₦airaland Forum

KOPT33:
I had to read and reread to understand, but I found no substance in your statements.

I see no room for ethics in the resolution of the matter, or even for coming to a clear position of consensus. I am not an enslaver if I demand full disclosure from my spouse. What is your point exactly?

According to the OP "When I say I don’t have, the school fees money will them come out from somewhere and he will pay it, but if I said I have, he will not find the money o." - this means he's self-centered, a non proponent of the axiom which says he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. According to her too " I saved up enough money to buy land and I even saved up money to build a bungalow for us. All behind his back, because I know he will take the money from me and use it for something else if I say I have the money." - this means he's both opportunistic and imprudent.

Once more, I say, her action didn't equate to hypocritical disingenuousness, rather it was a pure act of diplomacy - he didn't come to equity with clean hands, while she didn't exploit him in anyway. My contribution is based on fact (her submission here), not an assumption.

Now, get busy with something productive rather than trying to quantify something beyond your comprehension. Better still, next time quote your ilk.

Good luck.

Personally, no. There's no love where there's no trust. So there's no sense in keeping close association/putting up with a woman that I don't trust in the first place, just as I won't expect a woman I mistrust, through the act of carrying out a DNA test on the "offspring," to have me in her good book afterward (irrespective of the outcome of the result) - if there's one thing I fear in life, it's about having a frenemy in the guise of wife. My moto is simple: Betray me shame unto you, outsmart me shame unto me.

Prevention is better than cure. The most sensible thing is for one to always avoid hypocritically disingenuous women. If I can't entrust my life to you and if you can't command my self-sacrifice then I've no reason to wife you. And any moment she loses my trust will automatically mark an end to our close association. Separation will always be an option, so long as it's not self-centeredly necessitated. I'm never afraid of losing to anyone, so long as I lose honourably and conscientiously.

Good points. Meanwhile, while working towards financial emancipation, be success conscious rather than money conscious, and put more effort towards ethical emancipation. Because a financially emancipated woman who's contentious, self-centered and/or greedy is worse than a non-financially emancipated/unproductive but resourceful woman who's meek yet outspoken and contented. A dependent woman who's both unproductive and unresourceful, and insatiable and contentious isn't an option.

A financially emancipated woman who's contentious, self-centered and/or greedy is not different from a man who doesn't believe in gender equality, mutual respect, loyalty, etc, and assumption of responsibility that comes with headship - one who's impunity personified.

Money embedded in ethical toxicity (irrelevant of the gender of the accumulator) doesn't bring inner peace to the beneficiaries. Being small-minded is a sin.

To the proponents of "Nigerian men are afraid of marrying independent women" that's balderdash. Being financially emancipated doesn't automatically make anyone (man or woman) independent. All independent women are financially emancipated (either directly or indirectly), but not all financially emancipated women are independent. Women who're truly independent always command the respect and association of all sane and sound men - a woman's marital/relationship status should never be used as a yardstick to quantify her character.

Being a working class/business owner doesn't automatically mean being financially emancipated, just as being financially emancipated doesn't automatically mean being independent. An independent woman will always be a top pick for every sane and sound man. Independent women are rare to find anywhere in the world.

An act of diplomacy shouldn't be mistaken for one of hypocritical disingenuousness - there's a thin line between the two. The woman didn't do any evil, unless all she stated here aren't the truth. She's a wise woman - a true liberator. Unfortunately, she's married to an enslaver, a typical small-minded man - imprudence, self-centeredness, opportunism and pilferage are vices. They're of different ethical leanings.

Yes - although its meaning can be ambiguous. Meanwhile, the very fact that you asked this question simply means that you, as a person, don't have true love. So, it'll be difficult, if not impossible, for you to genuinely agree with anyone that tells you it exist. . . One can't quantify accurately something s/he doesn't understand. More so it's a taboo for one to expect from others that which he can't give.

You need to go back to your default setting, make yourself an embodiment of love. After that start showing love to everyone, but stay in love only with one who is able to reciprocate, maintain and sustain your love. True love lies in values.

yvelchstores:
Sorry to ask but it's where my heart it directed. What sort of business was he into? How was he making the money?
I ask because if it was not genuine, it can only go as it came. Why did your friend not also have business ideas when he had money. It's God that gives ideas to make wealth so I will suggest Ur friend to look inwards.
Even if the wife is lazy, that shouldn't be the reason for his situation. He should look inwards, when a man seeks God, he finds him.

According to you "What sort of business was he into? How was he making the money? I ask because if it was not genuine, it can only go as it came. Why did your friend not also have business ideas when he had money. It's God that gives ideas to make wealth so I will suggest Ur friend to look inwards. Even if the wife is lazy, that shouldn't be the reason for his situation."

Believe you me, this type of thought process is not just myopic but also cruel. Loss of business empire/accumulated riches usually has less or nothing to do with the means it was built/acquired, instead factors like lack of innovation and not knowing when to divest and diversify are some of the major causes. Personally, the first and most viable and profitable (as at the time) of the companies I established about a decade ago through which I made some considerable fortune then went comatose and I lost almost everything I acquired through it. That happened not because I was into something illegal no - small-minded acquaintances, near and afar, thought I was - rather it happened because of the current day-to-day technological innovations and advancement in its sector.

Also, I have a particular associate, an American, that was a multimillionaire (in dollars), he acquired his wealth through the most honest means you can think of, but he lost everything about two years ago - although his problem was partly caused by a bad woman (a story for another day). He's yet to regain his stand up to now, not because he's bereft of ideas, but because the sub-sector of the global economy through which he built his business and acquired his riches isn't viable any more today.

Meanwhile, @OP, your friend needs to accept responsibility of his actions and inactions first, instead of apportioning blames towards his wife. He shouldn't allow religious/spiritual merchants to compound his woes. If they are certain that the wife has aura of bad luck that follows her, but couldn't proffer solution to liberate her from it, that means they aren't genuine. His first mistake was getting married to a woman that didn't tick the resourcefulness and productiveness box of his need in a wife, so he has to assume, in good faith, responsibility of his feeble-mindedness in this regard - his feeble-mindedness made him to accept the wife's (then girlfriend) flimsy excuse and promise of becoming productive and resourceful when in the marriage rather than proving herself as at then.

Well, as unpalatable as a housewife may be to some people, as long as she isn't greedy and self-centered, she will always be better than an ambitious and prosperous wife who's greedy and/or self-centered. A conscientious wife/woman will/should forever be adored by her husband, because among her other good attributes, she's contented, resourceful and productive - whether independently earning money or not.

Let him focus on finding his feet again. Then when he succeeds, he can begin to give the wife ultimatum to either embrace resourcefulness and productiveness or they go their separate ways. This is not the ideal time to join issues with her wife.

One sharing his/her fears isn't enough - because it's more or less a placebo - understanding/mastering the act of eradicating your fears is more important, the solution.

To eradicate your fears simply embrace non-conformism and conscientiouness, by doing so, you'll start living life at the periphery of conventionalism. This is the recipe for inner peace which is the antidote for material induced fear in particular and all other types in general.

The last time I checked no one person (or gender) has monopoly of wisdom, and a woman (girlfriend or wife) is in no way inferior to her man. The fact that a man and a woman are different by gender doesn't mean that one is superior to another or will automatically have better opinion than another - until difference changes its meaning to inequality, I remain an egalitarian.

Every living human being has his/her forte (either positive or negative), so a superior opinion should always stand, irrespective of who generated it. . . But of course, pronouncement of an agreed decision (where outsiders are involved) is better left for the head of the house to make, so long as he's present and mentally sound.

The most important thing is for both parties to master the act of dominating without being domineering. E.G., only a small-minded man will have a financial management guru of a wife in the house and still insist on being the house financial planner, even when he knows that such isn't his forte.

It's conventional wisdom that superficial people and depression are inseparable. So, he's correct because the entertainment industry and its practitioners are almost all about superficiality.

Although emotional and psychological abuses -hallmarks of headstrong women in particular and small-minded people in general - are literally worse than mild assault, yet, a man meting out assault (of any form) to his wife is unpalatable. Keeping distance/Separation will always be a better option. Having a headstrong woman (rather than a strong-minded one) as a wife is a direct invitation for anarchy and constant abuses. Abuse of any type is bad.

The solution to your problem is an easy one. . . But for your wrong ethical leaning. Well, presume yourself a libertarian - ordinarily, you're not one. Now that you're in the garb of libertarian, tell yourself that the lady is entitled to her decision and choice and accept it in good faith without need of antagonizing her.

By applying this prescription, you'll automatically give up self-centeredness and domineeringness and gain your healing - the healing will occur gradually. However, your failure to apply this prescription will either make you to become a pawn in her hand - if she so desired - or you'll intentionally/unintentionally develop hatred for her. By the way, obsession isn't love, just as fixation isn't caring.

Try to contain your greed.

Mental health and ethical leaning.

It's obvious that the OP knows nothing about development. High GDP doesn't automatically equates to development. Your greatest undoing was rating Seychelles as second most developed country in Africa. There's something called HDI, that's the logical yardstick of rating development.

I wonder why some people are ascribing the "Kembe styled pant" as Kunle Afolayan's creation - maybe he made it popular for the Nigerian market. This style of pant's existence, especially in most other African countries, is as old as anything else.

Loyalty without clout is insignificant in politics.

Sadgirl1281:
That’s what I am trying to do, play the fool to bring him back home but he’s just making it so difficult that’s why I’m here asking what am I to do from here?

E.g. you can go through his father, cry to him and pray him to help plead to him on your behalf - he'll call him while you're there crying, to his notice of course - to return home to you. Once more, it's an unwise thing to do, but it's a good thing that you understand the need to do it before taking the hard stance that will make or mar the union permanently.

Notionally, physical abuse and verbal vitriol - because they can be perceived - are worse than emotional and psychological abuses, but factually they aren't. You've a subjugator - the worst type - as a husband. He'll use both emotional entanglement and disparagement to kill you slowly, if the situation isn't nip in the bud immediately.

He's of the manipulative ethical leanings. If truly you don't share this same vices of attributes/ethical leanings with him (I don't pity people of the manipulative ethical leanings), give him ultimatum - professional counselling won't help him much, instead he must make self-conscious decision to change for good - to either embrace a change of ethical leanings or both of you go your separate ways. However, don't give him ultimatum if you can't carry it out. He has to make self-conscious decision (both of you have to individually make a promise to each other and live by it) to be relating with you conscientiously, both in words and actions.

In his present disposition (and if he's to maintain it), to have his understanding/be in his good book requires you being resourceful, productive and most importantly servile towards him - which is unwise.

As for his immediate demand from you, he expects a servile disposition from you. Maybe, you can lower your guard and use any servile action you can perfect to bring him home - play this one time fool for him - before marshalling out the ultimatum above.

I hope you didn't mistake her expression of preferences for complaint - there's a tiny line between the two. If the latter was truly the case, sorry for you, because in her you've a domineering woman to contend with. However, if the former was the case, then sorry for her, because she's domineering man to contend with.

Fairly good points - yet, choice remains a human right. So, to each his own. Personally, any lady that ticks up to 70 percent of one's need in a wife is good enough to put up with, because there's always room for improvement. Besides, perfection is of the sole creator of the world.

Men are not slave to women and vice versa. Dignity begets politeness and politeness begets respect. If you're a man that has dignity, the first unpronounced rule is never to have any form of close association with a typical small-minded woman - because, she can never accord you your earned respect, no matter what you do. However if you are the undiscerned type that don't know how to differentiate a good woman from a bad one from far away, and unfortunately found yourself sharing a close association (either by marriage/personal relationship or JV, etc) with one, separation is the most honorable thing to do - if she fails to change for good after several polite corrections. If she's open to learn and change for good, then you have no reason to discard her. Some women (people) exhibits bad attitudes, not because they're inherently bad, but because they have poor upbringing or they keep bad company and are feeble-minded. In this forum, I have seen some women who were once bitterness/sweetness personifies change for good/bad.

Truth is that a good woman can be pushed to the wall, and when that happens, she will take to verbal/written vitriol. Vitriol in any form is always a result of prolonged and suppressed emotional and psychological abuses - emotional and psychological abuses are literally worse than physical and financial abuses. So, one who comes into equity must come with clean hands. For example, a hypocritically disingenuous man (person) through his subtle manipulative and conceited attitude can cause a saint-like-wife to turn to a monster in the long run.

Small-minded people's philosophy is the same (irrespective of their gender, location and race); for such a person, it's either your dominion, dignity or sanity. If you're someone of the diplomatic ethical leanings, all you need is just one time opportunity when one crosses your path to disarm him/her - attack (don't beat or kill anyone) remains the best form of defense when dealing with such a person.

The postulation can only hold true if he is to do whatever it's with the volitional consent of the wife - headship isn't mastery. Culture or no culture, a wife is neither a subject nor subordinate to the husband - she's a queen and must always be treated as one, unless she demotes herself.

But then in a situation where his request is justifiably conscientious but the wife, out of small-mindedness, object to it, he should take any civil action, he may deem fit, against her.

Culture shouldn't be defined as the way the dead did their things while alive, instead it should be defined as the way the living - at any point in time - chooses to do their things.

Hanseel1:
This should be directed at lordKO

Check my posts on the first page, I said Nigerian women should share house chores and at the same time marry women who must contribute.


But low-key alpha males and misogynists led by LordKO decided to call me stupid, self centered and greedy for saying men should share bills with their wives.

Bumpkin. Vamoose and direct your further mention(s) to your ilk, I don't join issues with small-minded people like you. You're a closet misogynist, and a typical hypocritically disingenuous person.

If you're to mandatorily "share bills in equal measures" with your wife - instead of either of the parties volitionally and conscientiously contributing according to one's immediate capability (with you as a man having a sense of responsibility to provide for your family) - I wonder how you're going to share in your wife's pregnancy associated pains (labor contractions and childbirth pains). Truth is that you lack love in your life... You don't know what love is.

Also if a couple share bills in equal measures, it means that in the event either of the parties become incapable of making financial contributions to the house the marriage should automatically be over. Marriage is a sacred union, and it shouldn't be mistaken for a commercial enterprise. I don't see oneness and love in a couple that share bills instead of one or both parties volitionally and conscientiously doing what's necessary at any given time.

People like you with your wack thought processes and actions always validates my postulation that brilliance doesn't cure mental parochialism.

I'm not a subjugator. Unfortunately, you're a closet one.

ogtavia:
Can you draw a line between ego and a sense of responsibility?

You're wise. The OP and his ilk doesn't seems to understand that there's a difference between sense of responsibility and ego. See them trying so hard to gloss laziness, selfishness, self-centeredness and greediness with garb of equality - nay sharing bills. Volitional and conscientious assumption of responsibility (by both parties) based on individual's immediate capability is a true sign of oneness and validation of equality. Marriage isn't a commercial enterprise where partners shares things based on the size of equity one own/hold. The sacredness of marriage lies in mutual altruism, kindness and sincerity.

If a couple share bills this month - instead of each person making volitional and sincere contribution based on immediate capability - it means that if one of the parties runs out of resources in the future due to unforseen life circumstances, s/he should and would be abandoned. Bumpkins don't seem to understand that loyalty is earned.

Hanseel1:
You're yet to get married. When you eventually do, this big grammar will refuse to be typed when you intend to.


You're just so focused/concerned on being the leader/king to the extent that you're ready to do anything to sustain that position even if it'll mess up your emotional life spam.

Shut up and stop being hypocritically disingenuous - closet misogynist. Don't allow conceitedness, selfishness, self-centeredness and greediness to destroy you. Everyone on this forum isn't of the same stratum - the earlier you stop using yourself as standard for everyone else, the better for you.

An articulate competent in your stead ought to have known that I'm not against a wife being resourceful and independent.

Peace out.

Grupo:
It is obvious you are not married

Believe you me, what's obvious is the fact that you're an articulate incompetent. My assertion in this regard remains sacrosanct until you prove me wrong.

Nonsense! Leadership/headship doesn't mean mastery and shouldn't be mistaken for one. A husband is simply first between his equal in a union (marriage); his wife. Only subjugators derives pleasure in denying others their right to self-dominion and feel of equality.

Meanwhile, man and woman in a marriage is, and should be, husband and wife (both in words and actions) not partners, with conscientiousness as they bond to keep them together.

Partnership, in any guise or form, lose its meaning the very moment selfishness is absent, while marriage is considered a sacred union because of absence of selfishness. Literally there's no marriage where there's no love and, of course, there's no love where there's no altruism.

A situation of such happens where a man married his frenemy as a wife - marry a self-centered and/or greedy woman at your own peril. A marriage devoid of oneness isn't a healthy marriage - where there's oneness there'll be mutual conscientiousness (altruism, kindness, selflessness, sincerity and goodness in general).

Meanwhile mutual conscientiousness is quite different from thoughts and actions of selfishness and self-centeredness glossed in the garb of equality. I mean a situation whereby a selfish, greedy and self-centered man, in the name of being a proponent of equality (or feminism), tries to evade bearing responsibilities that comes with leadership in the house by resorting to a wack thought process and action like "we will always share all responsibilities in equal measures." How do you intend to share the pains associated with pregnancy and labor contractions (childbirth pains)? Equality doesn't mean a man "sharing" house bills with his wife - the most buoyant, in case where the wife has a good job, ought to cheerfully do what's needful at any point in time - or allowing his wife to take up heavily physical tasks. As an egalitarian, equality to me means mutual conscientiousness.

Thoughtlessness, selfishness and self-centeredness are products of vices. Couples should strive to master how to be cheerful givers and grateful receivers - reciprocation of goodness (not necessary in equal measures) is the soul of every healthy marriage/union/relationship.

As a man try to know what you need and go for it; don't go for a partner or tormentor when what you need is a wife - a wife should be a keeper and helper. When you marry a wife in this settings you automatically have a submissive woman - submissiveness isn't evil. Submissiveness in this context shouldn't be mistaken for either submission or slavery, because it recognizes self-dominion. Egalitarianism doesn't negates leadership, and there's no kingdom without the king (a king's wife is a queen, not neither a subject, competitor nor subordinate) - leadership (headship) neither mean subjugation nor mastery.

UyaiIncomparabl:
Thanks for the detailed comment.

Did you say redeemable? How can the condition be warded off?

Step of warding off the condition requires self-reverse to default - this can be achieved through periodic solitary (not alienation from others) and embrace of diplomatic ethical leanings - constant and altruistic acts of philanthropy, channelled towards the needy, being part of the embrace.

Yes. It's a universal known fact, mainly by innate metaphysicians and spiritual but not religious people, who're in tune with their subconscious. Some people usually emanates negative energy - corrupt energy - with or without knowing, and once they come around you or into your life (either temporary or permanent) your life starts a downward trend - not necessarily financial-wise. The belief has nothing to do with neither one being myopic nor African. The good thing is that the condition is redeemable.

The answer isn't farfetched; the world is arguably made up of about 99.5 percent of opportunists and 0.5 percent of altruists. And the need to be humble and submissive (but without giving out self-dominion) to the world remains sacrosanct, because literally one owes the world everything but the world owes no one anything - nature and its provision say-so - go against this unpronounced rule at your own peril.

No, it's not the African woman. That's a small-minded woman - small-mindedness know no bounds/race and gender. A virtuous/aristocratic woman doesn't possess/exhibits such traits - you can find her in any continent and race.

engrj:
Bros greetings sir.
My step dad whom you are in support of, only sent 5 check my balance as at on Saturday.

Also see photo below of my step dad on how he do snap just to proved to you how he reason and do things like a young boy. At my age how can tell people this is my step dad?
I also attached the drug I got for her too.

Kindly direct your tantrum - a major hallmark of a small-minded person - to another person. You've corroborated my assertion about your person.

God's blessings to your family.