₦airaland Forum

The jobless fraud deactivated in the end.

What a mooron!

mastermaestro:
I didn't know he had repeatedly used it on other threads. Your use of words and writing style deserve to be acknowledged. Please let the unwell folk continue in his one-word fantasy. How are you today?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-nDFpOJeU

peacettw:
Lol. Thought I was the only one who noticed the constant use of the words cretinous, cretin... He can't help himself. Those words must be used on every post. Poor child... I had thought he was just been silly with a desperate need to seek for relevance on every thread but now I am reconsidering another diagnosis. He might simply be unwell, cos that will explain his limited range and repeated use of vocabulary. Such a sad world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ccLwBeje0

Pat081:
U re fool so far de man gt wot am trying to say d rest is ur problem so keep it up

Fuuk me, Lord!

See grammar!

Everyone, look o!

This is the brain damage you can cause your child if you force feed them!

Make una hear well well now o. Before you end up with this kind of cretin.

oshorstan:
Has a child frustrated you b4? that he refuses to eat when he is hungry

No!

And if that happened, are you trying to insinuate I would be dumb enough to force-feed the child?

Is that an excuse that you see as justification to force-feed a baby?

mastermaestro:
Cretin? It seems you just learnt the word. You need a functional brain. Let me help you...

Fuuktard, you are so fcking dumb, it is shocking.

The worst problem for your dumb arse is, looking at your history, your cretinous arse think you have interesting memes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfqSE4qimiY

EbolaParasite:
Only illiterates use curses to get their points across. It doesn't make you look smart, it simply shows how shallow you are. You mentioned that the kid will eventually eat and i corrected you. There are kids that will rather starve to death. This is a faceless forum. Throwing insults just makes you look weak. Do you actually think your insults will somehow affect me. If life is giving you problems, please see a therapist. Nobody cares about your violent insults on here.

It is not by force to post. The OP asked for advice. He doesn't need your violent insults. Heck nobody on here does. Mr know it all, keep it moving please.

You are a cretinnous fuuktard!

Were the highlighted "academic research" done in your Shalanga University?

Typical product of a failed education system that pull moronic opinions from their fcking arse and label it "facts".

Dumb fuuker! You don enter your own. It is a long time I have had the pleasure of intense intellectual humiliation of a complete cretin.

I shall suya you!

MissWrite:
Alright this is getting tedious. I'm picking out the bolded words and considering them your concession.

Fuuk Lord!

Did you understand this statement when YOU quoted it from me?

https://www.nairaland.com/4347281/male-chivalry-feminism-mutually-exclusive/1#65164858

"So, sorry, Chivalry is gender-specific. A woman cannot be "chivalrous". They can have or demonstrate the behaviours but the tag is not attributable to them in general."

Did you get what "in general" meant?

MissWrite:
This is your category, he acknowledged you: people who continue to understand chivalry as strictly male obligations towards female beneficiaries. Even when there are historical examples of a wider application. Books are written to enlighten people because ignorance
continues to live amongst us.

The older examples were of greater value to me because I wanted to see how far back this sort of usage went. And it dates back far enough to a time when chivalry was alive and well. And I counted 80 years between 1938 and 2018.

If you had been concentrating you would have counted approximately 112 years, as the 1938 one was "female/woman's chivalry" which I said I discounted.

Secondly, my argument was not that it had NEVER been used for women (as I knew even women could be nights), the argument was that is was very rare to the point of negligible.

It could even fcking be used for wild animals.

The point is that most people's attribution and understanding is that it is a masculine thing, hence why the use of it for women is negligible.

If one put a search for "Chivalrous Women" in google, several questions that would pop-up would be related to the applicability to women.

Even one of google's related searches suggestion when you put that in a search would be "chivalry female equivalent", which tells you many English-speaking people don't think it is applicable to women and are searching for the alternative word that is equavalently applicable to women.

Anextin:
I guess you deliberately didn't read the part he said he would never try closing the child's nostrils to feed him. You missed it cos u had to look for a way to spru all that u did. Hmm smh

I suggest you go and re-read and this time more slowly so you can actually see where he said he closed the nostrils to force-feed the child.

MissWrite:
Okay, I'm sorry. Then my response to you should have been that you analogy does not apply and you clearly missed my point. My point is: the existence of female knights through history proves that knighthood was not restricted to men.

I knew that already, you did not need to tell me.

MissWrite:
Again, it's NOT about averages. It's about whether the word (chivalry) can be used to qualify women. Just like "tall" and "affinity for sex", even when men are tall(er) on the average.

You were the one that deviated the argument with a misinterpretation. I just adddressed and corrected it.

MissWrite:
Clearly not with you.

Don't even try it. That would be feminist crap.

MissWrite:
Lol! You asked for text on the issue; I gave it. If it had said merely "chivalry", according to your thinking, it would not comprise women. Now you have chivalry and women in the same sentence. Be happy, for chrissakes.

I agree with you, you did provide it with the "chivalrous women".

What I am saying is that you provide some few usage 100s of years ago. But definitions, as I stated, is about usage.

Is there any reason why you can't provide widespread modern/current usage? 100 years is fcking pretty long?

I note that in your source itself ('Feminism and the creation of a female aristocracy' by Peter Wright), it clearly states:

"Chivalry today continues to be undertood as STRICTLY male obligations towards female beneficiaries".

In your source, not mine.

So can you see why I noted the 100 years?

He even alluded to my argument that the behaviour of niceness/kindness by women to men is not called "chivalry".

MissWrite:
No, actually it was you who missed the point here. The question is: can chivalry be used to qualify women? It is not: which gender exhibits chivalry? or which gender is more chivalrous? It is simply: can a woman be described as chivalrous?

Just like: Can a black man be said to have academic aptitude?

It isn't a comparative issue.

No, you missed the point, darling.

If you go back and read what I posted, I stated: "I would not even accept black people as academic based on two or ten of them winning Nobel Prizes...."

Nowhere did I state a black man cannot be said to lack academic aptitute.

MissWrite:
What does this even mean, and how is it applicable? We are arguing if a word can fittingly describe a woman. Now, it's well known that men are taller than women on the average. But does that mean that a woman cannot fittingly be described as being tall? Is it a word that can only be applicable to men? I think not.

This wasn't a good example to make your point.

Of course I know what we are debating about.

I am just telling you that it was nonsense and a waste of my time for you to intepret my insinuations as true for all case.

E.g. my insinuation that men are love sex more than women to mean I think every single man loves sex than every single woman.

My insinuation that men are more intelligent than women to mean I think every single man is more intelligent than every single woman.

You SHOULD have known it was "on average".

MissWrite:
...........I'll pass.

There is really no argument there, darling.

MissWrite:
Source: Feminism and the creation of a female aristocracy (Peter Wright)

Nice collection.

I must say that the first half would have not passed the mustard because the use was "female chivalry" or "women's chivalry", which suggests that the authors really saw it as an oxymoron.

But the final half do qualify as the use was "chivalrous women".

That said, your most recent example was 100 years ago?

hotmum:
How do you handle a husband that after telling him his offenses to you, or when you have misunderstanding he keeps malice and starts eating outside.
I'm the type that can cry when explaining things so I sent him an SMS of what he did wrong.

Instead he kept malice and refused food.
I'm not the eating type and can't force myself to finish a pot of food. So this morning I asked if he would eat and he said No.
And later went out and has not come back.
Should I confront him about his eating out, and how?

If what you are saying is true (i.e. you "explained" things to him, not "talked down" to him), then just ignore him.

When he is tired of his act, tell him to grow up and not sulk when things are being discussed.

That is if you only "explained" things to him before.

Pat081:
dnt cum here n b talking nonsense sir / ma I still remember dos days dat our mother and grandmother use to force us to eat dat way too n we did nt dead ooooooo ,Op ur son will nt dead jo every tin is nt abut hospital talk to ur own mum or ur wife mother dey will knw wot to do

Yeah, mooron!

It did not kill you, it just left you brain-dead.

See grammar!

YelloweWest:
Fucking this fucking that. You don't sound EDUCATED!

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

What the fck do you know about education?

Product of a failed education system is questioning my education?

Nigga, you are new on this site? You really don't know me.

Don't let me intellectually drag you on the fcking floor. Your mama go come on NL to kneel down and beg for your dumb arse.

MissWrite:
Okay then. If you are accepting the morphed version of the word, why are you not willing to accept that chivalry ALSO means:

1. Very polite, honest, and kind behaviour, especially by men towards women (Cambridge dictionary).

2. Courteous behaviour, especially that of a man towards women (Oxford)

3. Polite, kind, and unselfish behaviour, especially by men towards women (Collins).

4. The qualities of being polite and honest and having honour that were expected of a knight (Macmillan)

These are the morphed versions I was referring to, in the first place.

That is: Men (in their specific, considerate behaviour towards women)

All the others are related to "Knight".

MissWrite:
And as Reina as already pointed out: “especially” does not mean “specifically” or “exclusively”. So you cannot claim that the word chivalry CANNOT apply to women as well.

Can you show me where you have seen the term used for female behaviour?

Feel free to go ahead.

As I stated earlier, dictionary definitions are about collation of "usage" and dictionaries are not always right/definitive because each is subjective.

The fact that some tried to apply ambiguity to the gender interactional usage does not mean they are right or I have to accept them. Chivalry is NOT used as a term for women's behaviour. It does not even register as applicable in the brains of those that speak English, so I challenge those select dictionaries that tried ambiguity.

It is not even close to the usage of term "pretty" as a description of men. You will not find many places where "pretty" is being used as a term to describe a man. It is used for women and things. So if I would not accept pretty as a unisex label, how can I accept chivalry as one.

Chivalry is for men, not women.

MissWrite:
I don’t expect you to conclude on the academic prowess of black people based on two (or even ten) Nobel prizes, no. I, however, would expect you to see that Nobel prizes aren’t exclusively given to non-black people; and that black people can also have a chance to win Nobel prizes when they excel in their fields. In the same way, I would expect you to see that women were not excluded from knighthood, even if there were only two examples to make that point. But you would find that there were quite a number. The example I gave you earlier was a whole order of knighthood for women.

You missed the core point there.

The point was not who Nobels are given to. The point was which races demonstrate academic prowess.

The black race would not be regarded as one.

I know knighthood and war-leadership are not exclusive to men in history. I am just saying the behaviour attributed to the title is definitively masculine.

MissWrite:
I think you misunderstand the concept of equality which feminism advocates. We cannot say women have equal intelligence as men, when one man doesn’t even have the same intelligence as the next man. Same goes for sex drive, logic and a host of other subjective variables. It’s just simply ridiculous to make such suppositions.

When I say "women" or "men", I think you need to figure out that I meant "on average".

I am sure if I said men are taller than women, you would not come back here and say I meant all men are taller than all women.

MissWrite:
https://www.nairaland.com/4198664/feminism-relevant-time-place-emancipation

Yes, I agree that society suppresses women with culture and religion. Here’s the difference in the nature/nurture argument: If a woman is tasked with child birth, it is as a result of nature (she has the hardware for it). If a woman is tasked with cooking and cleaning (which are both acquired skills), that’s because she’s nurtured to do so. And because society has certain expectations of men and women, both aren’t entirely free to choose where they want to fit in. Most women are ready to break out of their boxes because they’ve become unsuitable and incompatible with our desires. It should be our right to do so too; and it in no way means that we want to become men.

And as far as your shot on logic goes: No be who first call police dey win case.

No! Wrong.

Cooking and cleaning is not about nurture.

Women are naturally more interested in things that involve people, glamour, design and relationships than men.

Men are naturally more interested in things that involve manufacturing, systems, achievements and social power than women.

That is why men's TV channels/magazines would show you sex, sports, physical challenges, documentaries and politics, while women's TV channels/magazines would show you fashion, family, love and trash like reality TV.

Evolutionary engineering, not social engineering.

Claiming otherwise is the feminist crap I referred to.

I repeat: Nature is not politically correct!

keenn:
why not calm down.

alot of us were fed that way, perhaps u inclusive. though wrong but u are far too exaggerating the action the OP made.

My parents are educated and had far much more sense to not do such.

I only saw it done by illiterates in the village.

profmallor:
A lot of grown ups today were force fed at least once in their childhood years, especially those that grew up in privileged homes, because not eating is a rich man's child's issue. A lot of the parents then were equally strangely very educated. I think the act is bore out of desperation. And besides all your points, a lot of children from privileged homes would still not eat after your 3 points, they see food as a distraction from fun - wont blame them cause they have being pampered silly with options.

Every human being has to eat.

When hunger wires a child, na im go come say "Mummy, I am hungry" if he/she is old enough to talk.

Force-feeding or beating/screaming at a child to eat is just nonsense parenting indulged in by parents desperate to convince themselves they are doing a good job or think they are competing to get their child to reach a certain physical development.

Force-feeding a baby is dangerous and irresponsible.

mastermaestro:
x

Your entire lineage do not have 100th of the sense in one atom of my spit.

Cretin!

EbolaParasite:
While i don't advocate force feeding, you sir or maam are the one behaving like an illiterate. You obviously have no experience with kids. There are kids that have refused to eat and ended up in the hospital. The theory that they will eat when hungry is false. There are some kids with psychological/neurological issues that are picky with what they want and would rather starve to death. The only thing you can scold the OP for is force feeding. Every other thing is wrong. OP is right to be worried and all they need do is find ways of getting the child to eat. Insinuating a child will eventually eat when hunger wires the child is an ILLITERATE assertion.

You are a cretinous person!

What part of check your child and take them to a medical expert or change the food did your moronic brain struggle to comprehend?

You were force-fed till you were brain damaged?

mastermaestro:
x

Who the fck is this cretinous person?

Cornido:
Pls experienced parents in the house especially Mums, my baby is 9 months old. We just introduced him to cereals but the trouble is he refuses to eat it. We have tried Pap, that one is even worse.
I have to pin his hands and legs, while the Mum tries to force his mouth open just to get a spoonful into his mouth, that is if she can get past the teeth that he won't open. And after all these, he will not swallow, he will just spit everything out and we are back to square one. And the way he cries.........damn
We tried closing his nostrils and mouth to force him to swallow, hmmm, I will never try it again. Continuing only on breast milk is no longer an option cos it doesn't fill him anymore. Pls suggestions

This is pure nonsense!

Irritating nonsense!

Please don't tell me you are an educated individual. What kind of fcking illiterate behaviour is that? You want to choke the kid?

This shyt is irritating me to the bone. I am really restraining my tongue because it is your child and your ignorant behaviour is out of concern and love.

If a child is not eating, you have three options.

1) Find out if there is anything wrong with the child physiologically by first physically examining the child and, if necessary, take the child to a medical profesional.

2) Change the food type (which you have already done)

3) WAIT! Put the food on the side. When the child is hungry wellu wellu, it would ask/cry for food and eat what is offered.

I have said this repeatedly to those I have seen trying to force-feed their children. What utter nonsense!!!

If you don't feel like eating, would you like people pinning you down and forcing food in you?

The child is a human being that NEEDS the nutrients of food to function and survive. If they are not taking what you are offering now, they would definitely take it later when hunger wire them. Why would you want to torment and traumatise them with feeding time because of your own self-obsession with convincing yourself that you are doing a great job parenting?

You are potentially raising a child that would have challenges with food in future because it registers in their brain as association with trauma.

What kind of fcking illiterate behaviour is this?

MissWrite:
I've been looking at this for a while........ Sagamite, if you want to limit your definition of chivalry to chivalry as it relates to knights (which indeed is the origin of the word), then you're going to have to accept that chivalry is not even a male-thing. It is not gender-specific; it is vocation-specific. It's an esoteric culture or code of conduct which applies only to knights, but not to men in general. And it would interest you to know that there have been female Knights throughout history. Whereas I'm sure you're familiar with females in battle (like Joan d'Arc, or the samurai Nakano Takeko), it's (maybe) a less well-known fact that "The Order of the Hatchet" was a military order of knighthood for women. And this isn't the only example, there were several militissas in the middle-ages.

How can it, therefore, even be taken for granted that men who aren't knights would abide by that code? What right do they have? This is just a residual deposit of all the fairy-tales we were told as children: Cinderella, sleeping beauty, Rapunzel..............the white knight in shining armor; a purely romantic notion which conveniently disregards the existence of female knights because it's bent on creating a pretty picture. It's fantastic (not........I mean fantasy).We don't necessarily remember much of history; but we cannot forget these stories that have immortalized the knight in shining armor. Feminism doesn't think much of these misogynistic fairy-tales where women are often depicted as the prize to reward a man's valor: if you slay the dragon, you can have your pick from my array of beautiful daughters. And somehow, we know, he'll pick the youngest, who's sweet and coy. Not only are these tales sexist, but they're agist as well. Remember how Cordelia was more virtuous than Regan and Goneril? Some of these fairy-tales need to be stood on their heads. Shrek has been great in addressing our obsession with beauty, but we've got a lot more thinking to do in order to shake people out of this dream.

The truth is, chivalry has a much wider application. When knights no longer hogged the word for themselves, and extended it towards en (in the age of Romanticism or idealism), why would it suddenly lose its fluidity now, when women are claiming it too in this age of Realism? Even after the accommodation has been made in the dictionary. When a man gives a woman his handkerchief to dry her tears; it's considered chivalrous, is it not? If a woman dips into her massive handbag to hand a man her handkerchief, why should it be considered anything less than chivalrous? Even if he's only using it to wipe his seat. Is chivalry not in the "thoughtfulness" of the gesture? (I think that it most definitely is) Or must there be a tearful, helpless creature at the receiving end (not just a needful one), a position men just won't be associated with out of their own free-will. And a position which, naturally, clashes with the portrayal of the strong feminist woman.

But.....

No, darling, I am not limiting it to knights.

As I said earlier, the word chivalry has metamophise into two different premises based as demonstrated in all dictionaries:

a) Knights (in war situations)

b) Men (in their specific, considerate behaviour towards women)

Two or ten female "knights" out of over probably over 100,000 knights in history is not really a strong argument.

I would not even accept black people as academic based on two or ten of them winning Nobel Prizes out of the over 200 Laurettes in history. So that knight one is really extremely weak.

Again, the bigger emphasise is that the word is almost never used for women or attributed to women's behaviour towards men.

You have a better chance of convincing me "pretty" is used for men. And the chance for this in itself is virtually zero.

Chivalry is a word for, and expectation of, men.

MissWrite:
Feminism isn't about denying weakness; it is a human thing after all. Real-life situations are unique, and so are real-life people; we all have various strengths that can compliment the weaknesses of others regardless of gender. Feminism, however, is against casting women, as a gender, as helpless damsels in distress and, therefore, limiting chivalry to the self-serving, ego-boosting frivolities which men accord the DID. Isn't that a slap in the face of knighthood, though?

Well, the leading voices in feminism would disagree with you.

In their warped mind, apart from physical strength, they argue that men and women are virtually the same naturally. No difference.

That:

- Women have equal intelligence as men.

- Women have same type of intelligence as men.

- Women love sex as much as men do.

- Women are as promiscuous as men.

- Women are as logical as men.

- Women are as good and interested in STEM subjects as men.

- Women have the same career aspirations and drive as men.

- Women want the same things in life as men.

etc.

They argue that the difference we see is only because of "patriarchical" society's nurturing. "It is all about nurture, not nature".

And if you disagree with them, you are a "sexist" or a "misorgynist" who just does not want women to be equal.

You see that they are mad?

Some of the other feminists might not agree with this leading voices except when they are engaging with a man in an argument and they see that taking this position can lead to some kind of beneficial advantage. ..................Well, trust a woman; as illogical as fck in an argument.

oyb:
i thought that was what they called you


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6sGofCFmKg

That is in bed, homie.

Got girls like khiaa screaming "Hit it, Big Daddy".

But, men, good taste in music choice.

That is from when rap used to be rap, not the utter nonsense they have today. I got that shyt on repeat.

I really feel sorry for the teenagers today and the crap they have to listen to.

Some of these so-called rappers need to be shot!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiNNBc557OQ

Omuneizzy6:
To be frank i dont know what to call him.. I only call Big dad... I dont know about you... What do u call yours.

Big Daddy is a very popular generic term used in Nigeria for any close male relative more than 7 years older one's dad.

Omuneizzy6:
To be frank i dont know what to call him.. I only call Big dad... I dont know about you... What do u call yours.

Formally, in the English language, they are called "great-uncle".

Personally, I think that is pure rubbish inconsistency, so I reject it and call them "grand-uncle".

Let these English mudafuckers be consistent by sticking with "great" for the generation of one's great-grandparents and with "grand" for the generation of one's grandparents.

Worse still for this inconsistency is that the term "grand-uncle" is not already in use for some other label.

This follows my principles in life that because it is in popular used, or some respected people do it, does not mean I have to toe the line.

I will create my own rules as I don't accept any ideas or ideals without questioning and scrutinising it. I am comfortable being an iconoclast.

Vanillaskin:
So I've been engaged to this guy since mid last year and planning on getting married middle of this year, but recently for the past 3 months he took up a bank job in another state and he has really become distant.

Just this week on the 14th I didn't hear from him through out the day till the 16th, no call or text even WhatsApp message, nothing. And even on the 16th I had to call first.

I have a feeling he's probably dating someone better in his office because I not a graduate, he told me when he started the new job that they have a lot of female staff in his branch.

These days he can go days without calling me and wouldn't feel bad. I'm just thinking that this engagement wouldn't make it to marriage at this rate.

Now I'm thinking I should start looking for option B since this relationship is starting to feel I'm not on solid ground.
But deep down I still love my fiance and just want only him.

modified
Okay so some Nairalanders have taken it upon themselves to become private investigators reading my old post which are somehow contradicting this story.
Well there's a perfectly good reason for that and that's because I have a friend who just like me and so many of us here have relationship issues and she has asked me to post something about what she is going through in my account for anonymity.
So please face the issue in this thread and stop feeling like a private investigator.
My gosh some people have time oh reading way tooooo much meaning into older post.
Thank you

I shall join those that doubt the authenticity of this situation as you claimed you are not a graduate, yet your English and grammatical construct is better than 98% of those that call themselves graduates in Nigeria.

Arondizuogu:
Nice advice. Gays deserve love and to be loved... isn't Love the most important of all in the Bible? Love answers all... How Girl!!!

Stop making such reetarded statements because you are fed such nonsense by the liberal West.

The most important thing in the bible is to believe in and worship God.

Second is obey his rules.

Love would come way down as a few other this follow those.

Don't vomit such rubbish again.

Shankieboy:
I'm a devoted christian. I believe in Jesus And his teachings. But what I don't seem to understand is Why he hasn't changed my Sexuality. I've prayed. Threatened to harm myself, believing he'll heal me from homosexuality. But all to to no avail.

I've fasted. 5 days dry. I've been celibate for years but I still find myself attracted to members of my gender.

I'm very close to self hate because I feel disgusted with myself. I've tried to be straight. had several girlfriends but I don't seem to be sexually attracted to them. It just doesn't work.

What do I do? Please, help me. I need a miracle. I need an intervention. Else, I'll wallow in depression.

Insults are welcomed.

You don't need to hate yourself as you did not choose your sexuality.

Fck your religion and your prayers, that is all junk, it wouldn't change anything.

Don't get yourself into depression or be disgusted with yourself as it would not help you in anyway.

Nothing would change unless science comes up with some physiological cure/remedy.

My advise to you is to live your homosexual life in your PRIVACY. This is Nigeria, keep it in your bedroom. If you do, it is very unlikely you would have a problem.

Denrele is there enjoying his homosexual life in Nigeria without problems as he keeps his sexual inclination in the privacy of his bedroom.

The alternative is to find a way to get out of the country and move to the West.