₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness, when you came back arrived , you presented a sunny, reconciliatory even, demeanour. And you also appeared to adopt a neutral position, being very “non-judgemental” and asking a lot of questions.

I was always happy to answer any posed my way and I know a few others were as well, Now after hearing more from you, I’d like to ask some of my own.

Most of us would consider our positions to be rooted in truth and morally sound – if we are being serious and not just having a laugh or outright trolling. I would like to believe you do too.

I’ve heard you say things like;

- A person “has a right” to pursue her feelings, regardless of the fallout or impact on others
- That that person has no responsibility for what happens to others
- That you know how to make yourself happy, and a persons responsibility is first to make themselves happy
- I’ve heard you talk “ emotional health” and throw the term “healing” around a lot. And talk of not judging or condemning
- You talk about how emotionally healthy people are not dependent or shouldn’t suffer if people leave them or walk out of their lives.

In sum, your ideology/theology appears to me to be “self(ish)-help” at best and a kind of “do as thy will at worst”?

Would you care to explain a little more, and answer the specific questions. They won’t be all at once and each response may take time to be fully understood., so this may be a convo over time. Appreciate if you would rather not.

As noted this one is primarily for Mindfulness, but I sense that MizMyColi is treading the same path, so I’m happy for your contributions also - and of course, anyone else who is treading this path or simply interested.

Consider it a proper invite to the men’ thread

First question; Does this "path" or journey have a name? If so what is it? Do you consider it ideology/theology/philosophy or just lifestyle. I know I said 1 question and it is really


TV

[size=1pt]mickey45, hi, I need to know what's up, then decide if it's worth us making contact. Please brief me by outlining and mentioning me somewhere. Cheers.[/size]

Stillfire:
TV01 won't agree.

Holá Stilly, how far?

I read an excerpt, and on the whole, I probably wouldn't, although I'm sure there is some truth to it. My main query would be about the demographics of the SAHM' - were they mostly poor, single mothers, or welfare recipients?

Such would generally not have the wherewithal to inculcate even prosaic learning into their children, let alone the more esoteric, or set a progressive expectation of adult achievement. I'm sure if SAHM' in the higher classes were compared to working mums in the same strata, the results would be different - like with like.

I'm all in favour of SAHM especially for the early years. And, I would have liked to have had my children home-schooled for all of elementary school. The socialisation aspect is both myth and a red herring. Children don't even start to really interact with each other for a few years, some of the socialisation is actually detrimental - lots of negative behaviours are picked up in these interactions - and they are just as well socialised by the people around them - especially in large or extended family settings.

It's actually a source of personal regret that we didn't go this route. A family I know has 4 daughters all home-schooled. They are unbelievable. The best behaved kids ever. I've even met them on the train on my way to work heading out to museums.

It's not for everyone, but it can be done and very well, even superior to any state schooling. And it's worth noting, that state school can be little more than a holding pen for children. You have to be able to afford, or be eligible for a very good one to get the best. For many that's not the case. How many stabbings have we had this month alone - in schools 0! At least it used to be just on on the streets.

I loved onegai' first post submissions. Exactly what I would have liked. I'm encouraged to think creatively about other ways we can can have input into educating our children outside the standard schooling convention. There are probably various avenues to bring out the best in ones children.

Thanks for the mention


TV

Nihilist:
Yawn

Nowhere in the post I quoted is the issue of morality posted. Nowhere is the premise of 'bad choice' contextualised in that post against the backdrop of morality.

My initial response wasn't because I really thought you made a point worthy of a reply. Your subsequent post after my clarification - which shouldn't really have been required - just bears that out.

We all have our constituencies and I wouldn't actually consider you someone the post was aimed at, especially given your rejection of any form of morality or religion.

It does beg the question though, why have you been haranguing coogar over 6 odd days, multiple threads and countless hours if that's your position? Please consider that rhetorically.


TV

Nihilist:
Your entire submission is based on that particular fallacious line.

Moral choices are an outworking of ones maturity, world-view and character. I am not discussing mistakes such as right first, instead of left first, whilst air kissing, or any choice that is devoid of moral value or outcome, like decisions such as what to breakfast on .

Further, when moral choices are in view, it is almost always certain to know of the potential outcome. And even where one is uncertain, the a priori understanding that the choice is morally suspect should be enough to caution restraint - my premise stands.

Nihilist:
Have you always made the right choice in life?

That is not the point. In as much as I have had to make moral choices, I have the moral framework to know if such choices are right or wrong, and the character to act based on that framework.

Nihilist:
Are you guaranteed to make the right choices for the rest of your life?

As above

Nihilist:
If your answer to both questions is No, then can we conclude that you suffer from a permanent character deficiency?

If it was - with regarsd to moral choices - then you certainly could.

Nihilist:
Hastily concluding that a character deficiency is the cause of bad choices in whatever sequence is not just wrong, it is utterly illogical...

In the context and dynamic of which we are discussing it is not.

Nihilist:
And the consequence of the decision is always apparent BEFORE the decision is made? A bad decision is only ever recognized in hindsight.

It doesn't have to be - even though it often is - where it is a question of morality.

Nihilist:
The message is very clear and in my opinion a very good piece of advice. The premise however, is very wrong

The message is clear, good and well premised. Your opinion is just that - for what it is worth. Your inference is what is at fault.

Given the history of this thread, my posting themes on it, and not least the specific nature of the male/female dynamic, the context shouldn't have been overly difficult to discern. For the benefit of those reading, to deny muster to those who may try and discredit the message, and to give you this one time benefit of the doubt. I've responded.

In future, feel free to query the premise first, before declaring it fallacious, it would save everyone time and effort.


TV

pickabeau1:
Bros this is a well detailed dossier
I hope guys can learn from this

See experience talking

5minsmadness:
In all humility i wish I could write like you.
Well said.

...cheers guys


TV

Run young man run - Part III

Some signs too look out for;

• Secretive
• Hardened demeanour (cold persona, shifty eyes) - outbursts of bitterness or vitriol (which she may try to control/hide)
• Prone to lying, may border on the pathological. Fantasises, maybe prone to delusion.
• Unabashed, unblushing shamelessness
• Sex - will typically be used to draw you in and/or manipulate you. Sex, affection, kindness may be very much "monetized"
• No respect or recourse to their own parents or wider family. Check her respect levels at home.
• Maybe estranged from one or more of her family.
• Inexplicable gaps in personal history - grey areas she doesn't like to discuss
• Unduly immodest, uses flirtation as a tool
• Expensive tastes, usually not commensurate with earning or earning history
• No real friends, at least of high repute. People close may be weak, or ones she’s using for cover.
• Tries to force the situation (towards marriage) – although that’s most desperate women !
• Talks about scams with no real sense of unease – maybe even respectfully
• Reviles people a lot and is always quick to expose secrets or highlight others shady pasts, flaws
• Victim mentality when challenged about behaviours or past
• Will be overly felicitous to your family/circle beforehand, then cut them off afterwards
• Credit is bad, credit history is poor, maybe debt laden (other than student debt, mortgage etc.)
• May try and hide in church, but will know the form, not the real essence – no real depth! But possibly quite "religious"
• Will also gravitate towards the “power or influence” in church” – will class herself.
• Even if she works in church, will not really serve – part of making herself high-profile. Maybe a "Pastor lover".
• Watch for health issues, scarring from self-mutilation, medication for STI or abortion after effects, soft or hard dependencies


TV

Run young man run - Part II

I’d also like men to be keenly aware of how individual females and also “the herd mentality of women” will work together to blind men to these very pertinent facts.

Be aware of efforts to white-wash the past, resist slut-shaming, campaign for divorce, sell single-motherhood or divorce as of no consequence (or outright good), Be aware of advice that sells immorality, or justifies any action based on “feelings”.

The notion or claim of “love” is often used as a justification for any action, or excuse for any wrong-doing. It’s literally been endued with a moral righteousness in and of itself.

Note the kind of advice that counsels women to be economical with the truth, or simply lie about their pasts. Also beware tropes such as “what happened in the past is past”, or supremely annoyingly “it’s none of your business”.

All of this you will see repeatedly here on NL. A theme repeated across threads and from posters many look up to. If her future is your business, her past certainly is.

Query advise that tries to sell the result of destructive behaviour, of poor life choices as something one needs “heal from” – did she pick up a virus of get hit by a car? Bad choices were made based on character – and if the character was not properly formed, then one must question if that kind of empowerment is good? In any event, the consequences are damaging.

It’s not healing that’s required, it’s a character overhaul. And yes, there are some people who can achieve this via self-will, but they are very few. It first requires acknowledging, and then real effort to overcome.

Many women would rather just lie to themselves and everyone else about who and what they really are, and re-direct fault for the cause of their woes and trauma.

So here’s a caveat, as a Christian, I believe in redemption – people can change, but only the grace of God can bring about a lasting change of nature and true healing. Not just to mask, or forcibly resist destructive behaviour – which will ultimately reveal itself or manifest in other ways - but actually hate or have no desire to engage in it, and be free from it’s echo.

IFF you are sure a woman has been truly redeemed, should you consider her as spouse. And note, not only will she be honest about her past, she will be rightly acknowledge it as something she sees as wrong, and clear about how she intends to live in future. If you are not God-fearing, and looking to Him as you seek a spouse, OYO.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it here; most women would be better served by staying under parental authority (especially their father’) until they get married. Especially in this age where the temptations are myriad and liberty can come at a relatively early age - before character is fully formed. In an era when everything is fluid, morality is relative and the pressure can be tremendous.


TV

^{...if you wouldn't accept a bruised piece of fruit, why settle for a damaged wife?}

Run young man run - Part I

A lot of damage can happen to women – and be embedded when they are young (and sometimes not so young ) and have unfettered freedom. They may well read this as liberty to do as they please. And, I’m not actually out to question that right in this piece

However, where that liberty is availed of by women with a partially formed, or simply bad character, to make poor choices, or engage in destructive behaviour, I would candidly advise men to avoid choosing such women as spouses.

A young woman may undergo trauma in a number of ways; daddy issues, runs, sugary, being pumped and dumped, used, sexually or physically abused, or defrauded.

In some instances, she will actually believe she’s having a good time, or even “in love”, but in truth, she is damaging herself and being damaged, and as a consequence she will acquire baggage. This she will undoubtedly carry into future relationships. And it will in no way diminish the entitlement she feels to a “high-value” husband.

And then she meets you, and figures she can actualise her desires. She knows to be economical with the truth about her past, adopt a revisionist view of her personal history, re-direct blame for anything that’s evident, and paint a picture of herself as someone you are actually lucky to be with.

She’ll know how to describe her poor choices and waywardness as her being “naïve”, or her destructive behaviour as her being wrongly influenced – by friends, or a man. She’ll play a whole pack of victim cards. Yes, she’ll talk of “healing”, but it’s spin. She is damaged goods.

Dude, you are not buying. You don’t even visit that section of the market. It’s simply too big a risk! It’s too big a risk because if you do, here are some of the things that will possibly happen;

She’ll have romanticised the actual trauma she experienced – she’ll remember the trans-atlantic flights, the swish hotels, the shopping sprees, the meals at fancy restaurants, the happening clubs, and of course the hot sessions. She’ll remember the tingles she used to get from being rebellious, a transgressor and hanging with bad boys.

And she’ll have internalised this “romance” as part of her entitlement and the “expectation” of her husband - without the trauma, what trauma? Yes, from you, the hard working, conscientious – and perhaps relatively dull by comparison - guy who just wants to provide as best he can for his family.

Over time she gets disgruntled, resentment sets in. You are spending a lot of time managing, petting, appeasing, or simply dealing with the wider fallout of her damaged behaviour. Time and energy best spent establishing your home and forging ahead.

It is regressive and costly, you’ll find it tiresome and tedious, a real stressor. The peace every man wants in his home seems far from you. She’s bitter antagonistic, wilfully caustic and spiteful. A right nag.

She’ll consider you not giving in to, or prioritising her desires as maltreatment. But since that word no longer exists, it’s simply the wide-ranging term “abuse”. Her longings and revisionist memories will mean she may never consider anything you do good enough.

Her “tingle-memory” will mean she may never consider you to be the man she truly deserves or desires. It spirals – downwards! She gets more resentful and disgruntled – especially if there are any other pressures on the home, or outside interest in her – she ain’t loyal!

Obviously you are to blame, it’s always the man right? You are not ambitious enough, caring enough, or romantic enough. You don’t fulfil her needs. You are not worthy of your “headship”, you are not “leading” right – after all, she decides that right? She’ll be prone to second-guessing you, undermining you, even disrespecting you. She will meet any challenge to her behaviour out of that same poorly formed, damaged character.

Then, her pack of cards comes out – she’s a victim, it’s your fault. That is, you cheated her, you abuse her – yep, she’s in a “shitty marriage”! She deserves a divorce. And with the campaign to moralise divorce, especially, if you’re in a Western country, she will most likely get one. Even if she doesn’t, she will make your life difficult, if not outright hell.

If you are really unlucky, she’ll use the power of the courts and police to humiliate you, keep you from your children, and possibly label you a paedophile. You’ll likely be labelled a domestic abuser as a matter of course. Many women use the threat of and/or intermittent police action to keep their husbands subdued. Many men cower in their own homes, subject to the capriciousness of a damaged woman who was never wife-grade in the first instance.

I repeat – stay away from damaged goods. You are a man of character. Hopefully God-fearing, hardworking and willing to sacrifice to build a happy and solid family. Don’t cast your pearls before swine. Choose a spouse that is worthy.

You are a man, think strategically, consider your family bloodlines, kinship ties, think of your generations. It’s not just about you, that is why you have to be really considered about her. Be a man of worth and set your expectations high

All the best as you navigate your way towards marriage, make excellent matches and establish your homes.


TV

^{…don’t forget, it’s always a buyers market}

Mindfulness:
Whatever you say and no matter how hard you try, nothing can change the way I feel - GORGEOUS!

How you feel as a result of your actions does not necessarily justify those actions - right standing is not based on feelings, nor what you term them.

Mindfulness:
You can continue feeling miserable if you think that it will get you to heaven. Your religion is your choice and I couldn't care less.

How did you deduce misery? You seem to think that making conscious moral choices leads to misery? Quite a stretch, but then to validate and self-justify people will go to any lengths

Au contrairé - right standing and eternity with with My Creator is a source of boundless joy, whatever the feeling. I'll leave you with - or perhaps without - your conscience. Keep self-justifying.


TV

^{...but indeed, if worshipping God means misery is my lot, so be it...Hebrews 11:25 - choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin...}

5minsmadness:
That una thread that has been infiltrated by women and hen-pecked husbands


#najokeideyo

Omo, that thread serves and continues to serve it's purpose. Some female input is not a bad thing and the querulous ones have been summarily dispatched . And hen-pecked husbands are probably served best and to be encouraged by the thread, no?


TV

^{...hear you on the "prove yourself" thread. Yes men do have to prove themselves, to themselves and at times othe rmen. But no, they don't have to prove themselves to women...and most certainly not be defined or validated from a female perspective...}

artisticallyart:
How do you handle finance in marriage?

A wide ranging question Art...

But first I'd hope the basis were in place; honest and open communication, mutual trust & understanding, and at least idea of what you aspire to as a family.

Start from there, then you can plan or arrange your finances on a solid platform. The dynamic is purely down to the two of you, and can vary, or be varied as suits your circumstances and evolving plans.


TV

https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/

Perhaps?


TV

Mindfulness:
Repentance is for those with a guilty conscience, I know no such. I come from a place of pure joy.
Brighten up TV01, you are a good man, you deserve to feel good too.

To have a guilty conscience, you must first have a conscience, no? If you willfully and selfishly base your joy on the unhappiness of others, there wil be a price to pay. Convincing yourself or others to the contrary, in order to normalise it, won't change that.

Why call me good? There is none good but God. I won't join you in justyfying myself or my actions, based on feelings or desires, or what others have to say - let me visit that prove yourself thread sef!


TV

Stillfire:
Hehehe...When marriage turn abusive, we have regulatory arms that deal with the offending party. You guessed right Feminism dealt with the offending party.
So because Patriarchy took the piss and was going on a path of tyranny across culture, Feminism rose up and righted some of the wrongs.
Patriarchy made the rules but made it one sided.
Right now this is how it exists until we reach our utmost balance...
Patriarchy is the executive arm, Feminism - legislative arm. We will co-exist to checking each other.

Yeah they can excel in home economics, but this should not now be the definition of what womanhood stands for.
In the past when these roles were assigned to the genders, our forefathers subsequently interpreted it as taboo for a gender to do the other role. And that is how some people are still operating in the 21st century.
In Igbo land it was taboo for men to cook, due to gender equality we can boast of men cooking and no one raising eye-brows. You think it just came like that? Naa.
So TV it is here to stay to protect, check patriarchy.
Consider us your overseersssssss!

This is to intentionally mis-read what feminism is and is about, or to demonstrate you simply don't know .

Although termed Patriarchy, it was a consensus betwixt male and female. Feminism is not after a regulatory role, it wants to rule. Not oversee, but completely take over. It's not about righting - mostly imaginary - wrongs, it wants to reign.

Feminism is by it's very nature intolerent and unbalanced - fascistic! What you describe - regardless of it's pros and cons - is not feminsim. In fact, it's a tacit agreement that Patriarchy is inherently good, but just requires checking occassionally - that is not anywhere like true feminism.

Either you don't properly grasp it or are trying to sweeten the pill by spinning it - we ain't swallowing !

Decent enough effort though. Lets call it a day for now. Here's a peace offering !


TV

You get sorrier by the moment !

Not even the usual lame attempt to explain or justify your framework, let alone rebut the content of my post.

Mindfulness:
@bold
Very funny.

Very true!

Mindfulness:
For your information, people have assigned different identities to me. You are free to continue.
I am that I am. Divine.

In truth, I don't really care - although I tagged from the first post I read - who you are. I discuss principles not personalities. Indeed, all told, Carefree actually delivered more and better. You are not even yourself

...let alone divine. The bible talks about those "whose god is their belly" - your worship and live by your feelings. That's more akin to bestial than divine.

Mindfulness:
By the way, if you were able to connect to the divine source within yourself, Bukatyne's comments wouldn't hurt you for days but like you said TV01, we reap what we sow.

Why are you trying to deflect by bringing Bukatyne into it? Her sneaky, but characteristic, attempt to lure me to that thread and ambush me backfired spectaculalrly.

Who can fight the truth? - which is by the way truly divine ! Whether she came alone or was sent, she was always doomed to fail - not least because she simply lacks the smarts. As thick as two short planks is our Buka. And if anyone smarter comes, they will also stumble and fall.

Her snide and deceitful allegations where totally groundless, which she proved by aggressively repeating them, and then failing to back them up when challenged.

I was in no way hurt, but rightly made a point of not letting her mislead people as to my views, or misacribe things to me. That could undo a lot of the work I've done here, and mean some people may read my posts with prejudiced eyes. She and her whole coven no reesh !

Bukatyne will serve her well deseved punishment - which I'll dispense at my leisure.

Now repent, or far worse punishment than I could dish out awaits you


TV

Carefree is this how your whole frame simply disintegrates . You position on the other thread - wannabe husband snatcher - was the women "had the right", based solely on proclamations of love. How does that not fit in this instance?

What right did that woman have that made her feelings actionable - regardless of the fallout and potential harm to others? Unless you explain otherwise, I see your position as the height of hypocrisy.

Mindfulness:
Reason should set the standards, not the Western world, not culture, neither religion.

You appeal to reason . Based on what, having rejected law, culture and religion - like all of these are devoid of reason . Laughable. And the source of that reason is whom or what exactly?

Mindfulness:
I am not condemning this man, neither his wife, nor their families but I believe that something is terribly wrong with a 53-year-old marrying a TEENAGER.

But condemning them is exactly what you are doing, albeit in a tacit manner - what is wrong with this based on your previously applied framework?

Mindfulness:
My reasons:

The average life expectancy of a Nigerian man is 52 years. Let us say that he, as a well-to-do man, will reach the average life expectancy men in developing countries reach, which is 78. This means that he has 25 more years to live (going by the Nigerian life expectancy, he already entered the coffin with one leg). By the time he dies, she will be 43, that is, I repeat when he reaches the life expectancy of a man in a developing country. She will be a fairly young widow and her marriage prospects will be bleak in a country like Nigeria. Is she to spend her remaining years alone? Is she not supposed to enjoy her old age with a husband by her side? Or will she soon have to take care of him like a nurse? Is she mature enough to deal with the problems old age comes along with?

What about their kids? They will still be pretty young when he dies. They shouldn't have a father for as long as possible?

What about the risks late fatherhood has on the health of the children?

Then, what do these two people have in common? Will he be her partner or her mentor, a fatherly figure? What is marriage about? Companion and friendship or mentoring and s.ex? What about the different social interests and attitudes?

What about the impact his marriage has on his older kids? What will be the impact on his daughters who see their father with a GIRL who is their age-mate? What about his sons who will date girls who are their stepmother's age? Do they have to worry about their father lusting after them? Can his daughters-in-law look up to him as a fatherly figure? I don't think so.

What about his parents-in-law? Are they his age-mates? How does it affect family counseling in times of a crisis where the elderly are asked for advice?

What about the different levels of fitness? How will it affect their se.xual life?

Last but not least, even without all these arguments, many people can sense that there is something unnatural and weird for a man at his age to be sleeping with a teenager.

Just because nature made it so that men can have children till the day they die, it does not mean that it is recommendable.

Your reasons are all bogus - and based purely on your feelings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the age difference. If they are both of age and consenting - as are their families.

You term it unnatural, because you don't like it. Bah humbug !

For the record, I would also question this and maybe ask some of the same questions, but my worldview allows that without any inconsistency - yours doesn't

New moniker, same old lame positions - deactivate and try again. Although repentance will do the trick much more assuredly


TV

Stillfire:
Where did I stop?
Naa gender equality is not seeking to impose itself on the other gender. That is you 'patriarchs' mode of operation . Gender equality recognizes our biological difference but that women’s and men’s rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. A man can now aspire to be a cook, a nurse, a hair dresser without being discriminated against.
Also because you Patriarchs took the piss by bastardizing the powers you had, that is why Feminism is here to stay as a check and balance system before you people take us back to the days of boys study science, women study home economics. Not under my watch.

Stilly, look, we both know Patriarchy is an accord between men and women. It's simply what women prefer and it's what works best . And if rights, responsibilities and opportunities are "gender neutral", choices will not be - and biology, sorry to say, drives a lot of choices.

Patriarchy bastardised? Nah! That's akin to saying "marriage is abusive". It's not the institution, it's how it is implemented. And I agree some males, some societies abuse it somewhat. True Patriarchy is benign, protective, selfless - sacrificial even. But it leads, it is bold. Some men need to understand that better.

But feminism is no the key to righting any wrongs with Patriarchy - it is in itself a wrong. Don't fight it, encourage it in it's purest sense . With our women in support, we'll get there !

Lots of women want to study and excel in home economics - allow jor! And last time I looked, the best cooks and hairdresser where all men !


TV

Processor01:
No, I did not. Can we talk offline? Please can you send your addy to [size=2pt].[/size]

Seen. You can delete it now.


TV

Stillfire:
Of course I expect you to fight against feminism and its gender equality stance . I would have done so, fought tooth and nail, build barricades to protect myself so that my PRIVILEGES would not be taken away from me. You are allowed. It is a normal human response.

Me fight against feminism !

The "gender-equality" stance of feminism, is no less controlling then the "Patriarchy" they claim to be fighting. Social morés were agreed and enforced by both men and women. And men were for the most part chivalrous and protective towards women.

At best, "gender equality" - especially the way feminism articulates it - is a consideration, not the main driver of policy. Doing that presents odd notions such as over/under representation. This flags differences in strengths and choices as "issues", and demands false solutions (re-engineering)

All feminists want is to ensure that a wierd kind of sameness prevails, but yet be the ones who dictate what is permissable. All that has done is create an atmosphere of confusion and bewilderment - for men and women.

Privilege ! I laugh - with that comes great responsibility. Which is another way feminism gets it glaringly wrong. They seek what they perceive to be the power and privilege, but actively reject the burden and responsibility.

I am, I would imagine, typical of many men. I work and sacrifice to provide for my wife and children. I carry a burden she does not want, but appreciate she does things I cannot do. A harmonious whole. Not both demanding to do the same things or half of everything

Feminism will eat itself


TV

Stillfire:
So what should she do?

She should in the first instance look to restore her union - it's a precious thing, worth fighting for and preserving.
She should think long-term and consider the well-being of all involved - directly and tangentially.
She should do what everyone who takes marriage vows commits to do.

TV

Stillfire:
Maybe people especially MEN should respect their marriage vows and then we wouldn't be talking about divorce.

I agree - all marital vows should be taken with the utmost sobriety and well-meaning intent. Divorce is and should remain anathema and be extremely rare.


TV

LadyFiona:
Adultery is enough ground for divorce in Christian marriage

True.

Stillfire:
Bullseye!

Not true.

Two things here;

1. although it is grounds for divorce, it does not presume re-marriage, and
2. it may seem like it resolves issues, but in truth it just opens a up a whole vista of new ones

Bullseye is very wide of the mark. Think twice.


TV

Stillfire:
Even archaic African cultures allowed for divorce.

Most variations of marriage do - it still remains a tragedy, not an aspiration or a positive. It seems many are keen to valourise it. Before long we'll see a total inversion, marriage will be come a bad thing, a precursor to the "morally desirable" divorce.

And any man that refuses to marry will be denying some young lady the divorce she so richly deserves.

Shior danu .

TV

Stillfire:
I pride myself in being very reasonable for each topic, except Naija men topics of course and that is just for banter purposes.
What I cannot stand is the disingenuous approach TooNoisy has taken just to argue and in turn decry the importance of what these discrimination do in society. The base of the argument is since because Asians were also being discriminated on in the Americas, black people should have sat back under the silly argument that everyone is being discriminated against so let us not 'whine'? Black people fought for civil liberties and everyone blue, black, white, yellow is benefiting from these policies today.
Yes, I always put in historical incidences to emphasize there's nothing wrong in women 'whining' about changing the status quo in their societies. How do policies and legislation come into place - through dialogue, debates to weed out all the potential ignorance that ensues here.
I am not fighting, I'm only weeding out ignorance.

First, I was applauding your historical references, they provide telling insights.

Second, Afro-Americans did not fight for "black rights", the struggle was for basic "civil rights" - which should be afforded to all regardless. That is what caused the groundswell - with others regardless of "race" being compelled to join and support - the truth and moral righteousness of the cause was self-evident.

Black activism in and of itself has left AA as victims, not really making the headway they should. The pathologies that afflict them as a result are obvious.

Feminism - although not playing from a position of oppression - rather privilege - will engender it's own set of pathologies, many already evident. We continue to resist it's malign influence. On NL,in our homes,our fatherland and beyond !


TV

...maybe it's different idiomatic usage, but the way the term "foodie" is being used here conflates it with the term glutton

Foodie = loves food, glutton = loves eating!


TV

Stillfire:
It is very important to highlight issues that bother on discrimination in the society.

Absolutely true - in cases of true discrimination. There should be equal opportunity and open access for all. I’m not even claiming it’s necessarily a panacea, and we may well find the outcomes do not always prove best for individuals or even for society overall.

Stillfire:
Women have chosen to highlight their issues...who the heck is stopping others from talking about their issues?

This is where I feel you miss it somewhat. Identity politics. I like how you always refer to our history and heritage when it comes to societal issues. And one thing I have gleaned from your posts is even when our foreparents acted as two halves, it was always with the common good in mind.

Identity politics has at best limited value – even if started with the right intentions. Like all things institutionalised it tends to take on a life of its own, and become an end in itself.

That sadly is what has befallen feminism. Its ills are manifest and evils apparent. That end has become the pursuit of female privilege and power above all else – even if it comes at the expense of, and inordinate cost to men and children.

It would take an age to enumerate them, but even it’s descent into inanity like free the nipples,and free-bleeding should be enough for anyone to question if at best it has run its course, or outlived its usefulness.

Initiatives such as #heforshe just show that feminists themselves are starting to realise that. Unfortunately it doesn't change their whole ethos.

Pliss, don’t fight again.


TV

Short answer; no!

The very nature of love is that it fades - at least the euphoric tingly kind of love. That feeling of love is not supposed to be the basis of marriage in the first place. That should have been a shared commitment to to the marital journey, and the act "to love", no matter what one feels.

A marriage founded a on a proper foundation will ultimately develop a deeper kind of love, that goes way beyond feeling. Using abstract terms like happiness, peace and love to warrant divorce or otherwise, is so subjective as to render ones vows meaningless.

One could well say "I am not happy that I've lost the freedom of my single days, have no peace because my wife keeps asking me for money and the kids won't keep quiet, and I don't love my wife like before, as her body changed after childbirth.

Using abstract terms terms or phrases like "shitty marriage" to justify divorce is at best justification for selfishly willful behaviour. Even legally, divorce was only permitted for the thre A's - adultery, abandonment and abuse, and even these would have to be quantified.

I suppose there may be are ideologies/religions that may sanction "frivolous" or feelings based divorce sha!



TV

Bukatyne - in the event that you may have innocently missed a mention.,

You posted an entry which both slandered and mis-ascribed things to me. I was so taken aback I had to first give you the benefit of the doubt and query if it was really aimed at me, or that you even wrote it?

An unmitigated diatribe claiming inter alia; that I encourage men to cheat on, and mistreat their wives, that men are superior to women, that I teach women should unilaterally be “trained” how to make their marriages work, and I teach people – especially women – to stay in shitty marriages just to stem divorce. I still find it hard to believe recounting it.

It’s now been two days and you’ve pointedly refused to respond after pointedly insisting it was specifically aimed at me. I am happy to engage anyone, and on most any terms – regardless of what I think about them. I don’t even mind a bit of sledging, as long as there is content and something on which to chew.

And so I have no problem engaging you, despite seriously wondering about you? You are mostly humourless, lack a sense of irony, you love injecting vitriol into discussions, and have no problem being wilfully deceitful - not to mention your poor comprehension and reasoning skills and how poorly read you appear to be..

Add to that you are proving to be both a coward and a weasel – not that I wouldn't have placed good money on that anyway, but it’s good you make it self-evident.

If you had the brass to make the allegations against me and pointedly declare it for emphasis, your own actions demand that you respond. And respond with proof.

Failing that, I expect an unqualified apology for that sour and spiteful attempt to slander me, undo a lot of the work I do here, and, of primary concern and most damagingly, mislead people.

It even presents you with your first genuine opportunity to prove me wrong – I also have you down as inordinately proud, devoid of humility, vulgar and utterly classless.


TV

_{...if anyone would like to throw in their two cents, i.e. our resident post trawling forensic experts, skirt chasers or other sundry activists, please feel free - rest assured, I have more than enough coal...}

coogar:
i wonder why this made the news.
shim will not be the first vulnerable inmate in the prison system. they should put shim in ad-seg, abeg!

Abi?

Transgenders are already catered for in prisons - and no surprises they are even given special priviliges. So much so, that lots of inmates were claiming transgender to benefit.

We shall see the end of this madness.

TV

Mutaino7:
Cc :pickabeau1, Timbuktou, coogar, TV01, Edwife................

Although she is a he - I don't believe one can change sex, and gender is not a thing in my book - as he presents, he is not safe in a male prison.

Secial facilities appears to tbe the answer to this one - Transmale/female correctional units need to be extablished . We must see this folly through.


TV

Timbuktou:
5. Halle Berry herself is a low standard in relationships, low value and only good for the satisfaction of sexxual urges for those who care to patronise her kind. She represents poor choosing and those who have chosen to be with her, especially Aubry and Martinez, are just as poor.

Exactly. Look at the pictures of her with three of the men. You can see her beauty fading. In the last one with Martinez, it obvious that her best days are behind her - she looked mumsyish sef. . As for her having high standards, that's actually a moot point, she will no longer be able to command men of really high status. https://www.nairaland.com/2713542/halle-berry-diva-harridan#39682013

In all likelihood, she will be reduced to a succession of men of lower quality than the ones she's had. The men, will simply move on to younger prettier women. It's a pattern that regularly plays itself out. Is she better than Madonna or J-Lo? who are reduced to getting off with backing singers (i.e. the help )

Timbuktou:
Crazy way to institute equality if you ask me. But what do I know, I'm just a bush caveman spear-wielding misogynist from the heart of Africa.
Btw guys; Coogar, Pickabeau1, TV01, I found this funny trend on twitter #bringbackthepatriarchy. Check it out.

Grunt, grunt... I'm not on twitter, but I'll google it.


TV

cococandy:
Which kind high standard?
Where did you read that one?

That was more Ewuro4 and armyofone

cococandy:
More like some sort of emotional imbalance and yes poor mate selection.

This was more your point - poor mate selection - Tim touched on it as well.

Her first and foremeost problem is that she herself was not "mateable" - in all liklihood, she would have split with pretty much anyone. As both yourself and Tim noted, she has issues - that's the main problem, not her choices, which in any event will be 1. coloured by her issues and, 2. even if she picks a perfect guy her issues will ruin it.

As for the high standards point by Ewuro and Armyofone, that is to essentially say that the relationships failed because the men did not meet up. You could plead that for 1 instance, maybe even 2, but for 4 marriages, a number of other serious relationships and 2 kids by different men, one of whom wasn't a husband? Indeed, her issues would more likely mean she had "low expectations".

One doesn't have the expectation of a merc, buy a 2nd hand Ford and then ditch it, claiming it didn't meet up...and then go on to buy a fairly used Renault


TV