Sagamite:


Feminism don scatter him head.

[s]I need to call UK Home Office to tell them I am cancelling my sponsorship of her right to stay.

Make we send am back go Africa and learn to be a woman.[/s]



For Sagamu, na only first son they inherit everything.

You break my heart.

I am not a feminist. How can I be when I rely on you to get my bend-down market going plus my 2K salon runz money for my hair and Dada Osun soap?

Re: the struck out sentences...

Na lie. You won't sleep easy at night if you do am. You nor fit. (Now how d'you say that in Yoruba..."you nor fit"?)

EfemenaXY:


Arrgghhh! Stop messing with my head. You'll only succeed in confusing me!

What I meant with my question was, if marriage is merely a registered mating association, then why register it in the first place, seeing as a lot of unregistered mating goes on anyway?

Many societies value marriage for some of the reasons and give it a special status I listed:

- For tax reasons.

- For religious dogma.

- For transfer of assets and estates after death.

- To encourage controlled population growth by having people give birth to a generation that can support the future OAPs.

- To raise kids in a stable environment to reduce public disorder.

They don't value people like me impregnating a new girl every month and running when she tells me she is pregnant.

EfemenaXY:

It's only "easier" for the government to sort out if the married spouse didn't leave a will before their demise. You do have cases where a married person may decide for reasons best known to them to live a will instructing that all of his or her assets be given to non-family members or even to their local dogs / cats home. This is where you then have the miffed, by-passed family member(s) contesting the will at court.

That aside, even those who made their millions without getting married still have their estate shared out to family members in the absence of a will. And if no family member is identified, it eventually goes back to the Treasury. (Have you ever watched the program Heir Hunters? Quite insightful...)

EXACTLY!

To family members, not to unmarried partners. Hence why they find it useful for people to marry.

EfemenaXY:

At one point, Britain had the highest number of teenage pregnancies in the whole of Europe. Advocating for marriage certainly didn't limit those rabbit-like conceptions. I do agree with you point about bringing up a child in a two parent environment could be for a child on condition that that child is loved by both parents. But this again is too generalistic. The modern family is not always shaped by your pre 60's model of mum and dad, Peter and Jane ladybird-like stories...

Britain has not advocated marriage hence why the limiting has not existed.

Advocating marriage is a cultural thing. In Britain, marriage is linked to religion and religion is being widely and vastly rejected. Actually not only rejected, it has gone to a stage of being suppressed.

All these Tory advocating marriage is all talk, no action rubbish. Woe betide the politician that would promote and support morals and tradition in this country being run by 'funky liberal progressives' fundamentalist Nazis. They would destroy him and his party as "Out of touch".

I was watching the guy that took over from Jeremy Paxman, Evan Davis, being interviewed on the BBC today. He insinuated what I have been saying for months now: That the UK press is destroying democracy with their irresponsible, sensation-seeking, attack journalism.

The press is suppose to be there to get information for the people and question real, uninformed weaknesses and incompetence in governance, not look for headlines and bias attack.

He said that when you talk to politicians informally off camera that they do have a lot of meaningful and opinionated things to say. But when you get them in front of cameras, they avoid questions and limit what they say to avoid any journalist leeching on one inconclusive statement to create an "outrage" headline.

I have always said it, I have impeccable intellectual prescience and clairvoyance. What I normally talk about today, the mass media picks up years later.

Sagamite:

I have always said it, I have impeccable intellectual prescience and clairvoyance. What I normally talk about today, the mass media picks up years later.

ROTFLMAO. I havenever seen someone so full of himself ever

jennykadry:


ROTFLMAO. I havenever seen someone so full of himself ever

Don't mind him jare.

Sagamite:


Britain has not advocated marriage hence why the limiting has not existed.
Advocating marriage is a cultural thing. In Britain, marriage is linked to religion and religion is being widely and vastly rejected. Actually not only rejected, it has gone to a stage of being suppressed.
All these Tory advocating marriage is all talk, no action rubbish. Woe betide the politician that would promote and support morals and tradition in this country being run by 'funky liberal progressives' fundamentalist Nazis. They would destroy him and his party as "Out of touch".
I was watching the guy that took over from Jeremy Paxman, Evan Davis, being interviewed on the BBC today. He insinuated what I have been saying for months now: That the UK press is destroying democracy with their irresponsible, sensation-seeking, attack journalism.
The press is suppose to be there to get information for the people and question real, uninformed weaknesses and incompetence in governance, not look for headlines and bias attack.
He said that when you talk to politicians informally off camera that they do have a lot of meaningful and opinionated things to say. But when you get them in front of cameras, they avoid questions and limit what they say to avoid any journalist leeching on one inconclusive statement to create an "outrage" headline.
I have always said it, I have impeccable intellectual prescience and clairvoyance. What I normally talk about today, the mass media picks up years later.

Interesting stuff.

Would have loved to watch that too. Okay, I hear you

Please has the woman collected her millions yet
See my fellow woman o,swimming in pounds sterling

£337 million
Ja Jehovah!

This is why men in the west need to stop getting married because women are more of a liability and add very little value to their life.
On the flip side, news like this is speedingly helping to end marriage like polio have been eradicated in the west.

N92 billion pay day!

Can somebody say cha ching!!!

2good:
This is why men in the west need to stop getting married because women are more of a liability and add very little value to their life.
On the flip side, news like this is speedingly helping to end marriage like polio have been eradicated in the west.

On the contrary, you can get married but ensure you get a pre-nup. I wonder why people dismiss this absolute necessity, personally it's either my way (pre-nup) or the highway.

miredia:
On the contrary, you can get married but ensure you get a pre-nup. I wonder why people dismiss this absolute necessity, personally it's either my way (pre-nup) or the highway.

The problem is that prenup is getting useless these days based on the most flimsy excuse presented by a woman in court. The judge can choose to completely nullify your prenup and there is nothing you can do about it so why expose yourself to a legal theft by your so called ex wife and the government?

ileobatojo:
N92 billion pay day!

Can somebody say cha ching!!!

Lol!

Cha Ching!!

EfemenaXY:


Lol!

Cha Ching!!

Tenks sista!

We gats to recognize!

Loooool!

2good:


The problem is that prenup is getting useless these days based on the most flimsy excuse presented by a woman in court. The judge can choose to completely nullify your prenup and there is nothing you can do about it so why expose yourself to a legal theft by your so called ex wife and the government?

That's a new one. You mean to say a court will disregard a pre-nup signed by both parties recognized initially by the court itself. Educate me more..

And this is where I say the UK is a sexist nation.

Here is a woman who is more wealthy than her husband:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857328/17m-ruling-investors-ex-wife.html

The courts of the "civilised" country did not say she should pay him half of the millions made in the union where "he gave her advice and also gave her sex, drove her around, help look after her kids from her first marriage, went on holiday with her etc".

Instead, he was told to pay HER £17m divorce settlement (part of it being a £13.5m loan she made to him).

This is EXACTLY the same woman who was awarded £40m as divorce settlement from her first husband, i.e. the source of her wealth which made her wealthier than her second husband.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jun/30/highstreetretailers

Sagamite:
And this is where I say the UK is a sexist nation.
Here is a woman who is more wealthy than her husband:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857328/17m-ruling-investors-ex-wife.html
The courts of the "civilised" country did not say she should pay him half of the millions made in the union where "he gave her advice and also gave her sex, drove her around, help look after her kids from her first marriage, went on holiday with her etc".
Instead, he was told to pay HER £17m divorce settlement (part of it being a £13.5m loan she made to him).
This is EXACTLY the same woman who was awarded £40m as divorce settlement from her first husband, i.e. the source of her wealth which made her wealthier than her second husband.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jun/30/highstreetretailers

Lol!

So the shameless man was looking for a free ride off the back of another man (her ex), via his ex (estranged wife)?

Let him cough up the £17 million divorce settlement money.

EfemenaXY:


This your line of argument is just wack!

So marriage isn't a union but a business decision with subjective views on what's fair and what isn't? And the point you make about people defining what it should mean to them - yes, I get that - but some form of univerality (if that's a word sef) is needed na, don't you think? Of all the billions of people walking on the surface of the earth, if say, 1 billion of them do get married, how sustainable would it be to have 1 billion definitions of what their union marriage is?

I don't see how saying marriage is a union between the involved parties is pushing one's dogma on others.

As I said, you can define your own marriage anyhow you wish. Marriage is just a registration of a relationship between two adults.

If you like, call yours a union or Union Bank. If you like ignore the financial implications. But don't say "that is what marriage is" and then think everyone has to accept it. Define YOUR OWN marriage.

Universality needed? No, I don't think so.

Why do you think their should be universality?

Just like you would tell us that we need some universality on what God is, how many Gods are there, which Gods to worship, how to worship this/these Gods?

How is each couple defining how they want their marriage to each other be unsustainable?

And how is such approach less sustainable than the approach of a third party like you defining it for them and want to force them to accept?

EfemenaXY:


You break my heart.

I am not a feminist. How can I be when I rely on you to get my bend-down market going plus my 2K salon runz money for my hair and Dada Osun soap?

Re: the struck out sentences...

Na lie. You won't sleep easy at night if you do am. You nor fit. (Now how d'you say that in Yoruba..."you nor fit"?)

No, I don't think you are a feminist at all.

Feminists hate men and look for ways to attack/suppress/subdue/discriminate on men with their illogicality while using the legal system. EnlightenedSoul is a feminist, you are not.

What you and babyosisi are and are exhibiting is that you are a typical woman.

A typical woman wants all the rights, benefits, privileges, security or pleasure but she does not want any of the responsibilities, work, obligations, risks or pain. Those, in an average woman's view, should be passed to men.

A feminist would think all those are a fundamental right of women and any man that argues against that is a misogynist that makes her blood boil with rage and the law should do something to force the man to accept it.

EfemenaXY:

Lol!
So the shameless man was looking for a free ride off the back of another man (her ex), via his ex (estranged wife)?
Let him cough up the £17 million divorce settlement money.

But it is not a shameless woman that wants a free ride off the back of a man's sweat?

Typical woman!

jennykadry:


ROTFLMAO. I havenever seen someone so full of himself ever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9zk448H69U

2good:
This is why men in the west need to stop getting married because women are more of a liability and add very little value to their life.
On the flip side, news like this is speedingly helping to end marriage like polio have been eradicated in the west.

Marriage has a negative net benefit to the average man in the West.

I, Sagamite, of the Kingdom of Human Gods called Sagamu, have officially originated and developed that quote.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXW0Z0oMvQ

2good:


The problem is that prenup is getting useless these days based on the most flimsy excuse presented by a woman in court. The judge can choose to completely nullify your prenup and there is nothing you can do about it so why expose yourself to a legal theft by your so called ex wife and the government?

Well said!

The West is a gynocracy state that only creates laws for the maximum benefit of women.

miredia:
That's a new one. You mean to say a court will disregard a pre-nup signed by both parties recognized initially by the court itself. Educate me more..

If she finds some lame excuse such as:

- I did not really understand it because I am a "poor, defenceless, naive woooooooooooman".

- It is unfair now considering how I gave birth to his kids and raised them singlehandedly while he was never at home.

- He was violent and emotionally abusive (but I have no proof) so I it is justice to make him pay financially.

- He promised me once during the marriage that he would review it because I am his world.

- He was unfaithful so the law needs to punish him.

- I gave him a lot of pillow talk advice and organised dinner parties for his networks that is worth more than the prenup offer and was included prior because of lack of prescience.

- Etc

There are judges susceptible to falling for it because the people and the press would not scream "OUTRAGE" at such arbitrary rubbish and injustice, so the judge would feel comfortable! If they are not screaming, your voice and screams are insignificant. You are on your own.

Just know that as a man in the West, the law is created and maintained to be against you and not on your side. The implementation of it is likely to also be against you. The same way a woman would be treated under the same circumstances is not the way you would be if in the same circumstances. The law is only set-up to take prenup into consideration in most geographies, not to see it as a binding contract.

Also, as a man you are on your own.

You are on your own because Western men are PUSSSSIES who like to be called "real man", so they would not stand up to join you or protect themselves against being discriminated against.

You are on your own because Western journalists are funky liberal progressive wannabees who are only interested in defending the rights of whoever falls in a group that is historically weaker than, and less violent on, the group of the second party e.g. women, blacks, homosexuals, disabled, poor, citizen (vs government), atheist (not muslims because their group is violent) etc. They are not interested in the truth, fairness or logic.

Get married in the West and put your life at the mercy of the whims of a woman.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlvuatQH12E

miredia:
On the contrary, you can get married but ensure you get a pre-nup. I wonder why people dismiss this absolute necessity, personally it's either my way (pre-nup) or the highway.

prenup if you are rich or what? So you will be like, in the likelihood of a divorce, you have the table and the spoons? Df! Don't waste people's time joor.

Sagamite:


No, I don't think you are a feminist at all.

[s]Feminists hate men and look for ways to attack/suppress/subdue/discriminate on men with their illogicality while using the legal system.[/s] EnlightenedSoul is a feminist, you are not.

That I am. And?

Sagamite:

Well said!
The West is a gynocracy state that only creates laws for the maximum benefit of women.

Lol @ gynocracy. Well, you could always leave the West, and settle in the numerous countries where the words "I divorce you" are enough to end a marriage. Where you can just kick her out of the house if, and when you please. All you'll need is a ticket, and some paperwork.

It seems the Indian c*nts have also decided to join the train of their white superiors.

They are creating laws to discriminate against men, where after divorce, an ex-wife is not only entitled to 50% of a man's earnings during the marriage but also 50% of all his assets before the marriage and anything he inherits from his family after the divorce, irrespective of length of marriage.

Women are not suppose to be responsible for their own earnings.

That is not bad enough, under this same law, the woman is entitled to 100% of what she made during the marriage, before the marriage or she inherits.

That is what our feminists and women call "equality". I have always said it: "Women don't understand the principles of fairness or equality. To them, that just means they should have an advantage." And once they get their advantage, then everything is fine, we don't need to change it as it is just acceptable "custom/tradition".

These laws were created by male c*nts.

You can all see why I can't stand "real men" and "funky liberal progressives" wannabees.

I can never understand how people can be this daft.

Watch the argument of the women in the video: "Women are suffering, they lose out, they are poor, the don't make as much money as men, blah blah blah". And so? They are not adults who should make their own decisions? An arbitrary man has to pay for their unfortunate circumstances that is not his business and not caused by him?

Logic || Brick Wall || Women


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j3DlYfjfqQ

EnlightenedSoul:


That I am. And?



Lol @ gynocracy. Well, you could always leave the West, and settle in the numerous countries where the words "I divorce you" are enough to end a marriage. Where you can just kick her out of the house if, and when you please. All you'll need is a ticket, and some paperwork.

I am not a Muslim!

Sagamite:
It seems the Indian c*nts have also decided to join the train of their white superiors.

The are creating laws to discriminate against men, where after divorce, an ex-wife is not only entitled to 50% of a man's earnings during the marriage but also 50% of all his assets before the marriage and anything he inherits from his family after the divorce, irrespective of length of marriage.

Women are not suppose to be responsible for their own earnings.

That is not bad enough, under the law, the woman is entitled to 100% of what she made during the marriage, before the marriage or inherits.

That is what our feminists and women call "equality". I have always said it: "Women don't understand the principles of fairness or equality. To them, that just means they should have an advantage." And once they get their advantage, then everything is fine, we don't need to change it as it is just acceptable "custom/tradition".

These laws were created by male c*nts.

You can all see why I can't stand "real men" and "funky liberal progressives" wannabees.

I can never understand how people can be this daft.

Watch the argument of the women in the video: "Women are suffering, they lose out, they are poor, blah blah blah". And so? They are not adults who should make their own decisions? An arbitrary man has to pay for their unfortunate circumstances that is not his business and not caused by him?

Logic || Brick Wall || Women


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j3DlYfjfqQ

@bold

Well, men have understood the principles of fairness and equality for centuries and so well that feminism had to emerge.

You are very one-sided.

carefreewannabe:


@bold

Well, men have understood the principles of fairness and equality for centuries and so well that feminism had to emerge.

You are very one-sided.

That is where you logic failed you.

During the centuries you refer to, men never said it was fair or equal. They said they were superior and deserved superior rights.

Women see themselves having an advantage as the meaning of equal.

Logic || Brick Wall || Women

Sagamite:


That is where you logic failed you.

During the centuries you refer to, men never said it was fair or equal. They said they were superior and deserved superior rights.

Women see having an advantage as equal.

Logic || Brick Wall || Women

They didn't claim it was fair?
Some men still do. There are many of them on NL.

And what made men so superior that they didn't allow women to go to school and to vote, FOR EXAMPLE?

carefreewannabe:


They didn't claim it was fair?
Some men still do. There are many of them on NL.

And what made men so superior that they didn't allow women to go to school and to vote, FOR EXAMPLE?

Some men are not majority of men.

I am not going to waste my precious time defending what men did centuries ago because you asked.

That is not an argument line. I am not responsible for it, I did not participate in it, I do not support it and I do not defend it, nor do I need to or am I am obligated to defend it for these reasons. Don't think you can strawman me, I am Sagamite.

What I stand for and defend is for every adult to be equal and responsible for themselves. If you have a problem with that, then put your counter-arguments forward and I would defend that.

Sagamite:


I am not defending what men did centuries ago.

That is not an argument line. I am not responsible for it, I did not participate in it, I do not support it and I do not defend it, don't think you can strawman me.

What I stand for and defend is for every adult to be equal and responsible for themselves. If you have a problem with that, then put your counter-arguments forward and I would defend that.

I don't have a problem with you saying that the divorce laws in some countries are unfair. I agree with you even though I can also see that in majority of divorce cases, women do not even get half of what they invested because majority of men are not as rich as in the examples you show. There are millions of cases, in which women struggle financially after divorce and nobody can make it up for them that they were the ones who stayed at home to raise the couple's kids and have given up on their careers thus making a bigger sacrifice than their male counterparts. Such scenarios are more frequent than those you present here.

The only problem I have are your gender biased generalizations that present women as selfish and unfair creatures when in fact many men are not a bit better. You complain about s*exism but you make yourself guilty of it.
If you have a problem with s*exism, do not be se*xist yourself. This is hypocritical.

Sagamite:


I am not a Muslim!

Spare me. As if it's a 'Muslim' thing. You whine about the West when essentially everything outside it is your stomping ground. Or am I wrong?

It took leaving the country a few times (to more than a few places) to make me a feminist. In fact, with the things I've seen, I'm surprised I'm not the man-hating misandrist you label me. Why would I be? It's interesting how a self-styled sexist such as yourself will attempt to make 'feminist' an insult by [knowingly] skewing it's meaning. But oh well, it's not like I'm surprised.

carefreewannabe:


I don't have a problem with you saying that the divorce laws in some countries are unfair. I agree with you even though I can also see that in majority of divorce cases, women do not even get half of what they invested because majority of men are not as rich as in the examples you show. There are millions of cases, in which women struggle financially after divorce and nobody can make it up for them that they were the ones who stayed at home to raise the couple's kids and have given up on their careers thus making a bigger sacrifice than their male counterparts. Such scenarios are more frequent than those you present here.

The only problem I have are your gender biased generalizations that present women as selfish and unfair creatures when in fact many men are not a bit better. You complain about s*exism but you make yourself guilty of it.
If you have a problem with s*exism, do not be se*xist yourself. This is hypocritical.

No doubt.

My argument is that the current laws which a lot of ediots support is inferior to what I have suggested as and you liked. Mine would make it more fair for all.

For one, asset division and alimony should not be based on "lifestyle used to", it should be based on "lifestyle able to provide for one's self" (based on the self-development and career progression pre-marriage). That way, we will not have strippers asking for billions as "part of their contribution to a marriage". Or dental nurses, taking a third of a footballers wages like Ray Parlour experienced.

Get what you earned or can potentially earn.

This women is unlikely to be able to earn £337m.

Yes, women are very selfish. Because of this selfishness and social acceptability of them being seen as children when it comes to "responsibilities", they take the liberty to be unfair. Men are unfair because of superior power they can get away with.

You would be surprised that the Woman wearing red that Marc Rudov is arguing with in the video I produced earlier, Lis Weihl, is a HARVARD LAW PhD holder. Yet when this woman opens her mouth to argue on women issues, she is as illogical as any average woman. It is shocking!!!

EnlightenedSoul:


Spare me. As if it's a 'Muslim' thing. You whine about the West when essentially everything outside it is your stomping ground. Or am I wrong?

It took leaving the country a few times (to more than a few places) to make me a feminist. In fact, with the things I've seen, I'm surprised I'm not the man-hating misandrist you label me. Why would I be? It's interesting how a self-styled sexist such as yourself will attempt to make 'feminist' an insult by [knowingly] skewing it's meaning.

Yes, you are very wrong.

How can you say everything outside the West is my stomping ground? Are you trying to strawman me?

Yes, you are a man hater.

And, yes, being a feminist is an insulting tag.

3 wrongs there!!!