₦airaland Forum

KanwuliaExtra:
No.
Children take time nuture and raise. The fact that they take up all the women’s time does not mean the children are loved more than the husbands.

Who does most of the raising of the kids? THE WOMEN. Sometimes, the women have to work too. Who pampers the women with all these stressors? Instead of the men to take time to be supportive and attentive, they often add to the stress by resorting to “infantile needs” of food and sex. Shhhhhheeesh. Communication breaks down and the couples begin to drift apart.

When the children are all grown and out of the house, the old age romance can continue. Children can be the GLUE or SOLVENT in any marriage depending on how well the parents play their parts as a TEAM.

Unfortunately, men also have needs and often do not exercise the necessary amount of understanding and support when the wives are stressed with raising a family. Instead of working as a team, husbands usually seek attention outside the home and things continue to fall apart.

The men are rarely around to help domestically and would rather spend more time with friends and OTHER WOMEN.

Well, you sow what you reap, and you reap what you sow.

Shikena!

omg I've missed you o.good to read from you again and happy New year by the way

RisenPhoenix:
Lol. If that were to be true, the nicest, most adoring, most attentive and most respectful guy will always win the gal. But we know this to be totally untrue, don't we?

For humans, the psychological imperative is not to focus more attention on those who value them the most. It is to focus most attention on those whom THEY value the most. Fact!

You and I are both correct in fact.

When the competition is between two men trying to win a woman, your statements holds true.
When the competition is between a husband and his child, it becomes a different party entirely.

crackhaus:
You and I are both correct in fact.

When the competition is between two men trying to win a woman, your statements holds true.
When the competition is between a husband and his child, it becomes a different party entirely.

You said and I quote; "the psychological imperative is to focus attention on those who value, adore and obey you...". Now you are trying to place limits on the subject. Your theory falls to pieces in that case, because the primary variable is no longer the value, love and obedience you are receiving, but the person who is providing it. It is as good as saying that women focus their attention on their children more than their husbands, period.

To further buttress my point that you are wrong, do you honestly believe that a woman will focus more attention on her husband if he happens to value, adore and obey her more than her children do? On the contrary, she would positively HATE such a doormat of a husband.

RisenPhoenix:
You said and I quote; "the psychological imperative is to focus attention on those who value, adore and obey you...". Now you are trying to place limits on the subject. Your theory falls to pieces in that case, because the primary variable is no longer the value, love and obedience you are receiving, but the person who is providing it. It is as good as saying that women focus their attention on their children more than their husbands, period.

To further buttress my point that you are wrong, do you honestly believe that a woman will focus more attention on her husband if he happens to value, adore and obey her more than her children do? On the contrary, she would positively HATE such a doormat of a husband.

Nah it's not 'placing limits', but rather fine-tuning the context considering that you brought in a different context of two guys trying to win a woman to buttress your point.

Regarding your second paragraph:
The topic is talking about love, not attention. Giving attention to someone because their station temporarily requires it does not automatically translate into having more love for that person.
So while a husband who happens to adore, value, respect, and obeys his wife will get her ultimate love because of the power it accords her, the little child(ren) will still get more attention because their station requires it.

In a situation where the husband is lacking in all the above, then both love and attention is given to the child(ren).

RisenPhoenix:
Lol. If that were to be true, the nicest, most adoring, most attentive and most respectful guy will always win the gal. But we know this to be totally untrue, don't we?

For humans, the psychological imperative is not to focus more attention on those who value them the most. It is to focus most attention on those whom THEY value the most. Fact!

Going by this theory, who does the husband value most since he neither spends his time with his wife nor his kids?

RisenPhoenix:
You said and I quote; "the psychological imperative is to focus attention on those who value, adore and obey you...". Now you are trying to place limits on the subject. Your theory falls to pieces in that case, because the primary variable is no longer the value, love and obedience you are receiving, but the person who is providing it. It is as good as saying that women focus their attention on their children more than their husbands, period.

To further buttress my point that you are wrong, do you honestly believe that a woman will focus more attention on her husband if he happens to value, adore and obey her more than her children do? On the contrary, she would positively HATE such a doormat of a husband .

You think a husband is a doormat if he values, adores and obeys his wife?

RisenPhoenix:
You said and I quote; "the psychological imperative is to focus attention on those who value, adore and obey you...". Now you are trying to place limits on the subject. Your theory falls to pieces in that case, because the primary variable is no longer the value, love and obedience you are receiving, but the person who is providing it. It is as good as saying that women focus their attention on their children more than their husbands, period.

To further buttress my point that you are wrong, do you honestly believe that a woman will focus more attention on her husband if he happens to value, adore and obey her more than her children do? On the contrary, she would positively HATE such a doormat of a husband.

So according to you a man, a husband who value, adore and obey his wife will be seen as a doormat, and the wife will actually hate him right? Wonders.

crackhaus:
Nah it's not 'placing limits', but rather fine-tuning the context considering that you brought in a different context of two guys trying to win a woman to buttress your point.

Regarding your second paragraph:
The topic is talking about love, not attention. Giving attention to someone because their station temporarily requires it does not automatically translate into having more love for that person.
So while a husband who happens to adore, value, respect, and obeys his wife will get her ultimate love because of the power it accords her , the little child(ren) will still get more attention because their station requires it.

In a situation where the husband is lacking in all the above, then both love and attention is given to the child(ren).

@bold:

You make it sound like it is a bad thing for a man to be like that to his wife.

bukatyne:
Going by this theory, who does the husband value most since he neither spends his time with his wife nor his kids?

The husband values his children. He is ready to lay down his life for them and frequently does so by staying in a job he hates; day after day; just to see them smile when he buys a new toy or a book for them. Almost any dad will die for his kids to live an extra year. We do not spend as much time with our kids because we CANNOT, and not because we don't want to.

Fountainofyouth:
So according to you a man, a husband who value, adore and obey his wife will be seen as a doormat, and the wife will actually hate him right? Wonders.

bukatyne:
You think a husband is a doormat if he values, adores and obeys his wife?

I think she will seem him as one...sooner or later.

RisenPhoenix:
I think she will seem him as one...sooner or later.

On the average, you think a wife would see such an husband as a doormat?

Why? Personal recurrent examples or theories from red pillers?

RisenPhoenix:
The husband values his children. He is ready to lay down his life for them and frequently does so by staying in a job he hates; day after day; just to see them smile when he buys a new toy or a book for them. Almost any dad will die for his kids to live an extra year. We do not spend as much time with our kids because we CANNOT, and not because we don't want to.

Mothers have been able to combine jobs they hate with making time for their kids.

I think fathers should do more. I will however say the fathers of today are more interested in the totality of their kids' lives.

RisenPhoenix:
I think she will seem him as one...sooner or later.

I want to know why you think so.

crackhaus:
Nah it's not 'placing limits', but rather fine-tuning the context considering that you brought in a different context of two guys trying to win a woman to buttress your point.

If it was the psychological imperative to focus attention on those who value, adore and obey you, then it should work regardless on the source of that value, adoration and obedience. In reality, this is not so; as you yourself admitted.

crackhaus:
Regarding your second paragraph:
The topic is talking about love, not attention. Giving attention to someone because their station temporarily requires it does not automatically translate into having more love for that person.
So while a husband who happens to adore, value, respect, and obeys his wife will get her ultimate love because of the power it accords her, the little child(ren) will still get more attention because their station requires it.

In a situation where the husband is lacking in all the above, then both love and attention is given to the child(ren).

I don't even believe in the concept of love; especially as applied to how women feel. They feel that they 'possess' the children; I have observed that in ALL of them. One even affirmed it here by saying that "women feel that children are their own flesh while the husband is another flesh". She was right about how they feel. It's an ownership thing; like an asset in your name; maybe an investment portfolio with potential future financial benefits. When you have such an investment, your attention will be focused on the stock market like an eagle's.

And don't believe that a husband gets more 'love' if he adores, values and obeys his wife. At some point; usually early in the marriage, she will see him as weak and contemptuous; especially with the obedience aspect. Certainly, once he grows old and is no longer her primary source of funds (i.e. useless), he will be rapidly discarded by the wayside, while she cashes in on her backup investment that she has trained from childhood for just this event. How many old men do you see sitting all alone at home smoking garri while their 'wives' go on neverending international jamborees with their 'joint' children all in the name of 'grandmotherly childcare'.

Just wait till you get old and non performing bro; before your grown up children can give you N5, they would have given their mother 50. I have seen this happen time and time again. Remember me on that day.

RisenPhoenix:
If it was the psychological imperative to focus attention on those who value, adore and obey you, then it should work regardless on the source of that value, adoration and obedience. In reality, this is not so; as you yourself admitted.



I don't even believe in the concept of love; especially as applied to how women feel. They feel that they 'possess' the children; I have observed that in ALL of them. One even affirmed it here by saying that "women feel that children are their own flesh while the husband is another flesh". She was right about how they feel. It's an ownership thing; like an asset in your name; maybe an investment portfolio with potential future financial benefits. When you have such an investment, your attention will be focused on the stock market like an eagle's.

And don't believe that a husband gets more 'love' if he adores, values and obeys his wife. At some point; usually early in the marriage, she will see him as weak and contemptuous; especially with the obedience aspect. Certainly, once he grows old and is no longer her primary source of funds (i.e. useless), he will be rapidly discarded by the wayside, while she cashes in on her backup investment that she has trained from childhood for just this event. How many old men do you see sitting all alone at home smoking garri while their 'wives' go on neverending international jamborees with their 'joint' children all in the name of 'grandmotherly childcare'.

Just wait till you get old and non performing bro; before your grown up children can give you N5, they would have given their mother 50. I have seen this happen time and time again. Remember me on that day.

Tell us how the husbands treated the wives and kids in the earlier years when he had the 'power'.

Fountainofyouth:
I want to know why you think so.

It's the nature of women to be attracted to strong, decisive and independent men. A man who waits for his wife to make decisions for him to obey will be seen by her as weak. Also, women do not like men who are clingy; which an adoring man would inevitably be. The risk of possible loss and aloofness make the relationship exciting to a woman. A predictable man is a very boring man. If there's anything that women hate, it's boring.

bukatyne:
Tell us how the husbands treated the wives and kids in the earlier years when he had the 'power'.

Do you mean the earlier years when a wife would call her husband "my lord" and kneel down to serve him his food which she has spent 6 hours preparing? And later ask him whether she should go to his hut to await his pleasure?

Ah! Those were the days when men were not mice. And do you know, women really loved those genre of men; you rarely heard of divorce then.

bukatyne:
On the average, you think a wife would see such an husband as a doormat?

Why? Personal recurrent examples or theories from red pillers?

Yes.

No. I am not a red piller. I developed my beliefs long before I read the books of people like Rollo Tomassi & co, and I still believe that some of their theories are extreme. For example, a red piller sees it as a battle of supremacy between the genders; I do not. I think the genders are complementary; if everyone follows his role faithfully. I also see that plundering a woman sexually with as little commitment as possible as cheating her, but the trade should be fair; she should not be permitted to plunder his pocket either just with an unfulfilled promise of sex; nor accept gifts that are not comensurate with the quantity or quality of sex she is ready to give to him. That is why I am a firm believer in the concept of marriage which to me, is a long-term trade contract exchanging exclusive sexual favours and childcare duties for permanent financial stability.

bukatyne:
Mothers have been able to combine jobs they hate with making time for their kids.

I think fathers should do more. I will however say the fathers of today are more interested in the totality of their kids' lives.

Mothers can better afford to take time off, or choose a career that is less time intensive. Even where they are partial breadwinners; a situation which I personally disapprove of; they are not held responsible if the bills are unpaid. The man is. For example, if a family gets thrown out on the streets, or children sent from school, for non payment of rent or school fees; does anyone blame the mother? No. Invariably the father is blamed because he is always held responsible; so he does not have the luxury of resigning when a job gives him no time for the kids.

RisenPhoenix:
Do you mean the earlier years when a wife would call her husband "my lord" and kneel down to serve him his food which she has spent 6 hours preparing? And later ask him whether she should go to his hut to await his pleasure?

Ah! Those were the days when men were not mice. And do you know, women really loved those genre of men; you rarely heard of divorce then.

Very funny

@bold: Sounds romance novel worthy.

Divorce initiated by women you mean. The men dumped the wives and/or married new wives when tired/offended.

I am referring to the men you complained about.

It is easy to conclude that the old men are maltreated/abandoned by their wives and kids at old age.

We need to investigate how he treated them when they were younger. A lot of men chest and maktreat their wives forgetting they will grow old and power would change hands to the kids.

Bar exceptions, most of those men treated their wives and kids like shit during their younger years. I know someone who washed his hands off his kids because they were all girls and the mother struggled to put them through.

The father is only getting stipends because of Christianity's teaching on forgiveness.

Someone who see that type of man neglected and come up with theories how men are discarded at old age.

Like a senior colleague would say, life is turn by turn PLC.

You think you have the upper hand today, tread with caution. You do not know what tomorrow holds.

bukatyne:
Very funny

@bold: Sounds romance novel worthy.

On the contrary, this was actual normal behaviour.

bukatyne:
Divorce initiated by women you mean. The men dumped the wives and/or married new wives when tired/offended.

All forms of divorce were rare because they were frowned upon. A man might have multiple wives; all properly taken care of; but no one would have been divorced.

bukatyne:
I am referring to the men you complained about.

It is easy to conclude that the old men are maltreated/abandoned by their wives and kids at old age.

We need to investigate how he treated them when they were younger. A lot of men chest and maktreat their wives forgetting they will grow old and power would change hands to the kids.

Bar exceptions, most of those men treated their wives and kids like shit during their younger years. I know someone who washed his hands off his kids because they were all girls and the mother struggled to put them through.

The father is only getting stipends because of Christianity's teaching on forgiveness.

Someone who see that type of man neglected and come up with theories how men are discarded at old age.

Like a senior colleague would say, life is turn by turn PLC.

The father always gets stipends...whether Christian Muslim Hindu Buddhist or Pagan.

On the contrary, many of them treated their wives very well and did their duty responsibly, sacrificing their future for the children's welfare. But the children almost always have learnt to confide and favour their mothers from childhood while the father goes deliberately unappreciated. Which one of you women would tell her children that daddy had to work very hard to provide the dinner that she is serving? It's always "umm. This is delicious mummy" with the mother beaming happily. This is a recurring event in different nuances all through the life of the kids. I myself never really appreciated my father's sacrifices for us until very recently.

bukatyne:
You think you have the upper hand today, tread with caution. You do not know what tomorrow holds.

Oh I am very aware of that, thank you. That is why I have so arranged my affairs that my future financial status would neither depend on my wife's nor my children's goodwill. And even having insured my future, I still provide them with no excessive luxuries up till today; preferring to accumulate and invest my wealth in even more diversified fields so as to make sure I never fall into their hands. Upon my retirement, I should have enough to leave frugally as I do now without relying on anyone; least of all my wife and children.

dangotesmummy:
omg I've missed you o.good to read from you again and happy New year by the way

Happy New Year baby sis!!!!
I thought you had become a “Mrs NOBODY”!
So goooooooood to see you again.

bukatyne:
@bold:

You make it sound like it is a bad thing for a man to be like that to his wife.

How do you figure?

KanwuliaExtra:
Happy New Year baby sis!!!!
I thought you had become a “Mrs NOBODY”!
So goooooooood to see you again.

Hello

RisenPhoenix:
Yes.

No. I am not a red piller. I developed my beliefs long before I read the books of people like Rollo Tomassi & co, and I still believe that some of their theories are extreme. For example, a red piller sees it as a battle of supremacy between the genders; I do not. I think the genders are complementary; if everyone follows his role faithfully. I also see that plundering a woman sexually with as little commitment as possible as cheating her, but the trade should be fair; she should not be permitted to plunder his pocket either just with an unfulfilled promise of sex; nor accept gifts that are not comensurate with the quantity or quality of sex she is ready to give to him. That is why I am a firm believer in the concept of marriage which to me, is a long-term trade contract exchanging exclusive sexual favours and childcare duties for permanent financial stability.

Interesting.

A totally traditional view.

@bold: you believe women do men a favour by having sex with them? By extension, you believe in upholding women's chastity above men's?

What is your view on polygamy?

crackhaus:
How do you figure?

You tell me.

Are there mothers who love their children more than their husbands? Probably. The same case can also be said for some husbands

But for the most part, parents just love their partner and children differently

What exactly is the measuring criteria for loving your child more? More attention with the vulnerable 6-month old that lived in her for approximately 9 months vs the grown man?

RisenPhoenix:
Mothers can better afford to take time off, or choose a career that is less time intensive. Even where they are partial breadwinners; a situation which I personally disapprove of; they are not held responsible if the bills are unpaid. The man is. For example, if a family gets thrown out on the streets, or children sent from school, for non payment of rent or school fees; does anyone blame the mother? No. Invariably the father is blamed because he is always held responsible; so he does not have the luxury of resigning when a job gives him no time for the kids.

This might be peculiar to your culture/environment.

Where I come from, the woman is expected to be a 'partial breadwinner' and if they are able to afford essentials, her usefulness as a wife/support is questioned.

And they are still expected to care for the home and kids.

In the Nigerian corporate world, jobs are not gender based which means even though Wife A and Husband B are working same job same hours, Wife A is still going home to care for the kids and home in a certain capacity.

Father's providing only financial support is more like a financial sperm donor.

A child needs both parents emotionally, mentally, socially, physically, spiritually etc.

RisenPhoenix:
It's the nature of women to be attracted to strong, decisive and independent men. A man who waits for his wife to make decisions for him to obey will be seen by her as weak. Also, women do not like men who are clingy; which an adoring man would inevitably be. The risk of possible loss and aloofness make the relationship exciting to a woman. A predictable man is a very boring man. If there's anything that women hate, it's boring.

Are you saying a strong, decisive and independent man cannot adore, value, respect and obey his wife when a situation calls for it?

Your generalisation is the problem, every woman can't be like this,

Some women like clingy men, some don't,

The risk of possible loss and aloofness can also make some women lose interest in the marriage, not being excited,

A predictable man is a happy man which will be extended to the family, and again, the fact that a man adores, respect, value his wife doesn't mean he is predictable, not every woman like the fact that they have to be on their toes because they don't know their husband's next move.

RisenPhoenix:
1. On the contrary, this was actual normal behaviour.



2. All forms of divorce were rare because they were frowned upon. A man might have multiple wives; all properly taken care of; but no one would have been divorced.



3. The father always gets stipends...whether Christian Muslim Hindu Buddhist or Pagan.

4. On the contrary, many of them treated their wives very well and did their duty responsibly, sacrificing their future for the children's welfare. But the children almost always have learnt to confide and favour their mothers from childhood while the father goes deliberately unappreciated. Which one of you women would tell her children that daddy had to work very hard to provide the dinner that she is serving? It's always "umm. This is delicious mummy" with the mother beaming happily. This is a recurring event in different nuances all through the life of the kids. I myself never really appreciated my father's sacrifices for us until very recently.



5. Oh I am very aware of that, thank you. That is why I have so arranged my affairs that my future financial status would neither depend on my wife's nor my children's goodwill. And even having insured my future, I still provide them with no excessive luxuries up till today; preferring to accumulate and invest my wealth in even more diversified fields so as to make sure I never fall into their hands. Upon my retirement, I should have enough to leave frugally as I do now without relying on anyone; least of all my wife and children.

1. I know. I just found the diversion funny.

2. A lot of men shipped their wives back to their inlaws' home or sent them packing. If you mean divorce as per the legal dissolution of marriage, it was non-existent though I know Igbos return bride price. I have never heard for Yorubas.

3. Not necessarily.

4. I agree with you that financially responsible fathers who have not found a way to balance other needs of their child should be appreciated and brought to the fore more. If for instance a father is almost never available because he works in other state or gets home very late from work, the mother should impress dad's contributions in the subconsciousness of the kids. The ideal would be for him to be available though.

5. Hmmmmmmmm. I believe it is easiest to treat your spouse and kids right. Hahahahahahaha @ fall into their hands. Sounds like an MFM prayer point.

bukatyne:
Interesting.

A totally traditional view.

@bold: you believe women do men a favour by having sex with them? By extension, you believe in upholding women's chastity above men's?

What is your view on polygamy?

Women in general are not as enamoured of sex as men are. Men crave it. Women use it as a tool. Chastity is only important for verification of progeny. So yes, a woman's chastity is important since a woman's progeny, unlike a man's, is never in doubt.

I think it is a good concept.

RisenPhoenix:
1. It's the nature of women to be attracted to strong, decisive and independent men. A man who waits for his wife to make decisions for him to obey will be seen by her as weak.

2. Also, women do not like men who are clingy; which an adoring man would inevitably be. The risk of possible loss and aloofness make the relationship exciting to a woman. A predictable man is a very boring man. If there's anything that women hate, it's boring.

1. In husband/wife relationship I would rather use love and submission which are two sides of a coin if you will.

Spouses should make decisions together so a man waiting for instructions from his wife to obey is a scenario suited for parent/children.

2. I think this is a generalization. Personally, I cannot stand drama or play mind games. This excitement thingy is sounding like Telemundo. A guy shrodded in mystery might make for a good romcom. It doesn't build trust, puts people on their toes, discourages commitment, investment, sacrifice and loyalty.

Not my cup of tea.