Most men need to go back and check the meaning and traditional duties of a wife. It has become common these days for men to say they don't want a liability for a wife. Biko, let me ask this question, what/who is a liabilty? Can somebody google the word? I just did and I saw this;
"A liability can mean something that is a hindrance or puts an individual or group at a disadvantage, or something that someone is responsible for, or something that increases the chance of something occurring (i.e. it is a cause)"
Now let us look at the traditional duties of a wife;

1. She is solely responsible for concieving, giving birth to and nurturing children most times putting her own life on the line (visit any labour rooms and see what I mean)
2. She turns the house into a home by ensuring smooth, regular running of affairs in the house, ensuring that the house is neat and welcoming, cooks, laundry, and even manages money for house upkeep and makes sure the money lasts till the next one comes (pls note this kind of thing is not easy at all even when there is good money coming in. she often has to sacrifice a lot of brazilian weaves and other ladies' guilty pleasures to ensure this)
3. She nutures the children. Helps them with homework, attends PTA meetings, gives them all the needed moral support and even extends it to the husband by praying day and night for his success, being there when he needs a friend to talk to and standing by him through thick and thin.
4. She tries her best to satisfy her husbands (often times) high sexual needs.

Now, Mrs. A is an unemployed housewife who does all these things willingly and expertly, do we still call her a liability because she does not have a paid employment
Huh? Must everything be measured according to how much money she brings to the table? Does she have to bring money before she can be an asset? Must a woman's usefulness/worth be measured only according to her financial strength?
After watching your wife go to hell and back just so she can make you a proud father, will you still have the heart to call her a liability

I am a working woman, and yes I have the desire to earn a separate income from my not-too-distant-future hubby. I believe women should have their own financial freedom and do their own thing for themselves and for security purposes. But I also detest when a woman who is not for one reason or the other not working is looked down upon as a liability.
That is too strong a word to use on a woman who does everthing and sometimes even more of the things I mentioned.
This nonsense must stop! Unless, your unemployed wife is a lazy, nagging, dirty woman, I see absolutely no reason why she should be called a liablity. Do you know there are non-working women who lead their husbands to great wealth because of their characters alone??!! So my guys, be more concerned about a lady's character and aura than her income or where she works when choosing a wife. Instead of calling her a liability and being recentful, why not work harder and make more money? Can you carry a baby for 9 solid months and go through labour pains (agony)?
Big ups to all the housewives in the house! But hey ladies please try to have a separate account from your husband's or a joint account where your name is clearly wriiten on it.
Cheers!

*yawn*

Ok o..... For. This time n age no man will readily strive to marry a non earning woman
Times are hard

biolabee: Ok o..... For. This time n age no man will readily strive to marry a non earning woman
Times are hard

I understand that times are hard but taking out the frustrations on a woman who does so much for you or making a woman's income a vital part of your criteria for a wife is just like gold digging.
Go and work hard for more money

The society has begun to make non-working wives feel "guilty" just because they don't work. The woman starts to feel guilty of allowing her husband pay for everything because of of the constant whines of the husband. Also, some working working class ladies purposely rob their jobs in the faces of non-working class ladies.
This is very unfair and uncalled for.
I ask again, can a man carry a baby in his womb for 9 months? Can he go through labour pains. How many men here willingly change their babies nappies not to talk of waking up at night to attend to a crying baby! Even if there was ever a technology that makes it possible for a man to give birth, how many men will come out to say they want to help their wives give birth?
So please, give it to the wives abeg. Start appreciating your wives more whether or not she earns a salary. Don't wait until something happens to her and she can't do those things again for you before you realize her worth!

I didn't say that non earning wives are useless o

I have friends whose wives are doing nutin but the guys job is superb so they are exceptions to the rule

Is it now the fault of the man he s not earning more money?

biolabee: I didn't say that non earning wives are useless o

I have friends whose wives are doing nutin but the guys job is superb so they are exceptions to the rule

Is it now the fault of the man he s not earning more money?

Nope, it's not his fault at all, but that's no excuse for him to recent her or make income the most important criteria in choosing a wife. Look for xter first before any other thing. Many virtous women have opened doors for their husbands just by simply giving him good advice and praying for him.

Lemonade, trust me, she's a liability! Tryna paint it in some other ways is just tryna be nice unnecesarily!

She should go out there and work. Have you noticed that these women are the ones that want to ride the best car and eat the best food and buy all the aso-ebi's in town Yet, they don't wanna work! We appreciate all that they're doing but they should work!

SIMPLES!

alutacontinua: Lemonade, trust me, she's a liability! Tryna paint it in some other ways is just tryna be nice unnecesarily!

She should go out there and work. Have you noticed that these women are the ones that want to ride the best car and eat the best food and buy all the aso-ebi's in town Yet, they don't wanna work! We appreciate all that they're doing but they should work!

SIMPLES!

Nope. I am not trying to be nice. I am just stating a fact.
Of course we will have the bad ones among them. But are you saying that working class ladies don't indulge in these things even at the expense of their kids. Some working class ladies spend all their income on themselves, not even their kids. Some become too proud and pompous and disrespect their husbands. There are some non-working women who are more prudent in their spending and give better financial advice to their husbands than working women.
What I am trying to say is that a woman's character is more important than her income.

Sweetlemon:

Nope. I am not trying to be nice. I am just statinga fact.
Of course we will have the bad ones among them. But are you saying that working class ladies don't indulge in these things even at the expense of their kids. Some working class ladies spend all their income on themselves, not even their kids. Some become too proud and pompous and disrect their husbands. There are some non-working women who are more prudent in their spending and give better financial advice to their husbands than working women. What I am trying to say is that a woman's character is more important than her income.

I agree with the bolded!

Sweetlemon:
I ask again, can a man carry a baby in his womb for 9 months? Can he go through labour pains.

So because she goes through labour pains for 9 months she should not earn an income for the rest of her life? Or are women perpetually pregnant?

How many men here willingly change their babies nappies not to talk of waking up at night to attend to a crying baby!

I do and have done so countless times. Should I now say that I will not earn money because I change nappies?

So please, give it to the wives abeg. Start appreciating your wives more whether or not she earns a salary. Don't wait until something happens to her and she can't do those things again for you before you realize her worth!

You are conflating things that are separate - yes a woman's intrinsic value as a human being isn't based on her income earning potential. However, the fact that she is a woman/mother does NOT exclude her from needing to bring in an income too.

Pregnancy or raising children isn't a disease - you can earn an income. Let each family decide how it wants to be run. I personally will NOT be interested in a woman who doesn't want to earn an income simply because she gives birth to kids. The family needs to make its decision on what suits it best.

debosky:

So because she goes through labour pains for 9 months she should not earn an income for the rest of her life? Or are women perpetually pregnant?



I do and have done so countless times. Should I now say that I will not earn money because I change nappies?




You are conflating things that are separate - yes a woman's intrinsic value as a human being isn't based on her income earning potential. However, the fact that she is a woman/mother does NOT exclude her from needing to bring in an income too.

I did not say that she is exculded from earning money Mr, I said she should be appreciated for doing other things (which you cannot do) apart from earning money.
Thank God you change nappies, but can you give birth? Can you do all those other wifely things on a DAILY basis?
You did not get the bottom line of my message which is that her xter is more important than her income because at the end of the day, it is her xter that will make you a better person and mehn, not all the salaries in the world can equate the usefulness of that!

Sweetlemon: Most men need to go back and check the meaning and traditional duties of a wife.

No they don't. Why should I go back to traditional duties if it is incompatible with how I want to live my life today? Is it by force to go back to 'traditional duties'?

It has become common these days for men to say they don't want a liability for a wife. Biko, let me ask this question, what/who is a liabilty? Can somebody google the word? I just did and I saw this;
"A liability can mean something that is a hindrance or puts an individual or group at a disadvantage, or something that someone is responsible for, or something that increases the chance of something occurring (i.e. it is a cause)"

A wife not earning an income puts the family at an economic disadvantage compared to a family where both husband and wife earn incomes (assuming the husbands earn the same in both families). In that sense, the woman is a financial liability. Being a financial liability doesn't mean you are useless.

A child who cannot support himself/herself is a financial liability till he/she can earn an income. It seems you just don't like the word.

4. She tries her best to satisfy her husbands (often times) high sexual needs.

So she shouldn't earn income because she fvcks her husband? Like really? Is she a hoe?

Now, Mrs. A is an unemployed housewife who does all these things willingly and expertly, do we still call her a liability because she does not have a paid employment

Yes - she can be a financial liability - a financial liability is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what the family wants.

Must a woman's usefulness/worth be measured only according to her financial strength?
After watching your wife go to hell and back just so she can make you a proud father, will you still have the heart to call her a liability

Being a liability doesn't mean you are worthless - like I said, your issue appears to be with the word 'liability'.

Sweetlemon:
I did not say that she is exculded from earning money Mr, I said she should be appreciated for doing other things apart from earning money.

So what are you saying exactly?

Women are appreciated - however, if they don't earn money, they can be financial liabilities. To state this FACT that women can be financial liabilities doesn't mean they are unappreciated.

Thank God you change nappies, but can you give birth? Can you do all those other wifely things on a DAILY basis?

What other wifely things? Laundry? Cooking? What exactly can't I do? And even if I can't do them, what does that have to do with earning money?

You did not get the bottom line of my message which is that her xter is more important than her income because at the end of the day, it is her xter that will make you a better person and mehn, not all the salaries in the world can equate the usefulness of that!

A man's character is also more important as well, not his salary so what point are you making? Or is it only a woman's character that matters?

debosky:

No they don't. Why should I go back to traditional duties if it is incompatible with how I want to live my life today? Is it by force to go back to 'traditional duties'?



A wife not earning an income puts the family at an economic disadvantage compared to a family where both husband and wife earn incomes (assuming the husbands earn the same in both families). In that sense, the woman is a financial liability. Being a financial liability doesn't mean you are useless.

A child who cannot support himself/herself is a financial liability till he/she can earn an income. It seems you just don't like the word.



So she shouldn't earn income because she fvcks her husband? Like really? Is she a hoe?



Yes - she can be a financial liability - a financial liability is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what the family wants.



Being a liability doesn't mean you are worthless - like I said, your issue appears to be with the word 'liability'.

Yes she can be a financial liability. But it's small compared to all the many things she does to turn your house into a home which you will be happy to to go after a hard day at work.
Yes I have a problem with the word liability because it is too strong a word to use on a woman who does all those things I listed above and more.
If you feel that money is the only worthy asset of a woman in a home, let your non-working wife travel and leave you with the kids for only 2 weeks. 2 weeks oooo
Then come back and tell me she's a liabilty

Sweetlemon:
Yes she can be a financial liability.

So what are we debating? Go and change your thread title now to She IS a financial liability.

But it's small compared to all the many things she does to turn your house into a home which you will be happy to to go after a hard day at work.

That is a separate issue and doesn't change the fact that she can be a financial liability. Why can't (some) women separate two different issues?

Yes I have a problem with the word liability because it is too strong a word to use on a woman who does all those things I listed above.

Which is why I use financial liability. Are you happy now?

If you feel that money is the only worth asset of a woman in a home, let your non-working wife travel and leave you with the kids for only 2 weeks. 2 weeks oooo

I don't feel money is the only worthy asset, but it is also important in today's world for a woman to earn an income. The fact that she does other things doesn't exclude her from needing to contribute monetarily as well. I repeat, I don't want a financial liability as a wife!

Then come back and tell me she's a liabilty

She is still a financial liability - traveling with my money for 2 weeks included.

debosky:

So what are you saying exactly?

Women are appreciated - however, if they don't earn money, they can be financial liabilities. To state this FACT that women can be financial liabilities doesn't mean they are unappreciated.



What other wifely things? Laundry? Cooking? What exactly can't I do? And even if I can't do them, what does that have to do with earning money?



A man's character is also more important as well, not his salary so what point are you making? Or is it only a woman's character that matters?

From your tone, I can see you just like arguing and winning arguments.
Just like Alutacontinua did, look at the bottom line of my message and stop talking as if I said women should not work.
By the way, a woman's traditional and foremost duty is to nuture while that of a man is to provide. So a woman can afford not to work but a man does not have such luxury. Same way a woman cannot say she does not want to give birth or expect her husband to be the one bearing children. That's why women generally nuture kids better than men. It's a fact that science can never change
Having said that, I have always adviced ladies to have some sort of paid employment for their own good and security. It's also nice to give financial support to our husbands every now and then to make the family even more financially comfortable than it is.
However, men should be more concerned about making more money than in looking foward to their wives pay check.

If a woman doesn't earn an income, she can be a financial liability - that's the bottom line. Whether you like that or not doesn't change the reality. It doesn't make her a liability in every sense because she can bring value in other ways.

As for your 'traditional roles' - that is simply your opinion. Apart from the physical giving birth aspect, there is nothing that a man cannot do if he so chooses when it comes to nurturing children/running the home. We are in 2013 where women can have the capacity to earn far more than a man can, so why should that ability be wasted simply on the basis of 'traditional roles'?

It's the choice of the man and woman involved - if I, as a man, consider a woman without financial contribution as a financial liability then that's the reality to me.

Debosky, thank God you realize that there is one thing a non-working wife can do that you can NEVER do. Not even in the year 3000!
Like I said, you still don't get my point.

Sweetlemon: Debosky, thank God you realize that there is one thing a non-working wife can do that you can NEVER do. Not even in the year 3000!
Like I said, you still don't get my point.

There are things I can do too that a non-working wife can NEVER do - not even in year 15000!

You don't have much of a point really, except that you hate the word liability.

debosky:

There are things I can do too that a non-working wife can NEVER do - not even in year 15000!

You don't have much of a point really, except that you hate the word liability.

Oya mention one! and don't tell me impregnating her because if you look at it well, the equation is not balanced.
for a baby to be born, he needs the father's sperm plus the mother's egg.
Now who's gonna carry and nuture the fertilized egg? who is gonna go through the labour agony and often times pregnancy discomforts?
so puleeeeez, the woman does a whole much more work in that department abeg!
And yes i hate the word because it's not fair after doing all these things for you.

A wife becomes a 'liability' if she refuses to work to support the home financially and the husband has to struggle to meet the financial needs of the family all by himself. When this happens the husband has the added financial responsibility towards his wife and she becomes a liability.
Being a liability to a husband is relative. If the man can bear the financial needs of the family including his wife's then all is well but if he has to struggle/borrow/beg to meet up and his wife refuses to help financially then she is an additional burden.
IMO the being a financial liability should be discussed early in marriage or during courtship.

hbabe: A wife becomes a 'liability' if she refuses to work to support the home financially and the husband has to struggle to meet the financial needs of the family all by himself. When this happens the husband has the added financial responsibility towards his wife and she becomes a liability.
Being a liability to a husband is relative. If the man can bear the financial needs of the family including his wife's then all is well but if he has to struggle/borrow/beg to meet up and his wife refuses to help financially then she is an additional burden.
IMO the being a financial liability should be discussed early in marriage or during courtship.

And do you know a working class lady can be a financial liablility if she cannot spend her income wisely and save money?
That's why I said that a woman's xter should come before her income

Sweetlemon:
And do you know a working class lady can be a financial liablility if she cannot spend her income wisely and save money?
That's why I said that a woman's xter should come before her income

Yes I have come across such women.
But your topic is saying stay at home wives should not be called liabilities. Can we then refer to them as ASSETS? Since they are bringing out children, cleaning, cooking and doing bedroom chores?
In marriage we are supposed to complement one another; a woman should help her husband in areas he is weak/deficient and the husband should do likewise to the wife. I have seen husbands who work and still help out heavily in the home.

hbabe:
Yes I have come across such women.
But your topic is saying stay at home wives should not be called liabilities. Can we then refer to them as ASSETS? Since they are bringing out children, cleaning, cooking and doing bedroom chores?
In marriage we are supposed to complement one another; a woman should help her husband in areas he is weak/deficient and the husband should do likewise to the wife. I have seen husbands who work and still help out heavily in the home.

My dear, why should a woman not be called an asset simply because she does not have an income? Why must it be only when she brings home money that she can be an asset?
So a woman who prays to God for her husband's success and protection is not an asset? A woman who can give good, life-changing advice to her hubby on various matters is not qualified to be an asset?? A woman who can save money and properly manage her husband's income is not an asset?? A woman who nutures her kids, helps them with home work, attends PTA meetings is not an asset??
Tell me something!

^^ She is an asset, but she is a financial liability.

OP,
You might make yourself happy, but half of the points you raised can be done by a house help or even machines. Cooking, washing cloths and keeping house clean can always be done by a nanny. So what if a woman does not have children. What does she do, since you claim women should be a home taking care of kids. And should a woman get a gold medal simply because she sleeps with her husband? Doesnt she not also enjoy the act or who else is supposed to sleep with him at night.

Anything of economic value is called an asset and liabilities can be described as debt or hindrances. A lady can be working (earning money) and still be a liability; examples are quarelsome wives who always find faults in their husbands, who insult and disrespect their husbands.

On the other hand a housewife can be an asset if she helps her husband, is a confidant, supports him in everyway she can and makes his home happy. There is economic value in that.

But the truth is than an asset is something with economic value. If all a woman does is clean, cook and sleeps with her husband, that is no value I am sorry. A househelp can do all of those. But the value comes in when you begin to be a source of strength and support. When you begin to take interest in things that pertain to him. When he sees you as his best friend and closest confidant. When he sees you and gets encouraged!

Question for the men..
Should the woman also be classed or referred to as a financial liability if its the husband that demands she stay at home?

This is the only case in which i'll think that phrase unfair to use on a woman.

@op, whether you agree or not, this is 2013, for goodness sake, yes, women do a lot to turn houses to homes, but that should not make a woman become financial liability, yes, for a man to be the only one who will be responsible for all the financial obligations can be frustrating, infact, can kill the man earlier than when responsibilities are shared, i cant ever feel comfortable asking for money for EVERYTHING i will need from an individual like myself........as in WTF Do i want to kill him

Like one of the posters above said, some women earn far more that what their hubbies earn, should one now allOw that to waste because of traditional roles oF women, which even turn some women in the olden days to a more or less slaves or helpless, what could they do.....nothing!, if complaints of the woman is too much, you will hear pple asking the woman what her problems are, they will even call her ingrate, that, upon all the man is doing, shes still complaining, afterall, she doesnt bring anything home......blah, blah, blah............

Biblically, the intention God had for creating the institution of marriage is for the couple to be helpmates, now, if emphasis is on women giving birth, is the man the only parent/owner of the child/ren(obinrin bimo funra e, loun bimo foko oun)....when the children turn out to be what we want them to be, and they start rewarding the parents, is it only the fathers they reward, so, its not a favour to the men, its mutual respnsibility.
As regards women advising men and praying for men, if its a normal marriage/family, it is mutual, i've seen several women in top places, due to their hubby's advice and prayers.........myself inclusive, so, not a favour, its mutual responsibility.
In conclusion, even in biblical times, when Solomon described the virtuos woman, diligency and business idea are part of the qualities he said about her, which means, she was not only comfortable with traditional roles of women, she was helping her hubby financially.


Now, it depends on individual marriage, whatever rocks your marriage boats, but, personally, i refuse to be a financial liability to my hubby.


May God help us all.

debosky: ^^ She is an asset, but she is a financial liability.

Lol!
Go joor!

@Nashville you beat me to it.... yes a registered beautiful non scary nanny will do all your work you think nobody but you can't , as the matter of fact that your 9month crap duty would be done by a surrogate mom with your carbon copy kids .... Nobody is indispensable oh so watch it there .

So that man no be another person's pikin to make more money for you to spend just cause you're a woman?

You better face your studies sam Sam and aim high and let your man respect you and run after you .... Monè makes the world go round oh bebe!

So YES.... She is a liability!!