crackhaus:

Oh Buka, Lol.
Isn't it common sense that it is? (no insult intended)

Or is your unnecessary doubt being fed by the fact a Queen (woman) sits on the throne?
Well, this does nothing to negate the patriarchy seeing as she did not fall from the sky to become queen.

If she had had a brother when her father died, there would have been no Queen Elizabeth II today for you to use as a yardstick to argue against patriarchy.

You are assuming that I have an issue against 'patriachy' or think that the English Royalty is a 'win' for feminism or whatever.

I have seen enough of life to know that most humans have cupboard lives and pick/drop whatever part of a cause/movement that suits them at the time and very few people are fanatic to any cause.

I am just stating facts.

For all you know, the Queen might even be a staunch anti-feminist and believe men & women are not equal.

Someone on this thread even said Meghan marrying the Prince is a feminist move..... Well let's just say a divorcee was lucky enough to catch the eye of a Prince who doesn't give a damn about protocol.

The fact that a woman can rule over them all within her constitutional rights shows it is not a patriachy.

If Elizabeth had no brother, her father did not have brothers who had males? No male royalty in line to the throne who could seat on the throne? Is this Elizabeth the first queen England has produced?

Can you imagine a Yoruba throne with a queen in power because she doesn't have brothers? The only time a woman can rule as a regent is when there is a dispute between ruling houses and during that period, she dresses like a man (trousers, cap) etc. and as soon as they sort out their issues, she steps down and the king takes over. I also gathered she cannot live with her husband in the palace and cannot be pregnant (cannot function as a woman) during the period.

The regent is even addressed as sir, called kabiyesi and I think addressed as 'His Royal Majesty' 'His Highness' etc.

Now that is patriachy.

I don't know of other tribes as per conflict handling and if they have regents however I have never head of a Queen as per position and not wife of a king in Nigeria.

Queen Elizabeth is a woman ruling as a woman, functioning as one.

MissCokie:


At the bolded sir. Well said and written perfectly. A feminist should pick up spanner and slide under a car for repairs and see the pain the male folks go through.

Pay for rent, food, house keeping, shopping, etc for 6months and tell me how far?.

Feminism and feminist should better be greatful, they're placed on the soft side of nature, whereby the men are privatized to Carter for the needs of women.

Ha this girl

Close your laptop, run along and take a survey of how many working married men sit pretty while their husbands pay for rent, food and carry the financial burden of the home.

Then re-read your thread/points and see of they make sense.

If you have issues with slay mamas earning 50k and who think they are entitled to have weaves of 300k, Samsung S9+ and travel round the world, call me let's bash them together.

Stop generalizing for all women and saying women have it easier, they all cannot change spanners, they all cannot do this/that.

It is an insult.

And stop running around these single boys who do not know where their next garri will come from and have no inkling about the workings of marriage.

Sit down with responsible married men and women to learn.

majekdom2:
there is no equlity anywhere rather we are complement to each other. If you want equality then you should have a dick somewhere in your body and a man should have a breast! If there was something like equality Africa won’t be where it is. Can you solve the equation y=x. No. It’s either y= mx+c or a+b^2+c=0 or some simulataneous equation. This is to tell you we are complements to be equal! Take this mindset off. Seek for love respect and openness not equality.

Did you read my post in context before responding? I don't think so

majekdom2:
una go just dey talk rubbish. America never voted , then who voted. You think it is Nigeria. Go to America and ask who the real Americans are. They will tell you they are not the ones that make noise on social media.

@bold:

Very true.

majekdom2:
that’s because of the society you have found yourself. A society where mediocrity is put before meritocracy. Feminism can’t survive in such society. Feminism should be the least concept to be embraced in such society. The societies that have promoted and funded feminism are in love with meritocracy and hate mediocrity...... male and female. It’s aneasy cause for them. Everyone is assessed based on results. You see why I said, Africans should fight poverty and medicroty first then embrace this concept. Feminism in Africa should be about education and some basic needs being provided For instance, sanitary pads should be free for women's

Why should sanitary pad be free?

majekdom2:
but a Benz is not equal Toyota. Benz is equal to Benz. Benz is unique in its own way same is Toyota. Y=Y. Y can never be equal to X without some complement like mx+c. The complement is what we look for in our partners. We are never equal because we are unique in our own ways. However, key things is helping each other convert weaknesses to strengths. It’s a delusional thought to think equality can exist without complements. That’s the message the OP is passing. What is getting scarce by the day is true love and the concept of feminism is not helping matters especially in Africa.

Except you are on another thread, or referring to a different OP, you jeep helping her interpret what she is saying.

Every post of hers states what she is saying clearly.

Don't be her spokesman.

oxygenlove:
just few u mean?

You might not have access to the companies;

Just enter all the markets around you and count the number of women there.

Next check all the small kiosk and tell me number of women you see.

Next count the amount of caterers, hair dressers, tailors and cleaners you know.

Then come back to me.

Truckpusher:
Fine one brother , I remembered the day I opined that women in developing countries get more from marriages than they give compared to their Western counterpart I was nearly lynched online.

Most women in this part of the world depend on men for their daily survival. Not because they can't work or achieve things by themselves but the general outlook of the economy and lack of opportunities is a factor that contributes immensely to it , but however the truth must be told.

In this same Nigeria?

babeosisi:


She is a business woman

Biko permit me to laugh.

She and Beyonce are in the same boat. J-Lo is joinin them too. Stumbled on one of her latest songs 'Dinero' and I shook my head... How the mighty has fallen. A whole J-Lo behaving like a video vixen.

I read one of Beyonce's speeches and she sounded daft (no offence).

I will even take Kim Kardashian seriously over both of them. She and her clan don't claim to be feminists and they conduct their business and grow their empires without noise.

crackhaus:

You seem dyslexic, I swear down..


If that will make you sleep better at night, of course I'll surrender. Consider it proof of my desire in helping you with your sleeping disorder.


See this has always been why having a conversation with you should never get past three responses. You keep inventing things out of the dark innards of your pretty bum.

What I want was never a part of my comment.
What I did was show how women who are either unmarried or single mothers, baby mamas or divorced and remarried multiple times, are being used as examples in pushing the 'strong' woman message of feminism, when the same message could be preached using women who are married and stayed married while building successful careers as well as raising a family.

And all you could come up with as a response is tell me that the woman used in the latter example has an ordinary (boring) life.. ... so her example shouldn't be used as a message in feminism.
The alternative therefore, which is a more exciting way of life (single mothers, baby mamas, and divorceés) is totally appropriate and is a very suitable example of what being strong as a woman with rights and choices is and should be all about.

This is what you decided to pass accross this beautiful Sunday as sense?

These women face no social stigma because they live up to the social standards and norms set by men like you so forget it.

GiantParrot:


And now she tries to make a point using references to inherent disabilities in certain people in a discussion about women's agency. Are you trying to suggest that women inherently lack the capacity to compete with men just like disabled people inherently lack the capacity to compete with the abled in the natural state of things? So just the way we make special accommodations for disabled people to improve their lives, we should act similarly towards women? I was so not expecting that from you. Even I find it difficult to look at women with the eyes of victims of nature.




Funny you. The bell curve is used in science to show group differences. I referenced it and said that the IQ distributions for different races are different hence the different racial representations in STEM as STEM requires higher than average IQs. At this point, there had been no mention of genetics. You then went on to say the environment (education) could be responsible. I responded that education could play a role, but it's not as important as IQ. I then followed by saying IQ is mostly determined by genetics. At this point, I had not provided the evidence. You protested further, and I showed you a link that claimed that IQ has a 75% contribution from genetics.

I still don't get what your issues are. Why do I have to show you from that particular link that whites/asians as a group have higher IQs than blacks as a group when the link was not concerned with group differences in IQ, but with genetic contributions to IQ? That is like holding on to premise 2 alone in my height example and asking me to prove racial differences in height from a premise that is concerned with genetics. It is the combination of premises 1 and 2 in the height example that yields the conclusion that blacks as a group are generally taller than Asians as a group primarily because of genetics. Not the individual premises themselves. Similarly, the bell curve evidence in the IQ argument is analogous to premise 1 of the example on height, and the link on IQ's relation to genetics is analogous to premise 2 of the height example. Logical inference from these two pieces of evidence indicates that genetics is the primary reason behind the racial IQ differences. It's so simple I'm wondering why I have to spell this out in this manner.



It's not clear what value this brings to your arguments.


This makes me chuckle. Surely there are Whites who are smarter than me. There are Asians who are smarter than me. There are Blacks who are smarter than me. The evidence indicates that there are more Whites and Asians who are smarter than me, than there are Blacks who are smarter than me. I feel no iota of shame for this. Just like I feel no shame that there are Whites who are taller than me, there are Blacks who are taller than me, and there are Asians who are taller than me. The evidence indicates that there are more Whites and Blacks who are taller than me than there are Asians who are taller than me.



Your aversion towards presenting evidence to support your claims when challenged is not lost on me.

It was a pleasure talking to you. Have a beautiful Sunday.

bukatyne:


Except you are on another thread, or referring to a different OP, you jeep helping her interpret what she is saying.

Every post of hers states what she is saying clearly.

Don't be her spokesman.

what if I decide to be, do you have a problem with that?

bukatyne:



Why should sanitary pad be free?

I am sue you know there are under privileged females who use tissue or clothes as sanitary pads. I mean this is something we can attribute to nature. It should be cheap enough, I mean less than 50 cents if not free.

Mindfulness:


It was a pleasure talking to you. Have a beautiful Sunday.

Do enjoy your Sunday as well.

Mindfulness:


These women face no social stigma because they live up to the social standards and norms set by men like you so forget it.

So it's the women who face social stigma because they don't live up to the social standards set by men who qualify as good examples to be used when talking about feminism.

I don't know if you realize this but every thing you've typed kind of proves that your feminism is just anti-men and nothing else.

crackhaus:

So it's the women who face social stigma because they don't live up to the social standards set by men who qualify as good examples to be used when talking about feminism.

I don't know if you realize this but every thing you've typed kind of proves that your feminism is just anti-men and nothing else.

Yes! Men like you.

bukatyne:


You are assuming that I have an issue against 'patriachy' or think that the English Royalty is a 'win' for feminism or whatever.

I have seen enough of life to know that most humans have cupboard lives and pick/drop whatever part of a cause/movement that suits them at the time and very few people are fanatic to any cause.

I am just stating facts.

For all you know, the Queen might even be a staunch anti-feminist and believe men & women are not equal.

Someone on this thread even said Meghan marrying the Prince is a feminist move..... Well let's just say a divorcee was lucky enough to catch the eye of a Prince who doesn't give a damn about protocol.

The fact that a woman can rule over them all within her constitutional rights shows it is not a patriachy.

If Elizabeth had no brother, her father did not have brothers who had males? No male royalty in line to the throne who could seat on the throne? Is this Elizabeth the first queen England has produced?

Can you imagine a Yoruba throne with a queen in power because she doesn't have brothers? The only time a woman can rule as a regent is when there is a dispute between ruling houses and during that period, she dresses like a man (trousers, cap) etc. and as soon as they sort out their issues, she steps down and the king takes over. I also gathered she cannot live with her husband in the palace and cannot be pregnant (cannot function as a woman) during the period.

The regent is even addressed as sir, called kabiyesi and I think addressed as 'His Royal Majesty' 'His Highness' etc.

Now that is patriachy.
yur
I don't know of other tribes as per conflict handling and if they have regents however I have never head of a Queen as per position and not wife of a king in Nigeria.

Queen Elizabeth is a woman ruling as a woman, functioning as one.

We will not be able to have this conversation if you have still not differentiated between 'patriarchy' and a 'patrillineal' succession to the crown.

Your example with the Yoruba monarchy helps my argument further - what they have is a monarchy that is strictly patrillineal (ergo, Ascension to the throne is ONLY by male descendants).

The English have what they call royal houses, these houses are named after the males that start them - succession to the throne is not restricted to only the male members of that house. Now the proof you need that it is still a patriarchy is that a ruling house CANNOT be started by or named after a woman even if she is the Queen.

An example is the present ruling House of Windsor which came into existence during the reign of Queen Victoria. She herself was the Queen with all power & dominion, and she came from the House of Hannover, yet immediately she got married to a prince from the German royal House of Saxe - Coburg and Gotha, she adopted the name by marriage ( that's what a patriarchal system is). The name Windsor was made up to appeal to the English people because Saxe - Coburg and Gotha sounded too German in a period when Nazi Germany had just started becoming popular.

The only reason why this present Queen is still using the House of Windsor as her official royal House is because her husband Prince Philip is a prince without any kingdom, he had renounced his Greek and Danish princeship before marrying her and took the name of his uncle and mentor 'Mountbatten'.

Your idea that because a Queen is in charge means it isn't a patriarchal system is flawed. Even in Nigeria, there have been Queens ruling and fighting wars in their kingdoms (Queen Idia of Benin and Queen Amina of Zaria are examples).
Their reigns did not stop their kingdoms from being patriarchal at its core either.

Mindfulness:

Yes! Men like you.

Feminism is anti-men, good you agree.