₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkiee:
Insecurity and general lack of self-esteem and confidence is generally reason why women remains in toxic/failed marriages.

No sane woman remains in a toxic relationship or marriage same way a sane man will not remain in a toxic marriage.

Forget cheap talk; when cheated on, as a woman, whether in a developed or developing country, I wager you will still stay under so many circumstances. I remember someone like Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala who once made more mouth than you have done here, but when it happened, she had no better choice than to stay put in the marriage despite her many firsts in many special different areas of life. Not rationalizing cheating, though.

You didn't force her, my foot! As if there's a more potent kind of force (or abuse) than psychological and emotional force. The victim woman acted like a typical feeble-minded person, and kudos to her sister-in-law.

Say no to feeble-mindedness and greed

Simran94:
Always giving excuses for when men commit crimes rather than condemning and that is why this country is the way it is today.
A woman bought a house with her money in her name and one lazy vagabond wanted to sell it and all you could think of is a case of revenge? If na your sister dem kill like this, you will still have this kind of none sense talk?

Come on, direct your mention to small-minded elements like you who can neither dissect nor comprehend nor see beyond the surface and primordial sentiment.

I wager it's a case of revenge, even though it appears extreme and unpalatable, after she meted out opportunism or disloyalty against him, assuming that he has always been a just and sane person.

Abuse and insanity alleviation, eradication would have been better though assuming that it is possible, will stop occurrences of this nature.

That "your girl" can never be the last of her kind remaining on earth, so look for another of her kind and magnify her focal point of attraction; boom, you'll automatically have another version of your girl.

It all boils down to insatiableness which, of course, isn't exclusive to the female gender but varies due to some differences between both genders and can be severe or less depending on the ethical leanings of the individual involved and who they are involved with in general.

Role vs Section:

1. Request for conversion to administrative staff - as a clerical staff, use this if you wish to be converted to an administrative staff.

2. Request for redesignation as administrative staff - as a clerical staff/staff in the clerical section, use this if you wish to move to the administrative section from the clerical section whether or not to a clerical role.

I wager it's a case of revenge, even though it appears extreme and unpalatable, after she meted out opportunism or disloyalty against him, assuming that he has always been a just and sane person.

Abuse and insanity alleviation, eradication would have been better though assuming that it is possible, will stop occurrences of this nature.

englishmart:
They crashed and resolved. I hope they don't crash again. Our younger generation are too proud. A supposed feminist lady said she's an adult and wouldn't need permission from her husband to cut her hair. See you, see divorce o.
If marriage must work, women must submit

Most of you obviously have an erroneous understanding of what submission entails. I wonder how a man would expect his wife/companion to take permission from him before cutting her hair or styling it the way she wants within the confines of normalcy.

Submission does not entail one relinquishing her rights to liberty.

You alone are in the better position to know whether to have something serious with her, citing that you ought to have known her better, assuming that you're discerning, given that you have shared closeness with her.

If you are coming from strong ethical leanings, she's good for you (or she is a good woman) if her stated actions against her ex-fiances/boyfriends stemmed from the fact that she hates nonsense and because of her love for justice and fairness in words and actions, while she is bad for you (or she is a bad woman) if her stated actions against her ex-fiances/boyfriends stemmed from the fact that she hates nonsense but takes delight in meting out the same against others unjustly.

They stand a chance; every qualified and participating team does.

The fact that you, just like a lot of other people, do not know that acting on emotion and being sentimental does not mean the same thing/ought not to be interchangeable, makes your post, however noble your intention seems, quasi-whack.

Yes, people who think and act on sentiment simply lack the power to see beyond their nose; a typical sign of low IQ, but it is not automatically the same for people who act on emotion since acting on emotion entails instant expression of inner thoughts rather than sucking of thought. Sucking of thought is an act of disingenuousness and the hallmark of sentimental people that make them treacherously dangerous.

Of course, greed, self-centeredness, selfishness, feeble-mindedness are components of low IQ. It is one of those diseases that no amount of formal education can cure.

Emotion is a complex psychological state such as fear, anger, or happiness, while sentiment is a mental attitude produced by feelings. Emotions are raw, while sentiments are organized.

There is nothing wrong with being emotional, provided that you operate on a philosophy that is rooted in the principle of justice and fairness. However, there is everything wrong with being emotionless (not giving to instant acting on emotion), when you operate on a philosophy that is rooted in expediency, which most sentimental people are known for.

PrimadonnaO:
Doing chores isn't the sense of responsibility we are talking about.

The sense of responsibility under discussion here is:

I'm a man!

I married a woman, and bore a child with her!

I have a family. People who ordinarily should look up to me.

I need to be able to provide for them.

To make them happy.

To be FELT in this home.

Not washing plates.

She said she didn't sign up for her husband to be good just for washing plates and helping to spread the kids' unforms.

Of course, those you highlighted are part of what having a sense of responsibility as a man entails, and don't be surprised to know that the man in question has all that in his minute thoughts.

My assertions are based not just on knowledge but also on the fact that I've had a very close acquaintance that embodied everything the OP has stated and experienced in the hands of her husband.

PrimadonnaO:
Stinginess is one thing. A lack of responsibility is another.

Trust me. I know the difference.

OP said her husband doesn't even get her gifts. He gets money from occasional contracts and shares none with her! I mean!

She also saw the complacency before marriage.

*******
I'm so irked.

Why do women think they can change a man?
Just why?

His problem can never be a lack of responsibility, just as it isn't stinginess, since he's always been disposed to doing some domestic work, according to the OP. His problem simply lies in his lack of grit. Unfortunately , it takes special knowledge to decipher a man, or woman, who lacks grit when met while holding a job or on money.

PrimadonnaO:
I 100% agree with you.

Girls think they're scoring high with a guy when he gives them nothing and she doesn't ask or complain.

They don't know they're setting up themselves for future burdens if they do get married.


Most responsible men simply take care of their women.

They demonstrate love and a a sense of responsibility by providing and protecting.

When I see a man who doesn't do that, I abort mission mentally.

Unfortunately, one of the flaws men like the OP's husband have isn't stinginess, provided that he's access to money and some atom of love for the person he's involved with, which means you and your likes might still marry his type. If the OP would be truthful to herself, she'll admit that while the man was holding a job in the cause of their dating, he wasn't stingy to her.

The major problem his kind has always had is chiefly complacency; then procrastination and the erroneous belief in conquering their economic world through some assumed easy means like being sycophantic to the established for crumbles, dreaming of occupying some top public positions they didn't prepare for with the hope of amassing wealth via embezzlement, or luck (betting/pool), etc, rather through meaningful skills, concrete blueprint, and mastery of the science of wealth creation and sustenance.

In all, the OP still has to tread with caution and diplomacy in trying to jolt him to gumption because the chance of him achieving economic growth is still possible, however slim it seems now.

Blackman7:
This is savage and wicked. The igbo culture is barbaric and backward. This is unfair, honestly. Once a man dies in the savage. Flat lands the family (brothers) are quick take charge of his property. Imagine a woman who is grieving . Well the igbo people buy their wives anyway.

Small-minded elements like you can be so repulsive. I wonder where you sight an Igbo culture that permits the living relatives of a dead man to take possession of his landed property and/or ostracize his wife.

You've to come to the realization and acceptance that you have a complacent man as a husband, whereas a gritty man, not a greedy man though, is the kind of man that suits your personality for a spouse. Complacency is as bad as greed, and can even be worse in some cases. His problem isn't a lack of sense of responsibility; instead; inherently, he isn't a builder but a waster/destroyer.

His kind of man, skillfully or not, most likely do well in jobs that entail sycophancy, provided that they are certain of getting some crumbles in the end. If you want to have him adjust to a reasonable length, you've to be ready to accept that you're going to have a frenemy as a husband, temporarily or permanently, while embracing mental transmutation at the same time. To realize this, start treating him according to his actions and mentality rather than how you rightly think and know a husband should be treated; you can get this done without throwing away your established standard outright.

Ishilove:
Selfishness and manipulation has nothing to with gender and everything to do with the inherent human nature.

Have you seen children manipulating their parents into granting them their desires? They manipulate with tantrums, emotional blackmail, sweet words, exaggerated bodily expressions etc. The behavior is not learned, rather it is the inherent nature of man manifesting itself. Selfishness is also engrained in the very fabric of nature. Animals compete for limited resources for themselves and their young, and this trait is also not limited to animals but to the highest animals in the food chain, vis human beings. Selfishness transcends gender, and cuts across the very fabric of society itself, Mr HardMirror. Did the Hungarian Prime Minister not say that the wellbeing of his people transcends the politics of the current Russo-Ukrainian war? Was he not called 'selfish' for not considering the devastation being experienced by hapless Ukrainians?

Let us stop these he vs she social media gender wars because they have no bearing to reality.

Although the OP got it wrong on almost all fronts, you've got a poor understanding of the meaning of selfishness. Stop mistaking or mixing up justness with selfishness, and vice versa.

@OP, no, not everyone on Nairaland falls between accepting or rejecting redpill; I, for one, am indifferent on both sides. Also, attribute vices and attitudes like selfishness, wickedness, manipulation, etc, are not exclusive to the female gender.

One can, however, only rightly argue that they're more prevalent among people of a particular gender or human beings, regardless of gender, depending on one's experience and ethical leanings in general.

You're the one at fault because you weren't frank, and whether your lack of frankness stemmed from insincerity or naivety is irrelevant. The presentation of a frank person in your stead ought to have been something like: I'm John, live within. Actually, your face looks familiar; it seems like I'd closely known you, but I've tried hard and failed to pinpoint where and how exactly. Did you attend AB school around so so year?

Definiteness of purpose without articulation and competence can't bring conception to fruition in any just endeavour.

He was wittingly or unwittingly quoted out of context here; instead, he said: "I am happy, I am excited that the party will be restored to the leadership position that it ought to be. We are democrats and our party is for the ordinary Nigerians. It is not a party of big men. For us to have our convention today shows that evildoers can have their plans but God has produced someone today. And we have more people of goodwill than the evil ones who wanted this convention to happen today.“

Whenever such happens, it can be to a man or woman, anyone of your beneficiaries, especially the close and major beneficiaries, who has always, covertly or overtly, seen you as an object of utility/doesn't have an altruistic interest in you will definitely fail the test; it doesn't matter whether it's your wife, husband, mother. father, sibling, etc.

For the perpetrator/enemy within, it has always been either the victim's dominion and possession or dignity and sanity subject to the circumstances of the victim's life trajectory at any given time.

Well, if you are from strong ethical leanings, grit, discernment, and sensitivity will always save you from the pernicious acts of an enemy within at every given time.

CumOnHer:
I found your choice of " inegalitarian" as an inappropriate description. Let's broaden the argument a bit. If you substitute the " inegalitarian man" for a "woman" and make the conversation a " woman to woman" conversation, would the outcome/reaction have been the same?

From all indications, you're a gender bigot, and the fact that you obviously have a very low IQ makes it worse, so I don't see the need to enter into a needless dialogue with you.

Now scram and direct your further mention to small-minded people like you.

CumOnHer:
I can understand the complimentary part but the derision part is lost on me.

If you told a child " You're a child", it is complimentary, derision or could be both?
How could " you're a woman" have two sides of a coin?

Maybe a likely conversation between an inegalitarian man and a woman in a scenario like the following might help you understand better why a woman, whether reasonable or unreasonable, will feel angry when being reminded that she's a woman:

State of the nation as the subject of discussion

- The inegalitarian man - Nigeria can never get better, not now, and not in the future.

- A woman - no, Nigeria might get better someday, after all, no condition is permanent. A good leader can easily turn the fortunes of the country and citizenry around.

- The inegalitarian man - you are a woman.

As you might observe from the conversation above, the inegalitarian man's last interjection wasn't obviously done in good faith, but to debase - of course, his demeanor and/or tone when saying that will definitely convey his true intention. Because he innately holds the belief that a woman is beneath a man in all indices; therefore, he wittingly or unwittingly concludes that she was talking nonsense. Whereas, realistically, from a rational and fair POV, the woman in the conversation made more sense than him.

It depends on the people involved and the situation where and how it happened:

It can be a complimentary remark - example, when a highly intuitive woman helps you dissect a person or extrapolate a concept quickly. From your demeanor and the connotation of your pronouncement, a reasonable woman in this regard will automatically understand that it comes from the place of justness and admiration from you, given that reasonable women tend to be highly intuitive.

Of course, it can be used to convey derision, as it's usually the case in most cases, rather than to compliment, just like smirking and smiling/laughing do, respectively - In this regard, the demeanor and connotation of the pronouncement, no matter how hard one might try to gloss their true intention, will definitely show that it was made to deride.

If not for your poor IQ, you ought to have known that a woman being submissiveness to the man in her life doesn't automatically mean that she doesn't have a great IQ and good character, and of course, you've mistaken servility for submissiveness because only a servile woman will condone oppression from a man. Reversely, by this thread, you have inferred that no man with a great IQ can love the woman in his life, given that love and submissiveness are complementary to each other, and of course, neither of them entails servility or cruelty.

This is not only the female gender issue, but the issue anyone, regardless of gender, who does not place principle above expediency and does not have an altruistic interest in you/sees you as an object of utility has and will mete out to you under such circumstances.

Literally, the two countries are closer than this, given that the stretch of water between Big Diomede Island (owned by Russia) and Little Diomede Island (owned by the U.S) is only about 2.5 miles wide.

Stop being a slave to your emotion/lust and also strive to redefine your concept of love because the one you have in place is wack. The woman you have in hand is a contentious, selfish, lazy, and untrustworthy woman, and given your displeasure about her exhibition of these attributes, it means that she is not good for you. So, leave her and look for another woman. But strive to conquer yourself first before looking for another woman.

Meanwhile, eschew the thought that women and men are not equal; all human beings are equal. The two genders are different in some ways - difference does not automatically mean inequality. That a woman believes that the female and male genders are equal, which is true, does not automatically make her a bad woman, provided that she does not possess similar character like the present woman in your life.

You're a victim of your own ignorance and unpronounced philosophy that places materialism above spiritualism; thus, the reasons why you didn't know that being philanthropic/charitable doesn't automatically equate to being kind - know it now that most acts of philanthropy are embedded with self-absorbing intentions. You got yourself a self-centered woman whereas you had in mind to get yourself a selfless woman, lol.

Also, you're the kind of person that is in the habit of mistaking people who take to posturing for people who've self-respect - posturing isn't the same thing as having self-respect and being just.

In all you get as a man, get discernment.

The wrong in your observation is condemnable and has always been unacceptable by every sane person. Unfortunately, you and your likes are not against such wrong because of your love for fairness and justice; instead, it is because you lots are not solely the ones, or do not have upper hands, exhibiting such nuisance. Beremx's first post here and the validation you and your ilks have given to it/will give to it is a clear pointer to this fact - sanctimonious, contemptuous, and hypocritically disingenuous elements.

There are a whole lot of beautiful places in Southern Nigeria and Nigeria in general, and this is the reason why whenever I see myopic and unprivileged Nigerians who have not been opportune to travel around most parts of the world, or who only have the privilege to virtually or physically see tourist and attractive parts of a literally poor country like Seychelles, conclude that Nigeria is beneath such countries in terms of beauty and prosperity, I just laugh.

Yes, Nigeria is not where it ought to be progressively yet, most of the places and countries most Nigerians do use to compare to it have always been a pointer about how uninformed they are, even when they try so hard to gloss their ignorance with haughtiness in order to appear woke.