₦airaland Forum

Go to hell dumb bytch. This is in my sociology texbook.

carefreewannabe: see how stupid you are. now the suffrage movement is the first feminist wave but you DIDN'T define this movement as feminism BEFORE. can you make up your mind? this is the problem when you don't have a solid definition FIRST.it is like talking about something you have no idea about.
first year sociology? sorry, I studied something more useful and profitable. I engage with sociology for fun and not for professional reasons.
apart from that, your diagram shows SOCIAL INEQUALITY related to ECONOMiC DEVELOPMENT. and you wanted to prove what by showing it?
I can google whatever I want and so what? You think everything on Internet is based on solid research and meets scientific standards, right? Yeah, I see.

I actually Am a college freshman and im taking sociology as a gen ed. Read a damn book woman, most of what i orginally posted is easy to understand for people with half a brain.

you were getting confused because you have no logic.

Black Kenichi: @pleep

Debates can only be accomplished by people that have intellectual honesty. Mrs Chima and carefreewannabe have none.

I dont even know why i bother.

carefreewannabe: @pleep

let me just point out that women's suffrage movement WASN'T the first feminist wave. well, if you don't know this, how can you pretend to be an expert on feminism?

what you said about ancient Rome is rubbish. the Catholic church during this time led to women being less empowered. that's a different topic, though.

post the source of the diagram you have inserted above and we'll discuss its reliability. I can find prove for any b.ullshit because it's very easy to create this kind of diagram for people who don't even know very much about computers. I doubt you have ever visited a university because you don't even know that without source any diagram you show is not reliable and therefore not valid. by the way, this is how you make propaganda work.

as you said, I was confused! it's you who can't articulate himself and mixes up everything.

NOW CONFESS YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE FIRST FEMINIST MOVEMENT DIDN'T START WHEN WOMEN DEMANDED THE RIGHT TO VOTE "expert"!!

You don't have to be in support of feminism but stop publishing rubbish disguised as "facts".

You dumbass bytch. I am done arguing with you. It is called the kuznets curve, look it up your self, ever heard of google? These are things you learn in a freshman sociology class! Im not your fuckin' teacher.

Next look up 'first wave feminism', the first thing that comes up is the sufferage movement. This is even on wikipedia!: "First wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity during the 19th and early twentieth century throughout the world, particularly in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and the United States. It focused on de jure (officially mandated) inequalities, primarily on gaining women's suffrage (the right to vote)."

No fault divorce was legalized in ancient rome around 100 b.c you person! what does that have to do with the catholic church?

You dont know anything about feminsim, gender relations or history. You are just a dumb brainwashed dyke running around the internet like a reetarded kid. You and mrs chima are the exact same and i am not going to debate with you anymore.

And before this gets into any talk of female inferiority... i want to make it clear that the only inferior women are YOU, the feminists. You have demonstrated in this debate that you have aboslutly 0 logic and 0 information. Get the fuk off the internet and read a book.

dumbass bytch

Look the police man has a fuckin' hard-on! this is why i dont like gay people.

Mrs chima please stop talking. We have already agreed that we would derail this thread a little for the sake of this discussion. If it bothers you so much then feel free to leave. Why is it that whenever logic and facts are brought up you get all defensive and start talking about manbitches? You are a sack of hot air and donkey turds.

@ carefreewannabe this has nothing to do with fear of women, if you want to get into that we can. True patriachry is about love of women and children and also social stability.

No, women were NOT able to survive without men only when they were LovePeddlers. This is rubbish! In the USA women started to provide for themselves after
WW II. As many men were killed in the war, the labor market lacked workers. So women were recruited. It was the war that changed the traditional role of women. As a result the next feminist movement wave started. IF YOU WERE WELL INFORMED YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT EPISODES OF FEMINIST MOVEMENTS and that many of theses women fighting for women's rights were not lesbians. To claim that all feminists are lesbians and that feminism originates in homosexuality is ignorance of the highest order.

Damnit woman! i hate when people argue like this. I didnt say the ONLY way a female could suvive without a man was through prositution, i said "OFTEN". Do you know what often means?

The feminist movement we are talking abouts started in the 60's! world war 2 ended in 1945! You are refering to "first wave feminism" which is usually called the sufferage movement. That is a different topic!

If in a society women get ALWAYS custody then it is oppression, oppression of a father's rights. And if you do your research more thoroughly, you will find out that in some European country that is currently debated in order to strengthen paternal rights, which is overdue. Now, give me the source of the studies that have proven that a father can better provide for a child and better ensure a stable life. Am very curious.

Do you understand why it seems like you are arguing in circles? By your logic you should believe men are oppressed in the united states because the custody of the child goes to the mother by default.

This point of veiw makes no sense. By logic this is simply an unfair law towards men not opression of men. Likewise in africa were the father always gets cusody it is not oppression of the women just simply an unfair law. Do you understand?

carefreewannabe: I actually don't know why I took the time to argue with you because I am well aware of the fact that a man like you will never confess that he is not as well informed as he claims to be. Before you give me any kind of advise, help yourself first because you are really talking rubbish.

Actually, if i am wrong on something i will admitt it. The only reason i am anti- feminist is because the evidence feminism is a bad thing. When i didnt have all the information i believed feminism was a good thing. If you have any real info that i dont have i will accept it, no emotion here just logic

1. didn't you at the very beginning say that feminism has led to more promiscuity? now you're saying that it is in the genes of a race.

I can see why you are confused. Yes, i believe feminism leads to promiscuity and it does, one of its core tenants is sexual liberation. It has increased promiscuity amoung white people and other ethnic groups that were exposed to it. However, i believe black people were promiscuous before feminism because of genetic differences

2. Your point about ancient rome is valid, most of the ancient world had promiscuos cultures. However, i want to point out that sexual and social debauchery in Rome reached its apex around the same time women got the most 'freedom' aka no fault divorce and incrased independance. Men began to reject marriage, prostitution became rampant etc.

Some sort of womens liberation is enevitable when a society reaches a certain level of prospertity. Societies always become less stratified as they become more advanced. I will explain this in the next point.

3. Are you saying that all hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian? Are you really saying that the lower the development the more egalitarian the system? REALLY? In reverse, that means that in highly developed societies the gender equality is the lowest? Where? In the USA, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Norway?

Societies always start of with a low level of inequality at the hunter gatherer stage. Inequality increases as the society advances until at the end the society becomes egalitarian again. This is what happened in anceint rome and is begining to happen in the united states, japan and other HDCs. This trend is shown in the kuznets curve shown below.

joe4christ: A man would go to any length at pleasing his woman if she always put his interest at heart before doing anything.
A little love and care and more of selflessness from a lady would make her man go extra mile in pleasing her even with his life, this is how we men are designed by God with exception of those that are demon possessed.
Thank u!

this is beyond 300% true.

look. I dont care if yall sin and go to hell. Its not my life, not my problem. all im giving you is the logical interpretation of what is said in the bible.

Take it or leave it.

i think sexkills forgot one.

uboma: i advice that u read the Bible very well so as not to get confused as its obvious in ur above statement. In the book of Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus Christ gave the only condition upon which a marriage mate can be divorced and that condition is 'infidelity'. However a mate may decide to forgive the unfaithful mate and stil remain in the marriage. If the other mate cannot forgive, then divorce on the grounds of infidelity is scripturally allowed. 'So it is not an offence to marry a divorcee who have been legally divorced'.

Jesus clearly states that: "from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Stop arguing against it, just accept it. Your the bible slappers not me.

^You guys have no understanding of your religion. According to jesus divorce is not possible, any person you remarry is adultry. This is because marriage is not only a legal process, marriage is the actual joining of flesh (and exchange of D.N.A) aka sex.

By logic the first person with whom you have sex with is your spouse forever, and any other person you sleep with is adultry even if you marry that person.

This is why fornication is so bad. Once you have fornicated you live in sin for the rest of your life even if you are sleeping with your spouse.

2. Yes, promiscuity is tied to sex drive and there is strong evidence to support this. It is known that libido is passed from parents to offspring and it is ostensible that certain populations, perhaps those under most strain, micro-evolved to contain individuals with higher sex drives. Another source for high libido is the prescense of hormones like testostorone in the system, black people seem have more testostorone than other racial groups. The reason why things like this are not often discussed is because of political correctedness.

3. Black people have the same problems in societies that have not had contact for 100's of years. Black people in America and Afirca both have the trait of promisciuity dispite not being in contact with each other for generations, same with black people in the Carribean, middle east or w/e. This suggests a genetic cause for the behavior instead of a cultural one.

4. I did not say it was completley egalitarian i said 'egalitarian enough.' This is primarily because of underdevelopment. The lower the devlopment of an area generally the more egalitarian the gender roles are. Think of hunter gatherer societies.

5. In the United States women almost always get costody, is that opression? Some soceities give custody to the father while others to the mother. No parent is more deserving of the child than the other. From a logical standpoint paternal custody is the better option because a single male is usually better able to provide a stable life for his children than a female. Numberous studies have proven this.

6. This was a general statement, of course women were able to survive without men, but not with the social approval of society. Such women were often prostitutes and usually very poor. The latin word for prostitute was the only way to categorized a single woman who worked for herself. Btw. It is well known that the feminist movement has its origins in homosexual female culture, to argue this is just silly.

Carefreewannabe judging from your responses you are not on the same level as me on this subject. I think you yourself need to do more research and better articulate exactly what your point is.

^ the worst part about dead baby jokes is you know you enjoyed it

There is alot more to feminsm than simply demanding rights. They seek to change the perception, behavior and gender roles of women. The resulting behaviors; promiscuity, instability, belligerence and lack of introspection are what i suspect may be genetic. That is to say the nature of the black woman with or without outside influences. Black women (and men) generally share the same characteristics in societies that have been seperated for 100's of years. In black women the best examples of these traits are argression and promiscuity. In almost every black population you find these characteristics. This is caused by minor hormonal differences like increased testostorone levels.

Women have always wanted and deserved rights, this has nothing to do with feminism. West african society was traditionally egalitarian enough, women were not oppressed. People like you will over look the fact that in most patriachies (with exceptions) women are actually respected and protected from violence. usually living longer and more enjoyable lives than their male Counterparts. The patriarchy is as much a creation of the female as it is the male. The woman trades in control for physical safety and stability.

Feminsm is not really about improving womens lives, it was started to give lesbians the ability to survive with the legal and fincancial abilitiy to live without a man. While it did improve certian aspects of western soceity, the movement should have ended several decades ago.

How many dead babies does it take to blend up a strawberry smoothie?

17

Black people are beyond hope. This is what yall get for being thirsty niggas.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw3uAqT2iQE

Lovetinz: Dont use the direct approach.
get closer, slowly, carefully,
when you talk, listen hard to her replies...
Dont you watch football?

Don't do this. This is the exact opposite thing to do.

ifeness: The planet is experiencing the return of the female energy that has been absent for thousand of years. Women all over the world are beginning to wake up and empower themselves. It is a massive shame that women have been shut out of the society which also includes the church. The Bible god doesn't even reckon with them cos he was scared of the female energy.

Back in the ancient times when women ruled the world,there was peace,balance and fruitfulness. I am sure most people will agree with me that men have ruined our society. Look around you,all you see is war,war and wars.

A woman who decides not to submit to a man is only exhibiting her true self. Back in ancient Egypt,the men were called protectors of the kingdoms the women ruled.

wow. I'm going to do a topic on Matirachy Vs. Patriarchy. I need crazy ppl like you to make it an interesting debate!

Black Kenichi: It's already happened. It's called the Men's Rights Activism or MRA for short. Women (especially black american women) have been duped by feminism and it's bulls**t and now they are reaping what they have sown. Which is a fractured community filled with high abortions, low marriage rates coupled with high rates of divorce, high illegitimacy rate. Feminists had a huge hand in making the "Welfare Queen" trope. Check out "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (the 1965 Moynihan Report)" by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. What he said explains a lot about the black american community and has far reaching implications across the planet.
Have you noticed when men have legitimate grievances and complaints about women's actions and attitude. Feminists (like Mrs. Chima) say that these men are nothing more than "manbitches".
It's simply nothing more than a deflective tactic. Don't trust any woman that spout of feminist rhetoric especially black women. Black Feminists are as bad as any White supremacist, nationalist etc.

I absolutly hate feminists. They really are the destruction of the black community. It went like this: Feminism = disoriented women = single mothers = bad parenting = bad children = Girls and boys who continue the cycle. There is a ton of info i have gathered on this subject but i dont want to derail this thread.

The part i dont understand is why black women in america and in Africa seem to have the save behaviors. As far as i know feminism has not hit africa. this leads me to believe that it may be genetic.

femuhnisum. either that or its genetic