₦airaland Forum

druid06: I would like to ask, is this Chimamanda Adichie single or married?

why do you ask?
because she's feminist, she must be unmarried? do u assume that all men are anti-feminist like you?
even if all men are anti-feminist, na by force to marry?
anybody can pretend before marriage and then bring out their true colors afterward, then what?

chimamanda is a brave genuine intelligent woman. in a class of her own

why would anyone flaunt a passport. i keep my passport safe and stored away n only bring it out when needed.
I've never seen anyone walking around flaunting a passport. that will be silly. Nigerian passport of all things.

lexander: Correct me if i'm wrong,its okay for a i guy to buy a drink at a hotel bar, but if a lady walks in there automatically she a hustler and is refused service. Thats just plain rubbish

gbam!

https://www.nairaland.com/709508/single-ladies-discriminated-against-hotels

^ this thread caught my eyes.
something a poster observed is that when the same story was published on linda ikeji (a female)'s blog, women spoke out against the policy.
but on nairaland, as u read the thread u see many males in support of it and even giving reasons why such a policy is justified!!

seriously we are closer to middle eastern cultures in d way we treat women than we like to think.

biolabee: The data does not say whether the wage gap is the cause of the suit
It could be denial of advancement based on gender or plain old sexxual harassment


STill not this wage gap

se.xual harrasment is actually much harder to prove than wage gap. unless there is email or phone evidence how do u prove sexual harassment?
of course these are all part of the things feminism exists for.

love how you say "plain old" se.xual harassment as if it is something so irrelevant and inconsequential. as if women's jobs do not get threatened by it. esp in nigeria and african countries where the legal system isn't as protective.
besides that, it is a way to also mentally, psychologically and physically demean women.

@biolabee, i'm sure things aren't as rosy as you claim they are for women in work places. Maybe we need the perspective of female professionals in Nigeria because I have an impossible time believing that nigerian women fare better in the work place than in western countries. bahh.

---
Wangari Maathai in her early years of activism:

Maathai continued to teach at Nairobi, becoming a senior lecturer in anatomy in 1974, chair of the Department of Veterinary Anatomy in 1976 and associate professor in 1977. She was the first woman in Nairobi appointed to any of these positions.[23] During this time, she campaigned for equal benefits for the women working on the staff of the university, going so far as to attempt to turn the academic staff association of the university into a union, in order to negotiate for benefits. The courts denied this bid, but many of her demands for equal benefits were later met.[24] In addition to her work at the University of Nairobi, Maathai became involved in a number of civic organizations in the early 1970s. She was a member of the Nairobi branch of the Kenya Red Cross Society, becoming its director in 1973. She was a member of the Kenya Association of University Women. Following the establishment of the Environment Liaison Centre in 1974, Maathai was asked to be a member of the local board, eventually becoming the chair of the board.

where do you work @ biolabee? is it a unionized profession?

biolabee: The data does not say whether the wage gap is the cause of the suit
It could be denial of advancement based on gender or plain old sexxual harassment


STill not this wage gap

ok. wtf are you still going on about? haven't we settled that we are on different wavelengths.
I don't live in nigeria clearly so I am speaking based on employment practices in USA. there is such thing as WAGE GAP. gender and racial.and YES for exactly the same kind of job.
for example, I could have the same job as a coworker (even she could be a black female just as me!) and she could be earning more than I am without my knowledge. all we are arguing is that such a pattern exist for gender.
u will not disagree that it exists for race. so why do u have such a hard time agreeing that it exists for gender.

usually in unionized work places, it is harder to see this kind of discrimination. but in non-unionized work places, ur boss can determine ur salary however he/she sees fit. if u don't like it, u can find a job elsewhere or report to EEOC if you feel u r being discriminated against.

this may be relevant although it applies to both gender and racial job discrimination:

June 24, 2013
Supreme Court Raises Bar to Prove Job Discrimination
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

In two decisions issued on Monday, the Supreme Court effectively made it harder for workers to prove that they had suffered employment discrimination.

One ruling narrows the definition of what constitutes a supervisor in racial and sexual harassment cases, while the other adopts a tougher standard for workers to prove that they had faced illegal retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination.

In both cases, the rulings were decided by a 5-to-4 majority, with the dissenting justices, the court’s four most liberal members, calling on Congress to fix what they said were overly restrictive rulings.

In Vance v. Ball State University, in which an African-American worker accused her supervisor of racial harassment, the court held that the person she accused was a co-worker and not a supervisor — a distinction that requires a higher burden of proof for the plaintiff’s employer to be found liable.

The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejected the definition of “supervisor” advanced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” or direct the employee’s daily work activities.

Rather, the court ruled that being a supervisor should be limited to someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” like hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities.

Justice Alito, noting that there are numerous definitions of who is a supervisor, wrote that “the ability to direct another employee’s tasks is simply not sufficient” to declare someone a supervisor. He ridiculed the E.E.O.C’s definition of supervisor, saying it was a “study in ambiguity.”

The plaintiff, Maetta Vance, a banquet worker at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., asserted that Saundra Davis, who is white and was described as a catering specialist, had glared at her, slammed pots and pans around her and blocked her on an elevator. Both sides agreed that Ms. Davis did not have the authority to hire or fire employees.

Under previous Supreme Court decisions, plaintiffs claiming racial or sexual harassment faced a lower burden to prove an employer liable when the harassment was committed by a supervisor rather than a co-worker. For instance, if the harassing supervisor was found to have taken adverse actions against an employee, like demoting the person, the employer was strictly liable for that action. And even when a supervisor’s harassment did not culminate in a specific negative employment action, the employer could be held liable if the employer failed to prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior.

But for an employer to be held liable when a co-worker is accused of harassment, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the employer was negligent by not stopping the behavior.

The court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that held that Ms. Davis was not a supervisor and that Ball State was not negligent with respect to her behavior. Justice Alito emphasized that the court’s adoption of a narrower definition of supervisor did not leave plaintiffs unprotected, but left them with a different burden of proof.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority opinion “is blind to the realities of the workplace.” She wrote that it is not easy for an employee to tell a harassing supervisor to “buzz off” even when the supervisor does not have the power to fire or demote.

“An employee who confronts her harassing supervisor risks, for example, receiving an undesirable or unsafe work assignment or an unwanted transfer,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “She may be saddled with an excessive workload” or a shift that disrupts her family life.

Asserting that the ruling undermines Congress’s desire for “robust protection against workplace discrimination,” Justice Ginsburg warned that the decision would relieve employers of responsibility for the behavior of many of their supervisors.

“The ball is once again in Congress’ court to correct the error into which this Court has fallen,” she wrote.

In a second employment decision issued on Monday, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the court tightened the legal standard for plaintiffs who assert that they faced adverse employment actions in retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination. The court held that the plaintiff must prove that the retaliation was not just a motivating factor in a negative action like a demotion but the determinative factor.

The majority decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, engaged in lengthy textual interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Kennedy said retaliation cases should have a different, tougher standard of proof than in regular employment discrimination cases under the act. In typical discrimination cases, employers can be held liable if wrongful discrimination is a motivating factor.

The case involved Naiel Nassar, a physician of Middle Eastern descent, who claimed that he faced hostile treatment from a hospital superior because of his religion and ethnic heritage. He further claimed that he had been retaliated against — that he was not given as good a job offer as he had hoped — because he had complained of discrimination.

Justice Kennedy said it was important to have the proper causation standard in retaliation cases because the number of such cases filed with the E.E.O.C. has nearly doubled in the last 15 years, rising to more than 31,000 in 2012. The court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Writing the dissent, Justice Ginsburg said the tougher “but-for causation standard” that the court was adopting for retaliation cases would undercut efforts to fight employment discrimination. She also warned that juries would be confused in hearing cases in which employment discrimination claims would be judged by one standard and related retaliation claims by a tougher standard.

Justice Ginsburg concluded that Monday’s two employment-related decisions “should prompt yet another Civil Rights Restoration Act,” a 1987 law that in effect overturned several Supreme Court rulings.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 26, 2013

A picture caption on Tuesday with an article about two Supreme Court rulings that made it more difficult for workers to prove job discrimination misspelled the surname of a justice who dissented from both rulings. As the article correctly noted, she is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not Ginsberg.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sex.cfm
^ statistic of sex-based employment discrimination charges. data from govt. and includes the amount of litigation settlements etc.
YES you have to go to court etc to proove ur case. how many people are willing to go through all that just to right a wrong of their male coworker being paid more. and usually once the case is settled, that man/woman (90% of the time is a woman) most likely has to leave that workplace for his/her own sanity.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
^ EEOC website above.
the overall goal and reason feminism exist is so that such a website will not even be needed in the first place!!

biolabee: So you have not experienced wage discrimination based on your gender or know someone who has yet you speak authoritatively on the subject

The issue of race is real and cannot be discounted

Based on your data, whites earn more than blacks who earn more than the hispanics - all genders combined.
This is why affirmative action was set up in the 60s to help the blacks who are less than 15 percent of the popl and are thus a minority

do you know that you cannot "prove" discrimination in MOST cases?
when u suspect discrimination, what u do is u you file complaint with the government (EEOC) and then they go out and act as "undercover" home renters or jobseekers.
google "burden of proove"
why do u think discrimination persist if it is so easy to just accuse anyone of it?

unless coworkers are sharing their salaries with each other (esp. in private companies) no body knows what the other person is making. in fact, in some cases, it's illegal to share such information. the data though can be compiled by govt.
why do you think people who are fighting for rights target government laws and policies?
if all we needed to do is "convince biolabee" that sexism exist then clearly women will not even have 1% of the rights they have today.

biolabee: I read this link and the data is very subjective
If u look at the methodology quoted below you will see that they tried to adjsut for a range of factors which may be really difficult to objectively assess

It is even better to assert that women are not being given fairer advancement opportunities than say a male n female of the same qualifications and experience are earning different wages.
This i agree with

Excerpts from the research

i'm not going to argue with you because nothing I say will ever convince you. u are set in ur mindset.
and even when u say that you've experienced "subtle racism" i'm sure there are many whites who will argue with you and say that you have never experienced such and u are lying.
it's not my task to convince u of anything. u are set in ur mindset as a male who wants to maintain the status quo.
no point arguing with you.
crayola has presented data to u from the UN and US government. apparently, youtube videos are a more believable source of data to you.
LOL. no need to waste my time.

CAMEROONPRIDE: That women statistically will gravitate towards lesser paying jobs

that's another misconception. the jobs become less paying because women gravitate towards it.not the other way round.
ex teachers used to consist of males only in the past. since women started to become more and more involved in the teaching profession, now society almost demonizes the teaching profession. it is the first profession to get attacked in the union fight and teachers rights getting stripped away. the equivalent will be the police force( male dominated) which didn't get touched AT ALL.

biolabee: @99cent no need to discuss racism here........ the issue is pay gap

Have u experience wage gap due to your gender or do u know someone who has

I may have but I can't say because I don't go around asking my co-workers how much they earn. The people who collect the pay data say unequivocally that there is a GAP.
in the face of the data, some have even argued that women aren't "negotiating" enough but when u seriously look at it, it's just plain gender discrimination.

race is another way people are discriminated against in wage. there is also a wage gap between races. so trying to remove race from gender is silly because they can be linked
see this table:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

Crayola1: A poster from FB and a YouTube vid definitely is better than facts from the UN and US government ok sir I hear.

one can only laugh at his stup.idity.

even within those tracks, male obgyns earn much more!

even among doctors, obgyn track (maternal care) pays much less than other tracks.
women are also more likely to go into pediatric care and guess what, that track has lower pay.

can you now tell me that child care and maternal care is a "easier" job than other specialties?
talk about gender gap!!!

http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/winter06/html/disc_gender.php

biolabee: I have experienced discrimination, racism subtly when I was on a study
In nigeria all the females I have worked with earn the same as a male with the requisite qualifications

So when u speak of wage gap based on gender, I am yet to see it in nigeria

This is why I ask you [b]do you have a personal experience of wage differential based on gender or do u know anyone who has suffered it[\b]

Note I have asked fellis, bukatyne and 99cent and they have never being able to answer directly

can you expatiate more on the "subtle" racism you said you encountered?
because the "subtle" discrimination is usually the most dangerous. it's difficult to pinpoint it but it's there.
for example, when women start flocking into a profession, somehow, the wage in the profession starts to depress and go down. when men start flocking int a profession, the wage in that area somehow starts go go up.
this applies also to race.

www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/What-Is-The-Pink-Ghetto-and-How-Do-Working-Women-Break-Out-Of-It/ba-p/5698">http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/What-Is-The-Pink-Ghetto-and-How-Do-Working-Women-Break-Out-Of-It/ba-p/5698

this doesn't apply to all places of work obviously but it exists in many workplaces.

biolabee: Thanks but I asked u specifically to know if u are being paid less than a male rather than recycling or peddling some others' words

IF u dont want to answer ,,,, fair enough

I will like to hear if any female that is qualified for a role as a male was paid less than the male

Then we can talk

why are you so against a male being paid equally to a female for the same job?
ex. in nigeria, a foreign US/UK national will be paid a LOT more for the same job as a domestic. this is not even hidden and just because you accept this (simply because the owner of such companies tend to be foreign) doesn't mean everyone else who sees a disparity in pay should just keep quiet or shut their mouth because a man owns the company or whatever reason is behind d disparity.

Crayola1: I don't know why guys get so insane in the head over the word feminism. I think its a lack of understanding of what it entails.

hahaha.u have a lot to learn and realize about the guys on here.

imagine one of them used d argument along d lines of "I grew up and was raised to be head of household.so therefore any woman who has leadership skills must be a man hiding in woman's clothes." and he got a round of applause from his fellow poster friends. another one was talking about "traditional african ways" and how feminism is demeaning african society (yet he is posting behind a computer screen and typing in english mind you and probably has a white collar job).

there is no misunderstanding AT ALL. these guys are just against gender equality, plain and simple.

CAMEROONPRIDE: I'm trying to help you, I know being lonely and rejected esp by your own and the one you worship can drive someone crazy. Make yourself attractive.

awww what a cute monkey. so you are lonely and rejected? eeyah srry I can't help you with that.

Obiagelli: Very well put Bro.

i'm ur sister o. don't bro me

CAMEROONPRIDE: Lose some weight and they Will toast u , stop being bitter

monkey.. chimpanzee or whatever your name is... hop off my back.
not all males are anti-feminists okay? at least not to my face
and who says a girl can't toast a boy?

fellis: @bolded, true that.
Boy, these men are really unwilling to relinquish their priviledged position and give women a chance. So very unwilling to do that.
I understand them sha, positions of priviledge are really nice to be in, but it is still injustice and unfairness in the end so make dem try, even if its not easy.
I just pity the foolish women that are not even ready to move themselves ahead, they will rather side with those that want to keep them suppresed so that men don't loose their positions of priviledge. I no even sabi which name I suppose call all those kain women, whether I should call them uncle tom abi aunty tom, me I no know

those sort of women are extremely few in number. and typically what happens is that many of them change their mind over time. sometimes it only takes a horrible experience to convert them.
but for the rest, IDK.
i mean there are some black member of the KKK.i've heard of such so you never know.
there are also black republicans. hahahahah so there is no surprise that there will be some female anti-feminists.

CAMEROONPRIDE: monkey? Start making sense and we would have a deal . Capiche ?

what an azz. me and you are on WAYY different levels.

most anti-feminist and misogynists also tend to be rabid homophobics. the correlation isn't coincidental.
although some of them indeed are secretly gay or they are beta-males. who feel threatened by strong females.

CAMEROONPRIDE: You don't know when to quit ,do you?

you this monkey seriously need to stop quoting my posts. hop off.

the way chimamanda says she gets treated when she visits restaurants where the male is recognized and the woman invisible. many males see absolutely no problem with this. in fact, any female who points out the absurdity will be seen as a radical and irrational. she is questioning a status quo that privileges males over females and therefore she becomes a threat!!

fellis: One thing I realised after having many discussions with sexist dudes and women that believe they are inferior to men is that their beliefs are influenced by religion. the whole woman must submit to her husband after marriage thing has led people to think women can never be equal to men and cannot think for themselves, rather they think that men, by virtue of the fact that leadership was solely bestowed on them in religious books, have been given a default position of superiority by god. very sad really, considering the fact that these people think their sexist attitudes have been endorsed by god/allah.
when people think they have the support of an almighty god, they are unlikely to change their beliefs or behaviour.
you will not find an atheist woman that believes she is inferior to men, unless she's into some kind of twisted S and M shiite
Anyway, summary of the long story is that, as long as religions exist, women will foolishly continue to believe they are inferior to men and men will continue to believe they are better than women. feminists and their quest for making people receptive to the idea of gender equality can only succeed in secular societies, not religious ones where women are assigned the role of submissive and obedient and subjugated by the gods they worship.

besides religion, it is mostly just a privilege issue. if you have grown up as a male seeing women being treated as second class citizen, you will feel superior to women and will be very unwilling to relinquish your privilege. This is same for all groups that want to maintain and defend a status quo in opposition to a marginalized group.
religion is usually just a reflection of culture. ex. the way christianity is practiced in Nigeria will be different from the way it is practiced in a society with more gender equality and civil rights.

if not for feminism, 12 yr old girls will still be married away to old men. thank God for CEDAW.
and with the mindset that still exist among many males (as apparently shown on this thread), feminism is needed to safeguard existing rights and create new opportunities for women.

of course feminism has allies among men.
and many of the anti-feminists on this thread will enjoy a lifetime of getting kicked in the azz by women (unless they move back to their "traditional" village). clearly the real world will be too much for them to bear.

the fact that most of them are proud of African misogynistic culture with their nostalgia for "traditional ways" as only applied to women or gays and marginalized groups (what hypocrisy) says a lot!

as a woman, i am NOT proud of a culture that mistreats women. such a culture needs to change for the better. anybody who disagrees is a misogynist and deep down inside knows this truth