The problem is NOT that I do not comprehend better, the problem is that I comprehend your motifs too well.
You are very good at finding minor flaws in people's argumentation structure but fail to come up with your own argumentation. When asked you will say things like "Disgust is my argument but not my only one." Disgust is not even an argument and the others are left for people to guess. So much for the illusion of e-victories.
Now to your question. When you say that a woman is at a disadvantage for having a child then it means the same as the child is a disadvantage to her.
And then on a different occasion you will say that women getting custody in the West have an advantage. What a contradiction. Is it according to your own argumentation here not actually the other way round?
I have no problem, unlike you, debating on and offline. I can do both. You think you are objective? What is your objectivity based on? Disgust? Prejudice?
Emotional twisting coupled with word twisting is your forte, not mine.
Of course you didn't call the child disadvantage directly but saying that having a child is a disadvantage is pretty much the same thing. And then again, when having a child is a disadvantage for a woman, how do the laws, you constantly lament over, favor women? Let me see the logic that explains that.
Next time remind yourself that your SUBJECTIVE experiences with women are the reason why you come to a thread asking women if karma is the reason for what they may be going through. So much for objectivity and logic. Karma.
And I guess you assume that women don't mind dating single fathers. (Let me guess, you will now say that men are not the ones who children stay with and then on the next thread you will argue that custody laws favor women. Objectivity.)
A man having a child will also have a restricted pool of possible partners. I guess, you can only see one part of the reality, the one that you want to see to feel better.
Which woman wants a man who reasons that a woman who has already given birth is impure and not fresh? Answer: Only a desperate woman. Therefore, if my pool was reduced due to the fact that a man reasons like this, I would be GRATFUL that such men stay away from me without having to tell them.
Also, do you actually assume that women do not prefer men who will only be father to their kids? Do you assume that women have a motivation to help raising kids from other women?
If a woman meets a man who has one baby mama (or more) somewhere, do you think she doesn't consider the cost of it, which is not only financial?
Again, how do laws that AUTOMATICALLY give women the custody for kids favor them then? I asked you this question on the other thread and then you used your deviation tactics and slogans to shrug it off. Now here we are again.
Besides, a man who ALREADY has children himself is restricted too as he will have to (provided he cares about his children) spend time with his kids at least on every second weekend.
I guess the logic and objectivity you always refer to, Mr Intellectual God, is so clouded that you can only jump from thread to thread and use your arguments without seeing the whole picture to employ your scare tactics to make women behave nicer. I guess, you should be the only one of having the luxury of showing arrogance and be proud of it.
Good you know it. And because for a mother her child/ren will always have priority, she will never think of herself as someone who is at a disadvantage because a partner, especially when the children are very young, be it the biological father or not, is her PRIORITY and FOCUS.
I remember when a friend of mine who was separated from her baby father would tell men within the first half an hour of their first encounter about her child and PROUDLY show photos of her son. I know it because I witnessed it when we went out. The fact that some men might refuse to date her because of that did not even bother her a bit.
Another friend with a child who was searching for a new relationship online would post photos of her and her daughter. Everyone should see that either they accept her with her child or not at all. And she wouldn't give a damn if that would limit her options. She still didn't consider HAVING a child a disadvantage.
I am afraid, you cannot understand the love of a mother and therefore how she will never consider HAVING a child a disadvantage.
There are plenty of the so called patchwork families in the West. It has become a very ordinary family type.
I guess, your objectivity made you forget that this happens between a baby mother and a new girlfriend, too.
I know plenty of well-to-do men who are married to ordinary women. You may, however, use celebrities to prove your point. And keep deceiving yourself that physical attractiveness is not important to women. And then tell yourself that MoST men have the capability to make so much money that it will buy them "love".
And I will tell you that even a woman in her 50s will have greater chances with men than you with women. Bitter truth.
Yeah but they will happily sell off their daughters to old, ugly, men if his account is fat and shapeless. And Sagamite will STILL use feminism to indirectly insult someone.
You forgot objectivity that makes you remind women of how they have to please men in their twenties and how it makes you forget that fathers with children have limited options too. Equation.
You take revenge on women on every possible occasion. You use scare tactics to put yourself in a position of power. This reveals a lot about you.
In other words, except their a mechanisms to identify "shytheads" you will insult the innocent ones too.
You could have said it without having to offend anyone. And even if the dating pool for some women reduces from 1000 men to 500 men, a child is not a reason to think of oneself as disadvantage.
And the fact that many men cannot comprehend it, is the reason why custody is granted to MOTHERS in the first place. Blame yourself!
A MOTHER will accept her limited options and still choose her child without seeing herself as disadvantaged.
You are taking it too personal now. Personally, the only issue I would have with a single mother would be the kid's father. In most of the cases, the kid's father is the other man that will always be in the single mother's life. This thought alone would just make me sick. Other than that, I have no issue with marrying a single mother.
You are taking it too personal now. Personally, the only issue I would have with a single mother would be the kid's father. In most of the cases, the kid's father is the other man that will always be in the single mother's life. This thought alone would just make me sick. Other than that, I have no issue with marrying a single mother.
No, I am not taking it personal. I am not a single mother. I don't have kids at all.
I just know how much strength it takes to be a good single mother and it is irritating that people will put these women down by telling them that it is bad karma. Some of these women lost their husbands due to an accident or an illness. Others were abandoned even if the father initially wanted the child.
You don't have to marry them. They ALL know that MANY men are not willing to accept their children, for one reason or another. Yet, I see no reason why on every thread about single mothers people have to put them down by, for example, explaining to them how their "market value" diminished BECAUSE OF THEIR CHILD.
I see more reasons to lift them up, to help and to encourage them, which will also benefit the children. This doesn't mean you have to marry them.
No, I am not taking it personal. I am not a single mother. I don't have kids at all.
I just know how much strength it takes to be a good single mother and it is irritating that people will put these women down by telling them that it is bad karma. Some of these women lost their husbands due to an accident or an illness. Others were abandoned even if the father initially wanted the child.
You don't have to marry them. They ALL know that MANY men are not willing to accept their children, for one reason or another. Yet, I see no reason why on every thread about single mothers people have to put them down by, for example, explaining to them how their "market value" diminished BECAUSE OF THEIR CHILD.
I see more reasons to lift them up, to help and to encourage them, which will also benefit the children. This doesn't mean you have to marry them.
I also see no reason why on every thread broke and unsuccessful men are put down by women when it comes to finding a partner to marry. While I may sound like a broken record, I must point out the hypocrisy by these same women, who are now asking for understanding, who also join in these broken men bashing.
I also see no reason why on every thread broke and unsuccessful men are put down by women when it comes to finding a partner to marry. While I may sound like a broken record, I must point out the hypocrisy by these same women, who are now asking for understanding, who also join in these broken men bashing.
I don't know who you are talking about exactly but you will NEVER find ME putting men down for not being finically stable.
I don't know who you are talking about exactly but you will NEVER find ME putting men down for not being finically stable.
It may not be you specifically, but its common in African/Nigerian culture. Its ironic every women, specifically those who are single mothers are now understanding or would have sympathy for a broke man in this thread.
First of all, you need to learn to comprehend better.
I could go ahead, AS USUAL, to run you through the mill by asking you very simply:
How did my saying "a woman is now at a disadvantage" equivalent to "her child is a disadvantage"?
And then you would be stuck and look like a jellyfish out of water.
That is the beauty of online forum arguments! Everything you say, just the way you say without any emotional twisting, sugar-coating and ranting shout-downs is there for all to see. It is far better than live verbal arguments for those that like to stick to what is actually said, objectivity, facts and logic.
I did not call the child a "disadvantage", I stated that the child being in the picture puts the woman at a disadvantage.
So, AGAIN, next time comprehend what is said before any feminist outburst.
Now to the logic and facts! ..............You know, those sensible stuff.
YES, having a child is a disadvantage in the mating world, [far far far]8 more so for women. It limits the pool of men who would be interested in them, the way they (women) usually want a man to be interested in them i.e. long-term commitment.
Simple FACT! If you still don't get it, get a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word "disadvantage".
A WOMAN HAVING A CHILD IS A DISADVANTAGE IN MATING!
How is it a disadvantage:
1. It gives a perceptive confirmation of lack of impurity and freshness. It somehow subconsciously indicates she is not all yours, someone else had owned her before you. It is also a statement to ALL who know you both that your misses was totally someone else's before. Men are naturally territorial and feminine purity is seen and valued at a premium. A child says "This territory was colonised before", many men with several options might not be willing to take that.
2. Any man going into it, with his head screwed on, has to accept the child(ren) as his and treat them equally as his own. The last time I checked, it cost £220K to raise a child in the UK up to 18 (that is roughly £12K per year). That is a steep price to pay for, or part of for, an action and pleasure that was not his. Even if the babyfather is responsible and chips in well, it is inevitable he would pay somehow (except she was previous married and the courts helped her milk her ex-husband well). Many men with several options might not be willing to pay that price especially for women who don't have a good reputation as nice people, and likely would not consider him in her prime while he was working hard and she was probably chasing bad boys or money bags (as these men see some of the single mothers).
3. A woman with a child finds it harder to date as she is not always available and might even be restricted where she can meet the guy because she does not want to introduce him too early into the child's life. Girls without kids don't have such limitations and it is easier for the guy to hook-up when he feels like. It is more fun.
4. She would prioritise her love and caring for her child. The man is really secondary. As nice as that is in principles, it is not an attractive proposition for men with several propositional options and who is not the father of the child. He can easily get a woman who would make him primary love.
5. Having a family where one child or children is fathered by a different man from the rest does not form the image of a perfect family and wholeness in the current funky society we live in where it is suppose to be about one man - one woman. A society that many would even be pissed at the thought of polygamy and rant and rant and rant out of pure anger. A child or children having to leave their half-siblings to spend some time or special days with their natural father does note make the perfect family in the Western ideals society advocate for now.
6. And if the guy is unlucky, he can even potentially have trouble with baby father or even child leading to potential antagonism or a troubled child.
7. A single mother's body is very much unlikely to be at its prime. She is less likely to be at her most attractive level. You know? That thing (attractiveness) that is the main stuff women need to woo a man.
8. Many African families with sons they see as premium would not accept their prime horse take a single mother and many follow their family expectations.
So to many men, a single mother is perceived as offering less in a mating situation. Offering an inferior proposition. That is what is called a "DISADVANTAGE" for her pulling market.
FACTS and LOGIC! The latter an assetable functionality women struggle to have.
Neither did I say one should use single mothers as revenge for on ill-mannered women. What I said is they should not expect consideration and selflessness from men. Same things most of them (black women) would most likely not offer if they have nothing to gain and the boot was on the other foot as many men have experienced when these girls were at their pprime. I treat people, and believe people should be treated, the way they deserve.
Except their is a mechanism to identify which of them were not shytheads when they had the boot earlier, then unfortunately consideration and selflessness would be in short supply for most of them. I am not a fan of rewarding the wrong people. It is against my fundamental core fcking principles. Some might be individuals with pure personalities that comes through and you will see them in different light, but many are like what Black/Naija women are like, so why should those have men being nice to them when they are inconsiderate and heartless themselves? Why would men come and be saviours for women who, when these women had an upper hand before single motherhood, would have rejected them insultingly and disparagingly if they were suitors?
As I said from the start, it is a personal choice. Those listings would mean some men would not choose single mothers. That lack of choosing is what is called a ............."disadvantage".
Well said. You saved me a lot of typing. The financial aspect is the main thing. My biological child would get everything first (food, school fees paid, etc) before another man's child if I ever married a single mother. In fact I would not be able to love that child like my own flesh and blood. I just couldn't. While I'm spending 12k per year on ANOTHER MAN'S child, their biological father is in the clubs popping bottles. These baby mama's are worse than 419 guys.
Well said. You saved me a lot of typing. The financial aspect is the main thing. My biological child would get everything first (food, school fees paid, etc) before another man's child if I ever married a single mother. In fact I would not be able to love that child like my own flesh and blood. I just couldn't. While I'm spending 12k per year on[b] ANOTHER MAN'S child, [/b]their biological father is in the clubs popping bottles. These baby mama's are worse than 419 guys.
A child is a child. Be it another man or my own flesh and blood. The apprehension to date a single mom should have nothing to do with the child. I would just be more concerned with the presence of the child's father into my woman's life. It would just make me sick to think that there is another man who will always be in my woman's life. But then again, life isn't perfect.
... I will agree that they are more rational than women.
You must think that all men are like what you posted above, isn't it? Well twats deserve the kinds of men they attract. No man with an astute brain will settle for scrubbers. How will twats find the right men who will wife and keep them when they are always looking for the wrong qualities in men, and then later expecting sympathy and "understanding" when they have finally given the precious goods away to the wrong men?
I understand that your rationalization hamster is acting as expected- defending the indefensible just to feel good.
You are very good at finding minor flaws in people's argumentation structure but fail to come up with your own argumentation. When asked you will say things like "Disgust is my argument but not my only one." Disgust is not even an argument and the others are left for people to guess. So much for the illusion of e-victories.
I don't find minor faults. I find entire faults in what they say after I ask them a few questions that get them stuck.
I don't imply for them. I ask them questions to clarify their position in a comprehensive manner (this helps in ensuring they cannot repudiate their own arguments when stuck) and then I go for the logical kill.
Disgust is not an argument until ............................................... we decide "lets legalise polygamy".
Or until we discuss whether it is acceptable for a man that is 70 years old dating an 19 year old and smacking her from behind like a smoking Chinese highspeed train and she is moaning "Yes, Daddy. Hit that shyt like I have been a bad girl". Then you start vomiting and saying it is disgusting.
Now to your question. When you say that a woman is at a disadvantage for having a child then it means the same as the child is a disadvantage to her.
And then on a different occasion you will say that women getting custody in the West have an advantage. What a contradiction. Is it according to your own argumentation here not actually the other way round?
I think you are struggling to comprehend that every complex position in life comes with pros and cons.
It really is that simple.
Complex ...............There will be pros .................There will be cons.
Don't struggle to understand that in a highly intellectual debate.
The cons would be more for the mother if she does not have kids with her. It would just be a different set of cons.
If a man has his kids in his custody too, it would have its pros and cons.
Again: Complex ...............There will be pros .................There will be cons.
I have no problem, unlike you, debating on and offline. I can do both. You think you are objective? What is your objectivity based on? Disgust? Prejudice?
Emotional twisting coupled with word twisting is your forte, not mine.
No, you have a problem debating on or offline. You are a "woman"!
Selfish and illogical! And you do not see the need to make sense, afterall you are the poor, defenceless, victim sex.
Of course you didn't call the child disadvantage directly but saying that having a child is a disadvantage is pretty much the same thing. And then again, when having a child is a disadvantage for a woman, how do the laws, you constantly lament over, favor women? Let me see the logic that explains that.
Next time remind yourself that your SUBJECTIVE experiences with women are the reason why you come to a thread asking women if karma is the reason for what they may be going through. So much for objectivity and logic. Karma.
I only reversed a "real man" training logic to another "woman".
And I guess you assume that women don't mind dating single fathers. (Let me guess, you will now say that men are not the ones who children stay with and then on the next thread you will argue that custody laws favor women. Objectivity.)
A man having a child will also have a restricted pool of possible partners. I guess, you can only see one part of the reality, the one that you want to see to feel better.
Obviously!
But not as limited pool as a woman as I stated and implied in my post but as a raging feminist, red mist in your eyes will not see that.
Which woman wants a man who reasons that a woman who has already given birth is impure and not fresh? Answer: Only a desperate woman. Therefore, if my pool was reduced due to the fact that a man reasons like this, I would be GRATFUL that such men stay away from me without having to tell them.
Also, do you actually assume that women do not prefer men who will only be father to their kids? Do you assume that women have the motivation to help raising kids from other women?
Professor Implier, are you about to imply for me again?
How does this have any relevance to single mothers being disadvantaged?
If a woman meets a man who has one or more than one baby mama somewhere, do you think she doesn't consider the cost of it, which is not only financial?
Professor Implier, are you about to imply for me again?
How does this have any relevance to single mothers being disadvantaged?
Again, how do laws that give AUTOMATICALLY give women the custody for kids favor them then? I asked you this question on the other thread and then you used your deviation tactics and slogans to shrug it off. Now here we are again.
Human rights laws mean we cannot deport someone that supports terrorism against us to a country where they can potentially be tortured.
So, according to your logic, that means Human rights do not favour our well being.
To your woman logic, finding one con is a disqualifier of all pros.
Besides, a man who ALREADY has children himself is restricted too as he will have to (provided he cares about his children) spend time with his kids at least on every second weekend.
And your point is?
How does this have any relevance to single mothers being disadvantaged?
I guess the logic and objectivity you always refer too, Mr Intellectual God, is so clouded that you can only jump from thread to thread and use your arguments without seeing the whole picture.
You implied that I did not see the whole picture, Professor Implier?
Or you have a habit of disjointing the picture.
According to your woman logic, "if I can point out that some single fathers also have disadvantage, then that proves single mothers do not have a disadvantage when juxtaposed with a single girl with no child".
Good you know it. And because for a mother her child/ren will always have priority, she will never think of herself as someone who is at a disadvantage because a partner, especially when the children are very young, be it the biological father or not, is her most precious gift in life.
I remember when a friend of mine who was separated from her baby father would tell any men within the first half an hour of their first encounter about her child and show photos of her son. I know it because I witnessed it when we went out. The fact that some men might refuse to date her because of that did not even bother her a bit.
Another friend with a child who was searching for a new relationship online would post photos of her and her daughter for everyone to see that either they accept her with there child or not at all. And she wouldn't give a damn if that would limit her options.
I am afraid, you cannot understand the love of a mother and therefore how she will never consider HAVING a child a disadvantage.
There are plenty of the so called patchwork families in the West. It has become a very ordinary family type.
I guess, your objectivity made you forget that this happens between a baby mother and a new girlfriend, too.
I know plenty of well-to-do men who are married to ordinary women. You may, however, use celebrities to prove your point. And keep deceiving yourself that physical attractiveness is not important to women. And then tell yourself that MoST men have the capability to make so much money that it will buy them "love".
And I will tell you that even a woman in her 50s will have greater chances with men than you with women. Bitter truth.
Yeah but they will happily sell off their daughters to old, ugly, men if his account is fat and shapeless. And Sagamite will STILL use feminism to indirectly insult someone.
You forgot objectivity that makes you remind women of how they have to please men in their twenties and forget that fathers with children have a limited options too.
You take revenge on women on every possible occasion. You use scare tactics to put yourself in a position of power.
In other words, except their a mechanisms to identify "shytheads" you will insult the innocent ones too.
You could have said it without having to offend anyone. And even if the dating pool for some women reduces from 1000 men to 500 men, a child is not a reason to think of oneself as disadvantage.
And the fact that many men cannot comprehend it, is the reason why custody is granted to MOTHERS in the first place. Blame yourself!
A MOTHER will accept her limited options and still choose her child without considering herself disadvantaged.
Fck me!
I am tired of this rants.
Can you highlight to us anywhere you made a point or proved that single mothers are not disadvantaged?
Or you think because you are a woman, you do not need to make sense?
If I was your teacher and you wrote all this rubbish to prove single mothers are not disadvantaged:
- you will get no marks
- you will get no cute, colourful, fun stickers on your notebook
- I will actually bitcch-slap the murrafcker out of you when you come for your notebook and when your parents come into school to complain, I would tell them "That is how we knock sense into kids in AFRICA".
So it is just your normal rubbish of interpreting for me?
You implied what I meant on my behalf?
I don't find minor faults. I find entire faults in what they say after I ask them a few questions that get them stuck.
I don't imply for them. I ask them questions to clarify their position in a comprehensive manner (this helps in ensuring they cannot repudiate their own arguments when stuck) and then I go for the logical kill.
Disgust is not an argument until ............................................... we decide "lets legalise polygamy".
Or until we discuss whether it is acceptable for a man that is 70 years old dating an 19 year old and smacking her from behind like a smoking Chinese highspeed train and she is moaning "Yes, Daddy. Hit that shyt like I have been a bad girl". Then you start vomiting and saying it is disgusting.
I think you are struggling to comprehend that every complex position in life comes with pros and cons.
It really is that simple.
Complex ...............There will be pros .................There will be cons.
Don't struggle to understand that in a highly intellectual debate.
The cons would be more for the mother if she does not have kids with her. It would just be a different set of cons.
If a man has his kids in his custody too, it would have its pros and cons.
Again: Complex ...............There will be pros .................There will be cons.
No, you have a problem debating on or offline. You are a "woman"!
Selfish and illogical! And you do not see the need to make sense, afterall you are the poor, defenceless, victim sex.
I only reversed a "real man" training logic to another "woman".
You know? The selfish and illogical human specie?
Are you implying for me again, Professor Implier?
Obviously!
But not as limited pool as a woman as I stated and implied in my post but as a raging feminist, red mist in your eyes will not see that.
That just limits your pool as I argued.
And there are desperate women.
Next meaningless point.
Professor Implier, are you about to imply for me again?
How does this have any relevance to single mothers being disadvantaged?
Next meaningless point.
Professor Implier, are you about to imply for me again?
How does this have any relevance to single mothers being disadvantaged?
Next meaningless point.
Human rights laws mean we cannot deport someone that supports terrorism against us to a country where they can potentially be tortured.
So, according to your logic, that means Human rights do not favour our well being.
To your woman logic, finding one con is a disqualifier of all pros.
Women ||||||Brick Wall||||| Logic
And your point is?
How does this have any relevance to single mothers being disadvantaged?
Next meaningless point.
You implied that I did not see the whole picture, Professor Implier?
Or you have a habit of disjointing the picture.
According to your woman logic, "if I can point out that some single fathers also have disadvantage, then that proves single mothers do not have a disadvantage when juxtaposed with a single girl with no child".
Women ||||||Brick Wall||||| Logic
Fck me!
I am tired of this rants.
Can you highlight to us anywhere you made a point or proved that single mothers are not disadvantaged?
Or you think because you are a woman, you do not need to make sense?
If I was your teacher and you wrote all this rubbish to prove single mothers are not disadvantaged:
- you will get no marks
- you will get no cute, colourful, fun stickers on your notebook
- I will actually bitcch-slap the murrafcker out of you when you come for your notebook and when your parents come into school to complain, I would tell them "That is how we knock sense into kids in AFRICA".
Sense? No, rather the need to put others down to make oneself feel better. Simple psychology.
Are you feeling like a genius now because you have told women that their pool of potential partners is limited? And you think you enlightened or taught anyone anything new?
Or have you rather helped yourself to feel better because you showed them that HAVING A CHILD is a disadvantage for women?
presently faced with the same issue right now, I love the girl so much but ppl say I shudnot marry her cos of the baby but mine is a little complicated cos the girl in question got pregnant few months before I met her, dint notice till she was 5 months... and wat feared me to her was every time I ask for sex she politely decline without giving reasons u til I got the news from her mom... I was sad cos I really like the babe. now she has given birth, the baby will be two on the 17 this month. she still calls me till date even wen I stopped calling her...am more. confused no what shud I do...
jaydee87: presently faced with the same issue right now, I love the girl so much but ppl say I shudnot marry her cos of the baby but mine is a little complicated cos the girl in question got pregnant few months before I met her, dint notice till she was 5 months... and wat feared me to her was every time I ask for sex she politely decline without giving reasons u til I got the news from her mom... I was sad cos I really like the babe. now she has given birth, the baby will be two on the 17 this month. she still calls me till date even wen I stopped calling her...am more. confused no what shud I do...
God blessed you, and you claim you're confused ?
#1 She hid her pregnancy not to expose her ashewo ways, yet these delusional women on here claim all single mothers are proud of their seed.
#2 She denied you sex due to her shameful pregnancy
#3 Her MOTHER told you about her child. Again if she wasn't ashamed or thought her value has decreased, why didn't she tell you ?
# 4 She's still calling you because SHE'S DESPARATE, looking for a captain save a baby mama to come and be a father to her bastard child. You weren't good enough to be informed of the child, or get some sex, yet you're good enough to play daddy to another man's child? She's' insulting you.
#5 A woman this shady has the ability to kill you someday.
omo run. But I'm afraid you have caught serious feelings. You must suppress them. You seem like a good guy. Believe me if this was 3 years ago she probably wouldn't answer your calls let alone be desperately trying to get a hold of you now. She seems like a local champion who was riding any guys prick with "swag" or ego. Now she get belle, the 419 or swagged out guy she let impregnate her didn't even have the respect to help her through the pregnancy. These are the type of characters she was entertaining. Now she's in the worst position a single woman can ever be in, she has humbled herself and is now chasing you. My friend you didn't dodge a bullet, you dodged a nuclear missile. Does she call her baby daddy this much? Does she even know who he is ? Hapu this ashewo abeg.
And here And here [img]http://www.caltrate.ca/sites/default/files/motherhood.jpg[/img] And here Are you feeling like a genius now because you have told women that their pool of potential partners is limited? And you think you enlightened or taught anyone anything new? Or have you rather helped yourself to feel better because you showed them that HAVING A CHILD is a disadvantage for women?
Okay, now I see how you have proven my point that single motherhood is a disadvantage in the mating game wrong.
By showing me single mothers love their kids and take care of them, you have proven to me single mothers are not more disadvantaged in the mating game compared to girls without children.
No, I am not taking it personal. I am not a single mother. I don't have kids at all.
I just know how much strength it takes to be a good single mother and it is irritating that people will put these women down by telling them that it is bad karma. Some of these women lost their husbands due to an accident or an illness. Others were abandoned even if the father initially wanted the child.
You don't have to marry them. They ALL know that MANY men are not willing to accept their children, for one reason or another. Yet, I see no reason why on every thread about single mothers people have to put them down by, for example, explaining to them how their "market value" diminished BECAUSE OF THEIR CHILD.
I see more reasons to lift them up, to help and to encourage them, which will also benefit the children. This doesn't mean you have to marry them.
I also see no reason why on every thread broke and unsuccessful men are put down by women when it comes to finding a partner to marry. While I may sound like a broken record, I must point out the hypocrisy by these same women, who are now asking for understanding, who also join in these broken men bashing.
It may not be you specifically, but its common in African/Nigerian culture. Its ironic every women, specifically those who are single mothers are now understanding or would have sympathy for a broke man in this thread.
Two things you should know as part of her traits:
1. Concerns of men and anything discriminating against men carries less weight in her views than those of women. Her mental process is that she would give it the briefest oversight, dismiss it with the lightest agreement and want to switch the discussion to focus only on what affects women even if the thread/topic is dedicated to the men's discussion or the discussion is mainly that. We are supposed to see wrong-doing to men as wrong but significantly unworthy of attention as that to women. She gives little hoot about men's concerns, but gets very emotional about women's concerns.
2. She frequently uses herself as the sole example in a sample pool and as a representation of all women. It is something I have told her over and over and over again that she needs a bigger and geographically diverse sample pool to make generalisations but it falls on deaf ear. A small or singular sample pool makes sense to her even though she would also be the first to say she is different from most women. Also, trust me, she would also be the first to ask someone using a bigger sample pool "Have you interviewed all women on Earth to know that" even when you say something as obvious like "most women are emotional judges and would support their only child if the child faces a prosecution for murder and faces the death sentence"?
#1 She hid her pregnancy not to expose her ashewo ways, yet these delusional women on here claim all single mothers are proud of their seed.
#2 She denied you sex due to her shameful pregnancy
#3 Her MOTHER told you about her child. Again if she wasn't ashamed or thought her value has decreased, why didn't she tell you ?
# 4 She's still calling you because SHE'S DESPARATE, looking for a captain save a baby mama to come and be a father to her bastard child. You weren't good enough to be informed of the child, or get some sex, yet you're good enough to play daddy to another man's child? She's' insulting you.
#5 A woman this shady has the ability to kill you someday.
omo run. But I'm afraid you have caught serious feelings. You must suppress them. You seem like a good guy. Believe me if this was 3 years ago she probably wouldn't answer your calls let alone be desperately trying to get a hold of you now. She seems like a local champion who was riding any guys prick with "swag" or ego. Now she get belle, the 419 or swagged out guy she let impregnate her didn't even have the respect to help her through the pregnancy. These are the type of characters she was entertaining. Now she's in the worst position a single woman can ever be in, she has humbled herself and is now chasing you. My friend you didn't dodge a bullet, you dodged a nuclear missile. Does she call her baby daddy this much? Does she even know who he is ? Hapu this ashewo abeg.
Bro thanks for your advice, the problem is the guy na her friend senior brother, the guy just moved after the whole film... well I just dey tank God say she no let me enta cos she fit say na me, one reason why I liked her more.
At what point is it pertinent for people to realize that some actions leave them socially disadvantaged? It is one thing to react positively to the biding of religion it is another to realize that the real world doesn't run on religious terms, whichever decision you make, you will be prepared to live with the consequence, no single mother has the right to cajole, coerce or otherwise stated, use of subtle force to make a single man marry her.
whether you became a single mum by virtue of leaving your marriage or by virtue of infantile radicalism, you must be prepared to live with the fallout of the decisions you make. The men are cheating, the women are no longer loyal, whichever decision you take as a panacea to your marital imbroglio, be prepared to sacrifice a faction of your happiness knowing what the real world feels like.
If the single men should go for single mums, what happens to single ladies?
It is a battle for survival and we strive to be socially competitive, anyone who doesn't feel same should be likened to a lazy man who knowest hunger will come but refuse to work, we work and earn more than is ok for us because we want to acquire some certain things that keeps us socially afloat, if one chooses otherwise, what can the world do, sympathize with her?
Do women sympathize with men who are socially incompetent? when was the last time a tyra banks married a broke dude? when will the poor man hawking le casera on the third mainland bridge get the privilege of dating a Genevieve Nnaji, or is she not single again? not even in her social disadvantage (being a single mum) will a Genevieve think that, lest she degenerates further, perhaps when she has attained menopause we don't frown when women bemoan men who are not socially competitive, but we must make women happy when they abuse their social privileges, talking about wishful thinking.
For every baby moma, there is a baby daddy somewhere, they should go sort themselves out, the world has enough problems already.
It may not be you specifically, but its common in African/Nigerian culture. Its ironic every women, specifically those who are single mothers are now understanding or would have sympathy for a broke man in this thread.
And you think that one wrong justifies another, right?
Unlike you, I don't.
On several threads, I have taken the side of men who struggle financially. I have not taken the side of women who put these men down just because I am a woman.
Telling people to give you proof of the obvious is grasping at straws and a drowning-in-the-ocean tactics, and an attempt to waste the person debating with you's time. It is a trait I have come to observe in your argument patterns. And I decided to use on you so you see how illogical it is. I thought, "ask her to prove the obvious too like she likes to".
I decided to use it on you because I knew you will NEVER see it as wrong except it affects you. Typical woman.
Also, trust me, she would also be the first to ask someone using a bigger sample pool "Have you interviewed all women on Earth to know that" even when you say something as obvious like "most women are emotional judges and would support their only child if the child faces a prosecution for murder and faces the death sentence"? Observe these in her argument patterns in future.
Thank God, you are the one that labelled it yourself as "deviation tactics" and unintelligent. I need say no more about it then.
Telling people to give you proof of the obvious is grasping at straws and a drowning-in-the-ocean tactics. It is a trait I have come to observe in your argument patterns. And I decided to use on you so you see how illogical it is.
I decided to use it on you because I knew you will NEVER see it as wrong except it affects you. Typical woman.
Thank God, you are the one that labelled it yourself as "deviation tactics" and unintelligent. I need say no more about it then.
You have happily participated in putting single mothers down. You have sided with people who offend them. You called it enlightenment and education to tell them what ALL of them know. And to come at people whose situation CAN be very tough, especially in developing countries, is very weak.
And the worst of all is that you don't see anything wrong in it.
?
