₦airaland Forum

How does one 'mistakenly' impregnate another?

Did he fall and land ontop of her?

DanielAlhassan:
If your husband mistakenly impregnate another woman, while you are still looking For a Child!

What will be your reaction?

Don't marry a troublesome wife.

evil1:
One thing I'm scared of hitting a woman especially my wife.

The moment you start hitting her, it becomes a norm for correction.
I rather leave a troublesome wife than to engage in physical hurt that might end up escalating to something else.
I love peace of mind to the fullest

As a strong proponent of equality, equal rights mean equal lefts.

If there is mutual respect, this will likely never happen.

Richy4:
What if the wife beats him first... Some ladies just have some dirty idea of slapping men... daring them to retaliate... has that at least occurred to some of you?...
<<< Yes men should not beat their wives... Yes men should leave the place when it gets toxic... But a woman should not hit me first.. it's not a good idea ....

So beat her up without consequences?

Some women go carry knife o. Be warned!

MrBrownJay1:
any man can decide how he wants to deal with his wife, but then again, make sure she doesnt have some MMA fighter type as a brotha, who can possibly deal with you mercilessly!

ultimately, if your wife is disrespectful to you, divorce the woman instead of trying to change her with beatings.

I hope you guys know some wives beat their husbands.

Some because they are physically stronger and others because they don't expect him to reciprocate.

In fact, some research showed that in DV where the victim did not reply with violence, women were more likely to be the aggressor. This was an American study though, for context.

Make sure you marry someone you respect and respects you.

mariahAngel:
First of all, hahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

Secondly....you know what? Forget it!

Typical Nigerian seeking humiliation.

Don't marry somebody like that in the fist place.

Rozcol:
I like that woman's brothers I'm sure my lovely brothers will do more if any man dare such with me.Next time they should strip him naked after the heavy beatings

I have never slapped my SO. Not once in my entire life.

Why will anyone slap their wife?

Lostchild:
I heard from the conversation of a lady who said, a woman gave birth to 9 boys and 1 girl.
Edit
It is natural for couples to fight, but there is the problem when the ego of your wife makes her feels, she has well to do family members and can mis-behave when under their their hubby.

Many of you men attacking me, I pray you fall into the hands of a thunder bolt woman, and if you end up slaping her, shame on you.

Is this a question? Two become one in marriage. We are moving to our new house ASAP.

Daddy GO's girlfriends need hair money.

CharisEleos:
Nope but they use it here on earth for the propagation of the gospel.

The sound system needs maintainance, it naira they use.

The church organizes programs and print fliers. It is naira they use.

The church pays light bills, it's this same naira they use.

You get it now?

You don't want to contribute to your GO's slush fund?

Shame on YOU!!

Pickieox:
Whether I have or not, I don't give. It's a personal decision...

Antispam bot banned my account until tomorrow. My guess is the word choice "h 0 3" triggered that.

I'll reply to your comments when the ban ends.

Cheers.

Magnoliaa:
cc Budaatum

Okay, here it is.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

Magnoliaa:
Burbye then. It's you that know. Too bad you share gender with them o, so you berra get used to me referring to men, males or do eyes right if I do... If not, it's on you.

I believe in freedom of speech, generalize away.

Magnoliaa:
Hohoho. It's not consistent? You're brushing up, good. Welcome to the introductory class on Alfa Pillars Logic 103 (as in classic male thinking and demands and statements riddled with contradictions upon contradictions).

To be fair, what I called inconsistent is what you asserted not necessarily what a men's rights activist said. Regardless, the nebulous issue exists here too. Different MRAs or TRPillers ascribe different approaches. There is a huge variety from MGTOW to PUA to Egalitarianism, etc.

Magnoliaa:
I am not talking about 100% of men. I don't. I don't ever. I think this should be pretty obvious?

You specifically said: "...what I am saying about men (you can read this as being 100% as well)...". Now you are saying: "I am not talking about 100% of men". Nne, which is it?

Magnoliaa:
Telling you how the word "hoe" can be viewed from different angles, and you seem to be one fixed on a literary/dictionary definition of it or sum'n...

Hoe has a definition, you are trying to make a point by ascribing many meanings to this one word at the same time. I don't see how that is consistent.

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?

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.

I don't take generalizations as common knowledge; whether about men or women or race or etc. I, a social observer, is not confirming these " truths ". So there.

Magnoliaa:
Lol. Yes, we do. You can exclude yourself. That's fine. And maybe it's because of your perspective (valid), but it doesn't negate what I am saying about men (you can read this as being 100% as well) attaching the word 'hoe' to just about any woman that fits into the categories of women I described above. There's a social aspect to us, and any social observer can confirm some of these social 'truths.' So the 'can't make a wife out of a hoe' phrase proceeded from that biased belief. Words have social connotations as well.

You: "To them, a hoe is a woman that have sex, loves it , whether in moderation or not."

I'm also curious as to where you're finding these 100% of men who think women are not supposed to like sex. That's not even consistent with calling a woman a hoe.

If hoe means promiscuous, then argue along those lines. These straw men (whether by you or these magical 100% of men) add nothing to the conversation. I think.

Also, I don't even think I said (as my opinion) that a hoe can't make a wife, even though I have heard of research along those lines. Why? Because even women or men that are not hoes can make terrible spouses; people may just not be compatible; people may have married for the 'wrong reasons', etc. There are so many nodes where things could go wrong, and I don't think the research has (or can) account for all these nodes.

Magnoliaa:
Jeez. You're misunderstanding me. I'm not calling a woman who likes sex a hoe ! I said it's what guys call such a woman. Because they believe a woman must not like sex, or whatever. She likes sex, but she isn't promiscuous. Guys tag her a hoe, hence she can't be wifed. Yesss, 'hoe' is the term for being promiscuous, but it's used indiscriminately now on just about any woman it's hard to differentiate. So if you're calling an otherwise great, cool, etc., girl that loves sex a hoe, that "hoe" can be married and be an awesome partner to her husband.

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?

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...

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Kobojunkie:
The comment immediately below is yours, is it not?
My question again is this... if some Feminists like A whereas other Feminists like B, does it become sufficient to then conclude that Feminism is about liking A over B?

Read well ma'am, I don't ascribe anythign to feminism exactly because any self acclaimed feminist could (and do) ascribe everythign to feminism. Hence my use of the word "nebulous".

Kobojunkie:
Pay attention.. I didn't ask you of your opinion regarding feminism. I instead wanted us to ponder the logic or lack of, behind a previous claim you made.

Again, So if some Feminists like A whereas other Feminists like B, does it become sufficient to then conclude that Feminism is about liking A over B?

"We" don't "all know".

Generalizations are unnecessary. Hoe (the colloquial term) has a meaning. Promiscuous has a definition, etc. Using these words to mean something they are not is not necessary.

Magnoliaa:
And I'm not redefining anything. We all know how men shame women for even the slightest show of interest in sex. To them, a hoe is a woman that have sex, loves it, whether in moderation or not. Even women they've not slept with are hoes. They only need to judge you from afar. It is the guys that do that? I'm not the one doing the equation?