What are you talking about? The guy said something about the "leadership of the man due to the woman carrying the man's name". I simply gave an example that, I think, refutes the idea that there has always been 100% leadership of men on all fronts.

Magnoliaa:


Okayyyy. Is this now like a basis to discard the fight for equality? Even in that same culture, you're telling me I won't find instances of discrimination against women? 100 years ago inside how many years of history? From when to when did this joint decision-making set up start and stopped/lasted? How many of such of these set ups as opposed to the general set ups of women in the society?

cooooooks:
Answer my question then: do the opinions of 'self-acclaimed feminists' not matter? Even in the example you gave, I did not ascribe anything to feminism, I called the feminists who say they hate men "self-acclaimed" .

The attempted gotcha does not work in this instance.

So according to the dictionary..

fem·i·nism

the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

You chose to consider a woman who hates men a "self-acclaimed" feminist because?

For starters, there is no actual feminism to attack, in my view, because it is a nebulous term.

Even if there were a feminism to attack, I wouldn't want to attack.

I think there have to be women's rights advocates just as there have to be men's rights advocates.

Also, I am neither feminist, nor anti-feminist, nor red pill.

If I'm any "ist", or "ian", I'm a humanist and an egalitarian.

Magnoliaa:


If feminism is nebulous, which feminism are you attacking? On what do you stand on to discredit some feminists or say others are self-acclaimed and are this or that?? No. No. Don't do this. For you to be against feminism or the erroneous practice of it by feminists, you ought to know what it means. You oughta' be able to define it. So that you can classify what is wrong activism, what is misadry from what is what.

If you wanna do this, then all of us kukuma no know wetin we dey fight for. If we Feminists no know watin e mean, then you anti-feminists are clowns as well for attacking a formless thing. Na same place we put head. Because una just dey attack different thing as feminism. Or what you think feminism is. Or the feminism you think one woman is practicing.

I consider a woman who calls herself a feminist to be a self-acclaimed feminist.

-_-

I think that is an apt description.

Kobojunkie:
So according to the dictionary..

You chose to consider a woman who hates men a "self-acclaimed" feminist because?

I think there is credence to this statement. The ism or statement is irrelevant. What the person is saying is relevant. So I respond to the statement made and not the ism inferred.

Magnoliaa:


If you're latching onto our definitions of feminism to attack it, then you as well don't know what it is... and it'll just be like a loop going on and on. And therefore feminism would not be a thing as what you'd be arguing against is the different things we call feminism? Not feminism itself.

cooooooks:
I consider a woman who calls herself a feminist to be a self-acclaimed feminist.
-_-
I think that is an apt description.

Oh, so now every woman is a a "self-acclaimed" feminist. OK!

Now, what does it matter to a woman's self-acclaimedness if she admits to hating men? Is her self-acclaimedness diminished in some way or is the definition of feminism itself altered simply based on her personal dislike of men?

If a woman tells me she is a feminist, who am I to tell her that she is not a feminist?

Kobojunkie:
Oh, so now every woman is a a "self-acclaimed" feminist. OK!

Now, what does it matter to a woman's self-acclaimedness if she hates men?

cooooooks:
If a woman tells me she is a feminist, who am I to tell her that she is not a feminist?

Again.... Now, what does it matter to a woman's self-acclaimedness if she admits to hating men? Is her self-acclaimedness diminished in some way or is the definition of feminism itself altered simply based on her personal dislike of men?

I don't think this comment is entirely logical. If toughchic is championing 'feminism' on NL, isn't she one of those who is championing the 'movement'? Why then does it not matter how she sees it?

Who are the people at the 'forefront'? (Also, is there a battlefield?)

advanceDNA:


It doesn’t matter how u see it...what matters is how those championing it in the fore front see it....

If you don’t know anything about the current wave of feminism...Internet is your friend....I don’t have time type epistles...

The picture I replied to said:

"Don't allow men who hate women to define feminism as women who hate men ".

We seem to have accepted that there are some self-acclaimed feminists who say they hate men or that men should be hated, etc.

Personally, I ascribe no definitions to the term. However, it is conceivable that someone (man or woman) could come across such a man-hating self-acclaimed feminist, or even a number of similar people, and associate man-hating with feminism in their minds.

Kobojunkie:
Again.... Now, what does it matter to a woman's self-acclaimedness if she admits to hating men? Is her self-acclaimedness diminished in some way or is the definition of feminism itself altered simply based on her personal dislike of men?

cooooooks:
What are you talking about? The guy said something about the "leadership of the man due to the woman carrying the man's name". I simply gave an example that, I think, refutes the idea that there has always been 100% leadership of men on all fronts.

Okay. Your comment made it seem as if you were trying to point to the history of equality between men and women and so no need for the clamors now.

cooooooks:
The picture I replied to said:

"Don't allow men who hate women to define feminism as women who hate men ".

We seem to have accepted that there are some self-acclaimed feminists who say they hate men or that men should be hated, etc.

Personally, I ascribe no definitions to the term. However, it is conceivable that someone (man or woman) could come across such a man-hating self-acclaimed feminist, or even a number of similar people, and associate man-hating with feminism in their minds.

Nope. This is the same thing you concluded as with the other thread. Imagine three friends A, X and C. A and C are separated, do not see each other for some reasons and X has access to both, but X hates C and so everytime X sees A, X tells A lies about how C hates X. X is the one who hates C; C is guiltless of any hate.

If I walked up to A and told A not to allow X, who hates C, to sell C as someone who hates X to them, I have not accepted that C is an hater.

There are spouses who poison their kids' mind against their husbands/wives. If I told the kids not to allow their mum define their father as a man who hates them, to them -- am I saying their father is an actual hater or I'm simply highlighting the redefinition of their mother? Into something their father is not?

Lol... is this like an English or grammar thing here you're misunderstanding here?

Ok. I don't see how that was gleaned from my comment but no worries.

Magnoliaa:


Okay. Your comment made it seem as if you were trying to point to the history of equality between men and women and so no need for the clamors now.

How can A, X and C be "friends" if X hates C?

And who are you in relation to A, X, and C? How do you know who hates who?

Why should A believe you or take what you say as gospel?

Perhaps, as you suggest, the grammar is faulty. I dunno. This analogy seems confusing and unrelated to the topic.

Magnoliaa:


Nope. This is the same thing you concluded as with the other thread. Imagine three friends A, X and C. A and C are separated, do not see each other for some reasons and X has access to both, but X hates C and so everytime X sees A, X tells A lies about how C hates X. X is the one who hates C; C is guiltless of any hate.

If I walked up to A and told A not to allow X, who hates C, to sell C as someone who hates X to them, I have not accepted that C is an hater.

There are spouses who poison their kids' mind against their husbands/wives. If I told the kids not to allow their mum define their father as a man who hates them, to them -- am I saying their father is an actual hater or I'm simply highlighting the redefinition of their mother? Into something their father is not?

Lol... is this like an English or grammar thing here you're misunderstanding here?

Kobojunkie:
How many woman want to be men? How many apples desire to be oranges?

Educate yourself! Woman and men are different but their individual existence is of equal importance hence the reason why they ought to have equal rights availed them

................................... How many women want to be men? May be you should ask the likes of tonto dike, iyabo ojo, weird mc, mercy aigbe e.t.c. (not only in appearance)... The also want to do what is expected of men. So, you educate yourself by knowing that equal right for both gender is not possible as one is wired by nature to dominate, love, and protect while the other is to be submissive, show affection and support..... Yot won't ask for equal rights when it comes to hard labour. Yeye

Wawelexy:
................................... How many women want to be men? May be you should ask the likes of tonto dike, iyabo ojo, weird mc, mercy aigbe e.t.c. (not only in appearance)... The also want to do what is expected of men. So, you educate yourself by knowing that equal right for both gender is not possible as one is wired by nature to dominate, love, and protect while the other is to be submissive, show affection and support..... Yot won't ask for equal rights when it comes to hard labour. Yeye

Please stop emotional babbling already!

All of those you mentioned are women who have expressed that they want to have equal rights as men in society, something you in your deluded state interpret instead to mean they want to be men. If they wanted to be men, then they could easily accomplish that by going under the knife, and not by agitating that the laws be changed for this purpose.

Equal rights for both gender have been achieved in much of the developed world and is flourishing to date. Why many of you continue to use the word "impossible" to qualify is beyond me. Even more absurd is your fear or the other gender being given the same rights that you have enjoyed for so long.

You won't ask for equal rights when it comes to hard labor? So women in that country who are already doing the same hard labor you speak of are doing what? Why must some of you resort to eejit level reasoning when discussing issues. What do you think the word EQUAL means?

I am afraid that a mass re-education of the Nigerian male may be necessary in order to many of you properly process and realize that your existence as Lords over women was only an illusion created and maintained by the law. But now that the law is to be updated with the times, that delusion has to die and that illusion shattered so that as a people, Nigerians can too embrace a better and brighter future.

cooooooks:
How can A, X and C be "friends" if X hates C?

And who are you in relation to A, X, and C? How do you know who hates who?

Why should A believe you or take what you say as gospel?

Perhaps, as you suggest, the grammar is faulty. I dunno. This analogy seems confusing and unrelated to the topic.

The second analogy, nko??

No seriously? Now you're just being--- If you have to be asking me who I am in relation to the "people" in those examples, and cannot just take the idea I'm trying to pass across, no problem. I'll see it's a deliberate act on your part not to get it.

cooooooks:
The picture I replied to said:

"Don't allow men who hate women to define feminism as women who hate men ".

We seem to have accepted that there are some self-acclaimed feminists who say they hate men or that men should be hated, etc.

Who are "we" and why is the opinion of this "we" of any real importance to you or the movement ?

cooooooks:
How can A, X and C be "friends" if X hates C?

Wtffff. No, seriously?? Wtfffff. How do people still continue to stay with people who abuse them?? Why do children continue to live under parents who beat them? How do people who don't see eye to eye, hate each other, continue to be in the same space and clique?? Forming a camaraderie on the surface? Or if I had said they used to be friends, are not on speaking terms because of consistent insults and bad behaviour from one party to the other, you still won't get it, abi?

No wahala.

Mtcheeeewwww.

Kobojunkie:
Who are "we" and why is the opinion of this "we" of any real importance to you or the movement ?

Lmaoooooooo. This is becoming hilarious to me as it "progresses." Nice one of you categorizing others with yourself or whoever, Cooks.

cooooooks:
How can A, X and C be "friends" if X hates C?

And who are you in relation to A, X, and C? How do you know who hates who?

Why should A believe you or take what you say as gospel?

Perhaps, as you suggest, the grammar is faulty. I dunno. This analogy seems confusing and unrelated to the topic.

Please, address my second analogy o. Please. Before I'll know what to finally decide on this conversation and what you're doing.

Plussss, this response of yours to my comment you quoted was about THE PICTURE. This is about the picture Amazon posted that you responded to on hate and redefinition of feminism. It's NOT about the topic of the thread.

You won't ask for equal rights when it comes to hard labor? So women in that country who are already doing the same hard labor you speak of are doing what? Why must some of you resort to eejit level reasoning when discussing issues. What do you think the word EQUAL me................ Lolz, women are now doing hard labor? Let's have the stats. 1 out of 50women? Joker! Copy the western world all u want, doesn't changes the facts nature holds... Even it has been proven scientinfical, biblically(and other religious books), naturally, and was also clearly replicated in lower animals that the female sex are the weaker version of humans. What else do u need to know before u succumb to nature. ***DAMNNNNN***

We is you and I. And I said seem to be as I may have misread your comment.

There is no movement.

Kobojunkie:
Who are "we" and why is the opinion of this "we" of any real importance to you or the movement ?

From your perspective, in your own analogy, X hates C but C doesn't hate X. So what is your vantage point in the analogy?

Why I am asking is because you appear as the arbiter of what is false, correct in the analogy (you created the analogy so obviously you ARE the arbiter).

Who is the corresponding arbiter of truth in any ism?

Magnoliaa:


The second analogy, nko??

No seriously? Now you're just being--- If you have to be asking me who I am in relation to the "people" in those examples, and cannot just take the idea I'm trying to pass across, no problem. I'll see it's a deliberate act on your part not to get it.

Clarify the bolded. Is the redefinition OF the mother or redefinition BY the mother?

It reads like it should be by.

Awaiting the clarification.

Magnoliaa:


Nope. This is the same thing you concluded as with the other thread. Imagine three friends A, X and C. A and C are separated, do not see each other for some reasons and X has access to both, but X hates C and so everytime X sees A, X tells A lies about how C hates X. X is the one who hates C; C is guiltless of any hate.

If I walked up to A and told A not to allow X, who hates C, to sell C as someone who hates X to them, I have not accepted that C is an hater.

There are spouses who poison their kids' mind against their husbands/wives. If I told the kids not to allow their mum define their father as a man who hates them, to them -- am I saying their father is an actual hater or I'm simply highlighting the redefinition of their mother? Into something their father is not?

Lol... is this like an English or grammar thing here you're misunderstanding here?

Awaiting clarification of the 2nd analogy.

Someone posted a picture on the thread and I replied to that picture. You and some other user are replying to my reply to that picture on the thread. If you feel the content of the picture does not fit the thread, take that up with the person who posted the picture.

Magnoliaa:

Please, address my second analogy o. Please. Before I'll know what to finally decide on this conversation and what you're doing.

Plussss, this response of yours to my comment you quoted was about THE PICTURE. This is about the picture Amazon posted that you responded to on hate and redefinition of feminism. It's NOT about the topic of the thread.

Wawelexy:


You won't ask for equal rights when it comes to hard labor? So women in that country who are already doing the same hard labor you speak of are doing what? Why must some of you resort to eejit level reasoning when discussing issues. What do you think the word EQUAL me................ Lolz, women are now doing hard labor? Let's have the stats. 1 out of 50women? Joker! Copy the western world all u want, doesn't changes the facts nature holds... Even it has been proven scientinfical, biblically (and other religious books), naturally, and was also clearly replicated in lower animals that the female sex are the weaker version of humans. What else do u need to know before u succumb to nature. ***DAMNNNNN***

Again, equality has been achieved by law in many developed countries and both the male and female of the species are thriving under those laws. So I am not certain what you are still whining about.

The "we" refers to just 2 people, those in conversation. Who are the others?

Magnoliaa:


Lmaoooooooo. This is becoming hilarious to me as it "progresses." Nice one of you categorizing others with yourself or whoever, Cooks.

There was no context as to who A, X, and C were. Just that they are friends.

I think in that case, it is safe to assume that they are adults or young adults who can end their friendship as a group or individual friendship with each other at any time. The same can't always be said about people in abusive relationships, work environments, or (especially) children.

If I have a friend and they hate me, I likely no longer have a friend. Can one hate their friend?

Are you redefining words again 'adding to the discussion' ?

Magnoliaa:


Wtffff. No, seriously?? Wtfffff. How do people still continue to stay with people who abuse them?? Why do children continue to live under parents who beat them? How do people who don't see eye to eye, hate each other, continue to be in the same space and clique?? Forming a camaraderie on the surface? Or if I had said they used to be friends, are not on speaking terms because of consistent insults and bad behaviour from one party to the other, you still won't get it, abi?

No wahala.

Mtcheeeewwww.

Kobojunkie:
Again, equality has been achieved by law in many developed countries and both the male and female of the species are thriving under those laws. So I am not certain what you are still whining about.

................................... Anyone that always use the western world as a standard to ALL his/her daily live would surely end up having issues with self happiness.

Wawelexy:
................................... Anyone that always use the western world as a standard to ALL his/her daily live would surely end up having issues with self happiness.

I said developed world, and not western world.

And obviously, since women are subclass citizens in much of Africa and much of the under developed world, it would make no sense for even begin to mentored any of them now, would it?

Issues with "self happiness"? If you found yourself living in a gutter, do you look up and out for a way out of what amounts to a predicament or do you keep your head down so you don't have issues with "self happiness"?

cooooooks:
There was no context as to who A, X, and C were. Just that they are friends.

I think in that case, it is safe to assume that they are adults or young adults who can end their friendship as a group or individual friendship with each other at any time. The same can't always be said about people in abusive relationships, work environments, or (especially) children.

If I have a friend and they hate me, I likely no longer have a friend. Can one hate their friend?

Are you redefining words again 'adding to the discussion' ?

Lewl. This is easy. Try again. If someone comes to badmouth someone else you do not know to you, what would you do? Conclude the person being painted bad is bad?