₦airaland Forum

Blackfyre:
Would have thought you were an atheist.

Far from it, even though I'm irreligious - I'm Spiritual but not religious. The presence of subconscious in every living human being is an evident enough for one to understand that there's a God/sole creator of the world.

My oneness with him which has continually makes me a majority.

No, Nigerian men - I don't hold brief for small-minded men - aren't afraid of smart ladies. However, they're afraid of ladies who're either or both disingenuous and conceited.

ositadima1:
Hey, your first paragraph makes no sense.

If you feel the woman in your life is more matured than you are, and as result she should take your position in a relationship then my friend, you are doomed.

I don't join issue with unwise people, so kindly vamoose and look for your small-minded ilk elsewhere.

@OP

Rank vs quality. The importance of euphemism on matters like this shouldn't be underestimated. Men have no superiority - aren't higher in quality - over women, but they sure have natural right to claim superior - higher in rank - over women. The earlier you understand that, there's a thin but big difference, between the words "superior (higher in rank)" and "superiority (higher in quality)" in this context the better for you. Leader should be used (in words and action) in stead of superior/superiority - this is my main point.

To this end, tell me that men are higher in rank than women thus the reason why they naturally assume first between equals role when in a relationship (marriage/dating) - and wishes to maintain status quo - and that women (adults) are higher in rank than children (adolescents) I will agree with you. Anything on the contrary is balderdash. At best men have physical strength advantage over women, just as women have physical strength advantage over adolescents.

The only attribute that naturally determines a sane human being's quality is conscientiousness, therefore, the most conscientious between two people - irrelevant of gender and age - automatically has higher quality (lays claim of superiority) and makes better leader. Old age doesn't automatically confer wisdom.

Hey Women! This doesn't mean say una go de let us down, because to be first between equals no easy.

Nonsense! It's not all ready-made guys that are looking for financially emancipated women to marry, or women (irrespective of class) to mete out opportunism on. What most ready-made guys are looking for are independent - intellectually, psychologically/emotionally and ethically emancipated - women. . . . Being financially emancipated is irrelevant/is the least on the list, believe you me.

I hold no brief for small-minded men though.

The root cause of the perceived - in most cases observed - inferiority complex among majority of the "black man" over the "white man" solely has to do whack principles. Small-mindedness is more prevalent among the black community than the white community.

Show me a small-minded man and I will point to you a man who's longing to conquer the world without first conquering self, and loving self while hating the world. But the case is different with a liberal mind; a liberal mind's longing is to conquer self not the world, while loving the world yet without hating self.

Nothing ruins a man/family/country/race more than selfishness and greediness, because it takes the most potent evil act of disingenuousness to perpetrates them.

Manipulators lose credibility, diplomats gain it.

I'm seeing her this much ravishing for the first time. HBD to her.

Saraki is about the most sagacious politician in Nigeria at present, he plays politics of inclusiveness devoid of domineeringness. Although, he may not be the most selfless of politicians out there but so far - at least at the national level - he plays on principle rather than expediency.

Truly, manipulators lose credibility, diplomats gain it. Meanwhile, HBD to the able speaker of the HOR.

The presence of subconscious in every living human being makes God a constant factor. Therefore, instead of looking up to your pastor/Imam, the needful thing to do should be to attune your subconscious so that you can hear - through body signs - directly from God every moment.

Well, only small-minded men hold an opinion that women have only pussy to offer men. Also, they're the ones that believe that all independent women are not palatable to put up with.

That being said, believe you me that most men usually run away from independent women of bad ethical leanings - no sane man will ever run away from an independent woman of good ethical leanings - not because of inferiority complex, but because a woman of bad ethical leanings will automatically be/get worse if/when well placed financially or socially. The worst form of poverty out there isn't financial poverty but ethical poverty.

For example, a dependent conceited woman - there's nothing wrong with an outspoken woman, but believe you me that there's everything wrong with an opinionated/contentious woman - is hell enough to put up with then, you can only imagine what such a woman will become if she's financially and socially well/better placed than her man.

I doff my hat for all financially independent women of good ethical leanings.

cedaraustine:
You think South South will have a shot, well after Jonathan? How about the Middle Belt, after the northern second term?

Actually, the North with some components of the South West will fully support Amechi's candidature instead of another Igboman from any of the present core 5 Southeastern states to fulfil all righteousness in regards to Igbo presidency.

Even though majority from both Southeast and South-south will kick against it, but they'll later key into the project Amechi.

Ethical disparities couple with weaned fancy on his part, this is with a presumption that he once fancied you honestly - citing your submission - has weakened the union.

Let me assume that both of you're of the diplomatic ethical leanings; The problem can be mended if he can attune his fancy for you - where there's a will there's a way. Of course, you need to help him to make this to happen by reinventing yourself, among other things you'll need to do, is going on a holidays (with his consent) to create a physical distance from him for about a month.

Then, when you come back from the holidays embrace his ethical philosophies to align to his new self. No marriage can survive/stay healthy outside community-ness, and of course community-ness requires presence of oneness to achieve it, and oneness can only exist where there's a shared ethical philosophies and garnished with mutual fancies. Mutual fancies (or at least stronger fancy by the settler between the two) plus shared ethical leanings will always surmount any problem in marriage.

Although the prophet and his ilk aren't to be taken seriously yet, his guess about Amechi becoming a president of Nigeria in the near future is absolutely correct. He'll be a presidential candidate to beat in the general election come 2023.

zicoraads:
Forget all this grammar. Three months is too small.

One funny but irritating thing with small-minded people like you and your ilk is that you aren't liberal at all, therefore, you won't see importance of the following proverb and idiom; "live and let live" and "to each his own" respectively.

Compliments of the season.

The truth is that you do not command her respect and only your ability to decipher what it takes to command her respect and doing so well will earn you her meekness if not loyalty - if what it takes to command her respect is an immaterial thing count yourself lucky and embrace whatever it maybe and improve on it. However, if it's a material thing the choice is solely yours to make on whether to continue with her or to discard her with alacrity.

Imbibe the virtue of going to places where you are celebrated and avoid the places where you're tolerated or not wanted.

Only defunct IPOB members, which was led by Nnamdi Kanu, will think otherwise.

2sexycom:
so true. I believe they are on same or almost intellectual and emotional frequency , hence the reason.

Yes. Meanwhile, let's presume that both of them are truthful to themselves; ie they are both decipherable and have achieved self-realization individually, then, it's a shared ethical leanings that made it possible for them to quickly discover and accept each other for the union ahead.

One who's achieved self-realization and is decipherable only need to observe for presence or absence of one or two attributes from the other party, to automatically extrapolate on such a party's overall attributes, even if the firewall/defense mechanism of pretense is like that of a computer hardware s/he'll be able to crack it within days of written, oral and physical communications. Because through people's attributes you see both your compatibilities and incompatibilities with them.

Meanwhile, while attribute is innate and unmalleable, attitude on the other hand is acquired and malleable, therefore, the reason why it's advisable to always look beyond people's attitudes and look out for their attributes.

Religion - especially creedal and dogmatic ones - has always been an object of subjugation right from time immemorial and it will continue to be.

99.9% of religion proponents and practitioners are opportunists - the heads as predators while their followers are leeches, ironically, leeches always lose to predators in any game.

- Predators always provide the platform and promises illusory conditional prosperity here-materially and paradise hereafter, while enjoying their benefits in both here on earth. This is a simple fraud that doesn't require cleverness but just disingenuousness, to perpetrate.

- Leeches, they go to the predators platform to listen and selfishly give to them, not neither because they genuinely love the assumed God's words the predators preaches nor are they altruistic in their givings towards them, but solely because of what the intend to gain afterward here-materially and hereafter-paradise all of which are illusory.

Any given that isn't altruistic automatically lack love-factor. God's love. God's not a trade by barter platform. Anyone who needs church to do good simply lack good ethical philosophy therefore, should embrace a change of ethical leanings.

cruchenutii:
3 Months ? E go be like film when the issues start ! 3 months is too early please.

Believe you me, a decipherable man who's achieved self-realization won't need lengthy months or years after meeting a lady he fancies to dissect her and make his decision on whether they're compatible for each other or not.

bluetrails7:
The new problem of the new generation we're all too intelligent....


I believe we mean the same thing...A man that wants his wife to fear him isn't a man.

Fear thrives on negativity

Respect on mutual ineterests, happiness and goals.

Are you sure that people of the new generation are too intelligent? Personally, I'll say that people of the new generation have access to too many information, ironically only few have the ability to convert the available information to knowledge - knowledge will always remain superior to information, just as intelligence will always remain superior to brilliance.

Acquisition of too many information without equal knowledge breeds conceit, and conceit (together with corruption) is one of the major banes of poverty you see everywhere, especially in a country like ours. Productiveness is a major hallmark of intelligence.

bluetrails7:
We are not after controlling women, manipulation, erasing their individuality, but we just want to be respected as the boss, whether she earns ten times our pay, no issues...this is just the message we preach

Impunity is the after-effect of a lack of control of power. Which is why men should be checkmated by women, anything done without regulation is not good, just like how excessive speeding kills

Most women (people) do fear their bosses, but they do not respect them per se and, of course, what a boss enjoys is a temporary superior pleasure with limited boundary . . . . Remember, when desirable is not available available becomes desirable.

The difference between a boss at work and a husband at home is that while the former is a ruler the latter is a leader. This is the same difference between submission and submissiveness, demand and request, transactional and contractual. The importance of euphemism can never be overestimated.

According to you "Impunity is the after-effect of a lack of control of power. Which is why men should be checkmated by women, anything done without regulation is not good, just like how excessive speeding kills." Believe you me, that a domineering person will rather choose to die than to give up on impunity. So, you see the importance of embracing diplomatic ethical leanings and choosing a wife/husband that share same diplomatic ethical leanings.

bluetrails7:
Trust me i'm also both libertarian and an egalitarian, ialso agree with many of your ideals before today. But when itcomes to this issue,you're way too extreme to the female, no disrespect ( you're one of the most respected mind i listen to on this forum but i hafta tell you the truth).

God forbid, i don't want my wife to fear me. Out of love and admiration, respect would come, this is not to say submissiveness should be dismissed. Have you watched how females obey their bosses without any iota of questioning their authority? Did you see how laday Sarah addressed Abraham as her Lord? Men, if the ladies of this generation stepdown from their high horses and respect a man, would it kill them? Speak up, and tell me?


Alas, it's why why they hear submissiveness it's interpreted as some thing else. The same way you almost mis-interpreted it. In a house of cntinous arguements, there will be ramblings and it will crash, as a house can not fight against itself and stand, so does strife and every form of competivieness against the headship of the man leads to chaos in the family.

Submissiveness doesn't require servility , i disagree, i have sisters, like you, my sisters respect their husbands, and i stick it into their heads to do this, it doesn't imply that they're slaves...Submissiveness isn't servility,it's power under control, or power yielded to an authority to exercise control. Any maried woman who fears her husband or has no choiceis a slave, you're miscontruing things brova...


It's okay if we say wives be submissive, you know how women are with power, take partnership, take friendship, take equality, but then all we offer seems not to be enough. It's frustrating, and you're adding to it saying submissiveness means servility, I go die. As a kid, iw atched my mum handled dad's business from 8am till 4pm, he comes from work, he takes over, that's submissiveness,partnership and respect to authority, it is the excessive definition that leaves vague meanings and creates a wedge between males and females and you're adding to this problem with due respect Sir.

I never said that submissiveness requires servility, so it's obvious that you misquoted me. Kindly re-read my contributions. Meanwhile, I have to believe that we are talking about two conscientious people in a relationship, right? A healthy one. Well, if you answer yes, you'll be able to understand my position better. Foremost, respect is earned not given, while fear is given not earned. Therefore, a man that respects himself will automatically always earn his wife's submissiveness, and this validates my assertion that loyalty is reciprocal, just as respect is earned.

However, when a man expects submission from his wife, invariably he's full of impunity. It means that he doesn't subscribe to the notion that loyalty is reciprocal and that respect is earned.

Once more, I say that a woman (blue/white collar worker) submits to her boss in the office because she has no volitional choice - she only has non-volitional choice (employees of this class are mid-slaves/servile to their employers), which means either she obey or lose her job. But same woman is not expected and shouldn't submit to her husband at home instead be submissive to him, because by the virtue of what healthy marriage should be, she's a volitional choice (no servility is required only loyalty). Business is transactional while marriage is contractual - don't neglect the importance of euphemism.

The respect is mutual bro. Compliments of the season.

,

,

bluetrails7:
SLightly to the middle now. You're too close to the females oh. I have my eyes on you. Don't sell men out. It's equality and partnership we can give. Nothing more

I'm not sentimental against men, I am simply being fair to both genders as a libertarian and an egalitarian. A wife that submits to you do so because she fears you, not because she respects you. But the one that is submissive to you is doing so because she respects you.

Once more, I say that submissiveness requires loyalty (it's volitional) to achieve it, while submission requires servility to achieve it (non-volitional) - one thing both have in common is choice but with different resultant effects. And what differentiate submission from slavery in this regard is that a slave has no choice at all. Having/living with a woman (person) that fears you (frenemy) is rather dangerous.

bluetrails7:
Sir, i always look out for your comments and respect your posts...But on this one, hmm, you have a private agenda is all i can say, plus, i sense incoherency in your expressions, you're both ways...

Bro me, there's nothing incoherent about my submission, and I've no personal agenda - at least not a selfish one assuming there's.

A wife is to her husband what a gold collar worker is to the company that engages her service.

I wish you could see the thin but big difference between a white/blue collar worker and a gold collar worker.

Another good example is a senate president and his colleagues. Even though he has a veto power, yet ordinarily his colleagues aren't subservient to him - he's only a first among equals. And any time he deliberately and consistently begin to abuse his veto-power he'll automatically lose his colleagues confidence of him.

The importance of the attribute self-effacement - not as a result of timidity though - can never be overestimated. Self-effacement is the foundation attribute on which humility, meekness and tolerance are built upon.

Like I always say, only small-minded men do expect their wives to be submittable to them. Noble men don't expect their wives to submit to them instead they only expect them to be submissive to them without negating the need to reciprocate same gesture where and when necessary.

Submissiveness (requires conscientiousness and self-effacement to implement) remains euphemism of submission (requires sycophancy/servility to implement) on marital matters. . . and submission will always remain akin to slavery (a slave has no choice at all) when used on marital matters. The former (submissiveness) is volitional while latter (submission) is non-volitional - what they have in common is choice but, of course, with different resultant effects, unlike slavery that has no trace of choice at all.

Yes, a woman who finds nothing wrong in submitting to her boss at work but fails to do same towards her husband at home is right - she only needs to be submissive to him. This is so because white and blue collar employees will always remain mid-slaves (servile) to their employers - gold collar workers (highly skilled, highly valuable workers) are an exception to this rule. Yet, a boss isn't superior to a husband, after all his authority is limited and defined.

Meanwhile, "wife material" meaning is subjective. What constitutes a wife material for me would sure be different from what constitutes same for another man that shares different ethical leanings with me. Personally, a wife material is that virtuous woman out there. A virtuous woman neither has to submit to me nor be a slave to me before I'll appreciate and love her, no. Submissiveness requires loyalty to achieve while submission requires subservience to achieve. Meanwhile, loyalty is like a two-way traffic light, it's reciprocal.

A woman is never subservient to a man. A man is only a first between his equal in marriage - a woman. Both genders are slightly different from each other, yet, they're equal - difference doesn't mean inequality.

See as the small girl has configured your brains. . . Lol. The word "bleep" being a vulgar expletive could mean anything - in the context she used it - other than what all of you are thinking.