Baldwretch:


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

WorkSmartEdu:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baldwretch:


I am not ignorant of the fact that women also pay alimony and child support...

Ladycewhy:
i replied one with Adele and Wendy Williams' case but he came back to view and didn't have anything to say again. These boys here are hopeless liars. Just wait they will either ignore this your comment cos they know it is the truth or twist it ,lol

WorkSmartEdu:
[b]I spent a very long time going through this post comment after comment and I want to salute the men and women who are standing against this recent madness which many unfortunate females are calling "feminism"

I am a strong believer of equal opportunities for all whether male or female and as a husband and father who has the mixture of both sexes, it is imperative that I drill into them the realities of planet Earth as nature is just unforgiving and the fools who fail to learn from it will have themselves to blame.

This game of marriage is a team game....QED and just like in every team there are defined roles for each member. A goal keeper cannot be struggling to take a penalty kick with an astute striker. The only opportunity a goalie will have at a penalty kick is if they are ajugded the best taker or if every other better positioned players have failed.

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

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

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

But men please and please do not insist on my path if you are deficient in providing for your family and household and also don't think it unfair if your wife insists you do house chores if she contributes to the family not because she wants to but because she has to!
I help out on some chores when I feel like and not because I am compelled to. I also raise my kids at any given opportunity that I stay with them just because I believe I have better experience at it. By the way since my woman got back to her senses, I have invested over 1.5m in a business for her too but with very clear instructions that if she allows the small wealth she is getting as a result get to her head and forget our family commitments, there will be consequences.

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

liberalchick:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

liberalchick:


This scenario that you people have created where during a divorce the law favors women, the men are stripped of their wealth and the women ride off into the sunset richer while the man is left in penury is a very huge lie. 1. It’s a percentage of earned wealth during the marriage not the man’s entire net worth. 2. The woman is never ever richer than the man after the settlement. 3. Most of the men make the settlement money back. 4. The money seems a lot because you’re looking at it through your ‘poor’ man’s lens. $750M (doubt it was that amount) to Tiger is 75 cents to you and I. A couple that earned $75k while they were married will also be subjected to the same ratio.

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

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

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

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

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

Martinez39:

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

ThothHermes:
Fantastic. I have always said it that a woman is as feminist as the men in their lives allow them to be.
No woman can say crap to any man who assumes full provider duties, who is not wanting in any area.

Feminists always look for watered-down men to promote their stupid ideas on. A man who fulfills his duties has nothing to worry about because his options are long from here to Bangkok.

You are also right that nature always takes it's course. All the feminists I know are on the internet

Baldwretch:


It seems you're simply being dishonest or at best ignorant

4. The money seems a lot because you’re looking at it through your ‘poor’ man’s lens. $750M

Oh not again, sorry, I am looking at it from an objective point of view.

WorkSmartEdu:
[b]I spent a very long time going through this post comment after comment and I want to salute the men and women who are standing against this recent madness which many unfortunate females are calling "feminism"

I am a strong believer of equal opportunities for all whether male or female and as a husband and father who has the mixture of both sexes, it is imperative that I drill into them the realities of planet Earth as nature is just unforgiving and the fools who fail to learn from it will have themselves to blame.

This game of marriage is a team game....QED and just like in every team there are defined roles for each member. A goal keeper cannot be struggling to take a penalty kick with an astute striker. The only opportunity a goalie will have at a penalty kick is if they are ajugded the best taker or if every other better positioned players have failed.

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

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

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

But men please and please do not insist on my path if you are deficient in providing for your family and household and also don't think it unfair if your wife insists you do house chores if she contributes to the family not because she wants to but because she has to!
I help out on some chores when I feel like and not because I am compelled to. I also raise my kids at any given opportunity that I stay with them just because I believe I have better experience at it. By the way since my woman got back to her senses, I have invested over 1.5m in a business for her too but with very clear instructions that if she allows the small wealth she is getting as a result get to her head and forget our family commitments, there will be consequences.

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

Martinez39:
@Baldwretch

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

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

liberalchick:


And you’re objective? There are no thoughts or posts that is objective or rational if it’s not in context. $750M =\= $750M. Again, the law is universal across states, a ratio is used to divide communal properties. Man, woman, rich, poor are judged by the same laws.

Are you rational in saying a law should be done away with because the 1% are ‘losing’ a portion of their wealth? When the law works just fine for 99% of the population who have to come together to build wealth. Most women are not models that end up with multi millionaires/billionaires. Most women work, raise children, give emotional support etc to build their marriage, the law was created to recognize those contributions!!!

You are rational but you want an organized society to do away with a law because rich men can’t stop marrying gold diggers.

To you the law doesn’t make sense because you think women don’t contribute to marriage and they should be kicked out with nothing when the marriage ends. Civil and sane society disagrees with you. A marriage is a union where both become one to build a communal wealth and each states have different laws to calculate what ratios each deserve when the union ends, that is a fair and just law.

In America you have two options, if you believe women don’t contribute to communal wealth, then don’t marry. If you believe they contribute somewhat but not up to the definition of the state, then you get a prenup.

At the bolded;
1. Do you reside in the states?
2. Are you married and reside in the states?
3. Have you ever sought a divorce in the states?
4. Are you a divorce attorney?

Where are you getting your info from? I know where I am getting mine.

Baldwretch:


Who told you the law is universal? Divorce laws isn't a federal one and most states have their divorce laws and it's method of execution. Just see what you're saying, are you rational in saying a law should be done away with because the 1% are ‘losing’ a portion of their wealth? Lol, so it is okay for the exaggerated one percent to lose their wealth as long as it works for the general population? Where did you get that from? Please spare me that. Do you know that more than 7 million Americans have at least one million dollars in their account and do you know the statistics of men in that range?

This is the mischief of the judicial system: an average American man wants his wife to work, he doesn't want a sahm, so why is she getting the good end of the bargain. I am not being ignorant of good women's contribution in marriage but I am talking about what they get to receive for these contributions. I am a Nigerian nah, so why are you being sarcastic?

Baldwretch:


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

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

liberalchick:

I said the law is universal in its application, men, women, rich and poor are all subjected to the divorce laws of the state they wish to seek the divorce. It’s in my post, you quoted out of context to make your point.

If you believe women make some contributions to marriage. What is the best way to reward such contributions if the union ends?

Unpussified:




The power of walking away at play and demonstrated clearly here. Guys should learn from this. @WorkSmartEdu is an example of how men should conduct themselves in relationships and marriages cos women will shit-test you and do stuffs like this alot. His readiness to leave all he has worked for and invested so much in behind ensured his wife got in line and was ready to be submissive again. I bet his sex life is great too cos nothing makes a woman more wet than a man who knows how to put his woman in her place.

Baldwretch:


On the other hand, if it's found that one spouse has made a significant contribution like raising the kids etc, etc, then they should be compensated, but the compensation should not be related to my net worth [/b]Anything above $500k in a divorce settlement is over the top because at the current minimum wage, working $10/hour for 50 hours in a week, [b]that is more than 20 years salary.

This makes it $2000 a month and $24, 000 a year. You don't see that that's downright nonsense. Where were you when the business, which is now a marital assets, was languishing and everyone refused to help? Where were you when I grind hard day and night to be successful, and just because I married you, we get to slash the marital assets. I am not going to argue with you. Sit down and think this through please. It is not fair.

Ladycewhy:
gathering the crowd i see ,i know you are a angry person for whatever reason best known to you ,but i think you need to calm down comprehend before typing away, i am even reading your comment in a shouting male voice,Lol

Martinez39:
Don't mind all these women. They think they are suffering or victims of some kind. They think they are at a disadvantage. Women wanted equality (in rights and opportunities) and the freedom of not being restricted by any gender role. Now have all these and they are still complaining. They think it is sexist for men to define gender roles but it isn't sexist when they run their mouths on how men are supposed to provide and how providing makes a man a man. They want equality but not responsibility and accountability. Op wants men to provide and women to be care takers. Funny enough the care taker role would just be to look after the children. Nothing additional, like that of women of the past, to truly recompense for the money spent by the man on his household.

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

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

Now if men are not helping women offload their biological weight why are women struggling to help men offload their financial weight to prove a point? The truth is the self esteem of men is tied to one thing "being able to provide". A man who works comes home ,hangs his feet and waits for his food, but a working house wife , comes home takes care of the kids ,cooks ,cleans before she eats. You see why i said women are shooting themselves in the foot because in trying to prove a point ,you are working yourself more no wonder many women look older than their husbands

Martinez39:
@NiCurious

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

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

Martinez39:
Nna, I weak o. I could have continued debunking and deconstructing her irrational and directionless arguments but I can't go on forever. Women have rights and opportunities as men but, according to the op, it's not empowerment and women need the evil divorce laws and child support laws in the US and other developed countries to be empowered. What sort of logic is that? So divorce laws and child support are women empowerments? You can see we have a crook here. So she needs misandric laws that can be abused to ruthlessly extort money from men before she can be empowered? She and her kind want to open a pandora box.

In life, every decision has it consequences and we must not create a society that absolves individuals of being held accountable. No man forced any woman to marry and no woman forced any man to marry. The risks of marriage include disappointment and unfaithfulness from a spouse, making sacrifices that are eventually futile, a complete turn around in the attitude of your spouse etc. You have no excuse to not be aware of the risks of marriage and it is your responsibility to bear the consequences if your marriage choices backfire and your marriage hits rock-bottom instead of running to the government soliciting child support and alimony. If you can't take the risk, don't get married or don't, as a woman, open your legs and get pregnant for some fvck boy. If op is so concerned about fathers leaving their children, what happens to suing for parental neglect? Why child support and alimony? Because we have a crook and hypocrite on our hands. She has ulterior motives.

If a woman has an abusive husband, let her leave the marriage and let him be punished under the law as an abuser. Its wrong if he is asked to compensate with his properties and cash because women will abuse such laws to set their husbands up and government could tax the money (like they do in the USA) and boom, we have a law that government is motivated to keep and exploit alongside with women. The same applies to alimony and child support. Marriage would turn to a business scheme with the divorce and alimony laws we see in western countries. The price the man needs to pay will keep rising. During a divorce, both individuals in a marriage should be separated such that none makes away with the other's assets or cash. It's funny how she thinks men don't like taking care of their children while forgetting the one's that dump and kill their new borns.

The only thing government must get involved in is parental neglect and when it comes to financially taking care of the kids, the husband and wife must be held accountable no matter what. Nothing stops the women from building wealth before and during the marriage, same with man. All things being equal, custody should be given to who earns more except if the person wants joint custody or grants sole custody to the other. Bad choices, bad consequences.

I rest my case.

Martinez39:
Nna, I weak o. I could have continued debunking and deconstructing her irrational and directionless arguments but I can't go on forever. Women have rights and opportunities as men but, according to the op, it's not empowerment and women need the evil divorce laws and child support laws in the US and other developed countries to be empowered. What sort of logic is that? So divorce laws and child support are women empowerments? You can see we have a crook here. So she needs misandric laws that can be abused to ruthlessly extort money from men before she can be empowered? She and her kind want to open a pandora box.

In life, every decision has it consequences and we must not create a society that absolves individuals of being held accountable. No man forced any woman to marry and no woman forced any man to marry. The risks of marriage include disappointment and unfaithfulness from a spouse, making sacrifices that are eventually futile, a complete turn around in the attitude of your spouse etc. You have no excuse to not be aware of the risks of marriage and it is your responsibility to bear the consequences if your marriage choices backfire and your marriage hits rock-bottom instead of running to the government soliciting child support and alimony. If you can't take the risk, don't get married or don't, as a woman, open your legs and get pregnant for some fvck boy. If op is so concerned about fathers leaving their children, what happens to suing for parental neglect? Why child support and alimony? Because we have a crook and hypocrite on our hands. She has ulterior motives.

If a woman has an abusive husband, let her leave the marriage and let him be punished under the law as an abuser. Its wrong if he is asked to compensate with his properties and cash because women will abuse such laws to set their husbands up and government could tax the money (like they do in the USA) and boom, we have a law that government is motivated to keep and exploit alongside with women. The same applies to alimony and child support. Marriage would turn to a business scheme with the divorce and alimony laws we see in western countries. The price the man needs to pay will keep rising. During a divorce, both individuals in a marriage should be separated such that none makes away with the other's assets or cash. It's funny how she thinks men don't like taking care of their children while forgetting the one's that dump and kill their new borns.

The only thing government must get involved in is parental neglect and when it comes to financially taking care of the kids, the husband and wife must be held accountable no matter what. Nothing stops the women from building wealth before and during the marriage, same with man. All things being equal, custody should be given to who earns more except if the person wants joint custody or grants sole custody to the other. Bad choices, bad consequences.

I rest my case.

Martinez39:
Nna, I weak o. I could have continued debunking and deconstructing her irrational and directionless arguments but I can't go on forever. Women have rights and opportunities as men but, according to the op, it's not empowerment and women need the evil divorce laws and child support laws in the US and other developed countries to be empowered. What sort of logic is that? So divorce laws and child support are women empowerments? You can see we have a crook here. So she needs misandric laws that can be abused to ruthlessly extort money from men before she can be empowered? She and her kind want to open a pandora box.

In life, every decision has it consequences and we must not create a society that absolves individuals of being held accountable. No man forced any woman to marry and no woman forced any man to marry. The risks of marriage include disappointment and unfaithfulness from a spouse, making sacrifices that are eventually futile, a complete turn around in the attitude of your spouse etc. You have no excuse to not be aware of the risks of marriage and it is your responsibility to bear the consequences if your marriage choices backfire and your marriage hits rock-bottom instead of running to the government soliciting child support and alimony. If you can't take the risk, don't get married or don't, as a woman, open your legs and get pregnant for some fvck boy. If op is so concerned about fathers leaving their children, what happens to suing for parental neglect? Why child support and alimony? Because we have a crook and hypocrite on our hands. She has ulterior motives.

If a woman has an abusive husband, let her leave the marriage and let him be punished under the law as an abuser. Its wrong if he is asked to compensate with his properties and cash because women will abuse such laws to set their husbands up and government could tax the money (like they do in the USA) and boom, we have a law that government is motivated to keep and exploit alongside with women. The same applies to alimony and child support. Marriage would turn to a business scheme with the divorce and alimony laws we see in western countries. The price the man needs to pay will keep rising. During a divorce, both individuals in a marriage should be separated such that none makes away with the other's assets or cash. It's funny how she thinks men don't like taking care of their children while forgetting the one's that dump and kill their new borns.

The only thing government must get involved in is parental neglect and when it comes to financially taking care of the kids, the husband and wife must be held accountable no matter what. Nothing stops the women from building wealth before and during the marriage, same with man. All things being equal, custody should be given to who earns more except if the person wants joint custody or grants sole custody to the other. Bad choices, bad consequences.

I rest my case.

GeneralShepherd:


Wow wow wow who knew I would see the day when MGTOW an association of angry white men will make it to Nigeria!!

Alu!

Ladycewhy:
maybe the black angry nigerian version are angry that women are even allowed education, cos that has led to them not obeying rules set by their husbands . cos a particular person keeps saying women are empowered enough and they should be grateful that they are even allowed to comment on nairaland and have an opinion on issues in the internet. Lol

GeneralShepherd:


Obviously this person must be trolling, I don't believe there's someone that genuinely holds that view on this forum