Why weak women and not weak people in general?

Think its because its a supposedly feminine trait, women are ''supposed'' to be needy, cry when something happens to them, need consoling and so on. Damzel in distress type business. Alot of euro women are that way, its why breddahs breed with them, easy to get around, take BS where a black woman wouldn't, ask them why they aren't with a black woman and its always the same, ''too much trouble'' ie, 'they don't take sh*t and expect too much from me'.

Respect a strong woman, can't date the fickle type, to be honest I can be a bit headstrong and they aren't there enough to tag along. Don't respect someone who doesn't stand on their own two feet enough to have their own opinion or do their own thing. Caucasian women have been pre bashed by their mens insecurity toward them, wasn't so long ago they couldn't get an education and had a set place in society whereas in InI African countries women have always been well respected and regarded as equals.

Well, Western culture is certainly eating away at the fabric of African womanhood in our sisters, because our women are taking on the characteristics that you have attributed to Euro women. I tend to agree, so would you be saying a "weak" sister is one who begins to take on a European mind?

I think this is an all inclusive phenomenon in that European strength is African weakness.

But yeah. on a woman tip, what once they get you legally, have your kids and even worse if you need them for a squat to rest your head at night where on top of all this they go for the ultimate in African humiliation by getting you to eat their minge, if this is weakness can you blame any of them for taking this as opposed to being seen as a strong subordinate African.

But yeah, must not forget, not all African and African cultures are the same and not all are backwards. Women are highly respected as matriarchs in many but alas most when they hear the word Africa, it conjures up images of Tarzan and feed the world. Most here wouldn't even voice an opinion on Ligali for the same reason.

A woman's psychological and emotional make up is different to that of a man's.
The hormonal changes characteristic to womanhood, makes it that way. Physically she is also weaker when compared to a man's strength. But women go through the pain of childbirth so maybe in some aspects of the physical, their strength is more enduring their pain threshold is different.
I have known women who can lay carpets, tile, hang wallpaper, are handy with a saw, lay wooden floors in addition to cooking cleaning and nurturing the emotional and intellectual well being of children, qualities that many men lack. And women have had to be strong to compensate for the lack of physical and emotional help from their 'signigicant others.'
The only weak women I know are those that allow their emotions to rationalise bad treatment in relationships.

sargaco - that post has to be worthy of post of the day. Many people will say with confidence most things are achievable. I for one wouldn't want to be with a woman who couldn't hold her own I just find most that want this quality actually see it as being in direct competetion.

Fundamentally I believe women to be the nurturers so any skill she has ideally would be as a bonus to this. No good bringing in 100k a year, looking good yet heat your babies milk in a microwave. Priorities are all wrong....that's what I call weak...but at the same time wouldn't force or impose my desires on any woman...she needs to be herself first and I need to like her for being herself.

There is a sista I know like that. I met her in Uni, and to this day we are still friends.

When she moved to London, she was telling me how her and her sista were going to spend the next few days painting walls of the house, i.e. corridors etc.

I was totally taken aback.

[quote=Judge J;1457793]There is a sista I know like that. I met her in Uni, and to this day we are still friends.

When she moved to London, she was telling me how her and her sista were going to spend the next few days painting walls of the house, i.e. corridors etc.

I was totally taken aback.[/QUOTE]


Why?

Are we all supposed to rely on men for those things? LOL!

I taught myself how to lay laminate flooring after being v unsatisfied with one so-called male expert who tried to charge me for a half finished job.

My father taught me how to do DIY, wiring plugs etc whilst my mum taugh me how to cook and clean. I oft earn extra money painting and decorating for people. All my female friends can do at a least one of those things on that list. Its not that uncommon.

We can all be strong in this respect - yet somehow, esp when it comes to the men in our lives - be emotionally weak!

^ I was going to say the same thing when I read the last two post. I paint my place all the time. Just finished painting the passage and am about to start on my bedroom, and I dont do a bad job either. I can fix plugs too (it's not hard). As someone said earlier, women have had to get on with all this stuff as even if men are around your prob going to be waiting a little while before he's ready to assist you. I want it done now and will do it now. Infact, I find painting quite therapeutic.

Problem is, when men say they want a strong woman, some of them dont actually know how to appreciate her strength.

A female friend of mine does all her own diy but if I'm honest I'd be the first to question the workmanship and the craftmanship and the general level of quality. Which to be honest isn't bad just not to my standard. But then I'm the same with how a woman cooks food and irons a shirt.

But for the record, are we saying we have a problem with weak women cos it's been said to death the thoughts of women who are seen or try to be seen as strong? Shemsi, you mentioned the word complement in your opening post, that should answer any question you or anyone has. Or at least I think you meant complement and not compliment?

Women - Weak and Pathetic?

I was incensed very many years ago to find that my mother had been forced to give up a good teaching job when she married my father, in the 1930's. She was a woman who clearly needed something beyond the family to give her some interest in life. (She wasn't typical, for those days.) And she clearly suffered later by not fulfilling her potential in this respect. It annoyed me that she had been discriminated against purely and wholly on the basis of her gender, and particularly so given that she was well-known to be very good at her job as a teacher. It seemed extremely unfair.

My father explained the reasons in this way.

Within communities in those days, there was a great deal of unemployment. Indeed, there was not much in the way of 'industry'. Families were seen as economic units with responsibility for looking after themselves, and it simply wasn't tenable for one family to have two wage earners in the house while the next door neighbours had none! Such a thing would have been a recipe for social envy, disaster and violence - and, of course, in those days, there was no particularly effective welfare system to balance the imbalances.

Neither was there much of a police force; which meant that social unrest or disharmony would very quickly lead to real problems. For example, the poorer would have been able to rob those who were seemingly wealthier with impunity.

And why not? - if their families had no wage earners and very little food, while the CHILDLESS couple NEXT DOOR had TWO wage earners, food and even luxuries?!

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children (and, in this case, she did - me and my sister!) custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

Further, prepared to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through tradition and custom - and, in many cases, through the law.

Indeed, as an example, in the USA, it was around this time that a young Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly, 'seduced'. He was only saved from prison when she withdrew her complaint.

Given that most women had MANY children fairly vicariously in those days, and would end up spending many years looking after them, it was also silly to invest a country's, or a family's, very limited wealth in the education of women - because they were the very ones most likely NOT to take any value from it!

Further, it was clearly best for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was very unlikely to happen - like a having a full-time 'career', or a job, of whatever sort.

Also, looking after children