₦airaland Forum

personally what do you stand for:
a lot of things. ex portrayal of women in d media is something that irks me. especially black american entertainment culture. women are portrayed in very negative light. If I had my way, I would ban rap music in its present form. it's mostly misogynistic disgusting filth with lyrics filled with all kinds of ugly names and abuses toward women.
there r other issues too of course.

biolabee: I dont need to lie... maybe traitor is a strong word... but i have female friends who believe in human rights but dont believe in feminist dogmas of hypergamy, non - submissiveness and all what is
They are well qualified and have advanced degrees... some take even time off work to focus on their family
There are some like that here on NL

the questions below

human rights is not the same as women's rights. maybe your friends aren't feminists esp if they believe in submissiveness.

biolabee: ok fair enough.. dont forget if u go into history...women have always run things too
In the Bible there was a judge called Deborah
A great queen in England called Victoria
A warrior leader called Joan
A powerful queen in Spain called Isabel

So women have changed the world believe it or not....

lol.
of course women have changed d world, we make up 50% of the world and we're breathing.
but I won't argue with u because by now u should understand what i'm talking about. all u need to do is look at the population of the world. what's the ration of men to women by population?
now go back to the bible and history book. what's the ratio of men to women there.

My own is why dont we focus on the now rather than the constant nods to time past
I want my daughter to express herself and personally i would like to know more on what you deem radical for our time
I may or maynot agree with you... but i learn sth new

On the r,ape issue, it is a crime in the land but it is not being enforced
We may need an occupy movement soon to bring this to the attention of the rulers

something radical in Africa will be men cooking and cleaning in d house for the family. LOL
but this is not radical in some parts of d west. many white families I spend time in their homes, d husband cook and clean just as much as the woman and it's normal. but women still do much more. also this tend to be more common among upper middle class families who are very educated.
there are lots of things. Like child care. how much men should contribute to child care.ex. some european countries have paternity leaves for example.
Maybe Africa is not ready for it yet. but its something that i'm seeing happening more and more in western countries.

LOL @occupy movement. Usually something huge has to happen for people to realize that they need to change their ways. ex. Aluu 4. when I lived in Nigeria, such incidents were common and no one cares. but I don't know why Aluu 4 all of a sudden became a movement and everyone cared. d u understand it? was it social media? people saw d pictures and felt moved? who knows.
maybe some highly publicized case like that needs to happen before people will truly take the issue of r.ape seriously.

a lot of women are ashamed/embarassed to be called feminist because of these kind of labels and persecution.

biolabee: I get that and i dont deny she was a feminist or not
My point is that her acehievements spoke for her just like Churchill or Roosevelt
What are we known for on earth// what we do not what we say

why r u comparing these two categories of people that have absolutely nothing in common except that they're famous.

biolabee: I'm interested in social justice

Feminism can be too caustic at times for my tatste as they don't criticise women even of they are wrong that is why I'm asking her what does feminism offer

I want specifics not vague stuff


So what are you offering cfours

I can't offer u what u want. srry
you don't agree with feminism so I will never be able to convince u.

when some feminists were fighting for the right to vote, it didn't make sense to many men (and women) at the time. There is no specific argument that could be made to convince anyone.
Today, however, we take it for granted that a woman can run for political office.
something that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever back in d days.

same with women going to school. schooling was originally intended for boys only. it made no sense for women to go to school. what did they need it for. do they need it for cooking and cleaning etc?
yet I wouldn't be typing here if I didn't attend school. many women's lives don't end in the kitchen like it used to.

I hope u get what I'm tying to say. I can't give u specific stuff because it probably wouldn't make sense. it will be radical. but 50 yrs from now, 100yrs from now. many women will take the rights for granted not realizing that they have feminists to thank for their freedom. those few brave women who did the crazy things first and led the way for other women to do it. like the women who wrote inspiring books and used men's names because only men were allowed to write. like the woman who dressed like a man for decades to practice her profession because only men were allowed to be professionals.

u mentioned maternity leave for women. do you know the feminist history behind it? etc because back in d days once a woman got pregnant, she was fired and not allowed to return. women had to organize to fight to gain the right to maternity leave etc I could go on and on
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/puot0002/3004/2010/02/history-of-maternity-leave-in-the-us.html

u mention rape as an issue facing women. what's your own concrete/ specific plan to prevent it? do you have one?

biolabee: All this divorce settlement ish never was back in the days and women were taken care of

If I'm a multi millionaire Of cos if I'm gonna marry and I know one lady is gonna cash in .. Imma shield my assets or do prenup

That is perfectly natural

that'd the whole point. pre-nup forces both partners to come to the table to discuss and AGREE on what happens in case of break up. That way, a woman isn't just kicked out with her kids just out of no where without an agreement or contract before hand.
same applies to rich women who divorce their husband. the same rule applies and the husband can cash in. ex. if Oprah were married and got a divorce, that man would be walking away with cool cash.

biolabee: All due respect why did you post this long thing

Are you trying to explain to me the reason for the feminist movements

I also observed you called those who don't want to be tagged *s feminists 'traitors' - is that how you see it we vs the world

I asked you a series of questions you've not answered any

can u remind me of the post where I called them 'traitors'?
I don't remember saying that. unless u are quoting me out of context or just plain lying.
I don't view them as traitors.
what r ur questions?

biolabee: I get this but I go back to my first point

Is she recognised as a feminist or an environmentalist

both. she's an ecofeminist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism

to summarize:

women worked in the factories during the war and it made them realize that they weren't as weak as they were portrayed to be. Women could work too. So why should only men be allowed to work for pay?
but the funny thing is that media propaganda was used to control women. u can google "1950s housewife" to see the torrent of propaganda campaign used by US government (controlled by men) to keep women in d kitchen and make them feel that their entire lifes worth depend on how well they cook for their husband. pretty pathetic.
of course u had the second feminist wave in d 60s as a result of this.

During World War II, millions of women entered the labor force. They were encouraged to work in industrial factories to help the war effort. The United States government even created a propaganda campaign to convince women they should now work in what were considered "men's jobs," because the same skills they used doing housework would allow them to work in factories. During the war years, millions of women discovered that they could do "men's work" and could earn the higher salaries usually associated with that work. After discovering that they could work in high-paying factory jobs, the majority of women did not want to give these jobs up after World War II. This worried American leaders, business leaders, and returning American veterans, who wanted to return to their traditional high-paying factory jobs.

Faced with the resistance of many women to voluntarily give up their jobs to men, and return to their traditional, low-status sales and clerical jobs, government and business leaders created a campaign to convince women that they should be patriotic and give their men their jobs back. Television and radio ads told women that they would be much happier if they went back home and had children and gave men their jobs back. Women were told that now that the war was over they should return to their more traditional roles as housewives and mothers. Women didn't really need these jobs, but men did. In fact, from the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s there was tremendous pressure on women to accept their more traditional roles as wives and mothers, dependent on their husbands, and committed to living their lives for their families, children, and husbands.

But this campaign to encourage women to return to traditional roles often went too far. As Chafe notes:

"Yet the shrillness of the campaign went too far, suggesting the schizophrenia of American culture and society as much as any uniformity of purpose. While countless suburban housewives (and husbands) carried out their roles as written, there were just as many others who sought new options and wanted to go on changing the world."(The Paradox, 188)

Examples of this campaign going too far were ads telling women that they should enjoy doing the laundry and that they should take classes on how to be good housekeepers. We can also see the American obsession with the traditional housewife in television programs such as Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best. Indeed, June Cleaver, in Leave it to Beaver, is never shown as having a life of her own; she is always there for Wally, Beaver, and her husband. How do we then explain this obsession with convincing women that they should remain in their traditional roles in the 1950s?

The answer lies in the dramatic changes women experienced in World War II. Many married women discovered that they could work in men's jobs, could earn a good salary, and could do much of the work that men were traditionally responsible for in the family. During the war, many married women were not only forced to work to support the war effort, they were also forced to do most of the tasks that men had done around the house. With their husbands gone to war, many women discovered that they were smart enough to balance a check book, maintain the car, and run the household as their husbands had always done. When their husbands came back from the war, they discovered that their wives were more assertive, confident, and less dependent on them. This troubled many American men, who did not like the changes they saw in American women and their wives.

Faced with the threat from changing women's roles, American men, government, and business went on a campaign to convince women that they should go back to the way they were before the war, they should forget all their experiences and changes that took place during the war. They argued that it was women's patriotic duty to give their jobs back to men. If women didn't stop working, then there would be an economic depression. Just as women were scapegoated for the Great Depression, with many men charging that there wouldn't have been a depression if women had not taken the jobs that rightfully belonged to men. But, in addition to giving up their jobs, American women and wives should also respect the wishes of their men who sacrificed so much during the war and return to their more traditional roles as wives and mothers, dependent on their husbands.

Ironically, despite the increasing success of this campaign to convince women to return to their more traditional roles, millions of married women in the 1950s continued to work, and millions more entered the workforce in the 1950s and 1960s. Why were white, middle-class women, married and with children, entering the labor force in record numbers in the 1950s if the larger society was telling them that they should stay home and be traditional wives and let their husbands support them? More middle-class wives were entering the workforce than working-class wives, who might need to work to support their families. Why, if their husbands were earning good salaries, did middle-class wives begin to enter the laborforce in record numbers? After World War II, these very same women were told to give up their jobs to men. But now they were rushing into the workforce.

In the 1950s, middle-class married women were taking jobs soon after their children started school and worked for the rest of their lives. Despite working, these women were still responsible for doing all their traditional work as wives and mother in the home. Despite the pressure to stay at home and be good wives and mothers, American women were increasingly forced to work in order to keep their families middle class, and allow them to have big homes, nice cars, send their children to college, and take long vacation. Thus, at the very moment when women were told that they should ignore the changes they were experiencing as a result of World War II and their increased presence in the workforce, women were struggling to reconcile their traditional roles with their expanding confidence and independence as working wives. Studies in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that women who worked has a greater say in the finances, in the marriage, and in the family that women who didn't work. So clearly working women were expanding their roles, demanding more equality and respect from their husbands and families.

Despite these growing changes in women's roles in the 1950s, Americans were told that while some wives might be working, their work wasn't important and it shouldn't get in the way of their responsibilities as wives and mothers. Many Americans were thus trying to benefit from women's increasing participation in the workforce while at the same time denying the social and cultural changes that women's expanding roles were creating. It is this contradiction, I believe, that explains the excesses of the campaign to convince women to be happy in their traditional roles in the 1950s. This campaign for traditional women became more determined and visible as more and more women entered the workforce in 1950s. It was as if Americans were trying to convince themselves that despite the growing changes in women's roles and lives nothing was changing, that women were still content being traditional wives and mothers.

In the early 1960s, many married women were increasingly unhappy with the burdens and the contradictions they faced. They were being bombarded with cultural messages that said that good mothers and wives did not work and dedicated their lives to supporting their husbands and children, but at the same time they were increasingly forced to work to make ends meet. Some women also felt the increased burden of now having two jobs, working outside the home and trying to still do all the work that they used to do inside the home. Many women refer to this as the "double shift." By the early 1960s, feeling guilty and confused about their new roles and responsibilities, many women began to question what Betty Friedan called the feminine mystique, which told women that "they could desire no greater destiny than to glory in their own femininity." In her 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, Friedan challenged women to question the social and cultural messages that told women they should accept their traditional roles as wives and mothers. She challenged women to discover who they were, and develop their individual selves as human being, and not just accept what society called their destiny as women to be wives and mothers.

The women's movement in the 1960s grew out of this increasing contradiction between the growing changes in women's lives and society's efforts to convince women that these changes weren't occurring. But the demand by women that they play larger roles in their families and societies also grew out of another contradiction. At the same time that Americans were told that it was a women's destiny to be a wife and mother, society did not value women's work raising children and supporting their husbands and families. Many women came to feel that they weren't doing anything of value with their lives if they were just wives and mothers. Only by getting educated, holding good jobs, and earning high salaries could many women gain the social respect they felt they deserved. This, of course, is a real tragedy. If society more highly valued women's traditional work as wives and mothers, then many women would not feel that, as Friedan charged, the home was "a comfortable concentration camp."

But the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s and 1970s, as we will see, led to the growth of a backlash and a movement by conservative men and women in the 1980s and early 1990s to once again convince women that it is their destiny to be wives and mothers, dependent on their husbands, living their lives through their children and family. This backlash in response to the gains of the women's movement in the 1960s and 1970s once again demonstrates that American society, especially men, fear changing women's roles and will work hard to try to keep women in their traditional places as wives and mothers. It was, in fact, a similar backlash after World War II that tried to convince women that their changing roles and lives weren't in fact changing at all, they were still happy being traditional wives and mothers. Why, then, does America tend to be so obsessed with limiting women's roles? What is it about women's traditional roles that is so important to the workings of American society and culture? We will look at the struggle over the women's movement and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1960s and 1970s to get a better understanding of this.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/fifties.htm#Any

biolabee: I get this but I go back to my first point

Is she recognised as a feminist or an environmentalist

I believe in equal pay based on qualifications, does that make me a feminist

equal pay based on qualification is a women's rights issue in America.

again, feminism is just an ideology. there are many women out there who support women's rights but don't want to be called feminist because they are ashamed of the word "feminist" or whatever reason they have.

biolabee: The new deal provided for better opportunity for americans,health care and social justice

Women benefitted from it

I raised the iSsue to say people should be recognised based on what they do and not what they are called

That does not mean he did not have an ideology

yea. but the intended recipients were mostly men. ex GI bill, employment etc. in fact, after WWII, you saw massive propaganda directing women to leave the workforce and go back into the kitchen so that men can find job. this is actually part of what led to the second wave of feminism in the 50s and 60s with gloria steinman and co. although the second wave women's right movement fed off the civil rights movement by blacks which also happened in the 60s.


hahaha feminism is not the only ideology out there.
New Deal is a liberal ideology as opposed to conservative ideology that believes in "small government"
new deal was an expansion of government power in d lives of d people. Most Americans are still divided based on this issue till today infact that is d biggest ideological battle among americans: democrats vs republicans.

Upon her return to Kenya, Maathai dropped her Christian name, preferring to be known by her birth name, Wangari Muta.[16] When she arrived at the university to start her new job, she was informed that it had been given to someone else. Maathai believed this was because of gender and tribal bias.
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.


^
all of these was putting strain on her marriage because her husband was telling her to stop her activism.
Deep down at the root of all Wangari's work is women's issue. Even in her environmental work, she focused on women.

biolabee: Cfours.. Note that the kenyan lady's marriage also failed

Oh yes it did.
But same with Nelson Mandela's marriage.
anybody who is as zealous for a cause will always put the cause first. and their social life/ marriage will suffer.
I read her autobiography which detailed why her marriage broke down. She put her activist work first. and believe me, her first activism was in higher education when she wasn't promoted

like I said, Wangari is a figurehead just like Mandela is a figure head. the average feminist isn't out there protesting in the street and being imprisoned or mobbed. Just like the average anti-apartheid person won't have a tumultous life like Mandela.

ex. the same Roosevelt u r talking about is mostly known for his NEW DEAL policy. If you know anything about New Deal, u will not say what u said that Roosevelt is not known for ideology. Of course he is!
I don't live in England so I can't say much on d legacy of Churchill.

biolabee: More from the wiki
For me it's not about what you say but what you do
Nasser was a dictator yet he ruled justly
Churchill, Roosevelt were wartime leaders but were not known for ideologies but what they achieved
Madam Theresa helped lives ditto moremi who helped her people from slavery
If that is feminism, then I don't know
Q again - how can you help a man's daughter or sister so she is safe from molesters,inheritance thieves, work place discrimination

Are you trying to imply that she wasn't a feminist. I don't see your point. Be more explicit.

Ideology is just a set of core believes that inform ur choices and decisions.
ex. all christians believe in Jesus. this is an ideology. Are all christians saints? are all christians martyrs? are all christians going to be famous envangelists? NO. but those famous superstar christians like Billy Graham will not exist without following. Without the millions of christians who support them and share d same ideology, those figureheads will be nothing.

biolabee: I joined this thrad to learn more about feminism and to know if it's adherents really have anything to offer the jury is still out
So what are you offering cfours

lol. feminism is an ideology. it's not an offering.
it becomes a movement when many feminists come together and organize around an issue.

ex. a person can be christian on their own. they don't necessarily have to be an envangelist. also christians form a church when many christians come together to gather for worship. this organization, or coming together, is necessary for big actions like fighting a government policy or something too big for one woman or man to do by themselves.

just as there are many churches out there, there are many feminist groups or women's rights issues and focus out there. whether environmental, social, economic, political or what have u. people usually join which one matters most to them. in ur case, u seem to be most concerned about rape issue ie social/sexual issue.

as a scenario, if u organized a group of people and found a way to lobby d government to create a law to impose harsh punishment on rapist + provide social intervention/resources for rape vicims, that will be a breakthrough for women in Nigeria and u will be a feminist champion.

biolabee: Statements should be dissected on it's own merit

I know you guys are passionate about what you believe in but the reality or truth is somewhere in between

I agree with your second paragraph 100 percent.

We all have daughters or sisters and would not like to have them assaulted but there needs be a push or social movement to protect them, protect the widows

Just last year a state signed a law mandating sharing inheritance equally among sons and daughters

For me I don't see why not but historically females are not due for inheritance because they are married out so I get where that is coming from

But I see it more from, my grand kids are mine whether from my son or daughter so they are all goin to benefit from me

If it's feminism that will help with some form of social justice .. Good but all too often there are other motives at play

glad that we are finally seeing eye to eye.
totally agree with this post

for d last sentence in your post. It is hard to judge a motive as sinister because ultimately, there will be men who will feel threatened by women acquiring any form of formerly denied rights. It is not the women's job to please such men but i'm sure most women will know to differentiate such men from men who are genuinely interested in the progress of women. For example, in d protests in india, there were many men among them. and many rights women gained in western world would not have been possible if they didn't have male supporters as well.
yea I agree that there are extreme feminists too. but that shouldn't be an excuse to write off the entire feminist movement or history.

biolabee: How does feminism help social justice

feminism is very broad. women (and men) fighting or doing something positive to improve the situation of women are feminists. no matter how small or big.

biolabee: Interesting

Cfours they are other things in my post and suddnely the whole logic makes no sense

ur post definitely made a lot of sense.
just d last sentence only was questionable. I guess I associated u too much with pleep monkey over here so I didn't read ur post properly. my fault.

u said "our women need protection" but I don't see how men will automatically wake up one day and decide to "protect" women unless they have feminist sympathies or feel that women need more rights. women should also be active part of the process because is about them anyway. and they are not children. they are adults.

women in India took to the streets to protest recently as u probably r aware of the Dehli gang ra.pe incident that was in d news for a while

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/where-is-indias-feminist-movement-headed/

[img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20121222/shirsoleiman20121222090129350.jpg[/img]

pleep: At the bolded, thats your job... simply stop rapeing people if its becoming a serious problem. I don't understand why you people think you need feminism for that

The incidence for any crime is high when a nation has a corrupt barely functional government such as Nigerias.

We are not talking about the north, or Islamic countries in General. This pertains to the west, and cultures influenced by it

.... and your first point, so? What will feminism do about that? (i don't know where you are from but i've never seen either of those situations occur) please elaborate

hahaha
d reason we have "functional government" in the USA that protects women from r.ape is because FEMINISTS fought for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Historical_context

and feminists are still fighting till this day to defend it.

I live in d USA

biolabee: Ra.pe incidents are rampant

Our women need protection

there u go...
rap.e protection from who? isn't it men that are rap.ing them?
if men are rapi.ng women, then how can dey be protected by d same men? isn't that like racketeering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_%28crime%29

do u see how your logic makes no sense?
keep deluding urself. r.ape will continue until something big is done about it. ex government policies to impose severe punishment for r.ape. just like we have in d west but women (feminists) had to fight for these policies.

biolabee: But i dont think single motherhood as cfours advocates is the way to go

don't twist my words. What I said was that single motherhood is much better than a dysfunctional two-parent home. I think this is very obvious logic. Also, it makes no sense when the man has no purpose or usefulness in d home. yet his ego might create hostile environment in d home.
ex. If a woman got married and made equal or more money than her husband, I would expect him to contribute a fair share in d house w/ caring for the kids, helping in d kitchen etc (d wife is pulling her weight financially after all). most men's ego are too big for this hence d reason why it may be more worthwhile for some women to be single. what's d purpose of raising kids+a full grown man at the same. makes no practical sense. d man has no purpose or usefulness in d family.
it's more of an issue in black community because if u look at the statistics, women participation in d workforce is way higher than black men. no other race has a situation like this! hence why more black women are single. it makes more financial and practical sense.IMO black men are also less likely to help raise their kids. unlike white men.this compounds d issue even further.
All the white families i've been close to, all d men cook and clean or help out in d home in some way. even men who seem to be the breadwinner! they have more gender equal arrangements with their partners. so what's so bad about feminism when it is actually good for everyone involved.
as long as u don't let some ego issues get in d way. d day some men start seeing women as equal human beings will b d day things will start to get better for those men because we are no longer in 1850. this is 2013.
at least rich men still have d option of getting women to obey their commands. but when ur financial situation isn't all that rosy, I think expecting a submissive, servile wife (unless u import her from a 3rd world, starvation country)is just unrealistic. she knows she will fare better being single.

Omotola with Genevieve again. Hotties
btw, where does Genevieve buy her weaves? they're always on point!
[img]http://nigeriafilms.com/image.aspx?img=Y29udGVudC9jb250ZW50L29tb3NleHktZ2VubnkyMG5mYy5qcGd8NjAw[/img]

Omotola babyface
[img]http://mymindsnaps.files./2013/02/1-omotola-1.jpg[/img]

Omo-sexy with Genevieve
[img]http://news1.ghananation.com/thumbnail.php?file=image/omotola_genevieive_533591629.jpg&size=article_medium[/img]

She's pretty
https://www.onenigerianboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Omotola-Jolade-Ekeinde-1.jpg

she take style resemble ileke-idi in dis pic. LOL
[img]http://www.nigeriafilms.com/image.aspx?img=Y29udGVudC9jb250ZW50L0RTQzAwMDFORkMuanBnfDY2MA==[/img]