lilwetdick:


first and foremost, western feminism started in 19th century not in the 50s.

Where did I say that Western feminism started in the 50s? You said Nigeria will continue to be conservative, I disagreed. After the suffragettes, the wave that changed the West into the progressive culture it is, started in the 50s. Sexual revolution, Roe V. Wade, Divorce law reformation ( the law you guys hate) , Workplace discrimination laws etc the agitation and the eventual signing of these laws took four decades. Feminism started in Nigeria in the 40s but Nigerians like their Western feminists in the 50s are just starting to agitate for progressive laws.

Okay let’s use 1920s, so it took a very conservative Western society 70 years to be this progressive. So, Nigeria still has time, we’re on track.

I didn’t say there was no longer domestic violence in Nigeria, I said the conversation has changed. There is more awareness now and such change leads to reformations. That we’re having this back and forth is a change.

Social media made possible the change of some laws in some conservative islamic countries where the internet is banned or censored.

This is the internet age, Nigeria will have no choice.

You people that are always in denial about laws or lack thereof that affect women and children in Nigeria as if you live on Mars.

1. No laws to guarantee education for a child (I.e there should be a deterrent, like possible jail term for a parent that refuses to send their children to school)
2. No child labor laws.
3. No workplace discrimination laws ( an employer can get away with not giving you a job because of your tribe, gender, religion or age) this law will benefit men and women.
4. No workplace sexual harassment law - the boss and the company can get away with firing you for reporting your boss for sexual harassment or get fired for rejecting your boss’s advances. ETC

What is a feminist law? Are the laws above feminist laws? Do you need to be a feminist to agree that children should be in school and not be hawking in harsh conditions? Should a woman be fired because she refused to be Oga’s food?

lilwetdick:

just because Nigerian women are online doesnt mean they will follow feminism, when young it is easy to follow trending waves of whatever stuff is trending but as reality sets, they leave those stuff and go with reality.

No nigerian lawmaker is going to put any feminist law into our laws,Nigeria is too complex and religious for that to happen so dont be worried

Most Nigerians are conservative and are either muslim, christian or traditional worshippers, so putting laws that support feminist agenda or western ideas can become a disaster for the nation

Not true.

This is what they said about the Western culture, which was extremely more conservative than the African culture.

With internet, social media and migration, it’s very impossible for young women/men to see the rights that other women/men from other cultures enjoy and not want a part of it. Nigerian social media/blogs have already changed the conversation about domestic violence, The Supreme court is striking out custom laws about female inheritance, an individual took the government and won, to allow married women get new or renew their passports without their husband’s approval. Some states are signing into law more progressive laws. Nigerian women are starting to question if divorce is an option or not, some Nigerian dads are becoming more hands on with childcare.

The progress is very slow, but it will come wether Nigeria likes it or not, it might not be sweeping like the West’s. Even strict Islamic countries have reformed some conservative laws after conversations on social media by their citizens based abroad. These conversations on Twitter, Instagram etc starts the progressive train. Some of these people will get into politics. You don’t have to identify as a feminist to know that there are some laws that are unfair to women, men & children, many Nigerians would get behind such laws even though they aren’t feminists.

The conversation we’re having now, the West started in the 50s and it took them 4 decades (90s) to achieve what they have now and they are still fighting.

Baldwretch:


On the other hand, if it's found that one spouse has made a significant contribution like raising the kids etc, etc, then they should be compensated, but the compensation should not be related to my net worth [/b]Anything above $500k in a divorce settlement is over the top because at the current minimum wage, working $10/hour for 50 hours in a week, [b]that is more than 20 years salary.

This makes it $2000 a month and $24, 000 a year. You don't see that that's downright nonsense. Where were you when the business, which is now a marital assets, was languishing and everyone refused to help? Where were you when I grind hard day and night to be successful, and just because I married you, we get to slash the marital assets. I am not going to argue with you. Sit down and think this through please. It is not fair.

1. Net worth is NOT what is divided
2. The business (before marriage) you had or inheritance is not part of a divorce settlement. It is the income earned by the business during the marriage that’s in play. Also length of marriage is also considered.

As an adult you have a choice, if you feel your grinding and hard work is enough and you can do all by yourself then you don’t need marriage. However, if you choose to get married and raise a family or you co-habit with someone for a considerable length of time in America, then the law believes that union in some way helped in achieving that wealth you accrued during the marriage. The law doesn’t believe a rational adult man/woman will participate in something that doesn’t benefit them.

Most women aren’t marrying rich men, so back to my original question, for those good women you mentioned that contributed to their marriage, in your opinion, what’s the best and fair way to compensate them when the marriage ends? Assuming the western law as you say is ridiculous. In Nigeria, how would you draft a law to protect this good women?

Baldwretch:


Who told you the law is universal? Divorce laws isn't a federal one and most states have their divorce laws and it's method of execution. Just see what you're saying, are you rational in saying a law should be done away with because the 1% are ‘losing’ a portion of their wealth? Lol, so it is okay for the exaggerated one percent to lose their wealth as long as it works for the general population? Where did you get that from? Please spare me that. Do you know that more than 7 million Americans have at least one million dollars in their account and do you know the statistics of men in that range?

This is the mischief of the judicial system: an average American man wants his wife to work, he doesn't want a sahm, so why is she getting the good end of the bargain. I am not being ignorant of good women's contribution in marriage but I am talking about what they get to receive for these contributions. I am a Nigerian nah, so why are you being sarcastic?

I said the law is universal in its application, men, women, rich and poor are all subjected to the divorce laws of the state they wish to seek the divorce. It’s in my post, you quoted out of context to make your point.

If you believe women make some contributions to marriage. What is the best way to reward such contributions if the union ends?

Baldwretch:


It seems you're simply being dishonest or at best ignorant

4. The money seems a lot because you’re looking at it through your ‘poor’ man’s lens. $750M

Oh not again, sorry, I am looking at it from an objective point of view.

And you’re objective? There are no thoughts or posts that is objective or rational if it’s not in context. $750M =\= $750M. Again, the law is universal across states, a ratio is used to divide communal properties. Man, woman, rich, poor are judged by the same laws.

Are you rational in saying a law should be done away with because the 1% are ‘losing’ a portion of their wealth? When the law works just fine for 99% of the population who have to come together to build wealth. Most women are not models that end up with multi millionaires/billionaires. Most women work, raise children, give emotional support etc to build their marriage, the law was created to recognize those contributions!!!

You are rational but you want an organized society to do away with a law because rich men can’t stop marrying gold diggers.

To you the law doesn’t make sense because you think women don’t contribute to marriage and they should be kicked out with nothing when the marriage ends. Civil and sane society disagrees with you. A marriage is a union where both become one to build communal wealth and each states have different laws to calculate what ratios each deserve when the union ends, that is a fair and just law.

In America you have two options, if you believe women don’t contribute to communal wealth, then don’t marry. If you believe they contribute somewhat but not up to the definition of the state, then you get a prenup.

At the bolded;
1. Do you reside in the states?
2. Are you married and reside in the states?
3. Have you ever sought a divorce in the states?
4. Are you a divorce attorney?

Where are you getting your info from? I know where I am getting mine.

P.S.
I noticed you and your cohorts have an issue with my “poor man lens” comment. I know Nigerians easily get triggered when wealth is mentioned, that’s why I carefully typed poor in quotes to suggest the poor is relative to Tiger’s wealth. I am also poor to Tiger woods, Tiwa Savage is poor etc. That’s why I said the money is like 75cents to both of us. FYI, the money is not $750M it’s closer to $100M (a combination of % money accrued during the marriage + a gag order to prevent her from selling her story to the press) not that it matters.

Martinez39:

N.B: I wouldn't, for obvious reason, go back and forth with you on this and I rest my case. I wouldn't even respond to your reply (if you did give one). Good day.

Of course you would fear a response because your posts are always based on lies, conjectures, emotions, paranoia, copy and paste from right wing websites and conspiracy theories. You deal in absolutes which leaves no room for a rational argument. You only excel in your echo chamber.

Ladycewhy:
i replied one with Adele and Wendy Williams' case but he came back to view and didn't have anything to say again. These boys here are hopeless liars. Just wait they will either ignore this your comment cos they know it is the truth or twist it ,lol

Don’t mind them. The irony is some sort of law that recognizes the contribution of a spouse in a marriage will benefit men and women in Nigeria. There’ll be be no need for “your money our money”, the law already takes care of that for you and both can focus on building their wealth.

The way it’s set up in Nigeria now, I would advice every Nigerian bride once they’ve exchanged vows should start saving and hoarding money for the day she will/might be kicked out or the sudden death of the husband. Most Nigerian men believe a woman brings nothing to a marriage and so she is entitled to nothing.

Baldwretch:


I am not ignorant of the fact that women also pay alimony and child support...

This scenario that you people have created where during a divorce the law favors women, the men are stripped of their wealth and the women ride off into the sunset richer while the man is left in penury is a very huge lie. 1. It’s a percentage of earned wealth during the marriage not the man’s entire net worth. 2. The woman is never ever richer than the man after the settlement. 3. Most of the men make the settlement money back. 4. The money seems a lot because you’re looking at it through your ‘poor’ man’s lens. $750M (doubt it was that amount) to Tiger is 75 cents to you and I. A couple that earned $75k while they were married will also be subjected to the same ratio.

Again, the above scenario is for the 1% of the population.

The courts believe one way or another a union between people contributed to the earned wealth during the union and without one or the other that wealth wouldn’t be possible. It’s believed if a rational human being decide to make a union with another then he does so because he/she believes they would benefit from it.

Humans are selfish and ungrateful it’s common for people to say “what’ve you done for me?” when relationships go sour, the courts don’t live in people’s homes but they believed you when you made that rational decision to marry that person.

If you believe no woman or marriage on earth can help you earn x amount, then don’t marry. If you believe a woman should be entitled to only x, then get a prenup. Americans are not marrying or having kids because most are in debt not because of alimony. If you don’t marry but you co-habit your assets can also be split by the common law.

The law is mostly just and fair and it does what it was created for, you people always say white woman are the real feminist because they contribute financially to marriage 50-50. This law made it possible. Couples are willing to come together without fear or paranoia to pool their financial, physical and emotional resources and create a communal wealth, this is true for majority of Americans.

Baldwretch:


Thank you Martinez.

Nothing provokes me like the bullsh.it misandrist divorce laws especially in the US and other developed nations; as in, when I think of how Emmanuel Eboue of Arsenal and MANY rich men have lost a fortune in these court proceedings ehn, and you know what makes these folly really painful, the fact that men, not women, made these laws. Who has bewitched them? If you want to settle a spouse for sticking it out with you for X, Y, years fine, it is commendable; after all, the partner might have made some big sacrifice but slashing net worth, diving assets and other such nonsense is pure bullsh.it, It's just crazy.

Family court doesn’t care if it’s a man or a woman. Communal property AKA what is earned during the marriage (not the entire fortune of the man/woman) is sorted out, then the higher earning couple pays alimony and child support.

Rich women who earn more than their spouse also pay alimony to the man. Madonna, Britney Spears, Mary J Blige etc Halle Berry pays child support to her baby daddy.

You people always use rich people the 1% to criticize the law when the main motivation for such laws are the 99% of Americans who earn mostly 5&6 figures. The alternative will be the Nigerian way, where a woman will be kicked out with only the clothes on her back, women constantly living under the threat of “get out of my house!”. As more women are becoming the higher earning spouse, more women are paying alimony now.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-women-are-paying-alimonythat-includes-supporting-their-exs-porn-habit-2018-05-23

People will always try to find loopholes or take advantage of laws that are intended for those who really need it, it doesn’t mean the law does not serve its purpose.

“Domestic chores is for women”

In our house, there’s no boy or girl chore, all chores are a life skill that a human being should know/learn. We’re raising a boy and a girl and they both do all kinds of chores equally. Now that they’re old enough to make breakfast, they have a rotation, one makes the breakfast and the other washes the dishes.

When they’re old enough for “the talk” the boy would be told he’s not entitled to any girl’s body; no means no; playing with the emotions of another is a no no; etc.

I agree with you, we can complain all we want but how are we raising our sons. Our parents dropped the ball. Even as woke as my parents were, this was our routine, the girls woke up earlier to do chores, the girls did chores after school, while my brother only ‘washed’ the car on Saturdays. My Yoruba demon ex’s mother was encouraging his cheating ass by welcoming all his side chicks into her house and calling all of them “our wife”.

Doctors are reporting the first evidence that genetically edited cells could offer a safe way to treat sickle cell disease, a devastating, incurable disorder that afflicts millions of people around the world.

Billions of cells that were genetically modified with the powerful gene-editing technique called CRISPR have started working, as doctors had hoped, inside the body of the first sickle cell patient to receive the experimental treatment, according to highly anticipated data released Tuesday.

The edited cells are producing a crucial protein at levels that have already exceeded what doctors thought would be needed to alleviate the excruciating, life-threatening complications of the genetic blood disorder, the early data show. Moreover, the cells appear to have already started to spare the patient from the agonizing attacks of pain that are the hallmark of the disorder.

"We are very, very excited," says Dr. Haydar Frangoul of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., who is treating the patient. "This preliminary data shows for the first time that gene editing has actually helped a patient with sickle cell disease. This is definitely a huge deal

It's a miracle," says Gray, who says she has hope for the first time after a lifetime of struggling with excruciating pain and debilitating, life-threatening complications of the disease. Sickle cell disease is an inherited condition that is marked by defective oxygen-carrying red blood cells.
"When you pray for something for so long, all you can have is hope," says Gray, 34, who has four children. "It's amazing."

Fetal hemoglobin is a protein that is normally produced only by fetuses and newborn babies for a short time after birth. So scientists used CRISPR to edit a gene in bone marrow cells that had been removed from Gray's body.

The edited cells were infused back into her system, and the editing change allowed the cells to start producing fetal hemoglobin again. The hope is that the fetal hemoglobin will compensate for the genetic defect that has resulted in sickle cell disease and its abnormal form of adult hemoglobin.

"I think it's enormously exciting that we've reached a point where gene editing using CRISPR is being applied to sickle cell disease," says Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins, who is not involved in the research, noted that sickle cell disease affects about 100,000 people in the United States and millions more worldwide.

NPR

1. If she was pregnant at the time of the wedding and your marriage is less than a year, then you can seek an annulment. In the eyes of the law/state that marriage never existed.

2. You can sue for a divorce, parental fraud AKA infidelity is grounds for a divorce, you can also ask the court to relieve you of all parental obligation.

It is normal.

The honeymoon is over, expectations have to be adjusted. Most women think the man will spend as much time as he did when they were dating, most men think they’re still single.

When ‘see finish’ sets in a marriage doesn’t matter the man’s personality it stings. DH doesn’t drink, he’s introverted and he loves staying indoors. We were under one roof but continents apart. His poison? Video games and watching the UFC. What I did? I am not a wallower so I stopped hovering and waiting, I sought out my own entertainment, I joined a local Arsenal fan club and watched matches every weekend at the local bar. The unintended happened, we will swap gists about what we did that day, unknowingly, we were creating new materials and we bonded over each other’s experiences. Over-time he started coming with me to watch matches and I started watching the UFC.

It never ends though, someone will always feel neglected. The pendulum swung back to me when the kids came. Also life happened, priorities change etc he outgrew his love for computer games (I now use the PS3 to watch old dvd movies/series), he has made friends at my Arsenal fan club (he’s a ManU fan) and we both watch the UFC.

Is Spain in Europe?

dfrost:


Are you Spanish?

Mrexcell:


Nigerians always abuse civilization even the European and American women don't name the kids they give birth to the name of their father, were are Nigerian ladies learning this one from now?

Not true. Spanish and Portuguese naming custom, the kids have both the mother AND father surnames as their surname. That’s why any Spanish, Portuguese or Brazilian star you know have lots of names as their surname.

Some cultures in Nigeria also recognize compound surnames. Some polygamous homes do that too. Some do that if they are a union of two prominent families.

There’s no one rule. I am not from a polygamous home, my surname is a compound name of my mother and father surnames.

DMerciful:
So in your opinion, once 2 persons agree to bring sickle cell children, the society that will also bear the brunt as well as protecting the interest of the child should do nothing.

When has marriage ever stopped Nigerians from having children?

Fake news.

yeyeosoronga:
They should start with the registry then. Some people only do court weddings.
Are they now asking the religious houses not to join those who's genotype are nor compatible? Do these religious houses have the right not to join people because of their medical challenges?
What if the couple know they're not compatible and both decide to still get married? Has the church/mosque/court registry got a right to deny them of that right? That is discrimination IMO if they're denied the right to marry.
It is a useless law if they cannot task the court registry and those who marry traditionally to the same thing they are tasking the churches and the mosques IMO.
What about theose cohabiting?
I know it's a stupid decision for those not compatible to marry, but that is where science comes in.

Thank you! I made my comment before I saw yours. It’s a very stupid law. I don’t think it will pass.

This would be a very stupid law if passed. So the government want to deny citizens their right to marry?

It’s not every Nigerian that marry to procreate or have the desire to choose “continuation of their lineage” over companionship. I know two AS couple that have children through AA sperm donor. Some couples adopt.

Instead of the government to budget more money to improve stem cell research. Bone marrow transplant is more successful and less painful when the sickle cell patient is a child. Do more in awareness (people should know their status) like they did for AIDS. They would rather deny people of marrying whom they love.

Breaststroke:


@ OP, there should be a term/clause in that contract which says in the event that wifey is unable to conceive and birth a child within 2 or 3 years, the contract becomes null and void, and she will be mandated to return part or all of the valuable things you've given her. The only thing I could see in your revised contract (as you wrote) was a lot of manipulation;

This is illegal. Imagine if there is a provision that Nigerian husbands can compel their infertile wives to return money/assets used in a marriage? Once they got married, the laws in the matrimony act supersedes any contract. The judge will only use pre/post nuptial agreements to decide division/ownership of properties, alimony etc not to compel a spouse to return what was used/spent/consumed in a marriage.

Either the OP is a troll or he was duped by a ‘lawyer’ the kind of contract he seeks is not legally binding. If his story is true, playing nice is his best option. Play nice, let the marriage run it’s course, hold on to his remaining assets and seek a divorce later or if he can wangle a post-nup to protect his remaining assets ( that’s the only thing he can do) but pre/post nuptial agreements in Nigeria are influential not binding, meaning it’s at the discretion of the judge.

Omojudy:

How could the millionaire not get a top notch lawyer to win this case?

... because it’s a false story making rounds on African blogs.

Fake News.

Michellekabod2:

On the safe side I advice males to avoid dating their subordinates to avoid issues that may arise since they are at the disadvantage if things go wrong.

Exactly! Not only males, females too. Another option is for the subordinate to transfer to another department where the superior has no jurisdiction.

Michellekabod2:

Are things considered lawful because the perpetrator are less powerful than the recipients??

It’s not a crime for two adults to engage in a consensual relationship, meaning the superior won’t go to jail.

However, the rules change in an office setting because:

1. Is it really consensual? How do we know the subordinate didn’t say yes because he/she fears retaliation.
2. Resentment by other co-workers- real or imagined favoritism.
3. When the relationship turns sour, in countries that have sexual harassment laws, the subordinate can sue the company for sexual harassment.

The OP isn’t about women who don’t believe in the ideology but about women who DO believe in the ideology but still choose to do stereotypical things.

A feminist that loves to cook and clean for her husband shouldn’t be mocked by other feminists if she CHOOSES to do so.

There is a difference between “It’s a woman’s job to cook and clean” from “I choose to cook and clean because I want to not because I think it’s a woman’s job”. Michelle countered the former in your last conversation with her. The latter is what the OP is about, a post about feminists that choose to do things that are defined as ‘women’s’ role.

JONNYSPUTE:
.. Lol. You shouldn't have quoted me because you won't understand where we started.Anyways,nice try.

She still disagrees with you, women shouldn’t be made to follow this original plan of nature and marriage designed by men for women. The OP is telling feminists not to muffle the choice of women with traditional views.

Michelle, beautiful post.

JONNYSPUTE:
.. I think she has experienced what you just said now. The last time I told her that feminism distorts the original plan of nature and marriage,she countered it. I wonder what made her to be saying this.

lilwetdick:


i think we have different definition of how a woman she be sexy

i dont like women on guns, it is just a turn off, even muscular women with 6 packs

There you have it! That’s your answer. Some men like damsel in distress women, some like their women to challenge them as equals. I guess humans as diverse beings will ultimately choose whom they relate to as partners.

So who do you blame when the balance of power is skewed? The person in the position of power to give grades/jobs or the person that takes advantage when said power is abused by the aforementioned?

In our society, we focus on the wrong people.
If a professor can be seduced by sex/money then he/she shouldn’t be in a position to give/influence grades, abuse of such power should come with very huge consequences. In an organized society a professor can not afford to give in to his/her “konji”, there’s too much at risk for him/her. It would be in his/her best interest to report students who seek to seduce him/her.

The CEO of McDonalds was fired for engaging in a consensual relationship with a subordinate, she wasn’t fired. He earned $21M last year.

When a professor or an employer abuses his/her power, he/she sets off a chain reaction and creates a system where there is mistrust and no integrity.

It’s the same company, the product is branded differently in some countries. “Sonne” is “Sun” in German. It’s a Swiss company so they have it branded in English or German. However, you’re right since Nigerian consumers are not used to the stylized “sun” brand, they should do an ad explaining it.

There is nothing wrong in opting to go childfree. Your fears about disruptions that children create in your life are valid and kudos to you for not caving in to societal pressure. The one thing people always ask is what if you regret when the choice is no longer yours to make? Well, I think it’s cruel to bring a child into this world on the off chance you might want the child after all.

Also, the technology in fertility treatments has greatly improved, more women are having children well into their late forties. If you are in your 20s and you change your mind 15 years later, you will just be in your 30s-40s. If you can afford it, you can also freeze and store your eggs, you can also adopt or foster children. The point is, have children when YOU want them.