A Nigerian lady identified as Queen Minic on Twitter has taken to the platform to write that a man does not have the obligation to take care of his wife’s family.

According to Queen, it is the sole responsibility of the woman to hustle and send money to her family. Or better still, it should be a decision the man has to make personally.

She further urged all ladies to be financially independent and stop relying on their husbands for everything.

In her words;

“The Duty of your husband is not to take care of your immediate family. Have something doing.

It is your responsibility to take care of your family (siblings and parents)not that of your husband. Let it be his CHOICE to do. Don’t FORCE it on him Sis.”

Who give this wan sense

Yes, I support her 100%.

Marriage is not poverty alleviation programme.

taking care of partner's family, lol....why not family's neighbors too (while you are at it)?!?!?

Ibiminastephen:
A Nigerian lady identified as Queen Minic on Twitter has taken to the platform to write that a man does not have the obligation to take care of his wife’s family.

According to Queen, it is the sole responsibility of the woman to hustle and send money to her family. Or better still, it should be a decision the man has to make personally.

She further urged all ladies to be financially independent and stop relying on their husbands for everything.

In her words;

“The Duty of your husband is not to take care of your immediate family. Have something doing.

It is your responsibility to take care of your family (siblings and parents)not that of your husband. Let it be his CHOICE to do. Don’t FORCE it on him Sis.”

Depends on the culture.

I know a couple of men who are expected to care for their in-laws (elder or younger).

One was even expected to send 'pocket money' to his grown in-laws every month.

Obviously, they ran a strict traditional model of marriage.

It depends on one's perspective about marriage; since two become one as a couple/when pursuing oneness, it is therefore the couple's - not the wife's - responsibility to help their individual extended families to the best of their ability. So, directly or indirectly, it's the man's responsibility to help his wife's parents and siblings, and vice versa.

A wife (or even a husband) can be resourceful and reasonable without earning money directly.

LordKO:
It depends on one's perspective about marriage; since two become one as a couple/when pursuing oneness, it is therefore the couple's - not the wife's - responsibility to help their individual extended families to the best of their ability. So, directly or indirectly, it's the man's responsibility to help his wife's parents and siblings, and vice versa.

A wife (or even a husband) can be resourceful and reasonable without earning money directly.

She is talking of a traditional setting where the husband is the breadwinner and expected to provide for his in-laws.

A friend once argued that if her husband sent N20k to his family, he must send N20k to hers whether they have same financial standing or not.

bukatyne:


She is talking of a traditional setting where the husband is the breadwinner and expected to provide for his in-laws.

A friend once argued that if her husband sent N20k to his family, he must send N20k to hers whether they have same financial standing or not.

"Expected to provide for his in-laws" or help to the best his/their ability? I don't expect a sane person to use servility to sustain a relationship with another person.

All this will not even be an issue if guys marry girls from at least middle-class families.

Na only poor in-laws dey bother man with their problems.

LordKO:


"Expected to provide for his in-laws" or help to the best his/their ability? I don't expect a sane person to use servility to sustain a relationship with another person.

Expected sir.

From the collective pot. Exactly
And unnecessary issues avoided.

.

LordKO:
It depends on one's perspective about marriage; since two become one as a couple/when pursuing oneness, it is therefore the couple's - not the wife's - responsibility to help their individual extended families to the best of their ability. So, directly or indirectly, it's the man's responsibility to help his wife's parents and siblings, and vice versa.

A wife (or even a husband) can be resourceful and reasonable without earning money directly.

bukatyne:


Expected sir.

Connotation of your friend's statement shows that she's a contentious wife - or let me assume that her husband's small-mindedness has made her to become a contentious wife. This, by extension, means that they aren't operating on a fair philosophy where conscientiousness/principle reigns supreme over expediency - they don't trust each other - self-interest/egoism is the order of the day in their union, capped with crassness.
 
A couple (a sane couple) who're of the same ethical leanings - healthy ethical leanings - and operate on a mutual fair philosophy will always allow principle to reign supreme over expediency. In this instance, it shouldn't be about if he sends 20k to his extended family, he must send 20k to my own extended family too, and vice versa, like your friend stated. Instead, it'll be about either of the extended families that need the help getting what's available from them, while if it's the normal occasional/seasonal benevolent gifts, they make sure the individual extended families get their deserving share. Truth is that, when two conscientious people have altruistic interest towards each other and decide to pursue oneness/marry, things always flow well effortlessly between them and that breeds understanding - understanding breeds love.

LOL. You know say I no accept the "sir" appropriation. I am, however, not going to stop addressing you as mama de mama.

Taking care of one's immediate family is a necessity and every man must strive to properly cater for his family. However, giving to relatives and in-laws is a charitable act and as with every act of charity, one should give of his own volition but never out of compulsion.

@Stacyo, come and say what you think

What kind of family is that?
Are they all handicapped?

Trupz:
Taking care of one's immediate family is a necessity and every man must strive to properly cater for his family. However, giving to relatives and in-laws is a charitable act and as with every act of charity, one should give of his own volition but never out of compulsion.

@Stacyo, come and say what you think

You've said it all dear.


Let me chip in small
If the woman's family can't take care of all their needs,their daughter should be ready to equally shoulder the responsibilities.
It will get to a point,the man himself will start using that as an opportunity to misbehave.

It's better to be independent n take good care of your family yourself, in the process helping your husband and building a healthy family. Nothing beats that.

In fact,your husband won't only be relieved,he'll equally want to do more for your family. It shouldn't be forced, please n please (It has destroyed many homes).

It is certainly not the husband's obligation but he can always out of his freewill assist whenever he can or are the men in the wife's family handicapped?

LordKO:



Connotation of your friend's statement shows that she's a contentious wife - or let me assume that her husband's small-mindedness has made her to become a contentious wife. This, by extension, means that they aren't operating on a fair philosophy where conscientiousness/principle reigns supreme over expediency - they don't trust each other - self-interest/egoism is the order of the day in their union, capped with crassness.
 
A couple (a sane couple) who're of the same ethical leanings - healthy ethical leanings - and operate on a mutual fair philosophy will always allow principle to reign supreme over expediency. In this instance, it shouldn't be about if he sends 20k to his extended family, he must send 20k to my own extended family too, and vice versa, like your friend stated. Instead, it'll be about either of the extended families that need the help getting what's available from them, while if it's the normal occasional/seasonal benevolent gifts, they make sure the individual extended families get their deserving share. Truth is that, when two conscientious people have altruistic interest towards each other and decide to pursue oneness/marry, things always flow well effortlessly between them and that breeds understanding - understanding breeds love.

LOL. You no say I no accept the "sir" appropriation. I am, however, not going to stop addressing you as mama de mama.

@ Bold:

Very funny

Babe said it was cultural. She did not like the cultural aspect that gave the husband upper hand sha.

That's why men shouldn't marry sit-at-home wives. If she works, you can collectively handle the extra bills from both sides regardless.

Your siblings are NOT your responsibility and it is absolutely absurd for a wife to expect her husband to take care of her family. How were they living before she married him?