₦airaland Forum

FrancisTony:
Even bible opined that submission should be reciprocated before saying women should submit to their husband.

FrancisTony, please don't willfully misunderstand the bible. Or reinterprete it to garner likes !

If submission is in al instances reciprocal, why is it actually needed? And why would there be any need for a qualifier of "wives submittring to husbands" immediately afterwards?

I think we should add workouts to your rehab - drop, and give me 50 press-ups. We need to work on your concave chest and weedy arms - as well as your bible knowledge. Building a "whole man"


TV

crackhaus:
I was answering the OP's question about if I (the reader) would adopt a wife's surname.

I get that. Just a general lament.

crackhaus:
Feminism hasn't triumphed yet, not when there are still guys like me living on earth...I can assure you of this

Feminism can't ultimately triumph - not least because women themselves prefer patriarchy !

crackhaus:
However I don't think feminism made him (them) adopt a woman's surname, they just pvssy-whipped... and the thing about being pvssy-whipped is that it doesn't last forever, they'll come back to their senses soon enough.

Feminist ideology - or rather it's advance - means men are being socialised according to it's dictates. Hence the "whipping". They are doing well for the moment sha, with lots of betas, white knights and all ranks of "save-a-skets" working tirelessly on their behalf.


TV

Moana:
so you think its very logical to blame a decision made by a man on an ideology that promotes equal rights for women. only on NL

...surely it was at least a joint decision? At least your sister answered you;

Shollypopzz:
Yay for feminism! Though matriarchy isn't a new concept, I am going to attribute the man's decision to feminism.

I wonder why men are so threatened by male feminists. (That is a lie! I know why )

SMH @ the women condemning this man's decision...... I want you females to take a minute to see how fvcked up that is.

TV

Etosonc:
should i do, celebrate on any date in feb. or forget about birthday?
ADVICE PLS.

Speak to NL's most famous leapling tearoses aka chaircover.


TV

...stinginess !


TV

crackhaus:
Not going to happen.

I'm afraid it has/is

crackhaus:
That's not Zoe Saldana in that pic.

No, it's Ben Martin (nee Coghill) - husband of Rowan - one of a new breed of men, who are taking their wife's surname.

The last of his name, forsaker of the bloodline, the kinship, ties, the culture and heritage of his fathers. A sign of the feminised, limp-wristed, males that these days pass as progressive and open-minded men - presumably a genital swap will be forthcoming

I's all over Cracky - feminism has triumphed. Lets find a cave somewhere, gather the troops and live out our time reminiscing about the good old days - when men were men and women made sure dinner was on the table !


TV

coogar:
i thought ovarian cancer is contagious.
so this mirenia coil still favours the men in the long run? the inventor must be a misogynist - how discriminatory can one be to think of this kinda crazy idea.

Presumably it uses powerful chemicals to warp the womens normal bodily - reproductive function?

I once had a girlfriend who insisted on going on the pill. One of the really attractive things about her, was her great skin. That went first. Bad acne. "Small price to pay huh? Afterall, it wasn't on my tab was it? Then I found a prettier one .


TV

Kay17:
So there is unequal pay to the disadvantage of men??

Yes - and how timely a question - men are seriously underpaid relative to women in Tennis . That is not even customary discrimination, as it has no greater purpose. It's "spiteful" discrimination.


TV

bukatyne:
Like I told ESoul, biology is different from perception

But biology must colour perception small na?

bukatyne:
Yes, women have less window for birthing (The chances of an older man birthing a kid with down syndrome/ other health factors are higher) however, a ttcing man does not think of biology . A Yoruba saying ' your child is you breaking even; your grandchild is your profit'. A man is probably thinking I can birth later (biology) after he has had his kids.

There are age-related risks for both male and female - The "freezing eggs" thread was really enlightneing.

bukatyne:
I honestly wonder when men say their wives must have XYZ kids when they are practically contributing minutely to the process

Men are probably more concerned about providing. And women still have to worry about provision - even if just to ascertain that it will be made.

bukatyne:
2 (preferably one of each) is now the new trend in town.

No one can legislate for this. I know someone with 3 girls - after saying no more after 2, they tried one last time for a son. In the "not child-friendly" West, it' driven by economics and convenience. Childcare for one child can swallow up a whole salary !

bukatyne:
Different case altogether
Read of a crazy girl who had 15 for about 9 men.
Some people are wack.

It's still easier for a man to huge numbers of children - there was a program on telly about it a month or 2 ago. One even went out clubbing wiht his first born to score new chicks !


TV

coogar:
happy fücking days....
i don't longer need to wait 3-5 days every month to do my civic duties to my partner.

Quickly pops back in to note that "as ever it favours men"...especially those that want responsibility-free engagement with women. And notice, who bears the risk of any side-effects? Sounds like discrimination to me


TV

shaybebaby:
Get with the times, the mirena coil in some instances stops the menstrual flow.

Drops mic...flees.........


TV

Kay17:
Didn't you just say this

TV01:
The whole notion of forced equality is not even the real discussion here. In fact, I feel employment, wages, etc. largely reflect male/female choices and some forms of customary discrimination are actually a good thing.

Yes, I also said this;

TV01:
Some forms of customary discrimination made sense and would still be understandable for the overall good. Although I'm not calling for it's re-introduction, or am even certain we could roll back the tide.

TV01:
Customary discrimination was not simply males favoured over females. Customary discrimination is - all things being equal - prefering a married man with kids over a single woman, or a single man. It's women and children first! And it would make sense in the medical profession.

Of course no one is fighting cutomary discrimination where it adversely affects men !

TV

Kay17:
@bolded, how do you know that? The feminists clearly show they don't. Do you still think there is no unequal pay in the labour market in Nigeria?

Not Nigerian feminists - they love kids and marriage die Our two feminist stalwarts here were both engaged before 20 !

There is no structural or institutionalised pay disparity.


TV

bukatyne:
In our culture, men want children as much as women or more.

Not more, not less, exactly the same? Wanting as an express desire and the effort and timings are totally different. The limiting factors are mostly heavily weighted for females. It's why men can have harems. And children are more biological imperative for women and status for men.

bukatyne:
In discussions, I even find out that men also want more children than women.

Of course we do. We have very little risk and only really have the burden - shared - of provision. Do you know what childbirth can do to a woman? I have a cousin who had 4 by CS. Here the max is 3. I would not have 4 CS' for anything. 1 sef

Yes na. I would love 2 more, 4 sef. But that's effortless for me to say and almost effortless for me to do. One area I don't demand obedience - and wifey has said no more . Truth is, I wouldn't allow it. What even I went through - which was nothing comparitively - I can't go through again. But if I could have multiple wives, why not?


TV
^{...and in the West you can have the kids and escape the burden if you are able to act irresponsibly. Some men have 20}

EnlightenedSoul:
That's basically implying that the animal would certainly rather get screwed than stewed, no? That because you "mollycoddle it like a child", it wouldn't be too farfetched to seek other 'favors' of it? See the personalization there? Aside from conjuring a disturbing picture, it's an inaccurate assumption which fails to dismiss the irrationality behind the act. Scientifically speaking, animals give off pheromones that are designed, at given times, to trigger sexual responses in the opposite sex. These pheromones are within-species pheromones, so just because something in your effed up mentality attracts you to the beast as an "across-species lover", it means not that the beast indeed wants, or is designed to have sex with you. Blegh.

"Irrationality" cannot be introduced as a criteria . It's about feeling, autonomy, consent, harm, etc. It can be and has been demonstrated that the animals are "happy". Tails wagging furiously . And likewise for any notion of "design" or "functionality" or "blegh". There are rational reasons (design, functionality, outcome) against homosex and incsex. But these are never brought to bear. Why should they be here?

EnlightenedSoul:
I looked him up. He lost a lot of long-time supporters because of it, and even his revisionary statement wasn't well received. In any case, he's an outlier.

Outlier? No way - he's establishment. Mark my words, he will be honoured with an order/knighthood at some point. And more to the point he is feted by the liberal elite. He acts as a very good stalking horse.

EnlightenedSoul:
Scandalous coverups among the high-ranking are hardly a novel thing. Despite it all, it never smells of possible legalization. In fact, it's almost-meticulously covered up, and when aired the public response is always one of outrage.

Agreed. But the cover-ups are not because they think it's wrong or to clean up quietly, but, because they know it won't be acceptable - at the moment. But it's clear their are hignly-connected rings, who engage in this immorality. Establishment figures spanning politics, church, police, media, entertainment etc. For them it's expedient to do so, it means people aren't on alert. They actually dispose of some child abuse victims, but all we have are missing child reports.

EnlightenedSoul:
As earlier mentioned, it does fit the bill - objectively speaking. Still, it would require lobbying, and we've no reason to believe that ince.stuous people even desire an out-of-the-closet lifestyle, so to speak. It's unique in that it goes beyond the personal level (of the two involved), and awakens entire families to the 'issue'. If it does, they should be sterilized.

One thing that is out there now is that increased visibility and agitation creates acceptance. Be it by making it appear normal or wearying those who resist (especially if they are persecuted for doing so).

Deny them rights by sterilizing them. All it does is increase the risk of genetic defects, they are stil there and non-related couples still give birth to children with genetic defects. It's a more obvious case of discrimination than homosex.

EnlightenedSoul:
We're derailing OP's thread, I think..

It's al about the traffic = OP is MIA . Sholly 0!!!!!!!!!


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
'Tis a lie, this point. So much so that I exit the sidelines to address it all its own. I'm actually more and more convinced that men want children more fervently than women do. And I'm not basing this purely off my own experiences.
Ponder on it.

Pondered, wondered and gon' dered (sorry, best I could do off the cuff !)

Can't be true as a biological imperative. Women have shorter windows and limited opportunity. A womans fertile years are limited relative to a mans. A woman can only be pregnant to delivery once for any 9 month duration.

Men can impregnate as many as they can lie with. The delivery risk (non-existent for men) and post-delivery burden is greater on women also. Simply put, spermatozoa is cheap, the effort minimal, risk low and the burden comparitively light. The male urge is more for "expression", the female for "conception". Nothing to engender fervency in men !

Culturally, it's still women who show more fervency - although men do as well. Men don't have ot work against the clock as much for marriage or children. They handle the pressure better as a result and find more solace/respect in status - apart from marriage.

You need to share - insightfully - on this or take a strike for trolling !

Kay17:
You do not agree with Coogar on most of his points then?

I'm not parsing Coogars points, I'm parsing yours - which I find to be all ideologically driven but not grounded in reality. Patriarchy is normal - it's what women want! Men are mean tto lead and dominate, there may be a few exceptiosn, but overall, we flourish best that way.


TV

Kay17:
This is a classic example of eating your cake and having it. How are you able to deny a fact and at the same time justify it! It is a remarkable talent! The bolded will not make any sense except it justifies a difference. And the coloured is even worse! What is the customary discrimination if not for what feminists are crying against!!

No it is not. Equality is forced even where there are clear differences or when the outcomes are poorer. How can that make sense?

Customary discrimination was not simply males favoured over females. Customary discrtimination is - all things being equal - prefering a married man with kids over a single woman, or a single man. It's women and children first! And it would make sense in the medical profession.


TV

Kay17:
Ok. Since that is the case, don't you think women who want to break that cycle of marry, get pregnant and rear babies; and have professionally fulfilling lives, are morally justified and courageous? Women should be taught well that marriages are farces and they would have more fulfilling lives without marriages, right?

There is all sorts of wrong with this statement;

1. It women who want babies most - not men
2. Women can combine both satisfactorily - even if some sacrifice is required
3. Marriage is not a farce - on the contrary, it's the basal building block of harmonious and flourishing societies
4. Yes, I suppose some women could live fulfilling lives without marriage. Some. Refer to point 1.
5. Per #4, why would those lives not be even more fulfilled with marriage?

The only categorical distinction in humans is male/female. Not black/white, straight/gay, or any other. The whole biological difference, functioning and purpose is geared towards child-rearing - not fulfilling careers.

I don't deny a form of fulfilment from a career, but it should not be considered a substitute or alternative to a family. And certainly not as worthy, moral or courageous

Most Western industrialised countries are facing a ticking demographic time-bomb due to falling fertility. They are simply not breding at replacement rates (approx 2.2 babies p/w). Japan and Germany are particularly bad - where's carefreewannabe for her daily diss !

Society can't just be about women, neither can it be ordered solely on a notion of equality.

coogar:
that was exactly what i told my GP the last time i visited. i told him the ratio of male to female admission in the medical schools should be a mandatory 2:1 in favour of the men. the women don't stay long in that profession and this is why there's always a shortage of doctors in the medical field!

In the UK that conversation is shut-down everytime. No one even has the liver. Wetin e talk?


TV

Kay17:
SO you agree there is unequal pay in Nigeria? Why then did you bother me to search for the evidence proving so?!

I don't believe there is institutionalised gender pay disparity in Nigeria. Even moreso, in the West. There may be vestigial bad practice here and there, but even that likely cuts both ways to some degree.

It's mostly about choices, ability and ethic. And if anything, trying to force equality is producing poorer overall outcomes, as I noted in my previous post.

Some forms of customary discrimination made sense and would still be understandable for the overall good. Although I'm not calling for it's re-introduction, or am even certain we could roll back the tide.


TV

The whole notion of forced equality is not even the real discussion here. In fact, I feel employment, wages, etc. largely reflect male/female choices and some forms of customary discrimination are actually a good thing.

As Coogar has pointed out for the STEM courses, it's instructive to note the case in medicine. About 60% of female Dr's in the UK leave the profession within 10 years. Another large cohort opt for P/T work.

Outcome; serious backlogs in GP's surgeries and a resultant influx into A&E, causing real pressure. As more women will soon be admitted to medical school than men, it means added funding to train, what will be a smaller cadre of Dr's.

The rates of attrition mean that essentially, two women have to be trained to fill one slot? Raising problems with funding the training in addition to the reduced service delivery. PC means it can't even be discussed without howls of protest.

Why shouldn't men be given preference here? It's clear there is more to this than performance at the time of admission - 18'ish - when girls tend to be slightly ahead of boys (in terms of requirements and how they present).

Equality as a stand alone notion does not necessarily serve the best interest of the whole and shouldn't be zealously pursued without wider consideration.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
It's obviously not an issue of consent with animals, per se. It cannot speak. It's abuse! There's a stark difference between eating your thanksgiving turkey as you ought and fo.ndling it, mind you A difference between using your beast of burden to carry loads for you, and painfully over-burdening it. Between properly caring for and owning a pack of dogs, and forcing them to tear each apart for your affection, scraps of food, and your betting pleasure. If a certain animal's purpose is to feed you, the least you owe it is a swift death. If certain beasts are suited to carry your loads, the very least you owe it is food/water/care, and a reasonable load. But to engage in intercourse with a beast, tell me how does one reconcile this? It's abuse, and not its purpose.

Abuse? According to inter-species lovers, it's the exact opposite. Without wanting to gross anyone out, how does one characterise the excitement of a dog with a female human as abuse. Or an animal that is mollycoddled - housed and fed like a child - due to it's intimate relationship with it's master as immoral?

They claim the animals are not only willing, but enjoy it. And why would you think animals would prefer death or short, brutal lives as beasts of burden, to that kind of care and attention.

EnlightenedSoul:
Those links aren't satisfying, tho. Did you read those comments on Debate.org? And that bit on the PIE() drama(s) that occurred in the 80's. Do you see that they're backtracking, confessing wrongs?

No, they test public sentiment and re-set accordingly. Homactivist Peter Tatchell claimed an age of 9 is both good and beneficial, when it didn't go down well with the public, he tactically revised this to 14. They advance on many fronts.

EnlightenedSoul:
It's clear that isn't probable at all. Frankly, it's causing me to view the UK as some kind of underground pedophile cesspool (I think I'm kidding). It's not possible. Someone in the UK should please come speak to this...

And you wouldn't be far wrong - ask anyone. We've had a festering situation where numerous high-ranking members of parliment have been implicated for years. All the informants have been intimidated, police investigations have been short-circuited, and "public enquiries" have gotten nowhere. No one has been charged.

Files handed to a government minister went missing, only for said minister to die, at which point it's revealed said minister was the subject of the file . There was widespread knowledge in Westminister about others - Cyril Smith for instance - he lived large till he died. Only then did it come it to public attention.

What about Jimmy Saville? Decades of abuse covered up. And on such a scale, and by such a public figure, he had to have enblers and co-conspirators. The whole of the British establisment/elite is implicated. Abeg Damiso, Coogar, please, am I being sensationalist here?

EnlightenedSoul:
There are already some prostitution joints in Nevada and the like. I believe I've driven past a prominent one on one of my visits there. Honestly, its eventual legalization is only to be expected - it's consensual, involves no abuse w/ regulation, and has business potential.

No brainer - like I said, it's not exactly criminalised now. regardless of the curren tlegal position.

EnlightenedSoul:
I actually know some polyamorous couples, and it isn't a particularly new lifestyle btw. Besides, many self-professed monogamous couples are practitioners of polyamory on the sly - perhaps some/all humans simply weren't built to withstand a 50 year relationship/marriage with one person (we used to live shorter lives, and monogamy in itself is a fairly new concept). In.cest is another thing entirely. If ever fully accepted at all, it will take a veryyy long time whereupon I trust the participants will be swiftly sterilized, or at least ought to be in my express opinion! It poses a societal health/genetic threat.

The arguments for legalising incest pretty much mirror those for homosexuality - and pass your own test - consent and non-abusive, no?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/34/9/e11.abstract
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/david_epsteins.php

EnlightenedSoul:
Hmm.

We will go from Hmm to SMH !


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
You're reaching, don't you think?

No.

EnlightenedSoul:
Shed them in whatever light they may within the media (that of the so-called 'loving caring relationship' if they wish), but neither consent nor abuse has ever been a glossed over issue with the LGBT movement.

Consent? For animals? When did turkeys vote for christmas ? The only consent that matters is "the age of". It's already out there - in Govt and amongst the general populace, and obviously homactivists;

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/lower-age-consent-14-1979-home-office-report
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-age-of-consent-be-lowered-to-13

EnlightenedSoul:
Who is changing the age of consent to nine?

As above...small, small...

EnlightenedSoul:
If anything, I reckon it's prostitution that's most likely next on the legalization route. Perhaps even in.cest at some point if we're stretching it far, and being extremely radical with it. Little else fits the bill, and there's absolutely no reason to assume consent and abuse will suddenly become minor impediments, or of little regard or consequence in common law as you've been stipulating. Law and order simply cannot stand thus.

Prostitution, I agree, but it is already treated benignly anyway. Polyamoury etc are all on the cards. As for incest, please, that too is already beeing seriously discussed. You may be more sheltered than I am !

EnlightenedSoul:
As you say - we shall see.

Probably while we are both still on here. Expect a mention some time in the near future .


TV

Kay17:
You yourself have shown countless times why the woman is an inferior object/entity which deserves domination and domestication.

. You people have reduced me to smileys today.


TV

Shollypopzz:
Babez, how far?

First of all, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Bruce Jenner is just another transgender. In fact, I think his choice to change is very selfish. If you are going to change, change before you have kids. Change before you deceive women into thinking you are who you are.

Look at his kids. Imagine how this decision affects them; Their father is now their mother??

I bet you that if this was an African American family, Bruce and the entire Katrashian family will not receive the praises they receive in the media today. They would be called ghetto and all sorts of names.

Kim got famous from a porn tape. She got pregnant for a rapper while legally married to another man. Khloe married a coke addict and Kylie is a high school drop-out. She is 17 and dating a grown man aged 25; she is a social media slut who posts naked pics like her older sister for attention. Kourtney has two kids out of wedlock. Rob is an overweight bastard who is sexually attracted to his sister- Kim.

Bruce/Caitlyn is NOT a hero, he is not the first transgender and he would not be the last. Nothing he has done is courageous, he is selfish. After three wives and five kids, you realize you do not feel like a man? Fvck him to the power of infinity! He is a damaged man who failed his kids.

Sholly 0!

You have catalogued lots of sin, but nothing illegal - or beyond the pale liberally speaking - are you now born-again !


TV
^{...and in some ways this comes across as a race-tinged hate-rant}

Kimoni:
Stop playing catch up

It's not about the bro' or the ho' - it's clear the OP does not possess the requisite maturity to be involved in a full-on adult relationship. And certainly not with someone who is not wholesale commited to her and her wellbeing - who coul dat least be gentle with her as she grows.

How far? How et familia. Come, did you pass


TV

bukatyne:
@OP:

If You are the lady in your profile then it will be safe to assume

1. The only thing you have going is your beauty/body

2. You have absolutely nothing to offer a potential husband

3. You are very ambitionless and visionless

4. You have no self worth or self esteem.

5. You are a disgrace to your family.

6. That guy is obviously rich and you have seen him as a step out of real/perceived poverty.

It also applies If you are not the one.

When you are saner, read all your posts on This thread and imagine your younger sister or friend reasons like This.

You sound like you were dropped on your head as a baby.

Infact, marry the man ASAP Or better still, you both should marry the guy same day....saw one wedding invite like that a while ago here.

Perhaps I would have been nicer If I was the first to comment or If you did not drop your subsequent posts.

Bukatyne


TV

Busybody2:
Hello

Holá - where you been? - as my boy always asks me !

bellong:
Young lady, you are on a ride share.

It is either you are happy being the main/side chick or you dump him ASAP.

The choice is yours. With all the naked indices, I wonder why it is difficult for you to know that you are sharing that thing between his legs with another chick who could be the main chick.

When we tell you to zip up, you call us old fashion/school. Now, you are soul-tied to him and cannot think straight.


The summary of my epistle is that you don't have a boyfriend but a servicing agent.

NB: Is he the rich guy that cheats?

Disclaimer: if you believe the most men cheat mantra, you will sell yourself cheap to any cheat. Disciplined men don't cheat.. The undisciplined men cheat.

Sometimes I'm glad when I play catch-up. This is one of those times . Well put Belly.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
Different from LGBT, pedophilia and beastiality carry two controversial, deadly-to-the-cause undertones that wide-scale society, however liberal, can never accept with open arms:

1. Abuse.
2. Consent.

These two points are pivotal to the success of any liberal cause. Which is why associations such as NAMBLA will forever remain an object of avid disgust/rage, and shunned by the populace at large.

Those are at best minor impediments - in fact, I believe I covered them off already.

1.
All they have ot show is that the relationships are in some ways beneficial. A claim that has been made for "intergenerational relationships".

2.
Minors can give consent - especially if the age of consent is lowered so that they are no longer minors. That is also being pursued. Currently 9 is seen as the target. Ultimately it wil be removed altogether.

NAMBLA and the homosexual lobby it is part of are just being practical in making it appear seperate - for the time being.

It's all out there - anyway, we shall see.


TV

shaybebaby:
In as much as I love the rationale, with homosexuality I disagree. Whether or not it is deviant, the main crux for me is that both parties find themselves attractive and are capable of giving consent( of sound mind, no influence, legally recognised as able to act and make decisions as a person in their own right- not a minor), then it nobody's business as to the mechanics of their sexual activity.

I know you have your mrs, I know she is a consenting adult because she is now legally married to you, however I do not know if you tie each other up in bondage gear suspended from the ceiling or just go about it the good old fashioned way. Either way it is none of business because it has no impact on me personally.

The rational wasn't about "homsexuality" per se, or how deviant it is/isn't. It's about taking a socially unacceptable practice and normalising it. Homosexuality - and bestiality - has always been with us, it's about how it is culturally accepted and how to change that. The template applies.

And the "none of my business" notion doesnt cut both ways when a new orthodoxy is enforced. People who woul drather make homosexuality none of their business are forced to endorse or facilitate it.


TV

EnlightenedSoul:
I realize I shouldn't have said "the West" all inclusively. I had no idea Denmark was into screwing sheep a year prior, or that there exists something called an "animal brothel".

News to me too. I'm soooo sheltered .

EnlightenedSoul:
Do you think there's a trend of moving towards, or away from it? In any case, I highly doubt it could ever gain mainstream acceptance. Definitely not in the U.S.!

But there doesn't have to be a trend - just a powerful enough lobby. We have seen that with homosexuality. It's quite a simple template;
Rename it, i.e. peadophilia, is now called "inter-generational love". And homosexuals have "loving caring relationships

Then think about casting it as a "right", and something that does not hurt anyone - which indeed is even beneficial to the couple. And focus on the "loving" bit, with no mention of the actual practices - no matter how much of a disease vector it happens to be.

Pop them into mainstream media - films, tv etc. - and always portary them as cool and right on. In direct contrast to clumsy and awkward "normal people"

Have the chattering liberal classes distil it as the new orthodoxy and police, persecute and punish any dissent. Embed it into your laws like the Irish - voilá, you are good to go.

Take any liberal cause - aka sexually deviant behaviour - rinse and repeat.


TV

Kay17:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/13/women-equal-pay-gender-gap-stories-work

Even in developed countries which are supposed to have surmounted the challenges, the ugly problems still exist. The main difficulty is accessing the level of discrimination in equal pay because payrolls are often private records of most workplaces. The workplaces have a legal right to protect and preserve their privacy. In Nigeria, there are hardly dedicated think-tanks that can accumulate the necessary stats AND most info on unequal pay are from informal channels.

BUT it is clear that the Nigerian society does not run short of prejudice against women! There is enough fuel -- prejudice to float all sorts of woman-hating vessels around. The prejudice is the main cause of the social injustice to women.

No it does not.

There is no structural impediment to women being paid the same - and it is illegal to discriminate. Any differences are down to choices and negotiating power. And, and, men work harder - and are able to work harder - than women. Fact!

As noted in one of the examples you posted, there used to be what is known as "customary discrimination" in favour of married men. Something that is no longer practised now, but not something I see as problematic - as the benefits always went onto wives and children anyway.

What is also clear is that due to lots of affirmative action, younger women in the West are now out-earning men of the same age.

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841740/Now-women-30s-earning-men-time-female-workers-staving-gender-pay-gap-having-family-later-life.html


TV

^{...racial discrimination is a way bigger problem than "gender" discrimination.}

If there was no problem - or at least potential problem - she wouldn't be asking for advice would she?

Marry this guy, and if his uncle blackmails you to sleep with him upon pain of exposure, what will you do? Remember he wanted to resume the affair when you met again - despite the fact that he was married with children. He who sins with you, will sin against you.

How are you sure that no one else knows about the affair? Go to your intended and tell him - which you should have done yourself when things got serious. And please makes sure you answer any questions truthfully and don't leave out anything that may be considered salient.

You will be liberated, and should you both proceed, totally confident in your husbands love and acceptance, on a platform of trust - the best foundation for your life together. If he truly loves you and wants a future with you, it's a small thing to get over - NOW. Afterwards it won't be so easy.

All the best


TV