Kay17: Mr Anony1

I have made myself sufficient clear. Please make your own stand.

In Nigeria and in this thread, it has been repeated over and over and over again that the head of the family is the man. Society perceives the man insuch a dominant role.

Suddenly you are in awe and amazed and surprised about what gender roles mean!

And then you accuse me of being a twister.

Kay17:
The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

With the definition of gender in your mind, do you believe the social roles allocated to the sexes are the same? For example is the man the head of the family or the woman is the head of the family?

carefreewannabe: Not with you though

Kay17:
So you mean to say that men and women in Nigeria freely and are capable of freely moving between the gender roles?! Anony that is a blatant lie!

And these "certain duties and responsibilities" constitute rights above the equal rights distributed, right? Because at the end of the day, those with the "certain duties and responsibilities" will have more rights than others.

In case you forgot the meaning of Gender, here is assistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

I'd assume that's all you have to say.

pickabeau1: kay17 is such a twister

i wonder why u guys bother

she is an advocate of abortion n choice n believes personhood is at birth... no need for the long debate

Kay17:

@mranony1 you blow hot and cold at the same time. Nobody is talking about equality, rather equal rights is the focal topic. Now, it is either you support equal rights across the board or rights proportionately weighed to duties and responsibilities. It can not be both AND through out this thread, you have switched from one position to the other whenever they seem favourable.

You have claimed both sexes have equal rights and asked me to contradict same AND at the same time openly said the bolded.

Amd finally, Society stratifies along gender lines. Women have their set social roles same with men, even though reality says otherwise.

The expectations from men is different from women etc.

TV01: Morrin' Kay17,

This sounds like you are either stuck, lost, or attempting to use sophistry to make your point. So for the last time;

The sanctity of human life applies to all humans without fear or favour. A baby is a human at inception. Where a pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother, we do all we can too keep both alive. We do not kill one in order to save the other. Yes, one may die, but we do not purposely kill anyone - geddit?Killing is never the answer to the dillema of death. I have no personal dillema, my position is clear....

Kay17: @tv01

I think I misunderstood you.

Are you saying when a pregnant woman is quarter to death because of her pregnancy, and your solution is to wait, watch probably eat popcorn and wait for who to die first?!

carefreewannabe:

Brilliant!

Kay17:

https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/23#25475698


In the light of the above quotes, we arrived at the point where the society creates a gender picture of the value of the sexes and then distributes the rights in accordance with the social roles it has created for the sexes.

MrAnony1: It is also interesting that you believe that the society gives men more responsibilities and duties but you don't consider it to be gender discrimination against men seeing that one gender is required to do more of the work than the other because of their gender. I didn't fail to notice that you were more concerned about the "greater rights of men" than the "greater duties of men".
Finally, I don't think it is wrong in any way to give more rights to the person who has more duties.

Kay17: You Anony1 accept such stratification and further accept that such distribution of rights is fair.

MrAnony1: I agree that IF a society gives a person more duties and responsibilities, it is only fair that it gives him more rights (with respect to his/her duties) but what I don't see is how it makes the people unequal in essence which is what you seem to be suggesting.

For instance; I believe it is only fair that the breadwinner of the family makes the decisions concerning the best use of the resources he/she is providing. In Nigeria it is often the man who plays this role, therefore it is only fair that his decisions carry more weight than the woman who isn't contributing as much as he is. In families where it is the woman who is the breadwinner, you find that she is likewise the one one who calls the shots.

Kay17: YET you still insist absurdly that the rights distributed are equal!!

Kay17: So wouldn't the rights be distributed differently?

MrAnony1:Not necessarily

Kay17:

So why do you say the rights for both sexes were necessarily equal?

Kay17:

The natural progression of a spermotazoa is definitely in the path of a full human.

striktlymi: Great presentation you have there but please I need to ask a question. A bit confused here...

You said:

"Man gave away control of his inheritance to the devil and took on a nature of sin"

and:

"You cannot work your way up to sonship. It is only a slave that works to attain rights, sons are born with the rights inherent from birth"

I need you to help me reconcile both comments please.

If our rights as sons are inherent from birth and we cannot work our way up to sonship how then is it possible to lose our inheritance via sin? If our inheritance is tied to sin, can't it be said that we are inadvertently working our up to sonship?

We did not choose ourselves, God chose us and brought us into his family. What we inherit is not necessarily material blessings rather we inherit God’s righteousness and the gift of sharing in His glory on the last day. It is not something we can possibly earn it is something given. Something only the Father of all righteousness can give.

i quite couldnt swallow the above underlined well... we inherited God's righteousness? the bibile said they which have receive the abundance of grace AND THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS... I thought the good book lets me know the righteousness i have is a gift imputed to me for believing in the Christ?

sharing in his glory on the last day was a gift? We have come to mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem... I'm in that glory now, the glory Adam threw away, it's here on earth, for the good book says, Christ in me is the hope of that glory... not on the last day, but on earth here.

can you please explain further when you are less busier? thanks, in all, i loved the presentation, you didn't say what the actual inheritance is...what is that inheritance the new creation has in Christ as Acts 20:32, Acts 26:18, Col 1:12, Eph 1:18 admonishes. Kudos bro

Kay17: 1. But it is still an argument.

2. So wouldn't the rights be distributed differently?

Kay17:
1. You didn't contradict me regardless of how sketchy my argument was. So what I have said remains uncontroverted.

2. There were two questions in that. Whether culture does perceive the sexes differently AND whether it is fair.

3. I have said enough on that.

Kay17: So who is a person to you?

Kay17:

My position has always been that the foetus is not a legal person. So does not have a superceding right over its mother.

Yours however is it has an equal right. Now in a special circumstance where the pregnancy is the cause of the mortal danger to the mother, you appear to believe that the doctor can abort the pregnancy but what amazes me is how a doctor aborts with a foresight of protecting the mother by removing a foetus, and you think it is not wilful. That should be murder in your language.

Kay17:

1. The point I was trying to make with you about the Marriage Act is that it is a procedural statute on marriage. It does not have the flesh on marriages. Rather case law covers it. And to cover all that is the equivalent of a research paper I am not ready/eager to work on. Unfortunately you don't have a grasp of marriages, so you cannot volunteer much.

2. Do you agree that men have more rights than women because culture perceives such and it is fair?

3. The fact that the constitution hardly mentions women as whole, shows how much recognition it has for them.

4. I will find an example I can remember. But this is subsumed under no.2

Kay17:
1. Let's see how the type of statute (a procedural one) you produced. I just want to prove how non substantive the statute you brought. So ask yourself where you can find the definition that marriage is a union of man and woman. Or the legal benefits of marriage Or corporate status of marriage etc.

But if I were you, I'd rely on case law such as Hyde v. Hyde, cCorbett v. Corbett and thousands more. These give the flesh and grasp on the topic of marriage. So in effect, marriage is still a slightly modified variant of common law institution along with its medieval bias.

As I said earlier, in law, you hardly find a single sentence telling you what you want. It is scattered around and should not be considered with face value.

2. You are dragging us back. We were in accord that rights are not to be read at the surface or in isolation (as bible verses) but collectively and you found the limitations in sec. 45 indispensable. So quoting Declaration of HRs is not to that end. The cultural factor translates the gender differences into the substantive rights.

So if society sees the man as one with the more responsibilities and duties, it automatically grants more substantive rights to him, a circumstance you wilfully agree to.

4. Although you went on like a documentary for a while over matters that were not in issue. The moral/cultural consideration is what's in focus here. Now, if culture has a different perception of a woman from the man wouldn't such consideration weigh on the human rights? If culture sees the man with more responsibilities and duties, and accordingly approves more rights to the man; wouldn't that weigh on the human rights?! So the moral and cultural considerations are the yardstick by which the prior rights are measured and weighed.

3. Because women are barely recognised, it is no issue for you to find it tolerable if there is hardly any expression directed at them in the Constitution.

Sorry about my late replies.

5. Am I supposed to help your imagination too?! I pick the FEMEN tactic of Unclothedness. If a woman tries that in Nigeria, she can be locked up. While a man who uses his Unclothedness as a political or social statement, will be let free.

Kay17:
My position has always been that a woman has a natural right to life over the foetus either when her life is at risk or not.

But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.

Kay17:

@TV01

Are you saying that there isn't any circumstance whereby a pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger?! And you are speaking as a medical expert?

Kay17:
1. On abortion, we can agree to disagree. My arhuments always remain the same.

2. On the issue of the legal state of marriage. It is beyond me and left to you to make your own research. The law resides in the statute books and case laws, it is a nuisance to expect me to reproduce them. Where else are law books to be found. Where else are statutes to be form. There are only 2 statutes on marriages in Nigeria and a myraid on matrimonial properties. I have made my assertions and anchor them on marriage statutes in Nigeria. That's sufficient. You on the other hand, are to assert the contrary.

3. But early marriage in Nigeria is legally permissible!

4. Although you went on like a documentary for a while over matters that were not in issue. The moral/cultural consideration is what's in focus here. Now, if culture has a different perception of a woman from the man wouldn't such consideration weigh on the human rights? If culture sees the man with more responsibilities and duties, and accordingly approves more rights to the man; wouldn't that weigh on the human rights?! So the moral and cultural considerations are the yardstick by which the prior rights are measured and weighed.
As I said earlier Law is mainly philology, ordinary ppl read the rights and exclaim about how sweet and equal these rights are, but they neglect the yardstick in 45.

The examples you are made, are isolated. That's not the general expectation of a woman in Nigeria, her nudity is an ultimate shame.

5. I will agree to disagree with you on that. Again your analogies are always off.

6. Yes to you, language can be trivial, but in the legal scene, even the meaning of "is" is hotly contested.

macof: lol what bad choices?? Knowing the truth that Jesus is an ordinary dead Jew is not a bad choice.

frank317:
No, and sorry for misunderstanding you.

well, right now you are wrong and will face bad consequencies if you dont desist from worshiping an ordinary messenger of God and calling him his son. Allah will not forgive you for calling a human his son because Allah has no wife. this is blashpemy. Allah is the only way to heaven and not Jesus(peace be unto him) you are warned

Now do you have any right to think the bolded above is wrong?

macof:

Exactly! It is hatred.
Josh and Anony like many other Christians are only filled with hatred for people who don't share their delusions

frank317:

how can you say their choice is bad when they believe in it. they dont hurt anyone doing it neither do they go around preaching that its right to do evil. the only reason you call their choice bad is because they dont preach or accept Jesus.
like christianity, islam preaches against fornication and sin generally. how then can you say they are bad because they dong believe in Jesus? why dont you believe that Mohammed is the messenger of God? How do you feel when they say your own choice is bad?