₦airaland Forum

Stillfire:
TV01, I'm glad you are aware of the familial factors and the way women are 'nurtured' that 'hinders' our progress.

I'm sure there's an element of this, but; 1. It is almost certainly reducing, if not all but vestigial 2. nurture can negatively impact males as well.

Stillfire:
And yes we should at least be at 45% at the moment if women are socially brought up to prioritize traits like assertiveness, doggedness, not modesty. And yes I am making estimations not assertions , because for the fact that we are merely having a discussion, we can make hypothetical statements, and a scientist often puts her opinion and estimations in her discussion section of her scientific reports, tehehe. So no I'm not being 'ideological' but doing what scientists do, make hypothetical statements and then work towards proving it.

And I maintain that putting a figure on it suggests overtones of "social engineering" engendered by ideology. I have no problem with any level of representation - high or low - as long as it is merited, and on the basis of equal opportunity and open access for all.

Stillfire:
I chose 45% at the moment because men have always had the benefit of a head start. I'm not stupid to make foolhardy estimations of 60% at the moment.

The head start that men have is their heads in this case . Abeg easy on the social re-engineering 0! Otherwise men may be at risk....

Stillfire:
As of my lazy comment, as of the 1930s we start seeing women in physics, chemistry fields. So yes I think Western women have grown lazy over the years.

Not lazy, comfortable perhaps . Or just prone to different preferences and probably a wider array of options. Why would they not play to their strengths and seek to fulfill their desires?

Stillfire:
I have no worries though Nigerian women match them despite the incriminating factors we have in our country, both economic and sexist views that most of you here would wish women to aspire too. To think kitchen! But not under my watch. Tehehe

Why are you despising women that choose to be homemakers? Stop denying women choice ! And don't forget, womens choices will impact on the dynamic of their relationships with men - unless of course relatiosnhips with men are forgone - by choice !


TV

Mindfulness:
Could it be that women are overrepresented in the medical field because they have always been a big part of it and hence find it easier to access it whereas the other fields have always been male-dominated?

It may well factor, as will a number of other things, amongst which are; it better suits womens strengths, it is more family friendly and at the point of entry women are able to compete favourably against men

Mindfulness:
I guess because countries are in high demand of engineers and need to tackle skills shortages.

...and the best way to tackle a skills shortage would be to positively discriminate in favour of a group whose preferences typically lie elsewhere? As opposed to incentivising it for all - i.e. making the opportunity equal and attractive - in order to increase take-up by all??

Discriminating in favour of women to increase STEM take-up is bad for women and bad for STEM.


TV

ApexTitan:
^^^

Yeah that ish was just plain wrong. Biology and medicine, true sciences that they are, are demanding courses in their own rights.

To put things back on track the fascinating question here is that why are women under-represented in the STEM fields even when the cultural and societal hurdles that checked their participation in times past are removed?

Why do some people see this as a problem so much so that they want some kind of government intervention or cultural effort to address this? They are only creating a problem where none existed before - women, as has been stated earlier, will tend to make career choices that are in line with their inherent natural dispositions. Women are nurturers by nature so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they dominate the Health sciences and are under represented in other STEM fields, boys tend to build things. This is all natural. It's only activists and politicians who are not in tune with how biology and nature actually work that will go about trying to fix something that isn't broken here.

AT abeg no mind them.

No one said any such thing. Ask them to point out where. Simply put, the demands of hardocre TEM courses suit men better. No one has said that women can't excel in TEM, or that natural science/medical courses are not rigorous or don't require brains.

The inability of - mostly women - to reason, deduce and make cogent arguments is actually prima facie evidence of why they are "under-represented". It's mostly peppered sentiment and emotional indignation.

If anyone will make a case for women, it's not the females here - who are confusing their ideology with their biology. Scientific fact !


TV

Mindfulness:
I have no case to present to you. I am still a learner regarding the subject of this discussion. I liked your essay so I read it carefully and by doing so some questions popped up, which I am asking you to answer. I hope, you don't mind.

At all.

Mindfulness:
When you refer to medical schools, do you also have nurses in mind?

Nope - just MD's really.


TV

Mindfulness:
First of all, where have women made considerable progress and where not EXACTLY?

You are great at querying - it would be good to hear you present a case with backup for your views. After all, you are not merely fact-finding are you ?

For one, see ramdeuter' earlier post detailing difference between 2004 and 2014. Secondly, I've detailed how women now make up 60% of medical school intake in the UK. Thirdly, it's well known women are enrolling in university in greater numbers than men - still the TEM representation is proving a difficult nut to crack. Even with positive policies and positive discrimination in favour of women.

If you have anything persuasive, please share.


TV

Mindfulness:
What makes you believe so?

In other - more life science - areas, women have made great strides (as noted they are starting to dominate in terms of numbers in the UK). Why are the nurturing factors that they overcome here not likewise overcome in TEM?

With all the initiatives, positive discrimination, campaigns and specially formulated policies, women have still not made much progress. Read the OP. Check out Sweden, where concerted efforts to get women into STEM have been made.

Any vestigial cultural hindrances or cultural effects are minimal. The difference between the sexes is apparent even before socialisation and is evident in babies as young as 4 months.

It is what it is.


TV

Mindfulness:
Why?

I've enumerated a number, amongst which are wiring - probably leading to a competitive disadvantage - and choice,

Mindfulness:
What part and to what extent?

All told, I couldn't say for sure, but as I've posted, I believe difference in wiring and women' choices play the largest part in this seeming "under-representation".


TV

Mindfulness:
Are women at 45% in TEM?

That was Stillfires assertion of where women should be. I merely questioned why so low and why she described them as lazy for not being there !

I bring no charge against women for their choices, l just have my opinions as to why. And I certainly don't think "nurture" or structural discrimination are the main reasons women are supposedly "under-represented", even if it does play a part.

Stillfire:
I actually agree but at the same time the percentage of women in the STEM is incredibly too low but I would not use that statistic to reflect the percentage of women who are predisposed to the sciences. I believe the number should be higher than what is, women are just being lazy. Even if the men are endeared towards it, we should at least be at 45%...

TV

Stillfire:
Are you seriously trying to rule out the fact that the way the genders are nurtured does not influence the decisions they eventually make?

Ah Stilly, so you at once deign not to to answer any of my assertions and at the same time charge me with something I did not say? . Why should women be at 45% in TEM, why not 60% like in medicine. Why does it make them lazy !

I'm sure nurture influences everyones choices to some degree, and doubtless it's at play here also. However, the fact remains that when it comes to the requirements of technology engineering and mathamatics, men' brains are better suited.

Does that mean women can't excel in those areas? No, it just means that they won't tend to go there as much and consequently have fewer outliers.

Other factors would be women' situations and life choices - they typically try and juggle family (for which read child-rearing) with career, this also informs their choices.

If you want to make a case for "nurture" being the overriding factor, please do so. I figure you are able to present your position absent snide asides and "skirt-surfing".



TV

^{skirt surfer* - one who lacks the nous to rebut opinions or present a cogent case on a topic, but instead chooses to indirectly make baseless insinuations and trite asides - typically by referencing their pain indirectly as a response to another post. Closely related to trolls, but typically sadder, and with a tendency to whinge and present as emotionally skewed}

doublex:
whatever you want to call the differences between human groups,race/not,its there thats how cultures,ethnicities,just basically differences between human 'groups' .my point is this,you are using an unfair method to discredit women and the same method(s) white men use to discredit black men.this is my point:do you agree when white men use the same method you ae using to discredit black men and say they didnt contribute to advancement?.....

1. What method did I use
2. How is it unfair?
3. How did I use it to discredit women?

As for "white" men discrediting "black" men in terms of "advancement", if they can empirically demonstrate that they have contributed more, I have no problem with that. It remains for black men to compete - if they so choose - and show otherwise.

Science is not sentimental or emotional.


TV

doublex:
black man using the same methodology you have used to say all that about woman,a white man can say the same about you.so would you also agree that white men were created to build,creat and civilise,end of? #SAY NO TO HYPOCRISY

My point was about sex - humans are sexually dimorphous - not race, which is at best convenient labelling. I believe I only ever referenced "men" unqualified. But what's your point exactly?


TV

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics - STEM.

Women tend to congregrate - and are starting to dominate - in the softer fields, such as life sciences and medicine. Although these can be captured under the "Science", when this discussion is had, it's invariably about womens presence in the harder fields, Technology, Engineering & Math based disciplines.

As Bellong noted, the kind of complex modelling and computation required here play better to mens relative strengths. Idology cant trump biology - now that's science !

Can women participate and excel in any STEM area - soft or hard? A resounding yes, but they are unlikely to do so in the same numbers as men, or produce as many exceptional outliers.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/13/fields-medal-mathematics-prize-woman-maryam-mirzakhani.

It's also pertinent to note that an ideological push to equalise number does not always work for the overall good. With women now dominating numbers in the medical field in the UK, the profession has effectively been "feminised".

Structural changes to accomodate womens higher desire for p/t work and maternity leave have had to be made. Even factoring for their life choices, female Dr's simply do not work as many hours as males.

It's further compounded by the fact that even in medicine, women tend towars the "soft" specialities or prefer to be GP's, leading to shortfalls in the more acute areas.

But the real problem is the attrition rate - to many female Dr's leave the profession prematurely - and this is leading to compromised healthcare delivery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2338607/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Part-time-women-doctors-ARE-real-problem-Why-sexist-say-so.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/9950248/Part-time-women-doctors-are-creating-a-timebomb.html

Equality in it's true sense is a nice to have and should be a consideration, but as a primary driver for policy formulation it is horribly flawed and ultimately unsustainable.

We shall see.


TV

Stillfire:
I actually agree but at the same time the percentage of women in the STEM is incredibly too low

That right there is an ideologically based - and biased - value judgement. Why is it too low? Especially if opportunity is equal? Are the number of female road sweepers, dustbin "men", or conductors too low ?

Stillfire:
but I would not use that statistic to reflect the percentage of women who are predisposed to the sciences.

This is conjecture; "predisposed"? in what way, want to do STEM, are good enough to do STEM, are incentivised to do STEM or have the tenacity to do STEM? Even a natural predisposition may be superceded by another preference.

Stillfire:
I believe the number should be higher than what is, women are just being lazy. Even if the men are endeared towards it, we should at least be at 45%...

Why are they termed lazy? If the sum of their talents, desires and situations typically rule out STEM, why is that a problem? Your figure of 45% can't hold, at least not as an ideologically pursued outcome.

What will happen, is that women will be "seduced" in, then the attrition rates will rocket as they figure they are not best suited and would rather do other things.

The whole thrust is supposedly for women to be able to avail themselves of freely available choice, no? So why then do those choices have to be coerced or condemned


TV

Stillfire:
I won't say coerced but encourage the ones that are naturally predisposed to the sciences. For science it's either you have it or you just don't. You can't force it.

Here is another Nigerian woman doing great things.

Which is the whole point - no one is saying women can't do great things, or should be denied the opportunity to do so. The simple truth is women' preferences often lie elsewhere.

As has been amply demonstrated in those nations that incentivise, formulate policy or otherwise proactively intervene in order to increase or balance numbers in STEM fields - it's a pointless exercise. If they are predisposed they will naturally gravitate towards, just like you stated.

bukatyne:
If the female Drs leave within 10yrs, I doubt there would be a shortfall because Drs male & female will be produced yearly.

I don't know the source of your "doubt", but the figures and situation clearly show the UK is suffering due to the high attrition rate of female Dr's. Countries don't train Dr's at great cost for a few years post-qualification work.


TV

bukatyne:
I believe very much in equal opportunities and leaving people to make their choices.

Absolutely agree regards equal opportunities - there are more women in medical school in Britain than men. Nobody is looking to gender balance things or incentivice men to take up medicine - even though the imbalace comes at cost, as fully 60%of female Dr's opt for p/t work or leave the profession within 10 years, leaving a problematic shortfall in healthcare delivery.

bukatyne:
If after enlightenment and guidance men are more than women in STEM, so be it

Dat's how it be !


TV

Tallesty1:
I think You will understand me better after you go through the thread that compelled me this one.

I did and I don't - your premise here is flawed.


TV

Kimoni:
TV, If the OP has blamed husbands for their wifes' behavior, it's because a lot of responsibility, expectations and accountability comes with leadership. The man clearly has to lead aright. But in all, OP has been very detailed in explaining his reasons.

So, if a man does not lead perfectly, or as his wife deems "perfect", she has leave to misbehave? The thread infantilises women and paints them as lacking agency or a sense or responsibility outside being well led. It is flawed - or fine if you think women are akin to children !

It's also the same toxic feminist inspired reading of scripture that justifies wifely rebellion and even divorce if "the husband is not leading correctly/perfectly" - all decided on by the wife (possibly in conjunction with rogue pastor)

1 Peter 3:1 KJV - Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conduct of the wives;

Kimoni:
Now compare to this thread- https://www.nairaland.com/2661461/tips-saving-drowning-marriage-woman

I may not agree with some of the detail here, but in terms of telling wives to take responsibility and "own" the success of their unions, it's spot on.


TV

bukatyne:
I do not know if men are more 'suited' to STEM; this thread is saying every student should be guided to pick what best suits them.... Incentives are not necessary to put women in STEM... their passion should be enough incentive to.

The reason that women are being incentivised is that they don't "naturally" tend to choose STEM subjects in the same relative numbers as men. Ideologically that doesn't sit well with some people and they'd like to see that change.

Equal opportunity is all that is called for, but that won't give the desired ideological outcome! And the reason for the "unbalance" is because men are better suited - hence the incentivisation to "gender balance" things - sometmimes you need a bigger picture !

bukatyne:
Must more ladies be enrolled into STEM courses? Must there be a gender based quota as regards the enrollment into STEM courses?

Therefore, as above; no, as it won't really work; no, as they don't really want to.

bukatyne:
If men were created to build, create and civilize, then they have made a woeful job of it.

That's a value judgement you are free to make - I wasn't grading them, just proclaiming their purpose


TV

Kimoni:
This thread on FP is hilarious

https://www.nairaland.com/2663660/noboxersday-nigerians-react-nobraday

Ngwanu, gentlemen, can we see your pics of #noboxersday in honor of those who survived prostrate cancer. Remember this is a worthy cause and it demonstrates gender equality.

Coogar, r231, RR, raumdeuter, Tim, Pickabeau1, Sagamite, anonimus, Crackhaus, apextitan, (TV01 ) and my other able gentlemen...the floor is all yours



Only my boss, the chief priest @bellong is exempted. Thunder will strike 3 times if he complies

Boxers as requested .

TV ^{knocking them out since way back!}

Hi Tallesty,

I'm going to have to call you out on this one - it's somewhere between deeply flawed and utter tosh !

All you've done is blame men for womens behaviour . Helping no one, and at best and ascribing women with reduced responsibility, that is, you've infantalised them.

I wouldn't have been so concerned, but you are stressing the spiritual - Christian - element. The bible is clear, that a husbands failings do not give the wife recourse to disobedience or otherwise being antagonistic.

And although leaders serve, they are not servants in the sense that that is the whole of their remit. Another classic error knowingly or unknowingly promulgated by many which is coloured by feminism - in and out of church sadly.

There's more to debunk in your post, but I'll stop there. Happy to provide more depth on any of the points.


Consulting pastor over and above, or and without your husbands leave, is rebelliousness. Any pastor that tries that with me better lace up
What would my wife even be thinking?

TV

Tallesty1:
So I created this thread about The Married Women That Respect Their Spiritual Leaders More Than Their Husbands and many of us didn't waste time to type down our frustrations.

Well, it is good because the women won't know how we feel about the ish if we don't speak out the way we did but have we taken out time to find out why it is so?


Well I tried, and I traced the fault back to us.

So I called us here to look for solution on how to end the virus before it eats too deep into our marriages.

#My_Opinion.


As a man, you are the head of your home.

Being the head of your home also means you're the leader.

And your responsibilities goes far beyond providing food and shelter for your wife and kids, giving her money and getting her pregnant etc.

Leadership means responsibility of service to others – the people who follow you. A good leader is also a servant.

That been said............

The problems facing many families today is the lack of leadership by the husband. (Quote me anywhere) we can blame the wife all we want but the problem is somehow our fault.

We all know that women are emotional creatures and they love attention, they love to be listened to and this is where most of us fall hand.

We are just too negligent of our responsiblity and thus we sell our worth and respect out.

Do You Know Why Your Wife Respects Her Spiritual Leader More Than You?

I Will Tell You...........

1: You are not leading her spiritually. Leading our wives spiritually is an important area where we fall hand greatly. It is a man's responsibility to disciple his wife and serve in her sanctification. Women are more spiritual than men and they don't joke with religion. So if you are not doing anything to lead in this area, you need a plan towards leading, otherwise your pastor will take over.

Lead her spiritually, pray with your wife. It’s tragic how many husbands never do. Rise early and call out to God for your own growth and then for wisdom in how to serve your wife in her growth.

2. You Don't Listen To Her, Talk To Her Or Encourage her When Necessary. Women love to be listened to and talked to especially when they are down emotionally. Pastors are aware of this so they always present themselves as those who are always ready to listen and advice.

Do you know who she called/ran to that morning she asked for few minutes of your time and your said later? That night you came home and went to bed straight without touching her food, saying a word to her or asking her how she spent her day? That day you slapped stars out her eyes? That day she was sick and you couldn't call from office/shop to check on her? That day she was emotionally down but you were busy with work and didn't even notice? And other times you messed up?.

Obviously her Pastor or Church member, and they listened to her, prayed for her and assured her that all will be fine.

So who should she respect more?

If you want to enjoy all the respect of your woman alone then you must be her leader in all ramifications.

Fortune is a woman; if you neglect her today do not expect to regain her tomorrow.

I am Out.

bukatyne:
Must more ladies be enrolled into STEM courses? Must there be a gender based quota as regards the enrollment into STEM courses?

Not really, but the prevailing ideological positions will try and force it to happen. Fortunately or unfortunatley, biology will prevail; simply put, womens strengths don't play to them achieving equal success with men in STEM fields. In this sense men are simply more gifted/better suited.

Sex based quotas cannot change that. Sweden the most poitically correct and feminist led nation in the world has relatively no more engineers than say a typical patriarchial nation like India. It's not mainly "gender" bias or stereotyping or even "old boys clubism" it's preference.

Even with more more women enrolling and graduating, with unfair incentives and policies designed to ensure women take up STEM courses, men still rule STEM fields. Things may change slightly due to the pressure, but women themselves don't - for the most part - want it.

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/courses/pg/funding/scholarships-bursaries - note the female only engineering bursary
http://www.uis.unesco.org/_LAYOUTS/UNESCO/women-in-science/index.html#overview!lang=en

Men were created to build, create and civilise. End of !


TV

Way too many assertions for me here ;

BoboYekini:
First, monogamy is only advised for females. Sounds sexist( isn't this a boys' thread anyway?) but the cost to society of a woman's indiscretions are graver than the man's. Think Sperm Wars, cuckoldry e.t.c.

Not sexist, true! One to many relationships will always suit and work better for males. That's biology as much as anything else.

It also means Alphas will build up harems and betas lose out. A whole heap of men won't have the problem of meeting womens sexual expectations in marriage as they will not be any women fo rthem to marry !

BoboYekini:
As far back as civilization goes, the rites of passage of any young male into manhood include losing his virginity and being encouraged to continue having as much sex as possible.

Nope, it was slaying a wild beast - typically barehanded ! Or being "blooded" in war or hunting. Pure acts of manliness.

BoboYekini:
Not so for women. Fact. And it worked out well for everyone.

Nope. Societies quickly become aware that sexuality - and yes, I agree, particularly female - had to be controlled for the common good. And while females typically bear most of the burden and stigma for this, the restraint must be on both sexes.

One rule for men and another for women does not work on a large scale. A few outliers notching up huge counts, should not unduly destabilise things, but most people making out with most everyone else will.

BoboYekini:
Till today, the expectation is that the man should be more experienced in the ways of the world than his woman. All women especially hold this view. Which is the reason I raised the issue of honing one's skills prior to marriage.

Nope. Whilst promiscuity is not stigmatised in men as it is in women - per above - it is not demanded or expected - especially in marriage. Sexual proficiency may well be considered a plus by some women, but upfront, it is not a main criteria for female mate selection.

Inexperience just means you are a learner, not a failure - I should trademark that

BoboYekini:
And that leads to your question- if I married a virgin/inexperienced(prudish/frigid is out of the question as we would have examined the issue early in the relationship) woman, I would be happy to teach her. The learning curve for women is much less steep than as for men.

And likewise, she should be happy for you to learn, grow and develop. In as much as men are typically the more active partners, and even if I pass on disuting the relative "learning curves", most of that can be learnt within a year - and quite a lot during a decent length honeymoon .

I also note your "examined" point. You see as I always tell champions of testing; any examination or test can only provide a snapshot. There's even the possibility that the snapshot will be photoshopped - some women will do what they have to, in order to "seal the deal" .

Ho wmany of my clients complain that "she was like a rabbit when we were dating, but as soon as we married, it literally dried up". Some of these even before children 0!

There is no way of being certain how things will pan out - not just long-term, with all the influencing factors and possible situations - but even from immediately after marriage.


TV

BoboYekini:
Haha but that's the issue, Women expect(want) you to come ready. How you get the experience be damned.

...holá BY, packed day yesterday so I couldn't get back to you.
T has answered you here; https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/127#37827667.

BoboYekini:
Much obliged boss. But I regret that I cannot agree with you.
True, the world would be a better place if we all married as virgins. But I am not one and chances of getting married to one are next to nil. Still the dynamics of sexual intercourse are such that the man has to put in all the work, and will be judged by often times a relatively more experienced female.
Not to drag out the issue, I think every single adult male should know his way to a respectable gentleman's club when he is between relationships or if his girl will not do(in which case he might want to chuck her to the curb - topic for another day)

...and again here https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/129#37857688 (although that's not to say I'm reccomending "Gentlemens Clubs"

BoboYekini:
Haha well you got me there. I owe these call girls a lot of my skill set, hence my recommendation.
You sound like you would be happy with one partner for life. Is this your natural inclination or borne out of religious/moral sentiments?

The "natural inclination" - not in terms of creation or nature/evolution, whichever you believe - of humans is wilfullness and selfishness by dint of ourr inherent nature - especially those who are led by their feeelings, desires and emotions. With that in mind, most humans, if free from any religious or cultural restraints, would "play the field" to some degree.

Monogamy as a choice is clearly of greatest long-term good for society. And if it means some sublimating or control of inordinate or willfuly expressed libido, then so be it.

But back to your earlier assertions - most of which I consider somewhat suspect; what would you do, if with your skillset "well honed", you married a girl who was a virgin or relatively inexperienced/prudish?


TV

pickabeau1:
Also true

The Bible says an angry man is like a city without walls

Abi?

A man who can't reign in his emotions and basic impulses...and is not seriously attending to it...and to actually marry such a one?...I no fit


TV

BoboYekini:
Are you suggesting that men wait until marriage before engaging in sex and honing their skills?

If Christian, yes. ANd skills can be honed during marriage. One doesn't have to come to marriage sexually perfected. Indeed, you can't, as you wil still have to adjust to your wife' preferences.

And I know this may well prove challenging - especially where marriage happens late.

So, where would you like to start !


TV

damiso:
Coach TV01 been severely anaemic (even with me taking iron tablets and eating loads of greens ) my Gp has called for some more blood work yesterday. He however is insistig that I start eating red meat again (completely cut of my diet and eat chicken/turkey/fish)

What are the lean cuts?

Hmmm...listen to your GP 0. But don't let up on bothering him if you don;t feel you are getting the right treatment. Was this a sudden thing or a steady detoriation - are you over-doing the exercise? Are you just stressed (too many chores ) or overdoing things?

I don't eat much red meat - occassional lamb and goat - wife doesn't like beef and wont touch pork. I can def recommend lamb and goat meat. Ask your butcher or read up about alternate options.


TV

BoboYekini:
Abeg where's the pages on having a great sex life? All these washing plates/clothes stuff is somehow..

Well asked. More than willing to join this one, but only in "married" terms.

NashvilleTN:
Thanks TV and bellong,its been a while
Hey house, great to be back!

Nash Baba, welcome back.


TV

bellong:
Can someone please summarize what's happening here for me?

About four pages to read, each with long epistles.

In another news, who is the favourite for the US open?

Women are domesticaly overburdened and being worked to the bone - they are being asked to contribute financially and expected to shoulder all household chores.

Men meanwhile are oblivious to this impending disaster - not even at least appreciating their wives efforts. Typically jollying; watching the sport on telly, usually tennis!

This one is all about you Bellong, you "chore-dodger" . You are a prime example of this rising epidemic .


TV

^{Women - someone surnamed Williams
Men - Djoko, Stanimal or Fed.}

Kimoni:
TV01 et al. - There is something that confuses me about this "marrying right" of a thing. And fortunately, it has come up severally in past discussions esp this last one.

If there is one thing we've touched on repeatedly on NL it's preparing for marriage; as in readying oneself and being able to determine one who is right. The "right & ready" principle I call it. I will see if I can dig some out - or whole threads sef - but I don't think I can improve on what's already been written

Kimoni:
My confusion is this - as an aspiring single wanting to get married, couples are told there is no perfect person but they should only look for someone who they share a lot in common or/and someone who has weaknesses they can live with. Like we say, a guy or lady who is looking for a partner that completely ticks his/her box will most likely never get married. right?

Right. And maybe not right; one may have very few and easily ticked boxes - a surname and a ring ! Character is key. And set your own expectations, I always suggest setting them way high, but they need to be based on a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it entails and what it's challenges may be.

Some things - in fact many - are not about ticking boxes beforehand, it's about situational challenges after. He said to me, he said, "there are some things I wish I knew before marriage, but you know, there are some things you can't know until you are married"

Kimoni:
But more often than not, it is those weaknesses that we thought were minor and we could live with that manifest itself to be the major problem in the marriage.

Maybe the classification of strengths and weaknesses was skewed to begin with. "You thought", maybe you thought wrong?

Kimoni:
Example - A guy is very loving, caring, focused, intelligent...but he has a temper. That seems to be his major weakness. During courtship, the lady saw a bit of this guy's temper but he always comes round without much effort. And even though she has her reservations about it, she has been advised and doesn't think it should be a deal breaker considering his other qualities. I would say I agree with her here.

But on getting married, this little monkey continues to grow bigger and it grows to a stage where the temper now results in constant physical abuse. And therein lies my confusion. Can it be said that the girl didn't marry right? Is it her fault in any way for knowing that the guy had a temper but forged ahead to marry him thinking the problem would go away? Should intending couples see the 'minor' faults of their partners from a pessimistic point of view? Would we all get married if we think like this? Saga ( ) comes to my mind now.
I sincerely need some understand here.

How can she have married right if she saw the problem in an embryonic stage and overlooked it. You need to be able to see the "here and now", and the "there and then" - it's why we have family elders and support groups involved, and faith if you possess it. In lieu of those, you have to know it yourself, or the risk is there.

My own support network was almost non-existent. Those that could were not proximate, the ones that were proximate could not. So it was Me and my faith. It's not a despairing matter. It's a question of being well prepped.

One thing I wil say though - and maybe discuss more fully sometime - is the whole idea of "marriage culture". It should literally be from the cradle. It's mot very well modelled these days and people reach marriagable age unscholled, unlearned and unaware.

Even if they realise it's early enough, they don't exactly know how, and often they realise too late, and not only do they not know how, they are also a little desperate.


TV

^{https://www.nairaland.com/1374631/important-things-discuss-before-marriage/2#17101406
https://www.nairaland.com/1057288/nairaland-christian-singles-thread-no/13#12442042}

Kimoni:
No Jaybee, it's not and shouldn't ever be about competition. Competition is more like we are trying to outdo each other or trying to prove who is better. Not at all.

Competition can certainly be unhealthy. But it's not only competition - an equalist mindset can do harm as well. They have the first child, the mother takes a year off, perhaps her career suffers because of it.

They have the second, she insists he takes paternity so she can go straight back to work. Afterall, her career is equally important - and she took the hit last time?

Kimoni:
Again, all this stems from my observation (past and present) - a guy wants someone he can share the bills with (cool) but he doesn't think he should take up more house chores (not cool), and he doesn't want the headship compromised in any way (will that work?).

So, some men have raised expectations about a womans financial contribution? But expects to not do anything - or more than if say she was a housewife - domestically?

I don't think there are men with that mindset here or preaching that. In as much as they exist, women should be mindful of marrying them. The flip side of that coin is women who think marriage is about wealth redistribution or a vehicle for them to actualise their selfish dreams. So men need to be wary as well.

Plus, biblical headship is not re-negotiated based on a wife financial contribution - otherwise she could well be head of the home if her income is greater. Again, be wary and marry accordingly.

Kimoni:
As per what the woman uses her money for - honestly, I don't think a man should be concerned about that. He should just provide the basics and if she needs to add value to anything, let her do so as she deems fit. A simple example is the school fees/miscellaneous money I gave above.

As commander I am concerned about everything . If the two main priorities are satisfied and there is additional income generated by the wife, less a reasonable amount for pin money, it should also be spent on the family' behalf. Be that charity, extended family, luxury items, or long-term investments.

Kimoni:
There was this thread about a lady who wanted to further her studies and also take some prof. exams but she was maintaining a joint account with her husband and he wasn't favorably disposed to it. He would rather used the joint account funds for some white elephant projects and when she insisted, the issues started causing friction in the home and was soon spreading to other areas in the home (she was earning much more than her hubby in this particular case and felt should should be given some freedom to utilize her income). He also started accusing her of not submitting to him. So I think a man should strive to provide the basics and hopefully, his good wife will know how to cover up her man's unclothedness

These are issues of immaturity, lack of understanding or selfishness of the individuals within marriage. Foundation, foundation, foundation. Marry right and marry well and this kind of thing will rarely crop up. A woman would marry a man without him having articualted his vision for his marriage and home?

And there was a comment about marrying in "hope/faith". Not sure baout hope, but I married in faith. Faith demanded I conduct myself in a certain way, apply clear biblical principles, submit myself to my family and be humble before God. Faith is not blind.


TV

debosky:
Heh. . .sometimes the asking is enough to 'relieve' the burden in my experience. The 'burden' often is from a sense of not being appreciated and not even the task itself. 'I'm doing all this and this man doesn't even show appreciation/care'.

Like we dont always ask? - "everything ok loff/darlin, sweerie" . Compliment them on the minutest stylistic detail, and testify how scrumptious their burnt offerings are . I learnt not to pander a long time ago. Pander enough and there's a chance you'll get taken for granted.

debosky:
I do agree men are not mind readers but I'm sure you've experienced instances where you were expected to 'know' something but didn't. The only solution I've come up with is ask if in doubt, and when not in doubt sef, else one risks being branded insensitive/unaware

I sold myself on the basis of my caveman allure


TV - the strong, silent type.

bukatyne:
Bros,

I only accused you of editing one post as regards 'equal rights/equal agency' on one polygamy thread. If it is a pasttime of yours, lucky you

Don't make false accusations or unproven allegations against me. Show proof or provide evidence. Saying I materially edited my post and accusing me of lying is just low.

The Bible says "Abraham commanded his household after him". Take your beefs about scripture to God or alternatively keep butchering them like you do now

If you have a point, make it, a position, then defend it. Resorting to smears is contemptible. Work on your comprehension, stop projecting, request clarification if things are not clear - you'll do much better.

Now, kindly excuse me, there's a submission thread I need to go post on !


TV