₦airaland Forum

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.

manikspears:
If the guy die now na nna go first dey write rip ,shey na till dey kill am for there ni?you no consider say him get wife and pikin for house? You fit challenge AJ for revenge match o.

Die? Did you watch the match? To me, AJ was not at his best in the match. His performance was less brutal like it used to be. At no time in the context did Takam behaved like one who'd be easily knocked out. He was literally begging AJ for punches.

Rosskii:
You are assuming the Council of Nicaea had a race-based agenda. Why? Colour-based racism is a relatively new phenomenon in human history, specifically traced to the 17th century in Europe - a mere 300 years ago!! Racism was a system of beliefs developed by the European elite during the trans-atlantic slave trade to justify the inhuman nature of the trade to a moralistic European christian society. Prior to that era, colour-based racism was virtually non-existent.

So the council may have had its agenda, but it didn't seem to include racial distortion of facts. That only came with 17th century Europe, who used whitened artworks to force a change in public perception regarding the identity of the Israelites.

No. The moors were into colour based racism before that time. The black Africans that ruled Spain at the time had slaves and this was over before the common era. So, racism has been in a existence.

The races had issues and couldn't get along based on skin colour. Their were signposts and jealousy and envy towards other races. The black Egyptians were envied by the white Greece for their knowledge.

So, racism has always existed. The only difference is that their was no government backed racism. It was not institutionalized. That's just the difference. Racism has been experiencing an evolution too.

From the mild disgust between different races to the keeping of slaves by crackers and the final institutionalization by the systems of governance. So, the council of nicea must have operated with that mild derision for other races and making blacks the subject of worship is highly unlikely.

Be informed on Monkey Pox to save your family, friends and yourself. Read this article for symptoms and preventive measures against monkey pox.

http://www.mortalpoet.com/monkeypox-all-you-need-to-know/

Feminism is highly misunderstood by most persons. Feminism is simply equality. I think the problem is the use of the prefix 'femi'.

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

Rosskii:
Firstly, it is not clear that the Council of Nicaea had a racially-tinged agenda. They likely compiled the books that they did not consider immediately threatening to their survival, leaving out those they did, such as the Book of Enoch.

There is no sign either that the bible books - particularly the Old Testament - were written by anyone other than the ancient Israelites themselves. The Book of Isiaiah, Genesis, Amos, Psalms, Exodus, Leviticus, etc, were all written by black ancient Israelites. They were recounting their experiences with Yahweh.

I think you are begging the question. Instead of saying their is no sign any or other person would have written the books other than the ancient Israelites why not first tell how there is a sign it was written by ancient Israelites. You get me?

The fact that it was reported the council at nicea left out books like Thomas and Enoch shows their was an intention to create a standard. Their was an intention to create a divide and promote only infallibility. It exposed the insecurity of the compilers.

Psychologically speaking, the likelihood of people with such mindset allowing the story of the black origin of the Jews, Jesus and Hebrews to sell is very minimal. You see I'm not really doubting anything here. I don't believe any either. I simply need enough sound argument to accept.

Rosskii:
The terms are usually interchangeable.

DNA is only useful if you have something to measure it against. But what do you measure the DNA of dispersed Israelites against? The current occupiers of Israel? They weren't there even 100 years ago, never mind 2000 years.

Exactly the point I want you to make. How does anyone know that the current crop of Igbos are Hebrews or Jews? History? That is written by the winners of war and the rulers of the world? Why should I trust the bible on the history of the Igbos? Why? Was the council at Nicea with sole aim of domination allow such a statement that ridicules their superiority complex?

Sanchez01:
It is normal for Takam to be angry. We shouldn't apply sentiments to certain things, particularly when it involves injuries. Tim Hague was a Canadian boxer who died this year after he was knocked down FIVE Times in the first two rounds. The referee obliged his trainers who confirmed he was fine. Sadly, he suffered severe damages and died two days later.

Takam was bleeding from both eyes already and doctors had been called upon on different occasions to confirm if he is fit to continue. For every round break, blood was cleaned from his eyes with a big towel rather than him drinking to regain strength. It was obvious, particularly when the hits from AJ was fast becoming incessant.

Ideally, boxers don't throw in the towel, regardless of horrible their shape or body is. Boxing is quite different from wrestling and mixed martial arts. We all wanted to see one of them fall but we did not and that does not in any way embellish the eventual result.

Tim Hague is dead today because he told the referee he was fit to continue when he wasn't. Takam could have been blinded permanently or suffered much worse.

Let's forget all these long stories. The Takam that came out of that match didn't look like one who'd be blinded. If we are to use your bleeding argument we can also conclude the referee should have called off the match on account of suffocation when AJ had his nose broken.

The bottom line is, AJ was better than Takam but that KO is not a KO. It doesn't qualify as one. The same way we have bad refereeing in football is the same thing that happened tonight. That was poor refereeing.

Amberon11:
you can't refute so you resort to the usual rhetoric.
Even black Americans know this. Deuteronomy 28 is the history of black people and slavery. Keep being blind while accusing others of being slaves to religion

Do you believe all those stories in the bible are true?

Rosskii:
Absolutely. Without a question. In fact 'Igbo' is a direct derivative of the word, Hebrew.

But Hebrew is different from Jew. And there's no DNA line to back this up?

Rosskii:
Not just the Igbos. The Efiks, Bini, Yorubas, and other Nigerians have ancient Jewish and/or Egyptian ancestry.

I'm talking about Igbos in particular. Let's leave others for now. Do you agree that Igbos are Jews? Simple yes or no.

Sanchez01:
He was referring to the reaction of the audience about not seeing Takam fall flat on the mat of the ring.

I am disappointed too, not because it was decided the way it was but because I felt it was too quick. It was clear AJ would have killed him had the referee not stopped the match. Takam's two eyes were bleeding already and stopping the match was the best thing to do.

Listen again! Did you just listen to Takam? The dude was obviously angry.

Let's be frank, it wasn't clear AJ was going to kill him or knock him out. It wasn't clear at all.

Rewind that part and you'd see what happened was that AJ punched his(Takam) left hand, and then missed the second because Takam dodged. And it was on account of those two wrong punches the ref called off the match.

Rosskii:
Song of Solomon 1:4-6

4 'Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.'


“My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.” – Job 30:30

“Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.” – Lamentations 4:8

“Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.” – Lamentations 5:10

“And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.” – Revelation 1:15

Do you accept the Igbos are Jews and why?

Sanchez01:
I bet you like the one where the defeated staggers and falls like a felled Ìrókò tree, àbi?

If you watching the interview now with AJ now you'd see he tacitly confirmed the wrongness of that KO. His words: I'm not interested in what the officials do beside the ring'. They should given more. The ref should have allowed more. I think he AJ's reign will be long.

Jessewizy:
You want AJ to kill that guy

I think he was going to win by unanimous decision but TKO, that's a poor ending. The dude was not convulsing.

Joshua wins but I don't like how the match ended. Takam was not finished. I don't like how this technical knockouts work.