|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,234,188 members, 4,889,963 topics. Date: Friday, 26 April 2019 at 03:09 AM
|All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 2:38pm On May 21, 2016|
[b] We live in an age in which women have earned complete independence. So do they need men at all?
According to Dr NICK NEAVE, an evolutionary
psychologist from Northumbria University, not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them.
Here, Dr Neave, 41, explains his provocative thesis: You're a successful woman with a job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband, but do you ever get the urge to check his mobile phone for love messages? Or his bank statements for intimate meals a deux that you didn't share? And do you lie awake at night worrying how you'll cope if the worst happens, your fears are proved and your husband walks out?
Don't worry. Your suspicion is only natural. At the risk of sounding extraordinarily sexist, I'm convinced that women, even in the happiest of relationships, are programmed to worry their men are going to abandon them.
And they're terrified - in a way that most men find it frankly impossible to imagine. What's more, if their forebodings come true, women are more inclined to forgive an affair than a man if the shoe is on the other foot. That's not because they're nicer, more easygoing individuals. It's simply because their primeval urge to hang onto a male provider is so strong.
Women in the 21st century may boast that they are truly independent for the first time in our social history. They may tell themselves and each other that they don't need a man. They can even start a family on their own thanks to IVF techniques.
But, while feminists may argue this proves women have finally kicked off the shackles of dependence on men, I'm afraid they're wrong.
In evolutionary terms the huge cultural changes over the past generation amount simply to the merest blink of an eye. It could take another 10,000 years for women to change their thinking.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone.
These women may be shooting up the career ladder and earning more than the men in their lives, but when it comes to relationships men still hold the trump card.
As an evolutionary psychologist, I study patterns of behaviour dating back to the first human societies, and constantly analyse evidence that demonstrates the key differences which have developed between the sexes since men were hunter-gatherers and women were child bearers.
Females are smaller and weaker than males so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being the victims of predators, and violence.
They needed the support and protection of men who didn't just have brute force but also had social status in the group, either through their sheer physicality or the strength of their personality.
That's why women still look for a mate of higher social standing.
If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male, she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing would be elevated, too.
As we shall see, modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of their peers, paying close attention to how men interact with, and are treated by, other men.
Men have a different reason for choosing a mate. The caveman needed to be sure he was raising a child who was genetically his. The best way of doing this was to secure a mate and guard her so she didn't get the chance to stray.
A man's natural instinct may be to have sex with a different woman every day, but to safeguard his relationship (and secure his progeny), he has been forced into a pattern of monogamy. don't even realise what's happening. When couples meet at speed-dating evenings, typically a man will judge a woman on her looks and youth. His priorities are whether she's healthy, interested in sex and can give him children one day. He doesn't care how much she earns or her social status.
Typically, however, a woman's first question will be: 'What job do you do?' It sounds a friendly overture, but what she really wants to know is his social position and earning capacity. Is he an industrious, hard worker, capable of providing for her and their children?
Because of his power, even the ugliest politician on the planet has women lining up to go to bed with him. Were he the local rat catcher, his love life would be a good deal quieter. As American statesman Henry Kissinger put it: 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.'
One might argue that it's only natural for today's women in their 30s or 40s to feel dependent on a man. After all, the vast majority were raised by mothers who by and large didn't have careers and were forced to rely financially on their husbands.
Yet study after study proves that today's women in their 20s are just as insecure. In a recent study, two American researchers, John Marshall Townsend from Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo, presented women with photographs of men.
The first group, described as doctors, wore designer ties, smart shirts and sported Rolex watches. The second wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms.
Women repeatedly picked doctors as potential boyfriends - even though many of the men in the third category were actually more handsome. Quite simply, to women a man's looks are less important than earning power and social standing.
In another study, male and female medical students were asked to pick their ideal mate from a selection of careers. The majority of men chose nurses. Women, however, picked hospital consultants. This demonstrates that, although every bit as financially successful as their male colleagues, these young women still feel they need men to confer power and social standing to a superior male.
It's no surprise to me that another study this year by sociologists at Virginia University found that couples are happiest in traditional marriages run on old-fashioned gender lines, where the man is the main breadwinner. The report showed conclusively that women who worked were more dissatisfied with their husbands than those who stayed at home.
One of the experts, W Radford Wilcox, said: 'Regardless of what married women say they believe about gender, they tend to have happier marriages when their husband is a good provider.'
Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores.
In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
Only last week, a survey by the Skipton Building Society concluded that many women who are the main breadwinner hold it against their partner for contributing less to the household budget than they do.
While those women might like the material rewards of their high salaries, they also dislike the financial responsibility - perhaps reflecting the inbuilt genetic imperative to rely on someone else.
( Hello Pinkettedawn )
It is that instinctive need to rely on a man which makes women so afraid of abandonment. Perhaps that is why women are more attuned to their partner's moods and curious about tiny aspects of his life. And they are much better than men at spotting liars.
Evolutionary psychologists are convinced that these are in part throwbacks to a woman's need to maintain her relationship at all costs.
It's completely irrational for women, who can earn as much as men, to have a terror of being abandoned. Even if she can't work, the welfare state means she's not going to starve. Yet it's a real fear for many women. We have anecdotal evidence of women lying awake at night worrying how they'd cope.
Women are terrified of abandonment. They fear a drop in status or social standing that might come with divorce in a way men - who are driven by very different priorities - simply don't understand.
Even extremely wealthy, successful women have these vestigial anxieties which bear absolutely no relation to the reality of their lives, but are throwbacks to caveman society.
Ironically, although men actually fare less well after divorce and are often less happy, women typically are more frightened of living alone.
Men find it extremely hard to forgive an affair. This dates back to early man's horror of unwittingly raising another man's child. However, women are predisposed to be more tolerant of affairs. It comes down to brutal economics. The thought of your husband having sex with another woman may be devastating. But even worse is the prospect of him pouring all his financial resources her way.
Quite simply, women are so programmed to feel dependent that their subliminal urge to safeguard the home often outweighs the fury of being sexually betrayed.
Terror of being abandoned even drives the beauty industry. Eating clinics report a four-fold rise in the number of middle-aged women seeking help for anorexia and bulimia because they're desperate to look slim and youthful. These problems were once the province of teenage girls.
And while women may claim they are having cosmetic surgery and Botox treatments purely to feel better about themselves, I believe the reason is much more complex. Women are driven by a primeval urge to keep their men by looking youthful and fertile. Sexist? Maybe. True? I fear so.
8 Likes 4 Shares
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by PinketteDawn: 3:08pm On May 21, 2016|
First of all, I do not see any figures in this person's so called research. All I can see here is still what he is saying based on certain behaviours he observed fron a group of women, thus inferring a possible conclusion of women being more genetically dependent on men. This is a psychologist talking, not a biologist.
Second of all, this person did not mention any specific research which he carried out to buttress his point. Everything he is talking about here still bothers on sociatal influence. A woman earning as much would naturally feel resentful of her husband not contributing because society has taught us that men should be the providers
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by rawgame(m): 3:22pm On May 21, 2016|
I don't want to sound unchivalrous but whenever MOST women say that they can do without the men, I always feel that they want to compensate for that "guilty feeling in their mind" arising from thier overall dependency.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by firstEVA(f): 4:04pm On May 21, 2016|
rawgame:This is wicked.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 5:06pm On May 21, 2016|
@pinkettedawn, you couldn't even quote me properly!!!
Let me ask you, how come women were thus conditioned by society in all cultures and in all races across all peoples and time?
Keep the denial on
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by Adaeze003(f): 5:31pm On May 21, 2016|
I doubt that life in general is a one size fits all situation. And so it is for women as well. If not, I do wonder why some women are upping and leaving their marriages and why others have declared marriage is not for them.
They might be in the minority(for now) but denying the fact that some women are not "programmed" to depend on men is not so sensible. Some women are more than comfortable paying their bills, some don't mind getting married to men who earn less and so on... to everything your research claims, there are exceptions and to say otherwise is again not so sensible.
And who doesn't know that research conclusions can be false or drawn from the majority? The average Nigerian has an IQ of 80 they said but we go to their schools and graduate tops. I know you are so happy and fulfilled with this "research" and you await your brothers to join you and self-service on this thread but calm down...
The answer is simple and in your longass post "women are generally weaker and smaller"
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 6:16pm On May 21, 2016|
Ada, you can't draw up a principle from its exception!!!
No principle or occurrence is in absolutism and the few exceptions can't void the premise on which the principle stands.
Women may opt out of marriage, it does not negate the fact that the average woman wants a man no matter her financial status or position. She's is innately programmed to hang on to a male and tag along in the rough terrain of life.
I have personally scripted threads that mirror this in the past, but seeing it re-echoed by professionals from the West -- the seat of female delusions-- is ever so refreshing.
8 Likes 3 Shares
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by postmann: 7:06pm On May 21, 2016|
And this reply of yours takes in a lot of pillage than the topic-post itself
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by Adaeze003(f): 7:15pm On May 21, 2016|
Of course it'll be refreshing to you.
Saying women are "programmed" to hang on to the male folk makes it more of "nature" but I disagree. I say it is more nurture than nature and society played a huge role in making it so. I'm particularly tired of argument because it's been over flogged and time has proven it true.
But tell me something, is it just a "woman" thing to want company or companionship of another person male or female(for gay people)?
Are humans not all naturally dependent on one another?
Why do you consistently sound like men are aliens who don't need women or in your terms do not "depend" on women but women must cling to them for survival?
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 7:32pm On May 21, 2016|
Nice question!!! I love women, matter of fact, I have not been able to decipher what I love more between life and women
And men do not go about prating on how independent they are of women, neither do they form groups or new ideology to promote segregation and antagonism of the sexes.
It is Women who have chosen to live in denial not men.
A divorced women is more apt to preach divorce as the solution to marital problems than is a divorced man.
This section can very well serve as a social laboratory to carry out this theorem.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by Bolade005: 7:40pm On May 21, 2016|
Nice article. I'm sure following this thread. I know some of these NL ladies will come in and start rubbishing the article. What gladdens my heart is the fact that the researches were conducted by professionals in the "west" so it kind of put a kibosh on their rebuttal. Our African sisters go through life aping these people, now I hope they can see they ain't "superwomen" afterall and come to accept the fact that they need men for their life to be complete and they'd rather date UP no matter their status.
3 Likes 1 Share
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by postmann: 10:15pm On May 21, 2016|
The article says it all. And I really don't see from where you're drawing your inference. All I can deduce from your post is a vain outcry triggered by feminist ego.
Most man need women mainly for sex and to raise children. But women need men for protection, sound judgment (women are genetically poor with making logical decisions ), women need men to fix things and they need a hard muscled body to feel safe at night.
Talking about nature and nurture: Women are SPIRITUALLY programmed to depend on men and be lead by them. A good example is this; a woman tends to marry by class. She hardly settles for someone below her class, except age or other factors prevailed unfavourably on her.
Don't you think it's nurture for men not to ambush and forcefully have sex with any girl they fancy? Do you think it's nurture or nature that makes a man wants to help out when he sees a woman struggling with so heavy load? The early men with no gender bias, saw women for what they are - physically weaker and giving more to sentiment than the male folk.
We all do, men and women. But women crave love and company more. While men crave more of sex with no strings.
Men created virtually all the sports that you see on TV. They hunt far even into the heart of the wilderness. They have so much to keep themselves busy and occupied until they need just that one thing - sex! And that's when you women come in most times.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by cococandy(f): 10:23pm On May 21, 2016|
More sexist rubbish.
Women need men.
Men don't need women.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by postmann: 10:39pm On May 21, 2016|
No one said that. Women just need men more.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by cococandy(f): 10:45pm On May 21, 2016|
postmann:Yea. That's why widows are more able to raise their kids alone after the loss of their husbands but widowers can't survive unless they marry another wife 6 months later.
Any person with half a brain knows that these endless ramblings about 21st century women not being as dependent as they used to be stems from deep insecurity. You guys are afraid of becoming irrelevant.
Not to worry. It won't get to that.
Even if we don't need you (which we are honest enough to admit that we still do), we will still want you.
And That should guarantee your continued existence.
Y'all need to stop being afraid.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by postmann: 11:11pm On May 21, 2016|
Do a research on the negatives of children being raised without a father. That should tell you how forever indisposable the male folk is.
And I suppose the widower who can't wait to get married after six months married a fellow man.
The widow can't marry easily cos she's about rock bottom in the pecking order.
You really don't get it! This isn't about insecurity. It's double tragedy for the 21st century woman. She's more like a man. I can easily pick her from the club and take her home for the night. Then she's just a conquered frame in my sex gallery collection. She works just as hard as I. She'll age faster. She can't escape the premature wrinkles on her face. She's more sexually unfit and would have lesser time satisfying me in bed. As she ages prematurely and loses her appeal due to stress and unavailability, her male partner will start looking for fresh teenage girls to beep with. They'll need his money.
You see, the 21st century woman is doubly cursed. Cursed with d burden meant for men. The devil gave her some cheese in exchange for her happiness. And she's too daft to notice.
Women are the ones who really need to be afraid.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by Dheartless: 11:44pm On May 21, 2016|
lezz:where ever did this came from, it is sincerely an unsentimental piece, and it is sincerely based on reality than personal fantasies.
nice and educative one bro.
4 Likes 1 Share
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by cococandy(f): 11:48pm On May 21, 2016|
Nobody said men are disposable.
Projecting your fears?
And the rest of your nonsensical egotistic and sadistic rant can be seen for what it is.
Consolation for yourself.
I won't even dignify those with a response as it will be insult to women folk.
If we are so cursed, why are you weeping on our behalf? Why not let us weep for ourselves and bemoan our terrible 21st century fate?
Yet day in day out you and your kind of 'blessed' men troll the Internet trying to convince the world that you're still relevant.
Your type will even go extinct faster. No one has any use for sad insecure men who need to put women down to feel better.
It's pathetic and saddening.
I feel so sad for yous.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 12:09am On May 22, 2016|
cococandy:cocoa, coco? I love cocoa, all I see is cocoa
You find this unbiasedly written piece devoid of sentiments sexist?
Why am I not surprised!
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by postmann: 12:12am On May 22, 2016|
That was borderline-close, dear cococandy. I felt your pulse racing as you type
You virtually stuck out a hand for my heart but I'm just unreachable.
That's how my posts are designed - to violently provoke your being, to question that which you have long falsely held as truth, to erupt that deep-seated uncontrollable anger in you, to call me names, but never forgetting where my arrow left its mark, somewhere deep within your core.
But I came with the truth and I'm generous with it.
You talk about my consolation, my insecurity and my irrelevance but my little submission found its way right through you, ripping off your mask, and you squirm in anger and took it personal.
I didn't actually mean to perforate your thinly veiled security.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by cococandy(f): 12:18am On May 22, 2016|
Grandiose and delusional. Aren't you a tool.
Uncle Sad and lonely dude.
You need to find love like mencade5 did and maybe your fixation with 21st century women and our freedom will lessen.
I truly feel sad for you. Something about the so called freedom that the 21st century woman has clearly doesn't let you sleep at night.
I've never seen someone more disturbed about the freedom of others than you (well except din@chi) who I suspect you are or do a good job of copying.
I hope you find peace.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 12:29am On May 22, 2016|
cococandy:Cococandy has got an ass for brains that's why she likes fart-typing
Can you give us the statistics of teenage pregnant girls who grew up with single mothers ? You know data abound of young girls being susceptible to rapé and teen pregnancies when they grow up with single mothers
Yes, men cope poorly in divorce, this very biased thread said that much. But women worry more about keeping the union. And that's what your insecurity dares not admit in the open.
You're the one with the insecuries that couldn't handle reality here.
cococandy:Statistics keep proving you wrong. You will deny the obvious just to live the lie. But who's running to pastors and prophets for life partners? Women.
Who's suffereng bulimia nervosa to keep young and sexy and slim? Women. Who keeps wearing phoney accessories and falsifying their looks? Women.
I dey watch you ,cocoa
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by PinketteDawn: 12:39am On May 22, 2016|
It has not always been so in all races and cultures across the world. Read this link.
Since you want to quote an article written by a man without an indepth research or substantial numbers please read
Interesting enough, your article was also touched here.
Then I thought, perhaps I should go even further to educate you on gender roles and how they came about, which, by the way, has nothing to do with genetics.
Still on the matter:
Sex roles describes the tasks and functions perceived to be ideally suited to masculinity versus femininity. Sex roles have converged across many (though not all) cultures due to colonial practices and also due to industrialisation. These roles were different prior to the industrial revolution, when men and women worked alongside one another on farms, doing similar tasks. Entrenched gender inequality is a product of modernity.
5 successful societies run by women
When you are done with the studies, please come back and explain to me once again, how women are genetically more dependent on men. 'Genetically' being the operative word.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by PinketteDawn: 12:43am On May 22, 2016|
Seems like you read my mind through and through.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by postmann: 1:13am On May 22, 2016|
Cut yourself some slack and dispense with the cheap antics. You're a weak woman with emotional fragility. Easily touched and provoked.
Truth be told, you're not much of a worthy feminist crusader. Your motives are limited to your personal shortcomings and mishaps. There's an underlying reason for your misandry, somewhere down the road, where you have crestfallen and ripped apart by some heartless brute.
Did I hear you say freedom? If what you do here as a married woman with kids is what you call freedom, then you're a lost case. You're the evidence of a world gone wrong; the corrosion of the sanctity of motherhood and matrimony, the hoplessness of the age and loss of focus.
You have no freedom, rather you're troubled and restless. You should be overly preoccupied with wifely and motherhood duties than engaging men in an online forum. Something is hollow within your world, something unfulfilling and traumatising. You need this forum for diversion from some ugly reality. And firm, principled, uncompromising men remind you of your fate - the weaker vessel.
5 Likes 1 Share
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by cococandy(f): 1:16am On May 22, 2016|
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by shaybebaby(f): 5:32am On May 22, 2016|
PinketteDawn:Girl, you are going to wait a long time for that a specific answer to what you just wrote up there.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by shaybebaby(f): 6:00am On May 22, 2016|
Addictive and probably carcinogenic: scientist reveals dangers of Daily Mail
While many view the Daily Mail as a harmless, recreational newspaper, a newly published study definitively absolutely 100% proves it is actually highly addictive, causes mental judgement problems and damages health
While viewed by many as a harmless newspaper read by people who just want to relax and unwind – or perhaps do some recreational experimentation with different ideologies – a new study has provided unquestionable proof that the notorious newspaper actually inflicts considerable damage on all those who read it, link to it, or even so much as look directly at it.
The detailed study looked at reports of the effects of reading the Daily Mail from the last 20 years. To clarify, it wasn’t a “20-year study”; who would make that sort of mistake? You might see those nostalgia shows like I love the 80s, but you don’t call them a “decade-long TV show”. That would be misleading. It would appear to be that you’re ridiculously exaggerating something for your own ends.
But the study, conducted by Professor Ineptias of The Department for Hysterical Analysis (University of Hyperbole, Hull), reveals that the Daily Mail has many serious consequences for those reading it. Some of the more devastating are detailed below.
British national newspapers on display at a newsagent's in London, Britain, 11 October 2013.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
It starts with just the one, and then suddenly, you’re hooked! Photograph: ANDY RAIN/EPA
Professor Ineptias revealed a strong tendency for Daily Mail readers to become dependent on it, struggling to go for more than a day without a “fix”.
“Exposure to the exaggerated, emotive language can be compelling for the casual reader, but pretty soon this takes hold. You become caught up in the exaggerated claims and then you start to show confirmation bias, looking for more things that echo your own opinions and views in a similarly intense way, hence you need to read more Daily Mail.”
The long term effects of this dependency are uncertain, but animal studies suggest they could be very dangerous. An experiment where rats had their cages lined with the Daily Mail for a month showed that the animals developed very concerning behaviours.
“They became incredibly hostile and demanding. You’d put them in a maze and whereas they’d normally go and explore, the Daily Mail rats would just look at you angrily, wondering what’s in it for them,” one researcher reported. “And the rats we used for the study were British-bred, white rats. I accidentally put a cage of foreign rats in the room with them once, they almost tore the place apart. Several of them were physically sick. And rats can’t even vomit!”
There have been many different approaches to treating Daily Mail addiction, such as substituting with milder stimulants like the Express or Telegraph (often supplied via a patch), but these have only limited effectiveness.
The Daily Mail has also caused dependence in those who hate it, with people constantly linking to it due to a sense of outrage, a very rare example of “passive dependence”.
Development of further disorders
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Exposure to the Daily Mail could lead to all sorts of erratic behaviours. Photograph: DANIEL SORABJI/AFP/Getty Images
Several investigations revealed that those who grow dependent on the Daily Mail often end up unsatisfied with just reading it and feel compelled to contribute with extreme or bizarre comments. But this engagement with like-minded dependents can lead to increased extremism via group polarisation, resulting in ridiculous right-wing behaviour like burning crosses in your garden, or voting for Ukip.
“Those who read the Daily Mail often do so because they are already angry or unhappy with their lot. The constant vitriol aimed at those who are more vulnerable offers a form of displacement, a sort of defence mechanism where those with problems can take them out on others,” Professor Ineptas explained.
Prolonged exposure to the Daily Mail can also produce chronic paranoia, suspicion, anger and belief in conspiracies, like how a secret organisation of homosexuals and feminists is going to steal your childhood home and turn it into a luxurious taxpayer-funded refuge for drug-addled benefits claimants who spend all day knitting Union Jacks purely so they can burn them in front of children. Or something.
You combine the Daily Mail and education, you end up with this sort of thing.
Reading the Daily Mail has been shown to have a seriously damaging effect on people’s ability to learn new information that isn’t conveyed via hyperbole or exaggeration, or doesn’t put down another group of people in some way.
But more alarming is that repeated, prolonged exposure to the Daily Mail seemingly causes degradation of language skills. Even a brief read of any comment section on the site shows that grammar and punctuation are distorted, and some commenters have seemingly lost the knowledge of HOW TO TURN THE CAPS LOCK OFF. That such simple inherent things can be lost implies that the damage the Daily Mail does is at a fundamental level and deeply entrenched.
Damage To Car Involved In Accident
Many Daily Mail articles can be described as ‘a car crash’, but sometimes that’s very literal.
Professor Ineptias discovered a clear link between reading the Daily Mail and traffic accidents.
“Basically, Daily Mail readers have a persistent habit of veering to the right. And this isn’t safe when you’re behind the wheel of a vehicle.”
Daily Mail reading supposedly causes a large number of traffic accidents. One study looked into police reports. Officers who tended to Daily Mail readers who had caused a crash reported receiving a stream of abuse about who pays their wages and claims that the rules about driving on the left are just a “liberal conspiracy”. There was often something about feminists too, but not in any coherent form.
The scaremongering used by the Daily Mail can be very dangerous, leading to prolonged stress and anxiety. These have many known health consequences, but addicts tend to suffer more than most because treatment can be obtained via the NHS, but the NHS is largely staffed by immigrants, so Daily Mail readers tend to stay away.
On top of this, the Daily Mail often reports that innocuous things cause cancer. But the one link between all of these things is that they are in the Daily Mail. Professor Ineptias argues that this means the Daily Mail itself is a carcinogen.
“What if reading the Daily Mail actually means you’re running your hands all over a vitriolic lump of angry cancer? You might as well put plutonium on your cornflakes! Or buy some asbestos pyjamas. Why don’t you just do that, eh? You make me sick you disgusting liberal. We’d all be better off without the multicultural hellhole you’ve turned this country into. Thatcher would be turning in her grave if she could see what the bloody bLIARites have done. WE MUST TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!”
Professor Ineptias was later found to have been exposed to excessive levels of Daily Mail having failed to observe proper containment procedures during his studies.
Dean Burnett would say it’s obvious this article is a joke, but that’s never stopped the Daily Mail from taking it seriously before. He is on Twitter, @garwboy
Satire but true in the typical british way. Now if OP had any real experience or knowledge of the societies he wishes to use to make a point, he would know that THE DAILY MAIL or THE SUN are not regarded as credible publications, mostly rag.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by cococandy(f): 6:18am On May 22, 2016|
^^^ I know dailymail for what it is.
A sensational tabloid.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by shaybebaby(f): 6:33am On May 22, 2016|
cococandy:Well what do you expect from a readers of a publication that supports fascism with one of it's founders mates with Mussolini and Hitler? little surprise that this bunch would give credence to their write-up.
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by Dheartless: 7:05am On May 22, 2016|
even in the era of the stone age man.....(which my writing is based upon)
woman gets pregnant , after some months becomes almost inactive to physical activities and also may be affected in the way of reasoning.
question: the above is defined by nature or nurture?
during this stages who leads and fend for the Union?
woman gives birth to a child, she has 2 options , 1 throw the child away , 2 feed and look after the child. it means the woman has been forced to carry the child for nine months and after then, look after the child by feeding it , bathing it , clothing it, until the child can fend for itself.......assuming the absence of the man after the pregnancy.
nature or nurture?
during all this it would be hard for a woman to face herself and her child talk more hustle for living in thickness of a forest e.g get wood for heat and cooking, get meat for food.........
if the man was present , who takes these roles automatically?
nature or nurture?
I can go on...but...
today woman should be glad that civilization has climbed a high ladder which is given by much help from men and the society out of simple morals of the human mind and not because it was so from the very beginning of nature, if anything was at all nurtured , it is the "better leadership of men and husbands over the decades to form the society we now live in" that was nurtured.
e.g man shouldn't abandon : a pregnant woman or wife, a nursing mother or wife .......e.t.c
5 Likes 2 Shares
|Re: All What Your Mother Had And You Don't by lezz(m): 9:46am On May 22, 2016|
Pinkettedawn, you disappoint me in the most cruel of manners. You rob me of a good Sunday debate
You shot yourself in the foot with your first source you cited that claims matriarchy . In the very opening was a disclaimer to your claims. It saved me the pain of delving further. ( I did a screenshot for you)
And the rebutal you cited on your second source which sought to establish "men are more dependent on women" must have been written by a teen who was still experiencing her first menses.
I have never been mentally assaulted with such laughable postulation and baselessly speculative nonsensicality.
No data of stats or stated findings of professionals. Just plain old female chest beating.
Her examples are:
* men need women to take care of the baby
* men throw around thier stocking
* women give men fashion sense etc.
Lolz, it would have been comic if it wasn't so ridiculous.
You need to come up with something more mentally stirring.
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 534