RELATIONSHIP OR ROLE-ATIONSHIP

She wakes up at five o clock in the morning. Quickly she put water on the heater. She’s going to run the bath of their kids. She runs to prepare breakfast. She goes ahead to make sure her husband’s shirt is sparkling clean and well-ironed. He wakes up after a short sleep hurrying to get to work. He doesn’t like taking the kids to school. It makes him get late to work besides, "it is the woman’s job", he said, "After all I’m the one to provide for them – pay the bills, rents and the children’s school fees". To our parents and grandees, this may seem a perfect workout at that but it’s not a relationship at all but what Kevin Chappell, senior editor of Ebony Magazine called ‘role-ationship’.

It is indeed true that so many unions and relationships today are not what actors of these unions thought it is. It’s not a relationship at all in fact, far from it. It’s rather a union for casting roles – what the actors cum directors consider as worthy of a man and one that befits the woman. Just like I wrote earlier, this could be a perfect workout for the oldies but it’s somehow a misty and foggy ideal for the contemporaries presently or about to be in relationships.
To my mind, the book that I think has actually taken time and which I’ve read on the issue is Myles Munroe’s "Understanding the Power and Purpose of Men". The author took time to analyse what the people perceived as the roles of both sexes in the relationship. Now the question that readily comes to mind and which he actually posed in the book was: "what if the woman makes more money than the man?" then, a perfect zeroing of the man’s idea. "What if the man knows how to cook well and he enjoys staying around the kids and changing the diapers?" What a perfect answer to the woman! Then, we have confusion. "I thought it is women’s role to change diapers and lure the baby to sleep ", the men would say. Hear the woman: "me, I cannot use my money top pay the rent; it is his job to do that. After all he knows he’s going to do that before he signed for the rent". But the man felt he’s doing it alone. "Can’t she find something to add to it?" he raged back. Now, who should do what?

Did you say the man ought to pay the rent? Then, who gave roles? "He ought to", you said, "at least he married the woman". Then you must have forgotten that the bible said something like "…and the man shall leave his house and meet the woman". Do you see the confusion? Oh… now you know it’s no relationship at all. But as a matter of fact, a good understanding actually should be gotten here rather than work-out. If nobody defines the roles, then a relationship should be based on the people init. I see no reason why a woman cannot pay for the rent if she has the will-power to do so while the husband’s finances is on the low side. Neither do I see any form of abnormality if the man decides to change the baby’s diapers after all it is not ‘only’ her child but their child.
Yes! Some people have said that our customs have given us roles. It is known, for example in the Yoruba custom and tradition of Western Nigeria, that the man is the bread-winner of the family. Primordial days and its experiences is part-reason for that. Short stories and folklores of the male tortoise is here who had to go out to provide for his wife and children – although he’s a clever one and who always have something up his sleeves – that he fell down and cracked his back. The woman ought to stay at home and be with the children and the man instead of being a loving and approachable dad, he’s always rugged, rough and harsh that the children stay miles away from him. Shit! Like the Americans would say. Someone will tell you "it is normal for the child to be closer to the mother" – and run away from the father? No wonder the lifespan of our men are so short compared to their wives.
If this custom which is a mere sand that doesn’t hold water actually stands for this purpose, the how do we describe those doting fathers who feeds the children, wash plates even when their wives are around, dust the house? You can imagine what the irresponsible man said: "it’s an exception to the rule; for every rule there’s always an exception". Please help ask him: was rules made for man or man for rules? Besides, who made the rules? The woman would say "he’s just an old jerk who doesn’t take time to see the way his mates do in their family". True it may be, but what things are you doing outside what you consider roles?

I believe this is the twenty-first century with its innovations in the area of science and technology and also, learning. If we could have these, there need to be innovative mind also. Rather than waste away in awarding roles - like they do in Nollywood – on what is considered appropriate in a family and other unions thinking it’s relationship, why don’t you spend time and look at how you can best utilize and maximize the time and opportunity you have with that man and what you’d be missing without that woman. Just like Kevin Chappell wrote, it is true that we need a fresh look at relationship and know if yours is really a relationship or role-ationship and quickly see amend.