₦airaland Forum

TribalEAST: then wetin?

Both...


TV

TribalEAST: so because a wife takes cocaine, the husband should do thesame?it's either you guys are fools or you just want to satisfy your feministic madness.

It may not actually be "either/or" !


TV

As an OP this is quite frankly ill-considered and rather shoddy work

wealthinfos: As a counsellor and as a research fellow I have been opportune to share the secret thoughts of most couples relating to how bad their marriage have degenerated to an internal civil war which will continue forever because of such ridiculous and odeforous wedding vows as "till death do us parth"!

Most? And the marriages degenerated because they took a vow. "Till death do part" is ridiculous? Did you say a counsellor?

wealthinfos: Pls pls pls I feel am in bondage being administerd such spiritual bondage oath/vow by a pastor. Can we repeal that vow so parties can go their different ways when ever they can never be together? Must we die in pretence and silence?

Who is forced to take vows? Are pastors the only ones that can join people or do they force people to be joined. No one forces marriage on anybody. People are free - freer than ever in fact - to content themselves with some other arrangement if they are not up to marriage

wealthinfos: The truth must be said, most marriages are seriously in urgly shape. Most couples are incompartible, they just can't be husband and wife. it won't work!

Where do you get your figures from? And in any case, is the remedy to problematic marriage to facilitate divorce?

wealthinfos: A lady I talked with disclosed to me that she'd look for an oportunity for her spouse to die because the heat is tough on her, and I asked why not file a divorce? Her reply was she can't stand the shame of what the society will say because their wedding was the talk of the town because she came from an aristocratic and well respected family and as such it will be unheard that she left her marriage or divorce! And worse still the guy's dad is a clergy man. Hmmm...now u see the extent of pressure in her? So both are locked in forever heheheheh

Presumably, as a counsellor, you then went on to counsel her how to enhance her marital rerlationship? It doesn't require a counsellor to seek divorce. Are you sure you're not a divorce lawyer trying to drum up business?

wealthinfos: In this discussion, we shall exray the church vow "till death do us parth" even when the marriage won't work anymore
If it's not till death do part, then it's not marriage. But let's see what this "x-ray" will reveal !

[quote author=wealthinfos]Secondly would it be wise enduring hell in marriage or gain freedom from marriage bondage?

Marrage in and of itself has no agency. It doesn't come with a "side helping of hell", and it's not bondage, it's unity. The couple should establish it on a firm foundation and ensure they spend time to maintaining it.

wealthinfos: Thirdly what really causes such pressures and situations that degenerates to a condition for possible divorce?

Biblically just adultery - and that does no tpre-suppose remarriage. Legally, it should never have been made more than Adultery, Abondonment or Abuse (and that's relative). In any event, these do not come with marriage, they are introduced into it by the parties.

wealthinfos: Finally how can we improve our marriages making it blissful and enjoyable?
Again, "The couple should establish it on a firm foundation and ensure they spend time to maintaining it". And that should have been your starting point.

[quote author=wealthinfos]Add your opinion, let's help save our failing marriages!

My opinion i sthat you are not enhancing marriage or improving relationships by championing divorce. I won't comment on what I think of you as a counsellor - unless you ask nicely !

Lots of kids are dropping out of school; should we, A. make it easier to do so or B. lower the pass mark? See the paucity of you thinking now?


TV


[/sup][/b]

LewsTherin: There are no two humans on this planet who cannot be civil in their living together. Where there is, it is always because one or both parties choose not to be civil. It is a choice. Even God took his time to listen to Satan and even Satan behaves himself in the presence of God. It is always a choice.

Many people would rather devote their energies into fighting with their spouses than in trying to live as they once promised each other. Self aggrandisement over mutual compromise. Selfishness.

Loving someone is a choice. A good marriage is a choice. One each couple must make. One you should not wait for your spouse to make.

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!!


TV

crackhaus: At least she let common sense prevail before letting stubbornness cost her a marriage.
Wonder what she would have said when asked, 'why did your marriage end?'

Abi?
And then find how painful the stigma & hardship of divorce can be - especially when it's those "bad friends" that would stigmatise her the most.

Well done Idris for ruling your household !


TV

AfricanApple: though everyone has their opinion and thinks differently but to me it is normally no because you can be single, successful and happy. there are lots of people who are married, poor, childless, no peace in the house etc, how successful can u classify them to be

Answered below (thanks again Saga);

Sagamite: I can't see anywhere where he said you cannot be single, successful and happy.

Nor did he say marriage was a superior model.

He just stated how marriage might be a good thing if done right.

Not sure you read and understood my post or gave much thought to your own before responding. But the bar is low, you got 2 likes


TV

^{Saga are you going to respond to everyone on this thread?}

Sagamite: Surprisingly, this is actually the most sensible thing said so far.

Thank you. You do know I'm the "Marriage Man" !
Have you found anyone worthy yet. It would be nice to be able to pencil in a date for next summer !


TV

TribalEAST: gender equality/feminism is actually a spirit that operates in most ladies and makes them lack submission. Most of them don't know they are feminists until they come across the ideology which appeals to that spirit in them, a good reason why they accept the concept readily. The women with pure heart discard every inch of it cos they can see the end thereof.

Ace comment.

In the Bible it says the "womans desire will be for her husband, but he will rule over her". The desire is not desire as in affection, it's desire as in own/or control - in the same manner Cain was warned that sins desire was for him.

I always tell men, never let your feelings for you wife overwhelm you, or give leave to them to the point of neglecting your duty or not standing for what is right.

Letting a wife "rule you" will almost certainly result in calamity.


TV

OLAADEGBU: Thanks TV. I can see that you've abandoned the religion section. Why?

Hi Ola, I always meant to return or at least divide my time between Family and Religion - it's just that Family takes up most of the time I can allocate to NL and in some ways I feel I can give more Xtian witness here.

I always felt we never advanced past level 1 in discussions on religion. We'd talk doctrinally, but never experientially or practically. And oft times, it was just sectarianism or denominationalism - tiring.

Best
TV

OLAADEGBU: What do you mean by a "piss-artist" can you explain?

It's idiomatic speech. It means joker, or a time waster....


TV

...am I right in thinking that the reasoning was - to parphrase - "incestuous couples should not be criminalised due to the disgust about them"?

Anyways, good to see CFW on fine form;

carefreewannabe: First of all, if kids have to suffer for a life time because their parents acted in an irresponsible way, then it's reason enough to make it illegal.

They could simply 1, not have kids, 2, have any pregancies screened, or 3, have them "engineered like homosexuals do

carefreewannabe: Secondly, if in.cest was legalized then it would open doors to child abuse in families. The German government said that families have to be seen as a place of protection for children and the law and societal norms have to do ensure that it is. Leagalizing in.cest would open doors to child abuse in families. It would make it more acceptable as a side effect.

Why would it open the door to child abuse? Or at least open it any further. Are you claiming there are a load of people refraining from child-abuse just because incest is not legal. Does it not happen now that incest is illegal

carefreewannabe: Thirdly, if two consenting adults decide to have s.ex with each other behind closed doors, then nobody will know and they can "pursue their happiness".

That's how the gay one started - now we have to be ushers at their "weddings" or else !

carefreewannabe: Fourthly, the siblings who triggered off this discussion had four children together because they wanted to "pursue happiness." The government can't make sure that such couples won't take it a step further and they cannot be sterilized by force.

And why should they be denied that right. As for children, see above. Plus, they may choose to be sterilised - I guess only one would need be !

carefreewannabe: Fifthly, se.x between siblings is not a se.xual orientation but rather a coincidence of two people who feel attracted to one another and see nothing wrong with it. People fall in and people fall out of love. It is not that they can't find happiness elsewhere if they are forbidden to sleep with one another. Many people have to find a new partner if the partner they desire is not available for one reason or another.

An a priori assumption that there is such a thing as "sexual orientation". And then limiting it as you subjectively see fit. You also say nothing about how if sexual orientation is different from undeniable sexual functioning, that something must be wrong. At least a brother and sister are aligning their sexual function with the right orientation

carefreewannabe: Last but not least, the cost of possible kids coming from such unions will have to be carried by the society as a whole. Germany is a welfare state. The kids have to get special health treatment and possibly special education.

So? Kids are born that require State welfare all the time. It's a fact that children from single parent homes take up more welfare spending than those from two parent homes. Yet, for wannabe (see what I did there ) single mums, legislation is moving to enabling them. Should single-mothers not also be legislated against for this same "cost to society" reason?

Likewise for homosexuals. Their lifestyle is more dangerous than smoking, yet we don't stick health warning on it or them. The lives are typically shortened and the health risks and hence the healthcare bill is disproportinally high. Why are they enabled and championed?

carefreewannabe: I knew people would want to discuss homo.sexuality in this context. They are free to do so. I am not taking part in these debates.
If you want to discuss in.cest with me, you know how to find me but without engaging me in debates on homo.sexuality, please.

The parallels have to be made. Advocate will look to what is acceptable and the arguements that made it so to press their case. Trying to make the point without relevent references is indeed "ostrich in the sand" type behaviour.

carefreewannabe: I will ONLY say this much:
If disgust is a yardstick to pass bills, then I also want to make it illegal for old men to marry young girls.
https://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/03/disgust-reaction-gif.gif
I can't stand their view. Honestly.

Agreed.

TV

freshdude2: TV01, Ms. EnlightenedSoul, please.

I don't think my views on this would in any way be unclear. Please call Sis' Carefreewannabe, she resides in Deutscheland !

It's wrong...but still not as diordered as two men or two women. And if two men or two women are allowed children - evenif engineered to a degree - why should an incestuous couple be denied - evenif they have to engineer to a degree?

cococandy: Win win. Everyone's rights protected.

You make an "a priori" assumption of a "right".


TV

damiso: TV01 I do wish you could indeed borrow that leaf and try to realise that we are all different and as such will have different views on issues.I do know our beliefs and in this case your faith colour our worldviews but the Christian thing to do in most cases would be to let go of old issues and resentments and treat each new case on its own basis. I don't think the "plagiarism" dig had anything to do with this thread and if it was about anything in the past I think you need to let it go.

I was involved in and following the discussion like everyone else. I asked for a response to a question that had been asked as part of that discussion. So as not to weigh in or provoke, I asked the question of you;

TV01: Excellent question Damiso!

Was there an answer to this by any chance? I couldn’t find it…

TV

You then went out to EFemenaXY and asked for a response - if you'd decided you were done, I wouldn't have pressed. And once you asked, she was entitled to answer in any way she chose. And she duly chose to respond thus;

EfemenaXY: Read between the lines Damiso. No offence babes, but I don't do second-hand questions.

Anyone willing to take me on in an argument should be bold enough to put their hands down their pants, find their balls and quote me.

I hope you get my drift?

A direct swipe at me - and wrapped up in some pretence about "second hand questions"? What did I do to trigger that response? Answer the question, or don't answer the question, her choice. She chose to answer out of spite. I also had the choice to respond as I see fit. And I did. The debate is long gone, my opinion of EfemenaXY is what it is, and well-founded. I purposely give her - and her gaggle - a wide berth to avoid this sort of thing.

If EfemenaXY is happy to acknowledge she kicked this off and apologise, I'll sheath my sword. Otherwise... ! And I'm not taking appeals on this one.


TV

alutacontinua: As per your first paragraph, I totally agree!

Let me get this right; first you write an epistle, then you agree with me. I'm feeling faint - need to lie down !

alutacontinua: However, how many churches out there today are actually a body of TRUE BELIEVERS?

And your point is? Does God not lead? How many does it take?

alutacontinua: And no, if what I see on a Sunday does not point towards the fact that the elder lives a Christian life, why do I have to wait to watch what happens on weekdays? From the message of most elders, you can certainly deduce that you've missed road. Not to mention other things in a church that just totally makes you to know it's not the place to be.

Again, you are reading me backwards. The life and the preaching are not just in the weekly message, it's daily and experiential.

alutacontinua: Agreed!

Please stop !

alutacontinua: As per the woman in op's story, I cannot really say, as Winners church, I believe is all over the country. However, I hope the real gospel of Christ does not get that scarce but if it does and I have to drive 6 hours to get spiritual nourishment, I'll gladly do it! People drive 6 hours every week cos of work, no?

Spiritual nourishment? I can see we have shall we say, different perspectives. But even taking your point, someone mentioned we are in the digital age no?

alutacontinua: As I said earlier on, spiritual immaturity!
Which also has a place in Christianity. There would always be newborn babes in Christ.....does not make them bad, it means they are immature. Even in the Corinthian Church, some people preferred Paul, others Apollos! This was a church Apostle Paul established himself! Paul only had to correct their mindset, not criticize them!

And pray tell, what did Paul say to them about venerating men?
And it was the church at Corinth - a congregation of Corinthians - not "travellers to fellowship" from Colosse !
And I'm simply seeing I don't see that narrative in scripture. Do I know them to criticize them? The outworkings are clear for all to see - and I don;t mean this particular instance - but this type of "church".

alutacontinua: A few years ago, one of my uncles was transferred from his church branch to another branch as a Pastor. There was a particular woman in that church who was his convert that decided to also move to his new church with him (even though it meant more distance, and of course, money). All efforts to convince her otherwise proved abortive, she actually told him if she doesn't follow him, she'll stop coming altogether. Apparently, at that point, he left her alone and she actually did start attending his new branch. Fastforward almost 10 years later and this woman does not even belong to his denominatiom again, and yes, she's still in the faith (I believe). I'm sure if she even remembers now, she'll prolly laugh at her ignorance then.

Story. That attitude comes from what people are taught. What those kind of churches model, with concepts like spiritual daddy, MOG authority, being fed and the like being taken to extremes - not that they are necessarily right in the first instance.

The Ethiopian whop Phillip preached to. The first in his country. Did he return to where he met Philip or to sit at Philips feet every week to be spiritually fed? Yet the Church in Ethoipia grew from that un-followed up convert? This discussion pains me.

alutacontinua: My point? Such acts of clinging towards sentiments are acts of ignorance and immaturity, something about behaving like a child when you are a child, not reasons enough to criticize such people. It is almost natural for a woman to believe the person who gave her the miracle of a child after many years of trying and maybe places is her closest link to God. It takes maturity to get rid of such sentiment.

I believe I've answered this with the above

alutacontinua: I AGREE!

Maybe, but I not sure it's for the same reasons.

May God be with us all.


TV

Stillfire: Submission ko, sobolation ni. This has nothing to do with submission abeg but the mental IQ of the wife. The woman must be a person of low mental assimilation to not have weighed the consequences and detected the rationale behind her partner informing her of the risks and endangerment she places herself. When they tell you people to marry intelligent wives, una no go gree.

Someone, anyone - I'm interested, why is that when a woman does something wrong the stock responses are

1. It's societies fault for pressuring her or;
2. She must be mad/deranged/psychotic/bi-polar/provoked beyond measure.

But responsibility is never in view? And it's always women, usually avowed feminists? Willing to denigrate other women or throw them to the wolves, rather that to take the responsibility that's twinned with the equality they supposedly demand?

Kindly let me know if there are any "policies" in force that prevent a response to this question!


TV

ileobatojo: I'm going to assume neither of these refer to me.

And you certainly don't need my permission to do that. Assume away !


TV

EfemenaXY: Aww...he finally found his balls to confront me!

You know, I started typing out a long epistle for you but decided you aren't worth it. You never are, and you never will be, as far as I'm concerned.

A liar and a plagiarist you say? Over what? A debate supposedly dead and buried months ago? A debate where every single reference I used was documented in my write up?
A debate where the judges voted my argument superior to yours? It still hurts you, doesn't it? Why don't you request the judges andmoderators to remark the whole argument on your favour? Or better still, come take my 2nd place position, if that will help you sleep better at night, you despicable man?

Listen, I don't go back to vomit, but you obviously do. Now with all due respect, my fanatical Christian brother, be my guest and go fück yourself slowly.

I'm so done with your bile, but hey, feel free and have the last word(s). The dance floor is all yours. Mtcheew!!

*** Thread Unfollowed!***

So, this policy of not answering "second hand questions", how does it work? ?

There were no second hand questions....you were asked once...skipped away like a petty thief on bail..and then started forming policy when you were reminded of your court date .

You are low rent. You simply don't have the breeding, education, intellect or experience to contribute in any meaningful way. I typically give you a wide berth because your noxious presence is quite sullying. Admittedly I just wanted too see you squirm here as you thoroughly deserved.

Given a inarticulate simpleton with archaic ideas and you're all over them. ....now they ask you one small kweshun and you are writing policy documents are calling for back-up. Are these policies original by any chance?

Long epistle my foot. If it's any good, it certainly won't be original and if it's original, it'll be crap.

The benighted EfemenaXY. I'm going to enjoy toying with you. I'm sure I have evidence of your fraud somewhere...


TV

^{Damiso apologies for involving you - even if tangentially. I know you're too polite to say and that you don't do rofo-rofo. I'll try and take a leaf out of your book. But some people just ask for it. !}

TribalEAST: Pls I need to know.

The first rule of being a man; Don't ever ask a woman to define manhood or dictate how you articulate your manhood.

TV

EfemenaXY: Sorry Damiso, only just seeing this in my mentions as I'd already unfollowed this topic. In response to "your" question, what do you think?

Yeah right

Which is why you made a number of responses to Saga afterwards? And then tried to craftily deflect the question back to Damiso when expressly called out?

I didn't butt in as I wanted the conversation to progress and reach it's natural conclusion. When you thought you were making a point, you continued with your usual low-brow smirking and high fiving with the rent-a-like crowd, your posturing was palpable. And Damiso wasn't the only one who sensed your "na me first born pikin" attitude.

Then bereft of answers - not easily cribbable this one hey? On the spot, no long neck possible! - you tried to make it about me with that sly remark. No problemo, we are all here together.

And then you breathed an audible sigh of relief when Ileobatojo posted what was at best a distractionary rejoinder. Had to be rescued again huh?

Pray tell, what's the difference between a liar and a plagiariast?

Damiso I doff my hat, well articulated, not intimidated and presented with a style EfemenaXY couldn't display if we sprinkled it on her grits. Please show some more of your class and ignore her.


TV

alutacontinua: You talked about people having 'preference' as regards church as odd and if I read well, unbiblical! I tried to point out that with the no of churches springing out left, right and centre these days (most especially in our beloved country), one cannot be too careful!

The Church is the Body, the only preference should be to worship with other believers. There simply shouldn't be a preference.

If an elder in the church is indeed fraudulent, you'd be more likely to know that if you all worshipped in the local community - also a lot less likely to venerate him if you saw him in his daily travails, instead of only splendidly decked out every Sunday !

alutacontinua: If the church were to be who I am, I can as well lie down on my bed and call it my church!
For an introvert like moi, I'll probably even prefer that arrangement!

I am not saying you make the church on your own, but your presence along with other believers is what constitutes church. I don't see how you could have misread that? Does one fellowship alone?

alutacontinua: I'll rather see the church as who WE are, 'we' being the people, beliefs, faith, doctrines and God of a particular congregation!

For the former, it's as above, for the latter, biblically congregations were always by geography/location. You gather with believers in your community. Denominationalism is just part of the larger error and distraction. And even if one is a denom A and prefers to not worship with denom B, you willl still be able to do that locally - 6 hours drive? Why not make the round trip to Rome just to be sure - if you are a Catholic of course !

alutacontinua: Don't get me wrong, if your reason for going to a particular church is because of the Pastor that is there or not there, or your friends that are there or not there, or the food you eat or don't eat, or the position you hold or don't hold-then, that'll be a huge sign of spiritual immaturity.

Which is what obtains for most - I have a relative who is devoted to church and will only worship at HQ because GO is there. If you read with understanding...you willl see that that model of church keeps you immature by design. True liberty in Christ will not make you a devotee of any man or tied to any church.

alutacontinua: Truth however, is we feel more comfortable in some places than the other (largely based on our spiritual convictions and doctrines, and even sometimes inspiration by the Holy Spirit).

As above..."true liberty in Christ and a walk with Him will not make you a devotee of any man or tied to any religious institution...perhaps it's time to question those doctrines and convictions.

Christianity is not religion...and an arduous weekly round trip sounds very much like a pilgrimage.


TV

Nashville: Do those people really seek the face of God or the face of man? Do they believe God ga?e them the child or do they think it was the prayer of a Pastor.

Most people worship man and not God!

I so detest the veneration these so called MOG's engender.It's nothing short of idolotry. Add clinging to certain places as well. Nobody receives their miracle "in", you receive it "From"...and like edwife said, He is Omnipresent.

Well, the scriptures clearly reveal that the delusion is part of the plan. And God shows people that these people are not of Him by exposing their evil ways. Will they listen? Those who love the lie rather than the truth and are under the "strong delusion" will not.


TV

alutacontinua: You know I seriously stay away from arguments and epistles on NL but one out of one million times, there are lessons to learn on here. And the few times you see me say something serious, it's not me tryna show how much debating skills I possess or how insulting I can be, it's just me tryna learn something.

So, you can quit taking shots and let us discuss....can you?

Okay then sis bro...what are we discussing?


TV

alutacontinua: I disagree!
There are churches and there are CHURCHES! I'll rather stay at home than go to a church I ain't comfortable with. If I have to travel miles to feel alive in a church, then, SO BE IT!

Few months ago, I had to travel down to Nigeria and a few other places, I just couldn't deal with all the churches I attended throughout those months. There was a particular Sunday I was this close to going back home mid-service, and this was even the same denomination with my church!

Sometimes, it takes the good girl (scratch that, boy) in me to not start criticizing and analyzing some Pastors while they're preaching, I definitely won't go back to such a place.

Why won't you disagree - when you are still grappling with your own biological sex !

And why aren't I surprised that you equate church with "pulpit-led" preaching. And talk like it's about the preacher not the person of Christ?

One - infinitesimally brief - encounter with the Risen Lord, and all the preaching of men will be so much ringing in your ears and their words like dried termite mound.

Free me and I'll free you, I have not the inclination and you do not possess the grasp!

Church - it's not where you go, it's who you are.


TV

freshdude2: The weekly sojourn to Otta is excruciating, to say the least. People spend 6, 7, 8 hours to and from church, I kid you not. So, they have to be up at say 3, 4 am to get to church by 6, 7am. Gpoing back home could take between 2 to 5 to 6 hours. Insane.

Ah!

To be honest, I'm not the most clued-up person about the geography of the SW - although I do know that Ota is in Ogun State - but whatever the distance, up to 8 hours I really don't understand that. And on a day that actually signifies rest?


TV

It must be tragic and heart-rending to lose ones firstborn/only child in such circumstances and almost lose your wife, who, in any event is seriously injured. And I can’t even begin to imagine what’s going through the wife' mind at this time?

I’m hoping this is mostly part of the husbands grieving process and not a position he will maintain indefinitely. If they weren’t rock solid before – and it doesn’t sound like they were – this could end badly.


Husband & Wife:
From a Christian point of view, I always stress the need for husbands and wives to be in mutual accord and to strive to overcome anything that mitigates against it – and it’s usually selfish desire, pride or stubbornness that does!

The wife should have acceded to her husbands request. The more so, in that he wasn’t forbidding her from actually going to church.

I know of an instance where the wife was “doing something in her village” – unknown to the husband. As in this case, she suffered a serious injury in a car crash, at which point everything unraveled.

The lady is still wheelchair-bound till today. The marriage? Long over and the husband has moved on. Two children keep them "tied", but the relationship is fractious. It’s so sad.

Please, please, please, spouses, stand united. It brings benefits. I actually believe God blesses committed marriages of those who don’t even seek Him. Again I plead with you on this, agree as one.

Church:
Biblically, church was always local. As such it is community. I have never understood this "journeying to worship" – one of the very things that Christ died to release us from.

People leave one part of London and travel considerable distances due to feeling at home or loved in a particular church or to be fed by a particular pastor. The Sunday-Sunday pilgrimage of black peeps across London- and I suspect elsewhere - is akin to the migration of the wildebeest.

It effectively ghettoises the church and means very few actually make or leave a Christian imprint in their local communities. Churchianity aka organised religion. To what end?

I hope they come through this as a couple.

TV

As a goal it is laudable - and if done well a worthwhile achievement and highly commendable.. It has great significance and meaning, and, and is deeply enriching to the couple their families, any offspring and wider society.

A good marriage is a success in it's own right and overall can only enhance and deepen success in other areas of life.

AfricanApple: normally no
with Nigerian mentality yes

Any reasons as to why not?
Or can anyone tellus how a good marriage detracts from lifes joy or indeed hinders success in other areras of life?


TV

mojeer678: Yes o! oyb is right. Apparently, you haven't heard of stories such like this:

Nasty. Parents must be vigilent.

Funny how anyone could think that women don't have an at least equal capacity for abuse and violence. Not only do they have a greater capacity, they are more readily able to rationalise and justify it.

Afterall, isn't it women arguing for the unilateral right to terminate the lives of their unborn children at any point time and for any reason? "Ethicists" have even gone one further and advanced the argument to include "legal infanticide" - termination of a newborn/infant that is solely dependant on them.


Abeg, all this talk of women being more sensitive, faithful, gentle spiritual etc. etc. is tosh. They are just as given to the baser aspects of the human nature as men.


TV

damiso: Can I ask you also what of male neo-natal nurses? I know parents are often around a lot with preterm babies but the parents do go home sometimes and some pre-term babies can be in hospital for up to a year. Would you take the child out if as you were leaving your 6 month old baby one night a male neo-natal nurse signed in for a night shift?

Excellent question Damiso!

Was there an answer to this by any chance? I couldn’t find it…


TV

soonest: If una never mention feminism,una no go sleep well for night.smh

vikel2104: Seriously, the thing don tire me. I mean, don't they ever get tired of the subject? See how they've invaded this thread It must be an obsession.

The first person to touch on feminism in this thread was BananaBender - a woman. Strange that the comments above were only made after posts in response - by men?

The more seasoned posters know to overlook, avoid or ignore, if/when they think people are being disagreeable.

Apologies if that was meant for Bananabender


TV

coogar: nah, they will just choose which side of the coin suits them. feminism has gone too far now, it can't be slayed for the foreseeable future.

It's dying I tell ya. Didn't you see how they had young Emma Watson stylishly redefine it to mean humanism/equal rights (disastrous makeover and attempt to attract a new generation ). The desperate flailing of a redundant and irrelevant (and quite franly dangerous) movement.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.


TV

vikel2104: There are two questions on this topic. Everyone seem to be focusing on the second. I'll ask again, for the guys, would you take up a job as a nursery teacher? Why? Why not?

I certainly have the temperament, patience and requisite love for children (not the "concerning" type 0! ), but I wouldn't for a whole host of reasons.

Abuse is horrifying and every care must be taken, but the risks are still relatively small. Just as big a problem is the indoctrinisation via the curricula that is being introduced.

Happy and rewarding parenting all.


TV

^{**there is one in my sons nursery and I appreciate his presence for all the reasons Carefreewannabe mentioned. Not sure if he "cleans", but I couldn't care less, as I do, and as long as it's done. I check my son over daily and I am sensitive to his moods**}

carefreewannabe: I think that it is important that there are male nursery school teachers, too.
It is best for children to be surrounded by both, male and female, role models.

Boys may need male roles even more than girls do.

The argument that a male teacher should not touch a girl's private parts can be turned around and we must then ask ourselves if female teachers should touch the boys' private parts.

Why is it ok for women to touch boys but not the other way round?
And are female teachers always the better guardians?

My solution is this:

A nursery school should have both, male and female teachers.
In some particular situations, the female teachers can take care of the girls and the male teachers of the boys.

Very well said. Nothing to add. The reasons why are clearly articulated and the solution to any potential concerns detailed.

For those who concern is around men touching female babies/toddlers, do you ensure your husbands/partners/baby fathers or male relatives are barred from from this as well?

TV
^{I love the way it's evident that it's women that will finally slay the beast called feminism !}