best for you on long-term basis - to win. That was what China did under Chairman Mao and why China is where it's today. Ditto how Russia was able to overcome the utter destruction of Russia under Yeltsin. The same reason why South America is the next bastion, after Asia. And why everyone has left Africa behind, with no progress(ion) in sight.

You believe "forced acquisition" of lands by Mugabe isn't okay - fair enough. However, how did those he took the land from get the land in the first place? Were they given to them, or did they also acquire the lands forcefully? More so, Zimbabweans never forcefully ask for their lands back after independence - they had the Lancaster House agreement, and both parties accepted the reform. But when Tony Blair and "New Labour" assumed office in 1997, they renegaded on the agreement. And their excuse, "the election of a Labour government without links to former colonial interests meant Britain no longer had any special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchases". If you were in his shoes, with less than 1% disproportionately owning over 60% of the lands they stole from the indigenous people, yet they feel it's their ordained right to own those lands - what would you have done? Erm, if foreigners who make up less than 1% of Nigeria's population were to own over 60% of Nigerian lands, what would be ya reaction? I need honest answers from ya heart, not recycled propaganda from MSM.

No, you argued that there's no freedom of press in Zimbabwe (the threads on FP today show that isn't true based on the comments on Zimbabwean websites and the mixed opinions there), and I asked you to cite any country on this planet where freedom of press is absolute. No need to pontificate and go off the tangent of discourse.

No, I didn't that argue that there is no freedom of the press in Zimbabwe, I stated that it's suppressed. Please get your facts right. No one is arguing that freedom of the press should be absolute. Do you not get the point? There are varying degrees to which freedom can be suppressed, and it is done to a greater degree in Zimbabwe than in most countries within the free world. Why do we keep dancing around the same issue?

I just read the letter by Clair Short (thanks ROSSIKE), which, admittedly, is an ill-judged letter. But despite the letter, the UK continued to support the distribution of land to help eradicate poverty in the country. Have you actually read about the population within which the land was redistributed. Mugabe is redistributing the land among his cronies, thus enabling a situation whereby the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. It is clear that the lack of accountability and transparency in the management of redistribution as agreed in the Lancaster Agreement caused the British government to withhold their support. The main goal of the agreement was to distribute land to benefit the poor, and Mugabe failed miserably at that end.

To answer your question as to what I would do should the same situation arise in Nigeria, I will take the same stance. Because whether the leader takes the land by force or not, the poor will still be left out of the equation. I've stated over and over that the country was wronged, but forceful acquisition of lands and displacement of farmers are also wrong, and will not right the issue.

BTW, your first paragraph is such a cheap shot, go cook up with something better

Shymm3x:
Err, it's okay for the UK to renegade on the Lancaster House agreement, but not alright for Mugabe to fast-track land reforms, no? Can you see the paradox in ya submission and how hypocritical you sound?

Why should less than 1% of the population own over 60% of "prime-land" in a country that they're not even indigenous to? Would any western country ever allow that? And can you state one country on the planet where press freedom is absolute?

Also, why are Nigerians recycling dictators? Shouldn't Sahara reporters be more concerned about that than worrying about a next country that's still trying to find its feet? Most African countries are basically the same and folks need to worry about their own backyard before trying to critique others.

Forced acquisition of lands is not OK, and that was Mugabe's agenda. Yes, it is true that the minority white owns the majority of the land, but why is the government trying to right the wrong of colonialism by forcing farmers to give up their lands? Lands that, if I may point out, have provided the resources that sustain the country. When and how did the UK renegade on the LHA? It spent millions on resettlement projects. I haven't read much about it in awhile, so do enlighten me. Freedom of the press does not have to be absolute, let's not be facetious. But it can definitely be repressed beyond necessary measures. No one is advocating for absolute freedom of press. A free press can either be good or bad, but without freedom the press will never be anything but bad (not my quote, and I do not remember who said it). Staying informed on international affairs and engaging in educational discussion on NL doesn't mean that one does not "worry about his/her own backyard". There is nothing wrong with staying informed on the state of affairs in other countries, doesn't mean I love mine any less.

ROSSIKE:
Zimbabwe is in a WAR situation with the west. In such circumstances it is necessary and indeed, IMPERATIVE for the govt to curb certain civil rights. The west wants Zimbabwean land returned to a minority of white owners. They are desperate for Mugabe to leave office so they can inject one of their sellout negroes in Zimbabwe into power, to reverse the land redistribution. Mugabe and the Zimbabwean people said NO. The land belongs to the people and we must redistribute its ownership. You got a problem with that? Go dash your own land to oyinbo.

If the west cares so much about democracy, how come Saudi Arabia where they've never held an election in history, and where they cut off your hand for stealing, is the USA's best friend with the UK not far behind?

It is never okay to curb human rights, that is always the slippery slope to worse human right violations. And your claim that the West sanctioned him because it wanted Zimbabwean land returned to minority white farmers is invalid. He was sanctioned because of his proposition on the Fast -Track Land Reform, which will enable the government to seize lands of the famers without compensating them. I understand that Africa has been wronged by the West and no amount of restitution will erase that damage they caused, but we cannot right a wrong with another wrong. Moreover, the majority of citizens who decry Mugabe's presidency are black citizens. He's been known to kill off opposition, whether it be black or white, he's suppressed freedom of the press so as to prevent being confronted with accusations of his wrongs. That is why the fact that the SR reporter approached him was so jarring, reporters in his own country wouldn't dare do so. Should that be the case? Are we to be so afraid of our rulers that we cannot asked them questions concerning their regime? The question he was asked at the inauguration visit was so simple. Why will he not step down after 28 years and let a true democratic government ensue?

Ohammadike:
Mugabe is a true African.Haters can go and die and pray to live as long as him.l really love this quote of his

One good quote doesn't make him a great man or a true African. Presidents that are skilled orators are usually the worst of rulers and the best of liars, as the proverb goes "a great talker is a great liar". Mugabe has suppressed basic human rights and freedom in Zimbabwe for almost 3 decades, and should not be celebrated IMHO.

pseudonomer:
Really? Which is untrue?

Not entirely untrue. Double negative means there is some truth to what was said. Not sure I understand your question.

Did Mugabe deserve international courtesy while visiting Nigeria? Yes, but if we are to call a spade a spade, the accusations he was confronted with are not entirely untrue.

Curlieweed:
So, what exactly is wrong with female circumcision? Is it because Oyibo say it's wrong or do you have a real reason? How come no one is talking about Male Genital Mutilation? I guess WE don't count.

I suggest you tell your femiNazi activists to take turns sucking my Mutilated Genitals.

Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation (FGM) is like comparing apples to oranges. FGM renders the female Instruments reproductively nonfunctional, and has many detrimental consequences. The rate at which male circumcision results in lasting physical and permanent damage is nil when compared to FGM. Additionally, the reason behind each practice is different, FGM is done to ensure that a girl maintains her purity by diminishing her libido. Advocating for the annulment of FGM does not make one a femiNazi, you uninformed bigot.

Curlieweed:
So, what exactly is wrong with female circumcision? Is it because Oyibo say it's wrong or do you have a real reason? How come no one is talking about Male Genital Mutilation? I guess WE don't count.

I suggest you tell your femiNazi activists to take turns sucking my Mutilated Genitals.

They already tried, they couldn't find it.

There are some things that should never be seen, an 86 year old granny in a scanty leather outfit is one of them

"GEJ signed a bill this week that criminalizes female genital mutilation or cutting, a practice that a staggering 19.9 million Nigerian women are thought to have undergone. The landmark legislation is being hailed as an important step for Africa’s most populous country but also one that experts hope will have a potential ripple effect on the 26 other African nations that have significant populations of women who undergo the practice" - International Business Times

IT IS ABOUT TIME. Hopefully this won't be one of those political posturing actions that politicians use nowadays to further their careers. I doubt GEJ has anymore to offer the nation as a politician, so if this is his parting gift, I am very happy with it. Female genital mutilation is a real issue, one that most are unaware of because we live in our bubble and at times fail to realize that people who do not live in bustling or adequately-infrastructured cities battle issues completely different from the ones we face, especially in places where access to education and healthcare is severely inefficient. Signing this bill into a law is a giant step for femalehood, but the most critical step will be to make sure that it is enforced and that those who continue to engage in this horrible and unnecessary practice are criminalized.

freecocoa:
I don't think it is healthy,at this point, I can understand if you said, a child is more fond of one parent than the other, not love. A child should be taught to love both parents, one parent may bond better with the kid than the other but the child must know that they are both as important, mothers especially owe it to her kids to constantly remind them "daddy loves you" for the fathers that are mostly away on work or even any reason, except the man's a murderer .

A parent should not ask such questions, it wouldn't hurt much if that question was asked by an outsider, because the child would answer innocently, naming the one he/she is more fond of, but when a parent asks, the child thinks "something's wrong" and tries to seek refuge with the parent he feels can protect him, truly, something has to be wrong before such question is asked.

By saying that the friend's mother wanted to feel loved, I don't mean that she expected her son to love his father any less. She probably just wanted him to act affectionally towards her as he does towards his father. A mother should never encourage a child to love her more than the father. In fact she should be happy that she was able to provide her child a father that can be loved. You are quite right, it is not healthy for a child to be expected to love one parent over the other, but a child will love his/her parents differently and for different reasons, and there exists a grey line between fondness and love, most people would often interpret one for the other.

She just wanted to feel loved. I remember growing up, whenever I called my dad an endearing name or hung around him too much, my mom will say things like " hmm omo daddy or daddy's little girl". She might not admit to it, but I knew it bothered her when I paid more attention to him than I did her, I even used it to my advantage as a child. As an adult, I now understand why she felt this way - our insecurities never let go of us, we are always hoping to be the most loved or the most accepted. For my mom, her children's love and acceptance meant the most to her. And I think it is especially difficult for a woman to realize that her child would pick his/her father over her. Your friend's mom probably felt the same, and she probably should not have asked him that question, but most parents think about who their kid's favorite parent is even if they do not ask them.

A woman cannot change a man because she loves him, a man changes himself because he loves her. And vise versa

cococandy:
Nice one OP.

In addition,ladies if you can't have orgasms, pls don't raise daughters who can't have orgasms too. Most females are sexually repressed because of their psyche growing up to believe that sex is evil and something to be guilty or feel dirty about.
Teach them to embrace their sexuality (while being responsible about it.)

That's going to be a tough sell, especially since most Nigerians have very conservative views about sex.

Elprinz:
lol... when does a man "deserve" this respect.
if he does the dishes? or if he lives by himself?

It's obvious the girl will never respect the younger brother no matter how "deserving"

Leaving the plates tells you all the respect he will ever get!!

All individuals, male and female, are deserving of respect as long as they are able to prove that they are worthy of it. My post was not to infer that the future BIL will only be honored by the girl if he washes her dishes. No one is contesting the fact that she should have washed the dishes. What I'm contesting is the OP's idea that a woman is, by the fact of her gender, inferior to a man.

TheSonOfMark:

I'm already reminding her of the harsh reality of the banality of her miserable existence. I STAND FOR THE TRUTH.

You are yet to state this harsh reality of the female existence that you keep talking about.

ojaydedon:
wow... Nice..

BTW, Why wont he just marry her?
What is he waiting for?

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

TheSonOfMark:

Obviously there are some (pseudo-)feminists on this thread.
It's time to remind them of the harsh reality of their existence.

Do tell, what is the harsh reality of our existence?

freecocoa:
If only you know.

*in ygritte's voice* you know nothing Redbenson.

All seriousness aside, I love that GOT reference.

One would think the country is at war.

If there's anything Nigerians do well, it is finding humor in the most difficult situations.

kelechiMarie:
At first,i thought the girl is soo wrong but then i sat to think for a minute. From the op's post it is clear that the problem is not the dishes but the fact that it's a woman involved. I bet if it was his brother's friends that used the plates he wouldnt mind. If a visitor comes to my house(male or female)i'd clean up after them. For example,if my brother's fiance comes over she might offer to clear the table but i won't let her do the dishes,it's simple ettiquette.
That said,they're just making a mountain out of a molehill(over plates kwanu?). The younger bro sef
As for the op:you obviously have no respect for women and you possess a shallow,myopic level of reasoning

Unfortunately, I do not think that most commenters thought of the post long enough to come to this conclusion. People are either refusing to see the bigger problem or they are willing condone it.

RedBenson:
Here we go again. Feminist egoistic ranter. Keep advocating for equal right but the promise remains that as you were a woman, till you return to your ancestors, you'll remain a woman and men must always exhibit authority over you.

The ignorance is so mind-blowing

While I agree that the lady should have washed her dishes, I find the younger brother's reasoning behind not washing them condescending. I can't get over the statement "a lady who should be respecting men would bring him down". Because of unwashed dishes? A woman is not required to respect a man just because he is a man, she should respect him if, and only if, he deserves it.