₦airaland Forum

chigoizie7:
LOL, me I can’t talk too much ooh, but from your words. Marriage is sacred and shouldn’t be approached as a commercial business.

If that is the case, why is the woman seeking for financial gains during of after divorce?


Different countries has different societies and different laws. You can’t compare an American to a Nigerian neither can you compare a Nigerian to a Saudi Arabian. The earlier we learn that, the better for us and also gives us time to look for a better thing for ourselves.


At the end of the day. It is what it is.

In the mean time. Let us keep deceiving ourselves.


In a country where court makes decisions and the people do otherwise.


Haven’t you seen a man who was asked to give child support and he didn’t, has they been jailed?


How many people have you seen declared bankruptcy in naija?


If you owe person in this country, it is not a crime, last last, you can decide to be paying 1k per month to someone you owe 5million.



Make we no de use other country laws to judge our own cases. As the laws and the society differs.

I only hold brief for sane/ethically sound/fair-minded people.

Altruism as the soul of a healthy marriage, which makes marriage a sacred union and a non-commercial business, doesn't invalidate symbiosis - benefit - which a healthy marriage yields.

The soul of a healthy marriage is mutual altruism and it yields benefit - the type the OP's mother is entitled to - while the soul of a healthy commercial business partnership is self-interest and it yields exploit rightly or wrongly.

Once more, it's an abomination for anyone to approach marriage, a sacred union, like a commercial business - sane people don't approach it in such manner.

The kind of mentality most people have and the absurd things one reads on a forum like this most of the time are so repulsive.

I wonder how any sane person would say that a wife who conscientiously and loyally stayed at home and catered for the family (with or without offspring) doesn't have right to claim that she "helped build wealth in particular and the family in general" with her husband, just because he majorly contributed his own quota of the family's success monetarily/materially.

It's an abomination to approach marriage, a sacred union, as a commercial business.

OP

Your mother is entitled to at least half part of the family's assets, especially if she has been a submissive wife all this while. I don't want to hastily conclude that you've a small-minded/insane man as a father.

It isn't rationally right to compare the two because they aren't of the same calibre:

Communication is a means to an end, while understanding is an end product of concurrent means. So, communication as a constituent of means/precursor of an end is an agent of understanding.

Indirectly, understanding can only justifiably be compared to love/goodness - understanding breeds love.

That I'm an occult grand master.

Fountainofyouth:
Very true,

@Op, I notice that guys that want to justify cheating in any form always refer to animals for comparison, are you an animal

I hear say u de give cows to different people for de new year celebration. I wonder why u no give reach ma side.

Happy New Year.

Monogamy isn't unnatural, it's one of the true tests of a man's selflessness under normal circumstances - polygamy is either a product of a man's unconquered greed or a man's way of correcting wrong selection of a wife.

However, anyone who's against polygamy but is for hypergamy is a hypocrite.

If you're a Mech. Engr. with at least 2 years previous work experience in the petroleum industry, send me a PM immediately.

As for your wife and her recent attitude, it's obvious that you've been living with a frenemy all this while. Only few men are lucky, and can be lucky, to marry virtuous/submissive women. Since she's of the small-minded stock, you've to master the art of treating small-minded people and mete out same to her - if you aren't small-minded like her too.

Akuruoulo:
U ARE A GOOD WRITTER .
NICE ENGLISH.




NA THEY GUY SITUATION GOOD , ABI ?

The guy is better off without her.

Meanwhile, thanks for the compliment . . . wishing you Happy New Year in advance.

How to avoid becoming a member of the toxic men and women association (TMWA) both online and offline, aka wannabe alpha men and wannabe feminists:

- Take to goodness (love) - it is a sign of strength not weakness - but don't indulge nonsense. In other words, strive to be altruistic and conscientious, or just be conscientious at least. There's a thin line between love and foolishness.

- Always be true to yourself and to your partner.

- Avoid conceit and greed - self-conquest is very important.

Love/goodness is not a sign of weakness, only a strong person can love both self and others - strive to conquer yourself without striving to conquer the world and love the world without hating yourself.

Meanwhile, established members of the TMWA can equally follow the same steps above and detox themselves.

I wonder why anyone would vilify the groom for retaliating the way he did; an innocent abused person reserves the right to choose how and when to retaliate against their abuser. One who's coming into equity should always strive to come with clean hands to avoid having similar bitter experience like this bride.

I wish you speedy and total recovery. Meanwhile, your husband's actions and inactions will either be justifiable or not, depending on the foundation on which the marriage operates/the bond that holds two of you together.

He can only be justifiably vilified if the marriage is built on the foundation of principle/spiritualism, which, by extension, means that mutual altruism supposed to be the bond that holds you two together with everlasting oneness as the pursuing end goal. Faithfulness begins where loyalty ends - someone who has altruistic interest towards you, or even someone who's conscientious, could've voluntarily and joyfully given you the faithfulness you wished for in a trying time like this.

However, if the marriage is built on the foundation of materialism/expediency, meaning it's each to his/her own - self-interest - then he doesn't deserve vilification, at least not from you especially if you're the one who made it so from the beginning. Of course, you moving on without him at this point will equally be justifiable.

We neither automatically need to restructure nor breakaway from each other before we can achieve sustainable peace in particular and progress in general. Confederation structured around libertarians is our best bet - we can take to confederation without doing conventional restructuring or breakaway. In truth, the federal system of government has done us more harm than good, so let's forget about oneness and pursue unity.

Confederation is very feasible. In fact, with our diversity, federal system of government (oneness) ought not to be put into consideration in any way - individual liberty (autonomous) doesn't automatically mean absence of unity, just as attachment (nonautonomous) doesn't automatically mean presence of oneness.

Sincerely, at this stage of our democracy in particular and countryhood in general, we need libertarians in power in all the arms of government. Liberals (PDP) have tried their best, unfortunately their best wasn't good enough - dispositional caringness of liberals never stop them from being self-centered, disingenuous and greedy. And the conservatives (APC) are obviously trying their best, as the incumbent government in power, unfortunately their best so far haven't been good enough too - dispositional sanctimony of conservatives never stop them from being selfish, hypocritical and greedy.

Libertarians hold the key to our sustainable peace and progress and confederation is our best bet of alliance. With mentally sound libertarians in power in a confederate system of government, irrelevant of the leaders tribe and religion at the center, the country will experience sustainable rapid growth in all areas - dispositional domination (not domineeringness) of libertarians is embedded in altruism and conscientiousness. So we stand to gain a lot from having people of the libertarian ideological leaning in power.

Unconditional love is not a scam, whether or not it involves intimate relationship. It's just ambiguous, just like love is itself. Unconditional love means one's interest towards another, communicating about intimate relationship now, has no self-interest overtone coupled with readiness to give everything on principle to maintain and sustain relationship with such other person - only strong-minded/principled and altruistic people can give it.

However, unconditionality of love doesn't invalidate conscientiousness - because there's a thin line between love and foolishness. This means that the other party equally has a part to play to maintain and sustain the relationship - achieving healthy relationship is the key. He/she may not necessarily have to be altruistic, but at least he/she must be principled.

In the end, it's all about character - one's character will always determine their ethical leanings.

On this "as a sharp guy," anyone (man and woman) who possesses this thought process is usually the easiest kind of person to outsmart or deceive in a relationship in particular and every other setting in general - conceit will always remain god's gift to small-minded people. Strive to overcome conceit in particular and greed in general - by doing these, you will conquer yourself and become a principled person.

Meanwhile, ambiguity of love notwithstanding, someone who loves you and commits to you will never cheat on you, I mean a self-conquered person in this regard - when you love someone, you'll always strive to avoid doing anything that will drain them in all forms. Genuine love renews energy, it never drains energy. So, it's either that she doesn't love you or she loves you but she isn't a principled person. Whichever one is the case, you'll be better off without her, if you're a principled person.

Very bad experience. Well, there're still principled women, so it's your duty to seek and identify them and choose the one who's in most sync with you. As the saying goes; he who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Most High. But you aren't principled, so you aren't supposed to make a fuss over her action.

Obedience is better than sacrifice, hence more glorifying.

Nice one. Meanwhile to avoid regretting your today's actions and inactions which will become your past starting from tomorrow, start living life on the periphery of conventionalism, doing so conscientiously.

An ethically sound woman, whether or not she has money, will always remain superior to an ethically bankrupt woman who may hold key of the world's wealth (money and other material possessions).

One thing I've come to know about money/material oriented and conscious people (men and women) is that they hardly have what it takes to compete favorably when the same money/material possession is set as the ultimate criterion for relationship/marriage.

Personally, whatever reason that would make me to jettison an ethically sound woman, whether or not she has money, for an ethically bankrupt woman who may hold key of the world's wealth is beyond me and can't stand it.

Money can never define a sane person - its importance notwithstanding. Besides, it still remains one of the easiest things to acquire under normal circumstances. Many factors can make a resourceful woman financially incapacitated at any point in time, so evaluating her overall entity based on her financial standing isn't palatable at all.

It's an is abomination to equate intimate relationship with commercial business and no sane person will approach it in same manner.

AmericanDad:
Awwn my dear sister it is well okay. U know IMO men behave somehow and not like our men. Pls stay strong okay..This marriage thing can be somehow...iv experienced it n know how it actually feels

Just shut up since you've no meaningful advice to give her. Of course, you can go to hell with whatever reply you may come up with, because I don't give attention to nincompoops.

@OP

It's obvious that you and your husband aren't of the same ethical leanings. You need to keep distance from him for now. Success of the union will now depend on the level of his sense of responsibility and tolerance - which are absent at the moment as evident in your story. But that everlasting ecstasy that a couple who're of the same ethical leanings usually enjoy can never be present in the union, regardless of circumstances - in other words, unity between two of you is possible in the long run, but both of you cannot achieve oneness or experience its benefits. He has to grow up.

TonyeBarcanista:
A man must decide how he wants his home to be run. If the husband wants the woman not to work in corporate setting, I think it is fair he arranges alternative so she can be productive like a virtuous woman.

Any woman that isn't ready to submit to her husband's authority SHOULD NOT MARRY or should marry an American or someone with such mindset .

Marriage is a very serious institution with its own standard and template. It isn't a popularity contest where decisions are subject to popular opinion and votes. A man leads, the wife assist.

May I conclude with this Bible passage; 1 Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Please, if you are not a believer of Christ, ignore the passage and marry a man according to your own faith. SIMPLE

BTW Why are you tagging angry feminists?

Don't you know that ach time these feminists rant, it is best to read, laugh and ignore. I have interacted with a couple of them and I noticed that;

1. They are mostly advanced in age and single, and are generally bitter and unhappy whenever a younger woman or another woman is having harmonious relationship with her man.

2. The engaged/married ones among them are having terrible relationship

3. A lot of them are single mothers and current/retired runs girls

4. The younger ones amongst them are foolishly naive and tend to regret.

5. A minute number of them that are married are only feminists on social media. Offline they are loyal (Less than 5% though)

5. Ignoring their rants is sure way to have sanity!

ADVICE TO BROTHERS

1. Do not compromise your standard to accommodate these feminists demands

2. Do not date/marry them if you can't keep with their nonsense (truth is your chances of having cordial relationship with them is 1%)

3. They will tag you insecure but we like am like that

Submission shouldn't be equated with subservience. It's very obvious that you, just like many others, have erroneous understanding of what submission in this context is and what it entails. Maybe I have to blame the obvious misconception on its ambiguity. Yes, I'm a proponent of submission, but with a sure different, not necessarily superior, understanding of what it's and what it entails.

Submission, just like love which is its variant, is encompassing. It's a compound word that literally has no meaning on its own without its constituents (good attributes like selflessness and meekness). It's a compound feminine word that denotes feminine goodness, just as love is a compound masculine word that denotes masculine goodness too, all in the context under discussion - neither submission nor love is a sign of weakness and neither of them is inferior nor superior to each other. They just differ in nomenclatures and application - just as males and females are equal as human beings but differ biologically. Only few women possess its attributes and can give genuine version of it - every woman can give a fake version of it in many guises to any man subject to circumstances.

So, it's wrong to forcefully assert that "A man must decide how he wants his home to be run." - what's conscientious and palatable is that a man must have a sound moral philosophy on which he can walk and work with his wife. The philosophy must be sound I say, because real submission works spontaneously with real love - only sane men can love genuinely, just as only sane women can submit genuinely.

A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way - authority is different from authoritarianism. A sane wife is expected to submit to the authority of a sane/loving man, she's not expected to submit to authoritarianism - only servile women (people) can condone authoritarianism in any setting - strive to be a leader rather than an authoritarian/dictator. Right without responsibility equates to mental parochialism.

Actually, authoritarianism doesn't know gender; there're both authoritarian men and women with penchant for subjugation as their major hallmark - hello to chauvinistic and inhumane men and women; wannabe alpha males and wannabe feminists. Of course, I don't hold brief for servile people also.

It's not only African men who expect submission from their women, only wannabes of the West have such erroneous thought. Show me a marriage anywhere in the world where both spouses mutually and genuinely have inner peace and I'll show you a genuine loving man and a genuine submissive woman.

I doff my hat for humane, sane, conscientious, strong-minded and altruistic men and women.

A man who married a virtuous woman doesn't have cause to worry. My continual experience with strong-minded women who're altruistic and conscientious have always reinforced my strong belief that all women, just like men, aren't ethically the same. Work environment can never determine a woman's character.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion is only for you and people who are of the same ethical leanings like you, so you don't hold brief for people in general. Respect isn't something you can have instead it's something you can earn - you can only have dignity. Unfortunately, money can't buy dignity. Financial emancipation may cause small-minded people to tolerate or fear you, even when you've bad character, but that won't mean that you've dignity/earned their respect.

Personally, a woman, just like a man, only needs to be human being to receive my politeness, and she needs to be humane and principled to earn and retain my respect - in other words, she needs to be altruistic and conscientious to earn and retain my respect. The irresistible value of a woman lies in her character. Money can't buy ethical class. I'd rather fall in love/defer for an ethically sound woman, with or without money/any material possession, than to fall in love/defer for a woman who possesses all the wealth in this world but with crass and expedient personality.

The good thing about character (good or bad) is that no amount of pretense or glossing can cover it, at least not for too long. It's like a goldfish that has no hiding place.

It's a very appalling thought you've. There can never be any justifiable reason for you to use indignation to announce your arrival/wokeness to your father. Eschew your indignant thought, transmute it to appreciative thought, strive to make him better than you have met him in all forms. You can start your arrival journey by getting him either a new automobile or house.

Your husband is out of sync with you, so bulk of the work is on his desk. Commitment is a decision and honouring a vow is a true sign of responsibleness - provided that he hasn't been violated. He should man-up and do the needful, unless the marriage isn't sacrosanct to him.

Meanwhile, discard the telegram boy with alacrity.

Good decision. Both MITI and MoF should follow suit and do the needful also -.both of them hold key to success or failure of FDI pursuit.

Most Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian Muslim men that's their normal parole. You need to see how they wreck most advanced American women's life, except non-Caucasians, with their hypocritical disingenuousness.

You've a chauvinistic mother, that's the root of the problem, and she's indoctrinated and inculcated its associated negative values into your sister. You've frenemies in both of them.

Nevertheless, continue to be good to them mostly from a distance and stop expecting from them understanding and ecstatic feelings as you ought to gain/experience from selfless and meek relations in their position in your life.

You've to bear in mind that whatever good thing they may do for you at any point in time in life can never come from the place of selflessness - any of such good thing will always have self-interest overtone. If you eventually amass big wealth, they'll be the first set of people to take to worshipping you - superficial love.

Blood makes people related, but mutual ethical leanings make people lovers or family or intimate friends.

ImaIma1:
Haba Lordko such behaviour should not be encouraged or indulged. I don't think he should leave his house for them because they are threatening him and being ungrateful. He should move out with his family and sell the house. When the owner comes, they can talk to him/her.

It's not their brother's job to provide shelter for them because he is richer. They have become settled there and become entitled.

It's not about encouraging or indulging their repulsive behavior, but deferring for the bond (blood) that holds them together. In a situation like this, decision to lose honorably isn't a sign of weakness but that of strength - it's all about balancing conscientiousness with altruism. Of course, it'll become a sign of weakness if he continually defers for them in similar circumstances. I wish he has the wherewithal to play the bigger person role in this regard. He's hands full with small-minded people in his siblings, so it behoves on him, as a bigger person, to perfect the art of relating safely with them without allowing them dominion over him.

No, it isn't everyone's choice to determine how they live their life, because liberty doesn't invalidate decorum - so, a sane person is expected to live/strive to live a conscientious life. Liberty without decorum is a disease.

On feminism, provided that it propagates egalitarianism, not female gender subjugation of the male gender, I'm a proponent - this means that personally I don't hate real feminists, but I sure loathe wannabe feminists. Of course, equality doesn't automatically mean absence of differences - all human beings are equal, but males and females are different biologically.

Now, as a man who doesn't hate feminism and sees the idea of a husband and wife sharing bill, instead of either party who's privileged volitionally and joyfully doing what's necessary at any given time without undervaluing the other person because of it, as an abomination, I disagree with your posit that by virtue of assuming leadership of the house, that a wife who's the means shouldn't take financial responsibility or make financial contribution in the house. In almost all settings, people don't automatically assume leadership position just because they're financially buoyant than others - only egotistic and/or egoistic people do such - such can only happen where insane people gather.

Meanwhile, no, a leader doesn't always put rationale before emotion, instead he does put rationale above sentiment and feelings - emotion is different from sentiment and feelings. Conscientiousness is the major hallmark of a leader - a good/sane leader.

Also, no, leadership isn't about manipulation - manipulation in any guise is unhealthy - but it's about diplomacy. Diplomacy is different from manipulation. So, leadership is about diplomacy and management.

On the other hand, a woman can be an alpha female and still be deserving of fragile vessel-like treatment - a strong-minded, altruistic and discerning/intelligent woman is an alpha female, and she deserves the best.

You don't need to cut your father off your life, instead you need to take charge of your dominion. You can be strong-minded without being either heartless or wicked - in other words, you can be both altruistic and conscientious without being subjugable.

He's an egoist, so his penchant for subjugation will be perpetual, and it's your duty to master the art of relating safely with him without cutting him off entirely.

One can always give everything without losing anything.

If your father is on money and can afford a new house, let him play the bigger person role, like he has done so far, by building a new one and leaving the old one for them in good faith.

Many a time, disunity is a product of fear. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that it's their differences rather than problems that have kept them in disunity all this while. Physical distance will definitely alleviate, if not eradicate, whatever differences they've among themselves once one person among them takes up the task to bring peace in the family.