Vickybee:
Smh

All you do here is to give us achievements of white/western men that revere feminist.
To think that you all hate western men with their gay ideologies but will claim them now.

Are black/African men dull in invention? Mtcheew! Hypocrisy

babygirlfl:


In the early days, people had to work together just to provide the most basic needs like food. During this time, there was no extras or surplus.
As women naturally and biologically was the gender that got pregnant, they could not work as much as they usually would during this period. As such, it was agreed that women worked close to home while the men worked far. This arrangement stayed even after childbirth as women had to breastfeed the child.

At this time, women were not seen as inferior. The family line was even traced through the mum as there was no way to be certain who the father of a child was and fidelity was not the norm then.

Then came the era of tools and domesticating of animals which meant surplus food and meat was produced. Surplus brought about class as men began to amass wealth. This lead to women being seen as inferior as it was the work of men that had surplus and made profit. Surplus also meant there was something to be inherited and someone has to inherit it. Men now had greater status which meant families are now traced through the man. To make sure the child who inherited their surplus was their biological child, female fidelity was created.

njokusboy:


Bwahahahahaha
Nd when the era of tools and animal domestication came, women could not make tools and domesticate animals?
Why?
One needs to stay at home in order to domesticate animals innit? except the animals were domesticated far from home which makes no sense, this is clearly an advantage for the women since they stayed at home more and the men worked far from home, according to you No be so

So how come men had the surpluses even though women were in a better position to get them

FrancisTony:
Women are unhappy? It seems some people love instigating wars on this section.

Gender equality or inequality is unexistence except maybe in Arab countries. Feminism should concentrate in fighting how misogynists view them socially and politically, and change the views of women towards success and other things.

What matters is individualism.
Some men are above women.
Some women are above men.
No gender is inferior to other, rather, it's an individualism inferiority on both genders.

Using Einstein, Newton achievements to argue is a fallacy because it solely belongs to him not all men. Argue with yours.

Vickybee:
Smh

All you do here is to give us achievements of white/western men that revere feminist.
To think that you all hate western men with their gay ideologies but will claim them now.

Are black/African men dull in invention? Mtcheew! Hypocrisy

craziebone:


will you also tell the feminists in here to stop using marie curie's achievements too?

When women put all men together as a group, why won't we take the achievement of Einstein and Newton as ours? Afterall, they also don't only claim the achievement of real women, they also claim the power of the mythical Lilith and women of the Amazons.

We men also have to fight against how feminism sees us which is becoming engrained in men's mentality.

Feminism told men it is ok to sit down and let his wife feed him. Some men took that in and guess the result? These men became what even the feminists won't even want to date. These men became what the society and feminists will point to as evidence of failure of the male gender. We are also seen as the enemy, the rapist, the one whomust be contained at all cost.

craziebone:
then there could be a reversal on you gains over the past 50 years. If we also allow you to continue in your tyranical way, that could also reverse the gains of 1st wave feminists.

Ngokafor:



...Nnem cool down,i am on your sideoo...just read my post again..

craziebone:


don't mind these people. The victim mentality is not only an evidence of an unfortunate pathology on their own part, but also an example silly excuse! For them, it always has to do with the other person.

Since most feminists are arrongant towards religion and religious stories of the creation, may be they can answer this question: if men and women started off with the same psychological wiring such that what interests us and makes us feel fulfiled are one and exactly the same, then at what point did the difference come in? What were the factors that led to it? How was it that women were 'held down' by almost all cultures all through history? How did the man force her into that position of 'oppression'?

I really want answers from the smartest feminist in here.

craziebone:


you getting very desperate here.

First of all, i did not and have not said or insinuated in a way, form or measure that women should be kept out of school. I strongly believe in the education for all. Infact, my not seeing education as primarily a means to getting a job but that which we need to relate with our environment better is the reason why anyone, not even you stillfire, can acuse me of believing that women should be kept out of school or any kind of course she wants to study. Mean while, it is simple to acuse you, stillfire, of believing that some kind of people should be kept out of school or some kind of courses because you see education as primarily that which should give you a job.

Infact, approaches like yours is the reason why most people who study stems, are not improving it in anyway. Organizing a dicipline into a career may have all of its advantages, but there is one big mistake we are making when we organize diciplines into professions and career, especially the stem courses. We give it a boundry! And by so doing, we restrict the involvement of those who actually studied the stems in school but did not pass very well (because, of course, these people begin to believe you have to be a 'guru' in class and come out with a first class in order to improve development in that area). You also reduce the involvement of those who did not study the stems in school from participating in the stems. But the truth is that, you don't have to have studied physics in school in order to be able to improve physics in any way through revolutionary theories and scientific laws.

What do you think? That the pioneers of physics called themselves physists? They were just people who were curious about nature.

And pls, it is in your interest to speak to me in a civil manner, or else, i will go all out against you.

craziebone:

you getting very desperate here.
First of all, i did not and have not said or insinuated in a way, form or measure that women should be kept out of school. I strongly believe in the education for all. Infact, my not seeing education as primarily a means to getting a job but that which we need to relate with our environment better is the reason why anyone, not even you stillfire, can acuse me of believing that women should be kept out of school or any kind of course she wants to study. Mean while, it is simple to acuse you, stillfire, of believing that some kind of people should be kept out of school or some kind of courses because you see education as primarily that which should give you a job.
Infact, approaches like yours is the reason why most people who study stems, are not improving it in anyway. Organizing a dicipline into a career may have all of its advantages, but there is one big mistake we are making when we organize diciplines into professions and career, especially the stem courses. We give it a boundry! And by so doing, we restrict the involvement of those who actually studied the stems in school but did not pass very well (because, of course, these people begin to believe you have to be a 'guru' in class and come out with a first class in order to improve development in that area). You also reduce the involvement of those who did not study the stems in school from participating in the stems. But the truth is that, you don't have to have studied physics in school in order to be able to improve physics in any way through revolutionary theories and scientific laws.
What do you think? That the pioneers of physics called themselves physists? They were just people who were curious about nature.
And pls, it is in your interest to speak to me in a civil manner, or else, i will go all out against you.

the truth is that, you don't have to have studied physics in school in order to be able to improve physics in any way through revolutionary theories and scientific laws

Ok. Lets leave Einstein's time and go way back to ancient Athens.

Under the athenian education, equal opportunity was given to both the boy and girl child. At that time, power was not in stems but law, oratory, philosophy etc. Despite the equal opportunity given to both boys and girls, the like of aristotle, plato etc are the ones who would come to mind when you mention greece. Where are the ladies in those societies?

Most times, people are more concerned about getting women into the STEM courses, but refuse to see that there are other departments that women are still under represented and women who have studied it have not gone on ahead to distinguish themselves. The department of philosophy is one of such. Most people go without suspecting that women have not distinguished themselves in philosophy. But everyone is concerned about the STEMs. This confirms that feminism isn't about all round equality but elitism.

craziebone:


don't mind these people. The victim mentality is not only an evidence of an unfortunate pathology on their own part, but also an example silly excuse! For them, it always has to do with the other person.

Since most feminists are arrogant towards religion and religious stories of the creation, may be they can answer this question: if men and women started off with the same psychological wiring such that what interests us and makes us feel fulfilled are one and exactly the same, then at what point did the difference come in? What were the factors that led to it? How was it that women were 'held down' by almost all cultures all through history? How did the man force her into that position of 'oppression'?

I really want answers from the smartest feminist in here.

craziebone:


hmm, i see you are getting desperate now. I think you should quit with the head-start argument.

In ancient Athens, equal priority was given to both men and women education. Infact, the modern education equality that has been codified in western education of today is simply a copy-cat from the Athenian education. But in Greece or Athens, the men still went on ahead to dominate intellectualism. When you think Greece, the like of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras etc are the ones that come to mind. This is despite the fact that the girl child education was given equal attention by their society.

At the begining of formal education in Europe (when i say Europe, i mean we should excluded the romans and the greeks), access to education was more classist rather than sexist. Rich women got access to education more than the ordinary man got! And that means they were more educated than the average man.

No, i do not believe that there are courses women should not take up. I have always being in favour of "let everyone do what they want to do". What i am against is the forcing of women into courses they just do not find fulfiling, on the average and you take slots from men and giving them to women simply because they are women. Although that doesn't happen here in Nigeria, but it does happen around the world. I am also against the shaming of other women who just do not want the so-called empowerment the feminist folk want to shove down their throat. And by empowerment, i mean taking up 'positions of power' when the woman actually wants something else.

[b]I think feminism should be about giving women a choice and that means, if she wants to be a SAHM (stay at home mom), so be it! But feminists go about shaming such women and telling them that it was better they did not waste tax payer money in the first place by getting an education in the first place. They say this as if education is first of all about getting a job rather than a better relationship with nature. Thr likes of you, Bukatyne and stillfire are the ones who get angry at women who go to school and refuse to take up a career. Again, that's a shallow way to look at education; that it is for getting a job.

Lastly, men have always had the choice to pick a woman who suits them for a wife. But the problem is...when most men refuse to pick a woman with a strong drive for work and career, they are termed weak, insecure and intimidated by a strong, independent and successful woman. People who shame men this way deny that a man can have an option. And as a result, we see men, who ordinarily wouldn't go for a 'successful' woman due to the simple and innocent fact that they are just not compatible, go for such women and the end result is a pathetic marriage.

The bottom line is, stop shaming men who do not want a 'successful' woman. It may not be that he is intimidated, but that he just wants a particular kind of home.[/b]

Vickybee:
If we can have christians that are still non-virgin or having boyfriend and girlfriend when bible says otherwise, I don't see a reason why there won't be a christian feminist.

Mtcheew

5minsmadness:

I wash plates even when my girl is around. What's wrong with that?

Vickybee:
If we can have christians that are still non-virgin or having boyfriend and girlfriend when bible says otherwise, I don't see a reason why there won't be a christian feminist.

Mtcheew

Stillfire:


Wow wow wow, all of a sudden all the men on this thread are 'homely'. Saving this thread for future use! Hahaha

Where's Coogar jare, Coogar are you going to be in the kitchen while your unpregnant wife relaxes in the room and your mum visits?

crackhaus:
Regarding the topic, I can't say whether or not the modern woman is sad ... it's not something that I wish to dwell on because the derivatives for happiness and/or sadness cuts across time and is independent of it.

TooNoisy:
[size=14pt]NIGERIA CELEBRATES THE EMERGENCE OF THE FIRST FEMALE GOVERNOR.

SHE IS MARRIED, RELIGIOUS AND SHE IS NOT A FEMINIST![/size]

crackhaus:
Regarding the topic, I can't say whether or not the modern woman is sad... it's not something that I wish to dwell on because the derivatives for happiness and/or sadness cuts across time and is independent of it.

However, if feminism is what the modern feminist feels she needs to be happy and content in a male-dominated world...then they really have some serious rethinking to do.

Feminism in it's glory days aimed to put males and females on the same pedestal, modern feminism (partly third-wave) actually has an elitist leaning.
It aims not only to put males and females on the same social, economic, and professional pedestal...it also wants to place women above and beyond the same so-called 'patriarchal society' that allowed them a voice in the first place... This is the problem.

ifyan:


My bro that is were FEMINIST got it wrong. By fighting what they say is EQUAL RIGHT for WOMEN.

Take a GOOD look at SUCCESSFUL women around the WORLD. You will notice that men are around her.

2. If her HUSBAND is alive. She close to him.

3. She is not a FEMINIST like what we hear everywhere.

4. She acknowledge World beauty.

5. She RESPECTFUL to MEN.

I can go on and on .
.
I laugh at those calling themselves FEMINIST

THINGS THAT ARE COMMON AMONG FEMINIST

1. FRUSTRATION

2. DECEITFUL MOVEMENT

3. JEALOUSY

4. ALWAYS BLAME THE MALE FOLKS ON THEIR DOWNFALL

5. UNHAPPY

6. DIP IN THEIR MIND THEY WISH TO BE MALE

7. ANGER.

8. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT COMES TO PLAY IN THEIR LIVES.

9. GROW HATRED TOWARD MALE FOLKS

10. LESBIANISM START TO DEVELOP

11. YOU KNOW.....

coogar:


i can categorically tell you the modern woman is extremely sad. 1 in 3 women take anti-depressants in the US. the study also found that women are two and a half times more likely to take antidepressant medication as males,

23% of women ages 40 to 59 take antidepressants, more than in any other age or sex group. in a nutshell, you cannot be happy and yet consume such amount of pills. the use of anti-depressants has gone up to a whopping 400% in the last 2 decades.

mr crackhaus, i hope i have been able to convince you that the modern woman is extremely sad.

TooNoisy:


I'm a chic.

But I will add poverty and joblessness to your list.

crackhaus:

ifyan:


THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T SOLVE.

UNLESS THEY CAN REVERSE THE WORLD.

FAIL MOVEMENT..........