sinaj:
I wnt let anyone steal it.

Wish you a lovely week

same here love...

I seriously don't understand how some of us think. Are you Hilary Clinton? She herself has replied intelligently and stated her opinion. Warris ur own?

sinaj:
Smh!

She lost it this time.

She will preach feminism from her co-husband husband's home while her ignorant follower's home get broken nd some still single because of feminism

If she isnt a proud wife nd a mother, let her leave Mrs Clinton to her choice. After all the so called feminism is about following ur choice.
Family should always come first b4 anything.

Dnt coman put sand in anoda person's garri

Fashblonder:
I seriously don't understand how some of us think. Are you Hilary Clinton? She herself has replied intelligently and stated her opinion. Warris ur own?

she shouldnt shove it down people's throat.
Its sicknening.

obieblaq1:
Adichie don't make me lose my respect for you.

Be warned!

Your feminism is is gradually becoming corrupted with stupidity!

lol. no be fight o bro but she has really lost a lot of fans with this issue. never expected such from her. its funny i used to think she was the image of true feminism in nigeria. i mean how did she manage to face her husband after such comment from her.

Xisnin:


How does the society benefits by a woman calling herself "wife"?

lol seriously guy what are you saying. your question does not deserve any answer.

Xisnin:


You did not address my question.
How does the society benefits by a woman calling herself a "wife"?
All you stated were the roles of a wife which everyone already knows.

More specifically, how does the society benefits by a woman, using wife instead of
professional title on twitter?

. You are wickedt!

I read my submission and realized that myself but just couldn'lt be bothered correcting it. C'mon, im a lazy youth!

In truth, "wife" is a title. Wife confers territorial posession and space ownership. Humans are territorial and posessive. Unmarked spaces and territories breed conflict and damage to social values. There will be tresspasers, Simple!

Socially, if we are going to do with wife what we did to Mrs., we should also be prepared for consequences, paricularly in public space and coworking locations, that come with the displacement.

After Mrs. was displaced for instance workplace sexual harrassment surged and laws had to be hurriedly put in place to protect women generally, married or not.

Xisnin:

Please point out the straw man and not gloss over it to make a point.

Since you asked, here's what the lady dominique wrote:

dominique:


Emancipate us from what exactly? Identifying one's self as a wife?

The clear implication of dominique's comment is that identifying as a wife doesn't make her less of a person.


Here's your response

Xisnin:

No, thinking not identifying yourself as a wife on twitter makes you a bad wife.

You somehow managed to create a bad wife strawman. Something that was never argued for. Dominique never told anyone that if they didn't identify as wife on twitter, then they would make a bad wife. She only implied that she would be no less a person if she identified as a wife. These are completely different arguments.

Xisnin:

Chimamanda asked a question/made a suggestion, I don't see any reason why people
are foaming in the mouth.
Have you ever commented on another person's choice, then you are not different from
Chimamanda, you are just too close-minded on other issues.

Okay, you didn't do badly here. There was an unmentioned premise behind my earlier comment on Chimamanda which I am going to state very clearly now: The modern feminist movement is authoritarian, not much different from a traditional religion or a cult. Hence comments made within the context of feminism can hardly be viewed as mere suggestions. The mainstream feminist assumes the role of moral authority, and would love a dictatorship that permits only feminist thinking. This can be seen in the many incidences of feminists and their supporters employing mob outrage and shaming tactics to silence divergent views. It is this sort of "moral" (actually sanctimonious) indignation that can motivate Chimamanda to tell Hillary that she was "a little bit upset" about Hillary's personal choices.

I differ very much for Chimamanda with my comments. I hope you will be able to see the nuance here. I respect people's personal choices and stand strongly in opposition to authoritarian movements. I do not speak within the context of any authoritarian movement, which makes the people I argue with safe from the damning effects of mob outrage. I am a "live and let live" kind of person, as long as other people's rights are not violated. Naturally, I will speak out when I find statements/comments that can potentially violate that idea of "live and let live". Hence my stance against Chimamanda and the coercive feminist collectivism she espouses. You know too little about me to make that verdict of close-mindedness. Another logical fallacy committed - hasty conclusion.

Issakendrick:
A writer and advocate for gender equality "Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie" confronted former US First Lady and US presidential aspirant "Hillary Clinton" on her Twitter bio in which she identifies herself first as a "wife".

While interviewing Hillary Clinton at a PEN World Voices Festival lecture at the Cooper Union in Manhattan on Sunday night, Chimamanda asked the former Democratic presidential candidate why, with all her career accomplishments, she chose to be primarily identified in her Twitter bio as a "Wife."

Chimamanda said:

In your Twitter account, the first word that describes you is ‘Wife.’ And then I think it’s ‘Mom,’ and then it’s ‘Grandmother'. And when I saw that, I have to confess that I felt just a little bit upset. And then I went and I looked at your husband’s Twitter account, and the first word was not ‘husband.’

Bill Clinton’s Twitter bio leads with, "Founder, Clinton Foundation and 42nd President of the United States." There was no mention of his marital status, neither did he add that he's a father.

Adichie said she wanted to know if it was Clinton’s choice to first identify in relation to her husband, and if so, why.

And Hillary Clinton replied:

When you put it like that, I’m going to change it.

Clinton's response prompted roars from the crowd. But she had a good explanation for why she started by describing herself as a "Wife" in her Twitter bio. She said that women should be able to celebrate both their accomplishments and their relationships. She told a story about hearing the former US First Lady, late Barbara Bush speak at Wellesley in the early 1990s.

Quoting Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton said:

She said, you know, at the end of the day, it won’t matter if you got a raise, it won’t matter if you wrote a great book, if you are not also someone who values relationships.

And though Barbara Bush got a standing ovation after that speech, Hillary Clinton told Chimamanda Adichie and the PEN crowd she’s not sure Bush was right.

Clinton said:

It shouldn’t be either/or. It should be that if you are someone who is defining yourself by what you do and what you accomplish, and that is satisfying, then more power to you. That is how you should be thinking about your life, and living it. If you are someone who primarily defines your life in relationship to others, then more power to you, and live that life the way Barbara Bush lived that life, and how proud she was to do it.

But I think most of us as women in today’s world end up in the middle. Wanting to have relationships, wanting to invest in them, nurture them, but also pursuing our own interests.

Source:
http://www.nairaplus.com/2018/04/chimamanda-adichie-questions-hillary.html

Why 9ja ladies dey always carry feminism for head like gala? All this their shakara for here, they den mellow down for abroad as 9ja guys get options who kon nice and fine to boot. Indian girls dey, Philipino girls dey, Chinko girls dey, Southern Africa girls dey, Canadian girls dey. Just dey yarn Wetin I dey see about 9ja ladies o but no be all be like that sha.

Afam4eva:

I felt it was stupid for Chimamanda to reprimand Clinton for using the moniker "wife" on her instagram account but after a brief thought, i realized where she was coming from. It's like women are born and prepared to be someone's wife and mother while men get to be more than that. Why should women profess being a spouse and men seldom do it? Yes, there are men who do it, but they're in the minority.

Profess in what context? Even in rural Africa where patriachy and polygamy is very strong, the men in question still takes pride in projecting their polygamous status. Nigerian men of this generation pray and look forward to have a grand wedding with their fiances. I am sure they don't do that with the intention to hide their status from the public afterward. Responsible men are proud to "profess" their marital status.

I will say unequivocally that Chimamanda insulted the person of Mrs Clinton with the unthoughtful question. She sounded like a home breaker. The truth has to be said. I won't shield her, regardless of the fact that her village borders mine.

read more INTERESTING STORY HERR
www.emperorblog.com.ng

read more INTERESTING STORY HERR
www.emperorblog.com.ng

GiantParrot:



Since you asked, here's what the lady dominique wrote:

The clear implication of dominique's comment is that identifying as a wife doesn't make her less of a person.

No , the clear implication of her comment is that Hillary is right by default(wife first) and Chimamanda's
comment were nonsensical and unnecessary. "Not making her less of a person" was entirely your invention
because her first post on the front page clearly show her position to feminism(wahala people).

Here's your response

You somehow managed to create a bad wife strawman. Something that was never argued for. Dominique never told anyone that if they didn't identify as wife on twitter, then they would make a bad wife. She only implied that she would be no less a person if she identified as a wife. These are completely different arguments.

The problem is that you jumped into the middle of a back and forth. I never quoted dominique
to begin with she quoted my reply to another lady who conflated Chimamanda's writing success
with her feminist views.

"Emancipate us from what" is clearly stating that her position of women being primarily seen as
a wife cannot be improved upon and those who try are deviants from the true path.
From my little knowledge, deviants against any traditional belief are bad models, it isn't far fetch
to think that ladies like Chimamanda belong to the bad wife category.

If you have followed the thread closely, you would have seen many responses warning single
women to ignore Chimamanda's posturing or they risk perpetual spinsterhood because no man
wants a bad wife.

Okay, you didn't do badly here. There was an unmentioned premise behind my earlier comment on Chimamanda which I am going to state very clearly now: The modern feminist movement is authoritarian, not much different from a traditional religion or a cult. Hence comments made within the context of feminism can hardly be viewed as mere suggestions. The mainstream feminist assumes the role of moral authority, and would love a dictatorship that permits only feminist thinking. This can be seen in the many incidences of feminists and their supporters employing mob outrage and shaming tactics to silence divergent views. It is this sort of "moral" (actually sanctimonious) indignation that can motivate Chimamanda to tell Hillary that she was "a little bit upset" about Hillary's personal choices.

To be authoritarian, you need authority to enforce your rule and a canon, unfortunately, I have never
seen or heard of someone been arrested or interrogated by feminist police. Where is the feminist bible
and who enforces their authoritarian "laws" using which authority?

I differ very much for Chimamanda with my comments. I hope you will be able to see the nuance here. I respect people's personal choices and stand strongly in opposition to authoritarian movements. I do not speak within the context of any authoritarian movement, which makes the people I argue with safe from the damning effects of mob outrage. I am a "live and let live" kind of person, as long as other people's rights are not violated. Naturally, I will speak out when I find statements/comments that can potentially violate that idea of "live and let live". Hence my stance against Chimamanda and the coercive feminist collectivism she espouses. You know too little about me to make that verdict of close-mindedness. Another logical fallacy committed - hasty conclusion.

Isn't it ironic that the person suffering from mob outrage here is supposedly part of the authoritarian crew?
To really get a perfect world you want to live in, you will need a state that ban any form of speaking for or
against the status quo, even North Korea isn't that extreme.

If feminism were a crime, Hillary will be in jail. She is not some innocent Mississipi Bible-thumping woman who is
being harassed by "authoritarian" feminists. The interview was between two feminists who voluntarily chose to
interact with each other.

Chimamanda is no more being coercive than any of your friends who ever suggested a contrary view
to the one you previously held. Do you jump and call him all sort of names for being coercive and
authoritarian when you can easily cut off the relationship with the "abuser"?
Do you think it makes sense that some people jump into your defence to malign that "stupid" friend
who don't want to live and let live?

As to your live and let live beliefs, the world would still be in stone age if some visionaries had not challenge
the status quo through their words and writings. Remember those coercive and authoritarian abolitionist
who didn't allow businessmen to enjoy their lives in peace?

How about those unmarried spinsters and cuckhold men, as they were derisively taunted, who were championing women
suffrage when most women at that time don't want to vote and want to be left alone, why were they pointing guns at womens'
head and telling them vote or die?

Some rotten set of modern day feminists, those arrogant lots, even think a girl should be as educated
as the boy child, why can't they just shut up and let parent train their kids whichever way they choose?

The worse set of them feminists even think there is nothing wrong if a fellow feminist identify first as
a professional and not a wife, I mean what kind of a devil and authoritarian feminist even raise such
issues to begin with?

I believe there are no fully open minded or close minded people, a persons posture usually depend on the
issues being concerned. Perhaps you are open minded about every other issue but you clearly aren't comfortable with
this one.

sassysure:
The lady knows what she is doing.
Feminism is a welcome development in the west as lgtb. Support any of the two and see yourself soar high.

That's a smart lady out there.

Thank GOD someone is seeing things from my point of view too. That's my exact opinion. She simply wants to ride the wave of feminism, pro-LGBT and secular humanism.
Shame.

Interesting Enjoy other interesting stories on Tushstories via

www.tushstories.com

#Read!

iRepNaija1:


You're focusing on the wrong thing and you know it. The point is that generally women seem to emphasis their status as mothers and wives because they are conditioned from a young age to aspire to marriage. They are taught that marriage and family are the ultimate goal. Men, on the other hand, are taught that their ultimate goal is financial success because that is tied to their ego, how they're perceived, and how others respect them.

You're not making sense to me, Hilary Clinton is an enlightened and educated woman who has achieved what many men can't even achieve in their lifetime , she has aspired for and achieved success both politically and financially so this is clearly not about her being conditioned to aspire to marriage. Clinton made a self conscious decision to describe herself as a wife and mother because she values those aspects of her life and for chimamanda to go prying into her private space and passing judgment on her is just utterly disgraceful. Obama describes himself as a dad and husband on his own bio, was he also conditioned to aspire to marriage? Please stop defending chimamanda's stupidity and call a spade a spade. Everyone should have a right to freedom of expression without having judgemental, know-it- all idiots like chimamanda poke nosing into their private space

This is going to be a very lengthy one

Xisnin:

No , the clear implication of her comment is that Hillary is right by default(wife first) and Chimamanda's
comment were nonsensical and unnecessary. "Not making her less of a person" was entirely your invention
because her first post on the front page clearly show her position to feminism(wahala people).

The problem is that you jumped into the middle of a back and forth. I never quoted dominique
to begin with she quoted my reply to another lady who conflated Chimamanda's writing success
with her feminist views.

"Emancipate us from what" is clearly stating that her position of women being primarily seen as
a wife cannot be improved upon and those who try are deviants from the true path.
From my little knowledge, deviants against any traditional belief are bad models, it isn't far fetch
to think that ladies like Chimamanda belong to the bad wife category.

If you have followed the thread closely, you would have seen many responses warning single
women to ignore Chimamanda's posturing or they risk perpetual spinsterhood because no man
wants a bad wife.

That you were engaged in a back and forth argument with dominique and some other person is no valid excuse for logical inconsistency. I am going to employ Aristotlelian logic here by referring to statements that were made when presenting my conclusions.

dominique:
Her biography, her business. Do your own bio and present it however you like.

Premise: dominique is an advocate of live and let live.

dominique:
These feminists and their wahala sef

Conclusion: In light of premise 1, feminist do not want to let people be, therefore they are wahala people. This is logically consistent.I would like to see any possible logical flaws in the premise and conclusion.

It is logically unsound from dominique's writings to bring up women being primarily seen as a wife and not being able to improve that. This is a non-sequitur argument because it does not follow from the premise (live and let live).

dominique:

Emancipate us from what exactly? Identifying one's self as a wife?

Premise 1: The word "Emancipate" is typically used in the context of liberation from slavery. It is not uncommon to find feminist understandably treat earlier traditional forms of marriage as akin to slavery for women. At some point a woman was even seen as her husband's property.
Premise 2: A slave is historically seen as less than a person
Premise 3: The tone of the "Identifying oneself" statement, and its proximity to the emancipation question, suggests that in spite of historical traditions, dominique may not view a wife today as a slave
Conclusion: based on premises 1, 2 & 3, dominique thinks she would be no less a person if she identified as a wife. If I am wrong here, then I’ll be happy to have her correct me.

Your list of non-sequiturs:
1. The comment about primarily being seen as a wife, a position that cannot be improved upon. None of the available opinions from dominique or amicable09 is indicative of what they want to primarily be viewed as. If you have seen or can come up with such a premise by providing well-reasoned links to their stated opinions, please post it.

2. The comment about not identifying as a wife on twitter making someone a bad wife. There is no premise from dominique's writings that remotely suggested this.
You invented this on your own. If this premise exists, kindly post it. If your comment here was in response to someone else's suggestions, then I find it hard to understand why you would quote dominique in that response.

To be authoritarian, you need authority to enforce your rule and a canon, unfortunately, I have never
seen or heard of someone been arrested or interrogated by feminist police. Where is the feminist bible
and who enforces their authoritarian "laws" using which authority?

I wonder if you were trying to troll me here. I'm quite sure you know that authoritarianism does not simply start and end with a formal commissioned force that arrests or interrogates people. It comes in much more flavors than that. I will now go ahead to explain the nature of the authoritarian modern feminist. An observant mind will notice that I keep using the phrase "modern feminist". Modern feminists have been quite impressive in stealing moral authority. A really good move, taken from the playbook of the religious leaders of medieval Europe. A quick look into medieval Europe's Popes’ power play and influence with Kings will give you more insight. These modern feminists have also closely applied the stolen moral authority with the weaponization of guilt. They try to make men feel morally inferior by spreading things like toxic masculinity, a rape culture, and interpretation of differing outcomes between genders solely through the lens of discrimination. In other words, men are perpetually treating women badly, and they will be condemned to a guilt-stricken existence, unless they become more like women. With this authority, the modern feminists are able to mobilize mobs to silence those who do not conform to the ideology. This silencing most commonly takes place in the form of bullying organizations to terminate the employment of the sinners. Anyone with a modest sense of history will know that economic liberation is a critical component of freedom from oppression. The first/second wave feminists knew this, hence their struggle for women to be present in the workplace. We both know that the ability to interfere with people's economic successes is a veritable form of power, and this sort of interference is what the modern feminist inspired mobs capitalize on. Evidence of this abounds:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/christina-hoff-sommers-camille-paglia-discuss-the-problems-with-modern-feminism/article/2594466
Excerpt: “Hoff Sommers asserted that those daring to criticize modern feminism typically suffer career consequences and "excommunication." She had tenure when she began criticizing the modern movement, but if she hadn't, she would have suffered. It's what makes it so difficult for sane minds on campus today to stand up to the absurdities of the modern grievance culture — if they don't have tenure, they risk losing their jobs for being insufficiently enthusiastic about their destructive narrative of how the world works.”

http://time.com/4707294/camille-paglia-women-arent-free-until-speech-is/
Excerpt: “There was a coordinated campaign, evidently emanating from feminist groups in the Midwest, to harass the president of my university with demands for my firing.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/
Excerpt: “Like religious fundamentalists seeking to stamp out the teaching of evolution, feminists stomped Harvard University President Lawrence Summers for mentioning at a January 14 academic conference the entirely reasonable theory that innate male-female differences might possibly help explain why so many mathematics, engineering, and hard-science faculties remain so heavily male.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5457538/darts-snobby-feminism/
Authoritarian feminism recently had the F1 Grid girls and Dart girls fired. Because such jobs do not fit the modern feminist ideology
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2324926/Majority-British-women-pick-housewife-having-career.html
Excerpt: “-62% admitted they 'secretly' wished to be a housewife
-74% said they felt pressure from other women to be independent”

Some people may say that not all modern feminists are like this. That’s irrelevant. The most vocal and effective wing of modern feminism are the authoritarians. And they promote a dictatorship that successfully controls people’s thoughts out of fear for their jobs. This is the greatest achievement of modern feminism. It is the most recognizable fruit that has been borne by the movement

Isn't it ironic that the person suffering from mob outrage here is supposedly part of the authoritarian crew?.

There is no irony here. No one ever suggested that members of a particular authoritarian crew cannot experience mob outrage from other authoritarian or non-authoritarian groups. This doesn’t mean that different authoritarian groups will have similar outcomes when employing mob outrage. The feminist authoritarian groups are about the most virulent and destructive of authoritarian groups in the developed countries. They can seize a person’s economic freedom by assassinating his character and pressuring his employer to fire him, and make would be employers scared to give him an offer. Luckily for the likes of Chimamanda, mob outrage in opposition to modern feminism is not as effective in modern societies as that inspired by feminism. Again I applaud modern feminism’s ability to steal moral authority.

To really get a perfect world you want to live in, you will need a state that ban any form of speaking for or
against the status quo, even North Korea isn't that extreme.

You're clueless about my ideal world. I am one of those who will say "I disagree with your opinions, I have no qualms telling you that I disagree with your opinions, especially when your opinions depend on specious reasoning, emotionally manipulative methods or an air of sanctimonious posturing, but I fully recognize your right to have those opinions I disagree with".

Chimamanda is no more being coercive than any of your friends who ever suggested a contrary view
to the one you previously held. Do you jump and call him all sort of names for being coercive and
authoritarian when you can easily cut off the relationship with the "abuser"?
Do you think it makes sense that some people jump into your defence to malign that "stupid" friend
who don't want to live and let live?

I am trying too hard to process your point here. It sounds uncoordinated. Anyway, my friends can speak contrary to my opinions all they want. But I’ll call them out if they ever try to manipulate me by telling me they are somewhat upset by my views on how I describe myself. Especially if I realize that they operate within a movement that uses sanctimonious indignation to manipulate people.

As to your live and let live beliefs, the world would still be in stone age if some visionaries had not challenge
the status quo through their words and writings. Remember those coercive and authoritarian abolitionist
who didn't allow businessmen to enjoy their lives in peace?


How about those unmarried spinsters and cuckhold men, as they were derisively taunted, who were championing women
suffrage when most women at that time don't want to vote and want to be left alone, why were they pointing guns at womens'
head and telling them vote or die?

Some rotten set of modern day feminists, those arrogant lots, even think a girl should be as educated
as the boy child, why can't they just shut up and let parent train their kids whichever way they choose?


The worse set of them feminists even think there is nothing wrong if a fellow feminist identify first as
a professional and not a wife, I mean what kind of a devil and authoritarian feminist even raise such
issues to begin with?

I wonder what this rant has to do with my posts. I clearly wrote earlier that I am an advocate of live and let live, as long as people's rights are not violated. A lot of people in the past have violated other people's right to life, liberty and property. In other words, they didn't let the other people be. First and second wave feminism's goals and my goals are aligned in opposing such people. Where feminism becomes a tool of oppression, which it has become since the 3rd wave, I remain committed to my advocacy for live and let live, and this places me at odds with modern feminism.

Xisnin:


Typical empty-head, inventing words to make empty argument.
You are right in one aspect, semi-literates like you who can't intelligently defend their
position but resort to ad hominem are the greatest problems of the society.
They can neither think nor let others think in peace.

But if you think my assessment was wrong, explain how the use of "wife" in professional twitter bio benefits the society.
Don't bother replying if all you have to offer is another round of baseless platitudes.

Ordinarily, ignoring ur intellectual unclothedness would b best but I thought it wise to dignify u with a reply at least to aid ur feminist wannabe ambitions - get married, get laid and think straight! Thank me later Sex-starved lunaticc

mandate12:


Ordinarily, ignoring ur intellectual unclothedness would b best but I thought it wise to dignify u with a reply at least to aid ur feminist wannabe ambitions - get married, get laid and think straight! Thank me later Sex-starved lunaticc

This is what happens when you are surrounded by imb eciles, they encourage your foolishness.
The lowest of animals have sex as freely as they want but as a basal fool,
you think having sex is the pinnacle of achievement and you brought it
up in an unrelated discussion further confirming your stupidity.
Even bonobos can't stoop that low.

A word of advice, when you spew gibberish and your friends clap
for you, it is not that you are smart but they are too dumb to realise
your stupidity. Stay in the background whenever brainy issues are being
discussed or you will risk being outed as an overconfident simpleton.

Xisnin:


This is what happens when you are surrounded by imb eciles, they encourage your foolishness.
The lowest of animals have sex as freely as they want but as a basal fool,
you think having sex is the pinnacle of achievement and you brought it
up in an unrelated discussion further confirming your stupidity.
Even bonobos can't stoop that low.

A word of advice, when you spew gibberish and your friends clap
for you, it is not that you are smart but they are too dumb to realise
your stupidity. Stay in the background whenever brainy issues are being
discussed or you will risk being outed as an overconfident simpleton.

From ur epistle, I can only but deduce u r Jst an idle, frustrated feminist wannabe fool.

edmaraja:

You're not making sense to me, Hilary Clinton is an enlightened and educated woman who has achieved what many men can't even achieve in their lifetime , she has aspired for and achieved success both politically and financially so this is clearly not about her being conditioned to aspire to marriage. Clinton made a self conscious decision to describe herself as a wife and mother because she values those aspects of her life and for chimamanda to go prying into her private space and passing judgment on her is just utterly disgraceful. Obama describes himself as a dad and husband on his own bio, was he also conditioned to aspire to marriage? Please stop defending chimamanda's stupidity and call a spade a spade. Everyone should have a right to freedom of expression without having judgemental, know-it- all idiots like chimamanda poke nosing into their private space

First, how do you know that? I spoke on women generally, not Hillary specifically. But seriously, how do you know that? Can you tell me why Hillary Clinton put those titles first and not Bill Clinton? Why most women, especially Nigerian women, always emphasize their marital status first and foremost and men not so much? That was Chimamanda's point.

Second, Chimamanda wasn't prying. She asked a question. Hillary Clinton could've ignored her. She didn't though. She answered and is now considering making the change, all within her choice. Just like it was her choice to identify as wife and mother in the first place. Chimamanda didn't hold a gun to her head and force her to change it.

Third, your argument about freedom of expression goes both ways. Just like Clinton can express her views, so can Chimamanda. Forums, like Nairaland, and social media, like twitter, make that possible. You're only annoyed because someone you don't like expressed an opinion you don't agree with.

InyinyaAgbaOku:


How does that conditioning make Hillary Clinton less of an achiever? you people have a way of blaming the wrong things in every issue.
The men that are taught to use financial success as an ultimate goal is actually to prepare them for marriage and nothing else. Men make themselves attractive in the marriage market by attaining financial success, so it still boils down to the marriage ish.
Without ability to attract a mate and maintain one, how many men will be working? Most inventions wouldn't have happened sef

Wow. The way posters put words in my mouth. Lol. I didn't say anything about Hillary Clinton being less of an achiever. Second, focusing on financial success is not just for marriage. Not every man (or woman) who is financially successful gets married or strives for financial success so they can be married. If a man's only way to dazzle a woman is through money, then that's just sad.

BabaRamota1980:


Doesn't that also apply to parents wanting their children to succeed as lawyers, accountants, bankers, engineers and doctors?

When we were little we played the mom and dad role, the husband and wife role and as well the lawyer and doctor role and the engineer role.

Why do we use our professional designations...Dr Ayo, Engnr Kalu, Barr. Bello? Why do we not ask people to stop using titles like Bank Manager, CEO, Director? Imagine how doing that will break down business relationships because now I get to the bank and dont know who the bank manager is. In my confusion i gave the honor belonging to the manager to the clerical staff.

When we loose cognition of who the wife is in our communities we deprive ourselves the honor and dignity befitting the backbone of the family homestead.

Lets be careful!

That's my very point. Each child comes into the world a blank slate. The only reason they know how to "act like a girl/boy/mom/dad" is through what they see, experience, and what they're told throughout life. Hence the reason why women are conditioned to believe that they should always strive for marriage above all things, that marriage is the most important.

guiddoti:
Is anything wrong from Hillary's perception? She wants to be addressed as such, simple. A sequential order as a wive to her husband, mom to her daughter, and grand mom to her daughter's child.

The point Chimamanda was raising was not about how Hillary wanted to be addressed but why she chose to address herself that way when her husband has never done the same. Her question was pointing to the greater issue of why women in general always seem to emphasize this "I'm a mother/I'm a wife" idea about themselves while men don't have to.

iRepNaija1:


Wow. The way posters put words in my mouth. Lol. I didn't say anything about Hillary Clinton being less of an achiever. Second, focusing on financial success is not just for marriage. Not every man (or woman) who is financially successful gets married or strives for financial success so they can be married. If a man's only way to dazzle a woman is through money, then that's just sad.

Marriage costs money and that money has to be made.
Most men work with the intention of attracting a mate and maintaining it. "Not every man" won't cut it here.
There is nothing wrong with it, it's not about dazzle, it's about catering for family. So, men too are groomed from birth on how to maintain family.
Women too expect their fiances to be buoyant. The richer the woman, the richer her expectations.
How many poor men have Agbani Darego, Genevieve, etc dated?

InyinyaAgbaOku:


Marriage costs money and that money has to be made.
Most men work with the intention of attracting a mate and maintaining it. "Not every man" won't cut it here.
There is nothing wrong with it, it's not about dazzle, it's about catering for family. So, men too are groomed from birth on how to maintain family.
Women too expect their fiances to be buoyant. The richer the woman, the richer her expectations.
How many poor men have Agbani Darego, Genevieve, etc dated?

Never said that men are not conditioned to do things. I was focusing on women because the originally discussion was about women. Also, didn't say anything was wrong with trying to be financial successful for marriage. My point is not everyone is thinking that way when they want to be established and you can't tell me otherwise.

iRepNaija1:


Never said that men are not conditioned to do things. I was focusing on women because the originally discussion was about women. Also, didn't say anything was wrong with trying to be financial successful for marriage. My point is not everyone is thinking that way when they want to be established and you can't tell me otherwise.

Most are

InyinyaAgbaOku:


Most are

Have you talked to most?

iRepNaija1:


The point Chimamanda was raising was not about how Hillary wanted to be addressed but why she chose to address herself that way when her husband has never done the same. Her question was pointing to the greater issue of why women in general always seem to emphasize this "I'm a mother/I'm a wife" idea about themselves while men don't have to.

So, because her husband didn't do that, she should not do that?
Men should now be the subject of women's agitations?
Is that not stoking animosity between a couple?
And who said Hillary had to put wife there?

InyinyaAgbaOku:


So, because her husband didn't do that, she should not do that?
Men should now be the subject of women's agitations?
Is that not stoking animosity between a couple?
And who said Hillary had to put wife there?

Calm down. I only made my comments because you didn't seem to understand why Chimamanda asked her initial comments in the first place. The point is why do some women feel so inclined to state their status as wives and mothers when men don't seem to have that same inclination? Another way of thinking about it is why do African-Americans, when they're asked to describe themselves, one of the first things they say is they're black? Why do white people never state their race but talk about their ethnicity or their heritage?