₦airaland Forum

Wu Zetian: LoL, I skipped a lot of posts on that thread.
You should take time out to think about your thought process. Why do you believe what you believe?? What formed your belief system and what damage/good comes out of your ideologies.

If you were going to make them better, what would you change?? While you're @ it, ask your self some real questions.
Do I believe I'm superior to the opposite gender?? What makes me superior??
What really is the difference between the two genders?? Then embark on a research questioning if what you believe makes us difference have something to do with our nature, psychology or societal influence.
Watch out for sexist comments/actions/sayings is in your society.

I'm not trying to convert you to a feminist, I just want you to realize that you're sexist and slightly chauvinistic.

What is my motivation for going through that process you outlined up there ...
Anyhows, I can easily answer some of the questions you raised. I believe men and women are equal, with males having a biological edge which makes him naturally fit for some roles. In the other thread, cases of war scenarios and other dangerous situations were put forward and women and children's safety would be looked after first...no calls for gender equality there.

If believing that males should be the leaders in a home (having consulted his wife on issues) and that there are some gender specifc roles to be played (women are more emotional e.t.c) all the while supporting feminism in cases where outside the home women are being side-lined amounts to being a sexist and sligthly chauvinistic.....then I guess that is what I am.



Knowing you (abit), since you have deduced I can hardly be swayed I shouldn't be expecting any robust reply...so it's been nice having a good discussion with you (especially as it didn't degenerate into.... )

Never seen a thread that had 12 hours straight of constant activity...

GOM..Fantastic thread (though I had my doubts @ the beginning)

All contestants were all on fire!

And so this is y-fo from XYZ network signing out for the night.

By the way, I followed the thread you linked me to from start to finish and even made some contributions....don't tell me you didn't notice

Wu Zetian: My bad, I think I mistook you for the nipeks001 guy. Sowwy *whew!*

The only reason I select any part of your post is because that is the one I choose to address, duh! LoL. I don't bother talking about the ones we both agree on or the ones that are strictly your opinion and are in no way harmful to my cause.

"Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination".

If you want me to believe you actually aren't ignorant about the issues of feminism, the least you can do is get simple definitions right.
Patriarchy is not only pertinent to the family institution. One of the cries of feminism is to give women the ability to choose. If a woman chooses to make her husband the head, then fine but the problem is a society that mandates that men must be the head.

I doubt I'm going to allow my husband be the head, that's just because I'm more of a team player. I believe no person's decision is more valuable than the other and we both have to work hand in hand to achieve our goals. I believe a woman should become the head of the family if she chooses to and if her husband agrees to it.

I don't mind if an African man/woman agrees to gender roles, the issue here is their kids. Are you teaching your children that they are limited because of their gender or are you encouraging individuality?? A stereotypical Nigerian boy today thinks his worth depends on how much money he has, and a stereotypical Nigerian girl today is concerned about her looks and getting married to a guy that can financially take care of her before the age 30. A divorced woman in Nigeria today is seen as a taboo and a single woman past the age of 30 is viewed as a curse and a plague. Why?? Because in a patriarchal society, the sole purpose of a woman is child bearing and satisfying a man's sexxual needs.
I see threads every day on NL of people complaining about these things, which are all branches of the root problem-patriarchal society.
You might think Nigerians are not complaining but they are.

You can refer to this post for reasons why some women in Nigeria accept your beliefs.
https://www.nairaland.com/1469493/patriarchy-male-privilege/1#18751293

MRM is built on feminism. It exists because of feminism, their whole principle revolves around feminism. All MRAs do is talk about feminism, it's simply logical that we deviate to feminism when we talk about MRM.

I have agreed that the other aspects of patriachy isn't going to work out in our society of today as women should or have been given equal chances to participate in political and economic fortunes of our country. I should have worded my next line by saying I would focus patriachy on its family aspect as we basicly agree on the other areas, my bad.

You believe that females should be given the chance to head the family or co-run it, I don't believe in either as there would be instability in having two captains a ship and my reasons for the male being the leader (who consults his wife but takes the final decision) have been stated in your other thread. So we can agree to dis-agree on this matter.

On the stereotypical Nigerian children, I believe you guys would achieve more by educating the female child to have dreams and be self-independent. The reason why guys focus on having more money is because the ladies value it more than other qualities he posseses (the average girl I believe), this is my theory and I welcome any corrections if need be.

You may ask what is the job of the parents but I believe they encourage their kids (females included) to be the best they can be and such wrong beliefs bout material ish come from peer-presssure and external sources.

The previous two paragraphs are set in an environment -as we have in most places in Nigeria- that give equal opportunities for the male and female child to be who they want to be. To the best of my knowledge, women now have equal rights with men and have careers in any area of their liking.
The only area where I see males having any kind of edge (if you want to call it that) is in the family institution and I doubt it affects the girl-child in her future aspirations.




*this is the time I should start little moves to become (more than) friends with you, but from what I've seen so far....I'd be better off running to the opposite direction *

something tells me nomski would win "your mama" on mtv...if she hasn't been on similar shows that is



the new contestants are also on point...mostly female though

Wu Zetian: Isn't that funny coming from someone that knows little about feminism but has chosen to jump to ill-thought conclusions about it.

I just didn't know the ideology was such a strange concept to Nigerians, the way they fight feminism tooth and nail, you'll think they're well versed in the issue of equality, human rights and all. Very funny, this brings something to light though-most people that do not support feminism on here see it as a strange concept and are just having hard time accepting change.

Where did you get the notion that I know "very little" about feminism, I can't be a specialist in every subject matter but that doesn't mean I don't have an adequate grasp of the subject matter.
Your first line and how you worded it is uncalled for, having a civil discussion with you seems to be a problem as you are un-necessarily aggressive.

Have I ever stated that the feminism ideology is mis-guided? I mostly give theories on why things are the way they are and you don't bother giving any counter or just ignore the points I make and focus on just a single aspect of my post.
1. on how MRM isn't as "vocal" as the feminism movement. The extreme stunts of both sides.
2. on how people may not have enough info/experience on MRM to have a solid debate.

Back to your issue on feminism ideology. I'm I wrong in stating that there are hardcore feminists that have nothing but hate for the male sex and use extreme publicity stunts to drive home their points e.g. going unclad in broad-day light with inscriptions on their body, calling the male sex unprintable names and relating us to being worse than animals e.t.c.
I think you fail to realise that every ideology or system has their own excesses and that was the only aspect I challanged concerning feminism, do I hate all muslims for the few mis-guided ones that are into terrorism...no. Similarly, I don't begrudge all feminists as the core of their struggle is genuine but you see the patriachial system and focus only on its excesses.

I have explained the extreme feminism above and the extreme part of the patriachial system I would support to be fought against are; women being looked down at work, not being given equal opportunities in political and economic aspects and being viewed as a property of the man.

However, the patriachial system is based simply on a man leading the home...do you want the females to become the head or have two captains in a boat?
second aspect concerning gender roles, most african people (including women) see nothing wrong in this and if you have a difference of opinion...that's fine but don't make it out to seem we place our women as inferior species, we just have a different system that we adhere to, what's more..the females agree with this (being complements of the males and vice-versa that is).

*note* how we have gone from discussing MRM to focusing mostly on feminism which just buttresses my point that MRM cannot be fully debated on this forum. IMO.

Wu Zetian: The highlighted line just debunked your question.

We do not have any active feminist groups in Nigeria either(@ least from the lil research I made). Since you gained most of your knowledge on Nairaland about feminism, the thread is here to educate you about MRAs. It would also be interesting to me to see what conclusions people who have so much hatred towards feminism have towards MRM.

Correction, my knowledge about feminism did not come from nairaland...rather, the fact that there are some feminists IN NIGERIA (not the concept) is what I learned on the forum.

By this time on your last thread, hadn't it gone past the first page? Now you could dismiss it as people supporting the MRM or not wanting to bad-mouth it but from my perspective...its cause people (especially Nigerians/Africans) dont have enough knowledge to form their opinion on said matter as the little details you provided up there isn't sufficient to provide you with what you're seeking.

*note* going to google and all to seek out more information isn't enough to sensitize people enough to have a concrete debate. Just my two kobo.

Wu Zetian: They are very vocal, they are just relatively new(compared to feminism) and non-existing in countries like Nigeria.

MRM will be pointless in Nigeria because Nigeria has no real implementation laws protecting women. Nigerian women do not enjoy any of the benefits listed except circumcision.

You said it started in the 1970's and could be relatively new compared to feminism, but that's a pretty long time gap to have gathered enough haters/animosity if they are very vocal or illogical.

To be honest, I never knew feminism existed in Nigeria till I encountered it on nairaland. And what I mean by being vocal is the stunts perpetrated by hard-core feminist around the world such as going unclad and using unprintable words to describe men, if you're wondering why the feminists have such a bad reputation then I'm guessing that's a part of the reason.
To the best of my knowledge, the MRM haven't been as "vocal" as the feminist hence less hatred is shown towards them, I still stand by this.

You are absolutely spot-on that Nigeria doesn't have those benefits enshrined in its constitution hence the absence of the MRM, which leads me to the question....why are you asking -on a predominantly Nigerian forum- the reason people don't have hatred for a subject they have hardly ever encountered prior to now

#team nomski...
Seems kagari has been TKO'd...better luck next time bro ( I couldn't last as long as u did, but u came out guns blazing and I expected better)

Who wants to place a wager on how long this can go on?
To all contestants...#respect


And for those asking why I got this (temp) journalism job...#blame it on ASUU

Still claiming my immunity though

Report so far:
Nomski is killing it here...(pretty suprising as I thought she was just the geeky pretty gal...*nerd thread way back*)
spikes is the cool, calm....but dangerous kind
cathaliya is the explosive tigress that knows neither friend or foe (on this thread)
GOM started strong then declined a bit...but now picking up once again
dopejemi came late but is a real dark horse on this thread
and then we have some other posters with good showings here and there..



*note*
Before u quote me and decide to use that acidic tongue on me which I would most likely have no reply, remember this: -in war zones, the paramedics and journalists are granted immunity.

And its y-fo from XYZ network reporting for duty

[quote author=uj_sizzle]I don't think MRM is necessary, like you said it's come as a result of the rising threats of feminism.
Almost everything listed there were put in place to give women an advantage in a patrichal society.

The pay gap though needs to be looked into especially in sports. I've noticed the men and women take part in the same contests, practice just as hard and yet the women get paid less than the men when they win the victory cup Why's that? [/quote]how bout tennis where the women play a best of three sets while the men play a best of five sets and are the main attraction to a competition (tv rights and all)....yet they take home the same pay package as the males.

and by the way, in sports isn't it the males that are more of the attraction and hence higher pay. if you want to bring up examples I believe the case of acting and others would be more suitable to buttress your point on pay-gap.

@topic, I guess the MRM isn't as vocal as the feminists hence less animosity towards it. IMHO.

De Beauvoir: How exactly did evolution set males to a higher stand than females?
Strength is not what determines who gets a higher stand or who gets a lower stand in the scheme of evolution. It is intelligence that determines it.
If strength was the determinant for 'higher stands' in the evolutionary ladder then strong animals like elephants and lions would be on a 'higher stand' than human beings. The reason why humans are on top of the evolutionary ladder is because they are the smartest living things on earth. They are not the strongest but they have the most developed brains and they have advanced themselves with their intellect.
Now you say that men excelling over women in physical activities is enough justification for patriarchal system to exist. First of all the definition of patriarchy on the first page of this thread is;
(rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination
The summary of that definition is simply a system where men rule over women and where women are expected to be subordinate to men.
The system of patriarchy automatically assumes that all men are naturally better suited to leadership than all women and that is the reason why women are supposed to be relegated to the position of subordinates. This notion is false because the most important thing that is required to be a good leader is intelligence and not strength. I am sure that if you are in the midst of many men who are stronger than you, you'd feel offended if they started to claim that you are their subordinate just because they have more physical strength. Women are just as intelligent as men and they can also be good leaders so leadership should not be restricted to only one gender.


Like I said earlier (I am tired of repeating myself so many times on this thread), women are generally not given as much encouragement as men to pursue their career dreams or to compete with men in the work place. They are expected to marry fast and take care of their children so men tend to excel more in their place of work because they are free to advance as far as they want outside the home as long as they provide for their family.


You have to prove to me that there is no equal balance between those two divisions of men. You have to show me definitive proof that the men with low testosterone are not the same number as the men with high testosterone.
One thing you should bear in mind is that even if a man has the love or tendency to be feminine, he will not display it, he will hide it and suppress that part of himself because he has been conditioned to believe that it is shameful for men to be emotional or to display their soft side.
There is likely to be a great number of men that are effeminate but due to societal shaming of such behavior in males, they hide that trait in public so it appears as if they are very masculine when they are not.
Vice versa for females.


What natural instinct are you talking about?
Majority of the roles you see being performed by the respective genders is as a result of societal beliefs or labels on what is right and what is wrong.
Up until the late twentieth century, women did not work in large business co operations like men, majority of women were even full time housewives and they could not achieve half of what they are achieving today in terms of jobs/career outside the home.
I am sure back then, the men of those times used to believe that women did not have the 'natural instinct' to succeed like men career wise just because they had never seen it happening.
@bold, women are not more emotional than men.
What is the definition of emotion first of all?
e·mo·tion [i mṓsh'n]
(plural e·mo·tions)
noun
1. heightened feeling: a strong feeling about somebody or something
2. agitation caused by strong feelings: agitation or disturbance caused by strong feelings

As you can see from the definition of emotions above, men can have strong feeling and can also be agitated just the way women can have strong feelings and be agitated. The difference between male and female emotional behavior is that one of them is the gentle and calm emotional behavior (due to oestrogen) while the other is based on aggression or excitement (due to testosterone).
No one is superior or inferior to the other and neither should be given precedence over the other.
We need balance between these two in our daily lives, activities in the home require both a touch of the female emotions and the male emotions and activities outside the home require male and female emotions to be successful. Neither should be relegated to the background or restricted to only one sphere.


There is nothing like emotional roles or non emotional roles, males and females are equally emotional, the difference between them is that males display their emotions in different ways than women.


I don't agree with patriarchy.
Leadership should not be restricted to only one gender because men and women have equal intellectual capacities.

I'm not a big fan of how you place your analogy...you say animals would rule over men if power was based on physicality yet in those animal settings, the males are usually the top in hierrachy and the hyenas that have females as leaders have more testosterone (which is the biological adv I speak about).
If u want to compare between animals then let it be intra-species rather than inter-species. To make my point clearer, assume male and females are equal in all aspects except the testosterone and its added advantages it bestows upon men -this adv. is even needed more in the past when there was little technology- and you can trace why there is a patriachial/male dominated system in most parts of the world.
this is a theory of mine (which I feel is largely correct) to explain the cause of this topic. If you don't see from my point of view then its fine, we'll allow other readers judge cuz I won't change my belief and further debates would lead us nowhere.

you keep stating that women are not being given the encouragement to suceed in their chosen fields and so I said we should pick the "elites" in both sexes and compare their standings in the chosen profession (sports, music, novellists, artists e.t.c) since on aggregates women have been side-lined.
*note that I am trying to bend my arguments in your line of reasoning here as I believe the "conditioning" you speak is not as severe as you make it sound*
however, this is a largely subjective area and I see the females standing up to support their own and I suggest we drop it as we would not achieve any reasonable head-way.

the issue of guys and girls having unusual amount of testosterone and oestogin (forgive my spelling) is "unusal", "against the norm", a "minority" and I believe are exceptions to the rule. You can have your own opinion on that and I have no right to say ot is right or wrong, let the readers be the judge of that.

I will address your next two paragraphs as one; you feel men and women are equally emotional but I'll divert you to nipeski001's post as he addressed it quite well.
when the other ladies on this thread stated that they are complements of the men, doesn't that strike you as we each have different roles to play? and you stating that we shouldn't have gender specific roles goes against your fellow ladies assertions. I simply went a step further to try and delineate these roles and if we cannot agree that there are gender specific roles to play then we basicly have a difference of opinion that twenty more pages worth of counter-arguments cannot change anything.

it has been stated by the females here that they would like a man to be the leader of the house as there can't be two captains of a ship. males are groomed to grow up to that role and earn a degree of specialization over said matter and if we don't invest our time in being specialist at some roles hence division of labour to achieve a balance then it is a call to dis-equillibrum in society.

I am sure you would have a robust reply to the last paragraph but if we don't agree to my subsequent lines then it means we have no need to continue this any longer (not that either of us is the winner, the readers shall pitch their tent with whom they see fit/support)

let me define what I mean by a "leader"(seems that term needs to be addressed for any meaningful discussion). in this sense, there has to be a leader to make decisions in a relationship between males and females or in a family and that role is reserved for the males as there can't be two captains in a boat. not that he looks down on his woman as he should consult with her but the final decision should lay with the male. do you agree with this? (I'm sure most of the other females do)
and in the case of a work-setting, I don't agree with the glass-ceiling and feel females should also be in top positions.

Jman06: You have just succeeded in beating about the bush without making any tangible point.Rather you confirmed my earlier suspicion that your allegations were based on hearsays.So your only source of information was google?Yet you sounded so sure,forgeting that anybody can upload any information online wether false or true.You expect the president to waste time in debunking every malicious allegation from haters like you,right?When there are other important matters to attend to?Amaechi 'alluded' and you believed him hookline and sinker forgeting that given the circumstances of the moment,he could say anything to score cheap political points,doesn't that show how gullible you are?My friend i am not an e-sycophant but an individual who is allegic to unprovoked attacks on people.Honestly,you are a pot calling kettle black because if you could make such a blunder like you did while typing in the comfort of your room,then making a public speach would be worse off.

then any information we get from the internet or news outlets that doesn't sit well with you is just rumour-mongering right...I rest my case.

@de beauvoir, perhaps I could concede to those points on intelligence but you skipped the part of my stating that most things males and females partake in together...the males turn out to be superior. This is in respect of sports (where we take the elite of both sexes) and other activities which I said is by a biological advantage. Thus nature/evolution sets males on a higher stand in society and I went down this channel just to explain why the world-order is patriachial and i'm not saying females are inferior.
your point on saying females have been conditioned to not achieve much carries weight on aggregate but my point above is between specialists/the elites of both sexes in their respective activities (this should remove the "conditioning" problem I believe)...

I don't think you noticed my *note* that I was speaking in terms of the majority and the cases with low/high testoterone goes along with the exceptions to the rules I mentioned.

my point is that males have natural instincts and talents for the roles I mentioned in my previous post and females also have the natural talents for those...its a fact that females are more emotional than guys (again speaking in terms of majority) and thus are more suited to perform some roles better than the males, what you see as conditioning in this aspect is ladies being 'trained' to utilise their natural instincts better in such "emotional roles" as I mentioned. Again let me clarify, I don't feel that A role is better than B role and both are needed to complement each other so as to keep as sane a world as we can.

your last line sounds logical and all but the fact is there are roles better suited to a female than a male and vice-versa, I'm sure the mothers/wives in the house would agree with me.

phurlabby: Lol! In as much as I know it's a man's world, women really do enjoy benefits that men can only dream of.

We need to stop wasting time on this issue of gender equality but rather focus on gender equity. One of my favourite lecturers at Babcock University, Prof. Opeke explained in detail the difference and gave a quick test in class that day, while teaching she asked that our tables and chairs be moved back - immediately all the girls got up and left the job for the "men". There and then she pointed out that if it was money being shared now they will scream equality but when it came to hardwork it was left to the men. Same with other aspects of our society, women will only scream when they aren't getting the better deal ( I mean, at Tennis grandslams women play the best of three sets while men play the best of five all for equal pay).

Equality deals with treating everyone as the same, but even the staunchest of feminists will agree that men and women can never be the same, be it biologically or any other way so why bother?

Equity however deals with treating people equally with respect to their differences. Is it somewhat impractical? Probably, but it is a better option than banging on about equality when clearly we aren't. As Opeke would say "Equality is about buying the same action toys for ur male and female children but Equity means buying barbies and other female-oriented playthings for your daughter which cost the same as the action toys you get your son.

guess I should have read more replies before posting, this is exactly the point I was trying to make bout ladies having different 'strengths' than men.
And the 'equity' aspect is a new concept I just learned with the same answer I had in mind...thumbs up to you and your prof.

Jman06: And i dare you to prove that you are sure of all the allegations you made against the first lady,and they are not based on hearsays.Lest i forget,what did you mean by ''evacuating office''?Is it another case of pot calling kettle black?

you are a prime example of what is holding Nigeria back as you are just proving yourself to be an e-sycophant.
I don't make silly allegations and since you want to blindly call all of my points 'baseless', I'll try educating you:
1. this cannot be argued with and is simply unbefitting of a first-lady.
2. google it out and ye shall know the truth
3. please remind me when she or the presidency addressed this issue directly and not through testimonies.
4. amaechi (the main piece in this crisis) basicly alluded to this fact when the peace-makers came avisting.
5. she has been "quoted" saying this and is not by any means an allegation...google is your friend.
6. she is the only one out of 18 or so that is yet to resume her role as perm-sec

if you cannot come back with facts or a better reply, then don't bother replying as that would prove you are not worth my time and I will cease to address you.

By the way, to "evacuate" I admit isn't the best term to be used in that case but by no means does it equate to 'pot calling the kettle black'...I can't allow myself to be compared to that level

De Beauvoir: Intelligence and mastery of human psychology is a great part of what got them where they are.
It wasn't about physical strength.

i've been quite impressed with your posts so far but I just wanna point out some things..
one wants to base the argument on physical abilities while you want to base power on intellectual prowess or psychological ability. I don't support hanging the whole discussion on purely either as both have their own merits (I might just be selecting just a portion of your "arguments" thus far and apologies if I'm mistaken).
this is the way I see it and I hope it clarifies your banter with carujmonella and addresses this topic as well;
*note that i'll be speaking in terms of majority as there are exceptions to every rule
first of all, I believe men are women need each other and are in a mix like ying and yang with both having weaknesses and strengths the other complements.
however on the intelligence aspect u speak about, when we compare males and females in a class u would see the males on top more often than not. I'm a student and using my university as a population sample.
and in every other aspect u will find that men have the biological advantage (sports and all) and end up looking like they are offering more to the society than women.
since the activities that both men and women partake in- the males perform better - it leads to such terms as "its a man's world" and also nature/evolution has formed the patriachial system in most parts of the world due to this. This shouldn't imply that females are a lesser specie than the males.
areas in which females excel at is usually downplayed by society and the males look like the shining light.

1. women's touch is needed in the home to design it and make it beautiful while the males maintain the house via fixing things here and there and other maintaining tasks.
2. The male's speciality is being the protector and leader (traditionally) and the female provide the emotions and loving aspect in the case of a family.

the two points above highlight my key-point that the strengths of the males is usually dotted on by society while the females strengths...not so much.
this is my view on the matter and I feel it is largely correct unless there is something I missed?

Now most times I try to stay clear of threads concerning PEJ but I have to say my mind here...
We have two factions here (pro and anti PEJ) and the pro seems to be saying one should have respect for her cuz she's an elder and is in a position of power....excuse my manners, but that's total BS.
Though I don't agree with abusing the first lady (in public perhaps) but the pro-PEJ are just using the same methods to pass their points across i.e insults, so its basically two sides of the same coin.
I admit I dis-like the first lady with passion and I don't care bout the opinions of her faceless supporters and here is why:
She disgraces the nation with her poorly spoken english accent and grammar.
She had a land tussle with the former first lady (and I don't support either) but just shows she's power hungry.
Went abroad for treatment and yet kept on denying it (while people accused yar-adua of doing the exact same thing)...she came back and never addressed the issue while gullible nigerians soon forgot she was away for months I think and yet no one could tell us why (she gave an indirect hint through a testimony I believe but never directly spoke to her people bout the issue)
She caused the political unrest in rivers (while people keep saying she's just a first lady and not into politics)
And with a twist to those saying she's not a political figure, why did she ask for retirement benefits for first ladies after evacuating office just like their spouses' have...(just shows her true nature doesn't it)
And the one that still hurts me till now, why is she a perm-sec when she hasn't resumed office and perhaps getting her salary...this is the height of greediness I've seen and yet people choose to throw blind-eye her way.
That's why our nation would never move forward as the leader's transgressions are always overlooked and u still have people who would fight for them...I weep for this nation.


Now I dare the pro-PEJ section to quote me and denounce all I've written, then we'll know if u are true nigerians or blind PEJ followers.

chidyhels: hmm

hmmm...bad?
hmmm...good?

*

[quote author=nadia_SA]Happy birthday to my #1 country!!!

Up Naija!!
[/quote]until a Nigerian here yabs SA right

asco15: I will advise u 2 continue in dat church if ur heart desire is to go to heaven after life on earth.
Wearing of Trousers by women in general is a sin, cos it exposes the entire shape and size of a woman. Infact, it only covers the colour of the skin while it leave the woman naked.
Remember dat a woman's body shape and back-size is seductive 2 most men, wic makes it a sin.
Same wit oda ornaments. Read 1peter3:3, prov.16:25.

and so a well-built guy would go to hell for wearing tight-fitting shirts ryt...as much as u may wanna doubt it, gals sef get eyes to look


@topic, there are certain jobs that a lady not wearing trousers can't perform effectively ( wild life researcher, security agents e.t.c)....would those ladies go to hell also?
I've never understood this hype behind this topic and probably never will

Baybe: Nawa oh! Where did you people get all these stats from?

pullstatsouttayoura$$.com


the stats are always accurate according to the different users

[quote author=ozo_emeka]Nick names are a pseudo sort of "pet names" . Your grand parents were ok with saying they LOVED a man, without any "homosexual" connotation attached to it. the "gay" factor is a "borrowed" concept.[/quote]but do they say so often or save it for special occassions...*note* we are talking about things that happen on a daily basis and not a statement that would occur once in a blue moon.


example. when men say they "love" their their fellow man, he must have done something really huge in the said person's life and is said in public places and not in private..


I feel you are talking bout special cases and in order not to digress from the main topic, yes we call each oda nick-names but NEVER pet-names as it is done with d female folk...in our traditions, the females may have hugged n all but never the males and therefore the distinction has always been clear right from time.

[quote author=ozo_emeka]Society started the trend. Trendsetters don't follow. Guys give each other Nick names. Why it doesn't sound "soft" is because most guys (in their heads) want to BE SEEN as the MOST MACHO. Therefore they want to answer "hard sounding names" so you may rarely hear a "hon/babe" etc however they will call each other by their nicknames.

2. Society dictates and women reinforce the idea that MAN should be associated with all things MANLY. YET you discover that every now and then a trendsetter will BREAK those rules. Remember when it was MANLY to keep a bushy hair and FEMININE to cut your hair short? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok.
Remember when it was MANLY to wear loose fitting, baggy clothes? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok.
Remember when it was MANLY to wear ANYTHING but pink and soft colors? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok.

Remember when it was MANLY not to be groomed - hair, nails, skin? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok. Men even try to "brag" about their skin, looks and lips. Don't get started on ABS - it was FEMININE to be so interested in your body

Remember when it was NOT MANLY for men to walk around with bags? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok. Now men have messenger bags etc

Remember when it was NOT MANLY for men to wear earrings? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok.

Remember when it was NOT MANLY to dye your hair blond? Someone broke that cycle and guess what - the followers, in their usual way, followed and NOW it is ok.

In a nutshell, someone THINKS xyz is NOT manly, followers FOLLOW, someone else changes it, followers follow.

if a popular artist starts calling guys by a pet name, I give you 2 years, make this thread again and almost EVERYONE will say it is not a big deal. It's all about the FOLLOWER-LEADER model.[/quote]well sorry to say that all this your long post hardly adresses anything...u talking bout arabs kissing on the cheek.....that's their culture and doesn't have any deep meaning


let's settle this simply, our grandparents and elders in the society don't give each other pet-names and hardly been affected by what u feel is nigerians being "copy-cats"...so if its not in our traditional culture nor d western culture, from where I ask do we accept giving our fellow brothers pet-names as the norm?

baibijay: Itz you who shouldbt discourage her, it what she wanna do, she is not under 18 which means she is responsible for her decisions, what she need is how to convince her guy to marry her

and she's still just a teen....though I believe girls can marry early (not this early), how bout her significant other...the dude is just 23 and u want him to settle down when he hasn't fully matured.

I'm not married and have no experience with it, if u wanna support her...fine. I have a different view and feel she should concentrate on more important things now as she's trying to get married so as to enjoy priviledges that come with marriage, rather than looking at it from a holistic view and understanding the full weight of her decision.

[quote author=nadia_SA]Hummmmmm

I'll send u pm on how to make him marry u ok.. I'm 19 nd my man 25. It worked for me hope it will work for u too..

Ok ..
Hope u know what u getting urslf into..[/quote]don't think u should encourage her....it worked for u doesn't mean its gonna work for her, humans are a bag of emotions and complexities...even with d end-goal being d same (marriage), the different variables involved could make your techs back-fire so bad that she may wanna blame u...



seriously though, your man's 25 n probably didn't have much reservations bout settling @ that age...
but @23 (which is still kinda young in the male world), this dude could still have so much on his mind to accomplish before getting married.



lastly, I think the op wants to get married for the wrong reasons-to have sex and procreate- without caring for the other major points that one should think of when planning for marriage.

pleep: In the long run homophobia will hurt straight men more than gays. Most guys are so scared of homosexuality that they restrict their behavior and keep friends at arms length. The result of this is social isolation and weaker inter-personal bonds.

Physical contact, and little things like pet names actually connections between people and strengthen friendships, which is why women get much much more out of their friendships when compared to men. Male friendships are relatively cold in comparison

A feeling of social connectedness is something most men are lacking and it leads to a whole host of mental and behavioral problems.

bro...take on a research and see the difference between guys n gals relationship with their fellow mates n you'l retract every word u posted here...

Chemical Mallam: ROONEY SCORES! The crowd are on their feet to welcome back the wantaway forward as he curls a delightful free kick just beyond the despairing dive of Speroni into the bottom right-hand corner from 25 yards. That's surely game over.

which site u cull this one from bros