₦airaland Forum

Ngokafor: ...I think the saying 'to each their own' should be the focal point in this discussion.The peculiar family dynamics we find ourselves in determines whether or not some ambitious women like most of us on this thread can pull off pursing our chosen careers at full-throttle,especially when the marriage and kids are still very young..

...for instance,if one's hubby has an equally time- consuming and demanding work-schedule.. who then should 'step-down' for the other in this case huh?.Realistically i believe the woman should be the one to give in,ambition or no ambition untill the kids are older..dont get me wrong,i am not advocating for a house-wife role here(not that it is such a crime) but the kind of job that can give her time to attend to her home because most men cannot handle it like a woman would..sad but true.

..The truth is that the more successful we are in our chosen careers or even businesses the more demanding in terms of our time it becomes..marathon meetiings,trips within the country and beyond on short notices to meet up with one client or another,import and export issues..the list is endless..therefore leaving it for later for women is more advisable in my humble opinion.

...Dora Akunyili(RIP) and other powerful women we as women look up to did not become Ministers and all with their children as babies or toddlers...They all have grown-up children so it is a lot easier...but like a said earlier,to each their own.

Well presented. With obvious real-life experience and emotional intelligence.

Especially the bolded. Very few couples will be able to happily live with this dynamic. The tuth is, despite all the talk of equality, every relationship has a de facto lead. Men find it hard being led and women find it hard being with men of lower status.


TV

cococandy: Maybe that post wasn't self explanatory as I thought.
Life is about choices in my opinion. If I have a family and my career is getting in the way, I'll have to be very willing to give up my career for my kids and not otherwise. In that case,it is MY CHOICE and a happy one too. It won't be bondage because it is my first choice.and no you're not in bondage because you WILLINGLY CHOSE to make those choices

But if I so want my career and can't have it because I lack the support I need from my partner,then it is bondage.
It is indeed bondage for someone to live without what they want not because they chose to sacrifice it but because they were made to give it up.
That's where I'm coming from.



That said I think everyone here agrees on going for those who have the same ideology as them

All that about role reversal and having it all isn't for me right?
Because I didn't insinuate any such thing.
For someone to take on a career and her home and make the best she can out of both she has to work harder/smarter than she normally would.same for a man. So yes something gives and that's not having it all.we agree on that.

Sorry I can't go to that thread now.

Agreed that a mother is more needed at the infant stage of a child's life but that's not where child raising stops. After that stage,it's both hands on deck. And all this has nothing IMO to do with bathing/ feeding chores. More like being a steady presence in the child's life.

.

It's still not quite clear, especially the bolded - to me anyway. No worries. I've made my point - marriage is not first and foremeost about either spouses career or their "individual" choices/desires.


TV

carefreewannabe: You say so because you were brought up this way and because this is what you are used to.

Nope, years of anthropological experience clearly shows this. At the different stages of a childs development, the importance of the input from the parents differ. More crucially the difference between male & female input is key to a psychologically well balanced child.

Certainly we have children who do well despite this. But those are exceptions not the rule. Are you trying to sell us "interchangeability of the sexes?"

carefreewannabe: A father and a mother are EQUALLY IMPORTANT. No parent is more or less important. Children need both.

I don't believe anyone here has disputed this? I certainly didn't.

carefreewannabe: The role of a mother and a father do NOT have to be the same but they can be the same. They can also be different.

So you are selling "interchangeability". Can men give birth or breastfeed? Do men undergo the same physiological and psycholigical changes that women do before, during and after chldbirth? Are the responses and instincts of Mothers, Fathers and children in relation too one another merely learned responses?

The evident truth is simply that they are different, that's why we have men and women. And they are patently not the same - by design. Being treated equally, does not demand equal outcomes or forced equivalence. Not unless you make an ideology of it . It's just a segue into homosex and other ill-considered re-engineering initiatives.

carefreewannabe: There is nothing wrong with the traditonal roles of women staying at home with little children and a man working BUT there is also NOTHING wrong with a role switch, where a woman works and the father stays at home.

There may be instances where it makes the best of a situation or even makes sense tactically, but for the vast majority our wiring (not how they were brought up) would make the dynamic of such an arrangement very difficult.

carefreewannabe: I know many couples in Germany who switch their traditional roles and nobody disrespects them for it because they do what ist BEST for them and their family at a given moment.

As above.
Would you happily enter into that arrangement?

carefreewannabe: It is not my win but I am very happy. I am about to leave the country for holidays but thinking it would be better to stay here now as the whole country is partying

Enjoy your holiday wherever you go. The Germans love Turkey


TV

carefreewannabe: I do NOT believe that women are pivotal. I believe that both parents are EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

The truth is that women tend to be more pivotal on the home front.

As for the "EQUALLY IMPORTANT" point, please expalian, are they equally important in the same way? Are the roles exactly the same - or effectively inter-changeable?


TV

^{**congratulations on your win. I was rooting for the Argentines, but the Germans deservedly took the spoils**}

cococandy: Any body who's a parent should know their family comes first. Be he husband or wife.
A man who makes all the money in the world without being available for his kids is still considered a failure as a father.
Kids who grew up with absentee fathers know this too. That no amount of money can make up for the parents deep and intimate involvement in their lives.

This mindset is what makes mothers more celebrated then fathers because despite all the money the kids are more bonded with who was available for them.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being ambituous be you man or woman. But a balance is necessary for both parties. And curtaling your ambitions as a woman isn't the answer. That's bondage.
Knowing how to make the best of your time is the answer.

Who's talking about African women in particular here?
Do African women raise better kids than other races? Look at Nigeria as a case study and look at other societies and tell me how relegating yourselves to the background or curtailing your ambitions as african women has helped your country.

I still maintain it is better for the kids if both parents make time for them. Excusing fathers' absence in the name of bread winning is almost the same thing as a single mom raising her kids alone with the father paying child support.

I was really liking this until I hit the bolded. It's plainly contradictory. As a husband and father, I reduced my "personal activity time" to be with and contribute to my family more.

I also cut the hours I was putting in at work - in many corporations working smart is fine, but you have to be seen working hard as well, moreso if you are a "minority" - I curtaied some of my personal ambitions - am I in bondage?

The myth of "have it all" or the fallacy of role "reversal" can only ever hold true for a few, and that due too uncommon circumstances. They simply won't work for the vast majority.

Biblically and in most cultures, the primary rsponsibility of a couple is the well-being of their family. Moreso if there are children involved. Ab initio, getting married means there will probalby come a point at which sacrifice is involved - i.e. putting others, especially children before yourself. There are natural roles and roles that tend to come naturally. Do men give birth? Do children not instinctively turn to their mothers when in distress. Are both parents equally needed during a childs earliest years?

Biblically even men are to ensure their homes are in order before they take on duties in the church. For both men and women, the well-being of the family unit comes first and if personal ambitions - in any endeavour - have to be curtailed/sacrificed/truncated to ensure this then so be it. You are implicitly agreeing to this when you get married, so be sure to understand that fact.

As for role reversal, especially in the sense of being a bread-winner. I won't repeat myself having written on that here;
https://www.nairaland.com/1804695/whats-happening-men/8#24591430


If anyone wants to work with a model that is not scriptural, cultural or traditional, fine, but be sure both parties are clearly aware and accepting of this before marriage. Otherwise it's touching stories of "after marriage they changed....". If your career or personal ambitions are more important than your marriage, please let them know long before the "I do..." stage, or alternatively, say "I don't...".


Brought to you from "Better Foundation Relationships" (BeFoRe ^TM)


TV

SSA is a disorder. Clearly dysfunctional as evidenced by the outworkings - or lack - of the unions of the SSA. The obvious and only really binary amongst human beings is male/female. It’s the outcome of their unions – procreation leading to offspring – that forms the whole raison d’etre of marriage.

SSU cannot procreate in principle or in practice. They are not infertile, they are sterile - always. If you claim “nature” made them that way, why contrary to natures dictates, do they want children? Why did nature give SSA persons the exact same reproductive capacity of normally functioning human beings?

SS couples “ape” what obtains in a normal human pair-bond, why is that? They can only copulate via an unnatural use of bodily parts or using prosthesis. Lesbians typically follow the butch/femme binary. One adopting pseudo-male behaviour. Likewise gay men, with their “tops & bottoms” binary.

It takes real enlightenment and a super-duper intelligence to persuade oneself that what is clearly physically and morally wrong is a human right. And that one man rectally penetrating another is the basis for a marriage.

Incest is also morally wrong, but by degrees and for good reason. If the human genome was devoid of flaws (as many believe it once was), what reason would there be too disallow incestuous relationships within limits?

Why would it be morally wrong, especially given the basis used to argue SSM - consensual, no one being harmed, privacy and human “rights”, etc? Moreso if these incestuous couples were happy not to breed or do so using 3rd party gemetic material as SSC do. Even today, cousin marriage – although not a great long-term idea – still obtains in many societies. SSC is both morally and structurally disordered.

To argue for SSA/SSM being good and moral, is to be a hypocrite if you don’t argue for Polygamy Polyamoury or other paraphilia being likewise moral & good.

A deceitfully sordid use of words such as “gay”, which we know means happy and “orientation” which was always about direction doesn’t fool anyone The bogus heterosexual/homosexual binary is plain idiotic. Normally functioning human beings couple heterosexually – if you insist on using that word. Everything else is deviant, as in the sense of being faulty. Heterosexuality is not one state in a "spectrum of normal", it is the only normal.

The UK is currently riven with angst over claims of serial and organised paedophilial acts amongst the elites. But in truth they only really have half a problem. Normalising homosex solved the first half. Now they only have to reduce the age of consent and voilà problem solved.

It takes real enlightenment, a super-duper intelligence and a sick, twisted and evil mind. Utterly disgusting.



TV

naijababe: Between close friends and family I know about 5 interracial marriages, only one is a black male/ white female union. The remaining 4 are black female/white male unions. Trust me man, black women are beginning to step out.

I'll take your rejoinder regards your friends and family without quibble, but generally in the UK we both know what obtains - all things being equal.

I'm not denying that black women are stepping out, or increasingly so. Just that Black men are ahead of them and continue to outpace them in doing so. And they are totally comfortable with it.

I've only ever come across black females who express angst about marrying-out, or always consider it a last resort. Whereas for the men, it's always a personal preference and about the individuals not the race.

naijababe: On the contrary, black men and women are at the bottom of the pile

Please don't drag us down with you ! Black men are highly prized as partners (even if not for marriage per se) by woman globally. There was a period when Indian girls in Wembley had mad "jungle fever". Not sure how many translated into marriage, bu the desire is there. I personally know Indian girls who are in serious dilemma due to their preference for black men.

naijababe: you are right though that we still largely prefer to marry black men. Speaking specifically for myself, in the late 90s a few of my friends that went to red brick Unis would complain about the dearth of decent young black men within our social strata, note that there were lots of interest from non-black men. We just couldn't see ourselves with men of other races;

And that dearth was partly due to "black male flight" to women of other races, as well as the higher upward mobility of black women.

It's Uni na, Anne Widdicombe would get plenty of interest if she enrolled ! The simple truth is that the rate of preference for black men by women of other races far outstrips the rate of preference for black women by men of other races - regardless of the social strata. In fact, despite it, many non-black women date or marry down when they get with black men.

naijababe: I will take Lenny Kravitz everyday and all day long over Jonny Depp and Brad Pitt, the poster boys of my day. But black women are beginning to marry out and tend to marry up (at least equal or higher economic /social status)

Women in general always look to marry up. It never used to be as pronounced in Western/developed nations, but it's starting to make a comeback.

After all, having to marry down in terms of "desirability" and also marry down in terms of social status would be too much to bear. Double sufferhead for the sistas .

naijababe: while black men often marry down. And as we all know the percentage of educated black women is much higher than of black men.

Apart from it being in some part the reverse of my point above, the truth is they tend to marry at mostly "their level". Black women tend to be more hypergamous and so are torn between marrying laterally, marrying out or not marrying - all unpalatable choices.

As for educated percentages, across blacks as a whole I'd agree, I wouldn't think it's that pronounced amongst Nigerians.

naijababe: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2511049/Online-dating-app-reveals-race-matters-romance.html

I read this. Some points, but the only consistently repeated theme is black women as least desirable. Other studies contradict the same of black men.

naijababe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

Read this as well. This table captures the relatively higher incidence (and by corallary desire) of black men marrying out. And this is in the US, with historically entrenched racism. In the UK 50% of black men are with non-black partners. Again, I don't think that will be as pronounced amongst Nigerians, but it will still be notable, and it has to present a dilemma for black women. We see this in the hatred black women have for non-black women who "steal their men" and the black men who date/marry them.

Married couples in the United States in 2010 (easier to make sense of the table/numbers from the link)

White Wife Black Wife Asian Wife Other Wife

White Husband 50,410,000 168,000 529,000 487,000
Black Husband 390,000 4,072,000 39,000 66,000
Asian Husband 219,000 9,000 2,855,000 28,000
Other Husband 488,000 18,000 37,000 568,000


TV

carefreewannabe: You are 24 / 7 online and when confronted hide behind your wife's back? Why does it NOT surprise me?

It neither surprises me that you take data out of context. It tells me a lot about your level of education.

Why are you pained !
I'm not here as much as you, but even if I am, why are you concerned, let alone peppered?
As far my education, think what you please, I have made no claims as too my intelligence or academic prowess.

Needless to say, I possess enough of both to traduce feminist wannabees and understand that a female leader does not a matriarchy make !

The fact remains; where there are significant population mixes, especially with multi-ethnic minorities, black women are typically "perceived" as lower in attractiveness on aggregate.Whilst black men are typically ranked "relatively higher.

And for you last dose of hurt this evening; even among majority black communities, light skin is typically perceived as more attractive. Believe me, I don't sit here making this stuff up to depress NL pseudo-feminists. It's unfortunately all true.

Let me go and check if madam is receptive. Wanna see pix ?

Toodles.


TV

Who are you waiting for ! It's my bedtime 0! Don;t forget I'm married !

Did you not read it Please read the bolded very carefully.


And I did not that it would be hard to get conclusive data as it's a sensitive topic. But it's too obvious, moreso, we live it. I know of no black guy in the UK who hasn't dated a foreigner/white woman (except maybe those that arrived already wifed up ).

Many I know are married to them. I spoke a while back about the party I went to where all black couples were a minority. Most of them were mixed and it was all black men with white women (and their mixed race pikin - I have them in my own family).

The same does not hold for black women. Note that Naijababe did not even question that point. And nobody here seriously would.

carefreewannabe: TV

Summarise the content of the excerpt from YOUR source in your own words. Let us go through this. I will not let you or coogar or anyone else get away with your propganda.

HERE WE GO:


The data isn’t really conclusive in many cases:

Some studies report (source: 1,2,3,4,5) that black women are considered less attractive by some other ethnicities. The well-known Kanazawa study, which claimed that the nationally representative ADD Health survey found African women were less attractive, has been much criticized, most notably by Kaufman and Wicherts, who also found little to suggest differences between men of races.

Michael Lewis has done a series of three studies in the U.K., where the same trend in interracial marriages exists as in the U.S. All three show higher ratings of attractiveness for black men compared to white, and in the third, both over asian men. In all three as well, white women are rated more attractive than black women, and, in the last study, in which asian women are included, they are rated the most attractive. [i][/i]In one study mixed race male faces were rated intermediate to black and white male faces, but in another, were rated more highly (sources: 1,2,3). The studies, however, involve fairly small numbers of students, between 10 and 20 women rating men, and a similar number for men rating women.

A survey of over 2,500 whites asked which race they found most physically attractive, and found that overall 62.7% of women and 48.2% of men were most physically attracted to other whites, much of the rest claimed no preference, 12% of men and 3% of women found asians most attractive, and 1.5% of men and 1.9% of women found blacks most attractive. Political view had a very noticeable effect.

In another study, asian males were rated as least attractive, including by asian women, although asian men also rated asian women as less attractive than whites and hispanics. Black women were rated as the least attractive. White and asian women gave lower ratings of attractiveness to black men.

The data is not conclusive, but given the high sex-disparity in interracial marriages, it is plausible that there might be some difference.

If you fail to deal with the data appropriately, you will stop using any research to back up your oppressive world view.

I am waiting.

TV01: And I for one have no problem with anyone marrying out. But as you've rightly pointed out, there is a hierarchy of desirability. And black women are on the bottom rung. Black men on the other hand are near the top and are able to further compensate for any perceived drawbacks.

naijababe: Really?! Where are the facts to prove this assertion?

I''ll start anecdotally first.

Ever seen a Chinese man with a black woman? How about an Indian man? I didn't think so. Not saying it doesn't happen. Kinda like hens teeth ! I have seen black men married to Chinese women and know Indian women who have relinquished their heritage to marry black men

How about closer to home. Can you or anyone else here advise if in their immediate and extended family their has been marriage "out"? Isn't it typically the men - all things being equal.

Obviously marrying out racially is only of real statistical significance where countries societies have significant racial mixes. Like many European/Western countries.

Here are a few links;
http://unsafeharbour./2012/02/09/who-is-attracted-to-who/
- low "perceived" attractiveness of black women

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/a-black-and-white-issue-the-future-of-society-is-mixed-425828.html
- Up to 50% of black men in the UK in mixed relationships (which given the relative weights of the races says it all. And it's almost certainly with white women. Meaning lots of black women are sharing, going with out or dating out. And there is nothing to demonstrate they are marrying out.)

The internet is full of it. Papers, surveys, discussion panels. Obviously it's a bit sensitive, so hard to get exact figures, gender splits or attractiveness rating. And I'd suspect that dating is one thing and marriage another, But I'm sure the figures correlate.

We see too much to think anything else. How about the vitriol black women have for white women that steal "their men". Or the fury at black men who marry out. Especially the high profile ones. Check out Omari Hardwick the love interest from "Being Mary Jane". Black women on the net went into meltdown when they found out he had a white - and average looking - wife.

Nor only are black men ranked relatively "more attractive", the foreign women that marry them are typically less demanding/more forgiving. Even if you argue it's typically lower class white women/foreigners. And whilst they are considered generally more physically "fit". They further compensate with fame and celebrity. As before, see how many celebrity black american men are with white women. Or how about black athletes or celebrities in the UK. Some term it self-hatred/loathing, but its pretty undeniable. Unless of course you can show figures to the contrary.


TV

soulglo: TV1 I am not pained at all. I just honestly do not have even the slightest interest in dragging a dead subject for 35 pages with someone like you. For me that's where the pain lies. It'll be very stupid on my part. When someone makes some of the comments you make especially one like the one I quoted then it's time to accept the discussion is dead. Your little snide comments on no one to 'debate intelligently' with you is laughable. Someone who blames a lack of fathers in Black American homes on feminism is simply not equipped to make a contribution in anyway on that particular subject. Stick with female bashing. It's a better fit for you and you'll definitely get 70 pages more. I'm going back to making my feminist money to put in my feminist bank account.

First, not that I particularly care if you are pained, but that's neither here nor there.
Second, I made a comment, not in response to anything you posted or directed at you personally. You are?
Third, so you have every right to think it's total nonsense, but personally attacking me without pointing out why is lame and cowardly.
Fourth, if you don't feel there's anything worth debating, simply move on. Ignore me. The ridiculously snide comments were/and are all yours.
Fifth, in a number of posts addressed to me, you've not actually made any relevent points. Just bitched. I am happy to be left alone. No, really.

TV

coogar: buhahahahahaha.....
don't drive tatiana away o. she provides logical argument. see how she tacitly admitted the system is biased towards the women but since men have enjoyed over the centuries, it's only fair women get some perks too.

I think tatiana made some valid points.

But the truth is, no one has given a response that I see as long-term desirable. If indeed men have oppressed women, is the best solution to turn the tables?

The heart of the feministic tendencies of most who post is either (a) they like the idea of a system that privileges women over men and the fact that men can be "locked" for responsibility and denied rights or (b) they love the idea of unrestrained intimacy or (c) both

Neither of thes things will be in the best long-term interest of women, children or men. And as men become savvier, they'll still benefit the most from a bad situation. One of the worst aspect of feminsim is that it makes irresposibility a good value proposition for men.

coogar: compare that to the blind bats who cannot even see the bias & they still continue to argue the system is not any more biased against men at all. misandry is the major issue in the world now, not racism. racism is so old school these days.

As above.


TV

cococandy: Polygamy is silly
Whether polyandry or polygyny.

Agreed.
The real issue is that were there is a lack of "sexual restraint", it hurts society as whole, but men are best placed to take advantage of it. One
of the reasons some of us despise feminism is that it pushes for equal licence. The key is to ensure restraint is appropriate

cococandy: This is just getting such reactions because we aren't used to it. In places where they used to practice it in the past,I'm sure it was normal for them.

Human nature and biological imperatives will always mean polygyny is rarely practiced. A unique confluence of factors have to be in place for it to be even considered.

So allowing polygamy, would essentially always mean more polyandry. The answer is not in forcing sameness. It's in understanding how we differ, what's best, and acting accordingly. Whatever ones thoughts or feelings, sexual restrain will at best "be equal". No sex outside monogamous marriage for anyone. In all reality it's likely to be at least slightly more burdensome on women.

cococandy: All in all it is silly. Men and women may not be held by the same rules,but when it comes to marriage,na one man one woman o.
That's marriage. Anything outside that is plain 'living arrangement'

Again, I'd agree. But we have inferior and perverted forms of it these days.


TV

tatiana009: Well a lot have realized and started dating men of other races. People usually say black women are the least desirable to men of other races but I've come to realize that it isn't about the color but the figure. The big booty thing, wide hips thing isn't attractive to most men of other races so all black women will have to do is be slim like the white chicks. You'll notice most white men who are married to black women are married to the slim ones. Let the black men get married to women of other races too and let the world evolve once more.

And I for one have no problem with anyone marrying out. But as you've rightly pointed out, there is a hierarchy of desirability. And black women are on the bottom rung. Black men on the other hand are near the top and are able to further compensate for any percieved drawbacks.

And it's not just about physical desirability. Otherwise men of other races would be happy to date them for intimacy, but not marry them. They don't do that any more than they marry them.

Cross-culturally, black women carry way to much baggage. Funnily enough, most of them prefer to marry in. The biggest barrier to black women marrying out is black women.

A black womans best bet and first choice is still a black man. Y'all are stuck. And w'all know it .



TV

pickabeau1:

She must be dosed up highly with self esteem

I think a compendium can be written on her strategies to get young men and keep them

Our sistas in Nollywood can learn one or two things from her

https://www.nairaland.com/1807605/oldest-spinsters-nollywood-photos

I looked over the "oldest spinsters" thread. I feel bad for those of them that really want marriage. Hope it happens right and in good time. I can't be a hypocrite though. If I were single no chance for any of them. Too old, not fine enough, no compensating attributes.

As for this 57 year old. Are we forgetting she's a Jazz Practitioner?


TV

tatiana009: I actually consider that to be really smart of the women , you use the system to get what you want men have been doing it for centuries so let the women have fun.

coogar: very smart until they started complaining the pool of men they can choose from to marry is dwindling. with 1/3 of young black men under some form of penal supervision in the US and up to 50% growing up with their fathers, the bubble is about to bust!

Exactly, smart maybe, but very short-term. Long-term, it will not only reduce womens choices and hurt men, it also harms the children. Ultimately it will devastate societies, as we have seen.

I agree that many black women are not conceptually brought in to feminism. In some case, that's even worse, as they don't see or understand the dangers of a short-term acceptance of the perks.

Like many on here. They either see only the supposed perks of feminism, or have a shallow ideological grasp and don't apply it in their "real lives".


TV

blackbeau1: We really don't have men anymore. Just boys pretending to be men

It's a lie.

We have good men and good women. It's a little harder to sort the wheat from the chaff these days. But those who are appreciative of their own worth, place high value on marriage, know what is required to be good spouse, set their expectations correctly and refuse to compromise, are loving the fulfillment marriage brings.

Try and be among !


TV

IFF the story is true, it's still hard to picture.

She's 57 years old and has 13 kids.
Do all the men pay bride price or does she pay groom price? Who provides the roof under which "thay all live peacefully?"

Is their a hierarchy? Senior husband, 2 of 4, junior, smallie etc. etc.
If it is about the rutting, how does she avoid favouritsm?

Mens libidos are typically higher than womens. How will she manage this. Or satisfy them all regardless (perhaps her juju prowess will help here?).

In a fair market, she may be able to interest a few wretched, down and out steet roaming half-mad destitutes. But not much more.

Wait 0! I researched the story a little. Apparently she said only tall dark-skinned hotties between the ages of 25 - 35 need apply. They should be previously unmarried, no kids, degree educated and financially solvent. Good grooming and GSOH will lead their applications to be favourably considered !

I quite like her nerve. Me sef am turning matriarchal. And to think some of our NL sistas can't get a single wan. Berra go sit with this badt gyal and learn what's up .


TV

crackhaus: Okay clearly you're thinking from another perspective...that's fine.

Although I admit to not giving it that much thought, what could the relaity of a 50 something year-old women with 13 kids in a 3rd world country really be?

crackhaus: But please pray tell, what do you think she means by this emboldened part.

The woman who is in a polyandrous marriage
with two men claims that she wants to marry
twice more as long as her husbands live
peacefully under one roof and respect what she
calls their 'duties'.

crackhaus: Emphasis on duties, care to share what these duties are?

My guess is as good as yours. Duties could entail a number of things. Perhaps she has extensive farm holdings and need labourers. But I greatly doubt she has a ""round the clock rota for sex in mind". At her age, even if she isn't menopausal, she almost certainly has greatly reduced drives if any interest in sex at all.

A husbands main "duty" is to provide for her family. I'm guessing it's more about provision, which to a great degree has always been the male side of the bargain. She may also be hoping for a "medic" to help with her hot flushes - but that's still provision in a sense !

crackhaus: Also, is it the duty by law for a man to raise and provide financial support for children that aren't his in Zimbabwe or any other part of the world?

When you marry a woman it's implicit you take on paternal responsibility for her kids - even if they are not yours - especially if the childrens real father is deceased.


TV

soulglo: This post is an EPIC FAIL. You could not be any more off than you are. Feminism being responsible for babies without fathers in the black American community is a show you should take on the road. Clearly a comedy.

A very precise and factual rebuttal. Really insightful .

Are there no women on this board that can intelligently refute or even debate things they don't agree with? I honestly have no problem with ad-hominem being directed against me, but at least hinge it on something to show you are more than just pained.

You won't refute a point, convince anyone or advance the Feminist position armed with capslock and smileys (although I do appreciate that it may be therapeutic ).



TV

crackhaus: I don't even want to imagine what her Kitty would look like right now, not to mention when she marries two more men to add to the bombardment

I got nothing but pity for her.

Dude, this is almost certainly not about inter.course or procreation. A woman with 13 kids?
She needs more hands on deck to provide for them. Women always look to men to subsidise their sexual licence (where they have it).

If she was independentaly wealthy or if there was a decent welfare system in place she'd get rid of the ones she has sef.

Don't pity her, pity the manginas that fall for this nonsense.


TV

Essay time !

The way men and women are wired means a woman will naturally seek a mate of higher status. Especially where procreation is a factor. Men are better suited for the purpose of providing and protecting, and woman for nurture – both parties have always tacitly accepted and worked with this paradigm.

On paper it’s easy to talk about “equality”, but it’s more about wiring and roles. Whilst slight tweaking/changes may be fine, reversing the roles in the guise of equality interferes with the dynamic. In practice no woman wants to be with a lower status male and would not knowingly choose one unless circumstances dictated it.

A woman will find it hard to respect - and more importantly be physically attracted to – a man if he fails to demonstrate the appropriate “manly” traits. It’s not about earning per se. Earnings only become an issue if they mean the right dynamic cannot be maintained.

If for example the house hold requirements are say 100K and he earns 80k and she earns 120k, why should there be issues? If he’s working, active, providing & protecting as he should be, the dynamic is maintained - why will there be a problem?

If, on the other hand he earns 25K and she earns 45K if he can’t make-up the difference and more crucially doesn’t make the effort to, it could certainly lead to issues. Likewise if she is providing all they have or need single-handedly.

There could even be issues if he brings in 45K, she brings in 25K and there is a shortfall of 10K. He will be considered responsible for making up the difference, not her. He will be judged as not providing adequately, not her. The expectation to provide adequately is his, not hers.

After all, there are women who will leave a man that solely and adequately provides for another who solely and adequately provides more. And others who will leave a man once he ceases to adequately provide. It's the flip side of men leaving women for more youthfull ones - or acquiring more - when they realise thier resources enable them.

Look at Andy Murray and his “Partner” Kim Sears. What does she do? What does she bring? Financially? Nothing really. And she doesn’t really have to. The right dynamic is maintained if she brings the requisite female qualities – of which provision is all but inconsequential . Would it work in the reverse? Can anyone point to examples of the reverse?

And for any women here who are saying they would respect their man if you earned more, would you knowingly seek out a “lower status spouse”, especially if it meant you struggled financially or the financial burden was mainly on you? Even if it only meant you couldn't enjoy the lifestyle you desired? That's mostly a rhetorical question, because we all know the answer to that. But feel free to surprise us.

And for the men that like to agree and form feminist to score brownie points with women. They respond to the manly traits just like all the others. They are more likely to get with the one who demonstrates manly traits and in the unlikely event they do get with you, they won’t be happy. Feminist that marry well are only conceptual ones not practical. Abeg, Loretta, come and testify .


TV

carefreewannabe: Ma BUT please stop teaching people nonsense. No offence but the things you claim here are WRONG.

Instead of making unbacked assertions and swearing and screraming, why don't you simply show it? Surely if it's wrong and is being (dangerously) disseminated, it's in the best interest of many for you to do so?

All our "we are going to change the world and have a tranformational impact on society" types here can't rebut an ignorant conservative?

Or maybe there's deep wisdom in the "smiley necklaces" y'all regale us with that ignorant conservatives can't fathom !


TV

carefreewannabe: With all due respect, the statement that the problems in Afro-African communities are a result of matriarchy does not deserve to be discussed with full intellectual attention. It is a ridiculous statement and you should know it TV.

The AA community is just an example - that we are all familiar with - of what giving leave to feminist/matriarchal tendencies will lead to (it's almost like they've been used as an experiment?). It's evident in many other communities and societies, although perhaps not as advanced or immediately apparent.

The notion of full reproductive rights (i.e I can be as promiscuous as I like and kill my babies if it's convenient), is a core tenet of feminsism. Further, this unilateral right still typically means handing off responsibility to men.

It's why we have the question "if men should be responsible for children they don't want" (because those children can come to based on rights unilaterally accorded to women, with no thought given to the children and the mens rights tramlpled).

Ridiculous would be; Germany is historically, traditionally and culturally a matriarchy as it has a female Chancellor. Of course, if the Chancellor is male it revets back to a patriarchy right?

Intellectual attention? You know I'm always open to challenge, but please, stick to smileys if you've nothing cogent to add !


TV

pickabeau1: Lol...
Sad state of western black communities
Highlights the impact of the strong black woman

Strong = "I don't depend on no man, I'mma tell you more about strong when I get back from cashing my welfare check"

ihedinobi2: I just had to make sure that I identified with this. Very good one, Uncle TeeVee.

Ihe hi, how far?

My audience is usually men, so I appreciate you reading/your feedback. That's not to say Women are excluded, but my drive is to ensure men get understanding and then get it right. Being a man is being responsible. Being responsible often entails bearing burdens. But guys, be sure to bear burdens that are worth it.

And note the responses. No one has actually clearly and factually rebutted anything I've posted. It's been lots of snide remarks, imprecatory prayers for me not to have children, the usual ignorant & braying laughter and of course the favoured recourse of those who totally lack insight or a decent rejoinder - assault by emoticon/smileys.

I would pay good money for a decent riposte from our resident Princess-Teachers . I learnt pretty early on that a posture of high hope and low expectation was needed here.

May post a piece about "female entitlement" if I am chanced, but lets see where this discussion leads. Who knows, I may yet be surprised .


TV

coogar: a woman just got arrested as she deliberately left her baby in a train station. she will go to jail because she thought like you that birthing the child is better than having an abortion. she's one of millions of women who sell their babies at birth or throw them in a river

Where is/was the father? The presence of two biological parents significantly reduces the risk of abuse.


TV

pickabeau1: To some.. I guess it does

See my longsuffering 0!
People claiming to mock comments they can't grasp and don't understand . I'm also an optimist, so let let me bear with them, lest they descend even further into the error of some of their aunties on here.

pickabeau1: If Clinton wins , USA becomes one too.. Hurrah

The USA provides some good insight. Looking at matriarchy on a communal level, it's quite evident in a large swathes of the black community. Where many women lead homes. They tend to have children by multiple fathers and be welfare dependent.

Reproductive freedom without the attendent responsibility. Leading to unstable broken homes and delinquent children. Lots of deadbeat and/or estranged fathers.

Enabled mostly by state funding. Withholding that funding would be like taking away the fraudulent tithe from churches. And although funded to a degree, they remain for the most part poor and more crucially absent of strong, involved fathers.

They become sink pits for all types of societal ills - gangbangin', drug abuse, robbery and violence. And the cycle is perpetuated and worsened as families become even more dysfunctional and fractured. Back to the church analogy, it's like a generational curse.

That is a direct result of feminisms influence whilst enabled by "compliant men". As societies become more matriarchal the problems will become even worse.

That is why a responsible patriarchy is better (and a godly one best). It places restraints on both males and females. Ties fathers to mothers in the best interests of their children - and thus society as a whole - and ensures rights go with responsibilities.

"Modern women" like to see this as "oppressive" or "men controlling women", but it's not. Both have their restraints for the common good. The restraints differ because outcomes and burdens differ.

Men are held responsible in proper patriarchy. Now men are chaffing and eschewing matrimony as matriarchy takes hold, as they are "locked" by women/the state for responsibility, but denied rights.

Women don't and can't build civilisations. Sure they can run/operate them when up and running, but if allowed to give leave to their natural inclinations they'll run them down. It's a fallacy that women civilise men. Emotion civilising logic? What women do is domesticate men. Civilisation building is - and always will be a man thing

There are different roles for the two and in well ordered complimentarity a flourishing whole becomes evident.

Brodas, don't swim in dirry waters. Dem go lock you 0!


TV

^{**still can't truly believe that some of our seemingl enlightened women on this section - many self styled "tishas" - equate a female leader with matriarchy and vice versa? I shouldn't be surprised sha, they've being carrying conceptual feminism for ages without comprehending it's practical outworkings. We continue to bear with you as you regale us **}

Let me get this right, having a female leader makes a country matriarchal?

I must keep reminding myself that it's not about me.

It's actually quite troubling


Chei!


TV

Anacksunamun: What you wrote is the painful truth and it's not fair on the side of the ladies. I support such a dad be tied to a stake and burnt if he later comes back to reap where he didn't sow.It's unfair for a woman to singly labour to raise a rejected son, only for the dad of the child to return years later to claim the child or the child, to reconnect with dad and allow him enjoy the mom's effort.

Life's not fair, so I'll advice both genders to know the kind of people they sleep with, whether for recreation or procreation.

For the men, have sèx (if it's for recreation) with only the women that's wants séx for recreation only. It's hard to decipher a lady with ulterior motives, but just look wisely. The key when it comes to séx, lies with ladies, and there's nothing we can do about it.

For the women, know the priority of the men you sleep with, whether the séx is for procreation or recreation. Don't out of fraudulent means bring forth the child that the dad will reject. Consider the child growing up without a fatherly influence before engineering such an evil scheme.

Life ain't fair.

Appreciated.

I talk truth, with that which accords with happy families and healthy societies in mind. I'm happy for the back-biting and carping to continue unabated. I don't write for the gainsayers, but for those who may be reading and appreciate that reality bites.

Actions have consequences and should be balanced for the best all round outcomes. When they have the nous to mount a capable challenge to anything I post, I'll be here to acknowledge and even applaud them. Until then they can keep straining for attention.

A child also has rights and things that are in accord with their best interest. Once two adults create a child, they have a duty of care to prioritise the childs rights and interests. "Womens rights" as pursued, when taken to their logical conclusion deny rights to children and men, whilst deftly handing off their own responsibilities.

Men must be resposible for managing their actions or handling the outcomes. And not merely on the basis of their own desires or rights. If you don't want kids simply don't have them. If there are points at which you cease to have control over that desire, then don't pass that point. Especially if it means relinqushing control to someone who may be careless or deceitful.

If a parent is delinquent and the child is willing to forgive and reconcile - unconditionally sef - who has the right to deny them a relationship with their own parents and a connection with their heritage and culture? A child is willing to effect healing and 3rd parties are calling for death by hanging.

Even if a deadbeat dad realises the error of his ways and wants to do the right thing from that point, it's the childs call. If the mother cries blue murder and laments her years of scrifice and toil to raise the child, that is mere sentiment and not just cause to deny the child. After all, whether it was her carelessness or her deceit, was it the childs fault? So then why should the childs rights and choices be abrogated due to her feelings?

@bolded, he did sow - his gummy seed

Smirking with my pearly whites!


TV

coogar: i reiterate, the man shouldn't be forcefully dragged into it if he stated clearly before the act that he's not interested in making babies. it's as simple as that. if accident happens & she conceives, there are still measures she can engage to prevent the baby from being carried to term. the man's control has already ceased at this point.

However it happens, it happens, be that "innocently" or by decieit. But at that point, it is no longer a bilateral contract. There's a 3rd party involved and the interest and rights of the 3rd party have to be duly considered. An adult decision be that unilateral or bilateral to end the childs life doesn't sound to me like the childs interest were paramount.

At that point control is not the real issue. It never was. It's about actions and outcomes, rights and responsibilities. Think of this analogy, not perfect but please hear me out;

There's a growing euthanasia movement in Europe. Aimed primarily at old people. Essentially once deemed unproductive, burdensome or too ill/sufferign, they can be euthanised. By choice or the call of those acting as proxy. Scarily, they are now extending it too children. Ultimately these calls will be made on how faffed those responsible can be to continue caring. Or perhaps how keen they are to chop inheritance. It's the same selfishly warped thinking. Feel free to differ.

coogar: he gets no choice, no room to manoeuvre. what's he to do? it's not his fault his condom broke or he was lied to. he wants no part of it & his wishes should be respected. if the woman then decides to go it alone then it's her prerogative. she should not then saddle the responsibility on the man that was never ready to shoulder such burden. it's as simple as that!

He had the choice to manouvre at the outset. The primary purpose of coitus is procreation. Within a committed relationship you get recreation at no extra cost. The "responsibility" is as an outcome of his actions. He's not being saddled, merely harnessed . It's only simple if there are only two parties involved There are not.

Totally get you point, our worldviews jar.


TV

Stillfire: Without adding ethics/morals to the topic, I absolutely agree. If a man doesn't want the child and she does, she should solely take care of the child. There certainly are outliers and all cases may not carry equal weight like a married couple or teenagers, but a grown woman must be held accountable for her actions. I believe stricter measures should be employed in issues like this, so that women would be more selective in their choice of bed mates.

Firstly, why would you discuss such a topic devoid of ethics or morals? If there is no morality about it, then why is it an issue in the first place?
Secondly, in a true sense, with the best will and all the resources in the world, one parent cannot best raise a child
Thirdly, this is premised on the desires of the two adults and them alone. It takes no heed of the childs best interest or rights.
Fourthly, yes a grown women should be held responsible, but without men being held equally responsible in tandem, it won't work. Not least because they are subject to more biological and reproductive pressure. Not to mention the social pressure - mostly from other women !


TV

coogar: well, if the child seeks the father & forgives him then there's nothing anyone can do about that. that's the choice of the child. all i am concerned about is people shouldn't be forcefully dragged into a venture they never wanted from the outset - it's very selfish.

Whosoever does the seeking or makes the first move is besides the point. If forgiveness, reconcilliation and healing occurs it's in the childs best interest and will strengthen the lineage.

And the "choice" - for which read rights - of the child is my main point. Everyone has rights and responsibilities and no ideology should trample or give preference to that of men, women or children over the other.

Was the child not "dragged" into it by the actions of the parents? Who holds brief for them? The man was not forced to lie with the woman was he? Neither was the woman forced to be intimate with the man. And there are outcomes, which are different for both and for the child.

Saying a man should not be "forcefully dragged" is slightly misleading and takes up the story part way through. Is unwillinglness or inability of the man to "father" the child worth killing the child for? I stand by my "sex and procreation within marriage (with a worthy spouse) position".


TV