cococandy:
I think that’s a very optimistic impression you’ve gathered there. Probably from their NL rants about providing. “Eager to provide”

Where did all their derogatory terms for dependent women come from?

Hathor5:


Two different things nne.

It's one thing to complain about women being (too) dependent and another to expect women to be the breadwinners. I may be wrong but I believe that most of them wish to have the financial capacity to provide for their families. Their ability to is another issue.

descarado:

It's only for chest beating. Nothing more. You live longer as a man when u share family responsibilities together.

All these so called archaic traditions we have to do away with. Come to think of it, olden days mothers are not just at home. They trade. My grand mother was a well known dry fish and tobacco merchant back in the days( I was told that she bought-out her favourite son from joining the biafra soldiers during the civil war). Her mum wasn't a sit at home mummy either. Don't know why people think that women are meant to just stay at home because it's their obligation. Where was it written in our constitution both the non written ones operated in various towns?

It's only a very lazy man that will see a woman as his rival. Go and compete with your fellow man!

What is wrong with these people?

bukatyne:


Where is the misogyny in the OP's post?

How did he display hatred for women?

You can accuse the OP of being too 'traditional' or 'cultural'.

His premise of discussion is not new: I first encountered it on foreign forums.

Traditionally, a husband should win bread while a wife cares for the home.

If the husband has to compete with other women/wives for bread, how would he effectively win the bread and perform his financial duties?

Also keeping in mind that the wives getting the jobs are not using the resources to care for their families: so their husbands have to 'hustle' harder to maintain the 'financial' frame in the family.

If the wife who should care for the home is out winning bread (which would not be useful at a family level), who takes care of the some?

Some school of thought have further processed to say women shouldn't study some courses in college because it is a huge investment without returns at that end.

What everyone should bring to the table is the merits and demerits of the current/proposed system.

Herdamorlar:
Happy weekend,I have noticed this since last year that any office I enter it is only female that I encountered also any interview i went to we men are always plenty than women and at last we all know what we end it. I think this is why we don't have happy home these days because we all know that breadwinner wife will not be able to manage home with unemployed husband also unemployed men don't also want to get married which lead to many single ladies roaming the street and those men working also don't want to marry second wife because instead of promoting the male employee,most employers prefer to promote female counterpart especially in sales and marketing company.
Also our children nowadays lack home training because most of our wives these days doesn't stay at home to train them instead they are at their different offices closing late in the night. To solve this I think Government should be involve to regulate the job women can do e.g teachers,traders,marketers,newscaster etc not because of anything but our children and homes. What do you think?

pcguru1:


If that's your outlook on life, then you going to need to work very hard and stop fantasizing and re-orientate yourself. Companies need smart people, your sex has nothing to do with it, if a company could train a monkey to do your job and can pay the monkey less, oga you dey out of job.

Herdamorlar:
Happy weekend,I have noticed this since last year that any office I enter it is only female that I encountered also any interview i went to we men are always plenty than women and at last we all know what we end it. I think this is why we don't have happy home these days because we all know that breadwinner wife will not be able to manage home with unemployed husband also unemployed men don't also want to get married which lead to many single ladies roaming the street and those men working also don't want to marry second wife because instead of promoting the male employee

most employers prefer to promote female counterpart especially in sales and marketing company.

Also our children nowadays lack home training because most of our wives these days doesn't stay at home to train them instead they are at their different offices closing late in the night. To solve this I think Government should be involve to regulate the job women can do e.g teachers,traders,marketers,newscaster etc not because of anything but our children and homes. What do you think?

pcguru1:


If that's your outlook on life, then you going to need to work very hard and stop fantasizing and re-orientate yourself. Companies need smart people, your sex has nothing to do with it, if a company could train a monkey to do your job and can pay the monkey less, oga you dey out of job.

Hathor5:


I agree with most of what you said but the bold part. It's not a matter of opinion. Let's call a spade a spade. If a person asks for the government to limit women's opportunities in the name of tradition then tradition has become misogyny. Misogyny defined as the dislike of women's freedom to choose how to live their lives and run their families and the contempt for women's various talents and contributions to society as a whole.

Next thing you will read is that women should have no right to education because they are supposed to learn how to clean and cook so that OP, who is possibly less qualified to do a particular job, will not have to put in the necessary work to succeed but be accorded with some privilege in the name of tradition.

If I decide to open a thread on which I will call for the government to put laws in place that will require families to enroll their kids into creches once they are one year old so that women go and work in order to let's say boost the economy, the 'traditional folks' will cry wolf and cite the human rights charter up and down. This is when they will remember that human rights are also the rights of women (and men) to choose how to run their lives and families.

11thGoldTREE:
women have more alluring nature than men now. that's why

Gerrard59:
I understand your concerns. A similar thread was made more than seven years ago and I disputed with the OP then. Well, I was woke then and a self acclaimed feminist. Thank God for increased knowledge. The solution is to continually improve your skill set. It's capitalism.





Simple capitalism. Are you ready to do the work they do?



Please relocate to North Korea. We're living in a largely capitalist society, it should be practiced 100%. No shifting of the goalpost.

bukatyne:


@Bold, must be an updated definition of misogyny.

bukatyne:
It is easier for me to answer all mentions in a post that type similar thoughts four times. [b][/b]

Misogyny is defined as dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women:

I am yet to see where the OP expressed a case of dislike, comtempt or ingrained prejudice against women in his OP. He said Government should regulate jobs women get. The next question is why? So that:
1. Men would get better jobs so they can effectively cater for the home financially;
2. Women would have more time for housekeeping which is their forte.

What in the above reasoning expresses misogyny?

Or is this is case of everything looking like a nail because all we have is a hammer?

Or is the notion that women are the housekeepers in a marriage prejudiced?

EVERY system has its merits and demerits. EVERY! With that in mind, humans 'ideally' pick whatever system poses the least demerits (due to the information they have or life experiences).

Hathor5:
How can you type this and ...



... a few minutes this?

He dislikes the fact that women occupy the jobs in the offices.
It is contemptuous to believe that men deserve the jobs because women are supposed to stay at home.
And yes, the notion that women are the housekeepers in marriage is prejudiced. It has been built on a belief. Men can equally keep a home or she the responsibility of keeping it like women can share the financial burden and have been doing so since time immemorial.

bukatyne:

@Hathor:
Follow the discussion. In traditional setting, If a man is to fend for the family, then it is implied that the wife (if earning) would use the money for personal needs. Hence the saying 'His money is our/my money and my money is my money.'

bukatyne:


@Bold:

I have nothing further to discuss with you.

Enjoy your day.

Gerrard59:


He may not have written it in the best manner but in your industry - tech, there have been vacancies that expressly state they want females not males to apply. Even a recent survey by Stutern powered by Jobberman showed that more females got graduate jobs than males. Due to female's hypergamy, I can understand the aspect of increasing spinsters in the society.

bukatyne:
It is easier for me to answer all mentions in a post that type similar thoughts four times. [b][/b]

Misogyny is defined as dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

I am yet to see where the OP expressed a case of dislike, comtempt or ingrained prejudice against women in his OP. He said Government should regulate jobs women get. The next question is why? So that:
1. Men would get better jobs so they can effectively cater for the home financially;
2. Women would have more time for housekeeping which is their forte.

What in the above reasoning expresses misogyny?

Or is this is case of everything looking like a nail because all we have is a hammer?

Or is the notion that women are the housekeepers in a marriage prejudiced?

EVERY system has its merits and demerits. EVERY! With that in mind, humans 'ideally' pick whatever system poses the least demerits (due to the information they have or life experiences).

[b]
1. If you agree that traditionally, a man wins the bread while the woman keeps the house, what model do you propose to tackle the OP's observations?
2. You obviously did not understand the competition I referred it. You can re-read that portion of my post;
3. Your point 7 is a demerit of the OP's proposal which I expected posters to bring out in an objective manner;
4. In a marriage setting, women are naturally equipped to keep the home which is different from doing chores. To break down, home keeping is strategy while chores is the tactics. Men do chores; women do chores and keep the home.
4. Your point 10 is back to my introduction; where did the OP's post state selfishness/disdain/envy for women?

[b]
Government enforced jobs (which would be better executed at university stage {You can't read certain courses} although sounds like a nightmare in a capitalist economy) means some men are also not getting the jobs they want. I heard of a teacher who was so passionate about teaching that he did not get married. When he died, his students buried him in an elaborate ceremony. Some fathers ensured their sons went to that school so they could be mentored by 'Mr. X' In a society where Govt assigns jobs per gender, Mr. X would have missed out on his calling. It is not always about women in an individualistic manner.

[b]
Follow the discussion. In traditional setting, If a man is to fend for the family, then it is implied that the wife (if earning) would use the money for personal needs. Hence the saying 'His money is our/my money and my money is my money.'

[b]
I struggle to understand the direction of your post. This is not about 'my generation'. I guess it is a 'gift' these days to discuss a topic objectively, acknowledging the merits and demerits and chose what works for you at each stage of your life..

I remember in Primary School when we had to debate 'Lawyers are better than doctors' or 'Mothers are more important than fathers'. Both parties (for and against) managed to marshall their points with the concluding (Hope I was able to convince and not confuse you that bla bla bla).

I hope that skill is not lost and all parties (for and against) can bring their points objectively to the table.

bukatyne:


EVERY system has its merits and demerits. EVERY! With that in mind, humans 'ideally' pick whatever system poses the least demerits (due to the information they have or life experiences).

@Biglittlelois:
1. If you agree that traditionally, a man wins the bread while the woman keeps the house, what model do you propose to tackle the OP's observations?
2. You obviously did not understand the competition I referred it. You can re-read that portion of my post;
3. Your point 7 is a demerit of the OP's proposal which I expected posters to bring out in an objective manner;
4. In a marriage setting, women are naturally equipped to keep the home which is different from doing chores. To break down, home keeping is strategy while chores is the tactics. Men do chores; women do chores and keep the home.
4. Your point 10 is back to my introduction; where did the OP's post state selfishness/disdain/envy for women?

Herdamorlar:
I am not surprised that most of the ladies/women disagree with my post,I really expect it but unfortunately they don't look at the bright side of the post but they just point on the wrong one from the post. I didn't say that woman shouldn't work but the work they can do and be able to have time to train our children, I think we are on time bomb if we don't stop promoting women to a position that you know as a man you will not let your wife work there, let look at the olden days when our grandmothers had the time for our parents, they brought decent and responsible children but nowadays go to our schools and you will see what I am trying to bring out. If we allow women take most of the jobs available then most of the men wont want to get married, those that are married will be frustrated,women won't respect their husband again, children will lack home training (the fact is that women know how to train children more than men), increase in divorce and so on like that.

talking about govt regulating,I know it may not be possible but I will advice my ladies here not to take their career over their family. I am in this position in my office because the woman that is suppose to be there turned it down because of her family. Someone mentioned about those women in higher position like Okonjo Iweala and how they are successful,if you are successful in your career and your family is in disunity,you are a failure.

Herdamorlar:

What do you think it will lead to if women take 80% of the available jobs