Magnoliaa:


You agreed that men perpetrate violence against themselves then.



Sure. Just like how women also helped preserve the human race from going extinct and we are here. They kept the social world and other non-physical aspect that makes us us.



And there's a Rosa Parks in history too. Just saying.

Great. We have moved here all the way from the previous eras. And all you just described isn't patriarchy? Yes, men did all those and more. So what's that? Men marry women through bride price, the woman goes to live in the family's house, things are only passed down through the father's line, only his name is recognized, etc. That is not patriarchy?

You actually used the term I was about to give you first lol. You're the intellectually dishonest one here. I'm surprised, for all you know and how your present your views, you say patriarchy isn't real. That's always been your stance. Even the other men on here do not deny that. You tried to discredit feminism. Talking about how men have it worse. And I say they are not on the same path at all. Your words, ''what about the boys? What about the countless men killed by boko haram?'' prompted me mentioning that men are responsible for these things. It's a part of the issue - toxic masculinity. You make things look as if there's a collective bias against men in these situations.

Were those behaviours necessary? Yes. Healthy? No.



I don't know what you're doing here. Shameful way, selfish, inconsiderate, bla bla bla... Your perception is colouring how you're interpreting my words. It is what it is. I am saying what is. That's how it happened. I'm not disputing the reasons, and effects and all that. My messages are simple and straightforward. The main reason I quoted you was because of you trying to invalidate feminism and place patriarchy side by side with matriarchy. Or are you saying women should keep quiet because men are going through worse? Boys are being killed by boko haram? Same men kill men and women. So what's your point? Addressing the issue of men being more violent reduces the number of men at the receiving end also.



Is the everyday life in a city filled with danger and perilous? Is strength the only important attribute for survival?

On other things you said, believe what you want.




Yes, they do. That is for *women who knows*. Lesser than the number of women out there who are ignorant, repressed and just allow.

And then how many men are actually good? And what's your point here? Does it change the fact that it boosts their ego?



I'm a woman, so I should know things about women, who are the receivers in this case.



@ bolded. So you know this. Why are women not sexually satisfied? You think if they have considerate and selfless partners who put them first, they wouldn't be? (p.s, you do not necessarily need all those external enhancers to enjoy sex). Sex has always been something a man take. Women demanding for more, and the increase of that is fairly new. Do men not brag about their conquests? How well they can hook a woman with mindblowing sex?? I don't get why you are arguing this, I swear. The 'conquering' of a woman is tied to their ego! Gosh. Women fake orgasm for that reason. In time past (even till now), your ability to impregnate a woman is tied to the respect you get from your kinsfolk. In the community. Isn't a man's ability to provide for a woman tied to his self-worth? Is this too hard to...

And another one. Yehh, I'm arguing blindly here. So darn right.



Just stop here ohh. Do not reply at all.

Don't.i beg you. How could it make sense na. Matriachy that you can't prove. I don't care for the hows, whys, and other considerations in this discussion (I didn't say they are unimportant, unnecessary now), you quoted funmisticqueen trying to show how matriarchy exist and its working against men. You were trying to mirror, or what did you say.

That's what I contended.

It's as straightforward as that. They are not same. And don't operate at the same rate...

solite3:
you are not bright at all, reread the post again. Like I said, you lack comprehension seriously.

was that the only thing in my initial post? The reason I brought up the differences in men and women was because of something op wrote.

I have addressed this before. Masculinity or Femininity was never the problem. Society distinguishes between male and female because that is the right thing or would you rather they stop teaching biology in schools?

you know nothing, I never said feminism is transgenderism, learn to comprehend something before quoting.

Kingarthur21:
why are you bent on discrediting men claim of matriarchy?why don't feminists focus on laying out their case against patriarchy, fighting for liberation and leaving men to lay out whatever case they have against matriarchy?

You feminists making feminism gynocentric, for the women alone,your fight and focus for women,you didn't include men plight,we should sort ourselves and form our own rights movement (I get this when I try to tell feminists that men and women also suffer and they should see things from both sides but the snap back that we should start our own movements). Now guys are laying their plights you are subtly silencing then with the
1)you can't compare men plight with ladies plight,they are lesser.

2)are men plight not caused by men?

3)all men suffer is to boost their ego,they go through it because it is attached to their worth.
So if we are to go by this logic,all women suffer ranging from enduring domestic violence at home,submissiveness and infidelity she does so because it is attached to her worth ie ability to keep a marriage,thus she shouldn't call it oppression, we should what she does to keep her home ,it is for herself?

On the sex being what men take,you are changing your mouth,I have seen a post in the past where you said if men and women have sex none used each other,they both enjoyed themselves.

pansophist:


No, It don't make any sense to posit that men perpetrate violence against themselves, just as it doesn't make any sense by saying, women kill themselves by maternal mortality. What we as humans can do is to reduce unnecessary suffering, which has led to the reduction of war globally compared to preceding centuries, and the lower state of maternal mortality. And I repeat, if men did not put their life in the front line, humanity will not have gone this far. You are downplaying men's contribution that made your life awesome, which is not surprising, as downplaying the importance of men is a needed approach to feel like a victim. keep it up.

Yes, my stance is that the teaching of patriarchy isn't real, and it is nonsense. Though, I can see that we both get the definition of patriarchy different. If you interpreted patriarchy the way feminist does, which is that its a system designed and structured to oppress women (inferring that it is a deliberate act), then I do not agree with it, and it is total rubbish. If you define patriarchy as the traditional way society evolved to the present, such as inherited paternal name, paying of bride price (which is a cultural ritual as oppose to buying a woman as feminist described), men defending women and women being a primary caregiver, then yes, I will agree with you that patriarchy is a thing. Judging thousands, if not millions of years of gender interaction from the standards of today is wrong. For example, the killing of twins used to a culture in Calabar, until it was put to stop by mary Slessor, will you say it is willful oppression, or it was due to the ignorance and unexposure of those community? Should present-day twins start a movement to feel like an entitled victim because of errors of the past which were not deliberate? That is the problem with feminism.

What has toxic masculinity has to do with boys being the victims of Boko haram? Can you explain what toxic masculinity means to you? Also, can you explain also what toxic femininity means to you as well? Do not skip this part. I need answers on this.

I mirrored matriarchy with patriarchy in my response to fummisticqueen because feminist tends to think in terms of binary, such as the oppressor and oppressed, patriarchy and matriarchy (which you acknowledged as a thing), privileged and unprivileged, etc. I am not inferring that such societies are matriarchy or patriarchy. The message I am trying to pass with such a mirroring approach is that in any patriarchal (or matriarchial) society, there will be situations where the so-called privileged are disadvantaged. In the so-called patriarchy, men are passing through hell, and the so-called victims (women) have it better. A LOT. Also, I am not against advancing women's development, but what I am against is downplaying men suffering, blaming it on them, and labeling the cause as toxic masculinity. If men dying to defend their land, so you can live in peace is toxic masculinity, then I do not know what to make of it. Just as I will not say that maternal death is toxic femininity, after all, females are given birth for their own ego. Does this actually make any sense to you? Na waaa oo

Everyday city life is not filled with danger and is not perilous, due to male sacrificed, which you either deliberately refuse to see, or refuse to acknowledge. That you can just order for food online, go grocery shopping, and drive to the cinema have been sacrificed and built by the blood and ingenuity of men. The everyday city is not perilous because the animals that probably would have killed you have been tamed, given a reserved separately from human habitations. Your favorite shoes have been delivered by men who spent months in vessels shipping it from one continent to the other, some dying in the process. From the cellphone you use, the water and purifying it, and maintaining the ''non-perilous'' city life has men working tirelessly in the background''. Workplace death is over 90% men, and because it is not your reality, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Once again, you downplay men's contributions that make your life good, and that is what dents feminism.

Ok, so now you are not saying that women want good sex from men, but that only a few women ''that knows'' want good sex? You said earlier that men satisfy women sexually because of their ego, why changing your narrative now? Why shifting the goalpost? Women want good sex from men, period. because few men can actually satisfy doesn't invalidate this timeless truism. Of course, when a man can satisfy her women sexually, it is a good feeling (or an ego boost as you label it), which is nothing wrong in itself. Just as women feel good when they look beautiful and desirable, why shouldn't men feel the same? What exactly is wrong with good feelings (or ego boost as you call it), can you explain?

In the past, the ability to give childbirth is an ego boost for women, so what is wrong when a man is biologically suitable enough to impregnate a woman? what is the ego you keep screaming about? what is wrong with it? If I am a woman and my womb is working enough to give birth to a child, I will be happy and have a healthy dose of an ego boost. Also, you keep making the mistake of judging past societies with today's standards, can you move on? Men have never put the responsibility of reaching their sexual satisfaction on women. Most men satisfy themselves, by themselves, why do women put the responsibility for their sexual satisfaction on men? why fake orgasm? you don't have to. If I fake orgasm, is it women's fault too? can you be responsible?

Ishilove:


I will tell you something that sounds even more twisted. Your average Nigerian woman will lose respect for you if you respect her or other women in her presence. She will quickly label you soft, woman wrapper, weak, gay, "this one wife go dey control am", "na man be this?", or just plain mugu.

pansophist:


No, It don't make any sense to posit that men perpetrate violence against themselves, just as it doesn't make any sense by saying, women kill themselves by maternal mortality. What we as humans can do is to reduce unnecessary suffering, which has led to the reduction of war globally compared to preceding centuries, and the lower state of maternal mortality. And I repeat, if men did not put their life in the front line, humanity will not have gone this far. You are downplaying men's contribution that made your life awesome, which is not surprising, as downplaying the importance of men is a needed approach to feel like a victim. keep it up.

Yes, my stance is that the teaching of patriarchy isn't real, and it is nonsense. Though, I can see that we both get the definition of patriarchy different. If you interpreted patriarchy the way feminist does, which is that its a system designed and structured to oppress women (inferring that it is a deliberate act), then I do not agree with it, and it is total rubbish. If you define patriarchy as the traditional way society evolved to the present, such as inherited paternal name, paying of bride price (which is a cultural ritual as oppose to buying a woman as feminist described), men defending women and women being a primary caregiver, then yes, I will agree with you that patriarchy is a thing. Judging thousands, if not millions of years of gender interaction from the standards of today is wrong. For example, the killing of twins used to a culture in Calabar, until it was put to stop by mary Slessor, will you say it is willful oppression, or it was due to the ignorance and unexposure of those community? Should present-day twins start a movement to feel like an entitled victim because of errors of the past which were not deliberate? That is the problem with feminism.

What has toxic masculinity has to do with boys being the victims of Boko haram? Can you explain what toxic masculinity means to you? Also, can you explain also what toxic femininity means to you as well? Do not skip this part. I need answers on this.

I mirrored matriarchy with patriarchy in my response to fummisticqueen because feminist tends to think in terms of binary, such as the oppressor and oppressed, patriarchy and matriarchy (which you acknowledged as a thing), privileged and unprivileged, etc. I am not inferring that such societies are matriarchy or patriarchy. The message I am trying to pass with such a mirroring approach is that in any patriarchal (or matriarchial) society, there will be situations where the so-called privileged are disadvantaged. In the so-called patriarchy, men are passing through hell, and the so-called victims (women) have it better. A LOT. Also, I am not against advancing women's development, but what I am against is downplaying men suffering, blaming it on them, and labeling the cause as toxic masculinity. If men dying to defend their land, so you can live in peace is toxic masculinity, then I do not know what to make of it. Just as I will not say that maternal death is toxic femininity, after all, females are given birth for their own ego. Does this actually make any sense to you? Na waaa oo

Everyday city life is not filled with danger and is not perilous, due to male sacrificed, which you either deliberately refuse to see, or refuse to acknowledge. That you can just order for food online, go grocery shopping, and drive to the cinema have been sacrificed and built by the blood and ingenuity of men. The everyday city is not perilous because the animals that probably would have killed you have been tamed, given a reserved separately from human habitations. Your favorite shoes have been delivered by men who spent months in vessels shipping it from one continent to the other, some dying in the process. From the cellphone you use, the water and purifying it, and maintaining the ''non-perilous'' city life has men working tirelessly in the background''. Workplace death is over 90% men, and because it is not your reality, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Once again, you downplay men's contributions that make your life good, and that is what dents feminism.

Ok, so now you are not saying that women want good sex from men, but that only a few women ''that knows'' want good sex? You said earlier that men satisfy women sexually because of their ego, why changing your narrative now? Why shifting the goalpost? Women want good sex from men, period. because few men can actually satisfy doesn't invalidate this timeless truism. Of course, when a man can satisfy her women sexually, it is a good feeling (or an ego boost as you label it), which is nothing wrong in itself. Just as women feel good when they look beautiful and desirable, why shouldn't men feel the same? What exactly is wrong with good feelings (or ego boost as you call it), can you explain?

In the past, the ability to give childbirth is an ego boost for women, so what is wrong when a man is biologically suitable enough to impregnate a woman? what is the ego you keep screaming about? what is wrong with it? If I am a woman and my womb is working enough to give birth to a child, I will be happy and have a healthy dose of an ego boost. Also, you keep making the mistake of judging past societies with today's standards, can you move on? Men have never put the responsibility of reaching their sexual satisfaction on women. Most men satisfy themselves, by themselves, why do women put the responsibility for their sexual satisfaction on men? why fake orgasm? you don't have to. If I fake orgasm, is it women's fault too? can you be responsible?

CovenHighPriest:


First time i am commenting on an post talk more of posting on a thread and i was literally clapping my hands throughout this post. You Sir have earned a follower #Respect

Farki:




This is the so on point. Girls have called me 'gay', 'too cool' and 'too nice' because I don't do the things girls and online feminists claim to hate. I have seen guys hiss and call women prostitutes to their faces yet they still get their numbers. It is so bizarre that the women I have the most success with are the ones I treated like 'sexual objects'. What online feminists claim you shouldn't do like grab a girl's ass early on in the relationship or make sexual comments on the first meeting just got me further with women. It's like I'll just do the opposite of what they say.

The easiest way to get a girl to lose interest is to treat her nicely.

mrpaedo:
I wish I could flog all the men arguing with women logically on this thread
Don't you all know all these women who talk about patriachy, feminism and other isms constantly are physically unattractive,bitter single mothers,evening newspapers and disillusioned,bored married women?
Ignore them! It is a shit test

pansophist:


No, It don't make any sense to posit that men perpetrate violence against themselves, just as it doesn't make any sense by saying, women kill themselves by maternal mortality. What we as humans can do is to reduce unnecessary suffering, which has led to the reduction of war globally compared to preceding centuries, and the lower state of maternal mortality. And I repeat, if men did not put their life in the front line, humanity will not have gone this far. You are downplaying men's contribution that made your life awesome, which is not surprising, as downplaying the importance of men is a needed approach to feel like a victim. keep it up.

Yes, my stance is that the teaching of patriarchy isn't real, and it is nonsense. Though, I can see that we both get the definition of patriarchy different. If you interpreted patriarchy the way feminist does, which is that its a system designed and structured to oppress women (inferring that it is a deliberate act), then I do not agree with it, and it is total rubbish. If you define patriarchy as the traditional way society evolved to the present, such as inherited paternal name, paying of bride price (which is a cultural ritual as oppose to buying a woman as feminist described), men defending women and women being a primary caregiver, then yes, I will agree with you that patriarchy is a thing. Judging thousands, if not millions of years of gender interaction from the standards of today is wrong. For example, the killing of twins used to a culture in Calabar, until it was put to stop by mary Slessor, will you say it is willful oppression, or it was due to the ignorance and unexposure of those community? Should present-day twins start a movement to feel like an entitled victim because of errors of the past which were not deliberate? That is the problem with feminism.

What has toxic masculinity has to do with boys being the victims of Boko haram? Can you explain what toxic masculinity means to you? Also, can you explain also what toxic femininity means to you as well? Do not skip this part. I need answers on this.

I mirrored matriarchy with patriarchy in my response to fummisticqueen because feminist tends to think in terms of binary, such as the oppressor and oppressed, patriarchy and matriarchy (which you acknowledged as a thing), privileged and unprivileged, etc. I am not inferring that such societies are matriarchy or patriarchy. The message I am trying to pass with such a mirroring approach is that in any patriarchal (or matriarchial) society, there will be situations where the so-called privileged are disadvantaged. In the so-called patriarchy, men are passing through hell, and the so-called victims (women) have it better. A LOT. Also, I am not against advancing women's development, but what I am against is downplaying men suffering, blaming it on them, and labeling the cause as toxic masculinity. If men dying to defend their land, so you can live in peace is toxic masculinity, then I do not know what to make of it. Just as I will not say that maternal death is toxic femininity, after all, females are given birth for their own ego. Does this actually make any sense to you? Na waaa oo

Everyday city life is not filled with danger and is not perilous, due to male sacrificed, which you either deliberately refuse to see, or refuse to acknowledge. That you can just order for food online, go grocery shopping, and drive to the cinema have been sacrificed and built by the blood and ingenuity of men. The everyday city is not perilous because the animals that probably would have killed you have been tamed, given a reserved separately from human habitations. Your favorite shoes have been delivered by men who spent months in vessels shipping it from one continent to the other, some dying in the process. From the cellphone you use, the water and purifying it, and maintaining the ''non-perilous'' city life has men working tirelessly in the background''. Workplace death is over 90% men, and because it is not your reality, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Once again, you downplay men's contributions that make your life good, and that is what dents feminism.

Ok, so now you are not saying that women want good sex from men, but that only a few women ''that knows'' want good sex? You said earlier that men satisfy women sexually because of their ego, why changing your narrative now? Why shifting the goalpost? Women want good sex from men, period. because few men can actually satisfy doesn't invalidate this timeless truism. Of course, when a man can satisfy her women sexually, it is a good feeling (or an ego boost as you label it), which is nothing wrong in itself. Just as women feel good when they look beautiful and desirable, why shouldn't men feel the same? What exactly is wrong with good feelings (or ego boost as you call it), can you explain?

In the past, the ability to give childbirth is an ego boost for women, so what is wrong when a man is biologically suitable enough to impregnate a woman? what is the ego you keep screaming about? what is wrong with it? If I am a woman and my womb is working enough to give birth to a child, I will be happy and have a healthy dose of an ego boost. Also, you keep making the mistake of judging past societies with today's standards, can you move on? Men have never put the responsibility of reaching their sexual satisfaction on women. Most men satisfy themselves, by themselves, why do women put the responsibility for their sexual satisfaction on men? why fake orgasm? you don't have to. If I fake orgasm, is it women's fault too? can you be responsible?

Jullima:

It’s because those are the type of girls you seek. Young and immature or girls with very low self-esteem. A Normal well adjusted woman will never agree to date a man that treats her horribly. It’s one thing to start dating someone that pretends to be a nice guy then changes in the course of the relationship and the girl still stays. But to be approached with a bad character, no normal girl will agree to date such.

Also, how many girls have you spoken to, to make such generalisation? There are millions of 18-25 year old girls in Nigeria, have you spoken to 100?

Farki:


The course I studied in school was 90% female, my work is mostly female, my time in secondary school was spent mostly with women. I have approached hundreds of girls in uni, different religions, different personalities yet I got the same results. Most will give me their numbers but if I treat them 'like human beings' they lose interest within a week or 2.

It's like people who think like you do ignore the large amounts of threads where women complain that their boyfriend/husband is abusing them, dating around etc. Just last week a friend asked me for advice because her friend approached someone who is already in a relationship and wonders why he isn't interested in the girl again after he has finished knacking her.

Girls will have hundreds of guys messaging them yet they will be tripping for the guy that doesn't send.

My room mate was by all accounts a horrible person yet he was bring in a new girl every weekend.


Why do women assume that any guy who has bad experiences with women has only met 5 women? Maybe because you're not the one approaching them you don't understand. In fact women rarely lack male attention so why should they lecture me about the difficulties of attracting decent people for a relationship?

pansophist:


Bro, if you noticed my behavior on this forum, I don't usually engage with women a lot, unless the ones that have proven to have common sense and not have drunk from the wellspring of post-modern stupidity. The few ladies I engage with are MichelleKabod (extinct moniker), Ariza, Angela62 etc. Respect for the aforementioned.

I decided to engage them because of the necessity for a balance. If you have been in this forum like five years ago, you will notice the romance section was filled with myopic feminist wanna-be, spewing rubbish. I was always reading on the low-key, but there were lots of guys that were handling them well such as sagamite (oh I miss that dude to the bone). Prior to me been active in the romance section (I am more of a business and travel section person), there was a vacuum, a much-needed balance in the narrative, so that innocent people (especially teenagers) will not be misled into the toxic cult of man-hating feminism. So far, I am glad that there have been lots of monikers that are doing the same job, and bringing alternative balance, with facts.

Normally when I engage a female moniker, I try to determine if their argument has some pattern of logic in them, or they are ideologically possessed. People do not own ideology, Ideology owns people. If it happens that they are just an extra mouth for a sick ideology (eg modern feminism), I stop engagement henceforth. From experience, men have a need to make sense, and women have a need to be right. I am here to make sense, and all my arguments are formulated not from any ideology, but from observable common sense.

My regards to you.

Jullima:

Again, have you met and spoken to 5,000 girls? Note even 5,000 is NOT enough to generalise a population in the millions. Just because you have a feeling or a sense of how Nigerian girls are doesn’t mean It’s true.

funmisticqueen2:
yes it makes sense, no one likes their privilege to be taken away

It happens on romanceland all the time

Farki:


First you assumed my experiences are a result of not meeting up to 100 women now the new figure is 5,000. Do I have to meet 5,000 men before I see one who watches football? It's already a given that men like football.

I don't need to carry out a mega survey before I start noticing a pattern. People who have had greater success with women echo my sentiments.

Or maybe we have different metrics of being 'nice'.

mrpaedo:

You have tried your very best to explain your point of view which is good but a man trying to get his point across to women(creatures who are ME oriented)in whatever fashion is a hopeless,meaningless,time-wasting endeavour.Their opinions should not be taken seriously just mock or ignore them.
I enjoy reading your posts on here even the older ones.So regards to you too

pansophist:


No, It don't make any sense to posit that men perpetrate violence against themselves, just as it doesn't make any sense by saying, women kill themselves by maternal mortality. What we as humans can do is to reduce unnecessary suffering, which has led to the reduction of war globally compared to preceding centuries, and the lower state of maternal mortality. And I repeat, if men did not put their life in the front line, humanity will not have gone this far. You are downplaying men's contribution that made your life awesome, which is not surprising, as downplaying the importance of men is a needed approach to feel like a victim. keep it up.

Yes, my stance is that the teaching of patriarchy isn't real, and it is nonsense. Though, I can see that we both get the definition of patriarchy different. If you interpreted patriarchy the way feminist does, which is that its a system designed and structured to oppress women (inferring that it is a deliberate act), then I do not agree with it, and it is total rubbish. If you define patriarchy as the traditional way society evolved to the present, such as inherited paternal name, paying of bride price (which is a cultural ritual as oppose to buying a woman as feminist described), men defending women and women being a primary caregiver, then yes, I will agree with you that patriarchy is a thing.

Judging thousands, if not millions of years of gender interaction from the standards of today is wrong. For example, the killing of twins used to a culture in Calabar, until it was put to stop by mary Slessor, will you say it is willful oppression, or it was due to the ignorance and unexposure of those community? Should present-day twins start a movement to feel like an entitled victim because of errors of the past which were not deliberate? That is the problem with feminism

What has toxic masculinity has to do with boys being the victims of Boko haram? Can you explain what toxic masculinity means to you? Also, can you explain also what toxic femininity means to you as well? Do not skip this part. I need answers on this.

I mirrored matriarchy with patriarchy in my response to fummisticqueen because feminist tends to think in terms of binary, such as the oppressor and oppressed, patriarchy and matriarchy (which you acknowledged as a thing), privileged and unprivileged, etc. I am not inferring that such societies are matriarchy or patriarchy. The message I am trying to pass with such a mirroring approach is that in any patriarchal (or matriarchial) society, there will be situations where the so-called privileged are disadvantaged. In the so-called patriarchy, men are passing through hell, and the so-called victims (women) have it better. A LOT. Also, I am not against advancing women's development, but what I am against is downplaying men suffering, blaming it on them, and labeling the cause as toxic masculinity. If men dying to defend their land, so you can live in peace is toxic masculinity, then I do not know what to make of it. Just as I will not say that maternal death is toxic femininity, after all, females are given birth for their own ego. Does this actually make any sense to you? Na waaa oo

Everyday city life is not filled with danger and is not perilous, due to male sacrificed, which you either deliberately refuse to see, or refuse to acknowledge.

That you can just order for food online, go grocery shopping, and drive to the cinema have been sacrificed and built by the blood and ingenuity of men. The everyday city is not perilous because the animals that probably would have killed you have been tamed, given a reserved separately from human habitations.

Your favorite shoes have been delivered by men who spent months in vessels shipping it from one continent to the other, some dying in the process. From the cellphone you use, the water and purifying it, and maintaining the ''non-perilous'' city life has men working tirelessly in the background''. Workplace death is over 90% men, and because it is not your reality, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Once again, you downplay men's contributions that make your life good, and that is what dents feminism.

Ok, so now you are not saying that women want good sex from men, but that only a few women ''that knows'' want good sex?

You said earlier that men satisfy women sexually because of their ego.

Women want good sex from men, period. because few men can actually satisfy doesn't invalidate this timeless truism. Of course, when a man can satisfy her women sexually, it is a good feeling (or an ego boost as you label it), which is nothing wrong in itself. Just as women feel good when they look beautiful and desirable, why shouldn't men feel the same? What exactly is wrong with good feelings (or ego boost as you call it), can you explain?

In the past, the ability to give childbirth is an ego boost for women, so what is wrong when a man is biologically suitable enough to impregnate a woman? what is the ego you keep screaming about? what is wrong with it? If I am a woman and my womb is working enough to give birth to a child, I will be happy and have a healthy dose of an ego boost. Also, you keep making the mistake of judging past societies with today's standards, can you move on? Men have never put the responsibility of reaching their sexual satisfaction on women.

Most men satisfy themselves, by themselves, why do women put the responsibility for their sexual satisfaction on men? why fake orgasm? you don't have to. If I fake orgasm, is it women's fault too? can you be responsible?

Jullima:

Well, we already have metrics to know men like football or sports. We have the data of TV viewing patterns, we have the data of ticket sales, we have the data of merchandise sales, we know who are members of these fan clubs, we see the numbers in their social media accounts. I can go on and on. FIFA makes millions or billions a year and they know where the money comes from.

pansophist:


Equality is like a buffet to women (feminists), where they pick the nice stuff they want and leave the leftovers for men to eat

With every struggle they complain about, men have their own version, and even worse. It is so common and accepted that people are even shocked when men speak up. Stoicism is expected, which is to suffer in silence and be strong still. A telling example is that hundreds of thousands of men have died in the hand of boko haram, and no one cares, but with the chibok girls, the whole world started screaming ''bring back our girls. And I asked, what about the boys? this is one example of how male problems are ignored. Though, I won't expect airhead feminists to think at this angle.

pansophist:


Bro, if you noticed my behavior on this forum, I don't usually engage with women a lot, unless the ones that have proven to have common sense and not have drunk from the wellspring of post-modern stupidity. The few ladies I engage with are MichelleKabod (extinct moniker), Ariza, Angela62 etc. Respect for the aforementioned.

I decided to engage them because of the necessity for a balance. If you have been in this forum like five years ago, you will notice the romance section was filled with myopic feminist wanna-be, spewing rubbish. I was always reading on the low-key, but there were lots of guys that were handling them well such as sagamite (oh I miss that dude to the bone). Prior to me been active in the romance section (I am more of a business and travel section person), there was a vacuum, a much-needed balance in the narrative, so that innocent people (especially teenagers) will not be misled into the toxic cult of man-hating feminism. So far, I am glad that there have been lots of monikers that are doing the same job, and bringing alternative balance, with facts.

Normally when I engage a female moniker, I try to determine if their argument has some pattern of logic in them, or they are ideologically possessed. People do not own ideology, Ideology owns people. If it happens that they are just an extra mouth for a sick ideology (eg modern feminism), I stop engagement henceforth. From experience, men have a need to make sense, and women have a need to be right. I am here to make sense, and all my arguments are formulated not from any ideology, but from observable common sense.

My regards to you.

Gerrard59:


Same here. I miss him. He once stated that he wouldn't deactivate because his posts can educate someone. Akin to going to a school to learn. That said, you're needed in TwitterNG space. Those demons hold sway there. You might as well use your NL moniker but no personal pictures.

pansophist:


Never use Twitter before. Though, I'll consider that option. Can you post a link to TwitterNG please ?

Ariza:
E no hard at all oooooo

I don't know why everyone take this life too seriously. Funny enough, Women are the most difficult gender to fight for. Most will never be straight with you, they tell you they want freedom but won't work. They want respect but most see acts of chivalry as weakness. They want equality but not responsibilities. They want to be treated like queens but most act like bi.tches on SM.

Lol the most annoying ones are the abused ones, I learnt not to meddle in couples affairs the hard way years ago. Unfortunately, she's suffering a lot in her marriage now. Me I just dey look from afar. Kini temi? But still, to them Men are the evil ones. SMH.

Writers and People like Op should focus more on teaching women self esteem, Value, Integrity, Dignity , self development, self realization and Independence and leave Men out of their issues.

IAmSkinny:



Please come and pay my groom price biko.

Ariza:


Are you handsome?

Ariza:


Are you handsome?

pansophist:


Never use Twitter before. Though, I'll consider that option. Can you post a link to TwitterNG please ?

Ariza:
Having a healthy conversation with people of opposite sex does not make you less of a Man, neither does ignoring or mocking women's opinions or submissions make you MAN enough. The act of stoicism You expect Men to display at all times does more damage to them than good. So instead of Men to speak up and express themselves by conversing their feelings, you would rather have them bottle up to form some sort of maturity? I wonder how you all intend to be free then.

BTW I went through your posts, they only affirmed my hypothesis all along. Most guys with your ideology hardly have anything in their brains, they are mostly intellectually bereft. No Pun intended.

Don't bother to respond, I won't read.