DukeofNZ:


we alpha males no go gree every woman go submit to us. but wait now i know say love na strong something, you and pocohantas antibrutus no de get problems as she crazy be but you de get problem with another somebody wey de behave like pocohantas. why?

Lol. This one is like MPRE question. Well, I've no problem with anyone and none of them is crazy. And a queen does no evil according to the gods - at least not before the public - especially if she personifies understanding.

The fact that when a man loses his wife to death, his in-laws do not go after him to dispossess him of the property he accumulated with his wife, highlights the basic inequality between genders

Wetin dey worry you that you have refused to use your god-given reasoning ability?

Asking me what feminism has to do with it. Just say you don’t understand what feminism means and call it a day.

ThothHermes:
Nigeria needs laws and a functional judiciary. Any decent lawyer would get a judgement in the favour of the woman.
What has feminism got to do with this. You think if the kids were male the family members would not grab the properties if they so desired?

Is it because of feminism that things like this these do not happen in America or is it because they have an effective legal system

Wetin dey worry una self

cococandy:
The fact that when a man loses his wife to death, his in-laws do not go after him to dispossess him of the property he accumulated with his wife, highlights the basic inequality between genders

Do you have any example of a man and woman both acquiring properties and the family coming after her after the man's death? I bet you don't. It's another fabrication from your misandrist mind. Create a false hypothetical scenario so you can counter it.

Wetin dey worry you that you have refused to use your god-given reasoning ability?

My reasoning tells me that it's lack of laws and an efficient judiciary that makes this possible. You have not shown otherwise.

Asking me what feminism has to do with it. Just say you don’t understand what feminism means and call it a day.

And you have not answered. Feigning exasperation is an escape tactic. It is not an answer.
Do you really think that a woman who is smart and industrious enough to build with a man would not have a backup plan or would not be confident enough to seek legal redress??

You saying that an industrious woman should also have a back up plan against things like this or go the legal route is just you shooting yourself in the foot and making my point for me.

Why doesn’t a man need that back up to protect him against his in-laws in the case of his wife’s death?

I don’t have to force anyone to agree with me. But the majority of you look dumb when you fight the system that’s growing to help women but then when it happens to someone close to you, you come to the internet to cry about the same thing the system is growing to overcome.

Your hate for women will get the better of y’all. In one way or the other because it’s vicious cycle.

ThothHermes:
Do you have any example of a man and woman both acquiring properties and the family coming after her after the man's death? I bet you don't. It's another fabrication from your misandrist mind. Create a false hypothetical scenario so you can counter it.

My reasoning tells me that it's lack of laws and an efficient judiciary that makes this possible. You have not shown otherwise.

And you have not answered. Feigning exasperation is an escape tactic. It is not an answer.
Do you really think that a woman who is smart and industrious enough to build with a man would not have a backup plan or would not be confident enough to seek legal redress??

cococandy:
You saying that an industrious woman should also have a back up plan against things like this or go the legal route is just you shooting yourself in the foot and making my point for me.

Let it be known that you've not shown how feminism or the absence of it is the problem here.

Why doesn’t a man need that back up to protect him against his in-laws in the case of his wife’s death?

How many women more properties than their husbands? In most cases it's the man who owns everything so why he would he need a safeguard? Do you know of any marriage where the woman owns everything and goes to marry a man with nothing?

I don’t have to force anyone to agree with me. But the majority of you look dumb when you fight the system that’s growing to help women but then when it happens to someone close to you, you come to the internet to cry about the same thing the system is growing to overcome.

Make a valid point and anyone would see reason. So far you are just dreaming up hypothetical scenarios. Once again, why would men need back up plans when they are usually the owners of the property.

Your hate for women will get the better of y’all. In one way or the other because it’s vicious cycle.

No need to get emotional. Answer the questions.

cococandy:
You saying that an industrious woman should also have a back up plan against things like this or go the legal route is just you shooting yourself in the foot and making my point for me.

Why doesn’t a man need that back up to protect him against his in-laws in the case of his wife’s death?

I don’t have to force anyone to agree with me. But the majority of you look dumb when you fight the system that’s growing to help women but then when it happens to someone close to you, you come to the internet to cry about the same thing the system is growing to overcome.

Your hate for women will get the better of y’all. In one way or the other because it’s vicious cycle.

I usually like your arguments as it makes sense but in this case I think you're not getting things right. If a woman owns properties and she gets married to a penniless man, he might not be allowed to take it all away especially if they had no kids or he wasn't a good husband to her while alive. It all depends on the in-laws he has to contend with. Would you allow a gold digger take away your sister's sweat without resisting especially when she informed you of their marital situation before hand, you would have been advising her on how to secure her wealth before her death.

It's similar when the case switches over. Yes, we live in a place where there's inequality but when a woman contributes nothing financially to a home, allows her husband put all his acquired property in his name, isn't aware of a will or investment in the children's name, isn't a signatory to her husband's account et al, who would you blame?

Nothing stops her from securing her children's future, right from their birth, this is what these guys here are saying. This should be an example to all women, sometimes it helps to listen, secure your kids future, buy properties in their names if possible, invest in their names, this is what they're saying because if you sit back and wait for what you think you're entitled to, you may not get it and you may not be able to fight for it because you weren't wise enough to secure it when you had the chance

It's not everything we should turn to argument

When people are married, the finances belong to both of them, whether the man makes the money and woman is a stay at home mom or the woman makes the money and the man is a stay at home dad. And nowhere in Nigeria does it happen that a man gets dispossessed of his marital property because his dead wife was the one who made the money. Y’all got jokes.

For all we know, one person made the sacrifice to be home and take care of the home while the other person earns the income. Now to classify that as not contributing anything to the home is just a way to demean the contributions of the stay home parent. Which in itself is gender discriminatory because if men traditionally are the home keepers, that role wouldn’t be undermined. People wouldn’t look down on it.

You’re the ones arguing when there shouldn’t be an argument. So because someone wasn’t the financial contributor in the marriage, they deserve to live on the street when the bread winner dies? And By gold digger you mean the person they built a family with?. Unbelievable!

Why isn’t a married person entitled to the property that their partners acquired while married to them? So who’s entitled to it then? The siblings who didn’t build the family with them. Please stop talking/typing.

P.S you don’t have to like every opinion of mine. Stating it here is irrelevant. Focus on the specific topic. Thanks

The bottom line is that the unwillingness to embrace gender equality is the cause of things like these. All of you can go argue with your phones.

This post lacks reasoning abilities. I won’t respond to the next one. Move on please.

Mizwisdom:



I usually like your arguments as it makes sense but in this case I think you're not getting things right. If a woman owns properties and she gets married to a penniless man, he might not be allowed to take it all away especially if they had no kids or he wasn't a good husband to her while alive. It all depends on the in-laws he has to contend with. Would you allow a gold digger take away your sister's sweat without resisting especially when she informed you of their marital situation before hand, you would have been advising her on how to secure her wealth before her death.

It's similar when the case switches over. Yes, we live in a place where there's inequality but when a woman contributes nothing financially to a home, allows her husband put all his acquired property in his name, isn't aware of a will or investment in the children's name, isn't a signatory to her husband's account et al, who would you blame?

Nothing stops her from securing her children's future, right from their birth, this is what these guys here are saying. This should be an example to all women, sometimes it helps to listen, secure your kids future, buy properties in their names if possible, invest in their names, this is what they're saying because if you sit back and wait for what you think you're entitled to, you may not get it and you may not be able to fight for it because you weren't wise enough to secure it when you had the chance

It's not everything we should turn to argument

cococandy:
When people are married, the finances belong to both of them, whether the man makes the money and woman is a stay at home mom or the woman makes the money and the man is a stay at home dad. And nowhere in Nigeria does it happen that a man gets dispossessed of his marital property because his dead wife was the one who made the money. Y’all got jokes.

For all we know, one person made the sacrifice to be home and take care of the home while the other person earns the income. Now to classify that as not contributing anything to the home is just a way to demean the contributions of the stay home parent. Which in itself is gender discriminatory because if men traditionally are the home keepers, that role wouldn’t be undermined. People wouldn’t look down on it.

You’re the ones arguing when there shouldn’t be an argument. So because someone wasn’t the financial contributor in the marriage, they deserve to live on the street when the bread winner dies? And By gold digger you mean the person they built a family with?. Unbelievable!

Why isn’t a married person entitled to the property that their partners acquired while married to them? So who’s entitled to it then? The siblings who didn’t build the family with them. Please stop talking/typing.

P.S you don’t have to like every opinion of mine. Stating it here is irrelevant. Focus on the specific topic. Thanks

The bottom line is that the unwillingness to embrace gender equality is the cause of things like these. All of you can go argue with your phones.

This post lacks reasoning abilities. I won’t respond to the next one. Move on please.

Did you pick anything else from the advice we gave or you just want to argue? didn't you see where we wrote what should be done in this scenario or anything similar? It is the law that will uphold her rights in this case haven married into a traditional patriarchal culture which your ranting won't change. Do you know that Yorubas give inheritance to all kids regardless of gender, in such a case it might be unnecessary to seek legal route, so why do you keep arguing as if all Nigerian cultures are involved? even in the east, there are some families where a case like this will never happen because of enlightenment of the people involved not feminism.

In case one meets such an experience as above (if true cause I'm suspecting it's fake news) then Nigerian law can be a back up plan plus securing the future of herself and kids should have been top most on her to do list(hubby should also be involved) which is what we are saying. We highlighted things that should have been done to legally secure herself and kids future.

Feminazi, I don't have time to exchange banters with you, enjoy your day

cococandy:
When people are married, the finances belong to both of them, whether the man makes the money and woman is a stay at home mom or the woman makes the money and the man is a stay at home dad And nowhere in Nigeria does it happen that a man gets dispossessed of his marital property because his dead wife was the one who made the money. Y’all got jokes.

For all we know, one person made the sacrifice to be home and take care of the home while the other person earns the income. Now to classify that as not contributing anything to the home is just a way to demean the contributions of the stay home parent. Which in itself is gender discriminatory because if men traditionally are the home keepers, that role wouldn’t be undermined. People wouldn’t look down on it.

You’re the ones arguing when there shouldn’t be an argument. So because someone wasn’t the financial contributor in the marriage, they deserve to live on the street when the bread winner dies? And By gold digger you mean the person they built a family with?. Unbelievable!

Why isn’t a married person entitled to the property that their partners acquired while married to them? So who’s entitled to it then? The siblings who didn’t build the family with them. Please stop talking/typing.

P.S you don’t have to like every opinion of mine. Stating it here is irrelevant. Focus on the specific topic. Thanks

The bottom line is that the unwillingness to embrace gender equality is the cause of things like these. All of you can go argue with your phones.

This post lacks reasoning abilities. I won’t respond to the next one. Move on please.

If the bold is true why are more and more oyinbo people signing prenups before marriage

Never mind.

Don't bother answering.

ThothHermes:
If the bold is true why are more and more oyinbo people signing prenups before marriage

Never mind.

Don't bother answering.

sly dude

kunleweb:


sly dude

I greet you Oga. Na learn I wan learn o.

ThothHermes:
I greet you Oga. Na learn I wan learn o.

Na wah...

feminazi cococandy has received general beating, i can feel your pains now. pocohantas deserves same too.