pansophist:
To be fair to the women, it's not a good deal to carry both the financial burden of the home, and also her own biological burden that can't be transferred to the man (eg pregnancy, breastfeeding, child care, etc)

And in most cases, when a woman assumes her biological duty (eg being pregnant), then her earning stops, and a man that earns equally or higher will sustain the lifestyle that she is used to.

Bashing high earning women make it seems like it's a punishment for a woman to be successful. And if she is not successful, modern man will see her as a liability. Women are caught between two tight corners. If she makes money, she suffers somehow. If she doesn't makes money she also suffers.

If that's the options you have, then it makes sense to suffer while having her own money, because the last time I checked, broke women are not getting married too. In fact more broke women are unmarried than wealthy women.

Also, wealthy women can marry tomorrow if they downgrade their standards, but a broke woman is like Ukraine, at the mercy of everyone. That's a sad place to be, and it can only get worse.

So please, pity women small. Cut them some slack. Also, many of these women ain't just looking for a man with money. Quite frankly, they have lots of those men. But lots of men thinks having money is enough, and these women wants a husband material as well, not a money material only.

Yahoo boys and lots of touts have money, but these women will pass them. It's not just money. It takes more. Anyways, see it from a woman's perspective. These things are not black and white.

UyaiIncomparabl:


Sometimes, you make sense and other times, I don’t just understand.

Caaz:
Too lenghty

pansophist:


Translation: if you write what i like, then you're making sense. If you write what I don't like, then you're not making sense.

micxwell:


Oya read

The OP addresses the complaint from women that men are scarce, explaining that what they really mean is that the type of men they want, high earners, are not available. Women want a man who earns significantly more than they do, and as they start to earn more themselves, they may no longer want those men. The OP argues that women balk at the idea of settling with a lower income man because the person who earns more in a relationship assumes the majority of the financial burden, sacrifice, and responsibility. The OP suggests that with equality comes equal responsibility, and encourages women to pick a man, take care of him, and their children until one of them dies. The OP challenges women to see this equality thing through and asks whether they can take care of their man and his family and friends.

BlackMan6969:
In this day and age of information, i can't believe some folks are finding this little write-up to be bulky. Some read & didn't understand the point. Others read in part & made conclusions that are alien to the point. And some didn't it read it all. Guys you'll really need to cultivate an act of reading. There is a lot to gain from it.

UyaiIncomparabl:


It’s not about what I like or not. Sometimes you write and I ask myself if you truly wrote that. Hmm. Humans are imperfect after all.

pansophist:


Why don't you quote it? That's what I do if I don't agree with anything here. Not quote to fight the writer, but to tackle their point.

UyaiIncomparabl:

pansophist:


Why don't you quote it? That's what I do if I don't agree with anything here. Not quote to fight the writer, but to tackle their point.

pansophist:


You can see me in the politics sections for example fighting every black slaves and pro American hegemony. Do it. If you have an issue with any of my comment, bring it up.

Deal?

UyaiIncomparabl:


E mean say I go mention you tire be that. Because ehn, I no just dey understand you.

micxwell:


Oya read

The OP addresses the complaint from women that men are scarce, explaining that what they really mean is that the type of men they want, high earners, are not available. Women want a man who earns significantly more than they do, and as they start to earn more themselves, they may no longer want those men. The OP argues that women balk at the idea of settling with a lower income man because the person who earns more in a relationship assumes the majority of the financial burden, sacrifice, and responsibility. The OP suggests that with equality comes equal responsibility, and encourages women to pick a man, take care of him, and their children until one of them dies. The OP challenges women to see this equality thing through and asks whether they can take care of their man and his family and friends.

UyaiIncomparabl:


E mean say I go mention you tire be that. Because ehn, I no just dey understand you.

HellVictorinho6:

UyaiIncomparabl:


What?

pansophist:
To be fair to the women, it's not a good deal to carry both the financial burden of the home, and also her own biological burden that can't be transferred to the man (eg pregnancy, breastfeeding, child care, etc)

And in most cases, when a woman assumes her biological duty (eg being pregnant), then her earning stops, and a man that earns equally or higher will sustain the lifestyle that she is used to.

Bashing high earning women make it seems like it's a punishment for a woman to be successful. And if she is not successful, modern man will see her as a liability. Women are caught between two tight corners. If she makes money, she suffers somehow. If she doesn't makes money she also suffers.

If that's the options you have, then it makes sense to suffer while having her own money, because the last time I checked, broke women are not getting married too. In fact more broke women are unmarried than wealthy women.

Also, wealthy women can marry tomorrow if they downgrade their standards, but a broke woman is like Ukraine, at the mercy of everyone. That's a sad place to be, and it can only get worse.

So please, pity women small. Cut them some slack. Also, many of these women ain't just looking for a man with money. Quite frankly, they have lots of those men. But lots of men thinks having money is enough, and these women wants a husband material as well, not a money material only.

Yahoo boys and lots of touts have money, but these women will pass them. It's not just money. It takes more. Anyways, see it from a woman's perspective. These things are not black and white.

Caaz:

Thanks for taking time out from your busy schedule to explain the post to me.

Pls may I also use this medium to plead with you to kindly remind me to vote for you ,should you ever wished to call contest for any elective position later in the future.
Thanks.

pansophist:
To be fair to the women, it's not a good deal to carry both the financial burden of the home, and also her own biological burden that can't be transferred to the man (eg pregnancy, breastfeeding, child care, etc)

And in most cases, when a woman assumes her biological duty (eg being pregnant), then her earning stops, and a man that earns equally or higher will sustain the lifestyle that she is used to.

Yahoo boys and lots of touts have money, but these women will pass them. It's not just money. It takes more. Anyways, see it from a woman's perspective. These things are not black and white.

pansophist:
To be fair to the women, it's not a good deal to carry both the financial burden of the home, and also her own biological burden that can't be transferred to the man (eg pregnancy, breastfeeding, child care, etc)

And in most cases, when a woman assumes her biological duty (eg being pregnant), then her earning stops, and a man that earns equally or higher will sustain the lifestyle that she is used to.

Bashing high earning women make it seems like it's a punishment for a woman to be successful. And if she is not successful, modern man will see her as a liability. Women are caught between two tight corners. If she makes money, she suffers somehow. If she doesn't makes money she also suffers.

If that's the options you have, then it makes sense to suffer while having her own money, because the last time I checked, broke women are not getting married too. In fact more broke women are unmarried than wealthy women.

Also, wealthy women can marry tomorrow if they downgrade their standards, but a broke woman is like Ukraine, at the mercy of everyone. That's a sad place to be, and it can only get worse.

So please, pity women small. Cut them some slack. Also, many of these women ain't just looking for a man with money. Quite frankly, they have lots of those men. But lots of men thinks having money is enough, and these women wants a husband material as well, not a money material only.

Yahoo boys and lots of touts have money, but these women will pass them. It's not just money. It takes more. Anyways, see it from a woman's perspective. These things are not black and white.

pansophist:
To be fair to the women, it's not a good deal to carry both the financial burden of the home, and also her own biological burden that can't be transferred to the man (eg pregnancy, breastfeeding, child care, etc)

And in most cases, when a woman assumes her biological duty (eg being pregnant), then her earning stops, and a man that earns equally or higher will sustain the lifestyle that she is used to.

Bashing high earning women make it seems like it's a punishment for a woman to be successful. And if she is not successful, modern man will see her as a liability. Women are caught between two tight corners. If she makes money, she suffers somehow. If she doesn't makes money she also suffers.

If that's the options you have, then it makes sense to suffer while having her own money, because the last time I checked, broke women are not getting married too. In fact more broke women are unmarried than wealthy women.

Also, wealthy women can marry tomorrow if they downgrade their standards, but a broke woman is like Ukraine, at the mercy of everyone. That's a sad place to be, and it can only get worse.

So please, pity women small. Cut them some slack. Also, many of these women ain't just looking for a man with money. Quite frankly, they have lots of those men. But lots of men thinks having money is enough, and these women wants a husband material as well, not a money material only.

Yahoo boys and lots of touts have money, but these women will pass them. It's not just money. It takes more. Anyways, see it from a woman's perspective. These things are not black and white.

Gerrard59:


I am curious to read OP's reply to this post. While OP made sense, this is a good rebuttal. OP's write-up is commonplace in most developed countries if not all. In Nordic countries, even with all the equality policies, women aim for high-earning men. The same applies in Singapore, Japan etc. High earning women wait out for high-earning men and sometimes have to bend their domineering rules in a bid to be married as you cannot do yanga to a high-earning man. In the US, high earning women have resorted to lesbianism or single mothers via sperm donors or remain single. Nature and biology are brutal, I must say.

cc: atheistandproud

LordAdam16:


Your points appear valid, but I have objections.

Pregnancy and breast feeding are the only non-transferable responsibilities.

Well, women have fewer kids today than they did in the past. 2-4 which they must have before menopause. Pregnancies do not impede quality of life until the third trimester. Last I checked, all economies are acquiescing to generous maternity leaves.

In fact, I'm fully onboard giving women in the workforce better benefits to make up for the very valuable role of refreshing the labor pool. That can be arranged.

For breastfeeding, it'd interest you to know that we used to have thriving professionals called wet nurses. We need more of them. They'll be sufficiently-paid with pension, vacation, dental plans...

Childcare has already been commoditized. Working class women in the West can attest to that. We need to (and can) apply the same economic realities to accommodate the other two key functions--pregnancy and breast-feeding. It can be done.

If she earns more, she'd have to foot more of the bills. As she would if she were single. Welcome to being an adult.

Men pay for all these things already when they can afford it. From IVF to surrogates to wet nurses to child care to babysitters. Go ask around about the cost of daycare currently. If women are beginning to extract economic value through good salaries, they CANNOT balk at those responsibilities. Someone has been paying for them.

I do not see the OP's writeup as bashing high-earning women. To whom much is given, much is expected. I don't see why you would call a woman paying to give birth to her own kid and raise her own kid "suffering". If she's high-earning, she can afford it. If she can afford it, she should pay for it.

Broke men have it worse than broke women. Cry me a river.

Now, that we've focused on money, you've brought up character. Let them marry the touts and yahoo boys and "mould" them into the type of men they desire. That is what society have been advising men for millennia.

The common theme I see in your writeup is a propensity to allow women to shirk responsibility.

It took men literally tens of thousands of years to begin to like having responsibility. Women should be made to go through that baptism of fire as well.

Early men kept their women and kids in caves and went out to hunt predators that could snap them in two. I'm sure they'd have appreciated the help if women were biologically able to be resourceful in this life-and-death situation. They did not see it as suffering to brave danger for their families. But you want to make the argument that a high-earning woman taking a maternity leave or pay cut (that is a tiny percentage of her lifetime earnings) for her own family is "suffering" in the 21st century.

And the value of men is not only in their ability to foot bills. When SHTF, you want a man in your corner as a woman, whether you are Mackenzie Scott or broke Tina. So footing most bills just to have a man who'd have a vested interest in the safety of you and your kids sounds like a fair trade to me. Her taxes already go to men in the police force and military providing security.

And yes, if she becomes so resentful that she divorces him, he should get spousal support for being part of the marital unit when the going was good. Or my favorite argument, to support the lifestyle that he has become accustomed to.

Women cannot have it good for more than 100,000 years, then when it gets to the turn of men to mill around and be taken care of, you guys start talking about "seeing it from a woman's perspective." Who her perspective epp?

The good thing is the percentage of high-earners who are female will continue to rise. Demography is destiny.

-Lord

Gerrard59:


I am curious to read OP's reply to this post. While OP made sense, this is a good rebuttal. OP's write-up is commonplace in most developed countries if not all. In Nordic countries, even with all the equality policies, women aim for high-earning men. The same applies in Singapore, Japan etc. High earning women wait out for high-earning men and sometimes have to bend their domineering rules in a bid to be married as you cannot do yanga to a high-earning man. In the US, high earning women have resorted to lesbianism or single mothers via sperm donors or remain single. Nature and biology are brutal, I must say.

cc: atheistandproud

LordAdam16:


Your points appear valid, but I have objections.

Pregnancy and breast feeding are the only non-transferable responsibilities.

Well, women have fewer kids today than they did in the past. 2-4 which they must have before menopause. Pregnancies do not impede quality of life until the third trimester. Last I checked, all economies are acquiescing to generous maternity leaves.

In fact, I'm fully onboard giving women in the workforce better benefits to make up for the very valuable role of refreshing the labor pool. That can be arranged.

For breastfeeding, it'd interest you to know that we used to have thriving professionals called wet nurses. We need more of them. They'll be sufficiently-paid with pension, vacation, dental plans...

Childcare has already been commoditized. Working class women in the West can attest to that. We need to (and can) apply the same economic realities to accommodate the other two key functions--pregnancy and breast-feeding. It can be done.

If she earns more, she'd have to foot more of the bills. As she would if she were single. Welcome to being an adult.

Men pay for all these things already when they can afford it. From IVF to surrogates to wet nurses to child care to babysitters. Go ask around about the cost of daycare currently. If women are beginning to extract economic value through good salaries, they CANNOT balk at those responsibilities. Someone has been paying for them.

I do not see the OP's writeup as bashing high-earning women. To whom much is given, much is expected. I don't see why you would call a woman paying to give birth to her own kid and raise her own kid "suffering". If she's high-earning, she can afford it. If she can afford it, she should pay for it.

Broke men have it worse than broke women. Cry me a river.

Now, that we've focused on money, you've brought up character. Let them marry the touts and yahoo boys and "mould" them into the type of men they desire. That is what society have been advising men for millennia.

The common theme I see in your writeup is a propensity to allow women to shirk responsibility.

It took men literally tens of thousands of years to begin to like having responsibility. Women should be made to go through that baptism of fire as well.

Early men kept their women and kids in caves and went out to hunt predators that could snap them in two. I'm sure they'd have appreciated the help if women were biologically able to be resourceful in this life-and-death situation. They did not see it as suffering to brave danger for their families. But you want to make the argument that a high-earning woman taking a maternity leave or pay cut (that is a tiny percentage of her lifetime earnings) for her own family is "suffering" in the 21st century.

And the value of men is not only in their ability to foot bills. When SHTF, you want a man in your corner as a woman, whether you are Mackenzie Scott or broke Tina. So footing most bills just to have a man who'd have a vested interest in the safety of you and your kids sounds like a fair trade to me. Her taxes already go to men in the police force and military providing security.

And yes, if she becomes so resentful that she divorces him, he should get spousal support for being part of the marital unit when the going was good. Or my favorite argument, to support the lifestyle that he has become accustomed to.

Women cannot have it good for more than 100,000 years, then when it gets to the turn of men to mill around and be taken care of, you guys start talking about "seeing it from a woman's perspective." Who her perspective epp?

The good thing is the percentage of high-earners who are female will continue to rise. Demography is destiny.

-Lord

ItisWell22:
Well written. 🙌

Going by the arguments being put forward on the 1st page of this post, you’ll find out that a lot of us live in delusion, and it hits women the most.

Like a friend of mine would say, hard as it may sound, “the world is rigged against women!”

ItisWell22:
Well written. 🙌

Going by the arguments being put forward on the 1st page of this post, you’ll find out that a lot of us live in delusion, and it hits women the most.

Like a friend of mine would say, hard as it may sound, “the world is rigged against women!”

The ?woke ones may try so hard to argue, but it is what it is.

As we try to become more masculine, losing touch with our femininity, we alter nature; and nature would always fight back.

1 simple instance:
Check out the ladies who married men below.
At 1st they preach and shout “being supportive”
Over time, many of them get frustrated.
They want to be loved and pampered by a man.
It works out for some, no doubt; but what’s the incidence or prevalence?

atheistandproud:



You've raised several issues at once and lemme see if I can address each case by case.

The first one is biological limitations. As we all know, women are the nurturers of new life and this puts a toll on their body. With that being said, it's never stopped women from working. Women as someone have pointed out have ample maternity leaves and schools actually have daycare for very young children.

Two, this is not a bashing. I did not in anyway bash women. If I did, them for don draw and quarter me since (virtually of course). What I'm pointing out is a real reality in our society. I know women in the late 20s to mid 30s lamenting about lack of men offline. But these women are earning anywhere between 50 to 150k. Some of them dey take me out, but to settle with someone below their pay grade is usually a capital NO! As more and more women earn more than the guys, the pool of guys that out-earn them will realistically shrink. It's high time women understand this and since we're all equal now, there's nothing wrong with marrying and cleaning up a man.

Note: Some women have done this but usually, 60% of the time, other women that slaughter them verbally. Some men egos are too big for this as well.

Three, na broke women na know. In fact, it's the broke women I know that carry high standards on their head. The ones with money are actually more relaxed and laid back, very easy going ladies.

Ladies that come from money aren't interested in Omo yahoo yahoo but you see those ogbenskele muche (na old Warri go understand this slang), Yahoo boys are dating and marrying plenty of them.

Konjiboii:



Bro the world was built by men to protect women. Women have bird brains and don't have sense and maybe they are just bored of being a carer in a home, I will GLADLY switch places and be a house husband as long as my needs are met, I will do laundry like I already myself,cook like I already do myself and clean the house. While I will have some time to read a good novel and enough breaks to drink red wine and smoke weed in between.. please abeg stop brainwashing this women as if they are all deserving of 247 princess treatment.

pansophist:


One girl on my contact list shared a post about how a woman will submit to a man that takes her around the world, buy everything she ever wants, and respects her. She is now telling men that submission will come naturally to a woman when a man treats her like that. That man should not force submission.

And I was like, even I will submit to any woman that will give me that treatment. Submission should not be gender specific. I mean, I go wash plates, pound fufu, babysit, and clean the house. I will be a full-time house-husband. I kukuma sabi cook