₦airaland Forum

XxSabrinaxX:

Go woke, go broke! Just like Gillette.

XxSabrinaxX:
Stay woke!

and go broke.

ubunja:
Mgtow for life..

Best decision ever.

Maternal instincts. I suppose they said women are more compassionate than men, are nurturing, and natural caretakers. Oops!

Dimples0303:
Sis... Our residential feminist... Are we playing victim

Pots and kettles everywhere but not a mallam insight

Lol. I am not a sis. The idea and strategy of getting pregnant to hook a man is not new in Nigeria.

Ken4agent:
U dey funny ....u are not yet ready to father a child cos yu are yet to complete yur house.....but u can complete the tidying up of a pus-ssy

Guys pls suggest he ask google

He is not ready to father a child but he dey chop the obloblo raw as e dey hot.

Ojizy1:
I am 27 years old and I have been dating this lady for 2 years now, I'm doing well with forex trading and make money without hitches.

I always take her shopping and buy her good stuff but the thing is I don't see her as my life partner but now she's 4 months pregnant and she concealed the information from me.

I'm not ready to father anything child now because I'm still yet to complete my house.

Guys please suggest what should I do .

You have been cleverly roped in for child support and even marriage.

MrCork:
...erm .bro..one of yor last thread was called ...* my last sexual experiense with a goat*.(check it)

..& then u come to nairaland to advise M.O.D to ban we normal people?

...well,normaly there in Nigeria..they would say.. *BRO..yor head is not correct*

..however, here in London, we simply say... *SON.. u need mental paragatrolick help!!* ((No oofeense) )

she uses her free speech but wants to limit that of others she isn't pleased with.

@RedCreme21
Can you tell me why you want me banned?

RedCreme21:
Martinez39. These are my suggestions. You're free to add yours. We're cool.
Hope that weird side to you isnt surfacing once again? That defensive nature is boring.

We are cool. Those were my suggestions too *rolls eyes*.

You are still a child indeed and you are naive about human nature, business, and the difficulty of making money.

2. A button which would enable us to block several accounts here.

Lol. How do you expect this to work? Even if people are unable to quote/mention you, what stops them from copying your post and attaching your name to it when trying to reply you? They might even attach a name that is similar to your username, what can you do?
You are looking for safe space? Eyah, Nairaland is not for weaklings, if you don't have the thick skin to ignore instead of getting offended and bothered, go somewhere else.

4 Nairalanders whose threads make front page should be paid a minimum of #5000.

And who will fund this? Lmao #5000 for ordinary front page? Did Seun force anyone to come to nairaland? Do you know how many topics go to front page in a day? Do you want to run Seun broke? Go to the front page, count how many topics you see, multiple by 5000, and then tell me if this notion makes sense. Perhaps you can fund this. Lmao With this idea of yours, it clear you are not working for your money instead you are being provided for and don't know the true worth of money.

If this policy is enacted, somehow, the moderators' topics and that of their many alternate accounts would be the only ones making front page. It's human nature to ruthlessly capitalise on free money. If I were a moderator, I would have many alternate accounts and my topics and that of my alternate accounts would make front page. This applies to all moderators. SMH

After a registered member has been banned for the third time, he/she is to pay a certain fee. #1000 tops.

How would you or Seun or a moderator force any banned Nairalander to part with #1000 just because they were banned for the third time? You have so far demonstrated immense naivety, an unimpressive and abject business acumen and inability to think of the consequences of your decisions. Lmao. SMH.

7 Anyone who comments on a trolls thread is to endure the same punishment as the op for encouraging him/her.

It's fun and seems alright when you are limiting people's free speech until someone else limits yours. Free speech must not be defied on nairaland. Never support something that can backfire on you. Trolling is part of free speech.

There should be 'wall of prestige'. Where monikers of excellent behaviour would be displayed and awarded a decent amount of
money.

Mtewww. Come, do you think money grows on trees? Do you think Seun plucked money from trees? What is wrong with you? Lmao. It's your type that would support socialism. Nothing is free and no one owes anyone anything. A "wall of prestige" is okay but Seun doesn't have to give money EXCEPT IF HE WANTS TO. It unlikely that he will and I wouldn't either. Besides, who gets to decide who gets to the "wall of prestige" and what are the standards?

The immediate ban of martinez39, AstroG, vickyhow, denreledave, blueair, bigcowhorn, dimples0303, ilamina, mrcork, missghosted, ubunja, redlord1...

Why?

It's clear that you have a lot of growing up to do. I hope in some years time, you would cringe at this.

Lol. The boy is free to do what he is passionate about. However, someone should put him in the right perspective by showing him that the world has really moved beyond this level. Hope he becomes a world class engineer someday.

@NiCurious

I started attacking her points beginning from her paradigm that it's incumbent on men to provide and pointing out her hypocrisy on this as a feminist. Also, there is no indication in the op, in any way, that this thread was inspired from another thread. I can't for the life of me see what isn't there. How you read the op and deduced it was inspired from another thread is a miracle or, perhaps, a dishonesty of a special kind. It was later on that I started breaking up her points one by one and I summaried all my arguments with her in a reply I made to Kazyhm.

Oga, my problem is that she is worried about nonexistent problems and an erroneous notion. Let me explain.
1) The marriage arrangement of a woman doing the chores alone and sharing bills while the man shares the bills only doesn't describe the average family in Nigeria or even the average family globally. Such marriage arrangement cannot be obtained even if you follow the gender roles of the bible. In virtually all cases in Nigeria, it's the man doing the providing alone while the woman takes care of the chores or she and man share the chores (even though the man is providing alone because ''it's too difficult to look after the child'' ) or there is an house maid. In fact, even when the woman has money, it's not unusual to see her practice "my money is my money, your money is our money" as the guy foots all the bills. Even when they share the bills, the husband will share the chores. So the op is ranting over a very very rare marriage arrangement.
2) Even when such marriage arrangements the op described exists, it cannot be due to feminism as most feminists, being the hypocrites that they are, would marry a richer provider husband and have the beneficial marriage arrangements in my first point. Even if a feminists shares the bills, she would invariably share the chores with her husband. The feminist's ego and ideals would never allow her have the marriage setting the op described. So you see, the op erred when she said such marriage arrangement (as described in her op) is due to feminism. She is plainly wrong and feminism is not leading any woman to take double responsibilities.
3) As I have said, men do not owe women their money. It's not written anywhere that a real man provides for a woman. It is not incumbent on any man to provide for a woman and it is not a sin if a woman is asked to provide (prove me wrong).
4) Women are already empowered. They already have the same rights and opportunities as men.

All these were what I was trying to address in my argument with the op.

It will suffice to say that my time on this thread is up.

Baldwretch:
I could not agree more with everything you said. How can you call $750M just x-percent of a person's net worth and well since it's just 25 percent of a wealthy man's net worth, we should not bat an eye. Nonsense. Oh common Martinez, it's just $40M, it's not much after all, the guy is worth more than that. Rubbish. On average, in all generations, Men have been more successful than women across the age, so it's air to strip them of their hard earned wealth or stupid reasons. i wonder who made these laws. That's right, she has probably never worked for money in her life or toiled to amass great wealth otherwise she would not be saying this.

I cannot wrap my mind around this folly, as in, how can you give someone that huge amount because they divorced a wealthy man.

When I told her I wouldn't go back and forth with her or reply her response, she thought I wanted to hide and bask in my echo chamber (I don't even have an echo chamber). These girls while never be honest and would want to win their arguments not matter what. Facts and evidence don't mean anything to them, it's all emotions and what they want to be right instead of what is right. Going back and forth is an immense waste of time because they will remain delusional (many times, they do these deliberately since they have ulterior motives and they benefit if the nonsense they spew is the reality of things) and invariably satiate you with nonsense and dishonesty.

That girl is just crafty and dishonest. Women should be rewarded for their contributions in marriage by the court? What about the reward for the contribution of men? Oh the double standards! Lol. Check out who is rewarded when the men are taken to the cleaners and the women smile to the bank.

@Baldwretch

Thanks for that awesome reply. You can also check out my reply to her in the post preceding yours. That moniker is known to always act as an apologists for the wicked and irrational divorce and child support laws. This is what you get when you debate with these girls. They will always twist things, lie, and cleverly "edit" the facts to win their case. Notice how she was trying to use shaming by suggesting you are looking at things through a poor man's lens (broke shaming) and it is okay for a woman who has probably never generated $500,000 in her life to make away with $750M because that amount is like 75 cent to her. Lol, calculating Tiger's net worth before the divorce, you have to that broke for that amount to be like 75cents to you. Ever Donald Trump ($4B net worth) would weep if such was taken away from him unfairly. For her to say such, she has probably never worked for money in her life or toiled to amass great wealth. Perhaps, it's her usual dishonesty.

Anyway, we can see that these girls are crooks of devilish proportion and are plain liars and manipulators. Notice how she paints these laws to be for the greater good of both genders as she ignored that these laws are being exploited are putting men to great misery and even suicide. Such laws have even led the establishment of the MGTOW movement and it's rapid growth. Tell me how these laws are beneficial to both genders?

This moniker (liberalchick) has always been very misleading when talking about divorce laws and child support laws and she downplays the brutality of such laws to men. She even tells lies at times and act like such wicked divorce and child support laws are for the good of both genders. She didn't add that in 99% of cases, men are the breadwinners of their families and such laws, written in neutral terms, would affect men the most. She also didn't add that divorce laws are harder on men than women. She didn't add that such laws are unjustifiable even if they affected men and women equally.

liberalchick:
This scenario that you people have created where during a divorce the law favors women, the men are stripped of their wealth and the women ride off into sunset richer while the man is left in penury is a very huge lie.

Lol. Women gain way much more from such laws than men since in VIRTUALLY all cases, men are the bread winners. No one ever denied that those law worked both ways. Moreover, in many cases, these laws leave many men poorer than their wives. Many men have to split their net-worth in settlement, give exorbitant prices in alimony, give exorbitant money child support, lose their homes (even it means going homeless), usually have their kids taken away from them and being victims of parental alienation, their prenups are made useless and bypassed, and they go to jail if they can't keep up. Even if the man files for custody, once he is accused by the wife without evidence of being an abuser of any kind to the wife and children, he is presumed guilty.

1. It’s a percentage of earned wealth during the marriage not the man’s entire net worth.

Why don't you mention the percentage? Did you purposely leave that out because you know such percentages are unfair? Beside, whoever said the man is made to give all he has? Seems you feminists love creating nonexistent problems and arguments to go against.

2. The woman is never ever richer than the man after the settlement.

As I have said, in many cases, she is. It is usually the millionaires and billionaires who keep earning that are richer than their wives. Most men go broke and even commit suicide due to the strain. Suicide is very common among these men but you, as expected, left that out. Even if the woman is never richer in all cases, you failed, for obvious reasons, to point out that what the courts permit them the extract from the man is unjustifiable and exorbitant. You also failed to point out that a prenup can be pushed aside for flimsy reasons and then the man is completely wrecked. Why did you also fail to point out that women are usually granted full custody and automatically believed when they accuse their husbands in the divorce courts of domestic violence and sexual abuse of the wife and kids? Why didn't you point out that during cases of paternity fraud, men are still ordered to pay child support and the woman isn't obliged to produce the name of the true father of the child? Do women enjoy such privileges?

Why did you also fail to mention that the man is mandated to pay for his wife's legal fees and his own legal fees? Why did you fail to mention that the woman can sue again after some time claiming that the money isn't enough and their request is granted? Why did you fail to mention that many men are mandated to pay life time alimony? Do women have it as hard as this?

3. Most of the men make the settlement money back.

Wrong! You are a pure liar. Most don't and go broke. Many even commit suicide after being financially wrecked and separated from their kids.

4. The money seems a lot because you’re looking at it through your ‘poor’ man’s lens. $750M (doubt it was that amount) to Tiger is 75 cents to you and I. A couple that earned $75k while they were married will also be subjected to the same ratio.

Shaming as usual. Nothing justifies such amount and don't cunningly write a "couple that earns..." because we know that even when men do the earnings alone, women still extract ridiculous amounts of money that they didn't earn in court. Tiger Woods wife was just a baby sitter; Tiger Woods earned his money alone; and it's unjustifiable to give a $750M in divorce settlements just because she was married to him even if the money is like 75 cents to you and I. In fact, it's a flat out lie that $750M to Tiger Woods is like 75 cents to you and I except we are very broke. Even Donald Trump (with a net worth of $4B) would weep if $750M was taken away from him unfairly. I don't blame you for thinking this way, you have probably never worked for your money and you have never toiled to amass great wealth.

Again, the above scenario is for the 1% of the population.

Divorce laws apply to all men that are bread winners and only the 1% can pick themselves up. It still doesn't justify the money taken away from them so what is your point?

The courts believe one way or another a union between people contributed to the earned wealth during the union and without one or the other that wealth wouldn’t be possible. It’s believed if a rational human being decide to make a union with another then he does so because he/she believes they would benefit from it.

This is a very stupid assumption to apply to every one. Does this stupid assumption justify the $750M Tiger Woods gave his wife? How did she help him make money? Did she play golf with him? Coby Bryant gave millions and houses to his wife even though the woman has never played what Coby played half his life? How did their wives contribute to making them money? So are you saying that if those women weren't there these men wouldn't have made money? Why don't the courts ever look into the money these women brought in and have them walk away with it during divorce? If they did, Tiger Woods wife wouldn't even smell $200,000.

You are simply being cunning, dishonest, and selective with your arguments.

Humans are selfish and ungrateful it’s common for people to say “what’ve you done for me?” when relationships go sour, the courts don’t live in people’s homes but they believed you when you made that rational decision to marry that person.

Blah blah blah blah blah. I wonder what this mean.

If you believe no woman or marriage on earth can help you earn x amount, then don’t marry. If you believe a woman should be entitled to only x, then get a prenup. Americans are not marrying or having kids because most are in debt not because of alimony. If you don’t marry but you co-habit your assets can also be split by the common law.

Marriage is a risk that could backfire and you have no excuse not to be aware of the risks. People should be made to walk away from the marriage just as they came and with what they own instead of running to the government to extract ridiculous and exorbitant amounts from your husband. You cleverly failed to mentioned that prenups are useless and could be bypassed. Dishonest and crooked liberalchick.

The law is mostly just and fair and it does what it was created for, you people always say white woman are the real feminist because they contribute financially to marriage 50-50. This law made it possible. Couples are willing to come together without fear or paranoia to pool their financial, physical and emotional resources and create a communal wealth, this is true for majority of Americans.

Mostly just? A shabby try at word play. What you wrote here is rubbish. No matter the contributions of the wife, as long as the man is the bread winner, he will get his butt smacked even if the wife contributed nothing to the marriage. The laws should be scraped. These laws don't achieve anything good except for the women and have turned marriage to a business scheme. It has led to the rise of MGTOW, a fast increasing movement. You are full of dishonesty.

N.B: I wouldn't, for obvious reason, go back and forth with you on this and I rest my case. I wouldn't even respond to your reply (if you did give one). Good day.

WorkSmartEdu:
In my family, my instructions and directions are clear. I am capable enough to provide for my family and my extended family (wife's family) and I need a helper who will produce my kids and help me take care of them and carry out domestic activities which are places that I don't class as my forte. Now it got to a point from I presume reading some vile posts from these frustrated girls and single mothers who hate men, my wife wanted to challenge that guideline, I carefully cancelled my initial plans to send her abroad fro further studies, sat her down and offered to continue paying her the salary of over 1.8m per annum excluding over 150k in bulk sum each quarter that I am paying her because we have children now and they are my priority so that she will let me BOUNCE as I was willing to keep paying the house rent for her and have joint custody of our kids. I was thinking she would jump at the offer, but alas she started weeping and gathered both families that I shouldn't go..Lool!

@Emboldened
Women are like hyenas. When you set your standards as the head and run your household as the head, they will always deep their feet in the waters testing for weaknesses and trying to see if you will compromise and let them have their way. Gradually, if you are weak and you let them, they scheme their way to rubbing shoulders with you and doing whatever they want to becoming the head even if you are doing the providing.

@red
You responded well. When the standards of a strong man are being defied by his woman (whom he is providing for), he calls her to order immediately and takes drastic step to cut her wings. I might sound like a misogynist but seeing what your wife was trying to do and the fact that history and experiences have taught us that providing or higher earnings wives show their husbands hell and disrespect, it was shrewd of you to do what you did. Give the exposed modern woman a degree (MSc or PhD) and a high paying job that makes her earn more than her husband and the feminist and ego in her comes out unrestrained. Even if you trained her in school and provided for her freely without demanding a refund, any money she grants you must be paid back. If you delay or don't pay, prepare to be nagged and fought with.

@blue
You spoilt her plans to raise her shoulders and be "strong and independent". Her earnest desire for that opportunity showed when she rallied family members to plead with you. Glad you didn't get emotional and fell for it.

N.B: I am not saying you should hate your wife, I would never do that but it's imperative that we understand female nature and walk cautiously.

See eeeh I am a man's man and I would not debate what that means. I am willing to take the bullet for my family but what I won't accept is the madness of two captains in a ship. Hell No!

Exactly! Marriage is like a ship and two captains can't run a ship.

My daughters will grow coming from a position of priviledge and some level of wealth and will have equal opportunities like my sons.

Very good of you. Equal rights and opportunities for women.

But I promise to raise them up just like my mother with the clear understanding that irrespective of what you have and who you are, that there must never be two leaders in a progressive team and that Nature provided roles and guidelines and no one fights nature and wins.
She must learn to ignore the probable idiots who are dishonest in their cravings and who hate all men and want all men subdued under the ridiculous tag of "feminism".

Outstanding. Also teach them to avoid feminist friends as married women. Many good married women and their marriages fell apart when these married women started hanging around feminist friends who introduced them to "progressive" ideas.

But men please and please do not insist on my path if you are deficient in providing for your family and household and also don't think it unfair if your wife insists you do house chores if she contributes to the family not because she wants to but because she has to!
I help out on some chores when I feel like and not because I am compelled to. I also raise my kids at any given opportunity that I stay with them just because I believe I have better experience at it.

Good. I agree with this.

By the way since my woman got back to her senses, I have invested over 1.5m in a business for her too but with very clear instructions that if she allows the small wealth she is getting as a result get to her head and forget our family commitments, there will be consequences.

Very good.

Nature will take care of these oversabi wannabe men-women who are hiding under the cloak of "feminism".

Abi na. As long as most men stop being weak and shy and are willing to call our feminist nonsense and put these feminists in their place then no problem.

Baldwretch:
I think I have to agree. Women have no excuse. Do men enjoy special rights and opportunities that women do not enjoy? NOPE.

Don't mind them. If there are tribes in Nigeria in which women are oppressed as the op said, why not champion equal rights and opportunities for those women? Why did she ignore that and sort divorce laws and child support laws as women empowerment even though the true empowerment of women is giving them equal rights and opportunities as men? She is seeking the wicked and brutal divorce laws and child support laws of western societies. If funny how a woman who thinks she is equal and independent needs laws that would enable her fleece and brutally extract resources from men.

She and her goons want such laws without regards to the consequences just like a typical woman. The fact that such laws have decreased marriage rate in western societies and given rise to the fast growing MGTOW movement isn't even taken into account. The fact that such laws are ruthlessly exploited and marriage has turned to business schemes by women isn't taken into account. The fact that the overwhelming majority of men, even their male relatives and loved ones, are breadwinners of their families and would be at the losing end isn't taken into account. The fact that government taxes the money they extract from men in form of settlement, alimony and child support and would be motivated to increase these prices at any opportunity and with any excuse and rule in favour of the woman isn't taken into account.

These Jezebels and Delilahs want what they want and they want it now without any regards to consequences. I am sure these would be the women supporting the prosecution of men, without evidence, due to rape allegations and would be in full support of laughable and dangerous movements like MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen. It's all about scheming to selfishly turn things in the favour and hand themselves prodigious power regardless of who they throw under the bus. These women are evil.

emmaodet:
I know of this lady called chocolatee. She is very bitter and anti-marriage lady.
Seems she was raised by a single mum without fatherly figure hence her bitterness and venom against men.
Martinez, let me tell you one thing - THE HARDEST THING IN THE WORLD IS TO PAY BILLS.
don't let anybody deceive you with house chores or anything.
Regularly clearing daily, weekly, monthly and yearly bills is the worst thing that can ever befall a man. It is extremely hard and energy draining.
Even when you feel like slowing down or take a break from the tiring circle or work, you just can't else all hell will let loose.
About cooking - the question is if she is not married but with a kid as a babymama, wont she still cook? 2/3 times daily? So adding extra 1/2 mouths won't really make much difference.
About children bearing man's surname - pls tell me, if the children are bearing the woman's name then what does the man gain?
So you expect me to be feeding, clothing and educating a bastard that is not mine nor bearing my name? Asedanu
So when they grow up, all you just need to do is to totally cut me off? Afterall they are not bearing my name, i don't have anything connecting me to them, it is a crazy WORLD out there.
It's just like buying a land together and building a house on it yet all documents won't be in my name? Pls tell me, is that not daylight scam?
Or buying a car but it won't be registered on my name, My brother there is fire on the mountain.
One of the reasons why a man is still waking up, running around and thinking is because the children are still in his name so he feels carried along in the project called marriage hence na Scam be that.
Abeg mak i sleep

Franchasng
Pansophist
Ubunja

You have added valid points my brother. These ladies are seeing oppression where it doesn't exist. How can someone compare cooking, cleaning, and looking after the children to the difficulty and stress of consistently paying the bills and meeting the needs of the household year in year out? Add that difficulty to being responsible for the protection and security of society and fighting wars.

Today, most of these women just look after the kids and share the house chores with their husbands even though oga is doing all the providing (they hide behind "motherhood is the most difficult job in the world", "looking after the children is very difficult", "I am not my husband's slave so I won't do the chores. My job is just to look after the kids" etc. and other excuses to justify their laziness). Some men even provide and still employ house maids just because the wife is very lazy. You won't see feminists complaining about this yet someone thinks women are taking on "double responsibilities".

Good night. I am tired.

RedCreme21:
Because you're marrying her and not the cause she believes in.
Your question is the same as typing,
Why marry a catholic?
Why marry a latina?
Why marry a redpiller?
Movements dont define anyone.
My opinion.

But you can't separate a person from their convictions and precepts.

ThothHermes:
Lol

I am starting to think that you have to be a special kind of stupid to subscribe to the idea of feminism.
Especially the Nairaland type.

They'll just make up scenarios and start arguing against them.

Ask for just one example of that that kind of men they begin to say rubbish.
If such men existed, they'll be a very miniscule part of the population. Not worth giving a thought.

The acts of making up nonexistent scenerios and seeing sexism where it does not exist are the special talents of feminism. Can you imagine that in the US, despite having equal rights and opportunities as men; a divorce and child support laws brutally rigged in their favour; and a gynocentric society, American feminists still think there is a patriarchy and rape culture in the USA? They even peddle the myth of gender wage gap.

They can't be taken seriously.

Baldwretch:
Thank you Martinez.

Nothing provokes me like the bullsh.it misandrist divorce laws especially in the US and other developed nations; as in, when I think of how Emmanuel Eboue of Arsenal and MANY rich men have lost a fortune in these court proceedings ehn, and you know what makes these folly really painful, the fact that men, not women, made these laws. Who has bewitched them? If you want to settle a spouse for sticking it out with you for X, Y, years fine, it is commendable; after all, the partner might have made some big sacrifice but slashing net worth, diving assets and other such nonsense is pure bullsh.it, It's just crazy.

Don't mind the op and her goons. They are cunning and remorseless crooks hiding behind feminism to achieve their hidden agenda of fleecing and emasculating men. If a woman is given equal rights and opportunities as men, isn't she empowered? Yes she is! But the op doesn't see that as empowerment instead the wicked divorce laws and child support laws in western societies are what she sees as empowerment of women. Don't you see we have a crook of mephistophelean proportion on our hands?

ThothHermes:
As far as I know, women are given equal opportunities in Nigeria, men are just better at taking them.
I expect to be disabused of this false notion I apparently hold in my head.

Be careful, she will call you an incel for disagreeing with her.

ThothHermes:
I am very sure you don't know any man who wants his wife to be a coprovider but does not want to be a co-caretaker.

ThothHermes:
No need to get testy.


You mean his wife also contributes to the financial upkeep of the house but he refuses to do anything except watch TV or gist with his friends?
Please who is he?
How did you get to know him?

ThothHermes:
Lol.

You don't.
Think carefully.

You are just assuming that there are such men.
Be honest. Do you any such man personally?

Lol. This point was one of the points I highlighted in my arguments with her but I got not reasonable response. She is crying over nonexistent situation. I was shocked when she said women are sharing the bills and doing the chores and cooking alone while the man just shares the bill. Even if such cases existed, it wouldn't be due to feminism as feminists would demand equality. In fact feminists, being the hypocrites that they are, will run to provider husbands and they wouldn't even do the chores and cooking for flimsy reasons.

Isn't banana the atheist's nightmare?

TruthTella:
Lol

I refuse to read through that claptrap

God forbid.

Feminists my arse

FEMINISM IS CANCER.

CHoccolaTE:
On a side note and unrelated to the topic, one thing that's making me laugh is how entitled the average man feels and they have the nerve to call women entitled
Can you believe some people think traditional roles were fair to women.

Traditionally the man had to provide for the wife even if the provision he is providing cannot satisfy her needs properly and in exchange for his shitty provisions the wife in return had to:

1. Submit to his authority whether she is happy or miserable aka strip away her freewill and freedom.
2. Cook two/three times every single day for household for all the decades they stay married.
3. Clean up after everyone on the house including mr shitty provider
4. Endure stress and sickness of pregnancy while keeping house in one piece
5. Cater for children for all the years it takes then to be able to look after themselves
6. All her children belong to the mans lineage and family and bear his name
7. Even in the past, married women had farms they worked on to grow crops for sale or for feeding family so they were always co providers, it didn't start with modern feminism.

Basically men have done one thing and one thing only in the family structure since the beginning of time which is to provide. Remove their ability to provide and see how useless many of them become.
Lousy useless group of people.
It wouldn't even be so bad if they didn't go around causing all sorts of violent mayhem and wars and criminality, they create majority of problems in the world and at the same time endlessly gripe and whine about how women are very evil and bad and entitled,.

Not surprised that you hate men.

(1)) You cunningly and subtly tried to emphase and outstretch the case where the traditional man couldn't provide sufficiently and the woman did her work superbly and aptly thereby being shortchanged as the general representation of all cases back then.
(2)) You also failed to mention that even men and women reserved their daughters for capable men who could provide. You think a traditional man could marry without paying bride price.
(3)) You also erred when you limited the usefulness of traditional men to only providing. You forget that traditional men were the ones who fought wars in which they sacrificed their lives for women and children. They protected and provided security.
(4)) You talk of providing as though it was something traditional men could easily pull from their pockets while women "greatly suffered" being traditional wives. This is ludicrous. The difficulty of the sole act of consistently making money to cater for the family (I exclude protecting and fighting wars) is more difficult than fulfilling the traditional roles of a wives. You would be dishonest to say taking care of the kids and doing the chores are more difficult than making money consistently in the real world.

The seven roles you listed are either irrational or exaggerations.

1. Submit to his authority whether she is happy or miserable aka strip away her freewill and freedom.

Lol. So you want them to rub shoulders and heads with their husbands? Even the ancients knew marriage is like a ship and every ship needs just one captain and since it was a patriarchy, men were the leaders and head. If it had been the other way round, a matriarchy, you women wouldn't be complaining. Stop complaining on behalf of traditional women who enjoyed their marriage. Funny enough, if you give traditional women the feminist men of today, they will reject them in favour of the strong masculine and capable men they've always knew.

Men being the head was not a stripping of women's freedom instead both parties had responsibilities. Is it bad to have responsibilities? Men were not given the position of the head just like that as that position came with it's own responsibility and accountability.

2. Cook two/three times every single day for household for all the decades they stay married.

What is wrong in this? Is it wrong if there is a division of labour in which the man provides and protects while the woman is responsible for the cooking?

3. Clean up after everyone on the house including mr shitty provider

The men of those days who got married were capable providers so shove your hatred up your ass. As I have said, the combined work of looking after the children, cooking, and doing the chores does not equal the difficulty and stress of consistently building up resources to provide and the job of protecting.

4. Endure stress and sickness of pregnancy while keeping house in one piece

Bullcrap. Traditional women were willing and glad to bear children even though they knew the stress of pregnancy and pains of childbirth. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, a woman can be pregnant and still do certain things and that's a fact. If she got too heavy, other wives or a maid took over. Besides, it's not a man's fault that nature endowed women with ability to get pregnant and give birth the way they do. Should we recompense you all for being women? Jokers.

5. Cater for children for all the years it takes then to be able to look after themselves

Men too catered for children. They did with the stuffs they provided. Mother did her part, father did his part.

6. All her children belong to the mans lineage and family and bear his name

It was a patriarchy so what did you expect. Even if I asked you to give a sound reason why any of the genders is entitled to giving the child it's name, you can't. If you count it unfair for the children to have the father's name, why wouldn't it be unfair for them to have the mother's name?

7. Even in the past, married women had farms they worked on to grow crops for sale or for feeding family so they were always co providers, it didn't start with modern feminism.

Na so. The farms were owned by men and women did minor work on their husband farms (eg. helping in harvesting crops sometimes, taking food and water to the men toiling on the farm, going to market to sell the farm produce etc.) the hard work and majority of the work were done by men. The scale and magnitude of farming men did were never done by women, not even up to one-eighth. As men worked, women stayed home to look after the kids and prepared what the men and boys would eat when they came back.

Women already have the same rights and opportunities as men so they are empowered. If you think there are tribes in Nigeria in which women are being oppressed, fight for their equal rights and opportunities as well, that's the true empowerment. You make yourself a joke if your best response to women oppression is divorce laws and child support laws. Lmao.

N.B: this is all I would say to you. I wouldn't respond anymore or go back and forth. I end this matter here.

emmaodet:
Hmmmmmmmmm.
It's well.
Even technology is not helping matters in that even if we start boycotting marriage or not having kids with these women, they have a chance of going to get sperm in the sperm bank and produce there own babies thereby continuing the process of producing kids with no fatherly figure and this bastards will find there way to key positions to influence laws.
I think anyway we see it, we are really bleeped on every side.
God help us all

Well if they can get that technology to make synthetic sperms (because men won't give their sperms since they can be roped in for child support) and provide like men do (most times they usually need the help of the government to fleece men) then what you are saying will happen. It's not a funny end.

MJBOLT:

what is the responsibility of a real woman in a relationship?

I scrolled down looking for a reasonable reply from her but there was no reply at all. I am not surprised.

Actually Z marks the spot.

Lilbest3:
lol Muslims own this country naa. That's almost impossible as long as the Northerners are still in Nigeria.
All these feminists wannabes na audio noise. Social media bill will soon be passed sef all these noise will be muffled soon enough
Police are even arresting girls who don't dress decently in Abuja now

Hmmm. I forgot to consider our Northern brothers. While feminists are selfishly and cunningly scheming, the Northerners are cleverly plotting the islamisation of this country (this isn't confirmed yet) and they are, at least, tenaciously holding on to Islamic gender roles.