₦airaland Forum

neyop85:
Quit the grammer and communicate.
Oyinbo... we have seen u.

Bumpkin, I'm not the cause of your ignorance. Now direct your further mention(s) to small-minded people like you because I don't indulge nonsense.

[quote author=Kingpele post=84255438][/quote]You must be an idiot for quoting with your trash-talk. Foolish people like you are always quick to equate foolish with wisdom. I don't expect a bumpkin like you to know that the husband's unconscientious behavior has started draining her and if he fails to eschew egotism immediately, he'll create a problem in the marriage. Anyway, bumpkins like you aren't known for extrapolation, so I'll pity you.

Now direct your further mention(s) to small-minded people like you because I don't indulge nonsense.

He's suffering delusion of grandeur, which is a major hallmark of small-minded people (no apologies) - a typical egotist. A sane person shouldn't be forced to become conscientious - sane people do so consciously and voluntarily.

Balderdash. A woman's ethical leanings, rather than her nationality, will always determine her state of gratefulness or lack of it - ungratefulness knows neither nationality nor gender. Personally, the most ungrateful Nigerian I have ever met isn't a woman but a man. And the most ungrateful woman I have ever met isn't a Nigerian but a non-Nigerian.

We've both bad and good women.

Yes. Foremost, success of any type and in any sphere of life never automatically makes anyone (woman or man) arrogant/insane/inhumane. So, a psychologically and morally healthy woman can't become a termagant and expedient as a result of her academic success - just as she can be subjugable despite reaching the zenith of academic success. And possession of a PhD - knowing much about a particular course of study - doesn't automatically make anyone "too educated" generally. There's nothing wrong with being too educated by the way.

A woman (or man) can be brilliant and possesses a PhD in a course of study without being neither intelligent nor strong-minded nor strifeful.

If this lady in particular is strong-minded and intelligent, however, she'll not be subjugable - so, a man who has penchant for subjugation shouldn't near her. Of course, if she's intelligent and strifeful/expedient (egoistic and egotistic), she'll be a hell on earth. In the end, it's her ethical leanings that matter the most.

As much as paranoia is more prevalent among women - some of them with sane minds don't exhibit the negative attitude - it isn't exclusive to them alone. Because some men are equally paranoid.

Paranoia is a major hallmark of small-minded people. Chauvinism breeds it (paranoia), just as egoism breeds cynicism.

So, show me a woman/man who constantly has the "I am/we are being persecuted and oppressed" and I'll point to you a chauvinist. When you deny a chauvinist an opportunity to subjugate you - they've penchant for subjugation - she/he will cry murder.

bukatyne:
Interesting.

So the husbands' lineage dies or he hypenates the surnames?

I need to read up on it more.

So we can't even compare with our cultures.

The husband likely doesn't have deeply rooted lineage, and he may or may not hyphenate his previous surname. Most of them are ready to relocate back home, all things being equal . . . let me know if you have free land make we bring some of dem home.

Meanwhile, culture being what it's - how majority of the living choose to do their things, rather than how the dead did their things - we can compare the cultures subject to circumstances. But this cannot stand, no matter the circumstance, if culture becomes how the dead did their things rather than how majority of the living choose to do their things - in this regard, we've deeply rooted culture than them.

On this "I need to read up on it more." believe you me, information on the ground is always different from information from the fourth estate, usually.

It's nothing new. Most African Americans, especially those without established name, are always looking for every meaningful opportunity to rivet with any African rooted family, so his action has little or nothing to do with his wife's superficial power.

The bond that holds two of you together will determine whether or not his actions and inactions are in order - a man who's emotionally connected with you, especially for the right reason, can never get tired of your company. A woman who married/entered marriage with business/self-interest mindset and exhibits the same shouldn't expect privilege deserving of a woman who married with altruistic mindset from her husband (and vice versa). It's obvious that either or both of you married with business mindset - so don't expect conscientious behaviour from him always, since the marriage operates on the foundation of expediency.

It depends on what tickles one's fancy. Personally, altruism of a woman is worth more than anything else; so an altruistic woman has every right to say "I was there for/with you."

Fountainofyouth:
I am, thanks

I know say u dey well as always. As per . . . "ASAP" u know wat I mean, I did de needful dat same day. Are u aware or not?

It's obvious that her weakness emanates from innate emotional vulnerableness, and not from greed - this means that she's not consciously expedient, despite being susceptible to promiscuity. Her condition isn't curable, but it's very manageable subject to circumstances and provided that she isn't conceited.

generationz:
I can only see four women and a faceless man bashing her.

Bia o! Ezigbo nwannem-nwayi na enyi mu, odikwa ka akpasuru m' gi iwee.

Iwee iwekwala gi, I nu.

Your mother is a regressive egoist with underlying psychosis. You've to accept this fact and also accept the fact that she'll always need your help materially and otherwise as long as she lives - don't discard her no matter the circumstances. By accepting these facts, you'll begin to see her for whom she's rather than what she ought to be to you and do for you - in order words, squash sane expectations from her and begin to deny her right to influence your thought and thoughts. But never deny her the privilege of enjoying altruistic and conscientious deeds from you. This approach will prevent you from losing your personal development in particular and sanity in general, while still doing your best for her.

Meanwhile, since she's not business savvy and in best ethical state, instead of giving her seed money again - whenever you may afford to - consider to invest for her through a third-party without her knowledge . . . With this approach, you win (saneness), and she and the third-party win too (financially) albeit at a reduced profit on her side.

Ishilove:
Your English is plenty

Dis small one no go prevent me from imitating from one of de best writers around, you.

Elder0001:
Shut up. “Most” as if you have met most guys in Nigeria.

Lol, dis man-boy, u de always make me laugh - I no hold brief 4 an insane person like u and ur ilk.

Balderdash. Most/sane guys are always looking for ethically sound ladies - crassness and expediency aren't options. So, ladies should strive and eschew materialism, parasitism and conceit. There are still good ladies anyway.

Fountainofyouth:
Meaning you're Igbo right? Lol.

Ur nyamiri in-laws must hear dis. Me na Omoluabi I be.

By the way, I hope u dey well.

The thread caption should read; Story of a crass husband and his crass and expedient wife. Well, your marriage has an ethical problem and it's good that you already know it. Meanwhile, as much as the situation can be manageable at present, subject to mutual conscious and volitional decision, however, it'll be unsalvageable in the long run - an expedient person can never change for good.

Fountainofyouth:
Waiting for awon nyamiri to say he is a tribalistic bigot cos he didn't speak igbo

Na to rename u wahala/trouble come remain now.

You're simply inhumanely disingenuous.

Elder0001:
You’ve misused, misunderstood, disfigured, battered and destroyed the word “small minded” on this forum. Jeez.

Lol, clout chaser general and multi-moniker owner. Scram and direct your further mention to small-minded people like you.

Bumpkin.

theButterfly:
Reserved ✔
Sensitive ✔
Quasi 100%/fully-Maverick ✔

Yes, these adjectives are descriptive of me. In fact, they are me.
What gave them away? I've always wondered how I appear on here.

As for me being a quasi-maverick, I consider myself to be a complete maverick in every sense of the word.
If you know me, you'd know I don't follow the crowd/do many of the things others do nor think like others.

Don't worry, you'll achieve a full maverick cycle in the no too distant future, bar any . . . and I know what'll happen when you achieve it. This free assessment isn't just about how you appear on here, but also about who you're innately, with or without your full knowledge. And nothing gave you away, I dissect for fun and no amount of disguise/glossing/coloration can impair my discernment on anyone near or afar.

theButterfly:
Hmmm, when am I ever biased? You're still upset over my comment, abi? Pele. (:

Lol, I'm not upset for anything. Anyway, I have always known that you're a very reserved, sensitive and quasi-maverick person - I'm now looking forward to when you'll become fully maverick.

theButterfly:
Why would anyone?

OP, walk away. No, run.

As you don become unbiased now, na ihm be say I go begin de take you serious.

Kudos.

[quote author=Dozzywest post=83867197][/quote]Like I said above, whether or not he has a justifiable/cogent reason, he should have been bold and open in doing so with full knowledge of his wife, with or without her consent - like an aristocratic man would do. The secret route he took defile courage, diplomacy and rationality, and it amounts to pretence and disingenuousness - he's a typical weakling/small-minded man.

Personally, I believe that the worst form of abuse a spouse can mete out to another is to unjustifiably question their integrity, towards them especially.

In this particular case, the man acted like a typical weakling/small-minded person. Since he made up his mind to carry out a DNA test on the offspring, justifiably or not, he should have been bold and open in doing it with full knowledge of the wife, rather than going through the secret route, like he did.

The foundation of the marriage will determine whether his action is justifiable or not; I mean, if the bond that holds both of you together is egoism, which means the foundation of the marriage is built on materialism/expediency, you shouldn't expect him not to dislike you or expect him to be humane towards you because in this instance it means you aren't useful to him.

However, if the bond that holds both of you together is altruism, which means the foundation of the marriage in built on principle/spiritualism - which I doubt - it means that he's both hypocritical and insane and you should sever from him with alacrity to preserve your sanity.

On a general note, regardless of the kind of bond that holds two of you together, I sympathize with you. You'll definitely have offspring in the not too distant future, keep on doing the needful.

Ariza:
Lol Foolish men deserve no civility, if you feel offended by that sentence check yourself. So yes that sentence is civil enough for the audience it was directed at.

Women aren't capable of love in romantic/marriage affairs? Well you may be right, If you have never experienced unconditional love from a woman, what do I type to convince you otherwise? One can only believe what he or she has seen or felt. However I put it to you that you are wrong to put the whole world in a box with the belief that you have seen all in it.

Now on submissiveness and love. These two goes along , Love begat Submissiveness. You can only agree or comply with something you agree with.Neither can you fight or rebel something/someone you cherish. Separating the two is a huge error. Or are you saying it is possible to agree or obey or submit without acceptance? . When you love someone, you do their wish. They are together. Love and submissiveness.


@bolded, if sane people love unconditionally and according to you women don't love unconditionally, then it is safe to assume that women aren't sane. Right?

Foremost, conceit remains God's gift to small-minded people. Meanwhile, on this "@bolded, if sane people love unconditionally and according to you women don't love unconditionally, then it is safe to assume that women aren't sane. Right?" Well, only altruistic women are sane under the subject under discussion. That said, the word love is ambiguous; love - marriage/romantic love - as a variant of goodness is encompassing, while that of humaneness isn't encompassing even though it's a product of goodness. And they're different from fancy, care, admiration all of which independently are called love, albeit smaller/constituents of the former mentions.

On this "Women aren't capable of love in romantic/marriage affairs?" Yes. Women are only capable of submissiveness - the difference between submissiveness and love is their respective nomenclatures and applications, none is superior to the other. Just as women and men are human beings and have their respective distinct differences with none being superior to the other. . . On this "If you have never experienced unconditional love from a woman, what do I type to convince you otherwise?" Well, a woman by virtue of being submissive, is automatically altruistic/or automatically has unconditional interest in a man. So, I have always experienced the best of sane women.

About this "Now on submissiveness and love. These two goes along , Love begat Submissiveness." Love doesn't automatically beget submissiveness, instead they go hand in hand because sane people innately possess their attributes - their applications are always spontaneous rather than planned. It takes a sane man to give love, just as only a sane woman can give submissiveness. And it takes a discerning person (man or woman) to know possessor of the attributes of love/submissiveness either from afar or near. . . About this "When you love someone, you do their wish." That is balderdash - a sane man doesn't do the wish of someone he loves, instead he acts conscientiously all the time without negating altruism. Only dummies do what others wish and that's the reason why they always fall into the machination of small-minded women.

Ariza:
I read a thread here sometimes ago where Men were advised to marry and learn to love those who love them and only use and dump those they love.I asked how does one learn to love but my question was left unanswered, the ones who tried to answer only danced around it. No procedure or How to was provided and I laughed. How men bask judiciously in so much ignorance amuse me! They believe women learn to love so they can do it too.But only the wise one would ask how women easily divert this so called love on their children as soon as they are born neglecting the fathers. Was the love ever there?


The truth is you can never learn to love, you can only learn to appreciate.Love is not something you can create but Gratitude, you can. The misconception comes when people mix up love and gratitude. Contrary to what we see movies like a man learning to love the woman he was force to marry, No! he only learned to appreciate and live with the woman after his brain has been reconfigured by a terrible situation that might have caused him to lose the Good woman.

Op, you can't learn to love. You can only learn to appreciate, learn to be with and learn to accept your Man. In this case, look at the positive sides of things, compare his good qualities to what others do not have and accept him. I wish you luck.

Judge yourself, this particular derisive statement "How men bask judiciously in so much ignorance amuse me!" is it palatable/civil to your hearing?

On this "I read a thread here sometimes ago where Men were advised to marry and learn to love those who love them and only use and dump those they love." Well, only a mental parochial and ignorant element will give men such advice - the propagator and practitioner(s) of such school of thought don't represent men in general, at least not sane men.

Love (as a variant of goodness) has never been a woman's forte in relation to romantic/marriage affair, so only an ignorant man would expect love from a woman in this regard - the only thing a woman, a sane one, can give a man is submissiveness which is a variant of goodness in its own form. Both love and submissiveness are actions, not just mere words and feelings. For a typical small-minded woman, it's always about her self-interest first and sane men know about this, which is the reason a man's first call of duty when entering into such union with a woman is to find out what her interest in him is. Men aren't ignorant as most of you always think. The biggest dummy ever sold to women is that they're smarter than men - smartness isn't female-gender exclusive, you hear. A woman can only be considered sane in this regard if her interest is altruistic, else she's a small-minded woman like many and any discerning man can dissect her, no matter her sly prowess.

Meanwhile, sane people have always loved other human beings unconditionally - of course, this doesn't invalidate conditionality of falling in love and conditionality staying in love. So, small-minded people who don't love can learn to love conditionally since they cannot do so unconditionally.

OP should tell herself truth, the crux of her initial interest towards her husband has either waned or her husband hasn't been able to sustain it, and this is mostly because the interest/condition wasn't altruistic. What small-minded women always divert towards their offspring and deny their husband is interest, and this always happens because such women never had altruistic interest towards their husbands. Maybe you can now see the reason why sane men are always wary of materialistic and parasitic women because once a woman's interest in a man isn't altruistic, it's a matter of time before she'll ruin him in any possible way intentionally or otherwise. The OP is about to ruin her husband, either by her making or her husband making.

@OP

Send me a PM if you're in the legal profession.

Good one. Expediency is never a good option in the pursuit of lasting treasure and fulfillment in any sphere of life - manipulators lose credibility, diplomats gain it.