₦airaland Forum

@OP

You're dealing with a self-centered woman - that's one of the offshoots of conceitedness, and a major hallmark of conceited people. She can only give gratitude to you or feel satisfied when your act of beneficence in particular and conscientious decision in general favours her, why you become a stingy/uncaring/self-centered person to her eyes whenever you made a conscientious decision that isn't favourable to her. To remain in her good book entails you being servile - volitionally or otherwise - to her (loyalty can't earn you understanding from her). If you give in to her shenanigans at this juncture without having her to volitionally change for good, be ready for emotional and psychological abuses in the near future - that's if she hasn't started meting them out towards you already. Meanwhile, for now count yourself lucky if she's no moral vice too, because if she does, sorry will become your name.

Well, personally, I wouldn't advise you to call her parents instead I'll advise that you solve the problem once and for all - calling her parents will mean given in to her shenanigans and that will only worsen things in the long run. It'll result to a situation whereby she'll always blame you for her own irrationality and expects you to also beg her at all times in such occurrences.

Solution: firstly, you must always uphold the principle of coming into equity with clean hands. Always give in your best at all times but never lose guard to her. To achieve this you need to tell yourself truth that your peace comes first before her wish - to her, it's either your dominion or your dignity (this means your sanity is at risk). If you can implement this perfectly well, I tell you that she'll volitionally get off from her high horse in a not too distant time to re-embrace oneness with you - but this will only happen if she's truly committed to the union and has an atom of genuine love for you. However, if the headache becomes permanent, you do what anybody that operates on principle will do.

For now, remain thoughtful towards her I say, but forget oneness or trying to force it to exist, because it's literally impossible to achieve oneness in absence of mutual conscientiousness. But of course, independence doesn't mean absence of thoughtfulness.

Really! It's obvious that you only hold brief for the small-minded class of my tribesmen. Because it's an insult to postulate that a quasi-meaningless material thing as ish agu cloth is an identifier of a sane and sound Igbo person.

Conscientiousness is the idiosyncrasy of the aristocratic Igbos, our identity.

Whenever I hear some people say "Tinubu sold/betrayed his people," I always ask how? Yes, he may not be the most conscientious and sagacious of politicians out there yet what you can't take away from him is that he has an understanding of how the populace reason, therefore, he'll always be a force to reckoned with so long as politics remain a game of numbers. He's a rational politician - even though personally I am for politics of principle and conviction (this is the political ideology I'd like many to embrace so as to enthrone a sane political atmosphere in the country). But in the absence/scanty number of politicians on the politics of principle and conviction leanings, rational politicians will always remain better than the sentimental ones.

Believe you me that should everybody in the country takes to the route of sentimental politics like the enchanters of ""Tinubu sold/betrayed his people," it automatically means that the North will forever wins the presidential election so long as Nigeria remain a country.

There's a real need for a change of ethical leanings by many in this country, if truly we all wish to experience peace in particular and advancement in general.

akaahs:
In this case, she is a failure because there is nothing like mastery for someone who can't stick on one thing to master on it.

One funny thing with critiques is that they always know or claim to know everything but understand nothing valuable. Stop being conceited OK.

Meanwhile, consider to keep your further mention(s) to yourself, unless you've facts to back up whatever postulation you may be coming up with.

Literally, failure isn't a sign of ignorance - for a sane and sound person - rather it's an act that leads to mastery. However, this doesn't justify complacency.

Don't abandon her just because she failed. You can justifiably do so if you thoroughly observed and established that she's been complacent and selfish respectively.

rasputinn:
LOL @ mentally parochial
Deals and decisions that shake the earth are struck mostly at night meetings

Ma broada see me see wahala.

Until variation stops to yield difference, submission will remain a bad/provocative term to use on matters like this, both in word and action - the importance of euphemism can never be overestimated. Submissiveness remain the civil term to use both in word and action.

Yes, a wife is expected to be submissive to her sane and sound husband (but not to submit to him because she isn't inferior to him) in all rational conditions, and of course, the husband's self-effacing action which shouldn't be in shortage stand as a reciprocal in same regard.

The most unpronounced distinction between submissiveness and submission is that while the former requires ungrudging-volition to implement the latter requires grudging-volition to implement in most instances - because propagators of submission and domineeringness/hypocrisy/irrationality are inseparable. Just like in giving: all givens aren't the same; when you give altruistically you won't expect anything profit in return, but when you give selfishly you'll surely expect something profit in return, either directly or indirectly.

Submission is akin to a company manager and his staff in formal settings, while submissiveness is akin to a first between equals and his equal. The way a Senate President treats his senator colleagues is different from the way a manager of a company treats his subordinates.

A subjugator will expect submission from you while a libertarian will expect submissiveness from you.

LegitBoy:
Prof. Peller, the post clearly suggest the context of the late night we talking about here, I can't see where he stated that it is a sign of irresponsibility for those who have genuine business doing over night. While I concede there is no generally accepted time to have fun, how many people do legitimate business during late nights?

Make professor calm down o

According to a particular commenter before me "Responsible Pple don't stay out late."

kimbraa:
What kind of business deals do people close at odd hours that can't be done during the day?

lol. You ought to know that some people are so busy to the extent that day time isn't enough to accommodate all their important schedules. Believe you me that a whole lot of genuine and serious business negotiations usually take place at night either in offices or restaurants/hotels. Once more, the country or neighborhood in a country where one lives or level one operates will always determine one's lifestyle.

Grayjoy:
Out of my mouth, you took those words.

I'm glad we think alike.

xynerise:
Hope this is not targeted at my post?

I never said Late night lovers are irresponsible...if you look closely, I was specific on partying at night and not some other activities you mentioned...

Far from it OK.

The misconception by many - mentally parochial people - that staying out late at night automatically equals to irresponsibleness always amuse me. Such a parochial opinion can only hold true if and only the person involved in it is unprincipled in particular and bad in general. This myopic thought process is akin to the erroneous notion by this same class of people that anyone who usually goes to work at night automatically do a security/menial job - there's nothing wrong with those doing security/menial jobs anyway.

In truth, while you're whiling and sleeping away your time at such nights, some responsible people are using theirs to negotiate and close business deals with likeminded fellows, while some others in the responsible category are using theirs to equip and upgrade themselves in other ways. I don't hold brief for small-minded people.

More so, the country or neighbourhood in a country where one lives will also determine one's lifestyle. If you've been to many different countries then you'll agree with me that 1 AM in most countries is just like 6 PM in Nigeria in respect to liveliness and bubbling.

I am for politics of conviction and principle any day anytime - part of the country where a president comes from is the least of my concern. The question should always be "who'll lead better," because the country needs leaders not rulers.

LaudableXX:
Saneness? I thought the correct term was 'sanity?'

Sanity is its variant. Personally, I'm of the believe that saneness fitted well in the context I used it.

OP

I'll rather contribute from a different perspective. Foremost, you're an asset to the company, kudos to you because it's usually hard to come across employees that are literally assets to their companies in a country like ours - many at best are supporters.

Meanwhile, I understand the urge to work for a multinational company yet, a today's indigenous company can be nurtured to become a multinational one, with the right teams and vision in place. So I'd expected you to maximize your opportunity in this indigenous company since you're valued there - knowing how to identify opportunities and seizing them without being opportunistic is one sure ingredient for prosperity. . . . Opportunities abound but it's always hard for many to identify them unless they're in open form.

Consider to enter the negotiation table with the company and request from them a position of an equity/associate directorship - in so doing, if considered, you'll become a party to the company ownership. Believe you me that your life and work ethics will change and prosper for good in the long run. Although this can only be possible if the majority share holder isn't a greedy and mentally parochial person. And, of course, only an adventurer and liberal-minded person in your stead can take this step.

It's better to hold a 10 percent share in a well structured company than to be a sole owner of a company that isn't well structured, or to be a mere employee to either a well or poorly structured one.

High intellect (quality brain) without good/high ethical and emotional quotients is balderdash - intelligence alone can never be a deciding factor in conquering any sane and sound man's heart, mental saneness can take its place and accompanied by the aforementioned values. It can only be an added advantage.

To your second point, you ought to know that wish isn't a proponent of reciprocity - beauty still remains in the eye of the beholder.

As for your number three, your postulation can only be true if the lady in question is conscientious - some people are so confused to the extent that only persuasion can make them to act properly.

With regards to number 4, even though I'm not a proponent and practitioner of violence or abuse of any kind yet, you need to understand that action begets reaction, therefore, there's a possibility that a man who assaulted his woman once may not repeat it again in his lifetime, especially if the woman avoid doing the same thing(s) that brought about the physical abuse in the first instance. . . I hold no brief for small-minded men.

Coming to your number 5, until the rule of exception becomes a crime, I don't see the logic behind the postulation.

That number 6 can only be true when mental saneness replaced quality brain (high intellect).

The rest of your submissions are perfectly in order.

Until being a broke girl automatically means a girl with attitudinal and behavioural vices then these submissions remain balderdash.

A girl can be broke and still have her self-esteem rooted in strong self sufficiency. Money or inadequacy of it doesn't buy class, only good ethical leanings does - a lady can be broke without being small-minded.

Meanwhile, being broke is quite different from being in poverty. Only poverty-stricken ladies can possess and exhibits those irritating attitudes and behavior you listed.

Believe you me that at least 90 percent of poverty-stricken ladies (people) will be able to achieve financial freedom in particular and class upgrade in general - so long as they're mentally sound - if only they can embrace a change of ethical leanings.

No sane and sound lady will ever leave her responsible man for another man (no matter how financially buoyant this other man may be), as long as they're mutually committed to the relationship. Sane and sound ladies aren't known for behavioural vices - greediness and disingenuousness - while responsible men aren't known for perpetual poverty.

So, OP, you and your ilk should make sure that you're responsible, meanwhile if you're already then avoid going for small-minded women.

Well, feminism doesn't negate segregation - true feminists still uphold the first between equals rule either in dating or marriage, with man as the first - just as being first between equals doesn't mean a master and his slave rather it means a leader and his follower in this regard. And, of course, a sane and sound leader is one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way. A leader serves his follower(s) without neither being her slave nor making her one.

A "right without responsibility" proponent is worse than a hypocrite. By virtue of one assuming the leadership role in any settings, conventional wisdom demands that such a person will always shoulders bigger responsibilities in the cause of the association, so long as he has the wherewithal to do so.

Meanwhile, a virtuous follower (woman) knows that followership comes with responsibility, and that independence doesn't mean absence of thoughtfulness. A thoughtful follower needn't to be told to make a bigger contribution to any cause in an association if s/he is better placed than the leader - and doing so without wishes to take over the leader's seat.

There's a thin line between ladies whose individual self-esteems are rooted in weak self sufficiency and true feminists. Even though the former always arrogate feminism to themselves either directly/intentionally or indirectly/unintentionally but they aren't - the full everywhere, even on this forum. This class of ladies are the ones that always make feminism to appear as an evil movement, and they aren't different from their male counterparts.

Feminism is all about egalitarianism and libertarianism, and it requires infusion of diplomacy to be meaningful, especially to an outsider.

Chinese people always simply put in practice the unpronounced law which says that "imitating isn't a crime but duplication is."

As for those who held the erroneous notion that the original of these vehicles - the ones that don't have structural and commissioned plants in China - are made in China, are wrong.

The biggest misinformation and misconception out there is the erroneous notion held by many that African print "Ankara" is of Nigerian origin or mainly produced in Nigeria.

In truth, the Netherlands remains the biggest and main producer of African print, while Indonesia is the main producer and supplier of its cotton.

African print remains what it's a "sobriquet" for mass wax print by the Netherlands for the West African market.

In summary, what you see in the pictures are African print lookalikes (quality Dutch waxes) made for advanced countries/the high class purchasers.

A typical opportunist.

Latinos and their wahala.

[size=8pt][/size]The importance of knowing where and when to apply diplomacy can never be overemphasized - rationality in particular and conscientiousness in general doesn't mean absence of diplomacy, just as diplomacy itself doesn't mean lie. The victim really failed basic diplomacy. Anyway, she's not alone on this, all religious proponents and practitioners - and all small-minded people by extension - are guilty of it.

@OP

You showed that you're a poor marketer at the juncture where you demarketed your product. According to you "she actually want us to date but i won't allow that" - don't tell me that she isn't aware of your marital status because the connotation of your message says otherwise. Meanwhile, citing the already quoted statement and the following statement in quote too "she's a good girl" you have committed an oxymoronic crime. . . A lady that knows you're married and still wishes to date you (not you wishing to marry her) can't be virtuous.

NORSIYK:
My brother his source of money has been politics.

He used politics and its benefits as a successful one in it to enlarge his coast and sustain his wealth. And he's not alone in this, because almost all of his long standing associates that I know does the same thing. You ought to understand that he didn't dominate Imo NRC then as a nobody, he really put his then fresh money to where his mouth was. There's just one thing you can't take away from him though. Hahaha!

NORSIYK:
What was he into before he became senator?

Lol. I'm busy at the moment therefore I can't write much. He has been in business and politics for too long - for one, he was the pioneer chairman of the defunct NRC in Imo State in the third republic.

Senator Ararume has really come a very long way and his money isn't today's money - a 30 years plus maintained fame and wealth isn't a child's play. However, I don't hold brief for him.

Knowing how to seize opportunities isn't a crime - in doing so you'll become an asset towards the other party. However, being an opportunist is a crime - every opportunist is an evil personification. Therefore, so long as your aspiration favours the former, you're innocent.

It takes those who belong to the diplomatic ethical leanings to practice seizing of opportunities, while those who belong to the manipulative ethical leanings and opportunism are inseparable.

Only small-minded women (people) - especially the financially poor among you - always assume that abundance of money automatically brings inner peace into one's life. Lol.

Money still remains what it's "a means to an end," it's never an end itself. Contentment rooted in conscientiousness and industriousness is the only source of true inner peace.

That being said, I don't see responsibleness in a mature and normal man that doesn't have money to at least cater for personal essential needs in particular and that of his volitional dependents in general. . . A broke person is excusable since his condition is temporary, but same excuse cannot be extended to a man in poverty.

@ OP

Your minor shortcomings - as evident in your submissions - notwithstanding, you're a responsible man. And it's quite obvious that you genuinely love your wife. But love is never enough. The ethical and mental disparities that exist between you and your wife are so glaring.

The problem is really a simple one to solve, that's if and only your wife is ready to make things work out between you two - she's the faulty one. Choice remains a right not privilege, so you've to have her choose between bringing harmony in the marriage or you brave up and pay her in her coin.

Foremost, she has to accept the fact that she has frenemies in her mentioned sister and mother. They mean no good to her either intentionally or unintentionally.

Meanwhile, she scored low in the following quotient areas: ethical (morality and psychology) and mental (intellect). Believe you me that the very moment she emancipates from ethical and mental lownesses, you'll begin to enjoy a bliss in the marriage with her. Until then, sorry.

I would sure marry a feminine me.