It's so interesting how the first thing that comes to men's minds when they hear feminism is gender roles. It is a harmless ideology yet men are always feeling attacked when they hear the word. As with all ideologies it is open to misinterpretation but this looks more like men are intimidated (cue the talk about physical superiority).
It is quite simply ignorance that makes people feel defensive about it. Get over it my guy, there's so much more to feminism than who pays for what or physical assault such as glass ceilings for women(which they are constantly breaking thank God), harassment and the one that makes me feel uncomfortable the most is the condescending remarks of some guys.

It's a never ending process for me because I am learning and unlearning and so far my understanding is that women should be allowed to have choices in whatever and shouldn't be judged for them just the same way we guys are.

Sapiosexuality:
You see the problem? You are missing the point on purpose. Read that article and get back. Nobody is shifting anything. It is actually a call for justice in handling gender.

holy moses no b u call down syndrome and IQ160 today? abi na dementia?

chineduemmao:
because he is a downs makes him less human abi? hipocricy

I didn't say so. Down Syndrome is a medical condition. Those people Nigerians call 'slowpoke'. Would you make them president seeing their medical condition?

Sapiosexuality:
Lol. Come on. You mean feminists want male list for female's bodies to stop? How? That's why I want to know where your definition of feminism is coming from.

see its better u tutor everybody here what really feminism is to u because de kin nonsense wey dem de claim as feminism de vex me. go youtube you go see them. it seems to me when girls wants to be naughty and crazy sametime de claim feminism.

Sapiosexuality:
I didn't say so. Down Syndrome is a medical condition. Does people Nigerians call 'slowpoke'. Would you make them president seeing their medical condition?

i know what down syndrome is some downs behave normal and more civilised than most girls i tell u QUOTE ME ANYWHERE

chineduemmao:
see its better u tutor everybody here what really feminism is to u because de kin nonsense wey dem de claim as feminism de vex me. go youtube you go see them. it seems to me when girls wants to be naughty and crazy sametime de claim feminism.

I did that in that article. Read it. No too vex. Na so Christianity dey today too. See wetin dey happen for church today. But we go use that one come say Christianity, which is Christ life, na rubbish? How you see am?

chineduemmao:
i know what down syndrome is some downs behave normal and more civilised than most girls i tell u QUOTE ME ANYWHERE

I doubt it. It is very unlikely.

Sapiosexuality:
I doubt it. It is very unlikely.

how do u classyfy an 18 year old DS already a fulfilled photographer that greet u proper brother good morning anywhere anytime and a 16 year old chicken that will keep looking at you like a sheep eh? siblings for dat matter. small girl already a notourious slayer in a neighbourhood. u doubt me? bros girls have problem and this feminism tin is not helping matters.

Sapiosexuality:
I did that in that article. Read it. No too vex. Na so Christianity dey today too. See wetin dey happen for church today. But we go use that one come say Christianity, which is Christ life, na rubbish? How you see am?

dat ur article go wait mak i chop na person way don bellefull de tak feminism. i didn't get ur question about christianity though.

monex:


well marriage is a different ball game as we mostly take our definitions of marriage from religion. In most religions, head of the home does not necessarily mean smartest or that the head does not listen or take advice of others. it simply means responsibility. The leader is not necessarily the smartest. the CEO is not necessarily the smartest in the company.

Equality in dignity and equality in opportunities is what I stand for. I still do not call myself a feminist. I believe the genders are not the same. the genders are unique each with its own natural obligations. however I believe in outliers hence everyone should be afforded the opportunity to be what they want to be.

If a woman wants to go into a male dominated profession, she should be allowed. ditto for a male. if a woman wants to be the head of the home in her marriage, she should simply find a man who shares her sentiments. ditto for man too. No one should be limited by his or her gender but this does not mean we should ignore the fact that the genders are different physiologically and psychologically. everyone should be allowed to be what he or she wants to be as far as it does not affect another.

So if man believes in the concept of primary gender obligations and secondary/helper obligations in marriage, he should find a woman who shares his sentiments. Similarly if a woman believes in equal obligations in marriage, she should simply find a man who shares similar sentiments. the summary is that for marriage, both parties should simply discuss their views on marriage beforehand and agree or stop the relationship.

kai this thing you wrote sweet so much av read it almost 10 Times already infact am coming, let me read it again #madealotofsense

Well, you should correct your list up there, she didnt write any book as blue hibiscus, it's purple hibiscus...

I don't even understand all this fuss about feminism? Is that there is separate laws for women or there's women constitution?

I think women even get some undue favor.... We are equal already in the eye of the law

chineduemmao:
dat ur article go wait mak i chop na person way don bellefull de tak feminism. i didn't get ur question about christianity though.

Lol. No wahala. Chop first. Save the page.

Coldfeets:

Why mention the president?
Why didn't you mention your own father?
Or is he not a man?

Excellent!

Sapiosexuality:

Does your argument imply that we should leave men who think they have a divine right to beat their women to their own decisions?

I said as far as it does not affect another negatively. remember that this is the liberal school of thought that drives even feminism. Beating your wife affects her negatively. I know women who cannot marry a man who is not prepared to be the head of the home.

Are you saying those women do not have a right to think for themselves?

Sapiosexuality:

That is the crux of the matter. We can't reduce it to a subject of preferences

why shouldn't it be reduced to a subject of preferences/interests and the opportunity to pursue those preferences/interests.

As a woman, I want to be anything i want to be - from a CEO of a fortune 500, the president of a nation, a Bus driver, a full time house wife etc. Shouldn't I be allowed to? I shouldn't be forced into a box due to my gender. That's what I understand by the gender equality (equality in opportunities).

Sapiosexuality:

If a man doesn't like equity, we won't go down to his level but 'force' him to rise up.

please give me an example of this - a man that doesn't like equity? I hope you don't mean the man who wants to be responsible for finances while the wife is managing the home and nurturing children? He should have an opportunity to be financial provider and she should have an opportunity to be full time house-wife if that's what he wants and what she wants. do you think this is not equality?

Sapiosexuality:
Yes, their can be both male and female chauvinism but categorising female chauvinism as a brand of feminism is a logical impossibility. It is like saying 'the goat is a bird' in denotative sense. Not metaphorical o!

You know why? Simple. Feminism is for equal rights for capable and qualified sexes while a chauvinist is an antagonist to these rights. It is like calling someone a Christian Muslim, an atheist theist, a married bachelor, a virgin grandma, etc. Except you want to use it as an Oxymoron which is just for entertainment.

Honestly speaking, if you live in countries like Sweden, UK, etc. where I can tell you that power has shifted hands into the hands of women, maybe your overall stance on this issue will change. You do not know what it is to live in a feminist-dominated society and I tell you you would wish for the opposite. In case you do not know, modern-day feminism is all about female superiority. First and second wave feminism, which I do support, were about women's rights to vote and expanded economic opportunities for women. Nowadays, what we have is a gender war between both sexes. You have to be moderate in the way you champion your feminist cause, I am sure you are male.

As for men being the head of the household, this was put in place simply because a man is not only financially capable of protecting the home, but also physically capable. A head of the household, in addition to providing financially, should be able to physically fight off intruders into the home, ward off danger from the home or defend the home from stray animals etc., which men can do but most women cannot or will not do. I do not mean to generalize, but most women will scamper for safety when faced with situations like these, expecting the man to go out and take charge/defend.

Queerlyshrewd:
@joewill thanks for the positive review. I'm open to writers for my blog. You converse well. Reply if you're open to writing so we can publish

I love the way you write. I wouldn't mind being a contributor on your blog

monex:

I said as far as it does not affect another negatively. remember that this is the liberal school of thought that drives even feminism. Beating your wife affects her negatively. I know women who cannot marry a man who is not prepared to be the head of the home.

Are you saying those women do not have a right to think for themselves?

They've got the right to. I'm not on the rights to think for yourself but on the right for healthy thinking. Their are some women who love to be beaten by their men and a make up sex followed afterwards. That is erroneous thinking and because it is your opinion or right doesn't make it right. It shows a worrisome level of mental incapacitation. You don't get beat up and say it doesn't affect you negatively.

monex:



why shouldn't it be reduced to a subject of preferences/interests and the opportunity to pursue those preferences/interests.

As a woman, I want to be anything i want to be - from a CEO of a fortune 500, the president of a nation, a Bus driver, a full time house wife etc. Shouldn't I be allowed to? I shouldn't be forced into a box due to my gender. That's what I understand by the gender equality (equality in opportunities).

We can't because equity and equality is not a matter of subjective thoughts. Like I wrote above, having love for canes and defending it with 'preference' is something we all should worry about. Whatever is right is right no matter how you look at it. It is not a matter of your opinion.

monex:

please give me an example of this - a man that doesn't like equity? I hope you don't mean the man who wants to be responsible for finances while the wife is managing the home and nurturing children? He should have an opportunity to be financial provider and she should have an opportunity to be full time house-wife if that's what he wants and what she wants. do you think this is not equality?

Example of a man who doesn't like equity? In this country? Are you serious? Even on this thread you'd find them. You've not seen men who brag about their divine rights to beat their wives when they mess up? Just two days ago a guy was bragging to me how he(a real man) flogged his girlfriend with belt after she tried slapping him. Does such a person believe in equity?

bigfrancis21:


Honestly speaking, if you live in countries like Sweden, UK, etc. where I can tell you that power has shifted hands into the hands of women, maybe your overall stance on this issue will change. You do not know what it is to live in a feminist-dominated society and I tell you you would wish for the opposite. In case you do not know, modern-day feminism is all about female superiority. First and second wave feminism, which I do support, were about women's rights to vote and expanded economic opportunities for women. Nowadays, what we have is a gender war between both sexes. You have to be moderate in the way you champion your feminist cause, I am sure you are male.

As for men being the head of the household, this was put in place simply because a man is not only financially capable of protecting the home, but also physically capable. A head of the household, in addition to providing financially, should be able to physically fight off intruders into the home, ward off danger from the home or defend the home from stray animals etc., which men can do but most women cannot do. I do not mean to generalize, but most women will scamper for safety when faced with situations like these, expecting the man to go out and take charge/defend.

I get you but the same can be said of modern Christians. They've turned the entire thing to business and worldly possessions and fear and evil wishes inculcated into the system.

I don't think that has changed the ideology of the religion. It did not. Once they begin to have behaviours contrary to the Christian faith, they cannot be said to be representing the religion. The same argument works for Feminism.

What we have is chauvinism and chauvinists claiming to be feminists. They hide under the feminism to throw their disdain on men. The simply want to turn the tides and revenge the atrocities of male chauvinism.

As for physical strength and financial muscle qualifying the head, that argument no longer holds water. Today, families are not run based on who is physically stronger. Homes are not built on physical strength. It made sense in the past but not now.

Women work today too. They struggle like men to have a meaningful financial life. So, the financial doesn't also work because we've evolved mentally and psychologically. The smartest run the world today and not the strongest. Physical quality is no longer useful for survival.

Sapiosexuality:
I get you but the same can be said of modern Christians. They've turned the entire thing to business and worldly possessions and fear and evil wishes inculcated into the system.

I don't think that has changed the ideology of the religion. It did not. Once they begin to have behaviours contrary to the Christian faith, they cannot be said to be representing the religion. The same argument works for Feminism.

What we have is chauvinism and chauvinists claiming to be feminists. They hide under the feminism to throw their disdain on men. The simply want to turn the tides and revenge the atrocities of male chauvinism.

As for physical strength and financial muscle qualifying the head, that argument no longer holds water. Today, families are not run based on who is physically stronger. Homes are not built on physical strength. It made sense in the past but not now.

Women work today too. They struggle like men to have a meaningful financial life. So, the financial doesn't also work because we've evolved mentally and psychologically. The smartest run the world today and not the strongest. Physical quality is no longer useful for survival.

Physical strength and quality are still necessary for survival and they brought us here that we are right now. The very backbone behind every society's survival is still the men. Males are the ones behind power generation, power distribution, building constructions, sewage collection, the police force (still predominantly male, female officers still seek their male counterparts to help subdue arrest victims), the army, manufacturing, oil drilling, technology creation etc. They are able to do this because of their strength combined with intelligence. That is to say that if men decided to take a break for 1 week from these dedicated spheres of our society, the society will feel the brunt dearly and in a few months societal activities will come to a halt. If a war were to break out today, of course it is mostly men that will go out and fight/defend the country. Not women. Why do you think that, despite the enormous peace the world has experienced since world war 2, that every country in the world today still has and maintains an army (made of mostly men by the way) and spend a good chunk of their budget on their army? To physically defend their country in times of war/danger. The world is heading more and more towards peace, however the possibilities of a war are not left out. Where men can survive in disorganized and organized circumstances (think of men fighting wars under the worst of circumstances yet still make it back home towards the end), women, on the other hand, tend to thrive better in well-organized settings with clearly-defined rules and regulations (again, think of our modern-day society built and effectively organized mostly by men). Some people would say, men were borne by women, of course, but the life of each human on earth all started with the father, hence it all goes back to men again. They are the life-force, life-givers etc.

Thus to be an effective head of the family, one need be able to be able to do so financially and physically. If a woman is the breadwinner, she may be the head of the family financially but not physically where the man is still expected to take charge in the event of danger in the house. Let's face the truth. Physical strength is something nature has clearly given men, not women. So far as men are physically stronger than women, and also have higher levels of testosterone, these two factors will continue to give them certain advantages over women in several spheres of life. Let's be honest.

Sapiosexuality:
Feminism is highly misunderstood by most persons. Feminism is simply equality. I think the problem is the use of the prefix 'femi'.

This is feminism: http://www.mortalpoet.com/men-chill-feminism-not-think/

There is nothing like equality between a man and a woman

Sapiosexuality:
They've got the right to. I'm not on the rights to think for yourself but on the right for healthy thinking. Their are some women who love to be beaten by their men and a make up sex followed afterwards. That is erroneous thinking and because it is your opinion or right doesn't make it right. It shows a worrisome level of mental incapacitation. You don't get beat up and say it doesn't affect you negatively.
We can't because equity and equality is not a matter of subjective thoughts. Like I wrote above, having love for canes and defending it with 'preference' is something we all should worry about. Whatever is right is right no matter how you look at it. It is not a matter of your opinion.

Great! so we are back to the question of the existence of an objective truth/good. The idea of an objective truth is an anti-thesis to the concept of liberalism - which is what feminism is based on.

The masochist derives pleasure from pain e.g. being whipped and the Liberal-ist will say the Masochistic person has a right to request pain as a means of his/her satisfaction. It would then be right for her to be beaten (if she requests it) to satisfy her pleasurable desire. The liberal-ist will argue why you think it is wrong when she wants it.We can argue so many things in this fashion.

However, since you believe in the concept of an objective truth, which I agree with, what is the objective definition of equality and equity for all humans?

bigfrancis21:


Physical strength and quality are still necessary for survival and they brought us here that we are right now. The very backbone behind every society's survival is still the men. Males are the ones behind power generation, power distribution, building constructions, sewage collection, the police force (still predominantly male, female officers still seek their male counterparts to help subdue arrest victims), the army, manufacturing, oil drilling, technology creation etc. They are able to do this because of their strength combined with intelligence. That is to say that if men decided to take a break for 1 week from these dedicated spheres of our society, the society will feel the brunt dearly and in a few months societal activities will come to a halt. If a war were to break out today, of course it is mostly men that will go out and fight/defend the country. Not women. Why do you think that, despite the enormous peace the world has experienced since world war 2, that every country in the world today still has and maintains an army (made of mostly men by the way) and spend a good chunk of their budget on their army? To physically defend their country in times of war/danger. The world is heading more and more towards peace, however the possibilities of a war are not left out. Where men can survive in disorganized and organized circumstances (think of men fighting wars under the worst of circumstances yet still make it back home towards the end), women, on the other hand, tend to thrive better in well-organized settings with clearly-defined rules and regulations (again, think of our modern-day society built and effectively organized mostly by men). Some people would say, men were borne by women, of course, but the life of each human on earth all started with the father, hence it all goes back to men again. They are the life-force, life-givers etc.

Thus to be an effective head of the family, one need be able to be able to do so financially and physically. If a woman is the breadwinner, she may be the head of the family financially but not physically where the man is still expected to take charge in the event of danger in the house. Let's face the truth. Physical strength is something nature has clearly given men, not women. So far as men are physically stronger than women, and also have higher levels of testosterone, these two factors will continue to give them certain advantages over women in several spheres of life. Let's be honest.

This is a machine age. Men who do the most physical work work for men who have the most creative energy. He is often out of shape with zero physical strength but he controls men and women who are that powerful. What does that tell you? We are in the era of the mind.
The world has changed. Physical strength is no longer the determinant of strength. The intellectual age has changed everything.

I'm not arguing who's more physically stronger but that we've evolved to a period where physical strength is not the criteria for heading a home. In the past because of the crudity of man it made sense. But not anymore. We have evolved. What advantage does the Anthony Joshua have over Bill Gates? That's too much. What advantage does Beyonce's bouncers have over her? We've experiened an evolution of the mind.

olabrad:


There is nothing like equality between a man and a woman

Yeah. Not even between men.

Sapiosexuality:
This is a machine age. Men who do the most physical work work for men who have the most creative energy. He is often out of shape with zero physical strength but he controls men and women who are that powerful. What does that tell you? We are in the era of the mind.
The world has changed. Physical strength is no longer the determinant of strength. The intellectual age has changed everything.

I'm not arguing who's more physically stronger but that we've evolved to a period where physical strength is not the criteria for heading a home. In the past because of the crudity of man it made sense. But not anymore. We have evolved. What advantage does the Anthony Joshua have over Bill Gates? That's too much. What advantage does Beyonce's bouncers have over her? We've experiened an evolution of the mind.

It’s funny watching guys go all feminist like you’re looking out for yourself.

I support gender equality and no one’s above the other but there’s no getting away from or cheating biology. There are things that naturally come to men that women would have a hard time doing and things that women naturally do better than men. Physical strength’s at the backbone of human survival (as Frankie said) and that’s mostly down the work of men. There’s other things women do that we men just can’t compete with. There’s tons of people across the board who defy the expectation but as a whole both genders are blessed with strengths and weaknesses. No on/ above the other, we’re just made to compliment each other. I agree that everyone should be a feminist at base level but we’ve got our differences. No escaping biology.

I hope you ain’t a pussy-ass nigga who supports radical feminism because you’re not strong or don’t live up to your gender expectation.

Coldfeets:

Why mention the president?
Why didn't you mention your own father?
Or is he not a man?

nh u sabi

monex:


Great! so we are back to the question of the existence of an objective truth/good. The idea of an objective truth is an anti-thesis to the concept of liberalism - which is what feminism is based on.

The masochist derives pleasure from pain e.g. being whipped and the Liberal-ist will say the Masochistic person has a right to request pain as a means of his/her satisfaction. It would then be right for her to be beaten (if she requests it) to satisfy her pleasurable desire. The liberal-ist will argue why you think it is wrong when she wants it.We can argue so many things in this fashion.

However, since you believe in the concept of an objective truth, which I agree with, what is the objective definition of equality and equity for all humans?

I don't think the feminist is liberal in that context of masochism. S/he simply wants the freedom to express the self in the fullest capacity. Her liberalism doesn't take the shine out of another person or people. It is founded on logic and truth and some political ideology.

The expression, with respect to the anatomy and physiological features, of a sex, is the objective definition of equality and equity. The woman doesn't have less brain cells and thus shouldn't be relegated in matters involving brain power. The woman has less strength and shouldn't be saddled with works where this function is key.

She shouldn't be head simply because she has same physical featured for that problem but because it is lacking in her man or because she has shown to have more of it. The man should be head in matters of brainstorming not because of that created 'pride' but because he has shown to be more capable in that area.

Probz:


It’s funny watching guys go all feminist like you’re looking out for yourself.

I support gender equality and no one’s above the other but there’s no getting away from or cheating biology. There are things that naturally come to men that women would have a hard time doing and things that women naturally do better than men. Physical strength’s at the backbone of human survival (as Frankie said) and that’s mostly down the work of men. There’s other things women do that we men just can’t compete with. There’s tons of people across the board who defy the expectation but as a whole both genders are blessed with strengths and weaknesses. No on/ above the other, we’re just made to compliment each other. I agree that everyone should be a feminist at base level but we’ve got our differences. No escaping biology.

I hope you ain’t a pussy-ass nigga who supports radical feminism because you’re not strong or don’t live up to your gender expectation.

Very good. Good points. I agree that physical strength was the backbone of our survival in the past but not anymore. Physical strength is no longer the tools we need to succeed and survive. Physical strength helped us build crude tools but it was an awakening of mental strength that changed everything. Newton, Einstein, P.C Dirac, Marie Curie, Leo Szilard, Roentgen, Rutherford, etc., contributed in changing that.

Sapiosexuality:
Very good. Good points. I agree that physical strength was the backbone of our survival in the past but not anymore. Physical strength is no longer the tools we need to succeed and survive. Physical strength helped us build crude tools but it was an awakening of mental strength that changed everything. Newton, Einstein, P.C Dirac, Marie Curie, Leo Szilard, Roentgen, Rutherford, etc., contributed in changing that.

I get what you’re saying still. Each gender does certain things better than the other on average but no one’s above the other. I just see everyone as equal and leave it at that. I don’t get sucked into all this feminism wahala.

Probz:


I get what you’re saying still. Each gender does certain things better than the other on average but no one’s above the other. I just see everyone as equal and leave it at that. I don’t get sucked into all this feminism wahala.

Okay.

ivolt:


Which law is that?

in.most Western countries if a couple get divorced the woman gets half of the property even if she didn't. Work with her husband to get it. Look at Monaco fc's owner for example.yet feminists.preach equality. But wen it comes to money sharing they are quick to announc their female status as basis to get more.

Olumaeme:
I don't even understand all this fuss about feminism? Is that there is separate laws for women or there's women constitution?

I think women even get some undue favor.... We are equal already in the eye of the law

Yes, just like black and white people are all equal in countries that are predominantly white, what's all this fuss about racism? The Law is all that matters? why do we complain about crime? it's not allowed under the law, so what's the problem?