99cent: another one:
Chinese Expats Treat Nigerian Employees as Punching Bag (when they are not submissive enough)
https://www.nairaland.com/784817/chinese-expats-treat-nigerian-employees

lol. I thought only women are supposed to be 'submissive'

Obviously you have no idea what the topic is anymore besides your need to "win" the argument. These have more to do with the utter failure of labor laws and the justice system in nigeria and nothing to do with feminism.

davidylan:

Obviously you have no idea what the topic is anymore besides your need to "win" the argument. These have more to do with the utter failure of labor laws and the justice system in nigeria and nothing to do with feminism.

so, are you going to justify the chinese here again in their mistreatment of nigerian workers? hehn?

"The Chinese kick Nigerian workers on the testicles when they are not submissive."

LOL. so sad and ironic especially looking at the word "submissive"

99cent:

so, are you going to justify the chinese here again in their mistreatment of nigerian workers? hehn?

"The Chinese kick Nigerian workers on the testicles when they are not submissive."

LOL. so sad and ironic especially looking at the word "submissive"

I havent done so, merely wondered why there are no protective labor laws in nigeria. The problem is people like you who focus more on being the victim than standing up to force your government to do something about it.

oh man.. i'm still laughing. my belly...
anyway, i'm done for the day. ciao

Is it not ironic that the men on this thread keep accusing feminists of being bitter and angry and insultive yet 80% of their anti feminist posts were filled with so much venom and hatred. If they weren't going on about how feminists would die alone and miserable, they were hurling insults directly at 99cents other feminists, calling them obese and ugly and saying women don't know what they want.
The amount of sexism that was displayed on this thread is sickening, yet the same rëtards that made the sexist comments would come back and claim that feminists have nothing to fight for.

SINCE WHEN C.FOUR REPRESENTS ALL THE WOMEN OF THE WOLD?

WHICH OTHER FEMINISTS?

GUESS IN FEMINISM WORLD MONKEY IS A COMPLIMENT
I.JOAN IS A MAN
LWKD

Hohoho
conscience is judging some people
I didnt even mention anyone's name in my post but they came back to start shouting as if I was talking to them.

^^^ please shut up, i'm the one who called her obese and ugly .
maybe e dey pain u? are u also ugly and obese? hope no

CAMEROONPRIDE: ^^^ please shut up, i'm the one who called her obese and ugly .
maybe e dey pain u? are u also ugly and obese? hope no

First of all, yes, e dey pain me. You insulted my fellow feminist and I am angry . Secondly what if I am obese and ugly? Must everybody be very slim and very attractive like your girlfriend onila

fellis:
First of all, yes, e dey pain me. You insulted my fellow feminist and I am angry . Secondly what if I am obese and ugly? Must everybody be very slim and very attractive like your girlfriend onila

. so i was right to call u guys angry and bitter.


being obese is not good for your health, lose some weight that's if you are really obese

CAMEROONPRIDE: . so i was right to call u guys angry and bitter.

How did you reach this conclusion from my last post?
Your sexism is clouding your reasoning

fellis:
How did you reach this conclusion from my last post?
Your sexism is clouding your reasoning

you said you are angry because i insulted your fellow feminazi, when in fact i'm only tell how she described herself in one of her thread.
stop calling me sexist . u and i know that i ain't a sexist . i love women .

CAMEROONPRIDE: you said you are angry because i insulted your fellow feminazi, when in fact i'm only tell how she described herself in one of her thread.
stop calling me sexist . u and i know that i ain't a sexist . i love women .

What thread did she say she is obese and ugly? And you can love women and still be sexist. Your last two statements dont follow

fellis:

What thread did she say she is obese and ugly? And you can love women and still be sexist. Your last two statements dont follow

she removed anyway, but you can ask pleep.

it doesn't make sense i can't b sexist, i have female relatives.which statements?

Anyway are u obese? are u beautiful?

CAMEROONPRIDE: she removed anyway, but you can ask pleep.

I only talk to pleep when I absolutely have to. That guy has issues, he's always so angry and insultive

Anyway are u obese? are u beautiful?

I look like onila

I have read this article

The question here is a black female being was intimidated by a white female

Is that feminism or racism

Or is wage gap now racism

99cent: this may be relevant although it applies to both gender and racial job discrimination:

June 24, 2013
Supreme Court Raises Bar to Prove Job Discrimination
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

In two decisions issued on Monday, the Supreme Court effectively made it harder for workers to prove that they had suffered employment discrimination.

One ruling narrows the definition of what constitutes a supervisor in racial and sexual harassment cases, while the other adopts a tougher standard for workers to prove that they had faced illegal retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination.

In both cases, the rulings were decided by a 5-to-4 majority, with the dissenting justices, the court’s four most liberal members, calling on Congress to fix what they said were overly restrictive rulings.

In Vance v. Ball State University, in which an African-American worker accused her supervisor of racial harassment, the court held that the person she accused was a co-worker and not a supervisor — a distinction that requires a higher burden of proof for the plaintiff’s employer to be found liable.

The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejected the definition of “supervisor” advanced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” or direct the employee’s daily work activities.

Rather, the court ruled that being a supervisor should be limited to someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” like hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities.

Justice Alito, noting that there are numerous definitions of who is a supervisor, wrote that “the ability to direct another employee’s tasks is simply not sufficient” to declare someone a supervisor. He ridiculed the E.E.O.C’s definition of supervisor, saying it was a “study in ambiguity.”

The plaintiff, Maetta Vance, a banquet worker at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., asserted that Saundra Davis, who is white and was described as a catering specialist, had glared at her, slammed pots and pans around her and blocked her on an elevator. Both sides agreed that Ms. Davis did not have the authority to hire or fire employees.

Under previous Supreme Court decisions, plaintiffs claiming racial or sexual harassment faced a lower burden to prove an employer liable when the harassment was committed by a supervisor rather than a co-worker. For instance, if the harassing supervisor was found to have taken adverse actions against an employee, like demoting the person, the employer was strictly liable for that action. And even when a supervisor’s harassment did not culminate in a specific negative employment action, the employer could be held liable if the employer failed to prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior.

But for an employer to be held liable when a co-worker is accused of harassment, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the employer was negligent by not stopping the behavior.

The court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that held that Ms. Davis was not a supervisor and that Ball State was not negligent with respect to her behavior. Justice Alito emphasized that the court’s adoption of a narrower definition of supervisor did not leave plaintiffs unprotected, but left them with a different burden of proof.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority opinion “is blind to the realities of the workplace.” She wrote that it is not easy for an employee to tell a harassing supervisor to “buzz off” even when the supervisor does not have the power to fire or demote.

“An employee who confronts her harassing supervisor risks, for example, receiving an undesirable or unsafe work assignment or an unwanted transfer,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “She may be saddled with an excessive workload” or a shift that disrupts her family life.

Asserting that the ruling undermines Congress’s desire for “robust protection against workplace discrimination,” Justice Ginsburg warned that the decision would relieve employers of responsibility for the behavior of many of their supervisors.

“The ball is once again in Congress’ court to correct the error into which this Court has fallen,” she wrote.

In a second employment decision issued on Monday, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the court tightened the legal standard for plaintiffs who assert that they faced adverse employment actions in retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination. The court held that the plaintiff must prove that the retaliation was not just a motivating factor in a negative action like a demotion but the determinative factor.

The majority decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, engaged in lengthy textual interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Kennedy said retaliation cases should have a different, tougher standard of proof than in regular employment discrimination cases under the act. In typical discrimination cases, employers can be held liable if wrongful discrimination is a motivating factor.

The case involved Naiel Nassar, a physician of Middle Eastern descent, who claimed that he faced hostile treatment from a hospital superior because of his religion and ethnic heritage. He further claimed that he had been retaliated against — that he was not given as good a job offer as he had hoped — because he had complained of discrimination.

Justice Kennedy said it was important to have the proper causation standard in retaliation cases because the number of such cases filed with the E.E.O.C. has nearly doubled in the last 15 years, rising to more than 31,000 in 2012. The court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Writing the dissent, Justice Ginsburg said the tougher “but-for causation standard” that the court was adopting for retaliation cases would undercut efforts to fight employment discrimination. She also warned that juries would be confused in hearing cases in which employment discrimination claims would be judged by one standard and related retaliation claims by a tougher standard.

Justice Ginsburg concluded that Monday’s two employment-related decisions “should prompt yet another Civil Rights Restoration Act,” a 1987 law that in effect overturned several Supreme Court rulings.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 26, 2013

A picture caption on Tuesday with an article about two Supreme Court rulings that made it more difficult for workers to prove job discrimination misspelled the surname of a justice who dissented from both rulings. As the article correctly noted, she is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not Ginsberg.

[quote author=fellis]

I only talk to pleep when I absolutely have to. That guy has issues, he's always so angry and insultive

nah. that's not the pleep i know. Anyway you can ask c.fours then tho i don't think she will admit it

I look like onila

unfortunately, i don't know how she looks like , so i need more details.

^^^^^ I am not going to talk to pleep about anything, god forbid.
Also, how come you don't know what onila looks like and she is your gf? Na wa for you o

[quote author=fellis]^^^^^

I am not going to talk to pleep about anything, god forbid

ask your fellow feminazi then.

Also, how come you don't know what onila looks like and she is your gf? Na wa for you o

na wa oo with una , says who? anyway i'm talking to u not onila. so?

davidylan:

It is not about "deserving" something or not... it is about facts beyond your control.

1. As a contract employee (which most foreign workers are), you have better leverage to negotiate a higher wage.
2. Hazard pay for being moved outside your country
3. Additional payments to make up for differences in standard of living (it happens here, i got payed for moving to a more expensive state than my colleagues hired at the same time... 3 of them were white by the way).

But of course i expect the next fact-free diatribe from you.

This response captures my POV exactly
In Nigeria, foreigners get a factor of their pay for working in a hazardous country like Nigeria

davidylan:

I provide several reasons why the average pay for an expatriate is higher in third world countries and the mid-east (even going so far as to provide examples where nigerians and blacks have been placed on the same hazard wages compared to local workers) and you ignored that in favor of repeating your baseless rants? Shakes head... obviously this isnt about reasoned dialogue for you.

Bravo!!

And 99cent I was sleeping you expectme to reply at 240am local time when I have work the next day

davidylan:

to be honest, i earnestly await them so we can have a reasoned discourse on the issue. Obviously this issue is more about emotions and hot air with you and above your pay-grade.

Just an example... women like Okonjo-Iweala took up jobs in nigeria at wages far above what a male naija-based colleague would have been placed. Is that the discrimination you are talking about?

Can you respond to NOI earning more than a fellow black minister - male or female
Is that not anti feminist

Your icon?

99cent:


I will imagine that if it were a white male, he would probably be paid EVEN higher salary than Okonjo Iweala herself.

Are yu fighting racism or gender gap

which is it

biolabee:

Are yu fighting racism or gender gap

which is it

she's confused , too much cellulite in her thick brain

CAMEROONPRIDE: anyway i am talking to you not onila. so?

why do you need the information like this sef? I am not obese, I am attractive. Happy now?

davidylan:

things like these happen only because you come from a country that cares nothing for you or your welfare.

And this is what I have been telling 99cent and her posse

Social justice is more important in that it raises the living standard of BOTH male and female
A lot of nigerians are not earning a living wage, no health insurance, slow dispensation of justice and oppressive leaders

BOTH MEN AND WOMEN suffer it

if it gets better for the Nigerian, the woman has a better life

Is that logic flawed or they cant just get it

davidylan:

Obviously you have no idea what the topic is anymore besides your need to "win" the argument. These have more to do with the utter failure of labor laws and the justice system in nigeria and nothing to do with feminism.

I hope she gets it one day

Obasanjo whipping up a policeman who vexed him is anti feminist and not oppression

Abacha arresting kokori is anti feminist and not repressiveness

SMH!!

fellis:
why do you need the information like this sef? I am not obese, I am attractive. Happy now?

why are u angry? no need to get mad at me oooo, i was just being curious .

biolabee:
And this is what I have been telling 99cent and her posse

Social justice is more important in that it raises the living standard of BOTH male and female
A lot of nigerians are not earning a living wage, no health insurance, slow dispensation of justice and oppressive leaders
BOTH MEN AND WOMEN suffer it
if it gets better for the Nigerian, the woman has a better life
Is that logic flawed or they cant just get it

Go and sit down jor. I don't know why you are still making noise on this thread. Men like you are part of the reason women fight feminist wars. You don't believe in gender equality, you don't believe women should be allowed to head their homes, but you keep acting like you don't know sexist attitudes exist, you keep acting like all is good and dandy.

CAMEROONPRIDE: i was just being curious.

Okay.

fellis:
Okay.

erm erm, how can i confirm what u said is true?

CAMEROONPRIDE: erm erm, how can i confirm what u said is true?

I don't know. How can you confirm?