₦airaland Forum

Gaddafithe2nd:
For paying salaries and wages. Paying workers' salaries is not an achievement.

ekestic1976:
"Exclusive preserve of the nouveau riche"? Please, check the meaning of "nouveau riche" and revert. Even then in the sense of this usage, the correct phrase should be "nouveaux riche". (No insult meant, please.)

vicben27:
selfish individuals think this way. you are afraid of responsibilities, you are afraid you may fail. don't be self minded your parents bought you into world via natural law. you village people are using ur Brain and blokus to play ludo. recieve sense my brother.

dannyrhymes600:
aswear I never see how this thing take concern nairaland. baba na ur life

linearity:
I think you are distorting the true meaning of a feminist.

You started on a good footing by stating that; feminism is the advocacy of equality of all sexes. The focus is not exclusively advocating for female rights; it is only so because in many societies today, female are more neglected in comparison to men's rights.

Take for example the slogan "Black lives matters". This does not mean that, all lives does not matter, black is used there because, blacks are more likely to be abused by the authority in a multiracial environment compare to whites...off-course 'White lives matters" and all lives matters.

Picture in your mind, the sinking titanic ship....Feminists believe that; instead of saying "Women and children should be the first to board the life boats", it should be "All those who are weak and can't swim should board the life-boat first".

Feminist believe that, you should not open the car door for them, simply because they are lady; but do it only if you equally do it for men as well or do it for people that can't do it by themselves regardless of their gender.

In the work place, feminist believe that salaries, positions, seniority, promotions, etc should be based on criteria that gender-blind.

It is not true to assume that feminist women do not cook, they just believe the individual who is better at cooking should be the one to do it, regardless of their gender. Most of the world renowned cooks are men and not women.

In your other examples; if in the countries you cited: Men can leave a marriage anytime for whatever reason, then women should not be forbidden to do likewise.

Feminism has nothing to do with sharing properties in half. It is based on the earning ability of both parties; there are examples where women pay their exes spousal support and maintenance.

Lastly, we have feminist men as well, it is not just women. Feminist men, are men that believe in the equality of all sexes. A feminist man, will not give up his seat in a bus to someone just because they are female; but he can do it because the other party is weak, tired, an elder, etc.

You are confusing femininity with feminist; they are completely two different things and in many instances opposite to one another.

LordKO:
It's very possible to live happily with a feminist wife, it all depends on her ethical leanings. For all I care and understand, feminism, just like any other movement/association, is a product of the people not the other way round - people make up a movement, movement doesn't make the people.

A strong-minded, altruistic and discerning/intelligent woman won't automatically become a termagant or drainer just because she identifies with feminism. And a chauvinistic, egoistic and/or egotistic woman won't automatically become a strifeless, humane and conscientious woman, like a woman who possesses the attributes I mentioned above, if she doesn't identify with feminism. So, a woman's (person) behavior will always be a product of her ethical leanings rather than the movement/association she identifies with.

Meanwhile, human beings (males, females, infants, adults) are equal, but we are surely different from one reason to another. In the case of male and female, we are biologically different - difference doesn't mean inequality in this regard.

Eglobalma:
Most churches today are scam. I'm thinking of going to a psychiatric hospital but something is telling me it's a waste of time. Especially the fact Nigerian physicians mostly are very ignorant

ubunja:
Ubunja, a pleasure to meet you online.
see how your last line contradicts your first line.
Let me unravel my reasoning. I am one of those people who derails the reader when I try to be concise, when I should rather to take the time to explain.

In love everyone is invested. Whether emotionally, financially or whatever. Love is always an investment. Even God Himself is invested emotionally in loving mankind. If you love someone you're invested.
Maybe my position is better stated as "not all love is a direct investment in another". There is altruistic action, service, and hope without expectation. There is love for a country, love for a cause, familial love, charitable love. Motivation for those can be from a sense of duty, justice, faith, or some other sense of what is right. A person might be emotionally invested in those ideals, and express that investment to those ideals, in their actions toward another person. Which on the outside, might look like a love relationship with that person.

If someone says to you "I love you". Then you reply "prove it". That thing he/she will do to show you their love is what they've invested in loving you. If love can't be proven then it's fake, nonexistent and theoretical and you're better off without it. Hm, how do you prove love, and what sort of person demands proof in the first place? If you have stood by another through thick and thin for seven years, with hard work building your shared dream, given financial assistance to their aspirations, encouraging words, service, patience, and sacrifice, and are then asked to prove your love, what should be your response?

But you guys try to complicate love and go against basic principles even a grade 1 pupil knows that's why you end up running around in circles contradicting yourselves. Love might not be complicated, but talking about it, and how to define it, can be.

Im really surprised you people are having problems with this most basic of love principles. How then will you survive in today's increasingly brutal romantic landscape?? No wonder you guys are killing yourselves left right and centre because of love. You really don't understand what you're dealing with.
Ubunja, I have had sore experience on the wrong end of the love principles you are talking about--from being the more invested partner in relationships where I expected reciprocation, and giving my all, and hurting like hell afterward. I completely understand the concept of being more hurt, the more one is invested, and having expectations. I don't think I have it in me, to go through that yet again. My way of coping, to save myself that turmoil without renouncing love, is to experiment with love for principles instead. That if someone is friendless, be their friend. If they need to pour their heart out, listen. If they lack confidence, build them up. If they've lost their way in life, help them find it. I hope that their situation improves for my efforts, but I am not emotionally attached the outcome. I offer sympathy, compassion, and different approaches to problems, and then I let go. I keep my emotional investment in the principle of altruism which won't betray me, and not in the person. The person is the proxy for, and the beneficiary of, my love.

I don't know if this is also what LordKO had in mind, we will have to ask him, but this is what I saw immediately, when I read what he had to say.

safarigirl:
growing up, I learnt that 'Ms' is for women who are either divorced or unmarried at an advanced age.

To be sincere, there is no difference in pronunciation between Ms and Miss

Martinez39:
Nna, I weak o. I could have continued debunking and deconstructing her irrational and directionless arguments but I can't go on forever. Women have rights and opportunities as men but, according to the op, it's not empowerment and women need the evil divorce laws and child support laws in the US and other developed countries to be empowered. What sort of logic is that? So divorce laws and child support are women empowerments? You can see we have a crook here. So she needs misandric laws that can be abused to ruthlessly extort money from men before she can be empowered? She and her kind want to open a pandora box.

In life, every decision has it consequences and we must not create a society that absolves individuals of being held accountable. No man forced any woman to marry and no woman forced any man to marry. The risks of marriage include disappointment and unfaithfulness from a spouse, making sacrifices that are eventually futile, a complete turn around in the attitude of your spouse etc. You have no excuse to not be aware of the risks of marriage and it is your responsibility to bear the consequences if your marriage choices backfire and your marriage hits rock-bottom instead of running to the government soliciting child support and alimony. If you can't take the risk, don't get married or don't, as a woman, open your legs and get pregnant for some fvck boy. If op is so concerned about fathers leaving their children, what happens to suing for parental neglect? Why child support and alimony? Because we have a crook and hypocrite on our hands. She has ulterior motives.

If a woman has an abusive husband, let her leave the marriage and let him be punished under the law as an abuser. Its wrong if he is asked to compensate with his properties and cash because women will abuse such laws to set their husbands up and government could tax the money (like they do in the USA) and boom, we have a law that government is motivated to keep and exploit alongside with women. The same applies to alimony and child support. Marriage would turn to a business scheme with the divorce and alimony laws we see in western countries. The price the man needs to pay will keep rising. During a divorce, both individuals in a marriage should be separated such that none makes away with the other's assets or cash. It's funny how she thinks men don't like taking care of their children while forgetting the one's that dump and kill their new borns.

The only thing government must get involved in is parental neglect and when it comes to financially taking care of the kids, the husband and wife must be held accountable no matter what. Nothing stops the women from building wealth before and during the marriage, same with man. All things being equal, custody should be given to who earns more except if the person wants joint custody or grants sole custody to the other. Bad choices, bad consequences.

I rest my case.

Martinez39:
@NiCurious

I started attacking her points beginning from her paradigm that it's incumb ent on men to provide and pointing out her hypocrisy on this as a feminist. Also, there is no indication in the op, in any way, that this thread was inspired from another thread. I can't for the life of me see what isn't there. How you read the op and deduced it was inspired from another thread is a miracle or, perhaps, a dishonesty of a special kind. It was later on that I started breaking up her points one by one and I summaried all my arguments with her in a reply I made to Kazyhm.

It will suffice to say that my time on this thread is up.

Martinez39:
Don't mind all these women. They think they are suffering or victims of some kind. They think they are at a disadvantage. Women wanted equality (in rights and opportunities) and the freedom of not being restricted by any gender role. Now have all these and they are still complaining. They think it is sexist for men to define gender roles but it isn't sexist when they run their mouths on how men are supposed to provide and how providing makes a man a man. They want equality but not responsibility and accountability. Op wants men to provide and women to be care takers. Funny enough the care taker role would just be to look after the children. Nothing additional, like that of women of the past, to truly recompense for the money spent by the man on his household.

OladimejiRufai:
thanks for your input and your efforts to correct and educate me.

But why would you be putting respected before my name?

OladimejiRufai:
Sorry but I think you should think this through.

If you marry a feminist, then you are marrying her along with her cause.

Because it is her philosophy or values she believes in that will influence her relationship with you and your kids and how she will play her part as a wife in the house.

So they are inseparable - the person and the cause!

nlPoster:
If it's a competition for you, then I guess you are in tune with the op.

Personally I dislike when people hype the differences between couples, they are usually up to no good and only God can deliver their targets from their evil doings because they make it their job to monitor others who are not monitoring them.

nlPoster:
Where is the problem? Do you have one?






Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean

And so, between the two of them, they licked the platter clean.