carujmonella:

LOL..Her latest post clearly shows what I've been saying on here. At least you're seeing the insult thrown at me, but I'll ignore. If I reply back, the "act like a grown man" pathetic sermon will be preached. This thread shouldn't go down like it's sister thread so I won't cuss.

carujmonella:

She's a lady.. And NOBODY said that crap she wrote. Don't fall for that lie

Mrs.Chima:


In a standard debate, there are two sides: opposing and supporting. Fact.

If a person is not sure of which side to "support" then they are neutral. You can't be a rapist and are against rape.

Now getting back to feminism....you can agree with the fundamentals of feminism or you can disagree and say I would like to see this and that before I truly supports feminism.

Once you disagree with a notion...you discredited the whole thing. Fact.

What one poster said about feminism being supported but unrealistic is contradicting. Just because Feminism is not successful in Nigeria doesn't mean it's not realistic.

ileobatojo:

Aww! A pity party!

Can dish but can't take eh?




You called my post crap, then I called yours crap and now you're going to whine about it? Lol!

Here, have a binkie.

pc guru:

Yes I agree very much that in a debate, there are always two sides, but let me explain this scenario maybe it could make you understand what am trying to say, for instance we can say that Speed Camera are very vital in Nigerian Roads and i could support the notion of that, but criticize it because the implementation is not realistic as we don't have a centralized database and good infrastructure now am not saying Speed Cams are bad, infact they are awesome but now am saying the adaptation is not possible because of the environment, now i won't be Anti-Speed Cam. you get what i mean, yes it still leads to non-implementation but this time its not solely because of the subject itself but the subject's target of implementation.

Mrs.Chima:


Bottom line is either you against it or for it. If you don't know then you are neutral. No amount of explanations is going to change a definition or fact of the word.

You can't change a definition of something simply because you disagree with a notion or portion of it. It is very simple...if you disagree with ANYTHING because of any ANY reason it is a disagreement.

I don't see why you can't get it. But it's okay....I moved on.

axion: @y-fo

And for the record I HAVE been ignoring handles here ever since I found them belligerent, in case you haven't noticed. Unlike someone like Ishilove, who I like to pull her legs and sometimes I say things that sound mean but I know she knows I'm kidding. I generally ignore or avoid people that I find irritable or those who find me irritable.

Ishilove:
Please stop pulling my legs. They are getting too sexily long for my liking

axion:
Who doesn't like long legs?

Especially in Nigeria

axion:
Who doesn't like long legs?

Especially in Nigeria

Ishilove:
Good to see you grinning for once and not scowling

axion: Hahahahah Joshthefirst, I just like the angry little face. As if the anger can boil rice

axion:

axion: Hahahahah Joshthefirst, I just like the angry little face. As if the anger can boil rice

Ishilove:

naijathings:
get a room

Ishilove:
Your heart is unclean

naijathings:
i almost fell off my seat laughing.. my heart is cleaner than the Queen of England's silver ware.

anex4real: @ op ur argument on feminism is too bias as you only tend to base ur arguments of having equal rights as the male only when it beneficial to the female, I clearly support female having equal right in terms of education,political post,voting right. You feminists why don't you enlighting wives also that the responsibities of providing for the family should be shared equally too, you only want the rights that are beneficial to you. Clamouring for equal right in decision making in the family is certainly a destruction path. By the way it men that marry women not the other way round so if you want all the rights, may be you should go and pay the pride price of your guy, then I will take you seriously.

99cent: I am a feminist and I agree that responsibilities of providing for the family should be shared equally- statistically.
in reality, esp among the poor, women bear majority of the family responsibility anyway. esp when it comes toward children where the fathers are irresponsible. the reason why I say poor is because these women r poor. why should a woman be poor without a man? are women slaves, children, subordinates? NO. feminists do not believe in a superiority of men over women.

if a woman is able to equally support the family, financially, it follows that she will have d confidence to equally contribute to the decision making in the household.