Im amused the only examples people use are celebs. Heather Mills this. Tiger Woods that. Was Tiger ever gonna loan any of you his money? why do you care? Wetin concern you with Paul McCartney? This deep rooted hatred some of you have for women is so disturbing. (Please dont play yourselves with oh we are just talkiing about how sme women are greedy blah blah). You people are sick. But like typical negros they will never get therapy.

I strongly believe if a woman has invested time no matter how small in a marriage then divorce settlement should be the norm.

Only post worth reading. Unlike the other animals at least he'd not downplaying the role women play in marriage.

One would hope with how much men think so little of women and what they do fr marriage and the home, they'd just leave women alone and go suck on the pipe.

ThiefOfHearts:

Im amused the only examples people use are celebs. Heather Mills this. Tiger Woods that. Was Tiger ever gonna loan any of you his money? why do you care? Wetin concern you with Paul McCartney? This deep rooted hatred some of you have for women is so disturbing. (Please dont play yourselves with oh we are just talkiing about how sme women are greedy blah blah). You people are sick. But like typical negros they will never get therapy.

Only post worth reading. Unlike the other animals at least he'd not downplaying the role women play in marriage.

One would hope with how much men think so little of women and what they do fr marriage and the home, they'd just leave women alone and go suck on the pipe.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-f7G4FFYE[/flash]

ThiefOfHearts:

Im amused the only examples people use are celebs. Heather Mills this. Tiger Woods that. Was Tiger ever gonna loan any of you his money? why do you care? Wetin concern you with Paul McCartney? This deep rooted hatred some of you have for women is so disturbing. (Please dont play yourselves with oh we are just talkiing about how sme women are greedy blah blah). You people are sick. But like typical negros they will never get therapy.

Only post worth reading. Unlike the other animals at least he'd not downplaying the role women play in marriage.

One would hope with how much men think so little of women and what they do fr marriage and the home, they'd just leave women alone and go suck on the pipe.

The reason celebrity examples are given is because these are people EVERYONE knows. The same thing that happened to these unfortunate men happen both poor struggling men and middle class up comers. If i gave an example of Mr Rosebush Cacklebladder who lived down the street,was recently divorced,kicked out of his home and is currently squatting in my apartment, would you be able to relate to that? Is there anyway to verify if it's true or not? Popular people are used as examples because these are the people you know. One would expect you'd know better.

And please you ladies should quit your usual boring manner of approach to issues by bringing in sentiments. This is not about men hating women. This is about men hating a system that is totally biased,unfair and cruel to men. Nevertheless, i'm not surprised that most of the female posters here (except Atreides) have pointed out the flaws in the system. The rest will defend the system till they die cause it favors them.

Typical.

Sagamite:

If you saw the plurality, maybe it should have urged you to ratiocinate I was not referring to myself but requesting of "people".

you took on an unnecessary job no one asked of you and that does not impress me.

Sagamite:

Now that we have established that you are handicapped at ratiocination, I will explain to you.

If that makes you happy that yu've said something when yu've only been rambling I'm cool, I'd rather point out to you that you are not saying much.

Sagamite:

To prove something is insane, you have to critically evaluate it. I have given a reason why theirs is insane, they will have to ridicule my arguments logically before they can claim it is insane. Only someone dumb will accept it is dumb by them just saying it is.

Amusing, is this supposed to be funny? you have given no logical reason than ask questions like a 10 year old, you asked some questions which I answered up there. You say your arguments have to be ridiculed but they don't need to be, they already are ridiculous.

Sagamite:

In the clerisy, you don't throw conjectures as assertions, you build it beautifully and erotically from critical analysis and evaluation that fellow intellectuals can follow.

and you really think there are any real intellectuals following this jumble of nonsense?

Sagamite:

By virtue of marriage? Explain.

Exercise your self assumed considerable intellect and go read the legal basis of marriage and exactly what people are saying when they affirm "I do" and the various laws that govern that institution in the society where these cases take place, then maybe 5% of what yu're saying will make some sense.

Sagamite:

I am being generous as I am 158% sure the ratiocination would be weak, but it is fair to allow you explain


Refer above to the critical evaluation approach I introduced to you above.

I was more hoping  you would be overawed by the intellect.  

Are you having a laugh?  

If Heather Mills wants and demands her daughter to live a certian life that Paul does not want, then Heather should fund it?

F me! Is logic this hard?  

Do you understand the meaning of case study?  

Or do you just struggle to comprehend?

Oh you did not go there?  

Tell me  you did not go there.  

Please say ya din't.

What contract? What a silly assertion?

So a woman that is being battered by her husband should be penalised because she asked for divorce and broke the "contract"?  

Remember your so-called "contract"   normally states:

"I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part."

I don't see any part that said, if you batter me, then I have a right to end this "contract". So should she be penalised for ending the "contract" as you called it?  

Use your brain before putting up a proposition to me, marriage is not a contract.

Your ridiculous ratiocination proven.

Depth of my reasoning is low?   I have not seen you critically evaluate and debunk my arguments, all you are just stating is that the status quo must be maintained and throwing mooronic conjectures about what "people could say".

Your current level of reasoning that is backing your argument can be equated to someone saying the law in Africa that shanks women in divorce sees such injustice as reasonable, and any proponent that disagrees with it's objection is only reasonable in the proponent's eyes and if women don't like it, they should look before they leap.

I bet even at your level of reasoning, you would admit that is a lame argument?

You need to learn how to critically evaluate.

I have better things to do at present than to reply to babbles, maybe when I have some idle time, I'll indulge you.

harakiri r u saying that there shd be no divorce settlemment at all?

Altreides reread your post im asking the same q again?

harakiri:

And please you ladies should quit your usual boring manner of approach to issues by bringing in sentiments. This is not about men hating women. This is about men hating a system that is totally biased,unfair and cruel to men. Nevertheless, i'm not surprised that most of the female posters here (except Atreides) have pointed out the flaws in the system. The rest will defend the system till they die cause it favors them.

Dude be quiet.

What do you know about divorce settlement and the like. Typical brainwashed negros defending white money. wetin be your own?

Everyday average people usually have to pay child support and figure out custody that is as far as it goes. Obviously you dont know that is considered divorce settlement. The one some men have a problem of is ALIMONY. Most people that fight over alimony are celebs or people of prestigious positions unlike most of you. Most places dont even grant alimony. Alimony is NOT regulated by law.

If you cant see how belittling the role a wife plays in a marriage is HATEFUL then dont even bother replying cos I dont give a damn to teach you. "what do they do. all they do is just spread their legs", are you insane? That isnt the words of someone who has severe issues with women? Not that I'd expect a twit to admit it.

Y'know,i'm just hearing the word ratiocinate for the first time.
Oh well,we learn new things every day.
Whoever asked me a question should please repeat it. I tried to go back a few pages but Saga' battle with whatshisname confused me.

duduspace:


Go read the legal basis of marriage and exactly what people are saying when they affirm "I do" and the various laws that govern that institution in the society where these cases take place.

It boils down to this:
A. These wealthly men know what they are getting themselves into when they get married. They are choosing to get married in a country that provided them the opportunity to amass this wealth in the first place, and are quite knowledgeable about the legal implications of marriage and the potential ramifications of divorce.

B. It was mentioned on here that a man brings his wealth and business skills and all that into a marriage and all a woman contributes is her beauty. Marriage isn't by force. It is up to men to find their missing rib. Why get married to a woman who only has beauty? There are beautiful women out here that also have many of the skills necessary to make a positive difference in a man's life. A man's job is to find a woman that can bring to the table just as much as he can.  A woman that is his female equivalent. A woman that has reached her potential in womanhood, to match the potential you have reached in manhood. This is what marriage is all about.

If all a man contributes is financial security then why should a financially stable woman get married? In the west single women are in the workforce in full force, making the same amount of money as a single man. Also, if all a woman contributes is beauty, then why get married at all? Keep your beautiful girlfriends and trade her in for a new model every few years. Poeople (men and women) need to stop blindly getting married for selfish reasons or to yeild to social pressure. It leads to disrespect, comtempt and untimately divorce. Manhood encompases many things, not just bringing home money, just as womanhood encompasses many things, and not just being beautiful and popping out babies.
Maturity is not only about knowing your strength and worth as a man/woman, but in also knowing the strength and worth of the opposite gender.

biolabee:

harakiri r u saying that there shd be no divorce settlemment at all?

Altreides reread your post im asking the same q again?

Please, let's be objective and leave out sentiments shall we?

Now, if you had followed the my posts on this thread with a clear unbiased mind, you would have noticed that what i am against is irrational and biased system of divorce laws in the west. I NEVER indicated that a man should divorce his wife and kick her to the curbs without any support for the kids ( i don't know why people like to paint a different picture instead of issues). Put yourself in this scenario :

You have an elder brother who you saw struggle throughout his twenties and early thirties to make something out for himself. Sunday to Saturday, he's always busy with work. The only time he has for himself is when he sleeps. Christmas,New year,Easter and Birthdays are mere formalities and a waste of precious time to him. He is 100% focused on winning the war against lack and poverty.With time, he becomes a billionaire. He now decides to get married. They have 2 kids together within 5 years of marriage and because she's bored and "unhappy" with the marriage, she wants a divorce. In all fairness, do you think this man deserves to be kicked out of his mansion all because his kids must continue to "live the good life"? Do you think it's fair that all his assets be split into half and given to a woman who has no idea how many sleepless nights he's had worrying about how to protect and improve his investments? Do you think it's fair such a woman gets anything from $100million to $500 million of his money all because she "sacrificed" her time to raise HER OWN KIDS? Do you think it's fair that a man MUST compensate a woman for having kids? (child bearing is at the top priority list of almost every woman and yet when she has them, a man must PAY! ! !). Do you think it's fair that a woman receives huge amounts of money that can corrupt the heavens all because she changed diapers (Actually, a nanny does that job for them, a steward does the laundry, there's a cook,driver,security guards and even live in cosmeticians who do her nails,hair,make up for her without her needing to lift a finger. All she does if phuck him once in a while and blow tens of thousands of dollars in a 2 hour shopping spree)? Do you think it's fair that a woman can cheat on a man and get half his wealth but the same is not applicable when a man cheats. It only makes his case worse. If she cheats, it's because her "needs" are not being met in the marriage. If he cheats, it's because he's an unrepentant he-goat that didn't put his family first before making a bad decision and as a result, the judge hands him down the harshest spousal and child support ruling obtainable within the state laws. I can go on and on with a lot of unfairness in the system but a rational thinking person knows I've said all that needs to be said in my first post on this thread.

ThiefOfHearts:

Dude be quiet.

What do you know about divorce settlement and the like. Typical brainwashed negros defending white money. wetin be your own?

Everyday average people usually have to pay child support and figure out custody that is as far as it goes. Obviously you dont know that is considered divorce settlement. The one some men have a problem of is ALIMONY. Most people that fight over alimony are celebs or people of prestigious positions unlike most of you. Most places dont even grant alimony. Alimony is NOT regulated by law.

If you cant see how belittling the role a wife plays in a marriage is HATEFUL then dont even bother replying cos I dont give a damn to teach you. "what do they do. all they do is just spread their legs", are you insane? That isnt the words of someone who has severe issues with women? Not that I'd expect a twit to admit it.

Okay, Madam-i-wasn't-well-brought-up-and-i-think-i-am-hot-even-though-i-wear-cheap-wigs-and-spit-shyt-anytime-i-talk

Explain what DIVORCE SETTLEMENT really is so that me and my fellow "typical brainwashed negros defending white money" can learn a thing or two.

hmmm,

since uve made it personal by using my brother

i start with the kids

once the kids are sorted out, there should be child support
next is by law, she is entitled to half of what the partnership made in the years of marriage

how did i accuse u sentimentally, i just asked a simple Q

think ke?

More like I know.

and why would I explain anything to you? My post already says all that needs to be known. Again not expecting much from illiterates like yourself. Go back to school, your English is awful.

The Kiing's Speech is a great movie with a wonderful example. For those who really care to learn, of course.

ThiefOfHearts:

think ke?

More like I know. 

and why would I explain anything to you? My post already says all that needs to be known. Again not expecting much from illiterates like yourself. Go back to school, your English is awful.

You're calling me an illiterate? Girl, i already had my first engineering degree before you hit puberty! I was already working before you grew tits.

Everyone on Nairaland is an "engineer", "lawyer" "doctor" what's your point? Your pathetic grasp at English proves otherwise.

Okay i get it now.
@biola,it's complicated. After going through some posts here i don't think it's as simple as yes or no.
Well i have to ask,why do you think she should get the divorce settlement? If you think it should be because of the sacrifices she made(child-bearing,taking care of the kids etc)then i have a problem with that. The man too makes sacrifices in a marriage. If he's not rewarded for his sacrifices,then why should she? That's what i have a problem with-the fairness of it all.

On the other hand,i don't think a woman should be thrown out into the street just like that. If she was a good wife and a good mother to her kids,then she deserves better.

I think in such cases(i'm talking real cases here,not cases where some gold-digger marries a man with the intention of getting a fat paycheck after a few years),then i believe the wife deserves a divorce settlement,but a reasonable one.

I think whatever she could've earned if she was working-based on her skills etc-should be paid to her. If she could realistically have earned 50,000 USD a year for 5 years then she deserves 250 grand. Even if the man is worth 500 million dollars,she should only get what is rightfully hers-the 250 grand,unless the man wants to dash her 10 million,but that should be his choice.
And child support too.
Please note that i think this should be done in cases where the wife was a good wife and mother-not a gold-digger.


It's not a yes or no question;should there be divorce settlement or not. I think it varies from case to case. Sometimes yes,sometimes no. And even when there is a settlement,it should be reasonable. It should be based on what the wife coulda realistically earned if she was working(that's if she was a housewife). Whether the man is a billionaire or not shouldn't matter-she should only get what she deserves.

If she was working throughout their marriage then i don't see any need for a divorce settlement.

Atreides:

If she was working throughout their marriage then i don't see any need for a divorce settlement.

They usually dont get one if she worked during the marriage unless they have kids

biolabee:

hmmm,

since uve made it personal by using my brother

i start with the kids

once the kids are sorted out, there should be child support
next is by law, she is entitled to half of what the partnership made in the years of marriage

how did i accuse u sentimentally,  i just asked a simple Q

You see what i mean when i mentioned people painting a different picture of what is being discussed? Read that post again. I said "Put yourself in this scenario". I didn't say "Let's talk about your brother i know of". I don't even know if you have a brother.I clearly used an illustration. What is so hard and complex about that to understand? Why do people like to interpret posts out of context?

Nekai:

It boils down to this:
A. These wealthly men know what they are getting themselves into when they get married. They are choosing to get married in a country that provided them the opportunity to amass this wealth in the first place, and are quite knowledgeable about the legal implications of marriage and the potential ramifications of divorce.

So because the law is like that and the men get into it knowing the law, the law needs no changing.

Wow! What a brilliant contribution!

Oh, now I get it!

So because African women get into marriages knowing that, in that country, after divorce they will be left with nothing, that makes it fine. That law does not need changing. It should be left like that.

Great point, Nekai!

Fantastic erudite contribution. Thanks!

2.   Our systems are different.
14.   Why change it?  It’s still working OK.
15.   I don’t like that idea.
16.   You’re right, but …
24.   Nobody cares about that.
25.   We’ve always done it this way.
29.   We did all right without it.
30.   It’s never been tried before.
34.   Let’s not be the first.
37.   It can’t be done.
38.   It’s too much trouble.
39.   It’s impossible.
44.   The rules say we can’t do that.
45.   We can’t fight government regulations.
48.   No one is interested.

harakiri:

Please, let's be objective and leave out sentiments shall we?

Now, if you had followed the my posts on this thread with a clear unbiased mind, you would have noticed that what i am against is irrational and biased system of divorce laws in the west. I NEVER indicated that a man should divorce his wife and kick her to the curbs without any support for the kids ( i don't know why people like to paint a different picture instead of issues). Put yourself in this scenario :

You have an elder brother who you saw struggle throughout his twenties and early thirties to make something out for himself. Sunday to Saturday, he's always busy with work. The only time he has for himself is when he sleeps. Christmas,New year,Easter and Birthdays are mere formalities and a waste of precious time to him. He is 100% focused on winning the war against lack and poverty.With time, he becomes a billionaire. He now decides to get married. They have 2 kids together within 5 years of marriage and because she's bored and "unhappy" with the marriage, she wants a divorce. In all fairness, do you think this man deserves to be kicked out of his mansion all because his kids must continue to "live the good life"? Do you think it's fair that all his assets be split into half and given to a woman who has no idea how many sleepless nights he's had worrying about how to protect and improve his investments? Do you think it's fair such a woman gets anything from $100million to $500 million of his money all because she "sacrificed" her time to raise HER OWN KIDS? Do you think it's fair that a man MUST compensate a woman for having kids? (child bearing is at the top priority list of almost every woman and yet when she has them, a man must PAY! ! !). Do you think it's fair that a woman receives huge amounts of money that can corrupt the heavens all because she changed diapers (Actually, a nanny does that job for them, a steward does the laundry, there's a cook,driver,security guards and even live in cosmeticians who do her nails,hair,make up for her without her needing to lift a finger. All she does if phuck him once in a while and blow tens of thousands of dollars in a 2 hour shopping spree)? Do you think it's fair that a woman can cheat on a man and get half his wealth but the same is not applicable when a man cheats. It only makes his case worse. If she cheats, it's because her "needs" are not being met in the marriage. If he cheats, it's because he's an unrepentant he-goat that didn't put his family first before making a bad decision and as a result, the judge hands him down the harshest spousal and child support ruling obtainable within the state laws. I can go on and on with a lot of unfairness in the system but a rational thinking person knows I've said all that needs to be said in my first post on this thread.

Yes it's fair that the assets gained in those five years are split. (The mansion woudn't be a part of those assets unless they bought it during the marriage, and even still he would split the value if he didn't want to leave. He wouldn't get thrown out.):

1. He knowingly got married into a society that splits the marital assets. If he knew that he was going to be making a 'huge amount of money that can corrupt the heavens', then he should have had her sign a prenup for a lesser sum.
2. He got married to a woman of little value. She has no idea he has many sleepless nights, she prefers to have a full staff do the things that she could be doing, she doesn't lift a finger, and she blows money on shopping sprees.

He sold himself short by joining himself to a woman like this. Why did he get married and sign on the dotted line? A girlfriend could have served the same purpose.

ThiefOfHearts:

Everyone on Nairaland is an "engineer", "lawyer" "doctor" what's your point? Your pathetic grasp at English proves otherwise.

Pathetic grasp of English? Do you even know the meaning of the words you type or you just blurt out whatever comes to mind? You're a little girl and i understand most girls your age are brainless. A little brain matter starts to grow when you approach 30.

For someone who's as "educated" as you are, why don't you start by defining what DIVORCE SETTLEMENT really is. Is that so hard for you? I guess it is coz brainless people like yourself who literally have nothing to contribute ALWAYS resort to uttering derogatory remarks in topics that require rational and well thought out comments. Very typical and utterly predictable. If you feel you have a brain upstairs, reply this post as rationally as you can without any dirty words and see if you won't fart instantly. . .lol

Nekai:


Yes it's fair that the assets gained in those five years are split. (The mansion woudn't be a part of those assets unless they bought it during the marriage, and even still he would split the value if he didn't want to leave. He wouldn't get thrown out.):

1. He knowingly got married into a society that splits the marital assets. If he knew that he was going to be making a 'huge amount of money that can corrupt the heavens', then he should have had her sign a prenup for a lesser sum.
2. He got married to a woman of little value. She has no idea he has many sleepless nights, she prefers to have a full staff do the things that she could be doing, she doesn't lift a finger, and she blows money on shopping sprees.

He sold himself short by joining himself to a woman like this. Why did he get married and sign on the dotted line? A girlfriend could have served the same purpose.

At last! We've finally agree on the same thing i hammered on in my first post on this thread where i clearly stated that marriage is pointless due to the fact that men can always get what marriage "offers" WITHOUT being married in the first place.

Kudos Nekai. . .You finally saw the light. . .lol

@ ThiefOfHeart

I am learning a lot from this tread .

So i will like you to stop throwing insults at everyone.

And this your [b]"NEGRO" yab [/b]is really bad. If you hate Blacks so much then why are you here?

No body is fighting we are just stating our different opinions.

OK.

Sagamite:

So because the law is like that and the men get into it knowing the law, the law needs no changing.

Oh, now I get it!

So because African women get into marriages knowing that, in that country, after divorce they will be left with nothing, that makes it fine. That law does not need changing. It should be left like that.

Great point, Nekai!

Sigh. It's a shame that this is the only thing you gained from that post. That wasn't my point and you know it. That argument about changing laws and all that is a different dicsussion altogether. But since you went there I had to bring this up.


The following is a link to Nigeria's Matrimonial Causes Act:

http://www.nigeria-law.org/Matrimonial%20Causes%20Act.htm

In case it is too lengthly, it does talk of earnings capacity, maintence for both child and former spouse, settlement, child support, and many of the things being discussed here.

weird.

all I see is "blah blah my name is hakari and Im reetard that makes lame comments about women, blah blah"

You are saying I bring discussions down to mere name-calling when you made an ultra gay comment about my pic, you pitiful hypocrite.

What part did of child support/custody is part of divorce settlements did you not get, babbling illiterate.

People are trying to separate the two, when they are one of the same. I also believe II already stated that ALIMONY is the one that most people have a problem with and most divorce settlements do NOT include the concept of alimony.

Am I supposed to translate this into your native tongue for you to comprehend? Asiwin.

It is NOT a coincidence that the one that involves the courts is the one that involves children. That Paul and Heather mess wouldnt have gone that way if they didnt have a daughter.

harakiri:

At last! We've finally agree on the same thing i hammered on in my first post on this thread where i clearly stated that marriage is pointless due to the fact that men can always get what marriage "offers" WITHOUT being married in the first place.

Kudos Nekai. . .You finally saw the light. . .lol

Nekai:

If all a man contributes is financial security then why should a financially stable woman get married? In the west single women are in the workforce in full force, making the same amount of money as a single man. Also, if all a woman contributes is beauty, then why get married at all? Keep your beautiful girlfriends and trade her in for a new model every few years. Poeople (men and women) need to stop blindly getting married for selfish reasons or to yeild to social pressure. It leads to disrespect, comtempt and untimately divorce. Manhood encompases many things, not just bringing home money, just as womanhood encompasses many things, and not just being beautiful and popping out babies.
Maturity is not only about knowing your strength and worth as a man/woman, but in also knowing the strength and worth of the opposite gender.

Harakiri, I'm glad we agree that those not mature enough to understand the true worth of the opposite gender should not get married. . .lol

emmatok, who are you and why would I listen to you?

What are you learning? Rofl

Nekai:

Harakiri, I'm glad we agree that those not mature enough to understand the true worth of the opposite gender should not get married. .

LOL Agreed.

harakiri calm down ur blood is so HOT  

i was being sarcastic making a jab at ur earlier comment of being sentimemtal
i took ur comments the way they were n u did not bother to do same just went off on the tangent after saying whether i have a brother or not

Let me repost it then tell me what u think

Atreides:


Okay i get it now.
@biola,it's complicated. After going through some posts here i don't think it's as simple as yes or no.
Well i have to ask,why do you think she should get the divorce settlement? If you think it should be because of the sacrifices she made(child-bearing,taking care of the kids etc)then i have a problem with that. The man too makes sacrifices in a marriage. If he's not rewarded for his sacrifices,then why should she? That's what i have a problem with-the fairness of it all.

now u see the quandary i appreciate ur stepping a step back
what i can say is that this model needs to be relooked in the context of better empowerment opportunities for the modern woman
Historically women worked in the home or in subsistence farms so basically did not pull economic weight and to ensure they were not at the receiving end, the law was applied at 50%.
but now that women can be empowered mnaybe there is a change but there shd stil be sth, that is my own point

On the other hand,i don't think a woman should be thrown out into the street just like that. If she was a good wife and a good mother to her kids,then she deserves better.

I think in such cases(i'm talking real cases here,not cases where some gold-digger marries a man with the intention  of getting a fat paycheck after a few years),then i believe the wife deserves a divorce settlement,but a reasonable one.

I think whatever  she could've earned if she was working-based on her skills etc-should be paid to her. If she could realistically have earned 50,000  USD a year for 5 years then she deserves 250 grand. Even if the man is worth 500 million dollars,she should only get what is rightfully hers-the 250 grand,unless the man wants to dash her 10 million,but that should be his choice.
And child support too.
Please note that i think this should be done in cases where the wife was a good wife and mother-not a gold-digger.

How would the law determine a gold digger from a good wife, depends on a layer (money), too complex , see my point the law is an ass

It's not a yes or no question;should there be divorce settlement or not. I think it varies from case to case. Sometimes yes,sometimes no. And even when there is a settlement,it should be reasonable. It should be based on what the wife coulda realistically earned if she was working(that's if she was a housewife). Whether the man is a billionaire or not shouldn't matter-she should only get what she deserves.

If she was working throughout their marriage then i don't see any need for a divorce settlement.

I will throw this Q back to u, lets say u are to arbitrate a couple on a settlement.
The man and wife are both working
but it was a loan/grant  from the wife to the husband that enabled him start up
how owuld u proceed

Good point though, and lastly id that a real journal of ur life, seems pretty personal in the big cold cyber world

@ Nekai. . . What criteria determines the "true worth" of the opposite sex?

Nekai:

Sigh. It's a shame that this is the only thing you gained from that post. That wasn't my point and you know it. That argument about changing laws and all that is a different dicsussion altogether. But since you went there I had to bring this up.


The following is a link to Nigeria's Matrimonial Causes Act:

http://www.nigeria-law.org/Matrimonial%20Causes%20Act.htm

In case it is too lengthly, it does talk of earnings capacity, maintence for both child and former spouse, settlement, child support, and many of the things being discussed here.

Amsorry?

What we were debating was the sense of the law.

That is why it has "Non[b]sense[/b]" in the title.

I don't know what different discussion you are referring to.

Don't try and pull the wool over my eyes, sweetie. I have juju to see through it.

harakiri:

@ Nekai. . . What criteria determines the "true worth" of the opposite sex?

This is a great question! However the answer would be better gained by opening a new thread on this topic. Truthfully the answer of what is the true worth of a man and what is the true worth of a woman is not as cut and dry as spitting out few bullet points on a forum. Life is a far better arena for learning the answers to this question.
It's also individual because every man and woman has to discover their true worth by applying their God given talents and abilities to develop their self worth.
Manhood and womanhood have different and equally as important roles in a marriage.
Personally I look to my mom first when making my determination of a woman's true worth, and I look to my dad when making my determination of a man's true worth. They were not perfect, but both their strengths and weaknesses have shaped my personal views on the matter.