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.

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

PinketteDawn:





I wonder who is living in denial now. Your limited knowledge of history is very pitiable.

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?

I like your sense of humour

PinketteDawn:


And my good friend, why did you choose to ignore the last link completely?

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.

PinketteDawn:


Still waiting for you to educate me on how I am 'genetically' more dependent on a man than he is to me.

Look around you, evidence abound.

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.

Now you're going to point me to societal conditioning as defence again but all the sourced you've cited couldn't help you.

PinketteDawn:

"I have never been mentally assaulted with such laughable postulation and baselessly speculative nonsensicality."
Your words not mine.

lezz:


[b]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:

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.

PinketteDawn:


Human culture once had evidence of matriarchy at some point in time. Different cultures that existed around the world in prehistoric times gave evidence to that. The reason why I brought this up was to disprove your claim that existing cultures have always seen man as the dominant sex right from the prehistoric times. The evidence I gave you did enough justice to that whether you like it or not. So you are the one in denial.

Here is another link for you.

http://www.womanthouartgod.com/didwomanruletheworld.php

PinketteDawn:


I will take this as an apology for your short attention span.

PinketteDawn:


Biology or genetics have nothing to do with this , child.

PinketteDawn:



This is simply as a result of the conditioning of the mind religion and societal influence. She has been made to believe that if she does not forgive and 'her'marriage breaks up, she will not find any other spouse to 'complete' her whereas the man can go ahead and get another woman(this is why many women keep enduring and forgiving till they die in an unhappy marriage).

PinketteDawn:


[s]This is false. First of all, nobody(man or woman) needs a spouse to be complete. Second of all many women have been known to remarry after things went awry in their first marriage.[/s]

PinketteDawn:



I still don't know what being ready to forgive a cheating spouse has to do with being more genetically dependent on that spouse.

PinketteDawn:



All the sources I cited helped alot to prove to you that no sex is more dependent on the other genetically

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

PinketteDawn:


. Perhaps you found it difficult to grasp the language in which the text was written. Or like the 'superior, dominant and aggressive' species you belong to, you were not patient enought to read and rid of your self of your obvious embarrassing ignorance.

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

PinketteDawn:


Now we are being patronising. Very rich.

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[b] social standing to a superior male.[/b]
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. grin grin grin

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.
shocked shocked shocked ( Hello Pinkettedawn grin )

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.

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.

postmann:


The article says it all. And I really don't see from where you're drawing your inference. All I can deduce from your post is a vain outcry triggered by feminist ego.
Most man need women mainly for sex and to raise children. But women need men for protection, sound judgment (women are genetically poor with making logical decisions ), women need men to fix things and they need a hard muscled body to feel safe at night.

Talking about nature and nurture: Women are SPIRITUALLY programmed to depend on men and be lead by them. A good example is this; a woman tends to marry by class. She hardly settles for someone below her class, except age or other factors prevailed unfavourably on her.

Don't you think it's nurture for men not to ambush and forcefully have sex with any girl they fancy? Do you think it's nurture or nature that makes a man wants to help out when he sees a woman struggling with so heavy load? The early men with no gender bias, saw women for what they are - physically weaker and giving more to sentiment than the male folk.




We all do, men and women. But women crave love and company more. While men crave more of sex with no strings.

Men created virtually all the sports that you see on TV. They hunt far even into the heart of the wilderness. They have so much to keep themselves busy and occupied until they need just that one thing - sex! And that's when you women come in most times.


#PleaseCallMeSexist

Adaeze003:


You actually amuse me...

bukatyne:


This is one of my thoughts when I read the article.

The way a Muslim justifies polygamy is the way a christian would condemn it.

The OP is yet to tell us what the older women have that we don't.

A good man will still be in high demand. Make yourself a catch and women will still want/need you.

Get over the fact that financial security is no longer exclusive to men and explore other selling points.

And strangely, I don't know much ladies who claim they don't need men.

postmann:


I had to like that. Something about the way you make your point. You disarm without really trying, Bukky dear.

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:


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

I can decipher your comments from mine.

PinketteDawn:

Honey please learn to read properly

PinketteDawn:



Hello? Whoever told you that a woman who is pregnant is incapacitated for nine months? Where in the world did you get that idea? Women of the olden days go to farm with protruding bellies and work just like their male counterparts.

Even today, the so called incapacitated pregnant woman does same hours in the office as a man does, comes back home to do another shift in the kitchen and goes to bed late after tending to the kids, then wakes up early the next day to start another round while the fully healthy, able bodied , less genetically dependent man cannot lift a finger once he comes back from work claiming tiredness.

PinketteDawn:


Excuse me but the intellectual woo woo I see here is not me. And by the way, the first person to write on such discovery was even a man, NOT a woman!

PinketteDawn:


Defenlessless of a woman (ahh the sheer ignorance!) There were female warriors who led MEN to war in the past. Females are no where near defenceless OK?

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.

PinketteDawn:



If you are going to cast aside discoveries made by archaeologists just to win an argument, then please explain to me how you have always known that even in prehistoric times, men have always ruled the world. Is it not from discoveries made by same archaeologists?

PinketteDawn:


*tsk tsk tsk...ramblings of a drowning sexist trying to clutch at straws. Reading can damage your ignorance seriously you know. You read to get knowledge and expand your mind, thus releasing you from the clutches of myopic thinking and ignorance.

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

PinketteDawn:


[s]Please tell me the genes responsible for a woman to be more genetically dependent on a man, son.[/s]

Every body is a victim of societal conditioning including the so called man who believes he is less genetically dependent on a woman. That is why you cannot cry in front of a crowd, that is why you feel ashamed or less of a man when you cannot provide for your family.

PinketteDawn:


Women today still want to marry because of the societal conditioning that you need to be married to have children.

PinketteDawn:


A woman who has children out of wedlock, in some cultures is seen as a failure and the stigma lingers even after the woman later succeeds in marrying. Societal condition in has also persistently told women that 'no matter how much you make or how high you climb I'm your career, you need a man to be fulfilled.

PinketteDawn:



[s] Objectively, this is not so and we both know it. You as a man or woman will only be fulfilled when you find andachieve your purpose in life. It has nothing to do with marriage.
[/s]

PinketteDawn:


Dude, you just shot yourself in the leg by admitting that men suffer more in divorce?

PinketteDawn:


The so called less genetically dependent men! I am shocked. Please why is that? Rich women still wanting to get married is as a result of yet again, the societal and mind conditioning that a woman having a child out of wedlock in some cultures, is wrong. The stigma stays with the woman and even the child for a long time even after she successfully gets married. A woman who forgives her husband for cheating feels that she needs to do that in order not to 'break her home' because of constant drumming of 'endure, tolerate his excesses, all men are cheats, you don't know if the next man will be worse than this one' into her ears by the mother and friends it has nothing to do with genetics. If it does, then why do most marriages today, still succeed in breaking up on grounds of infidelity from a man? Oh wait! Because the woman realises finally, she is NOT more genetically dependent on the man than he is to her.

PinketteDawn:



I have always agreed that both sexes are EQUALLY genetically dependent on each other in to procreate. My disagrement is that one sex is more genetically dependent on the other. Sheeesh! *rolling my eyes* And yet, someone is trying to tell me he has no issues with memory retention!

PinketteDawn:


[s] Excuse me? What has 'spending more time in front of the mirror dressing up' got to do with this topic? I am guessing you are running out of things to say now. I did read my links very well before posting them. You are the one who failed to read them remember? At this point, permit me to say that you are now simply arguing for the sake of arguing. [/s]

PinketteDawn:



My handle being alternate has nothing to do with you being condescending...and I know condescending when I perceive it. I don't need to be a female for you to patronise me and I certainly won't fall for cheap tricks like this to reveal myself.


Read this carefully and understand it (if you can): If there is an outbreak of a peculiar disease which succeeds in wiping out the menfolk all over the world, leaving only the women folk on the face of the earth, your argument is saying that women will immediately die off because they are more genetically dependent on men. We both know this is not so. Women will live long after men have gone until they slowly die off eventually because they cannot procreate when the sperm banks run dry (that is if they decide not to have male children). They will adapt and assume all those male roles you have been subtly highlighting created by the society.

Likewise the same situation will occur if the womenfolk were attacked first. Men will even die faster because there is no vessel to breed and carry on the next generation. (Unless of course they were able to figure out how to get female ova, fertilise and keep them in an artificial womb to gestate for 9 months.This is of course for the remaining few who survived after they must have finish going to war and killing themselves over trivial issues)

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.

PinketteDawn:


This still shows you never read my links when I posted them. Females and their male counterpart farmed in order to survive in prehistoric times. Even presently, I have seen pregnant woman going to farms in my village. If you read my post where I posted those links, you will see it there. Are pregnant women also exempted from working for nine months since they are incapacitated as you say? Please what do you mean by domestic life? And how is it easy? I have given you such examples to show you that women have been known to perform such feats you mentioned that made men 'genetically less dependent on women' and to also make it clear to you that the different roles we play today came up as a result of societal influence. Your role as a man is not more important than that of a woman, neither does it make you more superior to a woman.or make a woman more genetically dependent on a man.



Read my link.



I give you facts, you will not read, then you come back to tell me I am engaging in female banter. . Oya here is another link if you will read it. There are more. You have Google, browse and free yourself of this terribly embarrassing and lingering ignorance. Why the desperation to make me believe that women are genetically more dependent on men? Looks like you're frightened with the idea that the menfolk will become irrelevant in every other aspect except procreation in the near future.


http://mentalfloss.com/article/59287/9-female-warriors-who-made-their-mark-history



Male desperation made men suppress the amazing abilities of a woman just so they would appear to have always been in charge. Subtle hints still remain on the greatness of women and how they made their mark on history. Do I need to mention civilizations? The very earth you stand on is referred to as 'Mother earth'. Did you think that came by chance? Why not be called 'father earth' because men ruled over earth and found civilisations?
Let us not digress, the essence of this argument is still to prove to you that women are not more genetically dependent on men like you claim.





Same scientists who said that women are genetically more dependent on men right? The only person who has displayed poor cognitive abilities as far as I can see here is you. Even with your bigger frontal brain....lol. Rsearch and open your eyes, you refuse. ABEGI!




To protect and not to provide. Because a man is wired to protect his woman genetically, does that make the woman genetically helpless and more dependent on him? Even in lesser animals like the lions, the male protects it's tribe but in terms of providing, the females do the hunting. Please read your history and find out that women worked as hard as their male counterparts to provide for the family. Also, you make it seem like nuturing is a less important task than providing for the family and that a woman needs to depend on a man to nuture her offspring. I don't see how being aggressive and domineering makes a man genetically less dependent on the woman. If he can be aggressive and domineering enough to impregnate himself and give birth, then I would definitely consider the female to need him more than he needs her genetically.



Can you share the stats with me and show me the reasons the women gave for being 'sadder'? And can you equally show me starts of unmarried working men of the same age range who are truly happy and fulfilled and their reasons for being so? I am interested. Men have also been known to complain of having nothing to go home to after galivanting and enjoying themselves with all the money they have made and still unmarried at an older age. Little wonder they suffer more in divorce.



A woman's maternal instinct has nothing to do with marriage and having a husband. Neither does it make a woman more genetically dependent on a man. The society influences marriage which I said earlier, is not a requirement for procreation. I am yet to see a man fast approaching old age, not married and without kids, who is truly happy and fulfilled. Once again show me the research done on depression level growing higher in women today with most women giving reason of not having a less genetically dependent male they were tied to, being the reason for their depression. Give me numbers.

By the way, not every woman who decided not to settle down, came up with that decision because they were more interested in chasing power or fame or glory.





Thank God!



Worrying more about sAving or keeping a relationship(which i have explained why it is so, please do keep up) now makes one more genetically dependent on the one who suffers more when the relationship breaks up. Sorry, I am confused now, my small frontal lobe is finding this hard to grasp......
When you are done treating yours, I will start my own treatment.






I believe the argument is who is more genetically dependent on the other. The need for procreation has always been there, not as an afterthought. I do remember writing that women and men are EQUALLY genetically dependent on each other. *sheesh* and I was accused of having Amnesia. Ok nau.


Your opinion, my opinion. Each to his own. Besides you started throwing jibes at me because I insisted on having my own opinion and not automatically bowing down to yours as the 'less genetically dependent' and superior one.



I find it amusing that you actually think you come across as a knowledgeable person by using high sounding words. Bigger frontal lobe

All I kept seeing is a sentence in an annoying mode of repetition: " Read my link", "Read my link", " Read my Link"


What link? Your archeological link which saw matter and conclude women ruled prehistoric times?

Your link which breathtakingly embarrassed and denied you what you claimed ? Is that the link I should read?

You must enjoy wasting people's time online

Your claimes stand debunked!!! Pinkettedawn, disproven and wrecked at bedtime

You owe me an appology for deceit and forgery. And Nairaland's hierarchy for posting false information.

By the link you submitted below , which called you a liar, and which I shall furnish in JPEG format below, you have effortlessly rendered yourself debate-unworthy.

I believe my job of dispensing justice is finished. I leave the floor now for the jury to study the evidence below.

virginboy1:
Fantastic thread.

Nice one Bros Le.zz.

One fact I know for sure is that "a woman's primary lot is marriage"

Many of them claiming they won't marry is simply because they are paranoid of ending up with a cheat, divorce etc.

But deep down in their internal mind,they want and need a man.

A RICH WOMAN WITHOUT A MAN FEELS UNHAPPY AT A LONG RUN,WHILE A MARRIED MAN WITHOUT MONEY WILL END UP PARTIALLY UNHAPPY. Juxtapose it.

lezz:
Thanks, brother, the point you raise with in the all caps part is breathtakingly concise and factual in its sheer truth!