₦airaland Forum

Emmynator:
Exactly, the fight (for equality) has already been won, but women over there aren't done fighting. they have extended the fight beyond its origin goal, and now it is geared at taking from men instead of adding to women.
The danger is that in a society like Nigeria where the war is still raging on, it is detrimental to start from the current wave which those who have already won are riding on.
My point has been the feminism we see on SJW and most movies aren't about equality, such belief of equality is misguided.
The only thing left is for women to take advantage of the rights which they have won, in Nigeria a female candidate came out for a position, in party primaries she could get only 1 vote, her fellow women didn't vote for her, and some how the blame goes to inequality. Now a woman can do what ever she wants, if she doesn't then that's her problem.
My favorite saying is nothing ideological can be 100% percent achieved, so any one fighting for 100% percent or fighting because 100% is not achieved is at best deluded.

Emmynator:
My point is that the chances may truly never be equal. Each sex will still get the advantage over another in different scenarios.
My second point is, the current wave of feminism we are seeing is not geared at equality, if it is, it is in the wrong sense of it. In a society like America, the idea of equality as is propagated is attained, we only have people refusing to lay down arms and still fighting on. Nothing ideological can be 100% attained, so that shouldn't be an excuse. The problem is Nigeria for e6xample is that we are copying the whites even when we haven't even achieved the first wave of feminism goals.
Believe me, I understand all you guys points, and I agree with them. The only difference is in application.

Emmynator:
Equality is a pseudo word. If equality is achieved then someone is at disadvantage.
Man and woman can never be equal in the real sense of it.
In some areas one sex will have advantage over the other. The next wave of feminism will only seek to take away the advantages of men while holding on to the advantages of women.
That's why I said I am not optimistic that feminism can achieve any more than it already has, anything beyond what they've already achieved is not feminism.

abduleez1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPjF9sJcj4A

The Zack SnyderCut teaser trailer for Justice League.


Epicness awaits.


Modified: Treyknowles beat me to it.

Emmynator:
My main point is equality is not a valid target for feminism.

Emmynator:
Fairness and equity, not equality bro.
I said fight for equality is misguided, as long as man and woman have different biology make up and strengths call for equality is misguided. I tell you, I am not optimistic that feminism can make any more progress than it already has, because anything beyond that is no more feminism.
Equality is what makes some kids to be called dullard even when in a real sense they aren't, they are not just suited to the system that is the judge.
We could delve deep into the philosophy of feminism by comparing what it was and what it is today. We will see that the current wave of feminism is pointless.

abduleez1:
I swear. With billions spent on them they still fumble at the Grand stage.

They think if the aforementioned Spanish clubs including Villareal had money they had, we would be seeing 2/3 horse race.

Heck, Epl teams in the top 20 Richest Clubs in Europe will be at least 10 if not up to 12. And they are still doing nonsense in Europe. mtchew.....
It's even looking like a 2 horse race now sef.

SMUAG:
To you, you thinking Laliga isn't that competitive? To me, Laliga isn't that competitive as epl due to the fact that RM and Barca are way richer than all other clubs there.....but that doesn't stop the other teams from competing. Clubs like ATM (already smashed Lvpl), Athletico Club, Valencia, Espanyol, Villareal and Sevilla can take on epl giants any day.
Now you talk about money, are you telling me that epl clubs are not far richer and equipped to spend more on window transfer than their Spanish counterparts?
Did I hear you say Liverpool isn't that rich as other epl teams like the Manchesters and Chelsea? Ask yourself, is there any player that these teams can afford that Liverpool won't be able to do so too? Or you think Virgil Van Dijk you signed for #75m no other clubs went for hm. You got his signature because you presented the highest bid and your form was only second to City then. Often times the way players choose to play their trades mostly depends on the current clubs' form.
Most players today will gladly choose Man City and Liverpool over Man U, Chelsea or Arsenal, not because they are richer, but because the chances of them winning something is close to sure bet based on current forms.

SimSify:
that's the day Barça will start to crumble..

bankolefun:
i am nt a barca fan, aswear i often think this way too..it is gona be an emotional one for me..just like when lampard left Chelsea.��

Minemrys:
really?

Minemrys:
like what exactly?

isn't feminism all abt independent, str0ng w0men capable of doing her thing? Bk in the days, we didn't have characterz as such bt the advent of the m0vement brought this. WW is easily a feminist ic0n. The problem with feminism is that it's easily misunderst0od. WW just like supes projects hope, projects feminism. Ofcos, just cos diana is str0ng doesn't make her a feminist, but the fact that she uses said strength to show the imp0rtance of w0men to society and in the case of this m0vie, in stopping the war, makes her a feminist. In this case, her acti0ns pr0m0te feminism. It's n0t abt going round measuring dicks with men that means feminism or hyping the female gender while bashing men. It's showing the importance of w0men and the balance they bring to society, hence the advocati0n for equality. The film did that through the imagery of the amaz0ns, diana's acti0ns and alot in the film. It portrayed an intelligent w0man, who is proud of who she is, c0nfident, str0ng and capable to show her worth. That's feminism. And patty got that right. This is what batw0man, ghost busterz and brie lars0n didn't get. S0mehow BoP also got it.

Minemrys:
i am guessing u missed those words in my resp0nse to thekingishere didn't u?

Minemrys:
the deportivo u menti0ned was which year? The 2000s right?

Minemrys:
remember emmynator was affirming what i said. N0w go bk to the discussi0n with thekingishere. I've always made same asserti0n, n0w what the fvck is myopic in what i said?

Minemrys:
yeye :-D so na epl no c0me get many title holderz ehn? Check this thing, the epl has never g0ne in 5 c0nsecutive seas0ns with a 2 horse race in the league. But bros, ask me who go win la liga next seas0n, i will say it's either RM or barca. But u can't say the same for epl. Next seas0n, it could be Lfc and chelsea or man city and chelsea or evert0n.

Minemrys:
so what do u think feminism is abt? We all learn, d0n't we?

Minemrys:
add blackburn rovers and leeds to that.

SMUAG:
Put it this way, epl have better packaging and marketing...
For me, Laliga is a superior league to epl, cause I don't see any team in epl that can easily compete with Real Madrid and Barca consistently for many seasons. Even their so called average teams there will flock or compete with epl top teams any day anytime

Emmynator:
Women of today are the ones undermining feminism the most. There is a difference between equality, equity and fairness. All the call for equality is misguided, not to mention those who have made it their duty to hate men and try to pull men down. Feminism was never about men vs women, it was about improving the position of women. Men joined in the fight so it was never a gender war.

Minemrys:
here is what i d0n't understand. You d0n't kn0w what feminism means and yet you say i have a myopic view of feminism. Okay.

Minemrys:
lol, seriously, since the 2000s, it's been barca or RM bro, but the epl has had various champi0ns. Only a few times do we have Atm as liga champi0ns.

Minemrys:
isn't feminism all abt independent, str0ng w0men capable of doing her thing? Bk in the days, we didn't have characterz as such bt the advent of the m0vement brought this. WW is easily a feminist ic0n. The problem with feminism is that it's easily misunderst0od. WW just like supes projects hope, projects feminism. Ofcos, just cos diana is str0ng doesn't make her a feminist, but the fact that she uses said strength to show the imp0rtance of w0men to society and in the case of this m0vie, in stopping the war, makes her a feminist. In this case, her acti0ns pr0m0te feminism. It's n0t abt going round measuring dicks with men that means feminism or hyping the female gender while bashing men. It's showing the importance of w0men and the balance they bring to society, hence the advocati0n for equality. The film did that through the imagery of the amaz0ns, diana's acti0ns and alot in the film. It portrayed an intelligent w0man, who is proud of who she is, c0nfident, str0ng and capable to show her worth. That's feminism. And patty got that right. This is what batw0man, ghost busterz and brie lars0n didn't get. S0mehow BoP also got it.

boniga:
This should go to front page people should know these things. Whites are no better people than us.

Lalasticlala

hakeem4:
You can explain it to us since you hear directly from god

GRIMMJOE:
Hallelujah

odinson1:
Ok i get your point
The thing is that it will take up to a century or 2 before religion will totally be wiped off from Nigeria

onlyfacts:
The Bible quotation isn't relevant to the questioned you asked. You wrongly directed it at CHRISTIANS.

There were three different laws given to servants of God in the bible at different time intervals. The patriarchal law, the mosaic law, and the laws and principles governing Christianity. These laws overlap in some places but are hugely different in other places, hence their clear distinction in names.

The patriarchal law was for the likes of Abraham, Isaac and jacob etc(they are the forefathers of the nation of Israel). It was the foundation leading to the mosaic law which would officially be given to moses at Mount Sinai.

The mosaic law was for the nation of Israel, it was a temporary law that foreshadowed that which was to come after it, after which it was to be fulfilled, which marked it's ending (which includes the law found in Deuteronomy)

The Christian laws and principles were for both Jewish christians and gentiles christians(which includes Christians around the world). It is that which God is using NOW in directing his people.

So I wasn't evading your question by not answering YES or NO as that LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE TO CHRISTIANS, I wrongly assumed you knew. I was simply explaining what that law in Deuteronomy meant to the israelites who observed it. As a Christian Jesus didn't make that law applicable to us and many others under the mosaic law and neither did his apostles under the Christian law and principle. So your answer is no.

Ola17:
Your earlier reply gives off vibes of someone with a preconceived mindset(I could be Totally wrong). You kind of went on a tangent, it is easy to read from my contributions on this thread that I really don’t hold the part of the Bible in the op as the direct word of God.

It is a common practice in earlier civilizations for the leaders to make laws and claim them to be revelations from God, this may be the only way you can get the common people to maintain social order as they haven’t developed the system of policing we have now. People’s consciences were mostly their police.