₦airaland Forum

Greenbullet:
when I tell people how much I hate my dad ,they think its discipline .I remember being told to sleep outside the house. when he called me when I was sleeping and could not answer ,when I was beaten to a pulp in front of my school with only bursars on ,for what he said I stole his money ,money that his colleague later informed him that he gave him,even with that he showed no remorse or even sorry .if i tell u my story this page will not contain it my heart burns with hatred every day ,I will never forgive him.

Sexytemi:
I was so bored yesterday that i had no choice than to login into my 2go account(its really been long i used that app), i thought i could waste some time browsing through the 2go chat rooms, i logged in and entered one of the rooms, friend request started pouring in, smiled to myself believing i've got chatting buddies for the main time not knowing they were useless bunch of guys....
I accepted the request of about 5 of the guys then i left the chat room so that i could concentrate on chatting with them(the rooms were so dry too).....
Two of the guys behaved decent at first(and i said to myself, lucky me, i just met guys that don't want se.x chat), but ohhhh...no i was wrong, we talked normal for sometime before one of d guy said"i want to f.uck my girl but she wont allow me in, she closed her legs tightly", and i was like "so"?, he said i needed to help him, n i said "how", he said by s.ex chatting, i just lol n told him to visit a motel.....Then the next guy was like "do u have a bf", i said "yes", he was like that's nice, and just to be polite i asked him of his gf(wrong move for me), he said no, but that's he's Hot and needs my help, i was like how o?, same reply too(s.ex chat), referred him also to a motel........
One of the guys just came direct without wasting time,"i want to suck your nipple, hold u close while i touch your fits bla bla n bla", and i told him" hey stupid, if u need a s.ex chat visit the next girl, cox am a wrong girl to ask for that", and he immediately blocked me.....i just logged out cox i just couldn't stand it no more, and funny enough they are all matured guys ooo( i don't add guys below 20 on my list)....and have experienced same with nairaland guys, whereby they stop chatting with me when i tell them "no"....

So to the guys, why do u guys love s.ex chatting?, and the ladies, have you ever been approached by a s.ex starved guy online?

Vinshu:
My type of thread. Awesome


6. Go to their house and knock their door and run away

lezz:
Even non pregnant women do not farm same crops as do men, till this day. Even in NYSC schemes, pregnant women are given special treatment and exemptions. I brought all these analysis when you claim the world somewhere in prehistoric events was matriarchal. When nature has carefully prepared women for domestic and easy life in society.

lezz:
Please what society in prehistoric time where women ruling as the norm? What civilisations did they hand down? Tell me, please.

lezz:
Women led men to war? As a one-off, isolated incident or a norm? Are you this desperate? Please, pinkettedawn, can you count all the battles known to history and count in your fingers those that were led by women
I know now your true moniker. You're only concerned with empty male-female banter. You don't care for facts.

lezz:
Because rulership comes with civilisations and trend. Men ruled and carry all the civilisations from prehistoric times till human documentation began.

What civilisations did women found? What were their legacy other than some feminist archeologist claiming women ruled the world. This is feminist desperate in a new light.

lezz:
I'm not the one who posted sources that contradicted her claims.
Seems you need reading and comprehension a heap lot more than I'll ever do. And scientists say the frontal brain responsible for cognitive abilities are smaller in women. Hello emotional beings

lezz:
Your ignorance must weigh a ton. You need logical therapy!!! The need for a man to protect and provide for his family is innately wired in his genes. It's not conditioned by society. It is amongst the many aggressive, domineering, and adventurous workings of testosterone which he has in abundance and women have so little of. Same way the ability for women to protect and nurture their infant with such love and minute care and patience is alien to men. Or did society condition women to nurture their offspring with such tender care too? AhahahAhahaha

lezz:
Women need home and children to be truly fulfilled and happy. Stats abound which shows working, earning women who are involved actively in the rat race like men are sadder.

lezz:
It has been proven that women enjoy taking care of their children and husbands more than they do chasing after money, fame, power and glory. The key to a woman's happiness is in her caring maternal instincts. That's why her old children are always kids to her. That's why psychologists are recording more depression and sadness in women today.

lezz:
I can't remember denying this.

lezz:
Treat dyslexia or retrograde Amnesia.

I have since long suspected you didn't read the OP. That point is stated in the original post. Men suffer more from divorce but women worry more about saving or keeping the relationship.

Your speed at plagiarising my punchlines is flattering.

lezz:
These are endless repetitive hokum you've been peddling. After over a hundred years of feminism and ideological independence women in the West--- where ivf has been accepted and even the extraction of sperms from dead men for insemination is allowed--- are still fretting in marriages, getting skinny to look beautiful even in middle age. Middle age women are still being dignosed of eating disorder in America. Abi single mother hood na still big deal for the West? You no get point, abeg!


Stats ohhhh!!

lezz:
The emboldened is a logical fallacy!!! You maintained women are not genetically dependent on men. Your procreation theory is an after thought in the light of truth your eyes couldn't adjust to.

lezz:
Typical female. You throw a jibe and I hurl a jeer. You either play the victim or pretend to go back to logicality. Nice move.

lezz:
The rest of your submissions are logically imperceivable and based on uncorrelated assumptions that are purely out of context in the same extent they are derisory.

lezz:
Sweetheart, you've got to quote me properly.

I can decipher your comments from mine.

lezz:
[b]And the Feminist desperation continues! Prehistoric times women ruled the world!!! Your source talks of archeological findings to support the claim that women ruled the world!!!!

Yes snakes had legs before and humans were actually chacma baboons that evolved into super animals.

In prehistoric times when humans share a boundless sphere with wild beasts, women ruled. When women had PMS and mensural cramps, 9 months of biological incapacitation and many more years of child-nurturing, they were ruling. You could easily pass for an intellectual woo-woo.

Now tell me, what civilisations or era that survived female rulership? Because all civilisations known to man are by men!!! So which civilisation or era did women found?

I get you, according to your feminist whining source, they were PREHISTORIC, so no documentation except some archeologists suggest women ruled somewhere in the distance of time that didn't carry any culture or civilisation. Arghhhgh, the sheer desperation could very well mar my Sunday beer
Every moment of history only point to the defenselessness of women. The idea of a golden time when women ruled is an intellectual fraud, and you, my dear, are done for!!!
[/b]

lezz:
The issue of memory retention does not even arise! I had to preserve my mental health from intellectual scraps. Thank you.

lezz:
Are you limiting the conditionality of genes to simple basic biology and physiology? Do not genes affect behaviour and temperament, eh? Tell me, granny, this child wants to know?

lezz:
[b]Are you not being contradictory?

If women , as you claim are victims of societial conditioning, does it not laugh at your claim that women ruled the world once? So their culture and civilisations didn't survive? AhahahAhahaha!

Women in their early and late 20s who are financially independent and had career mothers are still more desperate for union like their 19th century mothers who never worked.

lezz:
I fail to see the correlation here.


the emboldened word (that) is where you sought to deliberately misunderstand me.

Women (in general) being readily open to forgive a cheating husband than men (in general) , even though sources have proven that men suffer more in divorce, is a proof that women are genetically programmed to keep and maintain marrital union because of their dependability on men. Recent financial empowerment of females would have negated this. But rich women are even buying men in marriages now.

lezz:
Did you just noded to genetic dependability of the sexes? And can you give me instances, please?

lezz:
I'm sorry not reading your own links before posting them is more embarrassing than public _nudity; it is displaying your ignorance in a celebratory manner

I believe you spend more time in front of your dressing mirror than you do in perusing facts you intend to use for defence. Sorry, but it's in your genes. I can't help ya!!

Perhaps archeologists can tell you it hasn't been this bad too, and you can seek escapism in the debris of matter subject to interpretation of the desperate few of which you're an eager applicant

lezz:
I am not. Your handle is an alternate. This is where I ask you to uncover your mask!!!

lezz:
[b]And the Feminist desperation continues! Prehistoric times women ruled the world!!! Your source talks of archeological findings to support the claim that women ruled the world!!!!

Yes snakes had legs before and humans were actually chacma baboons that evolved into super animals.

In prehistoric times when humans share a boundless sphere with wild beasts, women ruled. When women had PMS and mensural cramps, 9 months of biological incapacitation and many more years of child-nurturing, they were ruling. You could easily pass for an intellectual woo-woo.

Now tell me, what civilisations or era that survived female rulership? Because all civilisations known to man are by men!!! So which civilisation or era did women found?

I get you, according to your feminist whining source, they were PREHISTORIC, so no documentation except some archeologists suggest women ruled somewhere in the distance of time that didn't carry any culture or civilisation. Arghhhgh, the sheer desperation could very well mar my Sunday beer
Every moment of history only point to the defenselessness of women. The idea of a golden time when women ruled is an intellectual fraud, and you, my dear, are done for!!!
[/b]

Ramblings of a drowning sexist looking for straws to clutch at. If the discoveries of archaelogists are not enough documentation, then what is your basis to prove that men ruled in prehistoric times? Is it not still from discoveries of same archaeologists or were you born during that period?
We have many examples of female warriors who led men to war, to tell you that women have not always been defenseless and still nit defenseless. I wonder where you got the idea that a pregnant woman is incapacitated for nine months? This has got to be a joke. 'Incapacitated' pregnant woman works same hours as a man, still comes back home to do another shift in the kitchen to make food for a man and wakes up the next day even before the man for another round. Yet an 'able-bodied, fully healthy, genetically less dependent' man cannot even lift a finger when he comes back from work, claiming tiredness.
The issue of memory retention does not even arise! I had to preserve my mental health from intellectual scraps. Thank you.


Reading really damages ignorance you know.

Are you limiting the conditionality of genes to simple basic biology and physiology? Do not genes affect behaviour and temperament, eh? Tell me, granny, this child wants to know?

Which genome in the woman's body makes her more genetically dependent on a man than she is to him?

Are you not being contradictory?

If women , as you claim are victims of societial conditioning, does it not laugh at your claim that women ruled the world once? So their culture and civilisations didn't survive? AhahahAhahaha!

Women in their early and late 20s who are financially independent and had career mothers are still more desperate for union like their 19th century mothers who never worked.


And that makes them more genetically dependent on a man? Still societal conditioning that a woman needs to marry so she can have children before she gets old. We both know that a woman needs not marry to procreate.
I fail to see the correlation here.


the emboldened word (that) is where you sought to deliberately misunderstand me.

Women (in general) being readily open to forgive a cheating husband than men (in general) , even though sources have proven that men suffer more in divorce, is a proof that women are genetically programmed to keep and maintain marrital union because of their dependability on men. Recent financial empowerment of females would have negated this. But rich women are even buying men in marriages now.


So why then do men suffer more in divorce if women are more genetically dependent on them? Rich woman buys a man into marriage because of the need to be married and be accepted by the society.(societal conditioning yet again.) This has nothing to do with genes!


Did you just noded to genetic dependability of the sexes? And can you give me instances, please?

Enough already! I have always said that both sexes depend on each other EQUALLY for procreation! Sheesh!



I'm sorry not reading your own links before posting them is more embarrassing than public _nudity; it is displaying your ignorance in a celebratory manner

I believe you spend more time in front of your dressing mirror than you do in perusing facts you intend to use for defence. Sorry, but it's in your genes. I can't help ya!!

Perhaps archeologists can tell you it hasn't been this bad too, and you can seek escapism in the debris of matter subject to interpretation of the desperate few of which you're an eager applicant



Dude, SERIOUSLY?! What does this have to do with women being more genetically dependent on men?


I am not. Your handle is an alternate. This is where I ask you to uncover your mask!!!

lezz:
How is that now? You're the one who told me human society was matriarchal and the source you cited said it wasn't so. And you turn around to accuse me of living in denial?

lezz:
[b]The mechanism of my mental defence is automatic and hyper sensitive. As soon as your first two sources assaulted my mental perception, my auto-defence mechanism triggered in self-preservation

I could well be a mental kebab if I had gone further.

lezz:
Look around you, evidence abound.

[b]Women are forgiving their cheating partners more than men are forgiving theirs, even though divorce or separation bears more on men. Simple psychology and biology, baby.

lezz:
you're going to point me to societal conditioning as defence again but all the sourced you've cited couldn't help you. [/b]

lezz:
Aye! My words indeed. And honestly, I find you more socially enthralling and comely. Forgive the digression but you're super sensitive in more ways than one.

lezz:
[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.




[/b]

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-420513/Sorry-women-dependent-men.html

lezz:
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.

cococandy:
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.

lezz:
@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

lezz:
[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.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-420513/Sorry-women-dependent-men.html

lezz:
Gene predetermines behaviour patterns to an extend. You need me to say this? You hinge it on societal conditioning. I say not entirely true.

Creamish:
Love and Respect for God and each other ensures a successful marriage. The woman does not stand above the man. She must respect him as the head of the home. She is his partner. He must love and respect her as well as his better-half. This is not about the new generation belief that women are equal to men. That sh!t does not apply in marriage.

The way u treat each other determines the direction ur marriage takes. It also tells how well the kids' home training goes. Pride should be kicked out the door for the sake of peace. Both party must remain faithful for no one has the right to cheat on the other.

lezz:
Sugar, you have, without much effort, denied the structural and genetical difference between men and women.

And you used the well-worn tool of "societal conditioning" as an excuse. Society condition women you say, and I say it is in your genes, baby.

Let me tell you all ladies something without the consolation of euphemism to make me dear to you.

There are not one difference between you and women of the last century. The only difference is they were true to their nature, you are denying your very predisposition with education.
Carry on.

lezz:
Same belief here.



In a way yes, the relationship between a man and a woman is complementary in nature , made so by the unfathomable brilliance of God through millions of years of evolution.

That's why faggøtry can't make sense ever.

Women are more dependent on their men in more ways than men are.

I don't have the time now to type a long submission.

But in everyday things like sex, emotional well-being, in chaos, spirituality, trend, culture etc. Women wait for man to lead and she follows.


Take this home:

If Nairaland were a physical sphere and a terrorist act were to occur or armed robbers where to attack, all the females here will instinctively, without the the luxury of a nano second of thought look up to the men for direction, and leadership......that's the ones who will have the presence of mind, the others might be busy screaming or in a state of perceptual shock.

lezz:
Same belief here.



In a way yes, the relationship between a man and a woman is complementary in nature , made so by the unfathomable brilliance of God through millions of years of evolution.

That's why faggøtry can't make sense ever.

Women are more dependent on their men in more ways than men are.

I don't have the time now to type a long submission.

But in everyday things like sex, emotional well-being, in chaos, spirituality, trend, culture etc. Women wait for man to lead and she follows.


Take this home:

If Nairaland were a physical sphere and a terrorist act were to occur or armed robbers where to attack, all the females here will instinctively, without the the luxury of a nano second of thought look up to the men for direction, and leadership......that's the ones who will have the presence of mind, the others might be busy screaming or in a state of perceptual shock.

lezz:



[b]But you have the answer yourself . You just stated that yourself above.

lezz:
Every woman wants her man to lead her.

lezz:
Women are genetically programmed to depend on men.

darkenedrebel:
Thank you

And of course, I'm in complete consonance with the afore.

And also, positive discrimination against posters who are yet to plight their troth nor have any immediate desire of doing so should be heavily frowned upon. I find such affirmative actions rather degenerative.



I wouldn't feign to be an aficionado in marital affairs. What I would do instead, is border on the point instinctively, and with a conscious effort try to keep my thesis in tandem with a chain of episodic experiences and based on personal observations.

First up, I think there is the need of a slight reformation of the ethics of the African marriage. And I would like to have my focus riveted, this time on the 'Nigerian Marriage' as speaking on the 'African Marriage' would open the floodgates to a lot of generalizations - and as you know, that's never the ideal way of going around such matters.

Permit me to reiterate: certain values need to be revised and reviewed, and if the need arise, should be streamlined with novel ones that are more adaptable to the complexities and nuances of this modern age.

If only the inherent provincialism in the 'set-in-stone' traditionalists can be allayed a little, it wouldn't seem so difficult.
In the past, we used horses, donkeys, camels etcetera to tread afield and also to commute from one village to the next.

Herein lies the significance of the animal analogy: We, humans, realized the need for improvements in our standard of living, and thus, the feverish need arose for mediums that would not only bring a definite end to the tardiness encountered when travelling on a camel etc, but which would also go a long way in lessening the discomforts that usually trailed along with traveling on an animal's back.

The invention of bicycles, cars and other modern means of transportation were resultant of such needs.

Just as we thought it necessary to invent machines that would prove remarkably in sating our needs in transportation, and ergonomically too, so also is the reassessment of the mores guiding latter-day marriages/families meant to be above-the-fold in our to-do list.

This would not only bring about a rekindling of marital values amongst couples, but also be conveniently suited for the '2016 marriage'.

No oars should be stuck into the bedrock of the marriage institution, and which for me are: love, trust and mutual respect betwixt partners.

St. Augustine of Hippo also included bonum sacramenti(indissolubility) in what he thinks wedlocks should be about.

I beg to differ, because I think domestic violence and a busload of imponderables can be considered a valid excuse for the dissolving of any marriage) I'm guessing men rarely turned their wives into punching bags in St.Augustine's time.

Men should also stop seeing women as properties or creatures bereft of feelings.

The recent Tiwa Savage and Tee Billz episode that rocked the entertainment world would be the most apt exempli grata in this scenario.
Let's suspend all disbelief and pretend that all Tiwa relayed in that video was true. Having done that, it'd come to the cognisance of any even-handed fellow that this so-called rule which states that a woman's total submission to her man is unnegotiable is a bit arbitrary and beyond the pale, especially when expected to be done without questioning in some very straitened circumstances.

Still on the Tiwa/Teebillz saga, I'm not trying to take sides here, but I don't think it's fair that after a woman(who is principally the sole provider in the Tiwa/Teebillz case) has expended ENERGY, both physically and mentally in performing on stage, or in studio sessions, from morn till dawn should return home only to be subjected to another spate of work by a layabout hubby, especially when it's sommat that could have easily been executed before she made it home.

Why can't he go into the kitchen and fix himself a plate and why would he be so inconsiderate to the plight of someone who has been out all day ploughing the fields.
That to me, is just the height of wickedness and also one of the matters I think needs to be addressed in premarital counselling sessions.

The ideal marriage should not be like a Military system of government, but rather be akin to a football team where each of the persons involved are merely team players working towards a goal and for the commonweal.

It could be remarked in passing that the tradition of women being much more industrious than men has also accelerated the current process of equalization between the sexes, since the African woman in the modern working situation will generally outdo the man(I stand to be corrected).

In light of that, we men should develop some superego and try to adjust adequately to the patently obvious paradigm shift.

Gone are the days when the average woman was quintessentially a kitchen workhorse and a mobile baby-factory .
Times have changed and unless people change with them, the impasse would be unbreakable!.

A man should have no qualms in helping out in the kitchen without the fear of being described as 'stringed to his wife's aprons' or whatchamacallit?. . .yeah, without being labelled as 'henpecked'.

He also shouldn't refuse to help out with domestic affairs because he feels it is below the office of manhood.

Stone the crows!, I find this quite risible because I don't think I would find anything more fulfilling than in helping my soignèe mistress with some domestic chores and even with cooking; hands on her tender hips, nape-kissing and doing all that cosy lovey-dovey stuff whilst helping her out in the kitchen.

This is just one side of the coin being addressed and it's mainly hinged on we men learning to adapt to the changing times. My fingers are weary and my brain is addled, perhaps I would, if time permits, state in what ways I think women should also consider adjusting to the changing times in order to foster marriages in these modern day.

Jahblessme:
Culled from bella naija


1) Man: Be yourself. Do what you want.
2)Woman: Endure

25 years later:

Man: This marriage has been so sweet, delicious and lovely.
Woman: Endurance and tolerance are key in all marriages. You have to endure

darkenedrebel:
Were all the marital unions in the days of yore all beds of lilies?. I'm sure a boxful of them must have been fraught with irregularities as well.

And yes, a LOT has changed - 'Times have changed' and the proverbial boot, as they say, is now on the other foot.

Before matrimonies of the preceding decades can be benchmarked against those of today, some factors would first, have to be duly considered and taken into account.

For example: were the environmental conditions in that particular Zeitgeist kindred with those of today?
.

•I reckon that back then, there was no internet; neither were there social media platforms.

•High valuation was also never placed on the education of the womenfolk.

•Back then, women were primarily stay-at-home partners and never, partially or plenarily assumed the roles of the financial beams of the family.

•Back then, there was no inflationary spiral of wage and price increases.

•Back then, there were no TVs or telephones.

•Back then, a vast majority of the connubial institutes were contractually orchestrated - 'love' was usually a secondary factor in most cases; a concept which is at steep variance with the typical relationship of today where 'love' is a queen factor and unions are no longer prearranged by the parents of the male and female involved.

So yes, a LOT has changed and you appear to be a little bit behindhand.

Your question should have been structured thusly: 'How can the modern-day marriage be well-adjusted to the changing times?'.

amakoro:
In the olden days two people meet 2 times and got married on the 3rd meeting – and these marriages lasted a lifetime. Today couples date for 3 years and get divorced 6 months after finally getting married. What has changed?


All across Africa, traditional cultural weddings are dying out with the influx of the so-called White Western wedding. African weddings are a spiritual and social family affair that brings together two lives, two families, and even two communities. The union of man and woman is a celebration of the natural continuity of life. Marriage is the only known incubator for the raising of balanced socially functional children.


A Brief History of How Our Traditional Weddings Were Carried Out


Marriage were contracted by exchanging of commodities – salts, metals, weapon, farming tools, fish, bush meat tubers of yam etc., with the bride-to-be, so when a man wants to take a lady for a wife, his parents enter into an exchange bargain with the parent of the bride. They offer the bride’s parent the quantity of any commodity they wanted so as to marry their daughter.


After that era, Cowries was introduced as a legal tender, it was valued as money for payment for goods and services. At pre-historical time a wealthy man is known by the numbers of bags of cowries he has. So bride price were paid with cowries

Read complete write-up here http://www.weddingtin.com/2016/05/african-marriage-sacred-institution-meaning-values.html

Briona:
I have the same problem too. Although there is no child involved.
Back to the topic ...like everyone has been commenting,it's difficult to let go of him since you already have a son for him. But the first thing you have got to do is knowing what you want and to be determined to achieve such goal.
one thing you have to know is ur baby dad doesn't value you.
My advice to you is to get a job first then we would know what to do after that.

ilovemylife:
Good morning everyone, I can't really go through all the mentions but like some of you advice, after work yesterday I drove them to where he is staying to see him because he too has noticed I am not in my best frame of mind and he has been asking me what's wrong with me. We have a long talk about these issues, he was surprise how I get to know, from that to ashamed of himself, and he starting apologizing I told him to say I was hurt will be an understatement and after that I told him what I wanted and this was it, I want a break from this relationship, our traditional wedding put on hold for now because I needed to clear my head and again for him to really think it through and know exactly what he really wanted and if at the end of everything he still want me and I am also ready to continue, then he should cut all ties with any female he has anything to do with. My decision didn't go down well with him, he keeping telling me he doesn't want the break, he doesn't want out traditional wedding put on hold, he wants to spend the rest of his life with me, he will do what I wanted from today.
But my mind is already made up and I stand by what I said, he knows my stand on cheating, I left my previous relationship because of that! Even as I typed this I can't still start the tears from flowing, this morning I am going to see my mum and explain things you her and I pray she will take everything calmly then my siblings and my would be mother in-law. Above all I will do ask many of you asked and put everything in God's hand, all I want is to be happy and I know God will see me through in this difficult situation because I have alot of explanation to give lots of people why my marriage isn't happened as proposed.
Thanks everyone for all the contribution so far, I really appreciate.

Taiwomeltingmoz:
Didn't bother reading through the comment, this is the first thing that came to my head. A man who truly loves you would be basking in the euphoria of his trad coming up soon. It possible he loves sexing the lady, and the sex could still continue after the marriage. I was in the same shoes 5years back, I confronted the would be husband then, and was foolish enough to believe what he told me and went ahead with the wedding, that said. A man who doesn't respect your feelings before won't after he's married to you. Your mum won't live in the marriage with you, the only person who matters here is you. Back to reading comments.