crackhaus:

You're missing the point. Yes it is sexist to want to place standards on what women should wear.

So your next action to show anger at sexism is to go to a traditional meeting (which no one forced you to attend) wearing something that is against the sexist dress code for same meeting?
This is how enlightened people go about fighting sexism eh?

Clap for yourself.

bukatyne:


First you nothing about me and people who do know that I will NOT show up wherever I find the rules obnoxious.

An association by whoever gave a rule that women shouldn't wear trousers and a woman decides to wear trousers there?

She is so unwise.

I haven't seen anywhere where it was clearly stated that not wearing trousers were in the rules of the meetings. Seems arbitrary and driven by typical African male misogyny. Very common among old men.

And hell yeah, any sister who is an activist is entitled to show up at such meetings. Civil disobedience is morally righteous and inspires change.

Everything won in the civil rights movements in the Western world, and independence movements around many colonial territories were accomplished by such people who fought legalized injustice by refusing to play by the rules and demanding better and fairer and just treatment.

Obi1kenobi:

I haven't seen anywhere where it was clearly stated that not wearing trousers were in the rules of the meetings. Seems arbitrary and driven by typical African male misogyny. Very common among old men.

Now you're just reaching into your magic hat to grab anything you can use to back your angle.

Who doesn't know that you go to traditional meetings dressed in accepted traditional regalia?

And hell yeah, any sister who is an activist is entitled to show up at such meetings. Civil disobedience is morally righteous and inspires change.

Civil disobedience works perfectly when it comes to opposing government policies where citizens have no choice but to live within the borders of the state whose policies they find unfavorable... but in your rush to reach into your magic hat, you completely forgot that a small traditional gathering of that nature is by choice. She and other women can choose not to attend the meeting (this is actually how people register complaint/protest in this case), which is in complete contrast to what civil disobedience entails in a society where one has no choice but to live in.

Everything won in the civil rights movements in the Western world, and independence movements around many colonial territories were accomplished by such people who fought legalized injustice by refusing to play by the rules and demanding better and fairer and just treatment.

Please don't stop at just traditional meetings.

Why not insist that women wear trousers/makeup to churches that don't allow trousers/makeup since you just learned the phrase 'civil disobedience' today without understanding the circumstances where it actually fits.

There are also accepted dress codes for women in work places.
Perhaps you should also insist women should wear whatever they like to their various places of work as a show of civil disobedience because it is sexist to tell them what to wear.

Are you beginning to see your folly yet?

crackhaus:

Now you're just reaching into your magic hat to grab anything you can use to back your angle.

Who doesn't know that you go to traditional meetings dressed in accepted traditional regalia?

So, it wasn't a rule then? Just a social demand one must be compelled to follow? What kind of slave mentality would lead one to accept such a status quo?
And I have gone for such meetings in a shirt and chinos trousers or jeans. I didn't have to go in any "traditional regalia".

Civil disobedience works perfectly when it comes to opposing government policies where citizens have no choice but to live within the borders of the state whose policies they find unfavorable... but in your rush to reach into your magic hat, you completely forgot that a small traditional gathering of that nature is by choice. She and other women can choose not to attend the meeting (this is actually how people register complaint/protest in this case), which is in complete contrast to what civil disobedience entails in a society where one has no choice but to live in.

How can one register complaint/protest about what they find unjust, when they encounter no one to actually register such a protest with? Your civil defence claim about "choice" is absolute horseshiit twaddle. The famous "sit-ins" that were an effective tool of social pressure in the American civil rights movement was based on which "choice"? The participants could have simply gone to black restaurants, diners etc. They chose to protest at white establishments where they were refused service and compelled many of such institutions to break down the discriminatory barriers.
Of course she can "choose" not to attend the meeting. And she can choose to do so. She's justified either way.

Please don't stop at just traditional meetings.

Why not insist that women wear trousers/makeup to churches that don't allow trousers/makeup since you just learned the phrase 'civil disobedience' today without understanding the circumstances where it actually fits.

There are also accepted dress codes for women in work places.
Perhaps you should also insist women should wear whatever they like to their various places of work as a show of civil disobedience because it is sexist to tell them what to wear.

Are you beginning to see your folly yet?

You accept certain conditions on taking up employment: often explicitly codified. As long as you're willing to face the consequences for contravening them, you're more than free to register visible protest against whatever you find oppressive.
There are hundreds to thousands of church denominations you can choose from that accommodate different interests ranging from dress codes to serious issues of sexuality. Comparing that to a socio-cultural umbrella that is to cater to your ethnic group is a deliberately obtuse analogy. There are similarities, but there are considerable disparities that make one case a more compelling avenue to register grievance.
The only "folly" I can see is yours, sunshine. Nice try though, but there is room to try harder.

Obi1kenobi:


You accept certain conditions on taking up employment: often explicitly codified. As long as you're willing to face the consequences for contravening them, you're more than free to register visible protest against whatever you find oppressive.

The only "folly" I can see is yours, sunshine. Nice try though, but there is room to try harder.

I don't need to try harder when I have successfully goaded you into typing what I wanted by throwing the church/workplace analogy at you.

In summary, before she chose to become an active member and partaker in that meeting, she already knew what was considered acceptable.
And by becoming a part of it, she accepted the standards placed on dress codes (In your words, accept certain conditions before ...)

As for facing the consequences, well that's what she'll be doing now that she has been sanctioned .. so please remind me why you've been touting foul play all over the thread since you know she deserves to face consequences for contravening the dress code.

crackhaus:

I don't need to try harder when I have successfully goaded you into typing what I wanted by throwing the church/workplace analogy at you.

In summary, before she chose to become an active member and partaker in that meeting, she already knew what was considered acceptable.
And by becoming a part of it, she accepted the standards placed on dress codes (In your words, accept certain conditions before ...)

As for facing the consequences, well that's what she'll be doing now that she has been sanctioned .. so please remind me why you've been touting foul play all over the thread since you know she deserves to face consequences for contravening the dress code.

And how did you come to that conclusion? Where was it said that she "knew"? You interviewed her, abi?

NavalObi37:
EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH THAT COS THE HOLY BIBLE CONDEMNS SUCH DEUTERONOMY 22:5

did Deuteronomy22:5 tell you trouser is men's clothing?

Obi1kenobi:


And how did you come to that conclusion? Where was it said that she "knew"? You interviewed her, abi?

Oga please stick to being a fan of Star Wars, sequential argumentative debating isn't your forte because you just took us back 500 paces with this question.

I was going to ignore it, but I can't help but humour you one last time.

Let us assume she really didn't 'know'. However;
1. She didn't stop when she was told to stop because of what she put on.
2. She continued to the end of her prayer despite and whilst people walked out to show disapproval.

Which of these two scenarios above can she (or you) effectively use to prove 'plausible deniability'?

ewa26:


Hi hon, is it ok for igbo men to wear shimi underneath their wrapper

That’s for you. It’s alright for OritseFemie innit.

And it’s alright for any other man who needs lining under his wrapper. I’ve told you.

Interesting. Are we seeing Renaissance in "Omenani"?
I noticed a lot of time people avoid saying this word, but "Omenani" might be translated as traditional state charter of laws.

If this is strengthened then there will be a stronger chain of command... as well as maybe a federation of Igbo communities.
Traditional "culture" or "religion/sciences" also came with a structured government that was disrupted by Islam, Christian pastor and pope leadership, Colonization Western miseducated and brainwashed leadership...

If Igbo can pivot to revitalize and reorganize some of the traditional government and laws and sciences that would be great,
I noticed more of the younger generation are trying.

Maybe some laws need to be updated of course, but this is interesting to see as a Black man in the diaspora.