₦airaland Forum

UjuJoan2:
And yet countless women ate breadwinners in their families. How do you expect them to defer to their husbands as the dominant gender, when they probably work harder than he does and provide more than he does.

I don't see myself as a feminist, but I think people should be recognized for what they are worth, and not sidelined based solely on thier boilogical make up.

I'm a woman married and living in my husband's house. And yet when some structural work needs to be carried out in my father's house, I contribute. The idea that I am somehow not worthy of inheriting anything from my father, and yet I contribute equally with my brothers who will end up with the whole inheritance is completely unfair don't you think?

Let's face it, there's no 'evidence' of dominance. What we have is a long history of imagined superiority, based solely on a factor we have no influence over.

It's the same reason why my female boss doesn't get the respect she earend, even though she came out the best candidate out of the all male applicants. It's the same reason I took my male colleague for lunch on his brithdady and the waiter brought the check to him, even though I clearly placed the order. It's the same reason people think women stay with abusive partners because the soeciety only see women Divorcees as failures, when in actual fact it takes both male and female to make a marriage work!

You talk about the absence of evidence of male dominance, and a long history of imagined superiority. But I'll tell you that just about everything you love was invented by man, from your disposable sanitary pad to the car you drive. Your identity is man created and sustained. Your village boundary was lined by the blood of your forefathers and by their bravery your identity was created and preserved. Even right now as we speak, your life is being protected by men who outnumbered women in a 9-1 ratio in the military and police service.

Denying your gender has no role to play in your abilities and inabilities is living in denial.


It doesn't matter how smart you may sound or what your academic credentials hold. What matter are those feminine hormones in your system and how they react to pressure, coercion, deceit and brute force. This is where leadership and dominance step in.

I don't see feminist lobby groups complaining about the lack of female population in the armed forces, police service, fire service etc, but they complain of not having enough parliamentary positions, bank executive positions. Hmmm! Greedy vultures. Feminism is a scam, It's a brand of false civilization.

moufan:
you are a fooooolish idio.t,so burning jersey is a terrorist act? ode,oponu

If they can burn pictures and jersey to portray their displeasure when the object of that displeasure is not within reach, it is safe to conclude what they'll do should they find him within a bombing distance.

And you, you're worse than a fool, you're a stench to the sweet fragrance of human civilization; a religious automated zombie and a member of a primitive set of bloodsucking brutes and uncouth animals.

WotzupNG:
Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has said that Lionel Messi and his Argentine team’s draw to Iceland in the 2018 FIFA world cup in Russia is as a result of the team boycotting a friendly game with Israel which would have held in Jerusalem few days to the kick off of the world cup.

Argentina drew 1-1 to world cup first timers Iceland with Lionel Messi throwing away an opportunity to put his team in front when a penalty he played was saved by Iceland goalkeeper, Hannes Thor Halldorsson, who emerged man of the match.

Tweeting about Messi’s loss, Avigdor Liberman said,



An Arab Israeli lawmaker, Ahmed Tibi also linked the miss to the withdrawal from the Israel game, tweeting a poll asking,

The Albeceleste of Argentina pulled out of its final pre-World Cup warm up game with Israel due to pressure, threats and intense protests from the Palestinians after Israel decided to move the game to Jerusalem from Haifa, where it was originally to have been staged.

Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian soccer federation, said that the match was politicized after Israel decided to hold the match in Jerusalem. He urged Arab and Muslim sports fans to burn photos and T-shirts of star player Lionel Messi if the game went ahead.

A disciplinary proceedings against Rajoub has been opened by FIFA.




https://www.kemifilani.com/2018/06/messi-penalty-israel-defense-minister.html

@ the emboldened:

And you wonder why the average Arab/Muslin is seen as a terrorist.

UjuJoan2:
You know what bothere the most is the way people intentionally misinterpret whatever she says concerning this issue.

Adichie is not being misrepresented. She's being called out for who she really is -- an opportunistic, insincere, feminist.

UjuJoan2:
Dana Leosch even went as far as cooking up a non-existent problem in an attempt to silence her.

Let's just at least agree that Female genital Mutilation isn't as prevalent as it used to be. But saying it's NON-EXISTENT suggests like all feminists, insincerity seems to be your stock-in-trade.

UjuJoan2:
So what if she felt successful women shouldn't be defined by their domestic roles, as opposed to successful men who believe that is secondary to their achievement

That's the core problem with feminism -- trying to compare women to men with all the obvious biological and physiological differences. True feminism lost its soul to greed and discontentment. Looking across the gender table, at the size of a man's plate is a sign of complex and greed. Today, a woman who derives joy and contentment prioritizing her domestic responsibility over her career is being ridiculed and intimidated by a host of feminist she-devils.

UjuJoan2:
. She wondered why Hilary felt right by doing that and it turns out the woman was just going with what society thinks she should do. She edited the profile didn't she? Someone else might feel differently and if she believes that out of all her acheievemets, being a wife and mother takes the prize, she can stand by her profile description and let it be the way she thinks it's best. But CNA's point is that one's decision shouldn't be defined by societal expectations. Because let's face it, we all know what kind of 'husband' Bill was to Hillary. I'm not sure she'll be asking Michelle that same question, especially since Obama also highlighted his domestic r responsibility in his own profile. Something like that should be a family mandate, not necessarily reserved for the woman.

Adichie more than wondered, she indeed interfered with the Clintons matrimony unduly while directly indicting Mr Clinton. It was insensitive. Her greed must have gotten the better of her good judgment. After all, having Bill Clinton's wife face to face for an interview was like a once in a life time opportunity for her.

When the woman in question isn't complaining but stood solidly behind "what kind of a husband she's got", I wonder how it mattered to you and Adichie.

Feminists are just a bunch of women with man problems, a bunch of rebels suffering from acute discontent and greed.

UjuJoan2:
Also, i love having the door held for me, which is why I don't hesitate to do it for other's, even men. Something as humane as that shouldn't be reserved for just women.

Don't you just love to sound off! A healthy male will find you sexually distasteful the day you try opening a car door for him in the matter a man does for his woman.

UjuJoan2:
Oh, now I see where all this is coming from? Imagine us gender-lly limited beings, trying to claim equality with super alpha males like you. What a nerve!

"The nerve" is backed by a long generational chain of evidential dominance in every sphere of life.

UjuJoan2:
Just because she's not going about it the way you want doesn't mean she's not doing the right thing. Sometimes to make progress in the war, u have to win the small battles.

We will not deceive ourselves. True Feminism doesn't exist. It lost its soul to a band of disgruntled misandrists who wouldn't admit that their ambitions are hampered by their biological limitations.

UjuJoan2:
Feminism is a fight of freedom . . . There's nothing pretty about it. The fact that she was born and bred in an environment where women are marginalized should be a motivation for her cause, not a deterrent.

I know change is not easy, it never is, and it can be acheieved from ay where, thank God for social media and globalization. that's why we need the likes of her, who will use hammer to drum it into your heads. Whether you want to here it or not.

I'll bring you to a speedy summary of what that wonderful exposé is all about; that your darling Chimamanda is an insincere, opportunistic glory-craver.

J2381:
if success if define by the likes of you, who praise those who deceive foolish individuals that look and type like you, no wonder Nigerian pastors are smiling to the banks every Sunday.

Those boobs of hers taking the center spot of her DP offer a peep into the dark, empty gully she calls her cranium.

The well-known aphorism, charity begins at home must have been lost to Chimamanda Adichie when she stepped into the media-aided limelight. Perhaps, finding the perks of notoriety too overwhelming, she reached out for more themes to keep basking in the spotlight of media hype and a new fame nowadays guaranteed to anyone who dare challenged the status quo even without scratching deep into exceptional brilliance.

After Adichie's notorious interview with former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, where she expressed her displeasure over Clinton's prioritisation of her marital status on her Twitter bio, comparing it to her husband's, the warning bells came off.

Are we looking at a sadistic, vengeful core feminist, whose major goal is to avenge male folks for their alleged "wrongs" or are we looking at an honest feminist who takes the plight of women into genuine consideration?

Did Chimamanda Adichie actually peered at Hillary Clinton's Twitter bio information and then searched out her husband's,Bill Clinton, bio for comparison?

For she clearly pointed out the difference between both Hilary Clinton and that of her husband insensitively and rudely informing Mrs Clinton of her husband's "crime". That was the red flag highlighting Adichie's lack of respect for matrimony and people's wishes.

I never cease to worry had Chimamanda Adichie discovered that Bill Clinton had placed "husband" in the front row in his Twitter bio, would she had picked offence at the choice of his wife, Hilary?

I doubt it. So we're, in essence, dealing with Chimamanda's preference for how the Clinton's should relate to one another.

Quite recently, Chimamanda rocked a media storm again (she just wanted a back-to-back front seat at the online media circus) when she again express her displeasure of male chivalry in holding doors for women. It took Dana Loesch, the National Riffle Association spokesperson to blast Adichie and expose her grand hypocrisy.

Loesch said, Adichie should worry more about the prevalence of female genital mutilation in Nigeria, which by the way is false as Loesch also showed her profound ignorance and lack of general knowledge. Female genital mutilation is not only outlawed in Nigeria for decades, it is convenient to say over 90% female child in Nigeria are born without genital mutilation.

Nevertheless, no one has pointed out to Chimamanda Adichie of the plight of women in her own tribe, in her own ethnicity and region, the South East of Nigeria where women are still forbidden to inherit ancestral lands of their fathers.

It is disheartening that Chimamanda will worry about how Hilary Clinton placed her marital status on her Twitter bio; that she will spare a thought about Western men opening doors for women when millions of women in Eastern Nigeria like her cannot inherit their father's homes in death even if they as females were the only child.

It is preposterous that none of Adichie's works have ever highlighted the plight of women in Eastern Nigeria where tradition forbids them from being rulers or breaking kola nut or attending "Umunna" meetings except when summoned for questioning or as witness.

In Enugu, Chimamanda's birth place, some communities traditionally forbids women from eating gizzard. In Eastern Nigeria, a woman is forbidden to interfere in the negotiations of her marriage between her family and that of her prospective husband's family, making her a bystander or spectator in the negotiations of her own marriage.

Chimamanda would have been partially forgiven if she was born and raised overseas but she had her birth and formative years in Nigeria and she chose to wear the cloak of hypocrisy in nice drapery, worrying and fretting over women of Western birth whose material fortunes are far greater and superior to those of her kith and kin she left behind.

Chimamanda wasn't a priest rejected by her own folks, she's just a preacher who never preached to her suffering people but pretend to be a crusader, taking the gospel to those who have the mastery of it, hence not needing it.

Source: www.lodega.com

[s]

Elder001:
You know what? you're way more stupid than I thought.



Your life ,your choice. I didn't marry to to all burden on my shoulders.



You're probably a village tout that has never left the chores of Africa.



Your mind is made up, I won't do anything to convince you

The only women that find interests in alpha males are African women and some Asian women.


Sorry I can't risk my life for anybody irrespective of the gender. You're a woman or whatever doesn't mean you're important than men.
You're equal to men so save yourself.
and as for the finance I'll continue to share bills with my wife even if I'm a billionaire.

You're just a fool.. I'm done with you
Don't disturb my mentions because I won't reply.

I hate idiots.

[/s]


You're a piece of human dross from a skewed cultural experiment; a bio-cultural casualty and a victim of gender identification crisis. An epicene klutz who sacrificed his gender responsibility on the altar of a false promise. A modern day woman slave driver.

Those loud cheers that greeted your birth, the drinks that flowed in celebration of your sex, that hope that your father's legacy has been secured in the strength of your loins all colapsed on the fragility of your sick mind.


You have made a poor bargain, trading your self-dignity for a fool's promise, that you're wise and civilized when you adopt a modern fad and culture. What a loosed cùnt you are.

Lazy wuzzbag, anti-brideprize idiot. You love freebies so much, don't you? You should have gone full fledged parasitic and be a gigolo! Shameless waste of male headcount.

You found a canopy in "modern civilization" to hide from the rays of the true test of being a man.

When real men look at those feminine virtues in women when considering a potential lover, an underperforming sissy like you with low financial expectation has his greedy, bulbous eyes fixed on the size of her purse. Shameless he goat!

Elder001:
First of all, Do I know you from anywhere? Why quote me
with insults, clearly there’s something wrong with you. You
can argue and disagree without being ridiculous.

Funny how you seem incapable of taking one back in the chin.

Below is an earlier post from you in reference to me. This is NL, you punch and get punched. If you can't take it then walk away. But crying foul after being served with your own medicine is just another sad pointer to your intellectual hypocrisy.

Elder001:
The funny thing is he hasn't met up to 1% of the world's female population but he's making that useless generalization.

What I denoted from that post is that he's a guy or man with skewed 18th century mentality and probably living in a cave.

Elder001:
You can't manipulate me, okay?
That post meant that if a man expects his wife to provide financially then he should breast feed a child to the fullest to see how it looks like. No matter how you try to twist it even a madman will understand what you meant by that post.

Wrong! Too bad your comprehension ability is below par.

Elder001:
If my wife can get her hands on my purse why shouldn't I get my hands on her purse too?

There's a vacuum in between her "thighs", you're meant to fill her up and not to deplete her.

Elder001:
You clearly aren't as intelligent as you claim. There's not about inferiority complex about what I just said.
This is the 21st century not 1910 and family values have been redefined.

Values? Redefined? By who? By those whose culture and ideology you have swallowed whole like a sex-starved nympho mouths down a còck!

Elder001:
There's nothing real about being an alpha male. That you prefer to be a traditional or alpha male is a choice don't force it on others. Other men mustn't be like you.
There are men who prefer to share the house chores with their wives. It's only a matter of choice /preference.

Stop being a clown for once. You proposed your own idea of how you think "civilized" men should conduct themselves in matrimony and I expressed a contrary view. So stop being that emotionally imbalanced male with your cheap blackmail. You're just as guilty.

Elder001:
Now ,who doesn't want an easy life?

Before you stands this great barrier restricting your effectiveness in debating effectively -- basic comprehension of the English language.

Elder001:
There are two types of men in this world; the alpha males and the beta males.
again, that you prefer being an alpha male doesn't mean all men must be alpha.

Men now do house chores. women also provide financially.

Alpha males are men who don't share bills with their wives and won't help domestically and will always want their approval before anything is done in the home

while
beta males are men who share bills with their wives and also share house chores with their wives.

The alpha males are already declining in numbers globally.
Most of them have already embraced the beta ideology.

Africa is the only continent where alpha males are still dominant.

Enough said.

Wrong once again! The alpha male is every woman's dream as long as she's mentally and psychologically healthy. We ARE the last man standing, the warrior, the defender, the stand up guy.

Like in the movie Titanic, in the face of great danger to life we say WOMEN AND CHILDREN first to safety. But sissies like would SHARE everything! From finance to physical threats and dangers.

You need your testosterone level checked!

Elder001:
do yourself good by posting links to this statistics .

Nature indeed.. You must be living in a delusional world
I'm forced to ask. ..are you married?

They're all over the place. Do yourself some good and engage google.

If you're a real man, those assertions by me would drive home. It is basic.


No, the delusionist is you who ladens a woman with extra burden aside the natural stress and challenges being a woman entails.

Until you are one weaker in strength and can take in semen in your uterus and go through 9 months of gestation, push a baby out and nurse it while undergoing physical, emotional and psychlogical healing then can you comfortably sit your lazy ass down and EXPECT her to be a co-financial burden bearer as you.

Elder001:
Hey.
This is Shìt, you know?

What exactly are you trying to say with this post?
When did men start breast feeding babies?.

With a comprehension ability this shallow, I don't think you possess the basic cognitive requirements to participate in this debate. My elementary employment of satire should fall within the purview of your intellectual circumference.

Elder001:
for the big heart stuff ..
man stop saying shìt, things ain't so anymore .

I don't think any Self conscious and intelligent man will want to marry a wife that can't co-provide alongside him.
Even the so called traditional men or alpha males want women who'll contribute too.

While women folks are encouraging one another to "get that money" and be INDEPENDENT, most 21st century pussy-fied males like you are thinking of how to put their lazy, greasy hands on their wives' purses, shame on you!

Elder001:
65% or more of married American ladies share bills(co-provide) with their husbands... so wtf is your point?

Times have changed.. men do the chores too you know.

That's why it's called a civilized world ,yeah?

You follow?

I stagger at the weight of your gross inferiority complex and bemoan your ever eroding self-identity. Oh, America and her host of Western minions can serve as pointers in many areas of human endeavours, but not quite when it comes to morals and family values. Overwhelming statistical evidence shows a near-breakdown in family values in these cultures.

While I appreciate the fact that the demise of REAL MEN is looming, real men have always helped around the house with domestic chores, but it's always on voluntary basis and never on an obligatory criteria.

Your definition of civilization stems from a weak and pliant mindset, persuaded by the flickering lusters of the promise of an easy life.

bukatyne:
You are making my case for me.

In theory, (practical life is much more complex) women are to do chores and men are to finance the home.

Shouldn't it occur to anyone that it would be natural for a woman to feel 'bitter' when she is financing the home because she is expected to do the chores + finance the home?

Why do people behave as if the 'bitterness' is a vice especially when the husband is still traditionally inclined?

On the flip side, would a husband be happy picking up most of the domestic work after financing the home?

You're right, a woman who's a co-provider, footing 50% or even more would feel bitter and resentful doing most of the chores. But my point is, in majority of the cases, even in the so called civilized countries, women who contribute more end up doing MOST of the house chores. Point is even when faced with cultural evolution, most men will still be men.

bukatyne:
Thanks

They do not go into relationship with the expectation they'll be doing MOST of the financial spending BECAUSE they are expected to handle the domestic turf.


@Bold: Show me a man who would be happy handling work stress and finance while he has a wife then I would agree it is a woman thing ELSE, it is a human thing. If there is a delegation of duties, nobody will be happy doing every body's job.

Now, the above is theory.

In practical, it doesn't work that way.

Women are meant to do most of the house chores and men are expected to rake in most of the finance for the family upkeep. This is a biologically and physiologically backed gender categorized roles.

Statistics have proven men are 5 times more likely to cheat when their partners are the major breadwinners and it is partly because they find such women less attractive.

On the other hand it has been proven that men who do more house chores engage less in sex and their women find then less attractive.

When humans abuse nature, they can't escape the consequences.

There are lots of men who are the breadwinners, paying most/all the bills in the home and are happy and fulfilled doing it.

Gloriagee:
Not dreaming bro

Ok

bukatyne:
You haven't said anything.

All the women you observed/ engaged, why did they have issues handling most of the finances?

Women don't generally go into relationships with the expectation they'll be doing MOST of the financial spending. Be it societal expectations or biological conditioning, they far more proud and comfortable with a man who meets majority of their financial needs.

Women generally can't cope with work related stress and domestic obligation without feeling stressed, fatigued and unhappy.

Gloriagee:
Women feel fulfilled irrespective of if the guy earns less provided other conditions are met. So if a guy earns less than me whilst I can afford a quality lifestyle, I'll be unhappy whilst He's faithful, caring n a wonderful communicator? Odiegwu

To dream is free.

bukatyne:
@last paragraph, why do you think so?

Simple! Empirical observation, verifiable stats.

Elder001:
That the woman is earning more doesn't mean the husband won't contribute.

This is the 21st century.. the earlier you awaken from the drunken patriarchal mentality the better for you.

I'll tell you what; when your wife nurses your child on one breast, I implore you to take hold of the other and nurse to your fill. Be mindful of your file of adult teeth while at it so you don't bite the life out of her as she nurses you along with the infant.

While your brain is scientifically proven to be bigger (with larger IQ) than hers and a corresponding set of muscles as added bonus, you'd make for a poster boy of the ever emasculated 21st century male for not bringing them home where it matters most.

2buffagain:
Competition is far from the word I'd use regarding that guy's fiance.
That is a parasite (he builds, she consumes, and has no positive intention of contributing).



If the inverse of this is something your self-esteem cannot deal with, Then may you never marry a spouse that is richer than you

A man who marries a richer woman has a lot of questions to answer...

And why should any sensible man do that? The stats even in the so called civilized countries are painting doom and gloom for such a man and the union.

And the women themselves never feel fulfilled with a lesser earning husband. A lot of them experience "status leakage" No woman wants a toy boy husband.

Women basically don't have such a large heart as men do -- to be the primary breadwinner or a co-contributor and be happy at it like a man would.

2buffagain:
Oh trust me I know the statistics (that's why I created this thread), but that family will not survive come any major future financial challenges...common as they are in our time.
Both spouses need to adapt their mind to the realities of the times, and not just one.
Their choice if the couple decide to build a boat with holes.

A vehicle driving on the road (previous generation terrain) can have holes.
But when that vehicle needs to still be functional on the river (current generation terrain), it would be dumb to even try.


Men are not having these discussions with their intendeds early enough, and they need to.

E.g See how having "the talk" prior to marriage revealed the selfish mindset of this guy's fiance https://www.nairaland.com/4552200/girlfriend-selfish-she-right
ASSUMPTIONS were being made that this woman sees "love" the same as him.

IMHO men should filter out women who think like this and only consider enlightened women who think with reason. But to each their own! I'm just tired of seeing married couple arguing upandan over things that really should have been ironed out previously, as STRUCTURE.

The fiance in the link provided is not a partner but a competitor. She's the worst thing that can possibly happen to a man.

A situation where the woman contributes half or anything close in the daily running of the family, spells trouble. It is far healthier for a man to out-earn his wife at least by 50% to have a truly happy home. And men should learn not to expect much financially from their wives, it's dangerous. Yeah, a little help once in a while when the ship hasn't ducked is expected but it should never be a month-in-month-out routine.

Let her financial role be complementary.

2buffagain:
Good so then you believe in STRUCTURE.
Are you then saying that it is only the man in the marriage that should be beholden to FINANCIAL STRUCTURE?

Because if that is your argument....all the best. May your business never suffer and may you never loose your job.

Abi wetin we go talk again?

You haven't grasped what I'm trying to say... earlier, i said women complement, they have always done that. But for a man to have a preconceived notion of financial parity with his wife (or something close to that) in the daily running of the home... well, except the wife has no problem with that. But guess what, statistics point they do.

2buffagain:
You still not getting it sir.
So what then happens when they have no positive emotions for each other?
What happens when these emotions you are talking about [temporary] fail?

Speak from this perspective.

Feeling angry towards a LOVED ONE is not a reason to shirk one's responsibilities.

2buffagain:
I see people not liking that I put love as number 4.
Here is the thing, love is an emotion. Emotions are like the sea. They rise and fall. During it's rise, it augments everything and makes all things sweeter, but during it's fall it wipes everything out. This is where STRUCTURE comes in.

Emotions are like a muscle. A Muscle without a skeletal structure to back it is a muscle that is sometimes impotent. ( Imagine if your arms worked like joysticks! )

It is these structures that keep the family operations together when +ve emotions aren't all that high between the couple.
This is why every establishment that has ever stood the test of time has "A Code" or "A Creed". It is a matter of sustenability.

On a side note, and totally unrelated from this topic.... Another example of a well recomended family creed would be "No matter how mad we are with each other, we do NOT let the sun set on our anger". Some people have woken up in hell because of that particular one...
But I digress. My point is, structure is needed for times of low emotion to keep things going as they must. And everyone must be commited to the Creed for peace of mind.



This is what kills men today. An inability to adapt to current realities.
If you have any plans of living anywhere else besides Nigeria, I humbly ask that you reconsider your disturbance to this 21st century mindset.
That said not even Nigeria is safe from this.

All societies are being setup in such a way that most homes may require income from both spouses. When that time comes, that is not the time when you want to start having that conversation with your spouse. Many men have falsely entered marriage with this mindset and are paying for it right now, while their wife considers finance "not her business" while she shovels and hides her own money to the detriment of the family, talking about "Remove your eyes from MY money. Go and find how to pay all the things you've been paying without me" .

Again, this is what happens when you place emotion over structure.

Fellas, No be only you waka come. Stop digging your early graves with this obsolete way of thinking. Put structures in place as soon as possible.

Your stance about love isn't surprising, love in its true form has lost its meaning in this age. But without it, nothing worthwhile works.

It is that extra fuel that propels the human endurance to go further, to be selfless. Without it humans are no better than a programmed bot, or automated machine with a set of behavioural code for every situation. Love makes room for mistakes and perseverance.


Women have not always been idle and unsupportive. From recorded history, the average woman does her bit -- small-scale farming, weaving, etc -- to COMPLEMENT her husband.

The worrisome aspect is that most 21st century men are having a preconceived expectation/dependency on women to be a co-financial burden bearer. When you put that up against the reality that a lot men today are lazy and unproductive hence NEEDING a financial partner, the maths becomes easy to solve.

When a man knows and acknowledges he is responsible for his wife's upkeep, he works hard. Depending on his wife for major financial contribution all the way has serious consequences and they are evident in those climes you love to set as example.

2buffagain:
It is said that finances are the number one cause of fights in marriages, some of such fights leading to divorce sef.
Personally I feel these things should be common sense, but unfortunately, people tend to focus on the wrong things i.e "love feelings" when starting out a family that they fail to put the necessary structures in place.
Here are my suggestions to couples who want to have a stress-free life regarding finances-after-marriage...

#0) You better have married a spouse that was working when you met/married them.
Brothers an sisters, You are not here to alleviate the poverty of an idle person, but to run a family and BUILD a lineage with someone.
You cannot be building while the other one is tearing down without replenishing. This is the 21st century. Girls, stop marrying idle bums. Guys, Stop marrying idle thots (I say this with total respect due to real women out here making it happen for themselves and their future families).

#1) Set up a family checking account
Set up a bank account for family affairs where a certain percentage (e.g anywhere from 60%) of everyone's income goes into.
From this account family expenses, house expenses, school fees and family savings will be handled.

Men: If you want to be "a man" about it, maybe 70% - 80% of your income can go in there while only 40 - 50% of her own goes in as women tend to do more of certain things around the home anyway....but BOTH must feel the burn of financially supporting the house. Otherwise, abuse is tantamount (why be fiscal when money is his problem?).

Not having these numbers DEFINED from the get-go is also tantamount to abuse. Any intended change to your percentage contribution number different from the starting numbers should be totally at the discretion/sole-acceptance of the other party. If you want to change your contribution, your spouse agrees whether you can change or they refuse. Totally their choice. Note that this is regarding the PERCENTAGE of income, not the number itself. This will save you from several arguments in the future.

Feel free to adjust as you see fit, but these rigid structures set as you enter the marriage are great starting points for order in said marriage.

#2) Set up a family savings account
Anything above 2-3 months of the usual CORE family expenses from the family checking account go in here.
No one can do anything with this money unless both couple sign off on it. Instruct the bank about this constraint.
(of-course, dead-human switches should apply with such constraints)

#3) Each should have their own private checking account
This is where the other un-contributed money goes to for each party.
Here, do whatever you want with your money. It should be no-one's business.

E.g Use this to buy gifts for your spouse and take him or her out on dates....yes I said HIM or HER. Either spouse can take the other out on dates, not just the man.

This is also from where one spouse can choose to give monetary gifts to the other spouse.

Ladies: ...No. "Borrowing" your husband who is currently without income money to pay the rent is NOT a monetary gift. Put that thing in the family shared account. It is you supporting your family. No be only him waka come.

#4) Love each other
This comes last because emotions (love) must come AFTER logical structure otherwise you cannot build.
Building on emotions is like building on quicksand. Ko le werk!

I appreciate your opinion on how you believe the financial structure within a marital setting should be placed. I see it as a personal opinion that might not work for everyone. And again, you downplayed the role of love, relegating it to the least required in a marital buildup. I think you're flat out wrong here. Everything -- intentions, gestures, understanding, is built on love.

Lastly, I'm disturbed with the mentality of most 21st century men who have developed a preconceived mindset of financial expectation/dependency on their partners before or during marriage. What happened to the good old gentleman who knows it is his responsibility to provide for his family and doing such doesn't give him an undue edge over his wife irrespective of the economic challenges?

It is biologically encoded in women to look up to men financially as it is in men to display acts of chilvary towards a woman of interest.

Dating a girl automatically means a certain level of responsibility from the guy irrespective of the girl's financial status. Let's not try and pretend about this. After all, dating is "practice for marriage", very few women would be comfortable in a marriage where the man can't affort basic comfort for her.

While there are girls who are unreasonable with their demands, I believe the OP just took a backdoor entrance to a feminist agenda.

brodalokie:
Don't be faster than your shadow.
Basically the son of perdition is the Antichrist, but originally it is referring to Satan.
Lucifer rebelled in heaven against the living God, the Lord of host, creator of heaven and earth by teaching the angels a false doctrine. Why? He secretly wanted to be like the most high, and for that he was demoted.
Then in the garden of Eden, he comes in the person of the serpent to rebel against the truth again by preaching a false gospel to the woman. Why? God makes Adam god over all things and the serpent new that he could crossbreed with the woman, and Cain was born, he killed Abel because he wanted to be accepted by God instead (again: "I will be like the most high". After the flood destroyed the first world, Noah and his kids and their wives survived. Noah is a prophet of God (priest) but again his younger son Ham rebels (saw his father's unclothedness) and formed an occult religion which has become the tradition of the world till date, but in the midst of it his elder brother Shem had kept their father's faith.
Original is simple but Imposter is very loud.

That said, I think if the binis really know that their ancestor is Ham then they should also accept the fact that a woman ruled then. Unless they're omitting something or reforming the tradition...

The moral of your story is hidden in the ambiguity of your true faith.

But there again, why should the Binis trace their origin from Ham and not Adam? Adam was head over all of GOD's earthly creation and his successors have always been his male heirs.

All men except one came from woman but ALL woman came from man.

Lastly, your claim of the serpent crossbreading with Eve is heresy.

Genesis 4 : 1

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

I think you practice neo-paganism. No offence.

brodalokie:
Do you know who is "the son of perdition"? I want to quickly proof a point..

The anti-CHRIST, I suppose.

oweniwe:
Oga, why you wake up the sleeping thread nah ?

Did I? I don't think so. Someone made a comment this morning which exhumed the thread from its grave. I just rolled it over.