₦airaland Forum

greiboy:
Sure thanks for the tips
I never argued with anyone with lower IQ in my entire life

She seems deluded more than your average female folks

She made mention of Stockholm syndrome and how every lady against feminism is suffering from it. I asked her to provide how she arrived at that conclusion, but she brought up a new topic of emotional and physical abuse.

In her primitive mind, emotional abuse is far greater than physical abuse. she also believes that women are often abused emotionally than they are abused physically in our societies, but didn't explain why women refusing to accept feminism idea of equality have anything to do with Stockholm syndrome.

Perhaps provide any reputable proof to back her assertion

I asked her if she believes every man is violent, or if she believes that the ratio of violent men are as large as our home made feminism made us believe in a context I could have easily swoop for "if she believes every man is abusive", but her tiny brain cells couldn't process that simple question

Instead she made a rant about empathy and how I don't know the difference between emotional abuse and physical abuse or the meaning of Stockholm syndrome

Finally, she told me op's intentions is not to spite ladies based on measurement of central tendencies.

She said her calculations are based on mode. She stated further that she measured her intentions in relation to other feminists.

Mode is the highest occurrence of a number in a set of numbers. I asked her to enumerate on her numerical analysis, but she kept saying it is based on sample 1 **I swear that lady is one dumb mofo**

A sample is a portion of a population selected for a study to gain insight on how an entire population might behave.

I don't know how she selected her sample size, neither do I know when she must have carried out this imaginary research.

But I didn't ask her for that, I simply said she should highlight other possible occurrence and how she allocated numbers to them for her to have arrived at that conclusion.

To have an occurrence as mode of an event. it must be in relation to occurrence of a similar event.

For example, if I want to tabulate how many times you visit nairaland a week to determine which day you visited nairaland the most i.e. on Mon you visited twice, Tuesday once, Friday thrice. I will simply say Friday is the mode of those occurrence.

However, we can't easily use mode to quantify something that can not be easily allocated numbers like your beauty in relations to others. The intentions of op in relation to other feminist's intentions for doing something because our number allocation will be based on our subjective opinions.

The best thing one can do in this situation is to use probability, based on other times op created a thread that was meant to solicit attention. etc.

I.e op solicited attention four out five times she created a thread 4/5 which is closer to 1 so it is likely op created the thread for attention.

RuthDaniels:

I hope to see you on Tv, newspaper,social media networks fighting for equality and human rights. I hope to see you help a raped lady file a law suit against the rapist.To see you stand against any form of domestic violence no matter who the offender is, I hope to see rich Amara donate to orphanages,Feed the hungry, create/sponsor women empowering programmes etc. Until i see these things, You remain a Nairaland feminist joke!

MissWrite:


What's going on, dear? You're so much better than this. I know most people argue to win and not for logic to win, or mutual enlightenment; so they're only interested in shutting the other person up by whatever means necessary. Even if it means deliberately misunderstanding their comment, asking them to keep repeating themselves, and forgetting what's been said (by either party) or the point of the argument. But after employing all of these tactics you cannot go and claim that it's the other person who lacks mental proficiency.

Shay expatiated one of those points I made to you: that SOME women who do not support feminism are stockholmed. And she's right, violence isn't needed after a while (it's required initially). The situation is like having your foot on a dogs head for so long that when you're finally ready to lift your foot, the dog comes and puts his head under your foot. Even though, the dog is "de-caninazed" by the act, it's an injustice he's become accustomed to. People are generally reluctant to change; some more than others. It's the same concept that sees prisoners "institutionalized" to the point that they cannot function in society after they've been released. A lot of them re-offend to get incarcerated again. After the physical chains are broken, counseling is required to free the mind as well.

I know you might have known this already, or maybe Shay's pushed in the direction to know it now. You and donstan (and probably some other guys here) seem to be more interested in beating down the issue than arguing it. Which is why you are testing our individual understanding of feminism as though we were in your class. And anyone who impresses you gets a cookie and is sent on her merry way. But we aren't here to impress you. We want to enlighten you. But we can only do that if you open yourself up to be educated on the issue. It's your prerogative though.

MissWrite

I know you might have known this already, or maybe Shay's pushed in the direction to know it now. You and donstan (and probably some other guys here) seem to be more interested in beating down the issue than arguing it. Which is why you are testing our individual understanding of feminism as though we were in your class. And anyone who impresses you gets a cookie and is sent on her merry way. But we aren't here to impress you. We want to enlighten you. But we can only do that if you open yourself up to be educated on the issue. It's your prerogative though.

MissWrite:
I know you might have known this already, or maybe Shay's pushed in the direction to know it now. You and donstan (and probably some other guys here) seem to be more interested in beating down the issue than arguing it. Which is why you are testing our individual understanding of feminism as though we were in your class. And anyone who impresses you gets a cookie and is sent on her merry way. But we aren't here to impress you. We want to enlighten you. But we can only do that if you open yourself up to be educated on the issue. It's your prerogative though.

AntiBrutus:
YOU are WISE.
How did it take you this long to know that obvious fact?

greiboy:
I am sorry ma'am, but you haven't observed our conversation properly

You might have let your relationship and emotions cloud your better sense of objective reasoning I once admired.

Shay, said all women not SOME women against feminism is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, maybe if you haven't read our conversations with so much emotions you will have spot that to be our main bone of contention. Thus implying that all ladies suffer abusive relationships prior to the advent of feminism. And yes, I noticed she use the word some but by refusing to also state that not all men can be tagged oppressors prior to feminism negates that "some" she tried to use to cover her hypocrisy. What could have been the reasons for others to stay with these oppressive men? if it not for the syndrome she believed plagued women in the past?

She also said all men are oppressors and I ask her if she has been oppressed by all men in the past? with no absolute response but insults.

I also mentioned love and she felt I miss interpreted her comment or I don't understand the meaning of Stockholm syndrome. Here is a proof that those involved in Stockholm syndrome show both love and empathy towards their captors

A person who experiences Stockholm syndrome comes to bond with the captor and may experience feelings of love empathy , or a desire to protect the captors

In addition, I believe neither you nor shay is willing to submit to the fact that the motive of this thread in itself is form of emotional abuse to ladies who might be willing to support the idea of freedom based on equity as against equality feminists advocate for

Feminists are supposed to advocate for rights of women not beat then down for opposing ideas of feminism.

I haven't noticed anything different in what you are doing and the alleged reputation of men you have consistently painted on this thread.


https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/stockholm-syndrome


Furthermore, she made a mistake with her statistical analysis which I tried to correct, but she rebuffed my attempts with insults.

She said she inferred based on measurement of central tendencies that op created the thread for any other reason besides attention. And I asked her to explain the procedures she applied, but she couldn't

Note ; she insulted my education first not the other way around

Finally, I use to believe you are better than make judgments based on emotions and friendship connections, but I am disappointed with the way you drew this conclusion here. if you could recall, I was the first person to call you to this thread to enlighten the young female landers about the true definition of feminism. Now, how will I want to beat female down and do that, wouldn't that be shooting myself in the foot.

I even once likened your objectiveness on societal issues to one of the more remarkable speeches delivered by the great Nelson Mandela before his departure to prison

But I maybe wrong, we all humans after all

what have you scribbled together again .

greiboy:
You too

Well, we learn new things everyday

I should probably apologize for not being an hypocrite who got insulted and tagged as AN ASS LICKER for countering men that are againmen (feminism) and freedom of expression of some ladies on nairaland, But for daring to counter ladies insulting their fellow lady's freedom of choice


I am sorry, but I kind of have moral standards by which I operate by.

greiboy:
You too

Well, we learn new things everyday

I should probably apologize for not being an hypocrite who got insulted and tagged as AN ASS LICKER for countering men that are against the freedom of choice of some women (feminism) and freedom of expression of some ladies on nairaland, But for daring to counter ladies insulting their fellow lady's freedom of choice


I am sorry, but I kind of have moral standards by which I operate by.

MissWrite:
Lol! Did I? Observe incorrectly?

Alright, babe..........

First, let's not pretend like "once" was such a long time ago. It's been only a few hours since; don't be petty with the cookie, sweetheart . Secondly, if one claims that all men are oppressors, it doesn't translate to all women being "stockholmed". Because not all victims of kidnap, or slavery, etc....identify with their captors in such a manner. It's a question of the composition of one's psyche. Not all people react to a particular stimulus in the same way. So the "some" is not "negated" by the claim that all men are oppressors. In any case, she did not even say that all men are oppressors. The sentence started thus: If all men have historically been oppressors in this context ........This is just what I mean by "deliberately misunderstanding" a point.

Let me just ask this: When guys intentionally use condescending language to piss a girl off in conversation, do they not expect the girl to pick up on it? I would say I have been observing closely, and I felt that you've been a bit confrontational from the start. But in an argument, that's allowed. But when you started with what have you scribbled together again . ......... I had a feeling that it would disintegrate to name calling.

I wasn't asked about the motive of this thread before (even though I did say I thought it was created for the fun of it, since I didn't think anti-feminist women are sex-starved. Shay also said that there were sex starved women amongst feminists as well). But I would oblige you that some anti-feminists might feel bullied. It is their right to experience this thread from their perspective. If that was the OPs intention, however, can only be known from the OPs point of view. You and I can only assume. I don't know if the Op has answered this question.

Lol , You are too kind. Nelson Mandela? Hmm....I appreciate the compliment but don't insult the man's memory on my account, sweetie. With compliments, try not to give them unless you absolutely know them to be true. That way you would only be stating irrefutable facts. And the recognition of these facts would be a testament to your own perceptiveness (and that's a compliment to you as well). If you adhere to this, the moment someone disappoints you (and they will), you won't bemoan having given them undeserved things.

In spite of all this talk, I do love you very much, SSG. You are one of the good ones here (there're so few of you) which is why your exchange surprised me. Not the disagreement (I respect that about you) but the irritation and condescending attitude. But as much as I love you, I cannot let those emotions cloud my judgment here. What was it? My better sense of objective reasoning.

First, let's not pretend like "once" was such a long time ago. It's been only a few hours since; don't be petty with the cookie, sweetheart . Secondly, if one claims that all men are oppressor, it doesn't translate to all women being "Stockholm's"[/I]

Based on your submissions, please can you highlight any other reasons an alleged oppressed person will choose to stay with an oppressor beyond a sick obsession.?

You see why you are making comments against your better sense of objectivity.

@motives of the thread

So you thought I called you here to come and endorse this type of shallow thread insulting other human beings, not to talk of your gender


Ladies were been insulted for their views and I called you here to come and intervene, but to my greatest surprise you actually endorsed the thread albeit in a subtle manner [i]

So You actually think this is a joke, while we had women insult each other to the extent of bringing their family members into the discussion

lovelygurl:
I missed your posts girl!

Lol ... Problem half solved,if you reciprocate it will be completely solved


Happy Sunday

RuthDaniels:
Lol ... Problem half solved,if you reciprocate it will be completely solved


Happy Sunday

Proudgorgeousga:
long article full of rubbish. so because in the 60s America changed to democracy and to fighting for historically oppressed people suddenly means feminism is about lesbianism?

trash. holistic perspective my ass


btw why single out lesbianism? don't they fight for lgbt.

WORDWORLD:
Is feminism not really about people who are always BITTER, ANGRY AND FUSTRATED? You asked a question which i qualified as an intelligent one and my answering with reference for you to cross check has made you this angry?. The whole point is this. FEMINISM IS A CONFUSED MENTALITY JUST AS YOUR DISPLAY HERE. IT IS NOTHING BUT AN INCONSISTENT FANTASY. Go back and read what i wrote. It seems you have problem with comprehension. The lgbt is an out crop of the sexual revolution in the U.S.A in the 60s which wasn't all about sex but a political movement as well. Hence Lesbianism as defined with respect to political power as feminism is about power struggle. Pls, i will appreciate some level of maturity in your response if you care. WE LEARN FROM CRADDLE TO GRAVE. I SEE NO REASON FOR ALL THIS BITTERNESS, FUSTRATION AND ANGER YOU ALL EXHIBIT. Life is good!

Proudgorgeousga:
your explanation is rubbish. that's why i called it rubbish. it has nothing to with me being angry. I'm not angry. it's just surprising people type rubbish with confidence.

go read about the history of feminism and the suffrage. okay?

UDUJ:
I guess you are very lettered to just discount someone's write-up as rubbish Not nice

Proudgorgeousga:
so if someone types rubbish, I can't say it's rubbish?

UDUJ:
It's a free world

WORDWORLD:
I was actually expecting someone to prove their good education by asking such an intelligent question. My dear, in the 60's U.S.A, the United States of America underwent change both in it's moral and political structure to fit certain articles of faith in the system called DEMOCRACY which governs that country. These articles of faith which are but illusions, FREEDOM and EQUALITY sprang up lots of movements fighting for rights, in the 60s because for the very first time America's system of governance was becoming functional by its defination after the 2nd World war. Blacks such as Martin Lurther King, MalcomX and even noble White folks who believe in JUSTICE and COMPASSION for fellow human being irrespective of skin color fought along side against oppression and racial prejudice by Whites. Other activism in the 60s was LESBIANISM which is the core of our discussion. [b]"LESBIANISM" she wrote (Ruth Rosen) "is one road to freedom from oppression of men". [/b]Do you get the gist now why on an HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE contrary to the popular representation of LESBIANISM as a sexuality, it is also a POLITICAL MOVEMENT to fight the oppression of men. IN ORDER WORDS ALL FEMINIST ARE LESBIANS. This is an holistic perspective and not the partial one that is indoctrinated today that lesbianism it is all about sexuality. If you want to know more read the book authored by Ruth Rosen titled: THE WORLD SPLIT OPEN. HOW THE MODERN WOMEN'S MOVEMENT CHANGED AMERICA. So on that bases as Lesbianism is defined the ideology called Feminism fits perfectly even though an inconsistent fantasy. My dear there is no argueing the fact that with every 'progress' this radical women movement makes, that partial defination of Lesbianism which is akin to sexuality gets a boost because it is meant to accomodate women loving women and for sexual gratification too. Kindly do a little research on a major homophile organisation known as THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS. I hope I am clear based on an holistic perspective. Thank you for your wonderful question.

Proudgorgeousga:
your explanation is rubbish. that's why i called it rubbish. it has nothing to with me being angry. I'm not angry. it's just surprising people type rubbish with confidence.

you can type bitterness and anger In caps all you want it doesn't make it true

btw. the emboldened does not make sense.

you always type long epistle yet no sense made.

again I repeat saying feminism is all about lesbianism is arrant nonsense.

go read about the history of feminism and the suffrage. okay?

WORDWORLD:
Your real problem is lack of comprehension. I asked you to go read what I had written one more time so perhaps you may understand that what you asked was for an evidence as to how it is said that the revolutionary ideology behind feminism is that of Lesbianism. And in my response I provided to you the defination of the word LESBIANISM as according to Ruth Rosen in her book as an evidence and as it links feminism while continously making emphasis that on an 'HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE'. The assertion I supported is that feminism is an hiding ground for Lesbians. Which I further provide you with and homophile (lesbian) organisation called THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS a pro-feminist organization. What else is there it to dig into this so called history of feminism. It is that word 'FEMINISM' wasn't coined out by a woman but a MAN by the name Charles Fourier, a French and a socialist of which it was his own envisionment of an utopia society. Feminism is an inconsistent fantasy. As a movement carryying the name by a man. It only became a serious matter in the 60s. So, what is false in the evidence that I have provided, with respect to that defination of Lesbianism.


To be frank and on a deeper level if only you understand the dynamics of world orders through out human history. This manifestation as 'feminism' and so many other 'ISMs' are as a result the consistent battle between Temporal Power and Spiritual Authority. AND THAT IS THE VERY HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE AS TO THE  CRISIS OF OUR SO CALLED MODERN WORLD.The major problem with most people is that they are BLIND followers of ideologies they know not the motives behind them, which is so sad how they become fanatical about their cherished ignorance.      
Misswrite kindly take note the role of that homophile organisation THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS. Do your research not be to quick in throwing out your Lesbian sisters. To say all feminist are Lesbians doesnt mean in a sexual way just as feminism is not all about females infact if the very dream was by a man by the name Charles Fourier. WE ARE ALL HERE TO LEARN. "Lesbianism" she wrote (Ruth Rosen) "is one road to freedom from the oppression of men". Be honest, if not the sexual side of Lesbianism have you ever heard such a political statement about it. If whether "a road" or "the road" where is it leading to? Is it not the same place "FREEDOM FROM THE OPPRESSION OF MEN". Finally and especially to proudgorgeousga, relax. "What we are looking for is not people who agree with us but people who think well of us and know how to express it. We cherish such people though they disagree with us". (Eric Hoofer Reflection on the human condition). Kindly ponder if the word 'Feminism' which is said to never have existed before 1800 was invented by a MAN and not a WOMAN and as an envisioned utopian society. What did he have in mind if not about a JUST society and not a society so much in disharmony in the name of gender equality which is but a ILLUSION. Ask yourselves how can we have peace if a woman believes that any woman who doesnt adhere to her kind of perception about about 'FEMINISM' is sex starved.

MissWrite:

To say all feminist are Lesbians doesnt mean in a sexual way

This is interesting........in what way then? Political? What definition are you giving to lesbianism if it isn't sexual activity between two women? More light please. Some of us indeed are here to learn.

Proudgorgeousga:
you get time.

I admire your patience though. expect more confusing epistles

MissWrite:

To say all feminist are Lesbians doesnt mean in a sexual way

This is interesting........in what way then? Political? What definition are you giving to lesbianism if it isn't sexual activity between two women? More light please. Some of us indeed are here to learn.

WORDWORLD:
Yes P-O-L-T-I-C-A-L it has been stated as so in earlier post. You think if LESBIANISM (is all about women licking and fingering each others puccies and not also a POLITICAL MOVEMENT you think they would have achieved such a goal as the ammendment of the U.S constitution to accomodate same sex marriage?Can you come up with what you are able to dig out about THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS as to their role in the feminist movement please. What you wrote about Ruth Rosen is but you own insinution. And it is so sad how you made people believe that Lesbians were not championing the course called feminism. Lets hear what you have to say as regards THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS. This topic is not for narrow minded and am happy you care to learn. Yes! Political a major reason i keep emphasizing on this two word "HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE". Of course there is a political side to homosexualism. The point here is that with lesbianism its goal is "FREEDOM FROM THE OPPRESSION OF MEN".

MissWrite:
Define lesbianism.


And read this page from the book you quoted.

WORDWORLD:
My dear, i have read it. What does it dispel. And what point are you trying to make really. Did you not say Ruth Rosen was making a case for Lesbians to be part of the show. proudgorgeousga once said "google is free" (but in truth it is not exactly free because you gat to buy mb. Just trying to make you understand that i reason with precision ). So kindly type on google DAUGHTERS OF BILITTIS. Wikipedia comes up with a page that tell us the role of that homophile oragnisation in the feminist movement. What we all should be looking for is not EGOISM. I MUST BE RIGHT AT ALL COST. BUT WHAT IS THE TRUTH. IS IT FALSE ABOUT THE DAUGHERS OF BILITIS AS TO THEIR ROLE IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT? Your own conception of feminism may not allow them due to certain values but in TRUTH please answer the question if you know not do some research.

MissWrite:
The point of that attached page is to show that I have stated what was in it. And if you feel my post is misleading, then the book must be misleading. The post said: lesbianism is not the feminist agenda, and not all feminists are lesbians. This is your claim. And now you're saying Something else. Plenty things else.

If you have an alternative definition for lesbianism, kindly give it.

donstan18:
Who are the WE that are here to enlighten me on "Feminism" ?

What do they know? ,not to talk of enlightening Donstan on feminism.

Haven't seen them, all I see are ladies(Excluding you) tabling their knowledge with bitterness and anger, all I see are ladies hiding behind another lady's knowledge to sound intelligent, all I see are ladies quoting and supporting you with your observations without letting us know how knowledgeable they are on feminism, all I see are ladies calling themselves feminists and insulting other ladies of marital status


And so long as I continue seeing these set of ladies.

Nland feminists will forever remain Nland e-goats