₦airaland Forum

ihedinobi2: I see. Then the demarcation between regular feminism and radical feminism is sensible. It's gotten harder to tell with the war of words.

The radical members of any given group are usually the loudest. It is an unfortunate fact but rather unsurprising.

pickabeau1: He hasnt made the difference

Someone can say there is no difference

Actually I have pointed out the difference.

I thought you were going to open a new thread for us to discuss further.

pickabeau1: wow.... that thread is a very interesting one tha rehashes a lot of the points...history, cause, angles

Creating a new one may be counterproductive, lets use it

I understand that you like that thread (and you are free to draw quotes from it if you need) but I would rather discuss with you on a fresh thread.

pickabeau1: Saudi..hmm

Not it did not as I believe what you term regular are the offshoots of a modern strain of feminism so as to be perceived as accomodating

This thread is not the best place for this

Lets open a new thread or continue here https://www.nairaland.com/1254189/feminism-why-women-general-especially

Ok please open a new thread. The other link is already overused in my opinion

TheBigUrban2: See this one....I made both clear earlier.

1) outside the womb
2) attached to the mother


These two things were neccesary factors to consider. Keep trying to anonynize the facts

You mean the fact that you deny a person his/her human rights based on location and what is attached to his/her navel?

If you really don't see the problem with defining a human being based on such arbitrary things then you really can't be helped

TheBigUrban2: butthurt
^^^

An emotional and sore response when you have no logical response to a comment that negates your point

Lol really?

pickabeau1: OK.. Its interesting you highlight the word.. oppressors

Who are these oppressors..

For example, in Saudi Arabia women don't have the right to drive cars but men do. Whoever makes or enforces such a law is an oppressor.

Now before we move any further, I must ask: did my answer differentiating between radical and regular feminists satisfy you? If not, what don't you agree with about the difference between regular and radical feminism?

sisiafrika: Feminist: confused lesbians, shemaless, and tranniesss high on male hormones. Trust me, they hate men since like poles repel. Wetin be ma own? Siddon look

That's an unfair and inaccurate description of feminists

pickabeau1: Can you tell us the difference btw regular and radical feminism

Yes I can.

Both regular and radical feminism are characterized by a concern for issues that adversely affect women and trying to help them to overcome these issues: this includes aiding women in societies where women are oppressed to break forth from their oppressors and create a more equal playing feild.
Radical feminism such as is FEMEN for instance goes further to demonize men and argue for positions that go beyond equality and unto a society that oppresses men.


In the same way, a regular MRA would be concerned about men's issues and try to combat problems that adversely affect men: Helping men gain a more equal footing with the females in the society. A radical MRA such as a MGTOW or PUA takes more extreme positions that demonize women (not the feminist ideology) and treat them with malice

Decryptor: Very true!

Lololol fairplay to you....careful you don't tip over the edge though....the step from regular MRA to radical MRA (a.k.a MGTOW/PUA) is not very far. It's kinda like the step from regular feminism to radical feminism to FEMEN.

It's easy to lose your balance when you radically buy into an ideology.

obowunmi: Everyone on this post is writing within a patriarchal POV.

Exactly why Nigeria needs feminism.

Please what exactly is this patriachal point of view? Care to explain?

Decryptor: [size=18pt]MORE SANE WOMEN! I NEED ONE AS A WIFE [/size]


[img]http://38.media.tumblr.com/36c49a93eee81b514320bef6c85a39f1/tumblr_n9isbhs6Cs1syitgfo1_500.jpg[/img

[img]http://38.media.tumblr.com/941661a75c4313f2f8443cc4346266be/tumblr_n9irdlAgid1syitgfo1_500.jpg[/img

[img]http://31.media.tumblr.com/bf4ac07d177d3cc1a0871593ab4cc68d/tumblr_n9iqpzs1hT1syitgfo1_500.jpg[/img

[img]http://31.media.tumblr.com/f275c217dd930019d8e1d42782b00132/tumblr_n9ipzv921T1syitgfo1_500.jpg[/img

[img]http://38.media.tumblr.com/a759a294811d9f81372963fc2dc36dee/tumblr_n9iopwJPJv1syitgfo1_500.jpg[/img

[img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/558bc8de1d3cb5cbc64176655878c7a4/tumblr_n9ip4jbyiL1syitgfo1_500.jpg[/img


For more of these countless pictures, visit http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

I smell an MRA/MGTOW

remsonik: I hate reading hate post, obviously the writer of this article hates chimamanda so much. He can't give a balanced view of feminism in nigeria while staying in finland.

But then in the same vein, how can Adichie give a balanced view of feminism in Nigeria while she is in far away USA?

Kay17: Sorry, I have been away.

If I indulge you in this quest, I'm very sure you would turn round and accuse me of derailing the thread OR Red herring arguments. I stand by strict legal definitions of both murder and abortion AND I am not going to depart from same.

You can go on with your true grouse against abortion.

Murder is unlawful premeditated killing.

Ok I see.

First of all I would say that the definition you have provided is very vague and fraught with ambiguity (especially in the way the word "unlawful" is used here) nonetheless, given the definition that you have provided, abortion meets the criteria for murder as it is premeditated killing and also against the law(in Nigeria at least).

So now, using the definition you have provided, how exactly is it not murder?

Friedfred: All chimamanda needs is a very nice bleeping. She lacks probly cos shes ugly.

This is an example of a st[color=#000000]upi[/color]d comment.

cococandy: First the wirter says the problem of female suppression doesn't exist in Nigeria.
That almost renders the whole write up invalid.
I'm sorry it's difficult to take some who says that seriously.

Please name one right that men have in Nigeria that women don't have.

A country where we have to count the high profile women off the fingers of both hands and feet still has a long way to go in women's emancipation.

Or perhaps the majority of women aren't putting in enough effort to be high profile

He wanted her to be specific about the part of Nigeria still in the dark?
I guess we should title the next topic 'emancipation of women in the North' or
'Emancipation of women in urhobo land'
Aren't we all Nigerians?

He responded to women in Igbo land specifically because she focused on women in Igbo land mostly.

Second,one would have expected him/her to put their points accross without throwing insults and jabs at the person of chimamanda.
I don't know what this write up is all about,but it is glaring that at the heart of it is a deep dislike for adichie. And hate is one thing I don't do.if I quote all the sentences where she/he said nasty things about the writer, it'll be very obvious this topic is about chimamanda and nothing else.
And frankly I've a life so colorful I don't sit and discuss celebrities.

I agree with you here, the authors dislike for Adichie's person showed through and tainted his argument quite a bit.

I think the author of this post should try get such a life too.

Let's ignore both the author of this post and Chimamanda and focus on the real issue. Are women suppressed in Nigeria? If so how?

I nominate BabaGnoni and Reyginus if he is invited

DrummaBoy: I added some names, please note:

What about Reyginus, davidlyan, TomiGodson, Joshthefirst?

AlfaSeltzer: Morals have nothing to do with it.

Actually, morals have everything to do with it.

Humans and nature as a whole, advance through destruction. All acts, even inaction, results in the destruction of something. Sometimes, life is destroyed, even by god.

While this may be true (and I am say that it is, I am only granting the possibility), this does not necessarily justify the destruction.

For instance, would you say that it is morally right if everyone in the world gets infected with HIV because some scientists hope that by infecting 7 billion people (the entire world population), they will find the odd person who has the appropriate resilient antibody that may help us cure AIDS? Let us assume that they actually succeed but some 5 billion people died in the process, will the cure for HIV justify the murder of the 5 billion people who were killed to achieve that cure?

Without destruction, nothing will exist.

This is simply not true because something has to exist first before destruction can occur.

What we do is minimise the destruction that affect us adversely, like that of fellow humans, and the best way of doing it is copying nature first, then make it better.

But the point that I and (I think) striktlymi would make is that it is self-evidently wrong to try to minimize destruction of human life by first destroying more human life. Wouldn't you agree?

AlfaSeltzer: Now, who's anonysing?

"Anonysing" is merely a form of weird form of ad hominem that mocks an argument rather than address it's content. Logicboy usually employs it when he doesn't have an answer to the issues raised.

AlfaSeltzer: Which is why I'm not against egg and sperm donations because it's the only way science can advance past nature in this field. And science is advancing.

Are you saying that it is morally ok to sacrifice human life in the present as part of the process of creating technology that can save human life in the future?

This is what a rational response looks like...

AlfaSeltzer: @ Striktlymi, if science reaches a point where there is little or no embryo death in IVF, would you still be against it?

striktlymi: If science gets to that point where there is zero mortality rate with respect to embryos then I see no reason to argue against it.

This is how an i[color=#000000]dio[/color]t responds...

TheBigUrban2: Zero?
There is no single intensive surgery that has a 100% success rate.
Even embryos die naturally without man-made medicine.
This is what it is like trying to reason with a religious mind- they never think realistically, they just somehow pick the impossible and start from there

TheBigUrban2: they are both outside the womb.


But carry on with your strawman......

So you are now shifting the goal post from cutting umbilical cord to the baby's location with respect to a uterus? I see.


Remember when you said this?

TheBigUrban2: The embryo/foetus is a part of the woman until the umbilical cord is severed.


And stop anonynizing my arguments please.

https://www.nairaland.com/1825507/sperm-egg-donation-sin/2#24965611



It is clear that you are ignorant of what a strawman is.

TheBigUrban2: Just like your inability to avoid strawmen

Please quote one of these strawmen you keep accusing me of and show how it is a strawman.

You must show an example from our discourse on this thread where I have misrepresented your position in order to make it easier to attack.

TheBigUrban2: See this Sophist. There is a clear difference between being dependent in the womb and being dependent outside the womb.
One can survive without the mother.....another cant survive without the mother.
But you like false equivocations so, you act like the two are the same

But that's not the point, the point is that since you claim that the person nourishing the baby has a right over the baby's life you must at least hold that it is not wrong for a parent to withhold nourishment from her 3 month old baby and leave it to starve to death.

They are not false equivocations. Are you not the one who is trying to draw an arbitrary line for where nourishment ceases to be an option and now becomes an obligation? You will need to justify this if your position is to make any logical sense.

TheBigUrban2: Potential human.....potential human....potential human....potential human.


Potential human dependent on the pregnant woman......


I dont know why you like asking redundant questions.....i have made my point over and over again!

So are you saying that this is NOT a human being and it is ok for the mother to kill her at this point.

https://s1.thinkbaby.co.uk/uploads/images/large/3738.jpg



....But this is a human being and it is wrong for the mother to kill her at this point

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/11/article-1328673-0C04BFCC000005DC-895_468x332.jpg


That's your point right?

TheBigUrban2: lol...the point is clearly stated in the op. You just want to derail with your nonsense questions........

So the question remains- "why are intelligent people more likely to be atheists"?

Lol, so you really don't have a point. You just have a loaded question. Ok I see. Good luck

I'm very interested and I may have some ideas.


@Goshen if you've still got my skype id, please buzz me

RayMcBlue: I believe in these two sayings:

-"There is no white. There is no black. There are only different shades of grey."
-"The world is what you believe it to be."

I believe in these two sayings

- "If there is no white and there is no black then it is impossible to have any shades of grey at all. As all shades of grey must necessarily contain a bit of white and black and nothing else"

- "I believe that you are a fool and since you believe that the world is what I believe it to be, then it only follows that you are indeed a fool."

rationalmind: It's fair and just because it goes in line with the definition of what being fair and just is.

What is the definition of fairness and justice and how does giving unequal people equal rights satisfy this definition?

We've been talking about the treatment of humans equally/unequally by humans. If therefore I allude to any law, I'm alluding to human law, the law of the land.

Who made the law?

Humans

So if humans made this law, they can also change it and therefore are not subject to it. So you really have no basis to condemn a man as being unjust if he decides that the weak have less of a right to life than the strong and thus proceeds to kill them off since for all you know he can change the law that says that unequally humans should be treated equally.

I promised to show why these sort of questions aren't necessary.

Mr A- Why did you eat?

MR B- Because I was hungry.

Mr A- Why were you hungry?

Mr B- Because I haven't eaten for long.

Mr A- Why haven't you eaten for long?

Mr B- Because there's no money.

Mr A- Why don't you have money?

And then, Mr A goes on and on trolling Mr B with the question "why".

Except that I have only really asked one question from the onset of this thread which is "Why is it fair (as you claim) to treat the unequal as if they were equal?" You need to properly answer that question first before assuming that I would troll you with endless whys.

The moment one starts asking the question why, one gives the impression he isn't ready for a serious discussion.

On the contrary it shows that such a person is trying to learn something. The fact that you are uncomfortable with the question why is because you really haven't critically thought through your position. You hold it based on blind faith and not reason. If you actually had well thought out reasons, you would have given them by now instead of criticizing me for wanting to understand your position.

Again I'll have to go with the sort of answer befitting these sort of questions. It's unfortunate because it goes in line with what's being defined as unfortunate. Feel free to ask why what is being defined as unfortunate is unfortunate.

I know what the definition of unfortunate is but that is not the question I am asking you. The question I am asking you is why is it unfortunate that humans are unequal (as per your claim)?

Just in case you don't understand why I'm asking you the question, let me break it down for you.

When you say that something is unfortunate you are really saying that it would have been better if it were not so. So when you say that being unequal is an unfortunate occurrence, what you are actually saying is that it would have been better if all humans were equal. So my question -when you really think about it- is: Why is equality better than inequality? Perhaps your answer to this question will help you explain why you think it is better to treat the unequal as if they are equal as opposed to treating them according to their different ranks.

I posit that, that which is self evident needs no explanation. You can proceed to show how itls wrong. It's like asking you to explain how you couldn't have given birth to your father.

I completely agree with the part in bold. That is why I posit that All men are created equal in essence and are given by their creator; certain inalienable rights.
You deny that all men are equal but you want them to be treated equally claiming that it is fair, so my question remains Why is it fair to treat unequal men equally? I believe this is a valid question to ask.

which truth are you talking about?

You claim that it is true that all men are unequal, why then should we uphold that which is untrue by pretending they are not unequal and treating them as if they are equal?

Kay17: You dragged us this far with a non legal and misleading definition of murder to unfortunately cover abortion and self defence. Didn't know you were in the Red Herring Yellers Club.

1. Please point out this misleading definition of murder that I used and be sure to tell us what the correct definition of murder is.

2. Show how this correct definition of murder that you have provided specifically excludes abortion in the general sense and killing in self-defence.

You cannot claim that someone is using a poor definition of a term if you don't provide the accurate definition

Martian: Well, I'm not really intelligent. So tell me the point of your op, Einstein.

TheBigUrban2: Olodostein, actually

......So this is how the conversation died out.

The question still remains: Dear Mr BigUrban, What is exactly is your point?


....crickets...