₦airaland Forum

Timbuktou:
Men have always earned whatever 'rights' and privileges they enjoyed. Women get it handed over to them by men. Fact

Undeniable fact

Timbuktou:
Are you aware that at a time in history, not all males had the right to vote? Only those that owned land actually could vote, and at another time males had to earn a certain amount of money to be accorded the privilege of voting? Or that men were once forced to join the army and fight wars, and so on.

...in some parts it was the fact that the state had the right to conscript men into the army that meant they got the vote. Women were not conscriptable - that is were never called upon to lay down their lives in defence of their countries (as ever it was men doing just that in protection of women and children ). The vote wasn't a male privilege, it was the quid pro quo for male responsibility.

As you noted, there was one vote per household/family - the man as head typically cast it. men without famlies/homes did not get to vote either.

When the vote was made universal, there was very little, if any time, between all men and all women getting it. Don't fall for deceitful feminist revisionism.


TV

Timbuktou:
I wonder why this is so hard for 'feminists' to see. All they have is privilege without responsibility. Power without checks and balances is a beast no society should breed.

Ultimately I'm not sure it matters if they see it. I'm sure some probably do, but don't see beyond it - which is key. The pre-occupation with their feelings and well-being mean they will rather remain in denial, even if clearly outlined to them.

Ultimately there wil lbe a backlash - not necessarily physical - driven someway by men opting out of a zero value proposition. As ever, women and children will bear the brunt, so many women will finally "get it" and probably fight hard to reverse the feminsit madness.

Order will be restored. The tried and tested, all round beneficial Patriarchy will be restored. As ever, because women want it as much if not mores so than men !

When this will happen or how much damage will be done before this takes place, I cannot say. For now, men of understanding need to take a firm stand and continue to run their families along sound patriarchal principles.

Timbuktou:
And for all their 'strength and independence', they have earned very little of the power they seem to wield and abuse so blatantly.

And it's the abuse that will rot society so badly that there will have to be a re-think - somehow, some way. It will simply become unsustainable, and the damage to male/female relationships and wider society will be undeniable. Right now they are still managing to sell - an untrue - story of female emancipation and empowerment (of which the sum effect appears to be sluttiness and butt implants ).


Commander TV

cococandy:
Lol

But gay guys don't hate women sha o.

That reminds me, I need me a gay best friend.

...on the contrary, gays are the worst misogynists. Any pallying up with women is purely "strategic". They are also extremely racist and ageist, as would be expected given how narcisitic the lifestyle is.

How are you? I trust well.


TV

tobechi74:
Thread for those who hate marriage and prefere not to get married .

Sign in here ,lets discuss

tobechi74:
Before you get married,visit the brides family.
look at the mother to see what the GF will end up being. That’s true enough, but look at the father as well. If he appears worn down and henpecked then take a good look at your own future.

This is odd? If you hate marriage, why are you advising on "visiting the brides family"? Why even consider it, let alone enter into it? Confusion


TV

Timbuktou:
That's exactly the way wom$en should be treated, and is, in fact, how the law wants women to be treated when one considers the millions of femcentric policies littering the western world.

Women are never held to account for anything.

That's end-game dude. Women are ascribed rights with no attendant responsibilities - Just like kids. We are close to it in the West and no doubt some of the "useful idiots" who love to ape things wholesale will soon start clamouring for it in Africa.

Accordingly, men have tot fund women (and "their children" ). This will be enforced by state fiat if need be, so that men will pay directly or indirectly.

Through child support orders, where no proof is demanded that the money is actually spent on children, and even if the child is not actually his. Or indirectly by taxes.

It's telling that even as men are compelled to provide for any child they father - even if against their will - women are allowed to murder them in the womb or abandon them after birth, with absolutely no legal consequences. That is, women can decide against any or all responsibility - from conception to birth - if they so choose, whereas men have no choice and no voice.

I watch with interest.


TV

jnrbayano:
"Will you be my best man?" is a question that I have to deal with every now and then.

In this month alone, I have two of such question to answer and in the month of April, there's another to decide on and not to mention the previous times I have performed such function.

It pains me Striktlymi, my friend is yet to ask me this question.

How many times does one need to perform "a best man" duty for various grooms before subtly rejecting anymore appeal for such an onerous task?

To the married men here what were your reasons for selecting a particular friend as your best man?

I really need to know so that I will start behaving in opposite and ward off future "Will you be my best man?" question.

What's your opinion?

Jnr! Jnr!! Jnr!!!

To be asked to act as best man at a wedding is a great honour. Not only that, but it says much about your considered suitability (or availability ) and the esteem with which you are held in by the person asking.

A man should always - where it is not unduly inconvenient - be ready to act in such stead for those he considers friends or family. Taking it with the honour it accords and carrying out the task with the due consideration it deserves. But please, never feel compelled to do so, it should be a joy and a lacklustre performance is a dis-service to all involved.

I have been a BM twice, once for a cousin, and once for a friend I've known since we were 10 (started secondary school together). The friend also acted as my best man. You've done a afew, so you shouldn;t have any problems there.

Jnr, you're an elder now - it comes with the territory . Striktlymi 'zup with your nuptials? if Jnr flakes on you, I'm available - will deliver the sermon and MC join if you like !

I love a wedding


TV^MIC

FrancisTony:
Pamper me? - that's only if I'm gay.

Homosexuality is as much a state of mind - you present as gay, deal with it! (fagh-brain as opposed to brain fagh )

FrancisTony:
And heck!, gay men don't wear pampers, sef.

...au contraire...and nappies and sanitary towels and butt plugs and...


TV

FrancisTony:
^^^
Lmao! I'm done here. I speak with real-life facts and you read online homophboic contents.

Bye!

The use of the non-word homophobe to close down discussion. Better run, as no one will "pamper" you here


TV

FrancisTony:
I'd a chance to interact with a gay guy about the pampers claim.

You met someone, he was gay and your convo revolved around the use of butt-plugs

FrancisTony:
He said it's an UTTER CRAP that he hasn't met a gay guy putting on pampers.

Pun intended abi?

It's not crap, it's shit . Fecal incontinence/leakage caused by anal penetration with large (sometimes living ) objects. It's totally true! - http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/AnalEroticism read to the end if you get liver!

FrancisTony:
Meanwhile, don't forget that many females get bruised after engaging in heterosexual sex.

Yes they do, and tears too. But the vajayjay is designed for penile pounding and typically rights itself with no long-term effects. The anus is not designed thus, penetrating it is defacto bodily abuse, leading to a host of long-term problems.

FrancisTony:
It seems you are concentrating on gay men, while not explore on lesbians and tell me any consequence.

These are more psychological in nature. Two woman find it hard to bond long-term - they split up even more readily than gay men - and their relationships are the most abusive.

FrancisTony:
Give me a link how HIV was discovered from gay men. What I know is that many of them contact HIV owing to the fact that men are promiscuous in a nature and have high libido. They tend to engage in sex with anybody and often times.

You are decidely naive and confused; significant numbers of AIDS cases in the West was first identified in homosexual men in the US - fact

It's not simply because they are promiscuous - promiscous straight men have little chance of getting aids unless the come into direct or indirect contact with MSM.

It's due to the nature of "sex" they engage in and their concurrent drug abuse, thus weakening their immune systems and making them more susceptible to opportunistic viral diseases.

And yes, they are typically sluts . Come, are you a gay-homosexual?


TV

finofaya:
I think where we differ is that you don't think homosexuality can arise naturally since it apparently has no purpose. Sometimes natural things are purposeless.

On the contrary, I see no point in circling the semantic point of whether it is natural or not. The question is essentially one of normality/morality.

Infanticide happens "naturally" amongst many animal species - would that make it ok for humans?

Homosexuality is with us, the question is how do we regard it? Do we embed it with or society and cultural institutions - which is the current push - "homosexualising" things to accomodate it. Do we consider it an aberration, and tolerate but marginalise it, or do we persecute it's practice?

Whilst I believe that people who identify as homosexuals or practice homosexuality, should have every opportunity and access, I don't believe the practices or lifestyle should be embedded or celebrated as normal - and specially not in the way we are now seeing, where those who don't subscribe to the notion are persecuted.

Homosexuality is not just purposeless, it's harmful.


TV

Logicalmind:
Having gay or heterosexual sex is a choice but the feelings of attraction is inborn.

"Feelings of attraction" is inborn? Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion?

Babies are born without notions of "sex, sexuality, orientation or desire". There is a normal developmental pathway which should lead to opposite sex desire. Anyting other than that is abnormal.

As 5minutesmadness has noted, if feelings of attraction are inborn, why criminalise any kind of attraction - paedophile, beastial, or any paraphilia that is out there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

Do you have anything to back up your assertion?

TV

finofaya:
I don't even know who Dan Savage is.

High profile gay-homosexual

finofaya:
I think the logic is persuasive.

At all.

finofaya:
You couldn't say where your abhorrence for romantic intimacy with your gender comes from, if asked. You certainly did not choose to be repulsed by men, sexualy. You just know you have it and you do what it says. You can't even begin to consider acting contrary to it.

Bait and switch.

In a sense, I have no more "abhorrence" for intercourse with men - as a man - than I do with say a lampost It's not first and foremost about choice, it's foremost about design and purpose.

Men - whether you subscribe to creation, evolution, both or nothing at all - are sexually complimentary with women. Not other men - or lamposts .

And as to "acting contrary", anyone with a mouth can put a dick in it. It speaks nothing of "orientation", desire, willingness, or anything else.

finofaya:
In the same vein you can't trace the source of your attraction to women. It's there and you like it, end of story. You don't remember choosing it.

Source is "teleleologically" obvious - per my above statement. It's by design. It's de facto abnormal for one not to have opposite sex attraction.

finofaya:
Someone who wanted to be gay would not only have to choose to be attracted to others of the same sex, but also to be repulsed by the opposite sex. What could motivate such a choice?

Another fallacious premise.

It's not necessarily a choice - as in flipping a switch. It can be a "path taken" due to a number of events, trauma, impressions etc.

There are clear instances of people having chosen to be gay. Likewise there are numerous examples of those who have renounced "homosexuality" for normality.

finofaya:
Why doesn't the person go for bisexual or asexual, which requires a smaller mental overhaul? Why doesn't anybody seem to remember choosing their sexual orientation? There are no satisfactory answers to these questions which are raised when you call sexual orientation a choice.

Like I said it's not necessarily a choice in the sense of "flipping a switch" (although there have been instances of that also).

There are a number of reasons why normal development does not occur. It's worth noting that fully 75% of teens who identify as "homosex", identify as "heterosex" by the age of 24. Even with the aforementiond "trauma, events etc." the normal pathweay is not easily deviaterd from. Note "homosexuals" are 2% of the poulation at best.

finofaya:
Being wired that way is a better explanation.

Not wired in the sense that it's "hard-wired" or unchangeable. Is Alcoholism or addiction to cigarrets hard-wired? Or are they unable to be foresaken?

And reagrdless of whether you claim it to be inborn or acquired, it remains "abnormal". Statistically and functionally!


TV

crackhaus:
Lol... happy trolling.

crackhaus:
The bit about being (was) a chef, cool - the Mrs sure has nothing on you I'm sure

It was an eye-opener and great learning experience - I was promoted from dish washer - and it sure beat washing pots and pans, peeling and chipping potatoes and getting home at 4 in the morning !

One of the funniest but truest pieces of advice pops used ot give was "if you can cook, no woman can take the piss" - so cheffing certainly helped in that way as well.

Lets just say the Missus knows the score !


Commander TV

RAKITIC:
Is responsiblity all about been married?

No it is not.

The saying about single men being irresponsible and married men being responsible is not technically true. But...and this is the noteworthy bit...there is a deeper meaning in that saying.

A married men - and especially one with children, has a burden of care that is much weightier that that of a single man, and one that he cannot relinquish just anyhow or on a whim.

A single man rarely feels this burden or has tied responsibility in the same way - even though he may well have many responsibilities.

Hence, married men tend to be focused - whether they like it or not - by this burden of responsibility. That's not to say all married men "take this burden" they have, or that single men are not able to.

It's just that single men do not necessarily have it in the same way. An exception may be where a single man has memebers of his family he is responsible for. He will appear as a married man in terms of his burden and mien .


TV

veave:
am not searching. Am waiting while living my life.

...but you are learning se? Hence signifying a "desire too" at some point. My prayer holds!


TV^MIC

veave:
TV01 stop looking for trouble. Go and play elsewere. Allow me to learn well, i dey class and u dey distract...

Trouble ke? Me You know I make sense die - even trolling .

veave:
I feel you woged2005. Not 30yet but wouldn't want to get there single...

And thank you very much for proving my point;

TV01:
My point was that the campaign should start earlier and the advice should be universally applicable.

All the best in your search. May you land a better spouse. And do let us know; I love a good love story.


TV^MIC

Joy1706:
I told him even as my husband, he can only ask me to change my church after marriage but that the decision is mine to take. And that religion is a very personal issue, it's not something that can just be decided for a person esp an adult.

Then he says it seems like I won't be a submissive wife bla bla bla. Did I say something wrong?

Your boyfriend would be best served by changing his girlfriend before marriage !


TV^MIC

finofaya:
Straight people have to decide whether they are straight by choice or just wired that way. Once you agree that you are wired to be straight and as a result cannot choose to be gay, you agree that anybody who is not straight couldn't have been wired straight. If they were, they could not choose to be gay either, just like you..

Everyone is wired to be "straight" - it's by design. If you are otherwise "oriented", you are faulty - by default. Whether you argue the fault was from birth or acquired afterwards.

Who takes that raging poofter Dan Savage seriously? Whatever you decide your "orientation", sex, "gender" or even desire, does not impair anybody' ability to "take a male member into ones mouth". It's a choice, not dependent on anything else. All sucking it would tell us is that he has a mouth.

Faulty design, flawed logic.


TV

Elsquidme:
After conception, 9months of pregnancy, after childbirth and 2months or so maybe in the process of childbirth, the infant tears her which means no sex for some months to allow it heal. My question goes to Fathers, How do u cope during those times, fullfilling your conjugal rights?

First of all, unless there is a medical reason, there is nothing stopping intimacy during pregnancy. When Jnr was taking his time, the Dr even reccomended it as a way to induce labour. It didn't work sha - maybe I needed to go deeper - eventually he was medically induced.

Secondly, abstinence for any period whilst your wife is unable or uncomfortable should be something accepted willingly - joyfully even - as part of your service to her.

Thirdly, you don't have rights in the way you make it appear. Is your wife a leasehold property (actually don't answer that ). Your wife also has rights and you both have responsibilities. And "your rights" should always be considered in light of your spouses wellbeing and the longer term good of the marriage.

Fourthly, others have touched on alternatives - where you are both comfortable and happy to do so !

Fifthly, enjoy your marriage


TV^MIC

Timbuktou:
She should go back and apologise to him for disrespecting him in his house, that would be a good place to start, or she should never go there again.

Word perfect! And woe betide the wife if she maintains communication with the mother !


TV

...who cares?

My wife, mother, MIL, wifey' sisters, female cousins & friends all know that if their "tension" for one second impairs my utility they will get "commanded".

I have other things to concern myself with besides female pettiness.


TV^MIC

...it is right for a man to command not just his wife, but his whole household. That's how we do !

Genesis 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him...


TV^MIC

Woged2005:

If your advice is good for women above 30, why is it not sound for those below?

Although I was responding t-i-c, not only is your premise poor, it is also discriminatory and somewhat denigratory - as you've qualified it as for "beautiful ladies".

My point was that the campaign should start earlier and the advice should be universally applicable.

I hope those eyes are positioned on a burriful face !


TV^MIC

crackhaus:
Well said TV, it's consequently no wonder that we don't get to see more female heart and/or brain surgeons...and the reason for this is quite obvious (it's nothing to do with intelligence but more to do with the time and concentration involved in acquiring the required expertise in highly specialized medical fields).

Morning Bro',

I can't but agree. Whatever the absolute or relative differences between males and females in terms of intelligence, I don't think it is an issue. The real differences tend to be biological and social imperatives;

1. Women will always want to/have to make allowance for thier fertility constraints & child-bearing

2. If it's mentally or physically arduous men generally have an edge and a naturally greater inclination - even if #1 is not a factor

It's glaring in a lot of proffessions; even the best chefs are men. I was a commis chef for a while. Standing in front of a hot oven for hours on end - very long shifts. Often burning, cutting or otherwise injuring yourself. Throwing heavy pots around (and multi-tasking ). The environments are also very bullish. Women would start in numbers, but many would flake along the way.

At the end of the day, I don't see it as that much as an issue, as typically that outperforming male is using what he produces to provide for a family.

crackhaus:
Regarding your last paragraph, I fear a lot of the women on these boards still can't comprehend without painting it as sexism...

Whic is one reason I bother; in pursuit of some imaginary equality/inclusinveness nirvana built on nothing but touchy-feely ideology, they risk doing great harm to the family.

They can always take their case direct to "Mother Nature". However, if anyone has anything other than slogans and slurs (or gifs and emoticons), we'll be here to respond - hopefully they won't find it too "arduous"

Make I go troll jor


TV<sup>MIC

Correction; in my original post I noted 60% of female Dr's leave or go part-time. That should be 60% leave (within 10 years). A number of the 40% that remain go part-time.</sup>

...apologies Ewuro4, I'm piggybacking - but I'mn sure you'll respond if you care too.

5minsmadness:
1. because you have found something in that person more special than sexual attraction.

2.So as to have children for that special person

3. So as to raise children in a stable environment where they can identify a constant father/mother figure

4. So you can have a constant companion to spend the rest of your days with.

All of which are contradicted by your OP
In which you prescribe legitimising infidelity as the remedy to the pain unfaithfulness causes.

If there is an expectation of faithfulness which is broken, whether unfaithfulness is criminalised, decriminalised, legitimised or even celebrated, the damage it does will not change. Some things are beyond the remit of the law or state. Please re-think and re-state.




TV

5minsmadness:
1. most of the strife that come up in relationships is usually due to unfaithfulness a.k.a sexual issues. If people stopped viewing sex as such a big deal maybe there wouldnt be so many broken hearts?

Right off the bat you are twice wrong;
a. Most of the strife in relationships is not due to unfaithfulness, the #1 cause of strife is financial issues
b. Unfaithfulness is a character issue, determine a persons character and desires - i.e. if there is a match - for a relationship before commiting

5minsmadness:
2. The difference would be LOVE my dear sir. LOve, which should be the binding factor in all relationships, not material things like sex and money which can depreciate or disappear altogether with time. That's probably why the good book admonished that there should be no sex in a relationship until marriage, because they knew the deletreous effects sex could have in a relationship. why is there so much infidelity in marriage? could part of it be that the partner gets tired of "eating the same egusi soup all the time?"

Love takes many forms and occurs in many relationships, but erotic love is validated in only one kind. And if you are basing your arguemnt on the scriptures, you have either articulated it incorrectly or failed to rightly apply the scriptures.

Also, the "egusi soup" analogy is very weak !

5minsmadness:
3. how?

It's self-evident, divorce, out of wedlock births, promiscuity etc.

5minsmadness:
4. Actually, Sex IS the issue. Its been placed on such a high pedestal that if you err once it can follow you for the rest of your life, meanwhile the appetite for sex is so powerful it can drive someone to madness. Why all the stress? why not "legalise" it like marijuana? At least the ladies wont have much to complain about anymore(i doubt though, they always have something to complain about ) and the guys wont be worried that the gals aint loyal. It might even breed a higher level of commitment because the couple know they can have sex if they want to, but choose not to.

Whatever egregious attitudes people have or actions they commit with regards to sex, is not the fault of sex. It's the fault of people. Sex is good and holy and essential to our flourishing.

You need to re-state and or re-think your premise.


TV

5minsmadness:
Think of it. Sex has brought to much strife and hatred and backbiting and treachery to relationships. Wouldn't it be good if it was relegated to the background?

1. Sex brings many things to relationships, but not strife, hating or backbiting - people do that. Sex does not need to be relegated, rather valued and "morally regulated".

2. If sex were relegated to the background what would be the difference between an intimate male/female relationship and any other kind? Even if relegated, sex comes attached with bonding, feelings and outcomes - i.e. consequences which can't be detached from sex.

3. Societies have long learnt that sex has to be ascribed a moral value and regulated to a degree. If sex becomes merely transactional or a consumable, there will be tremendous harm. To male-female relationships and the natural outcome of those relatiosnhips - children.

4. Sex is not the issue here, people are. Inculcate a proper appreciation of sex, it's rightful context and proper expression. Instill Character, values and morals, so that sex - and people - are treated with the due care that they should be.

Or perhaps I should ask how you see this working out - especially in a sense of improving things


TV

MasterJayJay:
This is just an assignment given to a student that approached me. They are going to use it for debate. So I need some points on why male education is better than female education in the family.

Thank you.

Most responses so far have esentially been a cry of "sexism" (against women) and have only served to stifle the discussion. No real debate has been had.

In practice most "families" would want to do the best for all their children and allow them to pursue education as far as their talent and desire allows.

But in a scenario where there are limited resources (at societal or family level), I would favour educating males over females. Even where "resources" at first dont appear to be an issue, there can be longer-term implications.

Let's take Doctors (MD's) for example; in the UK fully 60% of female Dr's stop practicing or only work part-time. The effect, twice as many females doctors have to be trained to maintian service levels; at great cost to the state (approx. £250K p/s).

The outcome, a deteriorating provision of GP services. Previously one could always get an appointment for same or following day, nowadays appointments have to be made weeks in advance. Many now simply head for hospital A&E's, clogging up what should be an emergency service.

Yes, there are other factors but the fact that women are now filling about 60% of medical places (up from around 10% in the 60's) is a major contributor.

And what happens to the 60% that "fall away"- they are typically at home playing "alabado" to some wealthy bloke . Women typically marry up, so a high status female Dr, will typically marry a high-flyer, thus not really needing to work when children come.

Additionally, some of the harder medical specialisations are suffering shortages, as women tend to opt for the easier ones or become GP's that more easily allow flexible working.

Other studies show that even where female Dr's are practicing F/T they don't put the hours in that men do. It's not always about gender, equality or choice per se, it's about outcomes.

Put another way, the cost/value benefit of training male Dr's far exceeds that of training females. Where there are scarce resources, or the danger of not be able to maintain an adequate service, what should be done?

Whilst I don't for one second think that women shouldn't be educated, or have equal access, there are oft times longer-term costs and consequences. Shrill ideological cant does not change that.


TV

Woged2005:
Noooo. you got it all wrong. Check the topic again. These are ladies who are above 30, have good careers, strong investments, and some cash to spend and might be earning more than their male colleagues too. These are tips to be more open-minded and inclusive. it's not about lowering their expectations. There are unrealistic expectations in life too.

All wrong . At least give me "partly"

Why should a lady "above 30" settle?

As a man - way above 30 - I refused to consider;

1. Divorcees
2. Single mums
3. Anyone not young, nubile and eye-wateringly hot
4. At least 10 years younger than me to boot
5. Minimum degree educated

In addition, I had a host of others; non-smoker, no drinker, must exercise, on-point phoné, no tattoos, no abortions. Not to mention she had to be a Christian.

The only two parallels we have are; I was not overly fussed about earnings - as long as she had an occupation, and mentoring is expected from a husband-leader. Neither was I overly fussed about cooking funnily enough, but she's trying !

Appreciate the market value of a female over 30 - especially relative to a man of the same age - dips in a sense, but you are saying things - howerver true - that are anathema to some here.

I totally get your point - but I would campaign before it becomes an issue, not after.


TV^MIC

....i.e. lower your expectations - and at 30 !

Most men haven't even fully formed theirs at that age. And I would never advise a man to lower his expectations - at any age - although I would check for realism.

The feeling of having settled can cause real disenhancement and frustation, leading to real long-term damage to a union.

I'd love to tag some peeps on this, but lets see if they make their own way here .


TV

Woged2005:
7 Tips For Beautiful Ladies Above 30, Good Career, Strong Finance, Yet Single (Long)

Today many women live with the sad reality that they may leave this world without either being married or having offspring that look like them. The African girl is raised and hard-wired to believe that one day she would walk on the streets holding the tiny fists of her own body and blood. When years go by and this dream is not fulfilled you can imagine the apprehension.

If you are above 30, have a stable career, independent, with strong finances here are some tips to still get married to a real love:

1. Prepare to marry a man you earn more than: Obviously African men like to marry up (someone they are richer than) In the western world it’s not uncommon for women with strong investments, career, education, and finance to marry men they are richer than. However, to survive in such relationships means you must be willing to collapse both of your goals into one and invest jointly as one family. Therefore, it no longer matters who earns more, or who earns less, because it’s one purse, one family. If you get stuck in that ‘My money’, ‘My job’ mentality, you are going to have difficulties living with an African brother you earn more than. You can be an Amazon outside, please be a wife at home and don’t bruise his ego.

2. Prepare to marry a man you are older than:. Same as above. Love knows know age limits. The good thing is that African men, more often, prefer women they believe can assist them build wealth (hard-working women). As a woman who’s already established, this actually works for you. It all depends on your mindset. If there’s love & compatibility btw two of you, set age aside. Develop ‘every-man-has-a-dick-I-can-use’ mentality. Age is but a number!

3. Divorced men and widowers can make great husbands: There are many reasons people divorce (bad things happen to good people). That a man is divorced does not mean he was such a terrible person. Have the mindset that you can make something good out of a man by being his best friend and partner in progress. If you still wish to marry up, most men who are richer than you are already in their 40’s and above. The single ones are either divorced or widowed. Some of these men come with a lot of experience, maturity, confidence, and financial stability that most of us are looking for. Expand your search!

4. Be ready to be a step-mother and share your home: Don’t be naïve. Be realistic. There are many excellent men out there who already have kids but are single due to divorce or wife’s death. Such men are looking not just for wife but step-mother to their kids. Prove yourself that you can be a good step-mother and boom! you‘ve a husband and ready-made family. Step-out of the ‘single-girl-looking-for-her-own-man’ mentality. Children are gifts from God. Treat and love them like your own, like gifts God entrusted into your care, and not like strangers in your house. You will know same joy mothers get from their biological children.

5.Spot out men with potentials and mentor them to success:. There are many smart people out there who don’t have good jobs or money because they came from poor social backgrounds and nobody mentored them. If you fall in love with such a man who’s educated, smart, and a husband material but wasting away in a low-paying job, give it a shot if he loves you. Then mentor him to success. “An unpolished man is a man nobody has taken time to polish.” ….’buy your polish and polish him’. Every man looks great & professional in a black suit and red power-tie!

6. Stop shopping and start investing: . The misconception is the believe that you’ll attract men if you are a well-dressed ‘big-girl’. ‘Big girls’ are meant for ‘big beds’ of randy married men. Honorable girls are meant for honorable homes. You can be ‘big girl’ all you want by dressing to match, if you purse is empty, you re empty. It’s a dilemma when a woman is above 30, poor, yet materialistic. What advantage does she have over a young 25yr old lady? She is a burden! However, a single woman with strong purse & investments brings more beef to the table & will attract better men with husband qualities.

7. Don’t abort any pregnancy.. This is No. 1 regret most older women have when they can no longer find a husband. They regret the pregnancies they aborted. As a young single person, you are likely to be worried about the stigma, how the society will judge you, how people will treat your child, etc. But once you are approaching 40, this may be your only shot at motherhood. You have a good job, good investment, strong finance & accidentally take in, please why abort a baby to please society? Let the society find you a husband then! Mtecheeew! Keep your baby if the baby’s father doesn’t want and give him/her care, love, quality education and prepare him/her to inherit your investments.

I was above 30 & worried too, I fell in love and married a man I earned twice more than; he was struggling but had the heart of King David and the romance of King Solomon. Fiends tried to discourage me. Today he gave me a bundle of gift – my carbon copy! He got a better job but still earns less. It has been a great catholic family full of love & respect for each other. We are pooling funds together to make the best of our lives. I’m happy again, a fulfilled wife and mother. My God will do it for you too this year if you are willing to accept His will, not yours!

May the good Lord hear your humble cries and bring you comfort this year. May you find your man this year!

Great piece. Really heart-warming and encouraging. There was another one yesterday about the 80 year-odd marriage.

The Family section could do with at least one of these a day.

Great stuff!


TV^MIC

MizMyColi:
Could you please proffer a way forward?

Chrystover:
^^
Yes, simple. Stay away from marriage. Its not the ultimate.

Not really, stopping marriage will stop abuse. Most abuse - a greater amount of - takes place in non-marital domestic relationships. Marriage remains the saferst form of relationship for women and children - and by extrapolation men.


TV^MIC