₦airaland Forum

MrAnony1: Actually you didn't show any such thing. You merely claimed that it was the case. You still haven't provided us a single right that males have that is unavailable to females in Nigeria.


Oh I understand what gender means quite alright, I am just not as blinded by feminist ideology as you are. (More on this later)


Actually this is not true. I don't deny the existence of gender I only reject your definition of it.


No I don't. I believe you are contradicting yourself mostly due to a very poor understanding of the issue you are discussing.


Actually there is no such thing as "worse than the worst of all" but that's by the way, We aren't arguing over nothing. The problem you seem to have is that you start from faulty presuppositions that taint your definition of gender and equal rights. It is these presuppositions that we don't share and this spills unto our disagreements on gender and equality.



It is interesting that no matter how often you are asked to show these unequal rights, you never do rather you assume them to be the case and then redefine/misinterpret the definition of gender to match with your prior assumption. This is a classic case of circular reasoning


I'll tell you once you tell me where you got the talk that "the man is the head of the family".

[size=13pt]Addendum:[/size]

For the sake of clarity, please allow me to point out exactly what the debate between two of us is.

1. I think we both agree that as a society we ought to treat males and females equally i.e. grant them equal rights
2. You start with the presupposition that females are the oppressed sex, I don't.

No.2 is why you are a feminist and I am not. All I have done throughout our discourse was to challenge your presupposition by asking you to show how exactly females are specifically disadvantaged in Nigeria. You haven't been able to do this at all.

Let us now take a look at how you define gender.

According to you, gender is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. You even go on to suggest that society allocates these roles and they are fixed and cannot be fluid.

Here is the definition of gender according to the Merriam Webster's dictionary

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Notice any difference?

While gender is actually defined as traits typically associated with being male or female, you have chosen to define yours as traits allocated to/imposed upon males and females with females especially getting the worse end of the stick.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to give examples of roles that you or women in general would like to play have that have been unfairly denied to you for the specific reason that you are female. That is your burden of proof and you have repeatedly failed to meet it.

I don't deny that in our society, there are roles played more often by men than by women and vice versa. What I reject is how you interpret that to mean that the roles played are therefore imposed upon the sexes by society. This is simply not true because the reality is that men and women from time to time switch from roles typically associated with their sexes and no one punishes them for it.

I do not buy your assertion that "criticism and ostracism" are the "weapons" because people their is no such thing as a right to not be criticized. For me to take that point seriously, you will need to show that they are indeed used as weapons in the sense that they actually limit the rights of their targets. In this case, the females in particular.

Your argument is similar to saying that because black people don't typically play Ice hockey therefore they are prohibited from playing it. The logical leap is just absurd.

Because women typically don't play the role of bread winner of the family, it doesn't necessarily follow that society therefore forbids them from playing such a role. To justify your position, you will have to provide positive evidence of society punishing women for daring to provide for their families. Since so far, you have failed to back up your claim with any evidence, you leave us with no other choice than to disregard your position as contrary to reality.

To put it bluntly, the position you hold is simply false.

Definition of Gender:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

https://www.genderspectrum.org/understanding-gender

http://m.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Now these definitions are radically different from the one you built your post on.

MrAnony1: Seems you hadn't had enough after all....

Except that you have not yet shown this to be true even after asking you so many times

I did, by showing that society distributes the rights based on gender. But you didn't understand, because you are barely understanding what gender means.

You did here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/24#25528527

So yes you claimed that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex


Apparently I must have imagined you posting what I quoted then.




Good. Finally something we both agree upon.


I don't hold that society is "allocating" any roles. I hold that people are simply choosing to play the roles they think suits them best. You are always welcome to tell us which roles you would have loved to play that society prohibited you from playing based on your gender.


Remember that your definition of gender (which I don't agree with by the way) = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and an example of such responsibilities/duties that you gave is men as the head of the family.

So you are effectively saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes is invariably fixed i.e. men playing the role of family head is fixed. Otherwise if fluid - i.e. if females played the role of family head for instance - then the role will be based on something else other than sexes.

Since the reality is that both men and women can and do play these roles then according to your own argument - i.e. your argument that "if the roles are fluid then they are not based on the sexes" - we have to discard your definition of gender as having nothing to do with reality.

You are the first person in the world to deny the existence of gender and worst of all you believe I'm arguing for gender. Worse, you don't know gender is and you denied the definition! Considering your post, we were arguing over nothing.

mranony1: If you were paying any attention to what I was saying, you would have noticed that I wasn't "distributing" rights based on gender rather it was based on function....i.e. whichever sex - male or female - that bears the responsibility deserves the rights that accompany the responsibility. This is fair. Or don't you think it is?

Remember that your task has always been to show that the Nigerian society gives men greater rights than women.

You denied the existence of gender, what else can one say. By the way, where did you get the talk that "the woman is the neck of the family from

Gombs: The Bible, if God says am a tree, I am, it doesn't matter what anyone sees or say

Good.

Some people have actually conquered their fear of death to the extent that they can comfortably crack jokes (maybe morbid ones) whilst in a diving plane. They don't flinch in the face of death.

chrisviral: The illustration you have given now is actually what births Religion, saying Good is a loaded subjective term is same as saying God is a loaded subjective God, in others all religion is suited to benefits.
But on another look it stll supports my arguement that his goodness is un-measurable, since what's good for May might be for Mike, there the op asking if he should say God is Evil is also subjective(his opinion)

Btw im Christian, I was actually replying the OP in a christian perspective.

Probably.

priest2u: Even without religion , I still don't believe everything ends here. I believe there is going to be a judgement after death because of the great evil I'm seeing the world. Also the world justice system is corrupt and many are escaping judgement , there is going to be a perfect judgement and a perfect judge who will reward every soul for all their deeds both good and evil.

That's a sentiment the powerless possess. Imaginary vengeance. It is the worst type of vengeance, it is like masturbation or voyeurism.

chrisviral: To add more to my point!
To understand God, first Understand yourself, the Level of your Goodness cannot be Measured, the fact that you have done just 2 good things since you were born does not mean you are only 2% good, you will still go on to do more.. that is how God's measure of Goodness is... it's unlimited.

Yet Good is a loaded subjective term. In very simple words, Good is related to benefit, profit to one. So since whats good for May isn't always good for John.

It is a base instinct of man to fear the Unknown. It shows more of ourselves to us.

UyiIredia: Dodomu! THERE IS ONE GOD differently described by various religions in various cultures. You would be a fool to say for example that number one doesn't exist because it is expressed in so many ways.

Thor is not the same as Zeus nor is Zeus same with Jehovah.

Gombs: Yeah, I have an idea

Quit using logic on God, it never works out well..even for urself

So what is your test for truth?

If i said you do not exist or that I do not exist, would you agree with any of the statement?

MrAnony1: It seems that you have succeeded in confusing yourself. Let me see if I can help you understand what you are saying.

i.- According to you, the definition of Gender = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes.

ii.- You also hold that the society dictates the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and this is fixed.

- iii. It is as at yet unclear to me whether you are in support or against the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes because with one side of your mouth, you claim that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex and then with the other side of your mouth, you turn around and say the complete opposite by saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes does not accurately represent reality. I don't know which is more amazing: Whether it is how you can claim that something is impossible and yet is the reality of the matter or how you are seemingly oblivious of such a huge contradiction.

Yes to i. and ii. they are together. As regards iii. it is of secondary concern, because my original purpose was to show you that there were no equal rights between the sexes in Nigeria and that Gender is to be blamed. I didn't say the bolded and iv. is true because there is a difference between the ideal society perceives and reality itself. So the contradiction you saw was imaginary. Largely your creation.

MrAnony1: I on the other hand hold that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties such as being the head of a family for instance is not fixed but rather can and is played by either sex who chooses to play the role. I pointed out to you that women in particular are not denied the right to be heads of their families. to which you replied by calling me a "st[color=#000000]upi[/color]d liar" here

Yes the roles can be played by either sex in reality there is no controversy in that regards, how does society allocate the roles?? that is what is in contention. Note that since gender is anchored on the basis of sexes, it is invariably fixed. Otherwise if fluid like you agree, then the basis is something other than the sexes.

mranony1: The best way to show that I am a liar would have been by showing that the Nigerian society punishes women for playing the role of the head of the family. Using casual figurative expressions that have no bearing on reality as the basis for your argument just shows how poor your position is. It is similar to saying that the expression popular expression "white men can't dance" restricts the rights of white men from jumping or that the popular expression "women can't drive" actually denies women equal rights to driving vehicles. This is simply not the case.

Ostracism and Criticism are the weapon. What does society say about the man who lives under his wife's roof? The society does not have to throw him into jail. Same with homosexuals prior to the Anti Homo legislation, homo.sexuality was not illegal yet society frowned at it and was out of sight.

Youngsage: More!

Strongest, Wisest, Oldest, Tallest...

• The strongest and wisest men in the
Bible are: Samson and
Solomon, respectively.

• The tallest and biggest villain in the
Bible is Goliath whose height was
over 9 ½ feet.

• The greatest warrior in the Bible is
Gideon, who defeated 1,35, 000
Midianites along with 300 men and
300 trumpets under God's power.

• The oldest individual in the Bible
was Methuselah (Genesis 5:27),
who died at the age of 969!

• The oldest parable in the Bible is in
Judges 9: 8-15.


Did you know...

• Psalms 117, 118 and 119 are
chapters with special significance in
the Bible.
Apparently, Psalm 117 is
the shortest chapter in the Bible,
Psalm 118 is the central chapter of
the Bible and Psalm 119 is the
longest chapter in the Bible. It's a
hat-trick for the Psalms!

• 2 John and 3 John have the same
number of verses (13), however,
John 3 wins the title of the shortest
book due to its fewer number of
words.

• Ezra 7:21 contains all the letters of
the alphabet, except 'J' (In the New
King James Version).

• There is one chapter that is
repeated twice in the Bible: (Psalms
14 and Psalms 53) 'The fool says in
his heart, "there is no God." They
are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.'
However, they are not mirror
images of each other.

• The word 'God' appears 3,358 times
in the Bible.

• The two books, 'Songs of Solomon'
and 'Esther' have no mention of God
in them.

• The word "Christian" only appears
thrice in the Bible.

• Did you know the first baptism in
the Bible was conducted by Moses,
who used ox's blood to baptize the
people.

• The sheep is the most frequently
mentioned animal in the Bible.

• Did you know the only
domesticated animal not mentioned
in the Bible is the cat!

• The number of promises in the Bible
are 1,260.
How many have you
found? 1,260 promises to claim!

Wow!

•The phrase 'do not be afraid'
appears 365 times in the Bible, just
as the number of days in a year.
This phrase is not a suggestion but a
command. So as we live each day,
we know God has commanded us to
trust Him with all our heart and be
at rest!

• The first mention of prayer in the
Bible is in Genesis 4:26.

•The total number of questions in
the Bible is 3294.

•God's first question asked in the
Bible is 'Adam, Adam where are
you?" And God's question to us
today is still the same. He calls out
for his lost sheep. It is up to us to
turn back to Him.

*******
These Bible fun facts actually test our
knowledge of the Bible. The Bible is a
storehouse of hidden treasures. All you
have to do is go and look for these
priceless treasures embedded in it. You
won't completely comprehend how
magnificent life under the sea is until
you dive into it. Similarly, you need to
read the Bible to understand how
profound it is!!!

AND NOT ONE BOOK WRITTEN BY A WOMAN

^^^

Of course women can do anything and everything even better than men but society acts as a co.ckblocker that's the grouse of feminists.

If you read the link on the definition of Gender, you would know that it is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. Very simple to understand. Society dictates Gender, and it is fixed despite the fact that any human can pefrom those roles. It is like a division of labour created by society.

mranony1: The Nigerian society also allows both men and women to play the role of the head of the family. I don't know of any woman (or man) who has been prohibited from providing for her family because of her gender.

Anony1, (pardon my language) you are a stupi.d liar, so why does everyone including you say the man is the head of the family and the woman is the neck?!

I have had enough.

Kay17: The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

mranony1: Now you said that gender roles are not fluid but fixed. I hope you do realize that this means that you hold the position that such roles as the head of the family can never be played by a woman. This would mean that your position is sexist by definition because you are basing rights and responsibilities solely on a person's gender.

I do not hold the bolded rather it is what the patriarchial society holds. I'm merely observing. Now, if you understand what gender means, you wouldn't have said Gender is fluid. In reality women do pick up the supposed men's role, but it is not the intended role. If you agree with society that the man is the head of the family, it would be contradictory to claim a woman is the head.

Thank God, we have agreed sec. 45 distributes rights discriminately.

mranony1: I am the one here who is arguing that both men and women can play roles like being the head of the family and if they bear that responsibility,

Good you believe that, but what does society perceive, that's the concern.

Mr Anony1

I have made myself sufficiently clear. Please make your own stand.

In Nigeria and in this thread, it has been repeated over and over and over again that the head of the family is the man. Society perceives the man insuch a dominant role. Suddenly you are in awe and amazed and surprised about what gender roles mean!

And then you accuse me of being a twister.

MrAnony1: I have not contradicted myself in any way.
- I hold the position that men and women have equal rights under Nigerian law.
- I hold the position that certain duties and responsibilities naturally have certain rights attached to them.
- I hold the position that men and women in Nigeria are free to play whichever of the roles they choose and as a result possess the accompanying rights.
Now please tell me; Which of the above three positions are mutually incompatible?

The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

Please name some of these gender roles that society has set for men and women.
Please mention some of these expectations that are different for men and women.....and don't forget to tell us who it is exactly that have these expectations.

With the definition of gender in your mind, do you believe the social roles allocated to the sexes are the same? For example is the man the head of the family or the woman is the head of the family?

basille: This is one of the dangers of not understanding God outside the context of religion, because you would end up with only one inadequate definition of the word energy and thereby continue to exhibit ignorance.

So why use the word God? Cos God is not a simple word, it has its hidden meaning

So argue the First Cause and convince the heathens

striktlymi: I go with the definition: God is the first Cause which causes all things (directly or indirectly) without itself being caused.

Do you realise the general premise the First Cause argument relies on? That there must be a cause for everything.

basille: How do i define God?
God is an energy responsible for the universe and keeping all of its elements working together in harmony. It isn't anthropomorphic so it can't hear or answer prayers neither can it perform miracles or any other superstitions that delusional people do believe.

Who is God?
The air you breath, that's God. The cool evening breeze that roughens your hair? that's God. The heat from the sun that dries up your wet cloth? that's God. That cool morning dew that dampens the grass in your yard? that's God. The gravity at the center of the earth? that's God. The bright light from the moon that illuminates your room at night? that's God.

God is everywhere. God is simply just PURE ENERGY.

Don't get your hopes too high cause the same energy is also responsible for some unfortunate natural disaster around the world. E.g Tsunami, Earthquakes and hurricanes.

There is one of the dangers of defining God outside the context of religion, because you would end up making redundancy of the word energy and you wouldn't make much sense.

MrAnony1: I have not contradicted myself in any way.

- I hold the position that men and women have equal rights under Nigerian law.

- I hold the position that certain duties and responsibilities naturally have certain rights attached to them.

- I hold the position that men and women in Nigeria are free to play whichever of the roles they choose and as a result possess the accompanying rights.

So you mean to say that men and women in Nigeria freely and are capable of freely moving between the gender roles?! Anony that is a blatant lie! And these "certain duties and responsibilities" constitute rights above the equal rights distributed, right? Because at the end of the day, those with the "certain duties and responsibilities" will have more rights than others.

mranony1: Please name some of these gender roles that society has set for men and women.


Please mention some of these expectations that are different for men and women.....and don't forget to tell us who it is exactly that have these expectations.

In case you forgot the meaning of Gender, here is assistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

pickabeau1: kay17 is such a twister
i wonder why u guys bother
she is an advocate of abortion n choice n believes personhood is at birth... no need for the long debate

I'd assume that's all you have to say.

klarke: 12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life....”

19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”

20 These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one laid hands on Him, for His hour had not yet come.

21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”

22 So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?”

23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:12, 19-24

That is not Jesus' saying rather the Gospel of John.

The only job open to Gods is to create everything besides that, they are not of much use.

Imagine someone trying to prove Kay17 exists, by claiming Kay created the Universe. And since there is a Universe, there must be Kay.

Impossible to define God outside the context of religion. God breathes and lives through religion.

^^ but everyone knows that all languages evolved from a selected few from the past.

@tv01

I think I misunderstood you.

Are you saying when a pregnant woman is quarter to death because of her pregnancy, and your solution is to wait, watch probably eat popcorn and wait for who to die first?!

YOU ARE THE ONE that holds those two conflicting positions and I was tryying to point that out to you!!

And you have to stop this denial business, when a pregnancy endangers a woman's life the option is an abortion -- killing more or less.

TV01: Morrin' Kay17,

you are not making any headway here. I nfact you are unpicking your own position !

First you claim I said this;


then in the very next sentence you claim I said the opposite?


And here you just scattered the whole thing?

Surely saying "is not alienable" is the same as saying is inalienable". If you want to make my point for me, please, be my guest !

This sounds like you are either stuck, lost, or attempting to use sophistry to make your point. So for the last time;

The sanctity of human life applies to all humans without fear or favour. A baby is a human at inception. Where a pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother, we do all we can too keep both alive. We do not kill one in order to save the other. Yes, one may die, but we do not purposely kill anyone - geddit? Killing is never the answer to the dillema of death. I have no personal dillema, my position is clear.

And finally, rare instances such as the one we are discussing do not morally or intellectually lead one to conclude that women should have the right to kill thier unborn babies - under the guise of equality, rights and autonomy - at any time and for any reason.

Once again I offer terms .


TV

MrAnony1: You really haven't been paying attention. Remember that I asked you to show where I said that the rights for both sexes are necessarily equal.


Did we really arrive at this point or did you think we did because of your bias? Read my statements carefully:






Is this really what I said? Please read my statements carefully.


If you were paying any attention to what I was saying, you would have noticed that I wasn't "distributing" rights based on gender rather it was based on function....i.e. whichever s[color=#000000]e[/color]x - male or female - that bears the responsibility deserves the rights that accompany the responsibility. This is fair. Or don't you think it is?


Again this is precisely what I asked you to show me saying. I didn't fail to notice that you didn't actually show me saying anything similar to this rather you once again assumed that I said so which is strange especially because we had this exchange.


How you can jump from this to the conclusion that I insist that the rights are necessarily distributed equal beats me. Is it that you don't understand the meaning of "not necessarily"?

@mranony1 you blow hot and cold at the same time. Nobody is talking about equality, rather equal rights is the focal topic. Now, it is either you support equal rights across the board or rights proportionately weighed to duties and responsibilities. It can not be both AND through out this thread, you have switched from one position to the other whenever they seem favourable.

You have claimed both sexes have equal rights and asked me to contradict same AND at the same time openly said the bolded.

Amd finally, Society stratifies along gender lines. Women have their set social roles same with men, even though reality says otherwise. The expectations from men is different from women etc.

DeepSight: I hardly have the words to address you.

What is the meaning of what you have written? ? ?

You say atheism has reason as a guiding lamp. That's hoggswollop. What rationality is there in stating that -

1. The world as we see it needed no preceding cause and/ or -

2. That cause could not conceivably be intelligent ? ? ? ? ?

You are very !/xqz"??11*%$£! when you assert that reason defies teh existence of God. Do you know what reason is? Ehn? Ehn? ? ?

Agnosticism is simply a position that declares - "we do not know and it is beyond us to ever know" - now that is a vastly more honest and reasonable response than the atheistic view.

How do you address the issue of Being, because the problem encompasses God too.

Can we safely label the story of the Tower of Babel as a mythical tale?

Of what shape should a paradise take? and what form of ultimate happiness?

MrAnony1: It is also interesting that you believe that the society gives men more responsibilities and duties but you don't consider it to be gender discrimination against men seeing that one gender is required to do more of the work than the other because of their gender. I didn't fail to notice that you were more concerned about the "greater rights of men" than the "greater duties of men".
Finally, I don't think it is wrong in any way to give more rights to the person who has more duties.

MrAnony1: I agree that IF a society gives a person more duties and responsibilities, it is only fair that it gives him more rights (with respect to his/her duties) but what I don't see is how it makes the people unequal in essence which is what you seem to be suggesting.

For instance; I believe it is only fair that the breadwinner of the family makes the decisions concerning the best use of the resources he/she is providing. In Nigeria it is often the man who plays this role, therefore it is only fair that his decisions carry more weight than the woman who isn't contributing as much as he is. In families where it is the woman who is the breadwinner, you find that she is likewise the one one who calls the shots.

Kay17: So wouldn't the rights be distributed differently?

MrAnony1: Not necessarily

Kay17: So why do you say the rights for both sexes were necessarily equal?

MrAnony1: The fact that men and women are viewed differently by the society does not necessarily imply that they don't have equal rights
I don't understand the point of this question. Please show where I said what you claim that I have said.

In the light of the above quotes, we arrived at the point where the society creates a gender picture of the value of the sexes and then distributes the rights in accordance with the social roles it has created for the sexes. You Anony1 accept such stratification and further accept that such distribution of rights is fair. YET you still insist absurdly that the rights distributed are equal!!