₦airaland Forum

carefreewannabe:
Show me the source that proves that Virginia Woolf graduated.

what has this gotta do with your disgraceful claims that only london university graduated women before 1920 in the whole of britain?

shameless pathological liar....

Shirley07:
Something else? Ruminant.

go & submit to your husband
i have nothing else to preach to you this evening. hit me on man utd thread if you want to discuss football.

carefreewannabe:
King of Sciolism

At the beginning of the 20th century it was very difficult for women to obtain a university education. In 1870 Emily Davies and Barbara Bodichon helped to set up Girton College, the first university college for women, but it was not recognised by the university authorities. In 1880 Newnham College was established at Cambridge University. By 1910 there were just over a thousand women students at Oxford and Cambridge. However, they had to obtain permission to attend lectures and were not allowed to take degrees.

Without a university degree it was very difficult for women to enter the professions. After a long struggle the medical profession had allowed women to become doctors. Even so, by 1900 there were only 200 women doctors. It was not until 1910 that women were allowed to become accountants and bankers. However, there were still no women diplomats, barristers or judges.

http://spartacus-educational.com/Wuniversity.htm

In 1878 London became the first university in the UK to admit women to its degrees. In 1880, four women passed the BA examination and in 1881 two women obtained a BSc. By 1895, over 10 per cent of the graduates were women and by 1900 the proportion had increased to 30 per cent.

http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html

King Of Sciolism

and from your single-digit IQ, oxbridge were the only universities in england - there weren't other ones? you have the brain capacity of a slug.

i have given you several examples of women that copped their degrees in manchester.....scottish universities were offering degrees to women before 1920. your assertion that there was no university giving women degrees earlier on has been destroyed.

even after i corrected you & you shifted position that only london university offered degrees to women, you still got destroyed that manchester university & some universities in scotland gave women degrees before 1914(100 years ago). you are a fool of epic proportions....you uncircumcised tröglodyte!

Now, King of Sciolism, who thinks that highlighting passages in bold means that someone is shouting grin show me the source that proves that Virginia Woolf graduated. grin grin grin

stop being a fool - you typed in caps & it's known as shouting. your long stay in the bushes of your village is the reason you didn't know your cap-lock behaviour is animalistic.

we shall continue to teach the home training you refused to learn.

Shirley07:
By who? A common Paul.

[img]http://.net/i/1485.gif[/img]

elampiro: * Arsenal couldn't have been weak in 1997/1998. A team that finished third in 96/97 with just 7 points from 1st? They equally had big name players before they outspent Man United. Seaman, Tony Adams, Ian Wright, Bergkamp,, David plat, Veira

if they weren't weak, why did they hire arsene wenger?

Shirley07:
If you're not plain stupid you should have known the deep meaning of that word. What am I even expecting from an underfed ruminant?
Anyway, what I mean is man and woman are equal in the sight of God but Christ is not even equal to the thousands of human out there.

a woman & a man aren't equal in the sight of God. this is why you are asked to submit to your husband as the church submits to christ. unless your husband is a woman, you are talking nonsense.

Shirley07:
Being a foolish ruminant is even worse.
Man is a half human, he's completed by a woman which signify both are 1 in the sight of God as opposed to Christ.

surely, i have seen more intelligent silverback apes at chester zoo....

you mean i am not complete without you? what a twerp this shirley is - how do you accomplish day-to-day activities with this high level of gross idiöcy?

Shirley07:
We all know your happiness depends on one. Or do you think you're a ruminant for nothing?
On your Q, I abide by Christ's word, not Paul and he never said anything about man being the head.

you are a fool then.
if women had any form of authority, jesus would be a woman. God himself is a He, Jesus is a He. where exactly do you fit in other than being my helpmate & giving good oräl sėx at night?

you lost your lofty position the moment you bit that apple.

carefreewannabe:
You are the KING OF SCIOLISM so it is your job to misinform people, which you do.

The University of London was THE FIRST and by that time ONLY university to admit women on equal terms, which they are proud of TODAY.

stop being an idïot!
the genesis of the argument was that women have had 100 years of equal opportunity to perform as the menfolk.

you then went to a retardëd website probably authored by a lunatic like yourself to bring out an article that makes no sense. you were called out on it & you started chatting poppycocks.

King of Sciolism.
By the way, how can you shout online?

when you type in caps - it's known as shouting anywhere in the world. if you have not been living in the bush for the last 20 years, this shouldn't be new to you.

you are a village peasant that lacks netiquette.

I am not going to ask you again IF YOU HAVE EVER TAKEN MONEY from a woman, an African one by the way, I already know.

so you can give up? mumu!

marie stopes graduated from UCL in 1902. susan isaacs graduated by 1912 in manchester university, virginia woolf graduated in 1901 from KCL. rona robinson copped her degree in 1905 as the first female chemistry graduate in britain.

from that evidence alone, it means some schools admitted female students before 1914(which was 100 years ago) if we follow through the genesis of the argument.

you see, you can't just beat a man that actually studied a bit of history with your 30 mins google scouring. you are a low-class skank with the IQ of a praying mantis.

Shirley07:
Only people with low self esteem will swallow that gibberish, Foolish Ruminant. Let me also made it known that I don't abide by a common man (Paul) commandment because he's not the Christ.

so who do you abide by? uncommon man? you have the brain power of a pubic louse.....

Moreover, If I was a man, I would even be more insulted by that scriptural verse because I wouldn't feel my happiness should depend on head calling and being called one by my wife who's supposed to be my partner, just to satisfy my ego which is a stupid act on its own.

whose happiness depend on head calling? far majority of the women initiate marriage plans than men so what's your point? left to men - they are contented with sėx alone - marriage can go to blazes. so my dear shirley, stop talking like a gerbil crawled up your rectüm.

carefreewannabe:
Men have access to ALL / MANY universities.
Women have access to ONE out of many universities.
= EQUALITY FOR COOGAR
Simpleton.

oxford & cambridge were the only known gender-biased universities before 1900. other universities admitted women, it's not only one. stop misinforming the public with your güguru & epa analysis. some men in that era would have been denied admission as well based on skin colour, class or religious affiliations.

are you not ashamed of yourself with your single-digit IQ?

I AM ASKING YOU FOR THE FIFTH TIME:

HAVE YOU NEVER TAKEN MONEY FROM A WOMAN?

just the 5th time?
when you get to the 1000th time or when you stop yelling like a rhesus monkey(whichever comes first) then you will have your answer.

i despise women who yell because they lack manners. it smacks me that you, carefreewannabe, have the self esteem of an elf.

carefreewannabe:
You are a fo*ol, the biggest on this forum. King of Sciolism.

So ONE university being opened to females proves that women were treated equally in the UK when ALL other universities would not admit them?

And you believe that when ONE university admits women, the whole society follows and everyone sends their daughters to school SWIFTLY changing their mind that their place is not in the kitchen?


Simpleton.

the money spent on your education should have been used to buy prophylactics to prevent your conception in the first place.

as at 1878, university of london was admitting female students without bias. by 1900(22 years later) only a miserable 30% of their graduates were females.

can you not deduce with your toad-brains that perhaps women weren't interested at all in going to universities & raising a family amongst other factors could have been the top priority then?

I AM ASKING YOU FOR THE FOURTH TIME:

HAVE YOU NEVER TAKEN MONEY FROM A WOMAN?

stop shouting.....
you don't need to shout & put your sentences in bold to drive your points home. what manner of woman would you be in the real world?? is this how you yell when you are ignored by the men in your lives?

your question has no relevance to the misinformation you were spreading earlier, you inscrutable leprechaun!

crackhaus:
Lmao... Shirley is a lost cause, you needn't bother - at least the others try to type some sensible things, but never her.

Her neural synapses only get fired up when it's time to type insults and trash.

she's my favourite feminist amongst the pack. at least, others try to colour their feminism to suit whatever circumstance they find themselves.

shirley never shifts her position regarding feminism. she hates apostle paul with a passion(she probably sees him in her dreams). let's get her a dïck & a pair of tësticles.

i doubt she can ever be fulfilled as a woman.

carefreewannabe:
You are the biggest id*iot on this forum.

There were plenty of universities in the UK before 1900 but ONLY ONE admitted women on equal terms until the 1920s.

you are a fool!
after misinforming the public that there were no female graduates before 1900, you are now püssyfooting around the facts like a doofus that you are.

even if we look at the facts, it's medically correct to say you are clinically insane. if only one university admitted women on equal terms in 1878, how come the percentage of women graduating(after 22 years of admitting women) was 30%?

shouldn't it be 50% since women were giving equal opportunities as the men in that particular university? you see how easy it is to pick your brain apart? all your 30 years of formal education has been shredded by coogar.

go home & kill yourself....

KING OF SCIOLISM.

You still have NOT answered my question. I am asking you for the third time.

HAVE YOU NEVER TAKEN MONEY FROM A WOMAN?

stop pissing on your own credibility on a forum. you meet a guy for the first time & you guys go on a date few days later - why is it always expected that the guy must pay for the date?

Shirley07:
Who said otherwise?

so you are insulted by the bible cos the holy book asks you to see your husband as your head?

what a fragile low self esteem you must have. should we put you on a suicide watch or should we contact TEHN to fund your sëx change surgery?

carefreewannabe:
The University of London was the first and ONLY ONE to admit women and men on equal terms in 1878.

And you will come here and claim that women have had THE SAME RIGHTS everywhere in the UK.

oh my gosh - the fool finally realises there were female graduates before 1900 in britain and around 30% of the university's graduates were females by 1900?

how isn't that same rights? how many universities were functioning in britain as at 1878? cambridge & oxford were village schools - london is the capital - so you should understand the dynamics - it's just like comparing lagos in the 70s to your village.

thank goodness - you have learnt something from me again today instead of running around with heresies that there were no female graduates 100 years ago.....you are a shameless dolt!

NOW TELL US, have you never taken money from a woman?

i have asked you once to correlate the relevance of this question with your low IQ. of what essence is this question to your rank stupïdity? you think scouring google puts you on the same intelligence spectrum as me?

freshdude2:
This is what I referred to when I said it isn't worth it. They know the truth but choose to look the other way.

and that's the fraud i have always tried to highlight.....they know the truth but they would rather look the other way until they birth male kids.

babygirlfl:
I believe you can learn more and understand people better when a conversation is civil. I try to have civil conversation with people without insulting each other or taking it personal. The bolded is taking this conversation to a personal level. As such I will stop here with you.

i didn't insult you in any manner - but if you choose to see it that way then there's nothing i can do to change that. telling you to see your boyfriend or male partner as your head is not an insult......otherwise the bible has insulted every woman on the planet.

carefreewannabe:
King of Sciolism.

It is not possible to answer precisely the question 'who was the first woman graduate?' Before October 1920, women were not allowed to matriculate (ie to be become members of the University) or to graduate. From the late 1870s, women had attended lectures, taken examinations, and had gained honours in those examinations. They were, however, unable to receive the degree to which, had they been men, their examinations would have entitled them.

The new University statute of 1920 which admitted women to full membership of the University, and which came into effect from October that year, enabled women who had previously taken and gained honours in University examinations to return to matriculate (ie go through the formal ceremony of admission to the University) and have the degree to which they were now entitled conferred on them (again, at a formal ceremony). Consequently, at the very first ceremony at which women were able to graduate more than forty women did so.

you are a first class idïot!
only oxford & cambridge had restricted women from collecting certificates - university of london matriculated & graduated female students before 1900.

even a rat knows this - are you kidding me?

carefreewannabe:
King of Sciolism.
Tell me, have you never collected money from a woman?

what has this gotta do with your extremely low IQ, mòron?

100 years of equality? REALLY? grin grin grin grin

100 years ago, women in the UK were not allowed to obtain degrees. Get your facts right!

this has to be gross idïocy.
university of london had female undergraduates as far back as 1878. by 1900, 30% of their graduates were females.

carefreewannabe:
You warned me? And so?
Now tell everybody how women in the UK have enjoyed equality for 100 years.

they have enjoyed equality for more than 100 years.

By the way, you should be careful what you say about women not paying bills.

what bills do you pay?
when was the last time you paid your own share of the bill on a date? even hardcore feminists confessed any man who makes them pay on a date will never get a second date from them.

carefreewannabe:
You are talking shi*t again.

are you a morön?
have i not warned you repeatedly only to quote me when your brain is working normally?

Are engineers and CEOs the only jobs you can come up with?

no, we should talk about temp jobs, secretarial roles and cashiers at supermarkets. you need more IQ to do such roles than the easy engineering jobs around.

Why don't you mention that there will be soon more female doctors (by 2017)?

by 2017?
after almost 100 years of men & women enjoying equal rights in education? 2017 my foot!

And why don't you mention that companies with female leaders on board are more successful?
Why Women Are More Effective Leaders Than Men

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-are-better-leaders-2014-1#ixzz3J3UUwLRe

pure nonsense!
there are only 5 CEOs in the FTSE-100 companies. by your daft logic, 95 of those companies headed by men shouldn't be successful at all or should be less successful than the ones run by women.

Women CEOs Are Good For Business, Says Study
According to the numbers, companies with women at the top make more money.

An analysis from Fortune showed that Fortune 1000 companies with female CEOs record better stock market returns than those with male CEOs. Only 51 of the Fortune 1000 companies are run by women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/women-ceos-good-for-business_n_5587540.html

yet pure nonsense!
where are the girls who were beating the boys in all the subjects in school? one in four female engineers leave the field after age 30, compared to only one in 10 male engineers -

start asking yourself why they cannot cope with the job - sėx discrimination or incompetence?

Now let us see what is going to happen in countries with gender equality in the future.

you don't need the future to know there are jobs suited to the menfolk & there are jobs suited to the womenfolk. jobs that are immensely mentally-tasking is not for the women.

freshdude2:
I was, in fact, expecting such links from you. After school though, what's the performance per gender/sex. The performance of girls according to grade in Nigeria should actually be higher because after copying us in the exam halls they went on to sort lecturers. . In the real economy though, the chaff is constantly being sifted from the wheat.


Are you going to answer wage gap?

girls don't even beat boys.....
at least not in the subjects that matter. britain has been on this equality shytë for 100 years & less than 10% of all british engineers are females. less than 20% of all american engineers are females.

where are these little girls that are beating the boys in subjects? they just fill up the quota given to their gender and never fully reach the top in their chosen careers. they either fall off cos of marriage or child rearing or they lack the brain output to achieve their goals.

how many CEOs in the FTSE-100 are women?

freshdude2:
I'm quite tired of the run-around. I thought I was arguing with sane people. Oh, how wrong I was.

they know the truth - some of them just love to come online & fantasise what it would be like to have gender equality in a country like nigeria.

many of them eat directly from their husband's hands in reality so the idea of equality is a pipe dream & they know it. on what planet is a man & a woman equal?

freshdude2:
you neednt have bothered. Come back later and see your words twisted and the finest straw man deployed to misrepresent and argue against your points.

they dare not twist my words...

an african woman wants to enjoy the perks of a white woman but she doesn't want to put in the effort of the white woman......how isn't this a fraud?

babygirlfl: The People who even invented most things in the world today believe in gender equality while the African man who have not developed much suddenly thinks he is superior to the African woman. The situation becomes worse when you then realise that the same African man that thinks he is superior does not have any invention to his name. Apparently he is superior to a woman because the person that invented whatever is the same sex as him. Empty vessels indeed makes the loudest noise.

and that's exactly the point......
the greatest inventors(mostly caucasian males) believe in feminism because their women actually pull their weights. you cannot take a caucasian female out for lunch without her attempting to go dutch on the bill. they are not bought off the shelf by their suitors - no brideprice or baskets of yams, rams, fruits, etc in exchange for the bride...

is that the same with african women?
the african woman especially nigerian woman still expects the man to foot the bill. 90% of nigerian ladies won't even take their purse out on a dinner date to avoid paying by all means - how then can she be regarded as her partner's equal?

the responsibility is on the african women to prove themselves worthy to be recognised as a man's equal. you cannot have it both ways i.e. demand equality & chivalry at the same time. start with scrapping the brideprice and african men will start to see their female counterparts as their equal. until then, continue to see your boyfriend as the head.

elampiro:
He sold him. So we were told in the summer. We took a loss from the deal.

sold? when?
zaha is on loan at palace. you were told by whom?

elampiro:
Pls don't change it. What I said is still there.

* Wenger spent their way to the title in 97/98, I am sure that was his first EPL title. What I said was that he outsepnt SAF. Even if you take net spent, he far out spent SAF.

this still doesn't make sense to me....
97/98 was wenger's first full season at arsenal. what about the residual purchases SAF made the previous seasons before wenger arrived & who were still instrumental to our season?

* £22m was a lot of money in the 90s -football money. Look at the quality of players brought in with that money- Overmas, Petit, Gilles, Upson, Boa, Alexander.

£22m was nothing to what united had in their squad before 97/98. united had andy cole, henning berg, sheringham, solskjaer, poborsky, cryuff, david may, johnsen. which account should we put those?

* in subsequent years, Wenger was selling players and spending all the money. In 2000 he sold Overmars for €40m and over spent it. Compare that to SAF who sold Ronaldo and kept the money.

kept which money?
did arsenal have a debt to service like SAF? how can you even draw such yeye parallels? when wenger sold anelka to madrid, did he not spend the money to bring henry & sucker to arsenal?

Emaprince:
wtf
Cooger,you made a lot sense today!!!

The highest bidder?..not even the one she loves..

that's the truth our naija sisters can't process. they want to eat their cake & have it. on one thread, they are claiming feminism - on another thread, they want chivalry and asking where the real men are...

elampiro:
I gave you two years.
* Even your chart shows Wenger spent higher in 1997.

* 1997/8 Arsenal €22.03m , Man United €13.5m. (Arsenal bought Overmas, Petit, Gilles, Upson, Boa, Alexander)
*1999/00 Arsenal €22.65m, Man United €7.95m. (Arsenal bought Henry, Suker, Stefan,)

what about the players arsënal sold? is transfer not about buying & selling? you claimed arsenal spent mega in the mid-90s, how's €22m mega?

bukatyne:

Coogar drop it and kindly look for someone else to banter with.

All my posts on this thread will show I am really not interested in roundabout arguments.

Have a Nice day

no one is having any roundabout argument with you - i only came here to call you a fraud. if there was a brideprice on your head that was paid for by a man, then you can never be his equal.

QED!!!

bukatyne:
Really?

I can see you skipped a dose of your drugs

Pele.

the truth is bitter!
it must be painful for you that you have been exposed as a fraud. you were bought off the shelf(perhaps by the highest bidder of your suitors) and you are here claiming feminism?

how do you sleep at night knowing you are not practising what you preach? even if we agree that you are yoruba & most families don't collect more than N100, why didn't you pay that N100 from your own salary?

bukatyne:
Your blood is really boiling

My husband Did not pay BP

Next

of course, he didn't!!
you were given to him free of charge. it says so much more about you than the topic you are defending.

only teenagers in naija can claim feminism - not you old cargoes & married women. you were bought off the shelf - your feminism should have paid for your brideprice & traditional gifts brought by your hubby's family.

bukatyne:
I am a feminist

then you are a fraud!

i think some of you women should just accept you missed the train as far as feminism is concerned. you are too old to claim to be a feminist. you are a married woman - you were proposed to, a bride price was collected from your husband & yet you still want to claim there's equality between you & him?

no married woman in nigeria can claim to be a feminist - that is fraudulent as far as the movement goes. your feminism should have paid your brideprice. you cannot enjoy the perks that come with patriarchy & then claim feminism on the other end of the stick. the guy that married you was trained & got educated like you were.....

why was there a need to pay a price on your head?

limerick - you are not serious at all.....
i said i was going to write my bars this way and you jacked my concept.

i'll be back with my verdict........but be rest assured you are getting a minus 5 for even attempting to jack my style.