The estimated reading time for this post is 4 minutes
Who remembers how many weeks ago it was that the Twitter community, once again, as it’s usual custom is, brought up the debate on who should cook between the husband and the wife? I do not think it was up to two weeks before things hit the roof as it is said.
This endless , cyclical or seasonal argument about the roles of two people who, forsaking all others, chose to live together, has been flogged, twisted, churned and recycled by millions of people living in various circumstances and with different backgrounds.
Why then does it keep coming up?
MAN IS INHERENTLY LAZY AND SELFISH.
The truth is, left alone, man and by that, i mean, human beings. are lazy and selfish. We want it all to ourselves but are nit willing to give our all in return. We would rather fold our arms and cross our legs while some other unfortunate fellow does the running around. And, so long as the fellow ‘needs’ us, we are the boss. We call the shots.
What then makes it worse is the mindset that, ‘if i cannot have it, then, no one else deserves it’.
So, a woman believes that she NEEDS a man if ever she would feel complete and whole in this hole called life. As long as she needs a man, his word is yea and amen. She would shed off her skin and break her bones for him, if he asks and not even if he needs it.
Thus, she would travel through life, seeking for that man for her.
Then, she meets one who, despite being a man, does not want her to be his burden bearer. He does not know how to cook nor does he desire to do so. But, he would rather they go out to eat or even starve than have his woman slave herself over him.
This, to the woman, is abnormal. And she leaves. Man A is single once again.
Next up, she meets a man, who can cook and is in fact very good at it but would no more lift a knife to slice a loaf of bread now that he has a woman at his beck and call.
‘Yes, this is the life. This is what I have been looking for’, says the woman. The woman, who would never get to know how much of a chef her man is because… He never cooks.
She is finally in a place where she is ‘needed’. Woman A with Man B.
Woman B sees how much her fellow woman is suffering and tries to intervene. ‘You don’t have to carry all the burden alone. Ask your man to help you. Ask him to wash while you cook or get the food ingredients while you mop the house.’
But, of course, woman A sees no reason with woman B.
‘You are a disgrace to womanhood. Your man is second to God and if you deny him anything, your portion is in hell. In fact, you are worse than an infidel.’
So, woman B is shunned.
WOMAN B AND MAN A.
Woman B then meets man A, who had initially been with woman A. Their perspectives seem to be the same and while he may not be able to do much in terms of cooking, he is not unavailable in other areas. When the woman is unable to cook, they go out to eat. And when there is no money, the man either tries his hand at whatever he can out together or they both sleep hungry or drink garri.
WOMAN C AND MAN C.
Then, here comes woman C who does not know how to cook and does not even want to know. She has been in a relationship with man C for a year and three months. Man C loves to cook and he is ready to do all the cooking so long as other things are taken are of by woman C which is what has obtained in their 15 month relationship.
Now, look over these combinations, which of them is balanced? Which of them is ideal? Which of them looks like what you are in right now or what you’d like to be when you are in a relationship? Also, which would you recommend for your best friend?
I think all of them are wrong.
Yesterday, I and my sister made each other’s hair into simple cornrows. We talked about friendships and how they change over time not necessarily because people became snobbish or aloof but because life happens and what tied friends together at some point may no longer be enough as time goes by. Today, we watched The Platform and we will not be eating more than one egg per person per day again.