folake4u:


A bigger Amen.

tollyboy5:

I'm from Lagos state Epe that's not the culture I met with my grandmother. (RIP)

Moniya4Real:
But hope say you too go give your hubby unfettered access to that thing, cook for him and above all; give him peace of mind o.

Proserpina:
If I come for you now, you will start screaming deal or agreement.

Charly68:
This is a mentality of untrained woman who is not ready for marriage . Marriage is a mutual partnership ..it is not a burdensome relationship. God can bless a woman because of her husband and it can also be the other way round. God told woman to submit to her husband..it means if she is a billionaire she must submit her account too for the running of the family. Whoever can't run marriage like this should never go into it .. Though man must take care of the family as a bread winner. But the situation can change and we need understandable woman

Eunoiaa:


There have been successful marriages (or at least by the couples' definition) and there will continue to be successful marriages that do not run on this "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" stuff that y'all are prescribing sha. It doesn't even translate to real life where the lines of characters/personalities are blurred.

The fact that you that don't even believe a man should be an 100% provider is telling that you concede to compromises on the gender roles. They are not "fixed rules".

Proserpina:
Eyah... Sorry ehn

So you want your wife to bring food stuff that she will eat from her father's house while being married to you.

May I not be unfortunate in life

Oshi len she

Proserpina:
Where's the lie in her post?

As a man it is your responsibility to take care of your woman, if you can't you have no business with marriage.

bukatyne:




Epe women are the major financers even in a polygamous marriages. So not surprised

bukatyne:


@bold:

Often times, most parties want to eat their cake and have it. A man wants a 'supportive, understanding' wife until it is time to pick up chores, childcare,set boundaries with his family,be faithful or involve his wife in decision making then he suddenly remembers he is a 'man'.

If you want a marriage when all resources (money, time, assets) etc are treated as one, then both parties must put in their all and be on their best behaviour; no cheating, no bullying, no making decisions to the detriment of the other, no leaving one person to do all the chores, no maltreatment of in-laws, no in-laws who lack boundaries, no one person's life on hold for the other, no one person overburdened by finances or chores, no abuse (physical, emotional, verbal, financial, sexual) etc. You get the idea.

To be honest, a number of women are insistent on a man who provides to cover up their numerous defects. The man probably doesn't give her peace or isn't useful any other way so they make do with the money.

Like my people say, one can't suffer in two ways.

Firefly2017:
h

Proserpina:
Where's the lie in her post?

As a man it is your responsibility to take care of your woman, if you can't you have no business with marriage.

Afolue:
True nah. What’s wrong in her ideology?. Isn’t that the main reason why reasonable men like us are still single. It’s only desperate ladies who accept the contrary of what she has just said. As a Man I concur. Breeds more responsible men in the society

Proserpina:
Read the lady's post, she's never against support or contribution but what she's against is this "the moment my feeding is no longer my husband's problem" i.e the husband is not providing or bringing anything to the family.
A woman can support if she chooses but it is not her duty to provide for the family. Let's get that straight.

In the lady's case the man doesn't nothing but wants to enjoy benefit of marriage? That's her point.

Well on another thread a guy like you said we should focus on our beauty . We shouldn't drag the "provider" title with you men

Proserpina:
Where's the lie in her post?

As a man it is your responsibility to take care of your woman, if you can't you have no business with marriage.

Proserpina:
Eyah... Sorry ehn

So you want your wife to bring food stuff that she will eat from her father's house while being married to you.

May I not be unfortunate in life

Oshi len she

pocohantas:


You sabi them. Who dey do that kind love with kwanu? Anything they want to talk, they should talk. I no kuku read am.

If these same guys dare know your husband is not living up to his responsibilities, they will troll you with it ehn. You go regret the day you voiced out such.

pocohantas:
I don't believe a man should be a sole provider, but I believe he should be the major provider, given that we all know 80% of the time, the women handles childearing, nurturing and running the home alone!

Goodluck on finding a man that would sometimes be a woman and allow you be the man.

Proserpina:
Why are you belching all over the thread?

Feed your wife? Is that too hard for you?

Proserpina:
It is you and your family that are unfortunate.

Werey alaso

Proserpina:
Get lost!

Eunoiaa:
Semantics as far as I'm concerned.

Like someone who's just trying to make the best of the end of the short stick of the patriarchal deal they got. Like "stooping to conquer" and "men are the head, women are the neck" kind of thing. It sounds so soullessly transactional to me. Not to mention the points being all over the place.


And like, how do you "quantify" stuff you do for each other and make it match? So sex is the "payment" for being taken care for? And when a man takes care of you, he's entitled to sex? 'Sacred sex' seems wildly contradictory to 'I can't give you free knack if you don't take care of me.'


What the bride price is also doing there, I don't know. If bride prices doesn't give the man access to A and B and C, what's the point? 'Just because you paid bride price, you can't...' for something that runs into millions based on cultural dictates is just so laughable lol. You cannot demand someone be a piper and also want to tell them how to play the tune nau lol.

Eunoiaa:


Roles can be flexed but can't be changed...so a man can become feminine when he loses his job, and a woman can become masculine when she steps in to take care of the family, in other words? Okay.

I would have thought it's never possible for these "masculine/feminine roles" to be switched before lol.

Eunoiaa:


You agreed to "men being men, and women being women," or else, people will learn, but men being (major) providers and women bearing the bulk of non-financial labour, evidently, isn't beneficial (especially to women). It's the reality, but it's not a healthy arrangement. And there are plenty people who do not conform to that unhealthy set-up, hence my point. They are not being "men", and they are not being "women." Their marriages are working fine without "man bring money; woman bring body" and the whole shebang.

What does this mean, I'm honestly trying to understand? You mean a man who would carry a child to term and raise them with me being a 'provider' to him?