Today i will rest my first writeup and talk about the pastor and what he said....
Stella made a post on Friday about the Pastor. I will not mention his name. Anyone who read that post knows who I am talking about.
He said and I quote; “If you remove money most men don’t have what it takes to lead a woman. That’s why most men want to hold on to the idea that a man’s main role is ‘providing’ ".
He might not be necessarily wrong. But lately, I’ve learnt to sieve what a lot of pulpit artists (MOGs) say these days. After all the bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:32, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets.”
For the typical female and indeed most people, leadership is results, leadership is substance. Let’s use Moses as an example. He was equipped for leadership in every way but in the wilderness, when substance became unavailable, the people murmured, grumbled and rebelled.
A man can lead all he wants but if he has no ‘pot to piss in’, it is only a matter of time before he appears to be just taking a walk. No woman has ever boasted about her husband’s ability to lead. More than a few take pride in his ability to provide. We hear our ladies say “it is better to cry in a Ferrari that to be happy in a Keke.” Oga, wetin your leadership wan do here? He who must lead, must first be seen to provide covering. And how can he do that without substance?
Every man should lead yes. But as he leads, he MUST be seen to provide! That’s what completes him as a man. Women are naturally wired to look up, they are programmed to respond, to mirror back, multiply and return any and everything invested in her.
From a tender age, men get conditioned that the number one duty they have is one of provision. Hardly is it ever hammered in that they also need to provide emotional leadership and direction, emotional presence and sensitivity. Most men aren’t even in tune with their own emotional development and as such they believe that as long as they can provide, it is more than enough. This doesn’t help them neither does it help their partners. But they didn’t make the rules. Societal expectations did. And if we are true to ourselves, the ladies prefer a man who can provide than one who can lead.
How many women can even recognize leadership when they see it? How many women can respond to leadership when it is not backed up by provision? Let’s not blame the men when they choose to focus more on provision. Most time, that is the only option they have. They will not be given attention otherwise.
Women will always cover up and make excuses for a man who can provide. His lack of leadership becomes immaterial. Rarely does a woman who can foot her own bills look up to and value the opinion and leadership of a man who lacks in provision. This is the simple truth.
Lol..
ReplyDeleteIt was late in the night I opened that post and saw Slim Shady calling me for whatever reason, but it's late already and I no get strength to type so I just passed..
One pastor was saying women shouldn't add their money even if she's way richer, she should still leave the provision to the man
The other one is saying without providing, most men cannot lead.. who them won confuse? Lol..
I think this other pastor read my comment in the first pastor's post and saw what I said about the time women have no work and weren't educated and just thought he should make out a content from it to post without really thinking well.. cos where do I even start from to educate these people that every discussion is just centered around money. You collect babe number she's already expecting money from you, you read blog, you are already feeling she's owing you giveaway, a man shares recharge card in the blog, other hungry girls come to curse out another man that didn't give their leeching asses lol.. omo that's why the country no get head at all
Please this is 2026 you all should stop this lie that women are wired to look up. And to return every investment invested in her.
ReplyDeleteThat's not true.
We can deceive ourselves all we want but after God is money.
With money comes responbility and freedom.
A man's role is to provide.
By providing you are technically leading already.
Yes in tofays world and this time money is everything.
Having money means you can do what you want to do..you can lead and make life easier for others too.
Even the bible says there's was a good man in a community that did a lot of good but because he was poor no one heard about or listened to him.
What's leading or leadership without financial power ?
As a president can you lead when you don't have enough money to execute your good plans ?
A ma da fun e ke anon 15:51 for this your submission.
Delete💯 the honest truth, nothing more .
ReplyDeleteMr. Dogs please speak for the women in your circle and not for all women cos all women are not the same. Women of character and values that are doing well for themselves want a man with character and values too because money can come and go at anytime. When you write, write based on the women you know, the world is too big with so many unique individuals to generalize.
ReplyDeleteThank you. His write up made women appear to be shallow and without integrity, as long as money dey. This is far from the truth.
DeleteThere's a reason the Bible related Respect to a woman's affections- Respect is a perception based on a person's abilities, qualities or achievements. Achievement is gauged with respect to specific areas or objectives. In the home, this may be based on areas such as sexual fulfilment, provision of needs or how the man meets challenges etc.
ReplyDeleteProvision is just a part of it. Money is also a part of that ability to provide. Basing provision as the core of romantic interactions is just Neanderthal. Money is a vehicle and it should be put in its place.
Money is actually more of an attractive dressing that signals to the females that this might be a man of Influence/achievement but there has to be substance behind that and without that substance you find the girls leaving, cheating or whatever.
It's a complex dynamic and simplistic opinions like the above do not cut it.
If it was o Regina will still be with Ned, Dabota with her Ex, To you with Churchill......... the list goes on and on...
Smh. I see you have hit the trifecta: Misogynist, Bad lay ,and hack.
ReplyDeleteJeez pick a struggle
Seriously? You picked misogynist from my post? Is this a word you learnt newly and felt the urgent need to throw around just to impress?
DeleteThis argument sounds confident, but when you slow it down, it falls apart.
ReplyDeleteIt starts by redefining leadership as money, then uses that definition to claim men without money cannot lead. That’s not truth that’s circular thinking.
Leadership is not a bank balance.
Leadership is judgement, consistency, courage, responsibility, and care.
Money can support leadership.
It does not create it.
Using Moses as an example actually proves the opposite point. The people rebelled not because Moses lacked money, but because fear and uncertainty make people restless. Even wealthy, well fed women revolt. History proves that again and again. Provision did not save Pharaoh. It did not save Rome. It does not guarantee loyalty.
Many men provide financially and still abandon their families emotionally, avoid responsibility
ReplyDeleteand outsource parenting. Such men are usually abandoned in their old age by their kids.
That is not leadership. That is payment in place of participation.
Yes, society pressures men to provide. That’s real.
Yes, money matters. Also real.
But turning money into the measure of manhood is what traps men in the very box this argument pretends to criticise.
A man without money is not just taking a walk, a man without character is.
What women reject is authority without substance. Substance is not just cash. Substance is emotional intelligence, moral spine consistency and the ability to carry the weight when things go wrong. Pa Ned is an example of money with no substance.
ReplyDeleteMen who have good qualities are followed in their homes, in movements, and in their businesses.
Provision supports leadership but it does not replace it.
And reducing leadership to money doesn’t elevate men, it makes them look emotionally and morally bankrupt.
When God led his people, it was with a pillar of cloud to give shade during the day and pillar of fire at night. For groaning, he responded with water, manna (food of angels) and quail. It is when they started rating their ability and not relying on His grace that they said "whatever He commands us we will do it". Next thing, Sinai changed countenance and they themselves have been acting amiss till today.
ReplyDeleteTo lead is to give, bless , supply, support, sacrifice, provide for, protect, shield , satisfy, spiritually, physically, mentally and otherwise. Jesus is preparing his bride to be without blemish by being to her all in all. To achieve this he kuku surrendered himself to God the father, humbling himself even to death upon a cross instead of the out satan offered: glory of the world's kingdoms without suffering. He responded to that second temptation saying " you shall worship the lord your God and only him shall you serve- a lesson for those looking to lead daughters of God in their strength. It has never worked.
Leadership and provision are not either or. Rather, leadership includes provision and God is eager to resource those who rely on him to lead in every way.
Study what love is in the bible and who God tells to love in marriage. Respect is earned, a response to something done eh God showed his love for us in that while we were still sinners, he dent Christ do die for us. It is someone who is giving his life that can say "follow me ".
This leader or whatever is so unnecessary
ReplyDeleteMany guys don’t even want to lead at home
Yall just stress them with it
It seems you people did not understand the pastors point.
ReplyDeleteDo the right thing as adult.
ReplyDelete