Seun:

Is that so? Is this also true of married women, or are you promoting a double standard?

Why do you even bother to ask ? you know a lot of men are selfish like that. I just pity women who actually allow shit like that, they seem to lack a healthy amount of self-steem.

Seun:

If you are a woman, then you must settle this matter before selling yourself into slavery getting married.

hehe lmao, true talk, bro.

Brymore:

It depends on which of the feminisms you are talking about. Is it male-feminism, radical feminism or what?

For ladies that say they should be on same stands with men or get some consideration, I would say that as men, we should also ask for men liberation for we have been manipulated by women for so long.
Whatever condition women find themselves today is solely caused by them, let's remember that lots of us were born by women and got our first indoctrination from them. Our mindset towards the existence was first shaped by a woman (if she decided not to shape it well is her business).

It sounds really childish that you're blaming your being manipulated on someone else. If you allow yourself to be manipulated, you've already confirmed that you have yourself to blame. Not to sound redundant, but maybe you shouldn't allow yourself to be manipulated.

Your second point is something that many a feminist and womanist have looked into and are now looking even deeper into. Although many feminist/womanist are against relegating women's role as the sole caretaker of children (understandably so), in this also lies a different form of power. I agree with you that when women realize that they can shape the future generation by raising young men and women who will grow up to fight for equality and a better and just system for everyone regardless of gender, female oppression will slowly become a thing of the past. unfortunately, many women are their own enemy in that they pass on the sexists ideas they have been taught and have grown up with onto their own children. And these simply continue the cycle. So on this, you and I agree that women should do better in raising progressive-minded individuals. 

Brymore:

To all feminists, feminism is one confused philosophy or movement. The supposed feminists fight themselves and disagree on so many issues like the final position of men in society and in their lives, among others. I think it is not worth it.

Any movement that demand that every member think and act the same way should be heavily questioned and taken with a grain of salt. People come from different background and with different personal experiences and those experiences will shape how they view many things including the feminist movement. With that, you can't demand that everyone think or act the same way. Yes, many a feminist wants change, but not all wants the same type of change or to the same degree. And those differring opinions should be respected, so long as they're not being forced.

Brymore:


Finally, to all the brothers in the house, there is a wise saying that the fear of women is the beginning of survival, every man who does not fear a woman is a either ignorant of foolhardy, do not forget that "BEHIND EVERY SUCCESSFUL MAN THAT FALLS IS A WOMAN".

Why don't we just stay away from rhetorics and start with treating people the way you would like to be treated. You shouldn't fear anyone treating you badly unless you've done something wrong, or unless you're messing with some abnormal individual.

ThiefOfHearts:

Lol even without court alot leave their children behind, talkless of blaming it on the court system. I beg ignore Donzie, jare.

I'm bored with this thread, we keep saying the same thing over and over while others rather just sit and believe the wrong definition of the word no matter how many times people who actually KNOW what they are talking about say anything to the contray. In other words trying to educate some people is just a lost cause.

Better things can be done with such time. Wanna believe they are all just "man hating" lesbians, than that's your problem. Who are we to stop you from bathing in such ignorance.

*yawns all over this thread*

I hear you. I'm not surprised that some people will try to defend the way things are, since they benefit from it. And while I still don't think nairaland is a good place for this discussion,  it seems some of the ladies have done a great job of stating their cases, so, who knows, you might have someone who's interest in the subject will be sparked and might go and do more research to learn more about the issue of feminism/womanism and female oppression.

Donzman:

That's a lie you want to tell themselves, most of these men will want to have their kids but they know it's often futile going through the court system.

I agree with j-girl on this. I highly doubt "most" men want the responsibility of taking care of the kids. You still have a lot of men abandoning fatherly responsibilities when they can and women fighting for child support, etc,  While you are right to question the court's decisions, many times certain factors are taken into account before custody rights are granted, which includes the parent that plays the major role in taking care of the kids when the couples were together. If the mother was the one doing most of the care-taking, and is deemed capable of providing for the kids, responsible, etc,  it would make sense that when the couple divorces that custody would go to her.
I believe If more men took child care seriously and as their responsibility--instead of leaving it to women--society (and the courts) in general would be forced to look at custody battles differently.

LadyT:

I don't think there is a balance in feminism tho. They reject the female image completely. I think a woman should still be allowed to embrace her sexuality and still be strong. Women should be seen for their potential and intelligence. But just because a female choses to dress in a feminine or so called stereotypical manner doesn't mean she doesn't want to be respected.

YEs, extremists should be frowned upon. In your example, though, I don't consider it as extreme. If you talk to a handful of professors at your university who are aware of the cultural aspect of places like America, the more "feminine" you look, the less seriously people take you in certain fields, i.e the corporate world. Speaking from personal experience, a lot of people going through grad school learn that early on. Is it right? no. But Ultimately the farther up you want to go in this contry, the more you find yourself steadily battling all the stereotypical ideas society puts in your head. The corporate world does not respect the type of behavior society encourages in females. They respect the go-gether, the ruthless, aggressive, moraless, hard individual. This is typically/steroetypically what men are suppose to be and not women. SO I think that's what those individuals are pointing at when they say things like that. Yes, people should be respected no matter how they dress (or act-feminine vs. masculine stereotypes). I'm a strong advocate of this, but you don't always get that option in a patriarchial society.

@ Terracota, yes, bell hooks and patricia hill collins are good on black female perspective on oppression of women.

@ toshman, it's alright. Thanks for clarifying.

@ toshman not really sure if you're addressing me or the original poster? I know u mentioned capitalism, but your last paragraph left me sorta confused. Regarding your point on capitalism: No, capitalism is not the only system that fosters oppression of a group of people or women, but it's one I feel more strongly against having lived where it is practiced. Nor do I think culture and the type of economic system (so to speak) practiced in a/many country are mutually exclusive or play little role in affecting each other.

michelin89:

I am soon going to have an oral test in English and I have decided to choose Feminism as my subject matter. I'd like you all to please share your views with me in order to later use them as documents for my research! Your cooperation will be highly appreciated!

This is the question: Do you believe in this women emancipation?

Please vote and write down your answer. This will be useful to me to stipulate a percentage of the women and men who voted against or pro!

Thank you in advance!

I doubt this is really the place for any analytical or indepth knowledge of such movement, you'll generally just get typical anti-feminism rhetorics, but anyways,
I would lean more towards womanism than I do feminism. Feminism generally focuses on the oppression of white women and have historically neglected those of women of color and womanism generally recognizes the different types and forms of oppression on different groups of women, including non-white women all over the world. I am against capitalism, but I don't have time to write a long essay on it, however, I think in your research you might look into how capitalism fosters/encourages oppression of women and people of color.

I don't think homosexuality should be compared to racism/racial issues either. Both forms of oppression are different and should be tackled differently. Having said that, I do not look down or disrespect anyone based on their sexual preferences. I don't have kids, but if or when I do, they will be taught to respect every people and gays, lesbians, etc, are people just like them and should not be judged. They will be thought to think for themselves and not blindly follow what society tells them to and to treat people the way they would like to be treated.

I know people who have done it and I am surprised at the level of sexists drivel that we as Africans still perpetuate. If a man wants to give up his name for his wife, that's his business. It's not necessarily about love but respect and equality, something that seems to be missing when our society talk about women. We seem to enjoy perpetuating the one-sided inequalities that plaque women in our society. No one person's name is more important than the other and any man comfortable enough in his own skin to defy the laws society has constructed will get their share of respect from me. So no, if women can give up their name, there's nothing wrong with men giving up their name too, so long as both partners have these same progressive mentality and they're not at opposite ends on the issue.

You can definitely date someone you can't/don't want to marry. Just because you're dating someone doesn't mean you have to marry them. Dating exposes you to different experiences, a lot is about learning about yourself and finding out things about the opposite sex, things you might (not) want in a future partner or spouse, and characteristics you look for in a future partner (things that are within reason, anyways), interest in certain activities that you might not have been exposed to, and it's a good way to make your mistakes (and hopefully learn from it) until you decide to settle down, (if you decide to get married later on). I think it's always best that both people involved are on the same page, though, if you know for a fact that it's just a temporary fling.
Communication is important so you don't complicate things with emotion or hurt other people who might be looking for something more like a long-term commitment out of the relationship.

oy, this thread moves fast.

Radiant:

I'm not afraid of divorce!

What's "imo"? Don't get it.

That's good. I was making reference to the "how many marriages would be left on earth, ?" question you posted and stating that divorce is not a bad choice when you're unhappy. Even if there are only five married people left on earth, it shouldn't mean people should be suffering and smiling (for those who are unable to move past the issue).

Like good guy said, imo is short for 'in my opinion'.

Radiant wrote:

Trust is built! It's not like falling in love. Trust is built as events occur and as sound communication exists.

I really wonder how many marriages would've been left on earth if people were to walk out at the hit of a breaking news on cheating.

I don't advice anyone to leave instantly. It's almost bound to happen but you can still work things out. It's advisable to remain single instead if u can't stand a first news. I mean, you get married today and your spouse cheats on u 6 months down the line. You pregnant already, what d'u do? You just walk out? Hmmm! As much as I hate a man to cheat on me, I still find it strange to leave just like that. It all depends on how and why the whole thing happened.You can always work things out if the man isn't taking you for granted anyway.

BTW, is it forbidden for couples to use condom? As for STDs and co, why would a man/woman have sex with another without a condom?

Hello there.
I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but since it came after I posted, I felt I should comment. No one should have to stay in an unhappy union because they're afraid of divorce. I knew a handful of those situations in Naija and it's nothing to write home about. And I have never said everyone should leave because what's tolerable to one person is not to another, and frankly, it's not my business how others want to handle that situation. Again, if you prefer to stay, that's good for you.
I don't have a negative perception of divorce, so people divorcing left and right is not a problem I’m worried about. I’ll prefer that people divorce and look for someone else to build a relationship with or just remain single, (whichever they prefer), than staying in a marriage that’s either physically, emotionally, or spiritually draining all because they’re afraid of divorce.
The bigger problem, imo, is how we define marriage and the basis on which people go into relationships. “Falling in love” with someone you barely know is a silly reason to get married, “because he makes a lot of money” is a silly reason to get married, “because she’s very pretty/he’s good looking” is a silly reason to get married, “because we both like ______ “ is a silly reason to get married, “because I have to get married” is a silly reason to get married…and so on and so forth. I feel these are bigger issues that have contributed significantly to why people divorce. And I think that requires more attention than simply worrying about increase in divorce. Regarding the point on STDs, I think when people get married they generally feel/assume they can trust their partner enough not to worry about using protection which ties into the issue of trust TOH and I touched on earlier.
I don’t think monogamy should be a requirement. If you don’t want to be monogamous, then that’s fine, just mingle with people who share your views so everyone involved are aware of what they’re getting into. I have respect for couples who decide to be swingers because they’re communicating about their wants and deciding on the responsible path for them. And when you’re not having to run around behind your partner’s back, you’re more likely to practice safer sex, imo.

ThiefofHearts wrote:

Totally agree. Thing is I tend to admire those who are able to give the person, him/her their COMPLETE trust all over again despite that all, of course this is if they believe the person they are with will completely change because sometimes people take forgiveness as a weakness. Like it's a "well that was easy guess I can do it again" card.

I hear you. I think if you can find it within yourself to look past it and make peace with the situation, then good for you. But I don't necessarily have any general admiration for people who do it, partly because in many cases, I find that people usually stay in the situation when they lack a healthy amount of self esteem, (and sometimes for economic reasons or fear of the social stigmas people attach to divorce, especially for those living in Nigeria).
There are people who stay in a relationship after their partner cheats on them (and in unhappy marriages in general) because they're afraid of being alone and feel that they have to be in a relationship even if they're unhappy. I don't admire having such low self-esteem of yourself, not to mention that--if children are involved--they'll likely pick up on this and it'll likely affect their view of marriage as they grow up. (Although, I'm not saying this is the case for everyone who does it). But again, different strokes for different folks.

If a person knows they can't give their complete trust to the person again then they really shouldnt stay because that's just a waste of time for both people. There's no point if you're going to continue to have doubts about the person, become a paranoid stalker, continously using what happened in the past against them? It's bullshit. Might as well leave.
But if the person is sure that they can give their complete all again, then go ahead and have a try just pray that the person doesnt use the forgiveness as a sign that you would let him/her do anything.

right.

I agree with the Original Poster. No one should have to endure cheating from anyone, men or women, so yes, it's grounds for divorce, imo. Personally, it's hard to trust someone again once they've broken your trust. It'll be hard with kids involved, but trying to stay in that marriage will just be a waste of time and ridiculous, like trying to eat pounded yam without the stew,  cause I just can't respect that person again, or have the same amount of trust for them. and that's important to marriage.
The sad thing is many times people I notice who have these problems do go into relationships with false or preconceived notions, like someone pointed out. You can't change people, people change when they decide to do so, not because of a ring on their finger. Marraige won't fix whatever problems/habits people had before they went into marriage, not unless that person makes a conscious effort to change. So If you're not on the same page about your expectations before getting married, then you're prolly going to have some problems in the future.  I also think many people, especially females see Marriage as some fairy tale. People should go into it with realistic expectations.
I think if both individuals are committed and determined to make the marriage work, they'll do so. Meaning if there are problems, you both make an effort to work it out and COMMUNICATE, instead of going out or running around etc, and if it's aproblem that can't be fixed, then it's time people go their separate ways, but at least with some dignity and respect and not bitterness and anger  (or STD, STI,) and people feeling like all their time, energy, and resources put into the relationship has gone to waste, 
Yes temptation is a mutha, and it doesn't help that everywhere we go everything is SEX! SEX! SEX! (speaking of the west, particularly) but I think ultimately when you have something worth more than that in your marriage, you'll think twice before you risk losing it over a fling.
Marriage is not for everyone and if monogamy is not your cup of tea,  then don't get into marraige with someone who believes in monogamy and expects you both to keep to that dogma, cause it's deceitful and unfair. Na my 2 cents be that.

INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES;  Good or Bad

Girl, can we have another option? How about Goad? or baog? (a little good, a little bad.?) lol
But serisously,
I think there's many things that marriage entails and I'd feel frivolous basing a decision solely on color. If someone meets my requirement of what I want in a partner (marriage-wise), it wouldn't be wise to turn them away on the basis of color, imo: "You're everything I've ever wanted, baby, but you're white."  lol,   A good man is a good man. As long as both people are mentally mature, have mutual respect and understanding, in the relationship for right reasons, (and mentally prepared to deal with some of the ish that might get thrown their way), et cetera, et cetera, then happy marriaging,

frankiriri:

No matter how professional a woman is its still her duty to take care of the cooking.
If she is assisted by her husband okay but it is a priviledge and not a right .

hmnnn, I have been away from this board for a while, so i'm just now seeing this. There's nothing that says it is a woman's "duty" to do anything except society. Men and women have been raised and conditioned to these stereotypes and ideas and anyone who wants to keep it that way is free to do so, if that's what works for them. So, my brother, if that works for you and your wife, good for you.  But my husband and i will have an understanding before we get married and he will know how to cook so we can properly share in the duties. I am his partner, not his mother and I am marrying a man not a boy.

@ Chinani
no problem.

chinani:

@Nia
Interesting article. Didn't know the Biafran Govt. ended de jure Osu caste system. . .
. . .But did anyone notice how antiSemitic the article was? . . .it also sounded anti-igbo & antiBlack. . .
. . . . . .I guess nothing says "equality" & "justice" like white Catholics come to civilize the niggers Africans *eye roll*

Chinani, you raised some interesting points.  I suspect the archbishop's intention was to sound more pro-religion/pro-christianity than anti-Igbo/anti-Jewish/anti-black and seemed to express the sentiment that support for this religion cannot co-exist with support for the others. I think what we should look at is why people seem to believe that religion, specifically Christianity (since most Igbos are Christians) is the solution to the problem. As long as this is the belief and we understand that colonialism/Europe brought this religion, then you will generally have people giving credit to that source and castigating what they perceive as the source of the problem/the opposite of the solution. The archbishop seemed to believe that through religion is the only way for people to do the right thing rather than pushing for direct change of the cultural practices. For example, although it is not as strongly expressed as the article I posted earlier, a similar mentality seemed to be present in the following write-up as well: 
Excerpt:

The overwhelming majority of Ndiigbo today are Christians, but they remain very Igbo in core cultural practices that are deeply rooted in our indigenous value system. Only a handful of Igbo Christians can muster the courage and audacity to flaunt age-old taboos that are obviously derived from authentic cultural beliefs, for example. Sustenance of the osu caste system is one of those practices that continue to defy Christian teachings, Western education and technological advancements of modernity, including urbanization. 

This last quote, however, seemed to leave some hope of shying away from the religious approach and seem to have things in better perspective.

Rather than continue to expect the passage of time to resolve the osu issue, Ndiigbo should now begin to seek for better understanding of this phenomenon with the hope of consciously deriving an acceptable and lasting solution to this sociocultural albatross of contemporary Igbo society.

Source: http://www.osondu.com/VolumeFour/osusystem.htm

I was trying to track down this article earlier. But I think these types of efforts coupled with better education of the public will lay a stronger foundation for change:

Community abolishes osu

Fidelis Soriwei, Owerri

The age-long osu caste system in most of the communities of the South-East has suffered its first major setback following a decision by leaders and the traditional ruler of Amano Okigwe Autonomous Community, Okigwe Local Government Area, Eze Bob Ezumah, to abolish the practice.


advertisement
According to a news item monitored on the Imo Broadcasting Corporation by our correspondent on Thursday, the leadership of the community agreed that, thenceforth, it would be an offence to discriminate against anybody on the basis of osu.

It was stated that the traditional ruler openly declared the eradication of the practice during a meeting of Okigwe Development Union and the people of the community.

The monarch reportedly said that the sensitive decision was taken after exhaustive consultations with members of his cabinet and the people of the community.

Ezumah noted that their ancestors described some innocent people as osu to be sacrificed alive to the gods, which should stop.

He was further quoted to have called for the abolition of the practice based on the prevalent conviction that there was no different between osu (outcast) and Diala (freeborn), stressing that the practice had become primitive, uncivilised pagan-oriented.

The Chairman of the Okigwe Development Union, Chief Onyenauchaya, who reportedly carried out the cultural rituals and other activities considered symbolic to the stoppage of the ancient practice, said that all the shrines and deities associated with the practice would be destroyed.

THE PUNCH, Friday April 28, 2006
Source: http://www.ghanaweb.net/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=103456&comment=1978842

sbucareer:


Don't call people ways of life ridiculous. It is not an act to be proud of, but every nation has got its good and bad ways of life. You have start to sound like Judge Busch. What would you do now? Shoot the whole Igbos for expressing their believes?

I know there are some rhetoric ways of life Yoruba, Hausa, Calabar, etc have that other people do not heavily accept, i.e. thinking that Nigeria is only there own (By Dominating the President office) and yet others stand and look with condemnation. It is as well destroying as osun is to human kind.

sbucareer, while I'm not trying to "JUDGE" you, your view comes across as odd. You say you think it's wrong, but you're still saying you have to join the chorus of "I will never marry an OSU". Because "that's just the way it is" is no reason to continue to let it be so. Many cultural practices change overtime, culture is not static, and if u truly believe that something is wrong, yet you refuse to stand up against it, it puts a little question mark on your character.
I find it interesting that you're saying that you have big plans to make changes in Nigeria. That's a great goal to have and I commend you for having such a plan. I also assume this plan is suppose to make Nigeria better and to make lives of Nigerians better. Naturally, shouldn't you be at the forefront of fighting the negative practices that affect the lives of your fellow Nigerians? Rather than avoiding it because "that's just the way it is?"



Some recent news on the caste system
(While I don't agree with every aspect of the article, it's nice to see people joining together to try to bring a change).

Owerri Catholic Archdiocese marks abolition of Osu caste

By  Chidi Nkwopara   
Thursday, May 11, 2006

OWERRI-The Catholic Archdiocese of Owerri, Wednesday, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the abolition of the controversial Osu Caste System in Igboland by the defunct Eastern Nigerian government.

Speaking to Vanguard on the phone, the Catholic Archbishop of Owerri Ecclesiastical Province, Dr. Anthony J.V. Obinna, said “May 10, 2006, marked the 50th anniversary of the legal abolition of the idolatrous discrimination among Ndigbo by the defunct Eastern Nigerian government”. It was his considered opinion that for many centuries Ndigbo, more than the Jews of old, walked in darkness, stumbling and mistaking shadows for light, hating, despising and killing one another at will or at instigation.


"This wretched situation left Ndigbo weakened and open to invasion and oppression by more shrewd and ruthless powers. It is on record that in the 400 year-long Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, more Ndigbo were captured and sold to the Americans than any other ethnic group in the whole of West Africa”, the Archbishop said.


Obinna reasoned that as the 50th anniversary was being marked, Ndigbo should give thanks to God for ensuring that Jesus Christ, the Great Light of Salvation, eventually entered into Igboland.” In the light of this Christian-inspired and humane law, every Igbo person has the same God-given freedom, equality and right as every other human being to marry whom he wishes, to acquire or inherit property, to earn and to gain employment, positions, titles and privileges available in the community, the society, the nation and the world at large”, the Archbishop said.


He said he was greatly amazed at “this very Christian, humane and progressive position of Eastern Nigerian parliamentarians as far back as 1956, when Christians were still relatively few in number”, adding that what those parliamentarians started in 1956 without mentioning Jesus in the document of abolition, “We modern Ndigbo, who so much use the name of Jesus, must now complete in spirit and in truth, lest those parliamentarians be our judges”




Source: http://www.odili.net/news/source/2006/may/11/315.html

Happy birthday mamaput. No need for food, abeg. Just provide proper palmwine make we wash am well.

@ mamaput and truthfully, you raised some very good points.
Nairaland/internet chat forums is not exactly the place for advice on personal issues like these.
@ the original poster. Only you and your boyfriend know each other and understand what kind of relationship you have and the type of person you both are. Everyone else can only speculate or speak from their personal experiences. But you have more information to make a decision.
For example, I don't think there's anything wrong with moving in with your boyfriend if you're both really serious about each other and have a fair level of maturity. My sister moved in with her boyfriend (who was actually younger than she was) and they've been married for some years. And their marriage is still going strong.
A relationship that's going to end or have problems will end and have problems regardless of whether or not you move in together, IMO. The determining factors are really the two individuals involved in the relationship.
Moving in with someone can be a really good time to get to know that person and if the relationship falls apart during that time because you get tired of each other, you're better off that way. Marriage is suppose to be a lifelong commitment, it doesn't stop people from getting tired of each other. If you or him can't handle getting tired of each other, then it's a good indication that you might not be ready for marriage, at least not to each other, IMO. There are couples who marry without moving in together and still have bad marriages.
However, I will advice against several things: Be able to differenciate between being a girlfriend and a wife. There are certain things you do as a girlfriend as opposed to what you do when you become a wife.
As a girlfriend, it isn't your job to cater to him, i.e. doing the cleaning, cooking, washing etc,  If or when you get married, you can make arrangement as to how those things will work depending on the arrangements you both agree on. But until there's a ring on your finger, everybody should be taking care of themselves, or at least equally sharing in the household duties. Also remember mamaput's advice to always have a backup plan. Not just another place to call home, but financially speaking, you should not start spending like you're married. When you get married, you share everything, but when you're a girlfriend, your money is yours. This is important because if you break up, you don't want to be left broke and without much money, not to mention the investments you've made into the relationship will be wasted. All in all, you should just try not to invest too much, especially if you're not sure that the relationship will definitely lead to marriage.