₦airaland Forum

pickabeau1: Ok.. your opinion

If you are ready to discuss further.,.. call me

If not.. lets agree to disagree

Im having a productive discussion with others more inclined to discourse

@Kay17

LMAO!!

No, you are building castles in the sky. There was nothing to disagree over

@crackhaus

@anony1

Those issues crackhaus diligently made can be resolved if women have the requisite rights. Because most Igbo women are not accorded the human right to dignity of a person, they are treated in such manner. Because most women lack economic rights, they fall into poverty upon divorce or widowship.

Adichie is obviously right. Women are not accorded respect, they are treated like objects, yet if they do have rights which translates to power,they become self assertive EVEN in their sexuality.

kay17: in your belief, what were the goals of feminism in the past that are redundant today?

pickabeau1: Kay17..assume i dont know... answer what are d issues

And you dragged the entire world into over 10 pages of your thread. Not only that, you insulted all the African feminists (including those you don't know) of poor intelligence and inability to grasp what feminism is all about AND nagged about how harmful feminism is.

There can be no issues with you when you don't understand the subject you are engaging. There is no common ground.

Kay17: In your belief, what were the goals of feminism in the past that are redundant today?

@pickabeau1

Decryptor: You are the one who needs to wake up because you are comparing the typical Nigerian woman (except for a sensible few) who has been doing nothing but blindly copying the western woman who decided that they were tired of having to look up to a man for their basic social, financial and material needs and decided to lay it upon themselves to take on those responsibilities contrary to the Nigerian woman who cluelessly decides to join in and beat their chests about gender equality but yet depend on a man to buy everything for them from sanitary pads to pure water.

Women here like you are ranting for equality but yet, when their gen goes off, she calls a man to fix it and pay for the repairs, she would pester a guy to get her a laptop or tablet and for him to still pay for internet subscription while she sits her a*se down at home doing nothing just because HE IS THE MAN. With this, one can clearly state that if feminism got the western woman to a destination, it will never get the typical average Nigerian like you anywhere because you are in the same feminism boat but are rowing it backwards without a compass unlike the western women during their days. They (the western women) came about the ideology to empower them to work in the labour market like their male counterparts so they could be recognized in the society and pay their own bills without the help of a man but a blinded Nigerian woman is all for feminism in order to flex her muscles like a Wannabe-Beyonce and still ask a man to send her airtime for BIS and pay her school fees and house rent. HOW LAUGHABLE!

Like you wrongly postulated about paving the way for your grand daughters, I think it is more of paving a rocky track which leads to a forest with no hope of return whereas they would blame you for it in future.

Those are the kind of women you are able to attract.

pickabeau1: With so much education and exposure

In my school, females were best grad students.. My boss for many years was a female .... my partner has all authority to act on my behalf in all issues..

So what is the issue... i ask again...

But you didn't answer the question. You sidestepped it.

pickabeau1: Mr/Mrs/Ms Kay17

Everyone here has agreed that it had some benefits with the first and second waves. That is not in question

Socialism and Communism had its benefits

i am asking what is its purpose for d NOW?

In your belief, what were the goals of feminism in the past that are redundant today?

pickabeau1: I think it will be better here... as there are too many threads

i believe in fairness.

I dont see why a person (male or female) should be discriminated against on basis of gender, colour or religion

The same way women get favours from men can be termed sexist also

I believe in education for both sexes.

A list of the issues is ok.. abortion tends to be touchy because of the religious and traditional issues around it but i know in the US, 20 weeks or so is the generally agreed life boundary. i will not argue with you on abortion as women should be incontrol of reporductive rights subject to a caveat. if i tell you i dont want that baby pre-20weeks and you dont abort it, i aint paying for no child support

otherwise science says the foetus is just a clump of cells

Lets discuss here





Interesting.. ok

I asked kay17 the particular issues still to be resolved
he/She mentioned abortion

Any ideas on this?

Mr Pickbeau1 the very foundation of your stand is at risk, you have admitted that feminism has made invaluable contributions to society, and that admission stands in direct contradiction to your OP that feminism is harmful to society. Please resolve that immediately.

Because if you believe feminism is good, the whole point of this thread vanishes. So again I say, it is a fundamental risk.

TV01: Gender is a needless construct, which is just an excuse for licence and indulgence - another misappropriated word in the pursuit of sexual incontinence.


As an ideology, feminism leaves no facet of societyor human relations untouched. The feminist belief is that men are oppressors and matrimony as a vehicle engenders - pun intended - that oppression.

Further in the pursuit of equality - for which read sameness - a man can never ever have "authority over a woman, and we daren't mention the submission word.


Nope. Nothing deep or edifying about it. it's a scam - the pursuit of female privilege without responsibility - pure and simple.


Abortion is a privacy issue? Can I beg, borrow or steal a laugh. The right to murder an unborn child is a matter of privacy? Health rights?. Absolutely farcical. Is Pregnancy a disease.


Was it only women that were denied the vote? And in as much as they did not have individual votes, did they not have representation? Keep trotting out fallacies.


TV

Obviously if a woman secures more rights, so also her power increases. The effect thereof reflects on society, on the family, workplace etc. A careerist woman is hardly a model of submission, so I understand your fears that the matrimony is at risk.

Yet everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness.

shdemidemi: Acts 8:31

31 And he said, How can I understand, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

That's not an instructive passage rather a narrative. Just like picking "and King Jehu worshipped idols" it does not mean Christians should worship rather explaining Jehu's story. It is different from an instructive bible verse such as "thou shall not kill".

pickabeau1: The efforts of the pioneers are recognised. Its the travails of the neo- ones i dont get

when you say barriers and bounds.... forgive me if i say that is vague.. can u be more specific

Abortion.. lets accept that... if that is given as a right say pre 20 weeks... will that be ok

i need specific things to discuss with

I just realised that I would be derailing the thread by discussing specifics such as abortion. So I redeem myself by sticking to the relevant issues. If you want to talk about the broader aspects, open a thread on that and invite me.

As it relates to the OP, the bolded contradicts your earlier statements that feminism is harmful to the society, but now you find the work of its pioneers valuable. That there was the need for feminism. So where do you stand? For or Against feminism OR against neo-feminism?

I'd assume that when people of limited intellect read the Bible, they listen to the voice of the devil, because their limited understanding becomes a barrier in understanding the word of God.

pickabeau1: When you speak of rights... which rights do u as a woman not have
Abortion is already a right.. pro choice anyone?

What are d issues... modern issues

You guys scream wolf and no one sees it

You have to start by recognising the efforts of past feminists in breaking down the barriers women once faced.

Secondly, there is still much to be done. I am not a feminist, I don't believe in affirmative action either, I'm for the removal of barriers and bounds. For one, abortion is a safe and easy medical surgery that should be available to all women, it is illegal in Nigeria.

joomiegirl: "People like me".... Take all he potshots you want. Pffft. Doesn't change a thing.

Clearly you are a close-minded reader..you read selectively, and see what you want to.
You clearly didn't even fully read my post which you quoted.

And when I spoke about biological alteration, I was clearly speaking tongue-in-cheek.

My responses were more in line with the original article which is the basis for this thread.
HENCE my comments on chivalry!!
You may want to go back to the original article for this thread, and read again. With a more open mind this time.

You are incredibly da.ft. Your reply was badly written without any form of arrangement or order.

joomiegirl: My dear, really didn't see anything chuavinistic about his post, nor intellectually derogatory about women.




The bald truth is; we africans tend to jump on every western bandwagon that rolls along without fully contemplating the pros and cons.
If the whites think its cool, then we must too? the LGBT issue is a perfect example...I don't condone hate for any reason whatsoever, but what is not good, is not good. Just because the western world thinks its the new "cool"; must we? But I digress.

I agree FULLY. I would lend my voice, and pen and any other thing to advocate against gender discrimination in the workplace; for example.
I believe in merit..irrespective of gender. Educating the girl child. All of that.

BUT It really IS quite another thing to advocate for equality in everything.

Trying to do so is a TOTAL fallacy.

And I believe with all humility that I'm in a position to speak on this matter.

I'm in a field that is predominantly male. About 95% male.
I work hard. I get recognition for my input. As a matter of fact, there are responsibilities that get handed to me by my boss, simply because he believes I'm far more meticulous in those areas than my male colleagues.

But my dear, let me tell you; there are some areas in my field in which even I; would NEVER dream of hiring a female. Areas that require BRAWN.

Areas in which a female can spout till she's blue in the face, but she cannot do what is required...she CANNOT deliver..in those areas!!

Me sef, Ah get muscle? no!

In light of that alone, what equality are we shouting about, really?

How about the men start a campaign AGAINST maternity leave, for example, since we want equality? Why should we get 3 months off, simply because we put to bed?

In the same vein, how bout the women start campaigning for men to start getting pregnant and carrying babies (I'm sure science can somehow arrange that, now)...

We are talking equality now, abi?

Do you see the confusion?

In relationships, the feminist makes it all a dreary power tussle. She wants to be head.
It throws the family system out of whack.
How about protection? Spiritual headship? Leadership, a father figure?

While it is true that some single mothers have done great jobs in raising their kids, those women certainly would tell you it would have been a lot easier if they had a strong, responsible father figure present.

I don't know about you, but I certainly shudder at the way both sexes are said to relate to each other in Finland.

I may be in a man's world, career-wise, BUT I'm no feminist.

I LIKE chivalry.

I EXPECT it.

Sounds crazy, but If I'm taking a walk with a guy, and I'm closest to the road, I expect him to swap positions with me. Yep.
Those little things say a lot...some automatically do it, and some don't. but then again not every man even knows what it is to be a real man, in the sense God meant him to be.
A man should protect his woman, and his children.

If we go on a date, I expect him to pay. Absolutely. It does NOT mean I cannot buy my own dinner.

If once in a while, I say, "hey, let's do lunch--my treat".... ehen, I know I'm paying. And even at that, does it diminish my sense of worth or independence; if he insists on picking up the bill?
I'm not some helpless female.
And yet, I wouldn't have things any other way than what God designed it to be.
BECAUSE and SIMPLY BECAUSE I have my own roles too. And I'm expected to support him. Allow him to be the leader. Of course I have input. But there can be no two captains in one boat.

Bottom-line, i think this dude pretty much summed it up:






My brother, I really don't know. Seeing as I'm not a feminist. All I see is a lot of man-hating and rage, especially amongst the "radical feminists" or wetin dem call deirselves...
We can talk till we're blue in the face...let everyman do what seemeth right unto him. That is the chaos we live in, in today's world.

Biko, that popcorn don finish?

People like you reduce such serious issues into courtship matters. The essence of chivalry in courtship is to charm and attract and nothing more.

To weigh the input and importance of feminism, try to compare the 20 th century with the 19 century and see the difference between the political and social rights guaranteed to women. It is the progress made in the past that you enjoy! The right to education, the right to vote, the right to safe pregnancy and delivery, the right to work. These are taken for granted today (mainly because we don't read history).

Equality is not about biologically altering the man into a woman or vice versa, rather on the basis of rights. That's the argument.

princefunmi: If there is anyone making any assumption that women lack intellectual capacity, it is you. The only reason you would make such a statement is that you have no understanding of the concept of feminism itself. If you did, you will understand quite clearly, almost effortlessly, my outlook. In the grand scheme of things, feminism is potentially destructive to the human society.

The hard bitter truth that everyone fails to accept is that both sexes naturally assume a role much better that the other. Even the purist feminist will agree that some roles are better suited to the man folk than it is to the woman folk and vice versa. So how then can both Genders be equal when nature has already created that dichotomy - that clearly defined line that says this is male and this is female.

That's just the way it is. There is a reason why it has to be the man that would lay down his life to protect his family. There is a reason why there has to be a father figure in a household. There is a reason why under normal circumstances the man is considered the breadwinner in the house. These are just few of the many ways a feminist stance is not only weak but also seriously flawed. The spirit of feminism is borne out of the me-first nature of man and also the spirit of independence that so much pervades the Earth.

Again you persist with the same assumption that women lack capacity for deep thought. That women don't know anything especially feminism. That even if feminism is harmful to the society, women still do not know.

The truth remains, gender is a function of culture, don't mistake it with sexes which biological.

The battleground for feminism is focussed on rights. Political, social and economic rights not on courtship issues. Feminism is much more deeper than gender roles. Hence most of the arguments against it are often red herrings and shallow. Should men have more rights to free speech than women OR more privacy rights than women? And issues of abortion and family planning revolve around privacy rights and health rights. But you hardly find people engage feminists on these vital pivotal issues.

Feminism became prominent especially with the political right to a vote.

Rather you get posts like the OP.

princefunmi: I'm usually at a loss when this feminism talks rears head. A lot of women advocate feminism without actually understanding its full implication - an implication that is a total contradiction of what the woman actually is and what she really wants.

Its one thing to advocate for a stop to the gender segregation many women suffer. Its quite another to advocate for equality. Its against the rules of nature, our very existence itself.

There lies the chauvinist's assumption that women lack intellectual capacity. It is glaring! There is no basis to believe African women are too shallow to scrape a little understanding of feminism. This is the inequality most feminists are against.

Yes, African femininists know too little while the chauvinists are classy, tact, with sophisticated minds (a mild joke) and deeply knowledgeable. The chauvinist in question (the OP) believes Teju Cole is a better writer than Adichie such an insult!! How knowledgeable is that?!

To also believe that full integration with Caucasian races is what stimulates class is post colonial myopia. A Mr Johnson Syndrome. Friction between races is a cultural phenomenon way beyond the individual.

brilapluz: ok @kay17,i guess u have 2 marry(or find) such man dat suits ur taste and i will say GOOD LUCK 2 u on that search ......one thing u must understand is dat no matter how rich or wealthy both partners(husband and wife) are,some one has 2 be in charge and take some important decisions 4 d well being of the family inspite of the invaluable input from the other partner which in dis case is the WIFE...u can not have TWO captains in one ship,neither can u have TWO car steering in a car......there is no institution that can habour TWO leaders...there has 2 b ONE and only ONE person....that 4 me is the stark reality ...dats y u must marry a loving and responsible man whom u can love and respect...one whom u believe CAN LEAD u and ur children well..not someone who WILL treat u badly...but if wat i have said makes absolutely no sense 2 u den i guess we have differing opinions on dis topic....i rest my case ...once again gudluck in ur search

Supposing I concede that a ship needs ONE captain, what if I'm the better leader? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to concede leadership to a worse leader?

Touching story. The priest is caught between two damning options. Yet the reality is, secular law prevails over ecclesiastical law. At best, ecclesiastical laws are considered to be conscientious conviction.

The better step is to follow his conscientious objection and be damned by the state. He should serve time for his deeply held beliefs. It is the moral thing to do. Most times the thoughtful moral actions always come with injury of any kind. So he should see it as a test of faith.

brilapluz: Control in terms of taking charge..thats being responsible 4 ur family...thats what leaders are made of and in this case a real man so to speak...but like u rightly said such leadership such be devoid of militaristic control...i hope u read @joomiegirl comment on submission...?

The scenario you ask for is unrealistic in this modern age. A marriage is between two who gave equal consent, it would be untenable and unrealistic to convert such a relationship into a bootcamp. Women today are more empowered than women in the past, they have their high powered careers, huge egos and big brains. That's a fact, accept it.

Such women see themselves on equal footing with the men, they are in the marriage for love not as househelps or such traditional housewife role. Also if the controlling men turn out to be myopic brawns, the woman will naturally attempt a coup. So that's the stark reality.

TDstarr: Funny, niggas like you end up in the friendzone, a man dat can't control his family is a failed man, even if they don't admit it, women love a man in control, but a real man respects his patner

The keyword ought to be manage not control. Marriage and family is beyond militaristic control, it is actually a reason it fails but its with leadership a family is bond together. There should be love and charm and that is not gained through control

And you are a man, you can't say what a woman desires because you speak as a man.

Now apply your bad example of love to general cases.

1. If you love child, are you obliged to obey and follow all her indulgence?

2. If you love your spouse so much, are you obliged to obey and follow all his wishes and desires?

OR RAtHeR

You do what is essentially good for them. I would discipline my child in as long as it is for her own good yet it is still love. Same to family and spouse. So love is to act in the loved one's good.

So what does the true implication of loving God have? It is acting for the good of God. But God is beyond good and evil. God cannot be harmed, are be at risk of extinction. God is supposedly omnipotent. And it can not be by following the commandments because they are not for God"s benefit but supposedly ours.

It is sad God is Dead. So also Faith.

chrisviral: I'm happy when people like you call me names.
Btw (intellectually you can't stand me) but it's all vanity.

Which you are not showing

What would Jesus have said? Would jesus say go to the hospital?! Rather Jesus would have said your faith shall heal you.

^^

Here comes the naïve Christian with his naïve bible.

@apatheist pls stop feeding the troll.

Christianity is an inflated paperbag without much to offer.

More empty barrels.

It is tiring.

DrummaBoy: I got what you mean.

Remember the analogy of my child? How easily he can discern my voice now? That's the same thing that happens when reading the bible. When God speaks, you will hear.

But first things first. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice. The question I need ask you is: are you a sheep of Christ? If you are not, you should be.

Then and only then, when he speaks, will you hear.

Your thoughts are actually your words, shaped by your intellect. Besides in Biblical times, God was said to have spoken to his people - Moses, Abraham, Jesus - in a clear voice with no doubts. There is still justifiable doubt in believing your thoughts are God's or the Devil's

torchwave: Of course I'm not disputing the fact that God hardened his heart. It is written in black and white that He created Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying His greatness and power to the world.

My point, note, is that Pharaoh never had any intention in the first place to set the Israelites free, which served the purpose of God and thus God hardened his heart to make sure he refused letting them go. This is to prove that nothing can thwart his purpose and plan even in the face of any obstacle in the person of a king. Yes he hardened Pharaoh's heart but even then Pharaoh could still choose to set the Israelites free. Why? His freewill which was intact manifested in his letting the Israelites leave Egypt. Geddit?

In other words, God hardened Pharaoh's heart but still gave Him the power to exercise his freewill without obstruction. That is why he later told Moses to leave with the Israelites. That's my point.

I don't get it.

You wouldn't have known the Pharaoh's true intentions, since God had to harden it to his purpose. That's the point of hardening the Pharaoh's mind, so he would play the role in the melodrama God set up for him. And worse still, God created the Pharaoh only for that scene. Imagine an individual's existence is pinned down to one action which wasn't freely his will. Sad.

DrummaBoy: I don't get you. pls be specific.

There is no reason to be that the thoughts that arise in your mind you read the Bible is God's voice, it is as well your thoughts. And I believe can be root of many errors.