freecocoa:
I am with you on this one.

Although when what you bought is over used and worn out, it's unreasonable to ask for a refund.

You can ask for the resale value then.

Maybe even structure it by arranging a cut from the sell-on value like in football.

bukatyne:


@Bold: What does it mean to you

It means equal.

1 = 1

2 =not 1

bukatyne:

@OP:
It is not straight forward.

First, What does Bride Price symbolize in their culture?

Speaking from a Yoruba POV, BP (w hich is not money but gifts) are brought by the groom's family as a guest and hosted by the bride's family as a host hence the bride's family handles the reception.

Often times, the cost of hosting would be more than the engagement stuffs but when you throw in the attire, hall, decor etc, they might balance.

I think demanding a refund of BP is simplistic as both parties invested into the marriage until it collapsed.

Even If you return the BP, you cannot return the man's pains, sacrifices, loving, caring ditto the woman's in the marriage. Perhaps they request a refund because the men invest everything during the wedding rites/ceremony.

In all, expecting to see a spike in divorce.

All this is completely irrelevant.

The point is that a bunch of cretins that argue that asking for a refund is like creating a sales process and unconstitutional should know paying for the same thing is a sales process and should also be unconstitutional.

Even if they are not that bright, they should know it being called "Bride Price" makes it a sale.

When you price something, you are selling it.

You can't say refund is a commercial activity but pricing is not. That is just reetarded.

Sagamite:


No they are not both priceless.

They can both be priced. There is a valuation process that is apt.

You are only arguing they are priceless because you are a woman and you are looking for an argument that benefits women.

Domestics is less valuable than bringing the bacon home.

It is valuable but less valuable.

As for Wimbledon, payment should be based on the revenue you generate for the event, just like any other entertainment event.

Under such rules, men would earn more. But they were harassed as sexist by feminists until they gave people doing less work equal pay because that is what feminists see as "equal rights".

Ha! Saga saga, they cannot be priced jor, it's not like women can't or don't do those jobs that men do, maybe the men should sit home for a change and bear/raise children, only then will be be able to tell.

I don't think that method is fair, men are better at sports than women on the average, doesn't mean the women who are good should be made to suffer for it.

It's just like saying men who are in caregiving, should earn less pay because women are generally better at it, if you can do the job, you should get the pay.

Sagamite:


You can ask for the resale value then.

Maybe even structure it by arranging a cut from the sell-on value like in football.

Stop talking about women like we are a commodity.

We are priceless.

freecocoa:
Ha! Saga saga, they cannot be priced jor, it's not like women can't or don't do those jobs that men do, maybe the men should sit home for a change and bear/raise children, only then will be be able to tell.

I don't think that method is fair, men are better at sports than women on the average, doesn't mean the women who are good should be made to suffer for it.

It's just like saying men who are in caregiving, should earn less pay because women are generally better at it, if you can do the job, you should get the pay.

If a woman does the same job a man does, then she is equally priced.

If she is doing domestics, it is not equally priced. It is a less valuable activity.

That does not mean it is easy or invaluable, it is just less valuable.

Even you will regard your daughter that has finished university and is sitting at home as contributing less than one that is going out to work as an investment banker and bringing in N12m a year.

If you are doing the job and doing the same level of job, you should get equal pay.

If the job you are doing is of less value, you should get less pay.

Women's Tennis is less valuable than Men's Tennis. It is outrageous and sexist they are getting the same pay.

freecocoa:
Stop talking about women like we are a commodity.

We are priceless.

The Supreme Court just said Ugandan ones are constitutionally commodities.

Sagamite:


If a woman does the same job a man does, then she is equally priced.

If she is doing domestics, it is not equally prices. It is a less valuable activity.

That does not mean it is easy or invaluable, it is just less valuable.

Even you will regard your daughter that has finished university and is sitting at home as contributing less than one that is going out to work as an investment banker and bringing in N12m a year.

If you are doing the job and doing the same level of job, you should get equal pay.

If the job you are doing is of less value, you should get less pay.

Women's Tennis is less valuable than Men's Tennis. It is outrageous and sexist they are getting the same pay.

I'm going to bed, you should stop looking at it only from the financial aspect, there's more to life than money you know.

Have a good one.

Sagamite:


The Supreme Court just said Ugandan ones are constitutionally commodities.

Yea well, we already agreed the supreme Court in Ugandan is made up of fuucktards.

freecocoa:
It's really annoying and disappointing at the same time, when you people come up with such nonsense to deride feminism, if a couple of nut jobs who think it's okay to bleed and not do something about it, say so, what does it have to do with feminism biko nu?


Anybody can be a feminist, it is not a movement that defines people's individual characteristics, it just cares about women's right.

You people should know the difference.

All of this is laughable, know why? You complain that a small radical minority within feminism is being used to deride the feminist cause yet the feminist movement as a whole employs this same tactics when attacking men.

When feminism as a whole was carefully skewing it's so called noble fight for female empowerment into a bundling of accusations of wholesale sexism against men where was the "reasonable majority"?

Thing is, women parading the streets tôpless in the name of freeing the nïpple and their sisters prancing around in bloodstained panties are sad examples of the solipsistic outlook that characterises ALL of feminism.

Sagamite:


What we are discussing here is the transaction of women.

The fuuktard Justices in the Ugandan Supreme Courts just said it is constitutional to buy women, but it is unconstitutional to ask for a refund.

Pure moronic fuuktards!

Amazing, too funny

Sagamite:
Uganda's Supreme Court has ruled that the practice of refunding the bride price, or dowry, on the dissolution of a customary marriage is unconstitutional and should be banned.

The judges said it suggested that women were in a market place, and infringed on their right to divorce.

But they rejected the argument that the bride price itself was unconstitutional.

Campaigners said that the dowry turns a woman into the husband's property.

Should a marriage end in Uganda, the wife had been expected to refund the bride price - often paid in livestock.

But it was argued that as women tend to have less wealth than their husbands, many became trapped in an unhappy relationship.

The case was brought by the women's rights organisation Mifumi, who said that bride price encourages domestic violence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33800840

Starting with the second ruling, I would say the Supreme's court ruling is perfectly in order. Payment or non payment of bride price is strictly a cultural issue so nobody should be outlawed for practicing a culture that is mutually agreed upon by all parties (including the paying groom). Nobody put a gun to the man's head to pay the bride price, he had every right to reject the offer.

Secondly, refunding of pride price by the wife is unconstitutional -a CAPITAL YES. Why should I be responsible for something I did not benefit from? In the highlighted case, where did all the livestock go to? Were they handed to the wife? Definitely not! So, If the man is able to retrieve them from the various uncles, aunties, and grandparents he gave the dowry to, then by all means he should go ahead but to make the wife pay for it at all cost is totally senseless to me. And tying her down because of it is a violation of her fundamental right.

And considering the fact that she has been serving the man aka wife since the bride price was paid and unable to earn any tangible income of her own, she should start calculating her billions to serve as payment for all services rendered to him while they were married, not forgetting compensation for her wasted youthful years which she will never get back Inshort, that case needs to be revisited, the judge was very partial by forgetting the most important part of the ruling

Cx

Why is this all in favor of the woman, feminism this and that yet what about Masculism? The mans right, since both men and women are supposed to be equal.

neither a woman or a man is a product, in some cultures the man has to provide items for the brides family prior to marriage, which I am sure the man is aware of, I see it as showing the prospective in-laws that the man is able to provide for their daughter, or am I wrong?

To ask for a refund, a refund for what? that is crazy you can only get a refund on something which is purchased, so those whom request a refund for a bride ...you bought your wife?

meaning of refund:
To pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought.
example: "if you're not delighted with your purchase, we guarantee to refund your money in full"

Kimoni:


Starting with the second ruling, I would say the Supreme's court ruling is perfectly in order. Payment or non payment of bride price is strictly a cultural issue so nobody should be outlawed for practicing a culture that is mutually agreed upon by all parties (including the paying groom). Nobody put a gun to the man's head to pay the bride price, he had every right to reject the offer.

Secondly, refunding of pride price by the wife is unconstitutional -a CAPITAL YES. Why should I be responsible for something I did not benefit from? In the highlighted case, where did all the livestock go to? Were they handed to the wife? Definitely not! So, If the man is able to retrieve them from the various uncles, aunties, and grandparents he gave the dowry to, then by all means he should go ahead but to make the wife pay for it at all cost is totally senseless to me. And tying her down because of it is a violation of her fundamental right.

And considering the fact that she has been serving the man aka wife since the bride price was paid and unable to earn any tangible income of her own, she should start calculating her billions to serve as payment for all services rendered to him while they were married, not forgetting compensation for her wasted youthful years which she will never get back Inshort, that case needs to be revisited, the judge was very partial by forgetting the most important part of the ruling

You are chatting pure nonsense.

It is pure nonsense on 3 basis.

1) You forgot the argument of why the Judges said refund was unconstitutional: Women should not be treated s if they are a market commodity.

2) Secondly, so who told you that it is not mutually agreed upon by all parties to get a refund if the marriage wants to end and that is not cultural? Did anyone put a gun to the head of the brides family to ask for bride price?

3) Then you are now saying because a sale is cultural, then "nobody should be outlawed for practicing a culture". So culture is an excuse for selling people and is superior arguments to human rights?

Fck Me!

Lets allow slavery in many parts of Arabian African because it is cultural.

You also missed the contradiction in their argument.

Portsmouth86:

meaning of refund:
To pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought.
example: "if you're not delighted with your purchase, we guarantee to refund your money in full"

As for the bride not being responsible for what "she did not benefit from", lets even assume his koboko, aka his johnny, aka his lollipop was not sweet in the marriage. Since she was not the one that took the payment, but allowed herself to be sold, she is not the one that needs to refund, but she should be asking the people that she allowed to sell her to refund.

There is no argument about her "not benefiting". She made herself or allowed herself to be made a product of a transaction.

Or have you forgotten that it is normal for African women to tell suitors to go and pay their dowry (or how my Southern African peeps call it "their lobola" )?

Are you saying a wife serves a husband in marriage but the husband does not serve the wife?

It is so funny how many of you women try a lame argument as if you are doing favours to men by marrying them but yet you are normally the same people who love to marry, look for marriage and want to die staying in it.

Portsmouth86:
Why is this all in favor of the woman, feminism this and that yet what about Masculism? The mans right, since both men and women are supposed to be equal.

neither a woman or a man is a product, in some cultures the man has to provide items for the brides family prior to marriage, which I am sure the man is aware of, I see it as showing the prospective in-laws that the man is able to provide for their daughter, or am I wrong?

To ask for a refund, a refund for what? that is crazy you can only get a refund on something which is purchased, so those whom request a refund for a bride ...you bought your wife?

meaning of refund:
To pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought.
example: "if you're not delighted with your purchase, we guarantee to refund your money in full"

Why must he show that he can take care of the wife? Why can't it be the reverse? Why can't it be collaborative? Do you know that the more educated and greater the earnings of the bride to be are, the greater the bride price.

The bride price is purely an ancient customary tradition where women are bargained off to the highest bidder and are commodities. Accept it or don't accept it, that is what it is.

Portsmouth86:
Why is this all in favor of the woman, feminism this and that yet what about Masculism? The mans right, since both men and women are supposed to be equal.

neither a woman or a man is a product, in some cultures the man has to provide items for the brides family prior to marriage, which I am sure the man is aware of, I see it as showing the prospective in-laws that the man is able to provide for their daughter, or am I wrong?

To ask for a refund, a refund for what? that is crazy you can only get a refund on something which is purchased, so those whom request a refund for a bride ...you bought your wife?

meaning of refund:
To pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought.
example: "if you're not delighted with your purchase, we guarantee to refund your money in full"

You can see our Africa.

You can see the kinds of cretins that end up being "Supreme Court Justices".

It is a scary shyt!

AtheistD:


Why must he show that he can take care of the wife? Why can't it be the reverse? Why can't it be collaborative? Do you know that the more educated and greater the earnings of the bride to be are, the greater the bride price.

The bride price is purely an ancient customary tradition where women are bargained off to the highest bidder and are commodities. Accept it or don't accept it, that is what it is.

I think you meant to direct that at Kimoni.

But the highlighted is a great point.

It shows you a Range Rover is more expensive than a Renault Clio. Bride pricing is based on quality of the product. It is a commercial activity for anyone with a brain, something the fuuktard Justices did not have.

Sagamite:


You can see our Africa.

You can see the kinds of cretins that end up being "Supreme Court Justices".

It is a scary shyt!

It's not entirely an African thing. The West is by far more under the grip of femcentric laws than Africa is.

AtheistD:


Why must he show that he can take care of the wife? Why can't it be the reverse? Why can't it be collaborative? Do you know that the more educated and greater the earnings of the bride to be are, the greater the bride price.

The bride price is purely an ancient customary tradition where women are bargained off to the highest bidder and are commodities. Accept it or don't accept it, that is what it is.

Of course women could show that she can also provide for the marriage, I never stipulated she couldn't.

ApexTitan:


It's not entirely an African thing. The West is by far more under the grip of femcentric laws than Africa is.

You are 58,000% right.

These judges just tried to show how "modern" and "progressive" they are. And they fell flat on their face.

If I was a newspaper editor in Uganda, this is how my headline will read this morning:

"Supreme Court Justices rule that buying brides is constitutional but asking for a refund is unconstitutional"

Nonso23:

Every culture that supports the bride price system -that I know of- also entrenches the divorce option in its codes too. One of the requirements to be fulfilled by the wife's family in the event of a divorce is the repayment of the brideprice. The refund is as cultural as the payment.

Agree. I am not against the dowry being returned, I am against the wife being mandated to pay it when she never received it and I am against the non-return of it being used to limit her rights. The groom should demand it from whoever he gave it to. Would he also demand that she pays the money he gave to her friends to woo her on his behalf?

The woman's benefit is being married even if it is just for a day and to a jerk. That is culturally her benefit together with the other financial and economic cushion it affords her. Being married in many African cultures is a boost to a woman's social reputation. It is her reward for getting married. Reputation and social status is invaluable too. Guess it is only fair that she has to pay for it too.

Hahahahahahahahahahhaha
We could both argue this till kingdom come so I won't bother. The above does not apply to me and to so many other women out there. And even if it did, can we equate the value to that which I also bring into the man's house? Men are also encouraged to get married where I can from cuz it accords them more soceital respect and the presence of a woman in the home is said to bring stability and good fortunes to the man's life. So who should be paying who ultimately and who should collect change?? I'll say the woman but it's pointless debating this. Too subjective.

The man did not just appear out of nowhere to marry her. If the marriage is what obtains in today's Africa she must have known him and discussed with him about their roles in the event that the marriage is contracted. This may include him requesting that she slaves for him till thy kingdom come. If she agrees to it them she has sold out every right to request for compensation in the event of collapse of the union. The terms of the contract were spelt out clearly and she jumped into it. She did no one no favor infact i dare say she did herself a favor because she is supposed to negotiate from a standpoint that clearly favors her. Any compensation is just social welfare.
Once a contract is signed, it is binding.
Even God acknowledges that fact.
Esau and Jacob's story anyone

As much as I would love to agree with you, it would depend on several things.
If they have both agreed to live forever, then whoever is balling out should should be ready to pay some form of compensation. That I fully agree. But it's more complicated than that. Whoever wants out because the other party has reneged on his/her own terms of the contract should expect to pay compensation to the other party even if he/she is not the one asking for the divorce.

Some examples that readily come to my mind on why women want out - 1) the woman wants out because the man is taking on a new wife or seeing another woman. I am 99% sure that was never part of the initial contract. 2) she is being maltreated in whatever form - this would also not have been part of the contract.

One good reason why most men will want out: He wants a new younger prettier woman. I am yet to see a woman who wants out cuz she found a younger man. So, who should be paying who??

Note:The above are just common reasons and by no means exhaustive, outliers are also not factored.

Kimoni:



One good reason why most men will want out: He wants a new younger prettier woman. I am yet to see a woman who wants out cuz she found a younger man. So, who should be paying who??

Note:The above are just common reasons and by no means exhaustive, outliers are also not factored.

I just had to zero in on the enboldened line because of how far from the truth it is especially in societies where women have been supposedly empowered by legislation like the no fault divorce. Replace the word younger in that line with richer and the pattern becomes even more apparent.

ApexTitan:


I just had to zero in on the enboldened line because of how far from the truth it is especially in societies where women have been supposedly empowered by legislation like the no fault divorce. Replace the word younger in that line with richer and the pattern becomes even more apparent.

Peradventure it happens, it's not the norm. I stand to be corrected.

Kimoni:


Agree. I am not against the dowry being returned, I am against the wife being mandated to pay it when she never received it and I am against the non-return of it being used to limit her rights. The groom should demand it from whoever he gave it to. Would he also demand that she pays the money he gave to her friends to woo her on his behalf?

This will only be a valid argument if the woman was not part of the sales process.

That is, if she would still have agreed to marry the man without a bride price paid and/or if she is adamant no bride price is paid for her.

If she is part of the process and was part of the ritual of the sales process (where she is displayed as THE product) then she can't turn around and say "I didn't receive it so it had nothing to do with me". She helped others receive it by offering to sell herself.

If the product is to be returned and a refund is required, she is part of the refund process just as she was willingly part of the sales process.

She is not being mandated to return it. The people that received it are being mandated to return it. Since she helped them get it, she should help return it.

Simple Logic!

Kimoni:

Hahahahahahahahahahhaha
We could both argue this till kingdom come so I won't bother. The above does not apply to me and to so many other women out there. And even if it did, can we equate the value to that which I also bring into the man's house? Men are also encouraged to get married where I can from cuz it accords them more soceital respect and the presence of a woman in the home is said to bring stability and good fortunes to the man's life. So who should be paying who ultimately and who should collect change?? I'll say the woman but it's pointless debating this. Too subjective.

The argument would be "Is your value superior to the value he brings to your life".

Kimoni:

As much as I would love to agree with you, it would depend on several things.
If they have both agreed to live forever, then whoever is balling out should should be ready to pay some form of compensation. That I fully agree. But it's more complicated than that. Whoever wants out because the other party has reneged on his/her own terms of the contract should expect to pay compensation to the other party even if he/she is not the one asking for the divorce.

Some examples that readily come to my mind on why women want out - 1) the woman wants out because the man is taking on a new wife or seeing another woman. I am 99% sure that was never part of the initial contract. 2) she is being maltreated in whatever form - this would also not have been part of the contract.

One good reason why most men will want out: He wants a new younger prettier woman. I am yet to see a woman who wants out cuz she found a younger man. So, who should be paying who??

Note:The above are just common reasons and by no means exhaustive, outliers are also not factored.

This is nonsense.

Marriage is not a contract under civil law.

And under customary law, even if you regard it as a contract, it does not require living together forever. So you can't penalise for such "breach". It normally requires the man OWNING the woman and being her Lord on Earth. Just second to Olugbala (God). He can even take multiple wives. So I am sure you will not want it to be regarded as a "contract" under this too.

Under human right laws, you can't dictate nor fine anyone based on the choices they made about who they want to be with.

This argument is very weak.

The overall point is that: Marriage is not a contract and EVERY human being should be free to choose who they want to be with at any stage or time of their life. And you don't pay people for not wanting them.

These are the kind of lame arguments some women give because they want some kind of protection/advantage. "Create a conditionality that is more likely to frequently work in your favour". No one should be forced or coerced to be with you.

Sagamite:


This will only be a valid argument if the woman was not part of the sales process.

That is, if she would still have agreed to marry the man without a bride price paid and/or if she is adamant no bride price is paid for her.

If she is part of the process and was part of the ritual of the sales process (where she is displayed as THE product) then she can't turn around and say "I didn't receive it so it had nothing to do with me". She helped others receive it by offering to sell herself.

If the product is to be returned and a refund is required, she is part of the refund process just as she was willingly part of the sales process.

She is not being mandated to return it. The people that received it are being mandated to return it. Since she helped them get it, she should help return it.

Simple Logic!

She is not part of the sales process. The contract is strictly between the buyer and the seller - the groom and the bride's family. The product in question had neither a say in the process nor benefitted from it. And I reiterate, he wasn't forced into the contract, there must be other types of marriages recognized by the state where he didn't have to pay bride price but he chose to opt for the bride price system. Whose fault?

The argument would be "Is your value superior to the value he brings to your life".

Exactly! Up for debate but too subjective and relative to attempt.

This is nonsense.

you are a cretinous fucktar.d

Marriage is not a contract under civil law.

And under customary law, even if you regard it as a contract, it does not require living together forever. So you can't penalise for such "breach". It normally requires the man OWNING the woman and being her Lord on Earth. Just second to Olugbala (God). He can even take multiple wives. So I am sure you will not want it to be regarded as a "contract" under this too.

Under human right laws, you can't dictate nor fine anyone based on the choices they made about who they want to be with.

This argument is very weak.

The overall point is that: Marriage is not a contract and EVERY human being should be free to choose who they want to be with at any stage or time of their life. And you don't pay people for not wanting them.

These are the kind of lame arguments some women give because they want some kind of protection/advantage. "Create a conditionality that is more likely to frequently work in your favour". No one should be forced or coerced to be with you.

You are a product of a failed educational system

Did you factor in the fact that that post is a response to an earlier post wherein the contract angle was introduced? And it was based on some perceived assumptions??

When you have kids, pls don't send them to Isale-Oko community school or RSS. See what it has done to you

Kimoni:


She is not part of the sales process. The contract is strictly between the buyer and the seller - the groom and the bride's family. The product in question had neither a say in the process nor benefitted from it. And I reiterate, he wasn't forced into the contract, there must be other types of marriages recognized by the state where he didn't have to pay bride price but he chose to opt for the bride price system. Whose fault?

She is the product in the sales.

She is core to the transactions and contract.

She too could have chosen other marriages to ensure she is not a product.

I hope you are aware she is an adult with a brain? You can't use that "victim" argument with a guy that is not a Real Man.

Kimoni:

Exactly! Up for debate but too subjective and relative to attempt.




you are a cretinous fucktar.d



You are a product of a failed educational system

Did you factor in the fact that that post is a response to an earlier post wherein the contract angle was introduced? And it was based on some perceived assumptions??

When you have kids, pls don't send them to Isale-Oko community school or RSS. See what it has done to you

Anuofia!

You have the audacity to ridicule the 2 prestigious secondary schools located in the great Sagamu?

The schools that produce more Harvard and Oxbridge alumni than any other secondary schools in the whole wide world?

You have issues!

Sagamite:


Anuofia!

You have the audacity to ridicule the 2 prestigious secondary schools located in the great Sagamu?

The schools that produce more Harvard and Oxbridge alumni than any other secondary schools in the whole wide world?

You have issues!

only in your dreams Saga

The bride-price has no relevance today.
Scrap it, or African women should pay a groom price too. Viva equality!

Look at how UK kids are debating more intelligently than the fuuktard called Joromi1 that is older than them.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3487863

And when I say "product of a failed education system", this cretin would think I am insulting him.

freecocoa:
While I think the bride price should be scrapped, I must say that it's totally unreasonable to ask for a refund after the woman's lived with you for years, doesn't make any sense whatsover.

What will you return to the woman before she leaves?

On a related matter, would you accept that bride price be paid on you?

Timbuktou:


On a related matter, would you accept that bride price be paid on you?

No dime will be paid on my head, I have had that conversation with my dad.