₦airaland Forum

No one ever leaves Nairaland completely Although, I'm a little perplexed as to why you would want to leave physics, e-beefs?

I dont think nairaland could afford the brain-drain.. btw Django unchained said the n-word too much. It was awkward as hell to watch

How is this even possible?

Grow up dude.. how do u love someone who doesn't love you back, are you a gerbil?

Shes a good one, the shy ones r the best!

Why cant they be attractive? i hate it how they never show the sexy nude tribal women like this;

And i need to see more coochie.. tits get boring after a while.

[quote author=Sweet.gurl]I'm for real. Its shame that you dont think you are worth this pleep. Of course im for real.[/quote]oh lol... i'm a little loopy from sleep pills. When i read all the that weird mowing the lawn thing and allergies, role reversals, and the usual absentee father stuff, i thought for sure it was some kinda elaborate satire.

Btw i recently checked some ur topics, you make alot of sense! one of the coolest female posters ive seen in a while.

*Sigh* when i started reading this i was really impressed, my eyes glazed over with pride and love.... suddenly i was standing naked in the savannah with my mixed breed princess... her African bootie trembling in the wind... Then i got to the last part, and realized it was all a joke.


but seriouslly tho, to all yall who are taking this serious, it is a cruel hoax! she is actually mocking us

100% agree. I was going to make a topic about this.

The vast majority of negative female behavior is caused by stupid men. Why wouldn't women gold dig if a million dumb men are throwing money at her every day. The real problem is the utter stupidity of the nigerian/black man in general. We need to be trying to figure out why black men are so stupid when it comes to women.

.... i think its because of higher testosterone levels that make us have stronger libidos than other men

Read this post again dumbo, it explains the difference between 'oppression' and 'restriction' for those who are logically impaired.

pleep: There is a very very important distinction between the word restrict and the word oppress, oppression implies not having the 'victims' best interests at heart, while restriction is a more broad term. If you have kids, im sure you restrict them because you love them, not because you hate them? That's why earlier i said when women were considered inferior, it was like a child to an adult not a human to an animal. People don't truely think children are inferior, they simply think they were less able than adults.

The same applied to women in the past. During slavery in the 1820's the black slaves were oppressed while the white female plantation wives were restricted. They couldn't vote, but were probably the happiest and most pampered people in the whole nation. Words have power, feminists have been twisting words to fit their agenda since the movements inception.

Let a feminist tell history the plantation wives had it harder, or just as hard as the slaves in the field. "Slaves got to vote before women!" But in reality, they prolly had it even better than the white men.

I'm sorry i refuse to be brainwashed by feminism like you guys have.

This is what happens when you confront a mangina with the truth.

lol i lost? ok, the ppl with a brain disagree. This was truth and logic vs brainwashing, emotions and lies, it is not possible for me to loose.

btw. i love it how ur manginas are the only ones who liked that comment

fellis: Who are the big burly men you are referring to?
These children and their fantasies sef.

*Logicboy and Wiegraph silently shed a tear... but quickly brush it away with their sleave*

And you are acting like a bytch in heat woot it rhymes.

now run along fellis.. big burly men are speaking.

^ You are like a white knight, trying to impress women with the blood of the dragon you slayed ....or rather tried to slay.

fellis: The dude knows he is wrong. He just won't admit it.
Admitting defeat is awfully difficult wiegraf
Try to understand

You r like a little cheerleader rooting for your burly gladiators while they fight the big bad pleep.

No, you miss the point. All i am saying is that patriarchy was a balanced system that was not unfairly burdensome to women, I never said men were oppressed don't put words in my mouth.

The definition of the word oppressed is; "To keep from progressing though the use of severe and unjust use of force or authority." That would be to say that men were collectively using harsh authority to prevent women from living better lives, this is silly because the wellbeing of both males and females has always been intertwined. None can progress without the other. To apply the word oppression to patriarchy is a blatant lie.

Whether they claim to be happy, perceive themselves as being protected etc, moot. They had no say in the issue. That is the very definition of oppression.

No that is the very definition of restriction, not oppression. I could spell this out to you guys a million times and you wouldn't understand, because you don't want to accept it. Half of it is because you don't want to look wrong, the other half is stupidity

haha, 19 is a kid to you? don't you know thats how old many the of the young men who defend your country are?

^ Is that how you respond when someone proves you wrong? The only inferior women are feminists, as you so often demonstrate

fellis: How can you even read this crap and not find anything wrong with it?
@bold, so women should be restricted because they are like children and therefore less capable than men? Less capable in terms of what? Physical strength? Men are also less capable when it comes to child bearing but I don't see you advocating restricting the freedom of men on those grounds.

I didn't find the link I was searching for but I think this comes close;

http://swopec.hhs.se/hastef/papers/hastef0657.pdf

Relax lady, im not "advocating" anything, im just telling the truth about history. And yes, society does consider males less capable at raising children, thats why in America the mother usually gets default custody & the dude pays child support.

Ask Mondi cheeks about that.

@ Wiegraf Again, did men back then think women were inferior in the worst sense? not necessarily. They were seen as like children are to adults, this is the term i use because they is no other way to describe this concept to you guys. It was not true inferiority, but a gender role based on physical differences. Just like a child is not seen as truly inferior but less able to do certain things. If women were truly considered inferior would men have given their lives for them on the titanic?

Do you discriminate against your kids Mr. feminist, or do you protect them? .... do they sometimes resent you for this?

Once again you guys talk about history but you don't know what life was like back then. For most of human history it was very difficult for women to live alone, especially if they wanted to reproduce. They needed to trade certain freedoms in return for protection and provision, this eventually became a political and social foundation. The collective protection of women, restiricted them, but was balanced because it also sheltered them from most of the physical danger ever-present at that time and also from the incredibly back breaking labor that was needed to build human civilizations. (we still don't know how the pyramids were built, but probably not by women)

Women begin to collectively dislike patriarchy around the 50's mainly because of boredom not suffering. Mircowaves, laundry machines, and dishwashers were starting to make being a stay as home mom unnecesary for the first time. There was not enough work to keep their minds or their bodies occupied. Most young American women at that time had got a taste of independence while the young men were off getting blown up in the war, and they thought this new system would be preferable to living like their mothers did. 10 yrs later the feminist movement pops up and convinces the world that men have oppressed and mistreated women for all of human history.

And before you come up with another half baked argument, keep in mind i don't care if women wanted feminism or not. It doesn't bother me. All i care about is intellectual honesty. Patriarchy has been portrayed as an oppressive system that harmed women when in reality it was balanced and protected them.

Like i said, most men back then were just like you guys are, over-protective of women. You just show it differently now.

There is a very very important distinction between the word restrict and the word oppress, oppression implies not having the 'victims' best interests at heart, while restriction is a more broad term. If you have kids, im sure you restrict them because you love them, not because you hate them? That's why earlier i said when women were considered inferior, it was like a child to an adult not a human to an animal. People don't truely think children are inferior, they simply think they were less able than adults.

The same applied to women in the past. During slavery in the 1820's the black slaves were oppressed while the white female plantation wives were restricted, they couldn't vote, but were probably the happiest and most pampered people in the whole nation. Words have power, feminists have been twisting words to fit their agenda since the movements inception.

Let a feminist tell history the plantation wives had it harder, or just as hard as the slaves in the field. "Slaves got to vote before women!" But in reality, they prolly had it better than the white men.

I'm sorry i refuse to be brainwashed by feminism like you guys have.

Logicboy03: The graph had nothing to do with it.


Happiness is a bad measure. End of story

Who cares if you think its a good measure. The reason i posted the graph was to prove fellis's allegation false, and thats exactly what it did. You guys are tripping over your joysticks for nothing.

wiegraf: Yes I know you don't think it "oppression", you think of it as a "restriction". How stoopid can you be? Wtf is wrong with you? Hitler called jews "the final problem", you know that, yes? You m.oron

Now, since you're apparently logical, don't dodge the issue, and show us your superior logical powah. How does this help your case?

It doesn't? So what have you been doing all day? Roasting ants with a magnifying glass while thinking about how you can get one over those damned manginas on the internets?

You may have some issues

To top it up, this is the best you could come up it..

[size=100pt] ?[/size] dafuq do jews have to do with aything. So I want to exterminate all women now? You are one crazy mangina

Logicboy03: You should read more;


The above quote is from the same link.







You have not proven how feminism is to blame for dip in women's happiness. Also, I have explained to you that happiness is a foolish measure. A drunk is happier than a sober man.

Furthermore, feminism has been linked to stable relationships so sharaap.

If recessions make women unhappy its because of entering the workforce, and that is because of feminism. You are back at square one dude.

Like i said a million times, the graph was in direct contraction to a post by fellis that said:

"Also researches have been carried out that showed that women are happier and function better when there is no gender discrimination against them.
Read more on the subject if you can. Peace"

So weather or not you think happiness is a good measure of anything, the fact of the matter is your goddess was wrong. If women were oppressed and descriminated against in the past feminsm and "less descrimination" did not make them happier.

^

monkey. the article is about the recovery not the recession itself. More men lost their jobs, and thus more men were available to regain them. Haha ok though, lets say that the current happiness gap is because of the recession in 2007.

That does not explain the decrease in female happiness that occured since the 70's. If you are saying that females become unhappy because of recessions that occur every 10 years, (and men are magically unnafected) that looks to me like a direct consequence of entering the work force. Essentially "enjoying" the privileges that have been denied them for so long. Your argument is circular, it has nothing to do with the big picture.

Feminism is still to blame for decreasing female happiness


Lol at kalis cowering in the shadows while her glorious manginas do battle with the evil pleep.

fellis: Are you high? How is my statement the opposite of the truth? And how does your graph prove that feminism is responsible for the drop in happiness? Google up the effect of gender discrimination in the workplace and on female psyche and read.

One at a time young lady, i cant reply to 4 fools at once.

Monkeyboy did you even read the title of your article?

[size=20pt]"Women hit hardest in US economic recovery as jobs growth slows"[/size]

Pay attention to the bolded


It says recovery fool. Men lost more jobs, because it was a HOUSING BUBBLE, women gained less jobs during the recovery because they didn't loose as much. The stimulus was directed to the sectors most affected, these were typically male dominated sectors like contruction work.

Common sense dude.

^listen monkeyboy number 2, this is not about "my case". I have been proving my case for the last 3 pages.

This is about the blatantly false allegation from fellis

"Also researches have been carried out that showed that women are happier and function better when there is no gender discrimination against them.
Read more on the subject if you can. Peace"

Under the impression that there was "oppression" of women before feminism, what she said is the polar opposite of the truth. Im still laughing at how all you dudes popped up to defend her. Over-protective much?

Grasping at straws monkeyboy03

1. The recession happened 2 years ago... women's happiness began to drop in the 70's.

2. Women were not hit harder in the recession, that could not be further from the truth. The 08 recession was caused by a housing bubble and thus most of the jobs lost were in construction, home repair and other overwhelmingly male dominated sectors

3. divorce and out of wedlock births have more than tripled since feminism, is that "stable romance" to you?

4. Domestic violence was probably higher in the 70's than it is now. They were "oppressed" back then right?

5. You are a dumbass and everything you posted in BS.

^ I'm not going to argue circles with you little man. Is she wrong or not? Arguing with me is one thing, but are you going to argue with the University of Pennsylvania?

.... about a subject you clearly know nothing about?

wiegraf: Not that I'm fully reading the link, but from what I can tell how does this help your case pleep-kun?

The link is the web citation for that graph. Its from the authors of the book Freakanomics, i bet you haven't read it have you?

And I didn't say i care if men are happy or not, i don't. The observation was simply funny take it or leave it.

Shimexx, physics and all the other smart posters out there... do you see why i call these ppl dumb?

Fellis you stupid wench, you just made a post that said

"Also researches have been carried out that showed that women are happier and function better when there is no gender discrimination against them.
Read more on the subject if you can. Peace"

That graph and the CNN report shows that what you said is the complete opposite of the truth, women were actually happier before feminism. Instead of admitting you were wrong you would rather use silly catchwords like "keeping women in slavery" to get silly over-protective men riled up, so they can come out and defend you.

I know ur kind Fellis, this is not my first rodeo

Its funny how the gender "happyness gap" only becomes an issue when mens happyness increases a hair above womens for the first time in American history