carefreewannabe:


It does. I have to do what my boss hired me to do. If I don't meet her requirements, she will make me leave. I can't tell HER what to do. And I can't make her leave if she doesn't.

You can't tell her/HIM what to do, but you can deliberate on things during meetings before most decisions are reached.

Sorry but this is hypocrisy.

I don't see why children can't grow up seeing that their parents make decisions together and that these decisions must be discussed openly and SOMETIMES negotiated.

You mean children should see parents argue and deliberate over decisions? Sorry, I do not agree...this point thus ends here.

When you say that the man is not held in high regard in the system of matriarchy, then you agree that the mother is not held in high regard in the system of patriarchy. Then you should not wonder why women don't like it. You have given yourself the answer.

I don't want either and life is NOT about either or, black and white.

A woman in charge of her family is a lot more dominating and controlling than a man who is. Fact!

No, they share it.
Let me give you an example.
When a child is born, he / she needs a name so both parents have to agree on a name they BOTH like. There is a pool of possible names, it won't be too hard to find one that they both like.

No such thing as shared power of final decision where two people are involved, one person will have to compromise.
The point is regardless of who compromises, the power of final decision rests on the man.

Is it wise to question a mother's decision in front of the children?
If the father of my kids tells me in front our children that it is not a good idea to buy a new TV because some other bills have priority first, then I will agree and not feel disrespected because my children witnessed him giving me advice and vice versa.

If however, one of the parents disciplines the child and the other questions his / her methods in front of the kids, then it is not wise. And it wouldn't be wise of BOTH, the father AND the mother.

@emboldened, funny how you now see a scenario where kids should not witness arguments or advice between parents.
Your first example is also not wise. Children should not see one parent argue, advice, or go against the other no matter the scenario...full stop!

It has for ages.
We wouldn't be here discussing it now and we wouldn't have all these debates on feminism if this institution hasn't considered and made women feel inferior. It is based on the belief that the father's opinion and thinking is superior.

I don't know if it's a case of your psyche, but patriarchy does not mean women are inferior. This is the excuse bitter feminists base their arguments on because they hate male-dominated societies.

The belief that a man can bring in a second wife without her consent is based on the belief that he has the final decision. Now ask yourself if you would want your wife to have the right to bring in a second husband without your consent.

If you think patriarchy is the cause of this, then therein lies your problem.
That you read one or two stories of men who did it does not make it the norm. Plenty polygamous homes have existed and will continue to exist where the women in it live in peaceful coexistence.

The fact that many women are financially dependent on men is a result of patriarchy which has led to an unequal and unfair distribution of wealth and inheritance.

I already gave you the underlying premise behind inheritance, I don't know what you're saying here.
Again I ask, what does a woman getting married into another family want with her father's property?

The many occurrences that we see on and off NL, in which a man can make a wife leave HIS house is a result of the belief that supremacy is his birth right.

Not many.
I doubt if any man will send his faithful, loyal, and beautiful wife out of a house they built together from scratch.

A couple does NOT need to have a hierarchy.

You will learn that they do soon enough, two people do not occupy the exact same position and share an exact equal amount of power at the exact same time.

There's always a hierarchy no matter how equal it seems on the outside.

Why is it a man's birth right to have more power in a marriage?

He is a man, he proposed, the woman drops her name to adopt his, he is the figure head in that marriage, he is the leader by hierarchy...this gives him a little more power.

It has been this way for ages and will continue to be, so get with the programme.

Why don't men go to marry into other families and acquire the wife's property?

Because we are men, deal with it.

Over 2000years of growth and civilization has made it so. You can ask your bf to marry into your family, bear your surname, and acquire your property if that's how you want it...good luck with that and in finding a man who will agree to it

Her husband's property is not HERS. When the husband decides to take it away from her (e.g. send her out of HIS house), he is free to do so.

Her husband's property is not hers, but her father's own is? Explain this logic to me please

I thought you were one of those who said on some thread a while ago that a man's property is also his wife's by reason of marriage?
What is this one you're saying now?

As long as you think that it is your birth right to be the superpower in the marriage (without giving me a GOOD argument why it is your birth right) and think that it is normal that girls must depend on husbands when it comes to inheritance, I will consider patriarchy a discrimination against women based on the belief that they are not good enough to have the same privileges men have.

All emboldened are your words not mine.

Like I hinted before, rid and purge yourself of the notion that all men see women as inferior...whatever got your psyche to this point is something I'm still trying to figure out.

crackhaus:

You can't tell her/HIM what to do, but you can deliberate on things during meetings before most decisions are reached.




You mean children should see parents argue and deliberate over decisions? Sorry, I do not agree...this point thus ends here.


A woman in charge of her family is a lot more dominating and controlling than a man who is. Fact!


No such thing as shared power of final decision where two people are involved, one person will have to compromise.
The point is regardless of who compromises, the power of final decision rests on the man.


@emboldened, funny how you now see a scenario where kids should not witness arguments or advice between parents.
Your first example is also not wise. Children should not see one parent argue, advice, or go against the other no matter the scenario...full stop!


I don't know if it's a case of your psyche, but patriarchy does not mean women are inferior. This is the excuse bitter feminists base their arguments on because they hate male-dominated societies.


If you think patriarchy is the cause of this, then therein lies your problem.
That you read one or two stories of men who did it does not make it the norm. Plenty polygamous homes have existed and will continue to exist where the women in it live in peaceful coexistence.


I already gave you the underlying premise behind inheritance, I don't know what you're saying here.
Again I ask, what does a woman getting married into another family want with her father's property?


Not many.
I doubt if any man will send his faithful, loyal, and beautiful wife out of a house they built together from scratch.


You will learn that they do soon enough, two people do not occupy the exact same position and share an exact equal amount of power at the exact same time.

There's always a hierarchy no matter how equal it seems on the outside.


He is a man, he proposed, the woman drops her name to adopt his, he is the figure head in that marriage, he is the leader by hierarchy...this gives him a little more power.

It has been this way for ages and will continue to be, so get with the programme.


Because we are men, deal with it.

Over 2000years of growth and civilization has made it so. You can ask your bf to marry into your family, bear your surname, and acquire your property if that's how you want it...good luck with that and in finding a man who will agree to it


Her husband's property is not hers, but her father's own is? Explain this logic to me please

I thought you were one of those who said on some thread a while ago that a man's property is also his wife's by reason of marriage?
What is this one you're saying now?


All emboldened are your words not mine.

Like I hinted before, rid and purge yourself of the notion that all men see women as inferior...whatever got your psyche to this point is something I'm still trying to figure out.

Before we go round in circles, allow me to summarize your attitude.

You think it is a man's birth right to have authority over his wife because it has been like this for ages, right or wrong?

carefreewannabe:


Before we go round in circles, allow me to summarize your attitude.

You think it is a man's birth right to have authority over his wife because it has been like this for ages, right or wrong?

Lol @attitude.

First off, I'm not the one who introduced 'birth right' into this discourse...you did.

The first time you used it to convey a question to me, I did well to reply thus:

It is not a man's right to have more power, it is a man's right to have more power in his marriage or at least seem to.

I conveniently eliminated 'birth'

The answer to your question is in that quote above and exactly as I believe it to be.
So yes, a man is to exercise some authority over his wife

The problem you're going to have with this statement is thinking that this authority means he must get away with anything and everything, this is not what it means.
What it means is that the husband is first and for all purposes the figure head/leader/governor of his home.

crackhaus:

Lol @attitude.

First off, I'm not the one who introduced 'birth right' into this discourse...you did.

The first time you used it to convey a question to me, I did well to reply thus:

I conveniently eliminated 'birth'

The answer to your question is in that quote above and exactly as I believe it to be.
So yes, a man is to exercise some authority over his wife

Why is the man to exercise authority (= the power to give orders to people) and not the woman?

The problem you're going to have with this statement is thinking that this authority means he must get away with anything and everything, this is not what it means.

But this is what it VERY OFTEN leads to in reality.

What it means is that the husband is first and for all purposes the figure head/leader/governor of his home.

Why? Why not the woman?

carefreewannabe:


Why is the man to exercise authority (= the power to give orders to people) and not the woman?

I disagree with your definition of authority as regards the institution of marriage.

This is a bit from Wikipedia defining authority in the social sense of it, family and marriage are under this category:

The definition of authority in contemporary social science remains a matter of debate. According to Michaels in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, authority is the capacity, innate or acquired for exercising ascendancy over a group. Other scientists argue that authority is not a capacity but a relationship. It is power that is sanctioned and institutionalized.

Going by the bits in bold in that definition, authority is bestowed/acquired on the man by marriage, tradition, law, and by religion.
It is not about giving orders...remember what I said about hierarchy?

But this is what it VERY OFTEN leads to in reality.

Nope, not very often...but sometimes.

Why? Why not the woman?

Another bit from Wikipedia, a satisfactory answer to your question:

Traditional authority, which derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another, then it is known as traditional authority. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example.

With the exception of societies that practise matriarchy, the emboldened bits is the reason why authority rests on the husband by default.
It didn't start happening today, and just because that role is not traditionally bestowed on women does not mean they are inferior.

crackhaus:

I disagree with your definition of authority as regards the institution of marriage.

This is a bit from Wikipedia defining authority in the social sense of it, family and marriage are under this category:

The definition of authority in contemporary social science remains a matter of debate. According to Michaels in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, authority is the capacity, innate or acquired for exercising ascendancy over a group. Other scientists argue that authority is not a capacity but a relationship. It is power that is sanctioned and institutionalized.

First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is unacceptable in academic circles. You can get it to get a first overview but quoting it does not make a good impression.

Secondly, how does your definition differ from mine? "The capacity for exercising ascendancy" is the same as the power to give orders. Let us call a spade a spade. Whether is is sanctioned or institutionalized is not even relevant. I have the impression you are trying to sugarcoat something here.

Going by the bits in bold in that definition, authority is bestowed/acquired on the man by marriage, tradition, law, and by religion.
It is not about giving orders...remember what I said about hierarchy?

First of all, which law?
Second, I knew religion would be mentioned sooner or later to defend an unjust system.
Third, I was sure tradition would be mentioned, too.

Fourth, I won't support any traditions or religious beliefs that will put either of my children, girls or boys, at a disadvantage. You can, however, keep justifying them. I knew you would have no other arguments except for tradition / religion.

Nope, not very often...but sometimes.

We would have to discuss very often and sometimes so let us skip it.

Another bit from Wikipedia, a satisfactory answer to your question:

Traditional authority, which derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another, then it is known as traditional authority. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example.

It is a very unfair tradition. How can you NOT understand that women have a problem with it?

With the exception of societies that practise matriarchy, the emboldened bits is the reason why authority rests on the husband by default.
It didn't start happening today, and just because that role is not traditionally bestowed on women does not mean they are inferior.

Yeah, and the killing of twins and female circumcision were also justified in the name of tradition. Monarchy was justified in the name of tradition and religion.

To sum it up, you justify male authority in families with tradition, which is not a good reason because if it was, we would still have to practice the killing of twins and female circumcision and to maintain monarchies.

I know you will continue to sugarcoat and to justify male authority and supremacy or like you like to call it ascendancy in families because the system favors you. It's human nature to defend a privileged position.

crackhaus:

You can't tell her/HIM what to do, but you can deliberate on things during meetings before most decisions are reached.




You mean children should see parents argue and deliberate over decisions? Sorry, I do not agree...this point thus ends here.


A woman in charge of her family is a lot more dominating and controlling than a man who is. Fact!


No such thing as shared power of final decision where two people are involved, one person will have to compromise.
The point is regardless of who compromises, the power of final decision rests on the man.


@emboldened, funny how you now see a scenario where kids should not witness arguments or advice between parents.
Your first example is also not wise. Children should not see one parent argue, advice, or go against the other no matter the scenario...full stop!


I don't know if it's a case of your psyche, but patriarchy does not mean women are inferior. This is the excuse bitter feminists base their arguments on because they hate male-dominated societies.


If you think patriarchy is the cause of this, then therein lies your problem.
That you read one or two stories of men who did it does not make it the norm. Plenty polygamous homes have existed and will continue to exist where the women in it live in peaceful coexistence.


I already gave you the underlying premise behind inheritance, I don't know what you're saying here.
Again I ask, what does a woman getting married into another family want with her father's property?


Not many.
I doubt if any man will send his faithful, loyal, and beautiful wife out of a house they built together from scratch.


You will learn that they do soon enough, two people do not occupy the exact same position and share an exact equal amount of power at the exact same time.

There's always a hierarchy no matter how equal it seems on the outside.


He is a man, he proposed, the woman drops her name to adopt his, he is the figure head in that marriage, he is the leader by hierarchy...this gives him a little more power.

It has been this way for ages and will continue to be, so get with the programme.


Because we are men, deal with it.

Over 2000years of growth and civilization has made it so. You can ask your bf to marry into your family, bear your surname, and acquire your property if that's how you want it...good luck with that and in finding a man who will agree to it


Her husband's property is not hers, but her father's own is? Explain this logic to me please

I thought you were one of those who said on some thread a while ago that a man's property is also his wife's by reason of marriage?
What is this one you're saying now?


All emboldened are your words not mine.

Like I hinted before, rid and purge yourself of the notion that all men see women as inferior...whatever got your psyche to this point is something I'm still trying to figure out.

I'm yet to see a man who has ever won an arguement with a lady . The mind of a lady consists of an infinity of wrong, no wonder our forefathers never wanted to tap from their 'intelligence.' I would acknowledge it if you are writing for fun cos arguing with a lady is like pouring petrol to fire. Arguement to ladies like carefreewannabe is like you are oppressing them.
They are quick to result to abuse and self denial, once they can't stand on logical ground. Best thing is to argue to logical conclusion and let facts speak for themselves. MABTW!!!

Misogynist2014:
I'm yet to see a man who has ever won an arguement with a lady . The mind of a lady consists of an infinity of wrong, no wonder our forefathers never wanted to tap from their 'intelligence.' I would acknowledge it if you are writing for fun cos arguing with a lady is like pouring petrol to fire. Arguement to ladies like carefreewannabe is like you are oppressing them.
They are quick to result to abuse and self denial, once they can't stand on logical ground. Best thing is to argue to logical conclusion and let facts speak for themselves. MABTW!!!

Who says so?

I can't remember feeling oppressed by Crackhaus.

carefreewannabe:


Who says so?

I can't remember feeling oppressed by Crackhaus.

And I do not intend to oppress you either

Your reply is seen and noted.
The summary is that you see patriarchy as unfair to women, this is one extreme. I see it as reasonable because it is a system that ensures order and does not seek to disregard or make women feel interior, this premise is thus an opposite to yours.

Seeing as we may never converge in what we believe patriarchy to be, it's better we agree to disagree, or better still, find a common ground on which we can both comfortably stand.

Patriarchy is not as evil you make it seem, at least not by my reckoning. Cheers!

Misogynist2014:
I'm yet to see a man who has ever won an arguement with a lady . The mind of a lady consists of an infinity of wrong, no wonder our forefathers never wanted to tap from their 'intelligence.' I would acknowledge it if you are writing for fun cos arguing with a lady is like pouring petrol to fire. Arguement to ladies like carefreewannabe is like you are oppressing them.
They are quick to result to abuse and self denial, once they can't stand on logical ground. Best thing is to argue to logical conclusion and let facts speak for themselves. MABTW!!!

What does MABTW stand for?

crackhaus:



What does MABTW stand for?

Men are better than women

Those are men haters not feminists. They are two different things

Misogynist2014:
Men are better than women

Lol...easy oo.

crackhaus:

And I do not intend to oppress you either

I know. I assume you have good intentions.

Your reply is seen and noted.
The summary is that you see patriarchy as unfair to women, this is one extreme. I see it as reasonable because it is a system that ensures order and does not seek to disregard or make women feel interior, this premise is thus an opposite to yours.

I understand.

Seeing as we may never converge in what we believe patriarchy to be, it's better we agree to disagree, or better still, find a common ground on which we can both comfortably stand.

Agreed to disagree.

Patriarchy is not as evil you make it seem, at least not by my reckoning. Cheers!

Ok.

Power is intoxicating. That is why there are checks and balances in every sane establishment to avoid tyranny, despotism and dictatorship. Now the question is who checks patriarchy? And how can the so called 'subjects' under the auspices of patriarchy be protected? Are the subjects eternally doomed to the whims and caprices of the 'leader' in a system that has proven many a time without reasonable doubt to have been intoxicated with power, by controlling and dehumanizing the sensibilities of what constitutes a major and very important half of the human race? What rights do these 'subjects' have? Are these rights set in stone, in law- signed and dotted in countries like Nigeria that is being ruled by men and being destroyed by men (I have to add)? No human being should be trusted with power, so there's an absolute need for a check and balance system to protect the rights of the so called 'subjects' in this system of governance called Patriarchy.

Feminism checks this. Just as congress does not give Obama rest, so will feminism. Womanhood must be protected at all cost in a patriarchal system!

Long live feminism! Viva Feminism!

Stillfire:
Power is intoxicating. That is why there are checks and balances in every sane establishment to avoid tyranny, despotism and dictatorship. Now the question is who checks patriarchy? And how can the so called 'subjects' under the auspices of patriarchy be protected? Are the subjects eternally doomed to the whims and caprices of the 'leader' in a system that has proven many a time without reasonable doubt to have been intoxicated with power, by controlling and dehumanizing the sensibilities of what constitutes a major and very important half of the human race? What rights do these 'subjects' have? Are these rights set in stone, in law- signed and dotted in countries like Nigeria that is being ruled by men and being destroyed by men (I have to add)? No human being should be trusted with power, so there's an absolute need for a check and balance system to protect the rights of the so called 'subjects' in this system of governance called Patriarchy.

Feminism checks this. Just as congress does not give Obama rest, so will feminism. Womanhood must be protected at all cost in a patriarchal system!

Long live feminism! Viva Feminism!

Bwahahaha!!!

I simply cannot pass by without giving this the standing ovation it deserves!!

ileobatojo:


Bwahahaha!!!

I simply cannot pass by without giving this the standing ovation it deserves!!

*Thank you, thank you, daalu, ose, obrigado, danke, *

I look at women who don't see the benefits that they have been allowed because of the efforts of feminist as ungrateful betrayers.

It's one thing to say you don't support radicals(like I don't)
It's another thing to say you don't support entirely the movement that gave you the freedom to even be heard in the first place.

Stillfire:
Power is intoxicating. That is why there are checks and balances in every sane establishment to avoid tyranny, despotism and dictatorship. Now the question is who checks patriarchy? And how can the so called 'subjects' under the auspices of patriarchy be protected? Are the subjects eternally doomed to the whims and caprices of the 'leader' in a system that has proven many a time without reasonable doubt to have been intoxicated with power, by controlling and dehumanizing the sensibilities of what constitutes a major and very important half of the human race? What rights do these 'subjects' have? Are these rights set in stone, in law- signed and dotted in countries like Nigeria that is being ruled by men and being destroyed by men (I have to add)? No human being should be trusted with power, so there's an absolute need for a check and balance system to protect the rights of the so called 'subjects' in this system of governance called Patriarchy.

Feminism checks this. Just as congress does not give Obama rest, so will feminism. Womanhood must be protected at all cost in a patriarchal system!

Long live feminism! Viva Feminism!

cococandy:
I look at women who don't see the benefits that they have been allowed because of the efforts of feminist as ungrateful betrayers.

It's one thing to say you don't support radicals(like I don't)
It's another thing to say you don't support entirely the movement that gave you the freedom to even be heard in the first place.

Benefits of feminism in Nigeria Pls, I beg of you to list them.

Stillfire:


*Thank you, thank you, daalu, ose, obrigado, danke, *

Give me one thing you have benefited from feminism?










If only I never knew you are looking for cheap popularity(also a cheap means to chat on NL) like carefreewannabe, who couldn't tell Mysogynist2014 a single oppression she has faced as a lady in Nigeria; I would have called you a fööl for being a troll.


















I just pray Mysogynist2014 comes back from maclatunji's meaningless religion suspension and pounce on unscrupulous commodities like you.

crackhaus:

You can't tell her/HIM what to do, but you can deliberate on things during meetings before most decisions are reached.




You mean children should see parents argue and deliberate over decisions? Sorry, I do not agree...this point thus ends here.


A woman in charge of her family is a lot more dominating and controlling than a man who is. Fact!


No such thing as shared power of final decision where two people are involved, one person will have to compromise.
The point is regardless of who compromises, the power of final decision rests on the man.


@emboldened, funny how you now see a scenario where kids should not witness arguments or advice between parents.
Your first example is also not wise. Children should not see one parent argue, advice, or go against the other no matter the scenario...full stop!


I don't know if it's a case of your psyche, but patriarchy does not mean women are inferior. This is the excuse bitter feminists base their arguments on because they hate male-dominated societies.


If you think patriarchy is the cause of this, then therein lies your problem.
That you read one or two stories of men who did it does not make it the norm. Plenty polygamous homes have existed and will continue to exist where the women in it live in peaceful coexistence.


I already gave you the underlying premise behind inheritance, I don't know what you're saying here.
Again I ask, what does a woman getting married into another family want with her father's property?


Not many.
I doubt if any man will send his faithful, loyal, and beautiful wife out of a house they built together from scratch.


You will learn that they do soon enough, two people do not occupy the exact same position and share an exact equal amount of power at the exact same time.

There's always a hierarchy no matter how equal it seems on the outside.


He is a man, he proposed, the woman drops her name to adopt his, he is the figure head in that marriage, he is the leader by hierarchy...this gives him a little more power.

It has been this way for ages and will continue to be, so get with the programme.


Because we are men, deal with it.

Over 2000years of growth and civilization has made it so. You can ask your bf to marry into your family, bear your surname, and acquire your property if that's how you want it...good luck with that and in finding a man who will agree to it


Her husband's property is not hers, but her father's own is? Explain this logic to me please

I thought you were one of those who said on some thread a while ago that a man's property is also his wife's by reason of marriage?
What is this one you're saying now?


All emboldened are your words not mine.

Like I hinted before, rid and purge yourself of the notion that all men see women as inferior...whatever got your psyche to this point is something I'm still trying to figure out.

Guy you get time o. I guess you are just using feminism as a means of chatting cos feminism has little or no effect in Nigeria. I'm sure it has no effect on you.

Emmalot121:
Guy you get time o. I guess you are just using feminism as a means of chatting cos feminism has little or no effect in Nigeria. I'm sure it has no effect on you.

Lol...just wanted to have a conversation with NL's self-professed feminists.

Emmalot121:
Give me one thing you have benefited from feminism?

If only I never knew you are looking for cheap popularity(also a cheap means to chat on NL) like carefreewannabe, who couldn't tell Mysogynist2014 a single oppression she has faced as a lady in Nigeria; I would have called you a fööl for being a troll.



I just pray Mysogynist2014 comes back from maclatunji's meaningless religion suspension and pounce on unscrupulous commodities like you.

So this is what you could come up with after my calculated and well thought out analysis? I will call you daft, for being an lousy, fish-brained imbe.cile.