₦airaland Forum

MRbrownJAY: thats what happened when women shack up with mad men, get warned about these mad men, but yet disregard the warnings and leave their child alone with such evil man.

The truth is, that abuse and violence against children is estimated at about 6-7 times as frequent where one of the two "parent figures" is non-biological. Sure, some step-parents are fantastic, and mum/dads new "partner" can be great, but the fact remains, in such situations children may be subject to everything from "mad men" to "wicked stepmothers".

The traditional family still offers the best outcomes for children (and indeed their mothers).

BeFoRe^TM


TV

ihedinobi2: Lol. Well done, Bro. Can't swear I understand the "green-fïngered" part but honestly I don't plan on waiting too long for my own plot.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/green-fingered


TV

^{**the dirty-minded spambot , for manipulated, please read f1ngered **}

I’ve often wanted to write more exhaustively on this subject, but just haven’t been chanced too. I don’t believe I can do it full justice here, but hate to let it pass without comment. I’ll try and respond generally-specifically and hope it helps.

First, the situation here is not one of “incompatibility”. In as much as sex is a bio-mechanical function, the male/female sexual binary in humans means they are inherently compatible.

Secondly, they have a child. Intimate functionality is confirmed as fully operational in this couple. Sex is first and foremost for procreation. In all likelihood, inability to conceive will always be a long-term more serious issue than the actual pleasure of sex, and is more likely to lead to marital breakdown.

Thirdly, your “colleague” did not complain about the actual pleasure of the intercourse, this sounds like an issue of frequency – that is libido differentials.

Libido almost always varies between couples and is more notable in the medium to long term. This is also one of the reasons why test-driving will often give you a false positive, as sex when a relationship is new and fresh can be quite lustful and frenzied for both parties.

Longer-term, when “normalcy” kicks in, a clearer picture of the differentials emerges. Men typically possess 5-10 times the testosterone levels of women and are typically more libidinous.

Whatever the case, couples need to discuss this openly and seek to explore ways of mutually ensuring the satisfaction of the other. This will probably mean compromise, with both taking time or turn to stretch – for which read sacrifice (put-out) – to ensure fulfillment for the other.

Longer-term, a myriad of factors can influence libido in both partners. Pregnancy and childbirth is one that particularly affects women – but studies show a marked libido reduction in husbands as well.

Stress and the burdens of leadership can also lead to reduction or even temporary impotence in men. Whatever the case, all of these situations can be worked on and the mutual desire & support of each is key. That is why finding a spouse who is totally committed to you, with your long-term best interests at heart and comes to the union with a loving, sacrificial posture is way more important than test-driving.

There is no one-size fits all solution. Each couple should come to a place of mutual agreement and satisfaction and be ready to vary it as appropriate. Sex, whilst very imprtant and a great "binder" is not the be-all and end-all of a marriage. Please don't obsess or compare as you look for greater heights - which is good even if there are no issues. Make your sex-life yours, not your idea of what others think it should be.

Lastly, the differential here is the more common male high, female low (at least for now). For men, the pleasure of "close" intimacy can be interspersed with instances of “blessed relief”. Please tell me you understand? as too say more would make me blush.

Please offer your “colleagues” sound counsel. And congratulations you are now officially the office “ water-cooler sexpert”


TV

ihedinobi2: Happy anniversary, TV. Didn't realize it was your anniversary o. More pruning and fertilizer to your garden, sir.

Thanks Bro',

My real life garden gives me horrors and I'm seriously considering outsourcing. But I know only the owners can tend the marital plot. I'm on it.

TV

^{Please don't keep us waiting 0 - I'm convinced you are quite green-f1ngered !}

bellong: TV01,

Bon anniversaire.... May your home keep soaring like an eagle. It shall be a blessing to generations

Muchos graciás...much appreciated.

May your home flourish like grass kissed with early morning dew.


TV

damiso: Happy wedding anniversary TV01 May God continue to keep and bless your home.I so feel your 'one of' wedding anniversary days thing We have 3 but just choose to celebrate the white as the main the main.

Thanks & a big amen to your prayer, may The Good Lord smile continuously on your home.

I think of the Naija Trad as the day, my wife prefers this - the church - one. I still managed to not get cards both days ! I find cards so pointless, but I know I should make the effort as she loves them - and of course she got me one. I need to make amends.


TV

ladygogo: I recently tied the knot and I thought i'd share some tips on how I worked with my budget.

Hearty congratulations to both you & your husband, as well as your respective families.
May it be permanent, frutiful and fulfilling.

It happens to be one of my two wedding anniversaries today so I had to extend my sincerest regards !


Did you not cost for your rings (if you used them) or your honeymoon (if you had one)?


TV

Kay17: That wasn't my question. This was the Q:

Kay17: So you believe whenever a pregnancy endangers a mother's life, the option is prioritise the foetus' life over the mother's, right?

This is unthinking in so many ways;

1. If the mothers life is truly in danger, what chance will the child have of surviving without her? A no brainer of a question, but thats what happens when you are determined to justify wickedness by any means. Truth, morality and stuctured thinking go out the window.

2. If the mothers life was truly in danger, it would be about weighing the chances of one life vs. another, not a Right vs a Life. Keep on plucking rights from the ether and attributing them as you like. Like a right is some sort of deep spiritual law or invoilable rule.

3. If a woman is healthy/fit enough to carry a baby in the first instance and does not engage in any harmful behaviours during the pregnancy, instances of "endangered life, will be very few, if they do arise, we can treat them on a case by case basis.


Pregnancy is not a disease or an illness. So, no to abortion at any time and for any reason. No to abortion under the false guise of rights, control and autonomy! No to murder by method, in order to justify and facilitate unrerstrained, irresponsible mating. It's immoral & destructive.


TV

Kay17: So you believe whenever a pregnancy endangers a mother's life, the option is prioritise the foetus' life over the mother's, right?

The feminist aim is not "abortion when the mothers life is in danger" - which can be discussed - it's "abortion at any time for any reason", rather different don't you think? Plus, you have argued it as a womans right to "control" and retain "autonomy". SO please desist using sleight of hand.

So for example in 1 year, there were circa 198'000 abortions in the UK. Only 7 of those were due to cases of rape. Please don't use outliers like rape, or rare instances of the mothers life being in danger, to push the case for abortion. That is not why feminists are fighting for it - as I've already noted.


TV

I'm sure MrAnony1 will be back to do justice to this whole post, but I will comment in part before I retire.

Kay17: On Abortion

No matter how you see it, abortion is still a means of self control, an affirmation of self autonomy by a woman.

As much as I detest your position, I know you are way too intelligent to believe this is anything but half-cocked.

Self-control - giving the right of life and death over another human being.
Autonomy - when her actions willfully led to the creation of another human being.

She could easily retain control over her own body and affirm her autonomy by not having sex, or not conceiving. Only one of those options requires technology - which is currently available.

And the "control" of abortion is for any reason, and at any time. Feminists and "ethicists" have now broached the question of termination post-partum, if the mother wants it.

http://www.eutimes.net/2012/03/australian-paper-says-euthanizing-babies-should-be-allowed-as-abortion/
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.short/reply

Just as murderous is the practice of partial-birth abortion, where a viable baby is induced and butchered before full delivery. From conception human life is present, a human being - in the most vulnerable state - is being denied control and autonomy, rights and choices.

Kay17: The biological difference between the sexes has to be accounted for. The man equally has full control over his reproductive capabilities albeit does not involve a pregnancy but same concept. So when the right to privacy spills over to the woman, it manifests as abortion.

Another lie. For the woman to have full control and autonomy, the man must be denied the same. Whilst the man has a say in the procreative act, he does not in the outcome. He loses control over the end of his genetic material. Given the woman full control and autonomy means his is compromised.

Kay17: At the time of birth, the child is considered a person and it has its own bundle of rights that can be exercised against its mother.

Not if the extremists have their way - as already noted. And not in fact. The child should have the right to be raised by his birth parents. This is not just common sense but enshrined in the UN child rights charter.

The mother is able to give the child up for adoption and/or prevent the father from taking an active role in the childs life, whilst forcing the father to take fianacial responsibility (not sure what obtains in Nigeria exactly, but that is the feminist end-goal)

Kay17: On the other hand, whilst in the mother's womb, the mother's health primarily supercedes its life.
Not just physical health but mental. To deprive a woman that, is unjust.

More sleight of hand. Pregnancy is not an illness, it's not primarily a healthcare issue. Not an illness of the body or mind, but a "mother" only has too plead distress (for which read inconvenience or runs-hindering nuisance) to be allowed a termination.

It's basically the mother over the father and child. Equal what? And why? So she can enjoy uninhibited, consequence free sex and secure funding if she does decide she wants a child.

Feminism and matriarchical values will hurt society.


TV

coogar: i cannot believe you guys are not shocked. why do lesbians want babies? they don't want a man & yet they want babies? why aren't they adopting instead? NHS is for the sick people for fück's sake. being gay is not illness.

Appalled yes, shocked no. Not anymore. Like Pick says, this is a moving train.

Saying they are now trying to prove a homosexual couple make for better parents than natural parents. Long-term policy? Take kids from natural parents and place with homosexuals. Dystopia has come and gone...we in Pisstopia now...

Nature made you "homosexuals" but gave you heterosexual reproductive capacity. It made your "loving & natural pairing" sterile, but gave you the desire for children. One can only be so smart , but it takes a certain kind of sick, twisted and perverted mind to make a case for normalising the sickness that is homosexuality. Anyways, sexual deviancy has long been the norm in this country,it's just been on the down-low. Judgement is upon them.

coogar: you know some genuine sick people like cancer patients, etc would be genuinely turned down or made to wait on a long queue because of this sheer waste of public funds.

Unneccesary plastic surgery such as boob-jobs have been available on the NHS for years (it may have finally been stopped this past month, not sure). You only had to plead distress at your GPs and pretty much any procedure was available. Yet they run around acting all saintly and screaming about FGM. Is that any better? Hypocrites.

Train crash ahead.

TV

[quote author=carefreewannabe][/quote]You've lost credibility by your descent into ad-hominem and assault by emoticon.

The other thing I've noticed, is that like Adichie, your ideology has fostered a loathing of your own country within you.

Shame. I hope you get over it.


TV

coogar: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/02/article-0-2034F5BA00000578-964_634x572.jpg



at least before now, single women spent their own money to get what they desire....that's fine by me. however, to think my taxes will help raise tonnes of fatherless families in britain is quite disturbing & depressing.

when will these people realise they are fostering a damaged society?

Whether the individual pays or the taxpayer funds, the outcome is the same. Legally backed broken homes. Hopefull there won't be too many and hopefully the individual outcomes won't be too bad, but it can't be good for society. I still think the pressure will come for an "equal right" for homosexual men.

I actually see it as the Indigenous Brits giving their birthright away. The rub is, that they will try and force the other "people-groups" on these shores too follow suit.

These lands will be taken over by non-indigenes. It's already starting. Most children born in London last year were born to non British born mothers. Taking into account that those of us who are non-indigenous but British born, would not have been added into that number, London is fast "browning up" and the rest of the UK will follow suit.

Exacerbated by the fact that the indigenes simply don't breed at replacement rates. Facilitating homosexual birthing will not have a significant impact on the indigenous birthrate. Truth is, it's mostly political, there are simply not that many of them (3%?) and not that many really interested in having children.

Do they understand or care? Their new family lifestyle model is TOWIE. If they don't treasure their traditions, culture and heritage, they will lose them. And others will take their place. Tragic but true.


TV

coogar: TV01, what's your take on NHS's proposal of their own spërm bank to help lesbians who want children.

I thought we were already past this point? I don't hink this is a new service per se, just one dedicated to lesbos. A single woman can already legally concieve via IVF. Having it on the NHS just means a more "egalitarian" service.

Presumaly they'll up the ante to providing surrogates for desirous homosexual couples. All in the name of the "towards a more equal society" project. It won't end well.

As too my thoughts on it. I believe it's absolutely wrong. But they no longer put up the pretence of the democratic vote or public consultations. They just foist things on us. The poulace has been lulled into acquiescence with reality TV.

Remain small.


TV

carefreewannabe: She is saying that I should get a job

Full-time husband and father
Own enterprise
Salaried job
Chief marriage & wholesome family values advocate on NL
Part-time scatterer of feminsit nansesne (it doesn't take that much effort )!

A full portfolio...not one I'd expect a feminsit to carry


TV

^{**any cogent well-thought out responses yet, or are you determines to divert into ad-hominem to save face?**}

carefreewannabe: Go and make money REAL man or did a woman / feminist take your job like Coogar's?

...daddy, what is this one saying ?



TV

carefreewannabe: What you should do now is be at work

i.e. please stop, I have no answers !


TV

pickabeau1: TV01.. the sad thing is that they care more about endangered lions, tigers or some animals as against any concern for foetuses calling it clump of cells

Nice write up.. succinctly put

Thanks.

Nah! They don't really care about endangered species or the environment of any of those other things. Those are just sops to re-assure themselfves that they are "loving, caring, human-beings" - who are incidentally happy to celebrate the murder of their own offspring usng the deceitful language of choice/rights/equality.


TV

^{**clump of cells? Did you know a babys heartbeat is clearly discernable after a couple of weeks? before most women even realise they are pregnant. And relatively speaking, we are all just clumps of cells**}

carefreewannabe: ^^ You really struggle with reading comprehension TV01.

Morning Carefreewannabee, first you couldn't even mitigate this pointless post with a "greeting". When last did we see ? Secondly, as ever you resort to stock responses, fabrication, emoticon or ad-hominem. Please refute the facts. Essentially feminism is fighting for the right for women to be "sluts & murderers". Real "real-men" on this thread are labouring tirelessly to save you and society from your error.

No don't thank us, that's what men do .


TV

The fallacies of “inequality” between the sexes has been repeatedly pointed out and proven. No evidence to the contrary has been provided, except to exaggerate some vestigial cultural morés; women are raised to depend on men, find fulfilment in marriage, or boys are celebrated for being bad, etc.

It’s instructive that the crux of the “feminist position on this thread boils down to the;

1. Right to have unfettered s3x or s3xually express themselves however they choose (presumably with the tired rider of “adult consent”). Under the guise of “being as free as men”).

2. The right to murder their unborn children at any point during pregnancy and for any reason

Let’s scrutinise these 2 points further;

Abortion
The supposed right to privacy and autonomy over one’s own body is the reasoning here. This is odd and ill-thought out at best and frankly downright wicked and evil if given due consideration.

One would think that a woman could be going on her own merry way and a foetus (human being) would leap out of the bushes and implant itself into her womb. Can I beg, borrow or steal a laugh?

But it’s hardly a laughing matter that some people feel that a woman should be allowed to murder an unborn child simply for convenience.

What of the childs right to “autonomy” or “privacy”. It didn’t asked to be conceived, it didn’t ambush you, it was the logical consequence of your actions. Now you decide you can terminate that life “just because?”

It’s this kind of thinking that led one of our notable "feminsits" to state that she is "pro-choice", but hates it when people are flippant when talking about abortion. Feminsim – the warper of minds and perverter of morals.

Unfettered sexual licence.
The claim that men use norms of sexual restraint to “control” women is one of the many mantras here. It does not hold under close scrutiny.

Patriarchy places sexual restraints and attendant sanctions on both sexes. The outcomes of sexual licence weigh more heavily on women, so the restrictions may seem more onerous on them, but for good reason.

Imagine a pair of teenage twins. One male and one female. Imagine the possible consequences of sex for both. Whose life could be most disrupted, whose health would be most at risk? Who would pay a possible life-long price for any unintended consequence?

Feminsits cry for the restraints to be loosed. Obviously buoyed by the thought of “consequence-free” sex – after all there is contraception and abortion on demand to prevent or take care of the inconvenience of the natural outcome of s3x. Let’s look a little further;

Contraception: How unsmart do you have to be to fail to see that flooding your system with huge amounts of – often synthetic – hormones in order to stop it functioning naturally, cannot be a good thing? Do you even begin to grasp the long-term effects on your health and well-being? Are you re-assured by government and big pharma telling you contraception is safe, even healthy?

Abortion: Abortion heightens the risk of infertility and long-term serious pathologies in women. Just one could increase the risk of some forms of cancer by 50%, multiple instances can mean a tripling of the risk.

Here are examples of the psychological risks;
• A 2012 study of post-abortive women in China titled The Impact of Prior Abortion on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During a Subsequent Pregnancy: Data From a Population-Based Cohort Study in China found a high correlation between induced abortion and depression among pregnant women.
• A 2008 study by the University of Oslo in Norway titled Abortion and depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young women found that young adult women who have had abortions are more likely to become depressed.
• A 2003 study published in the Medical Science Monitor titled Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort found that women with a history of abortion are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing clinical depression compared to women who give birth.

So essentially feminists are fighting to kill babies, harm women and damage society. A mindless, murderous cause.


TV

Should women be afforded the same rights, opportunities and choices as men? Certainly, I don't believe anyone seriously contests that. Or believes anything to the contrary is discriminatory, unfair and plain wrong.

Does that make me a feminist? Or make me appreciate a need for feminism? No. Absolutely not. I'm a Christian, and two thousand years ago when wives where still considered their husbands chattel in most societies, the gospel brought emancipation and equality for women.

"All equal in Christ" it proclaims - equal in value, equal in worth. "Husbands love your wives" it exhorted. Radical, revolutionary and even today beyond the comprehension and grasp of of many.

But the Bible is didactic regards the innate differences, unique gifts, biological imperatives and complimentarity which, if ordered properly leads to human flourishing. Feminism in it's insistence that men and women should be treated the same misses most of this, and can only lead to fractured societies if given it's head. This is already evidenced in nations where feminism has taken root.

It's instructive that the even the chieftest of our feminists on NL made sure they married/partnered with men of higher status and are happy to submit to them. That is a biological imperative that is undeniable - women are loathe to mate with males of equal or lesser status. On that basis alone, it's utterly absurd to think that women really want "equality as in sameness".

The feigned quest for parity in promiscuity and the right to kill the unborn as a matter of convenience is just straining, as well as nonsensical at best and pure wickedness if truth be told.

Feminism today is not about equal rights and it wasn't feminism that kicked off the struggle for, or delivered those rights in the first place. Christianity did .

I've touched on what I refer to as "the deal" before. Men and women come together to create families. This is best done with the understanding of the biological imperatives and uniqueness that makes us a complimentary whole, and leads to strong families and flourishing societies.

So, whilst I'm all for equal choice, rights and opportunity (not that I necessarily believe that "equality" in and of itself means the best for society - but I wouldn't want to force my perception), if anyone can show how these and the push for free sexual expression and unilateral reproductive rights for women,along with "sameness", enhance "the deal",, I'll convert to feminism - the radical kind sef !


TV

^{**Please, could someone explain the notion of "gender" to me? The only binary I am aware of is the male/female sexing of human beings. I see gender atly with sex and essentially a redundant term or one used to pervert natural order**}

coogar: feminism is a fraud!
it doesn't matter the number of types of feminism anyone can put forward.....if the concept itself is fraudulent, any structure put on it would be null & void to me.

the movement was socially engineered by the government to drive women out en masse and turn them to capitalist slaves. did rockefeller not admit to aaron russo that the feminist movement was socially engineered to push women into the workforce to increase tax revenues and corporate profits?

now, bcause of women entering the workplace en masse in the 1960s, the price of homes and vehicles skyrocketed. the big corporations could now charge more for homes and vehicles because working women created the dual income household. as the income increased so did the tax rates....

...someone knows what's up.


TV

MrAnony1: I said that demonizing men is the difference.

I see your point here; extreme feminists demonise men while "regular" feminists either don't or indeed demand "equality" for men as well?

This presents problems as you are attempting to define feminists outside of feminism. Specifically it's tenets.

No fault divorce and the criteria for child custody and asset division is unfair to men. None of the feminist types "as described" are fighting against this.

Full reporductive rights for women, not only excludes men, but in it's fullness allows women to garnish responsibilities from men without affording them the attendant rights. Again, I do not see any feminsits as you've defined railing against this.

Your point is overly reductionist and simplistic. I feel feminism should be judged by it's outworkings on society as a whole - it's tenets and their implications - not just on whether some loathe men and some do not.

Just as we have men that hate women, we take action only against those who hate women and would deny or violate their rights. If some feminsits hate men, but are not acting in a way or promoting ideologies that actively harm them, what is the problem?


TV

joomiegirl: I live by the bible (so help me God), and that bible is at complete loggerheads with the ideals and values of feminists. I did not cook up those ideals, its what researched and seen.

I laud your firm Christian stance and appreciation that Christianity & feminism are like oil and water. Anything good about feminism is already demanded by Christianity. Christianity needs nothing added, taken away or revised/updated.

Very well said.


TV

MrAnony1: Beautiful response. If I had seen this earlier, perhaps I wouldn't have asked the same questions

Thanks. Not that I believe CarefreeWannabe has answers. Her feminism is merely a question of women being treated as if they were men.

Now to this;

MrAnony1: This is simply not true. You cannot give someone a universal right you can only stop violating it. This is like saying that the white man gave you your right to freedom. It was not his right to give, he merely stopped violating it. Universal rights such as the right to be treated equally are not the property of an oppressor to give. No one has the right to withhold from you that which is rightfully yours.

Firstly, the notion of rights is a recent one and oft times subject to perceptions and desires. Having said that, I totally get your point, so allow me too clarify mine;

Take the vote for example. There was a time when women were not allowed the vote. On the face of it, that seems discriminatory. Now delve deeper. Only heads of households were allowed to cast the vote as it was considered the household voted as a block. The Husband was typically the head, so he cast the vote. And perhaps the most pertinent point here is that other adult males who did not head households/own homes, were also denied an individual vote.

So to potray it as denying women their universal human rights is purposefully skewed. Things have changed, progress has been made and now the vote is universal. It was not truly a question of violation or of withholding in the first instance.

MrAnony1: This is what feminists fought for - they fought against the violation of their right to be seen as equal human beings with their male counterparts - and they must be commended for it.

Again, a feministic reading of history. Feminists as in women did not single-handedly fight and win anything. And certainly not the recent 3 waves. To follow your ealier analogy, it would be like black people claiming they single-handedly abolished slavery.

MrAnony1: In what way exactly is feminism toxic?

It's outworkings destroy the fabric of society. One example;

The insistence on unrestricted sexual licence up to and including the convenience murder of unborn children.
As you have clearly heard Carefreewanabe and others argue, under the guise of equality and "reproductive health" they want women to be as promiscuous as they please and be sole determinants of the life and death the natural outcome of human coitus - and the whole reason we are complimentary not competitive - babies.

Further, they push for the resposibility that goes with this right to be bourne by men. Men are to be responsible for the children women decide to unilaterally have - and usually without custody or care rights for the men.

As we have seen recently, they also want to be able to have this "reproductive freedom" and men to pay for their contraceptive or abortion costs. Rights without repsonsibility.

Then there is no-fault divorce. A woman can commit adultery and decide to leave a man who has married, housed and provided for her and their kids unselfishly for years. He is then forced to leave the home but to continue to provide for his ex-wife and children.

The toxicity; . But further we can see the now fractured relationships between the sexes. Marriage breakdowns and hyper-delinquency due to the prevalence of broken homes.

Men are wising up and simply refusing to engage. Commiting to women is a risky and low value proposition for men. The indigenous peoples of most Western nations are in decline. Birthrates are falling.

MrAnony1: In what way exactly is Scandinavia a mess.

Well the OP made the situation in Finland clear.


TV

^{**and I'm aware that in a narrow sense Finland is not technically Scandinavia. However, in a wider sense, Finalnd and other surrounding nations are grouped alongside. And more importantly, the social situation in view here is somewhat similar**}

carefreewannabe: Yet, no European will try to cross the ocean an risk his or her life to live in Africa. Not even a SINGLE European will risk his or her life to live in Nigeria.

Economic migration does not attest to a superior social fabric. And feminism does not make superior economies. The OP talks about the singular lack of economic impact by women in Finland despite rampant feminism forcing the issue. And what have they "gained"? Fractured male/female relationships.


TV

carefreewannabe: I have told you this a million times, it is ridiculous to talk about the Western societies as damaged when one is from Nigeria.

Are they perfect in the West? Are the current aims and goals of feminism that drive a lot of Western policy beneficial?
- a culture of death through abortion and euthanasia
- falling birthrates; most Western nations are suffering indigenous population decline
- high and rocketing rates of divorce
- likewise for children born out of wedlock and the ensuing delinquency
- fractured and adversarial relationships between men and women


For every ill you can point out in Nigeria, I can point out an equivalent in the West. Material things are not the sole indicator of a society' well-being


TV

carefreewannabe: Social issues such as the name calling of women who are not married and past 30.

Women have the right and opportunity to marry or not. That some believe - as I do - that marriage is central for both men and women and should be entered into mindful of biological imperatives, does not call for a "movement" to still dissenting beliefs

carefreewannabe: Social issues such as the celebraion of "bad boys" but discrimination of women who are not ashamed of having a libido.

Why is the celebration of bad boys a social issue? Are they bad by themselves? And if they are bad, is the answer to enjoin women to be equally bad?

carefreewannabe: Social and economic issues such as the conviction that a woman's primary role is motherhood.

Women are designed for motherhood. why is it wrong for men and or women to consider this a primary role? Why is it an issue if some believe this? Why must feminism eradicate different convictions?

carefreewannabe: Economic issues such as the ownership of properties.

Where are women legally refused the right to inherit or own property?

carefreewannabe: I could go on and on.

Needlessly so. Feminism is causeless and the gains often attributed to it happened despite it, not because of it. Progress would always have been made in terms of equality. Fact. Feminism has just co-opted and claimed those gains, Now given it's head, it is clearly evident how destructive it is.


TV

carefreewannabe: The West lives in the post-feminist era. Women and girls in this part of the world enjoy what their grandmothers fought for.

If the West is "post-feminist", why does the West still have rampant feminism? And what is it's purpose? In an effort to be relevant it takes and makes issues of non-causes and perpetuates myths like the "pay gap" and about "domestic violence". Feminism creates conflict between the sexes and damages society

carefreewannabe: The st.upid girls you poted the pics of take every right they enjoy for granted but their grandmothers had to fight hard for them.

Progress made by women was handed to them by men - and in many cases, rightly so - just don't make it sound like women fought and single-handedly achieved the gains.

carefreewannabe: Women in Africa fight for something Western women were fighting for 50 years ago. Nobody in the West is talking about feminism anymore as much as Nigerians are. Like always, Africans are AT LEAST half a century behind. WAKE UP.

Why are you making it sound like feminism is no longer extant in the West? Especially when it's toxicity is deeply evidenced in society.

carefreewannabe: What the West will be concerned about in the next years will be the rights of fathers if Western men decide to stand up for their rights. This will only turn into a mass movement if they will feel the need to do so.

More partisan error. Men are concerned about civilization, about society, about our families. We don't go around shrieking about rights. We take responsibility, we bear burdens. And feminism will never let mens rights take centre stage as it will roll back all the deleterious and selfish gains they've made.

carefreewannabe: Do not compare the West to Africa. Nigerians are AT BEST 50 years behind.

And with hope and time to avoid the mess in places like Scandinavia.


TV

Kay17: The truth remains, gender is a function of culture, don't mistake it with sexes which biological.

Gender is a needless construct, which is just an excuse for licence and indulgence - another misappropriated word in the pursuit of sexual incontinence.

Kay17: The battleground for feminism is focussed on rights. Political, social and economic rights not on courtship issues.

As an ideology, feminism leaves no facet of societyor human relations untouched. The feminist belief is that men are oppressors and matrimony as a vehicle engenders - pun intended - that oppression.

Further in the pursuit of equality - for which read sameness - a man can never ever have "authority over a woman, and we daren't mention the submission word.

Kay17: Feminism is much more deeper than gender roles. Hence most of the arguments against it are often red herrings and shallow.

Nope. Nothing deep or edifying about it. it's a scam - the pursuit of female privilege without responsibility - pure and simple.

Kay17: Should men have more rights to free speech than women OR more privacy rights than women? And issues of abortion and family planning revolve around privacy rights and health rights. But you hardly find people engage feminists on these vital pivotal issues.

Abortion is a privacy issue? Can I beg, borrow or steal a laugh. The right to murder an unborn child is a matter of privacy? Health rights?. Absolutely farcical. Is Pregnancy a disease.

Kay17: Feminism became prominent especially with the political right to a vote.

Was it only women that were denied the vote? And in as much as they did not have individual votes, did they not have representation? Keep trotting out fallacies.


TV

[quote author=cococandy][/quote]No you haven't insinuated the Bible is anti-punishment, just that the bible does not prscribe "a literal rod" as a form of punishment. Further, you have implied that "flogging" = violence and also that it is a corrective measure for criminals, and the Bible does not prescribe that. It further implies that any that flog thier chldren are treating them like criminals.

Let's not be emotive. Wild unrrestrained beating is not being championed here. An appropriate use of a literal rod as a sanction for childish misbehaviour. Said use being measured and fully understood by the child, and only used as one as a possible range of measures. Possibly as a last resort or not at all if other measures prove effective.

Abuse of the child is not being mooted. All you have done is insist that any type of physical punishment is violent & abusive (and fit only for use on criminals) in order to shut down the conversation.

As ever, I don't dispute your ideology or your right to practice it as you see fit. My point being about what the bible does or does not say. Feel free to take your pick - from Proverbs alone;


Proverbs 13:24 - He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.

Proverbs 22:15 - Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 - Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, A bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the fool's back.

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.


May our children never bring us shame, but unadulterated joy.


TV

In the West these days, one has to be “onside” of the prevailing ideology of the day. Otherwise the establishment rejects you. The establishment being that power working through the elites in politics, media, business, entertainment and the like, who, unseen too many, are working towards a common goal. I won’t speculate here on just what that goal might be.

Being offside or resisting enforcement of the prevailing tenetss or ideologies (read some elements of feminism and it’s twin homosexual equality) will get you brow beaten. If you do not toe the line, you will be “mob bullied” – by the attack dogs of the same establishment – shamed into silence, and effectively shut-out or ostracised.


It’s similar to – and somewhat exposed by - her later utterances on homosexuality, which were in lock-step with the US’ threats to Nigeria over – at the time – proposed legislation. New style imperialism – with the same ends.

Adichies utterances are just another method by which the establishment operates.. This was propaganda. She’s been bought and what we see is her selling out. I thought the OP was a bit off in how it was presented regardless of any valid points made. I actually think the rejoinder was poor overall.

But the speech itself was merely a string of anecdotes, aimed at painting the situation in Nigeria in the worst light possible. Where were the stats, the numbers or the evidence? Only an implied negative comparision to the West and Feminism as the solution.

Apart from the West “harvesting” her when she was all but ripe, did she not come up through the Nigerian system? Is she not a product of Nigerian parents, education and culture?

For every evil identified by “feminism” in Nigeria, I could identify one caused by feminism or other aspects of the prevailing culture in the West. And at an anecdotal level, Damiso has countered a lot of what Adichie claimed.

Do we have structural problems? Yes. Is feminism the answer? No. Are there things we could glean or even incorporate from the West culturally? Sure. Do we need to toss out what we have wholesale as useless, redundant and without value? Absolutely not.

Yes, we have some entrenched mindsets, attitudes and mores which we will be best rid of. We are in fact already shot of many of these, what we are seeing in some instances is vestigial remains. With time we will see further improvement, even if we do nothing else

Nigeria is progressing in some regards. Let’s remember, that the effect of any changes take time to trickle through. And some of the ones being pushed by Adichie and her Western sponsors are simply not beneficial and not wanted here. The fact that she needs to denigrate her culture to sell them speaks volumes.


TV