₦airaland Forum

Is it compulsory for a Christian to tithe? The answer is simple no. You can give willingly but not compelled to tithe. Read this:

http://www.mortalpoet.com/brothers-beggars-street-tithe-church/

Is this exclusive to WordPress or every other website creator tool? www.mortalpoet.com, run on WordPress, has not given me any reason to consider these list as problems. I think any site can be hacked if hackers want to.

Probz:
I get what you’re saying still. Each gender does certain things better than the other on average but no one’s above the other. I just see everyone as equal and leave it at that. I don’t get sucked into all this feminism wahala.

Okay.

Probz:
It’s funny watching guys go all feminist like you’re looking out for yourself.

I support gender equality and no one’s above the other but there’s no getting away from or cheating biology. There are things that naturally come to men that women would have a hard time doing and things that women naturally do better than men. Physical strength’s at the backbone of human survival (as Frankie said) and that’s mostly down the work of men. There’s other things women do that we men just can’t compete with. There’s tons of people across the board who defy the expectation but as a whole both genders are blessed with strengths and weaknesses. No on/ above the other, we’re just made to compliment each other. I agree that everyone should be a feminist at base level but we’ve got our differences. No escaping biology.

I hope you ain’t a pussy-ass nigga who supports radical feminism because you’re not strong or don’t live up to your gender expectation.

Very good. Good points. I agree that physical strength was the backbone of our survival in the past but not anymore. Physical strength is no longer the tools we need to succeed and survive. Physical strength helped us build crude tools but it was an awakening of mental strength that changed everything. Newton, Einstein, P.C Dirac, Marie Curie, Leo Szilard, Roentgen, Rutherford, etc., contributed in changing that.

monex:
Great! so we are back to the question of the existence of an objective truth/good. The idea of an objective truth is an anti-thesis to the concept of liberalism - which is what feminism is based on.

The masochist derives pleasure from pain e.g. being whipped and the Liberal-ist will say the Masochistic person has a right to request pain as a means of his/her satisfaction. It would then be right for her to be beaten (if she requests it) to satisfy her pleasurable desire. The liberal-ist will argue why you think it is wrong when she wants it.We can argue so many things in this fashion.

However, since you believe in the concept of an objective truth, which I agree with, what is the objective definition of equality and equity for all humans?

I don't think the feminist is liberal in that context of masochism. S/he simply wants the freedom to express the self in the fullest capacity. Her liberalism doesn't take the shine out of another person or people. It is founded on logic and truth and some political ideology.

The expression, with respect to the anatomy and physiological features, of a sex, is the objective definition of equality and equity. The woman doesn't have less brain cells and thus shouldn't be relegated in matters involving brain power. The woman has less strength and shouldn't be saddled with works where this function is key.

She shouldn't be head simply because she has same physical featured for that problem but because it is lacking in her man or because she has shown to have more of it. The man should be head in matters of brainstorming not because of that created 'pride' but because he has shown to be more capable in that area.

olabrad:
There is nothing like equality between a man and a woman

Yeah. Not even between men.

budaatum:
Sounds like, "one who doesn't quite know if gods exist or not but doesn't believe in their existence."

Isn't their a word in the dictionary for that? A word called Agnostic. Why add Atheist after it?

Proudgorgeousga:
sapiosexuality here is the answer to your question.

So what is agnosticism?

bigfrancis21:
Physical strength and quality are still necessary for survival and they brought us here that we are right now. The very backbone behind every society's survival is still the men. Males are the ones behind power generation, power distribution, building constructions, sewage collection, the police force (still predominantly male, female officers still seek their male counterparts to help subdue arrest victims), the army, manufacturing, oil drilling, technology creation etc. They are able to do this because of their strength combined with intelligence. That is to say that if men decided to take a break for 1 week from these dedicated spheres of our society, the society will feel the brunt dearly and in a few months societal activities will come to a halt. If a war were to break out today, of course it is mostly men that will go out and fight/defend the country. Not women. Why do you think that, despite the enormous peace the world has experienced since world war 2, that every country in the world today still has and maintains an army (made of mostly men by the way) and spend a good chunk of their budget on their army? To physically defend their country in times of war/danger. The world is heading more and more towards peace, however the possibilities of a war are not left out. Where men can survive in disorganized and organized circumstances (think of men fighting wars under the worst of circumstances yet still make it back home towards the end), women, on the other hand, tend to thrive better in well-organized settings with clearly-defined rules and regulations (again, think of our modern-day society built and effectively organized mostly by men). Some people would say, men were borne by women, of course, but the life of each human on earth all started with the father, hence it all goes back to men again. They are the life-force, life-givers etc.

Thus to be an effective head of the family, one need be able to be able to do so financially and physically. If a woman is the breadwinner, she may be the head of the family financially but not physically where the man is still expected to take charge in the event of danger in the house. Let's face the truth. Physical strength is something nature has clearly given men, not women. So far as men are physically stronger than women, and also have higher levels of testosterone, these two factors will continue to give them certain advantages over women in several spheres of life. Let's be honest.

This is a machine age. Men who do the most physical work work for men who have the most creative energy. He is often out of shape with zero physical strength but he controls men and women who are that powerful. What does that tell you? We are in the era of the mind.
The world has changed. Physical strength is no longer the determinant of strength. The intellectual age has changed everything.

I'm not arguing who's more physically stronger but that we've evolved to a period where physical strength is not the criteria for heading a home. In the past because of the crudity of man it made sense. But not anymore. We have evolved. What advantage does the Anthony Joshua have over Bill Gates? That's too much. What advantage does Beyonce's bouncers have over her? We've experiened an evolution of the mind.

What I don't understand is how some people call themselves Agnostic Atheist. Meaning what exactly kwanu? An oxymoron of a million autistic proportion. Lol. Just looking for trouble but I don't mind answers.

bigfrancis21:
Honestly speaking, if you live in countries like Sweden, UK, etc. where I can tell you that power has shifted hands into the hands of women, maybe your overall stance on this issue will change. You do not know what it is to live in a feminist-dominated society and I tell you you would wish for the opposite. In case you do not know, modern-day feminism is all about female superiority. First and second wave feminism, which I do support, were about women's rights to vote and expanded economic opportunities for women. Nowadays, what we have is a gender war between both sexes. You have to be moderate in the way you champion your feminist cause, I am sure you are male.

As for men being the head of the household, this was put in place simply because a man is not only financially capable of protecting the home, but also physically capable. A head of the household, in addition to providing financially, should be able to physically fight off intruders into the home, ward off danger from the home or defend the home from stray animals etc., which men can do but most women cannot do. I do not mean to generalize, but most women will scamper for safety when faced with situations like these, expecting the man to go out and take charge/defend.

I get you but the same can be said of modern Christians. They've turned the entire thing to business and worldly possessions and fear and evil wishes inculcated into the system.

I don't think that has changed the ideology of the religion. It did not. Once they begin to have behaviours contrary to the Christian faith, they cannot be said to be representing the religion. The same argument works for Feminism.

What we have is chauvinism and chauvinists claiming to be feminists. They hide under the feminism to throw their disdain on men. The simply want to turn the tides and revenge the atrocities of male chauvinism.

As for physical strength and financial muscle qualifying the head, that argument no longer holds water. Today, families are not run based on who is physically stronger. Homes are not built on physical strength. It made sense in the past but not now.

Women work today too. They struggle like men to have a meaningful financial life. So, the financial doesn't also work because we've evolved mentally and psychologically. The smartest run the world today and not the strongest. Physical quality is no longer useful for survival.

monex:
I said as far as it does not affect another negatively. remember that this is the liberal school of thought that drives even feminism. Beating your wife affects her negatively. I know women who cannot marry a man who is not prepared to be the head of the home.

Are you saying those women do not have a right to think for themselves?

They've got the right to. I'm not on the rights to think for yourself but on the right for healthy thinking. Their are some women who love to be beaten by their men and a make up sex followed afterwards. That is erroneous thinking and because it is your opinion or right doesn't make it right. It shows a worrisome level of mental incapacitation. You don't get beat up and say it doesn't affect you negatively.

monex:
why shouldn't it be reduced to a subject of preferences/interests and the opportunity to pursue those preferences/interests.

As a woman, I want to be anything i want to be - from a CEO of a fortune 500, the president of a nation, a Bus driver, a full time house wife etc. Shouldn't I be allowed to? I shouldn't be forced into a box due to my gender. That's what I understand by the gender equality (equality in opportunities).

We can't because equity and equality is not a matter of subjective thoughts. Like I wrote above, having love for canes and defending it with 'preference' is something we all should worry about. Whatever is right is right no matter how you look at it. It is not a matter of your opinion.

monex:
please give me an example of this - a man that doesn't like equity? I hope you don't mean the man who wants to be responsible for finances while the wife is managing the home and nurturing children? He should have an opportunity to be financial provider and she should have an opportunity to be full time house-wife if that's what he wants and what she wants. do you think this is not equality?

Example of a man who doesn't like equity? In this country? Are you serious? Even on this thread you'd find them. You've not seen men who brag about their divine rights to beat their wives when they mess up? Just two days ago a guy was bragging to me how he(a real man) flogged his girlfriend with belt after she tried slapping him. Does such a person believe in equity?

chineduemmao:
dat ur article go wait mak i chop na person way don bellefull de tak feminism. i didn't get ur question about christianity though.

Lol. No wahala. Chop first. Save the page.

chineduemmao:
i know what down syndrome is some downs behave normal and more civilised than most girls i tell u QUOTE ME ANYWHERE

I doubt it. It is very unlikely.

chineduemmao:
see its better u tutor everybody here what really feminism is to u because de kin nonsense wey dem de claim as feminism de vex me. go youtube you go see them. it seems to me when girls wants to be naughty and crazy sametime de claim feminism.

I did that in that article. Read it. No too vex. Na so Christianity dey today too. See wetin dey happen for church today. But we go use that one come say Christianity, which is Christ life, na rubbish? How you see am?

chineduemmao:
because he is a downs makes him less human abi? hipocricy

I didn't say so. Down Syndrome is a medical condition. Those people Nigerians call 'slowpoke'. Would you make them president seeing their medical condition?

chineduemmao:
just when we've actually suceeded in shifting power monopoly in marriage to the center where both partners participate actively in decision making unlike b4, u people now want to shift it to the women... i weak!

You see the problem? You are missing the point on purpose. Read that article and get back. Nobody is shifting anything. It is actually a call for justice in handling gender.

chineduemmao:
In a case lik dis, pride and strent r complimentary: greater strent=greater pride thus if strent is inherent pride is. we cant deny it we can only tame it desame way we tame any inherent ability we want to. A lion with a larger harem has greater pride than a leo with a smaller harem. In as much as there is pride for being male, dere s also prid for bein female.
i wont deny i dont i dont know where u re goin with dis but dere re lots of stupid sugestion coming up dese days and dis clearly one of them. e.g male lust for the female body, but feminists wants it to change. research india pls.

Lol. Come on. You mean feminists want male list for female's bodies to stop? How? That's why I want to know where your definition of feminism is coming from.

chineduemmao:
uninstall? i like the software inukwa! there is no matriarchy in any human society 4get dat tin u are saying about india its not true

No matriarch society? Just use google. Actually the India example is true. The price was just for the maintenance of the girl by her husband.

Marvel1206:
The man protested sef. He wanted to end his record even though he knows he has lost the match.

Exactly. The ref messed up.

chineduemmao:
india? oga/madam u dont know what u are saying. be dat as it may, the problem wit dis modern feminism is dat it too comparative to de male instead of inthehuman sense i.e women shold be allowed to vote because "theyarehumans" not because men do. ok wat if men decides not to vote? how can u b talking about head of de family as if dere is a contest? bro if u read biology u will know dat de male animal inherits pride for his physical strenght and always wants to dominate, yes we are no longer animals at least to an extent, civilisation now teaches us respect yes respect de weaker muscles she is not less important. cool marriage is all about respect- de head of the family doesnt take unilateral decisions.

Yeah Indian brides do that. Though some consider it archaic now.

I think biology and evolution is psychological too. While I think strength is biological, I don't think pride is. Pride is psychological and influenced by human activities. Strength by nature also has potential to make you want to dominate. That is if that environment allows it. We've evolved. Personally, I consider any adult that fights to show superiority a GOAT.

Look at those women with muscles and unique physical strength and you'd see what I'm saying. Like Darwin suggested, because strength was required to survive, animals with greater strength adapt. But people no longer run their affairs on this strength. We've evolved intellectually and thus that crude misconception ought to change too

Sigmund Feud, a psychologist, pointed this out on his descriptions of narcissism. We are simply born with biological features and those other psychological imprints we later add are shaped by the society. So, it is still male chauvinism at play. Telling you that they must be head even when we are in an era of intellectualism. Telling you they are wired from birth with 'Pride' gene which cannot be proven.

chineduemmao:
see i dont have much time 4 feminism today. i was having dis discusion with one girl claiming aristotle yesterday she was listing types of feminism and included female chauvinism... are u saying shes wrong?

Yes, their can be both male and female chauvinism but categorising female chauvinism as a brand of feminism is a logical impossibility. It is like saying 'the goat is a bird' in denotative sense. Not metaphorical o!

You know why? Simple. Feminism is for equal rights for capable and qualified sexes while a chauvinist is an antagonist to these rights. It is like calling someone a Christian Muslim, an atheist theist, a married bachelor, a virgin grandma, etc. Except you want to use it as an Oxymoron which is just for entertainment.

monex:
well marriage is a different ball game as we mostly take our definitions of marriage from religion. In most religions, head of the home does not necessarily mean smartest or that the head does not listen or take advice of others. it simply means responsibility. The leader is not necessarily the smartest. the CEO is not necessarily the smartest in the company.

Equality in dignity and equality in opportunities is what I stand for. I still do not call myself a feminist. I believe the genders are not the same. the genders are unique each with its own natural obligations. however I believe in outliers hence everyone should be afforded the opportunity to be what they want to be.

If a woman wants to go into a male dominated profession, she should be allowed. ditto for a male. if a woman wants to be the head of the home in her marriage, she should simply find a man who shares her sentiments. ditto for man too. No one should be limited by his or her gender but this does not mean we should ignore the fact that the genders are different physiologically and psychologically. everyone should be allowed to be what he or she wants to be as far as it does not affect another.

So if man believes in the concept of primary gender obligations and secondary/helper obligations in marriage, he should find a woman who shares his sentiments. Similarly if a woman believes in equal obligations in marriage, she should simply find a man who shares similar sentiments. the summary is that for marriage, both parties should simply discuss their views on marriage beforehand and agree or stop the relationship.

I understand but I think you are reducing it to subjectivism. I am about the rationale behind every of our individual subjectivism in marriage and gender relations. Is it right? Should it be so? Does your argument imply that we should leave men who think they have a divine right to beat their women to their own decisions? I am questioning those decisions.

That's where feminism comes into play. In other words that where equity and equality comes to play. The feminist is asking for that equity, that commonsense evident in civilized entities, that face of humanity and humanism that ought to be present in all gender relationship. That is the crux of the matter. We can't reduce it to a subject of preferences. If a man doesn't like equity, we won't go down to his level but 'force' him to rise up.

chineduemmao:
haba is chauvinism no longer feminism? which kin confusion b dis!

How can chauvinism be feminism? Their can be either male or female chauvinism. The world we live in today has all the footprints of male chauvinism. Why should a man with Down Syndrome be considered the head of the family where his wife's thyroxine excited her IQ to over 160? That's what chauvinism is. An idiot decides what happens in the home simply because he is a man.

chineduemmao:
am not reading. any girl wey wan approach asin be my boyfriend must get 2 heads b/c its a complete turn off for me. i enjoy chasing girls u hear!

Lol. Look what culture did to you! Do you know women pay bride price in India? Not that I'm encouraging bride price (another ridiculous invention of business man. read this article. http://www.mortalpoet.com/dear-africans-pay-bride-price-just-traded-item/ ) but trying to show you that it's a software in your mind. You need to use the uninstall button.

waluga:
That shows AJ was lenient with him cos he knows the fight n beating the guy don't worth it...takam was just used as a show promoting n just as a sparring patner IMO....the match was just for the money n not to waste ticket bought by the boxing fans...still AJ been a champ he got so much to loose while that pakam or takam who later take am as nothing to loose....cheers

Lenient? Why not understand it as AJ didn't prepare him but Pulev? Any fight AJ gets in is worth it now. Now he's got a legacy to keep. He's got some unbeaten run to keep. You think what I now is for money? AJ.

I think AJ is now a business and will be given the Mayweather treatment and protection. AJ is now a money making bag and the system will go a long way to give him enough protection. The same thing Floyd had working for him.

Talkwell:
There are different definitions of feminism, most narcissistic women have hijacked the whole feminism talk and today we have 3rd wave feminists that have no clue what they're fighting for.

While the op is placing feminism in a good light, there are other feminists that are placing it in a bad light that's what's gets everyone pissed.

The dumb feminists have over

I think the reason people are getting scared is lack of understanding, the glorification of ignorance and the brainwash power of this chauvinistic male world. People don't want to read and thus criticise wrongly. You see, Criticism comes from understanding. But here even people who don't understand a thing want to analyse it.

chineduemmao:
dis one go fun die! i just de imagine nam... hahahahahahahahaha

Of course that is it. People fear what they don't understand and often hate what they can't conquer. Feminism is not harmful to our society. The only problem are some dumb people who claim to be feminist and people whose understanding of ideologies are based on how its proponents behave. Simple. Some are just scared of the word 'femi'. Just read this article to get my point.

http://www.mortalpoet.com/men-chill-feminism-not-think/

lenghtinny:
In clear terms, feminism is not any different misogyny... They are simply man hater and not helper. Cut that crap about what they want and what they don't want.
While misogyny is heavily frowned upon, feminism is heavily cheered on because women will always have their way in a supposed man's world

In clear terms according to who or what?

You are confusing chauvinism for feminism. That's why I'm asking you where exactly your understanding of Feminism emanates. Tell me. This is wiki's definition:

"Feminism is a range of political movements , ideologies , and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes. This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to such opportunities for men".

What is your definition and where exactly did you get it from? Or you must agree that a follower of Jesus Christ is not a Christian just because you think he is not Christian? Give me something and read the article.

lenghtinny:
Equality is actually the hypocrisy that surrounds feminism... If Feminism was about equity, then they deserved to be taken serious.

Women wants to be equal to men, but only wants the advantages minus the disadvantages.

So, on what base is your understanding or definition of feminism erected? Feminists and etymologically, feminism, tell you that feminism is simply an attempt at equity and you disagree. They tell you they want to unburden the men with unnecessary baggage culture and society placed on them and you say they are hypocrites.

They want the richer person on a date to pay for the meal. They want the smarter person to be head of the family(absolutely logical). They want that girl dying for the dude to approach him and damn society and other archaic thinking. What exactly is wrong with this? Did you read that article? Read it if you didn't.

Is your problem with feminism simply the use of 'femi' or what exactly?

Marvel1206:
The referee didn't want Joshua's perfect record to end hence the undue match stoppage. Technically, Joshua didn't knock him out. Takam would have lost either way

Exactly.