The Marriage Act (Marriage Act, Chapter 218, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990) provides that written consent is necessary where either party to an intended marriage is under 21 years. However, this consent must be from the father: a mother’s consent is only acceptable if the father is dead or of an unsound mind (Section 118, Marriage Act, 1990). Beyond a shadow of doubt, it is clear that acceptability of the consent based on the gender of the parent is unnecessary, discriminatory and serves no known practical or legal purpose other than to perpetuate the stereotype that treats Nigerian women as chattel and second class citizens.

at bolded.
Nigerian women don suffer.

Twahhhhhhhh
except your husband is MAD before you can consent to your own childs marriage?
Ewwwwhhh

sick sick sick.

FrancisTony:

Except for this; No reasonable human would want to be a Nigerian by choice in this our present stage save for years to come.

Not even that, just so he can get access to other beautiful African countries for short vacation.
without having to book for visa all the time.

Even to visit my folks na for Ghana we dey end oh.
i no wan hear story abeg

Nothing wrong with the laws.

You can ask for exceptions for your area of origin if you want to start mining and the likes.

Or you want free unrestricted movement of females across borders to engage in 'business'.

Thus, the Penal Code permits husbands to use physical means to chastise their wives as long as it does not result in "grievous harm," which is defined as loss of sight, hearing, speech, facial disfigurement, or life-threatening injuries. Although the constitution provides for equality and freedom from discrimination; there are no laws that criminalize gender-based violence, while some federal laws condone such violence. It is hoped that the law makers should use the ongoing Constitutional reform project to repeal the Penal Code, because women’s rights are human’s rights

see another one.
Unbelievable.

Nigerian women, pls i know say una time don pass. You are already used to the blows and punches.
Pls fight for your daughters biko. Dont let them pass thru this humiliation.

When i said European cats and dogs are better treated than an average Nigerian Women, you think im joking.
even physical means to correct a dog will land you in jail.

damn, this thread is depressing.
Abeg make e no come spoil my Friday jare.


Nigerian women, make una dey dia dey gnash una teeth ehear

Fight you cant fight
talk you cant talk,
type you cant type.

Una be zombie ni??

Chillisauce:


Not even that, just so he can get access to other beautiful African countries for short vacation.
without having to book for visa all the time.

Even to visit my folks na for Ghana we dey end oh.
i no wan hear story abeg

Only ECOWAS countries require no VISA to get in and there is no beautiful West African country in my opinion save for Ghana - a little bit.

Only Southern and Northern Africa is massively developed.
East Africans, maybe for their tourist & wild life attraction(s).

Biko, how many foreign Male nationals are interested in being citizens of Nigeria by virtue of marriage? Women are married out, they dont marry in. the only men who become citizens do so by naturalization and they do so for business purposes... No man marries a Nigerian woman to become a Nigerian. its important to look at both sides of an argument, if a man can confer citizenship on his wife and the wife cannot, isnt it another way of saying "any woman can become a Nigerian and not any man" just by marriage, since Nigerian citizenship has suddenly become so essential? if this is so, isnt this law in favour of women? it is only just a matter of interpretation and presentation, a scourge the 1999 constitution suffers from.
Also, how do you expect the law to be balanced when women have chosen not to be part of it. women alone know what disturbs their fragile tranquility and only them can advance laws to cover such issues, the makers of those laws clearly didnt think women would be bothered by the fact that they cant make their husbands citizens of Nigeria, they assume, as do i and all the men in this world that women are more interested in living with their husbands.. i havnt come across this disagreement until i stumbled on this thread. infact, i can bet my balls that this argument has never been up for debate in the national assembly.....

FrancisTony:

Only ECOWAS countries require no VISA to get in and there is no beautiful West African country in my opinion save for Ghana - a little bit.

Only Southern and Northern Africa is massively developed.
East Africans, maybe for their tourist & wild life attraction(s).

Gambia is a lovely place.
Ivorycoast too.
Gabon, oh Gabon. That little beautiful country

Anyway, i see the origin of where i'm the head and you are the tail is coming from
Choi.
Its even better one remain single and have access to adult life.
This one gerras ebi oh
opoko!!!!

[s]Discriminatory provisions also exist in many public law statutes. For instance, Section 353 of the Penal Code, which applies to the Southern States in Nigeria, provides that an indecent assault against a man is a felony, punishable by three years in prison. But Section 360 holds that the same offence against females as a misdemeanour is punishable with only two years of imprisonment. It is worrisome that this distinction remains on the statute books, especially when indubitable facts exists that indecent assault is an offense that is often committed against women. Here, I have no choice other than to infer that the law implies that, the offense is of less gravity when committed against a woman. Again, this is inconsistent with the cardinal principle of criminal law which stipulates that like cases should be treated alike and all persons should be protected from harm of a similar degree. More so, these provisions are antithetical to Article 2(g) of CEDAW, which requires state parties to repeal all national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women.[/s]

Absolute nonsense!

Now read carefully and make your own intelligent observations, instead of relying on the interpretations of someone who picked just one clause that mentions male person then juxtaposing it with another that mentions female just to make a point.

[b] CHAPTER 29

ASSAULTS


351. Any person who unlawfully assaults another is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable, if no greater punishment is provided, to imprisonment for one year.

352. Any person who assaults another with intent to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.

353. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any male person is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.

354. Any person who unlawfully assaults and uses actual violence to a peace officer or any other person, while acting in the execution of his duty in or concerning the preservation of a vessel in distress, or of any vessel or goods wrecked, or stranded or lying under water, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

355. Any person who unlawfully assaults another and thereby does him harm is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

356. Any person who-

(1) assaults another with intent to commit a felony, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or of any other person; or

(2) assault, resists, or wilfully obstructs a police officer while acting in the execution of his duty, or any person acting in aid of a police officer while so acting; or

(3) unlawfully assaults, resists, or obstructs, any person engaged in the lawful execution of any process against any property, or in making a lawful distress, while so engaged; or

(4) assaults, resists, or obstructs any person engaged in such lawful execution of process, or in making a lawful distress, with intent to rescue any property lawfully taken under such process or distress; or

(5) assaults any person on account of any act done by him in the execution of any duty imposed on him by law; or

(6) assaults any person in pursuance of any unlawful conspiracy respecting any manufacture, trade, business, or occupation, or respecting any person or persons concerned or employed in any manufacture, trade, business, or occupation, or the wages of any such person or persons;

- is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. [/b]


[b] CHAPTER 30

ASSAULTS ON FEMALES: ABDUCTION


357. Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called rape.

358. Any person who commits the offence of rape is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without caning.

359. Any person who attempts to commit the offence of rape is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without caning.

360. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults a woman or girl is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

361. Any person who, with intent to marry or carnally know a female of any age, or to cause her to be married, or carnally known by any other person, takes her away, or detains her, against her will, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

362. Any person who unlawfully takes an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen years out of the custody or protection of her father or mother or other person having the lawful care or charge of her, and against the will of such father or mother or other person, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years. [/b]

Obviously, the two sections (353 & 360) which the writer juxtaposes to arrive at the conclusion that a sentence of two years is discriminatory as opposed to that of three years in 353, actually cater to two very different things entirely.

Chapter 29 caters to assaults on both sexes entirely and as can be seen from the underlined bits gives the same punishment to all involved (male and female).

Chapter 30 on the other hand, is tailored specifically for females...
So by my own interpretation - if I were deliberately looking for an excuse to fault the nigerian constitution on being partial to one sex, I could also come up with the conclusion that since no chapter is tailored specifically to cater to assaults on males ONLY, then chapter 30 as a whole is discriminatory to males.

The same penal code that the writer touts as being discriminatory to females actually dedicates an entire chapter to dealing with criminal acts perpertrated against females ONLY, but doesn't have a chapter dedicated to dealing with criminal acts perpertrated against males ONLY.
Now tell me, who exactly is being discriminated against here?

crackhaus:

Absolute nonsense!

Now read carefully and make your own intelligent observations, instead of relying on the interpretations of someone who picked just one clause that mentions male person and juxtaposing it with another that mentions female just to make a point.




Obviously, the two sections (353 & 360) which the writer juxtaposes to arrive at the conclusion that a sentence of two years is discriminatory as opposed to that of three years in 353, actually cater to two very different things entirely.

Chapter 29 caters to assaults on both sexes entirely and as can be seen from the underlined bits gives the same punishment to all involved (male and female).

Chapter 30 on the other hand, is tailored specifically for females...
So by my own interpretation - if I were deliberately looking for an excuse to fault the nigerian constitution on being partial to one sex, I could also come up with the conclusion that since no chapter is tailored specifically to cater to assaults on males ONLY, then chapter 30 as a whole is discriminatory to males right?

The same penal code that the writer touts as being discriminatory to females actually dedicates an entire chapter to dealing with criminal acts perpertrated against females ONLY, but doesn't have a chapter dedicated to dealing with criminal acts perpertrated against males ONLY.
Now tell me, who exactly is being discriminated against here?

njokusboy:
Biko, how many foreign Male nationals are interested in being citizens of Nigeria by virtue of marriage? Women are married out, they dont marry in. the only men who become citizens do so by naturalization and they do so for business purposes... No man marries a Nigerian woman to become a Nigerian. its important to look at both sides of an argument, if a man can confer citizenship on his wife and the wife cannot, isnt it another way of saying "any woman can become a Nigerian and not any man" just by marriage, since Nigerian citizenship has suddenly become so essential? if this is so, isnt this law in favour of women? it is only just a matter of interpretation and presentation, a scourge the 1999 constitution suffers from.
Also, how do you expect the law to be balanced when women have chosen not to be part of it. women alone know what disturbs their fragile tranquility and only them can advance laws to cover such issues, the makers of those laws clearly didnt think women would be bothered by the fact that they cant make their husbands citizens of Nigeria, they assume, as do i and all the men in this world that women are more interested in living with their husbands.. i havnt come across this disagreement until i stumbled on this thread. infact, i can bet my balls that this argument has never been up for debate in the national assembly.....

They are men that would like to visit their wife's country without applying for a passport. Also the number is not important. What is important is that women are given the same citizen right as men. It should not read a man bla bla bla or a woman bla bla bla it should read a citizen bla bla bla.

I agree with you that women should take responsibility and get involved. That is what we are pushing for.

Chillisauce:


see another one.
Unbelievable.

Nigerian women, pls i know say una time don pass. You are already used to the blows and punches.
Pls fight for your daughters biko. Dont let them pass thru this humiliation.

When i said European cats and dogs are better treated than an average Nigerian Women, you think im joking.
even physical means to correct a dog will land you in jail.

It is really unbelievable. Did you read the part where our government in 2003 not 1603 referred to women as the man's property?

babygirlfl:



They are men that would like to visit their wife's country without applying for a passport. Also the number is not important. What is important is that women are given the same citizen right as men. It should not read a man bla bla bla or a woman bla bla bla it should read a citizen bla bla bla.

I agree with you that women should take responsibility and get involved. That is what we are pushing for.

Nigeria is not the west.

When Nigerian women were being trafficked abroad in outstanding numbers for prostitution, where were you?

Such an eye opener

Chillisauce:
damn, this thread is depressing.
Abeg make e no come spoil my Friday jare.


Nigerian women, make una dey dia dey gnash una teeth ehear

Fight you cant fight
talk you cant talk,
type you cant type.

Una be zombie ni??

Sorry madam chilli, my intentions were not to cause you a depressing Friday. I just wanted to create awareness on some ways women are discriminated. If my friend did not experience the same citizenship thing as you experienced, I would not even know about that law. My cousin who married a foreigner visits Nigeria with his wife and kids with their Nigerian passport. My friend has to apply for a visa for the husband. How is that fair?

Discriminatory provisions also exist in the 1963 cap 89 Nigerian Penal Code, which is applicable to the northern Nigerian states that have not adopted Sharia law. For instance, Section 55 of the Penal Code provides that:

Nothing is an offense which does not amount to the infliction of grievous hurt upon any person and which is done by a husband for the purpose of correcting his wife, such husband or wife being subject to any native law or custom in which such correction is recognized as lawful.

Thus, the Penal Code permits husbands to use physical means to chastise their wives as long as it does not result in "grievous harm," which is defined as loss of sight, hearing, speech, facial disfigurement, or life-threatening injuries. Although the constitution provides for equality and freedom from discrimination; there are no laws that criminalize gender-based violence, while some federal laws condone such violence. It is hoped that the law makers should use the ongoing Constitutional reform project to repeal the Penal Code, because women’s rights are human’s rights.

Not trying to hold brief for the northerners as I don't particularly agree with most of their laws, but this is what section 55 (1) of the northern penal code says:

(1) Nothing is an offence which does not amount to the infliction of grievous hurt upon any persons which is done:

(a) by a parent or guardian for the purpose of correcting his child or ward . . .

(b) by a schoolmaster for the purpose of correcting a child . . .

(c) by a master for the purpose of correcting his servant or apprentice . . .

(d) by a husband for the purpose of correcting his wife, such husband and wife being subject to any native law or custom in which such correction is recognized as lawful.

Why does the writer only make reference to (d), and where exactly does it imply that the Penal Code permits husbands to use physical means to chastise their wives?

The same way most of you parents correct your child(ren) and househelps without inflicting serious/grevious hurt in (a), isn't that the same way they implied a husband correct his wife in (d)?

This one here is a clear case of choosing to look only where you want to see...

There clearly isn't any discrimination against women here, unless you all agree that the same discrimination is also against children, school students, and servants/househelps/apprentices...of which, most of yous become guilty.
However, if you still can't come to terms with the obvious oversight made with reference to this particular penal code, be rest assured that it is the northern penal code, so the southerners among you can rest well knowing this:

ARTICLE 42(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria:
A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person:

(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject . . .

I think Crackhaus already did justice to this writeup. The writer is a fraudulent fellow in the sense that in his/her attempt to sound discerning, he/she tried to mask his/her limited knowledge of the law with ambigous vocabulary.

Propaganda doesn't help any cause

Chillisauce:


Gambia is a lovely place.
Ivorycoast too.
Gabon, oh Gabon. That little beautiful country

Anyway, i see the origin of where i'm the head and you are the tail is coming from
Choi.
Its even better one remain single and have access to adult life.
This one gerras ebi oh
opoko!!!!

A real head doesn't need to regurgitate it baring frustrations, anger et al...

Comparing Wives to Children? I give Up!

If your wife misbehaves, simply divorce her.
You had options; no one forced you to marry her.
Simple as that; not transferring your aggression to an innocent fellow.

crackhaus:

Obviously, all this wasn't clear enough to the writer...he/she had to go further to imply from his/her own interpretations just to arrive at a discriminatory conclusion.


How can anyone say there's no known case where the Nigerian constitution challenges/criminalizes human rights violation on women?
Seriously?

So who and what is being referred to here?
Section 17 (2a): every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law.

Does every citizen include man and animals, but not women?

Also, how can the constitution which is made for one and all be prohibiting discrimination in the public sphere/state agents, and not cater for discrimination perpetrated by non-state actors when in fact both state agents and non-state actors are all citizens?


Isn't it common sense that a marriage is contracted on the premise that the woman marries into the family and/or in this case, country of the man?

It is also wrong to imply that a woman is INCAPABLE of conferring citizenship on her foreign husband.
The solution to this has been covered here if the foreign husband wishes to be a citizen:

26 (1): Subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, a person to whom the provisions of this section apply may be registered as a citizen of Nigeria, if the President is satisfied that -

(a) he is a person of good character;

(b) he has shown a clear intention of his desire to be domiciled in Nigeria; and

(c) he has taken the Oath of Allegiance prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Constitution.

Pay close attention to the underlined clause.
Because it is assumed that a woman naturally marries into the country of her husband, citizenship is subsequently granted to a foreign national married to a Nigerian woman if he has the intention of being domiciled in Nigeria.

What a profoundly moronic statement!

And also profoundly moronic for Njokusboy to say "Bravo".

crackhaus, did you actually think you were making sense when you decided to give this moronic "insight"?

So you think saying a "woman marries into the family of a man" as a premise of making laws is not sexist discrimination?

You even foolishly called it "common sense"?

So of you actually love to assert that the stupidity you have learnt/been taught is actually pure brilliance because many of you accepted it?

What kind of moronic common sense do they teach in this fcked up failed education system we have in Nigeria for fck sake?

Did you think you were making sense?

Sagamite:
So you think saying a "woman marries into the family of a man" as a premise of making laws is not sexist discrimination?

Indeed, viewing through the “modern” lens of “equality” and, specifically “gender equality”, it may well appear “sexist”. But there would have been similar burdens and expectations on the man that would equally be deemed sexist if viewed from the same perspective.

So for example, he would have been “expected” to be solely responsible to protect and provide for the woman and any children they may have”, is that not equally sexist? Have you yourself not railed against the unfairness of divorce laws? Either you’ve become an Emma Watson fan or you’ve….wait 0! Saga, Saga, you get news

These things should be parsed as a whole – it was about harmony and flourishing, not discrimination. Those were the social morés agreed and in place at the time. Rightly or wrongly, the law merely sought to codify them.

And it’s worth mentioning that large sections of our constitution were lifted wholesale for the British one. They had like traditions and, for "better or worse", are evolving, as we all are. It’s not to say that those laws were instituted with the specific aim of oppressing women – which is the whole thrust of this pathetic thread.



Pathetic and atrociously pitiful thread. An utter fail. Women are discriminated against all over the world? Discrimination against women is institutionalised?? And for what? A married woman is was once required to have her husband’ written permission to obtain a passport What a bunch of near-unredeemable whingers. Oh my! So;

1.What was the point? – it was all about the integrity of the family and acknowledging the traditional headship of the husband – nothing implicitly wrong with that, and in that era
2. What was the implication? – the crippling cost and life-threatening trauma of having hubby pen a brief note – a totally unecessary burden on the husband !
3. What now? – the law was repealed once anyone cared to challenge it. But some still think it serves as an example of women being under the boot of the evil patriarchy

And a woman being able to obtain a Nigerian passport far more readily than a man is discrimination against women, not men? Is that all you can find? Does that mark Nigeria as an antediluvian cesspit of misogyny and it’s men as brutish cavemen. Anything meaty? or even a tad bit relevant to present?

Well, I have news for you “men are discriminated against – and institutionally – the world over”. Take a snippet of current – not dated or repealed - laws/application of laws in the West;

A father does not automatically have Parental rights to his children unless he is married to or marries the mother. If he is married to the mother of the child and it turns out not to be his, he cannot readily disclaim parental responsibility.

If a woman decides she doesn’t want a baby she wilfully conceived, she can abort it, if a man doesn’t, unless the woman agrees, tough. If the man causes the woman to miscarry, it’s murder, if the woman aborts, it’s a “clump of cells”

If the woman decides she doesn’t want the baby after delivery, she only has to put it up for adoption or simply leave it with a note at a convenient place – no questions asked. A man will be on the hook for child support till the child is 18, if it can be proven he is the biological father – whatever his views or desires at any stage from conception to birth.

Yes, there are probably some vestigial traditions that hampered women - just like there were some that disadvantaged men. Discrimination is not institutionalised against women any more than it is against men. The law actually treats men way more harshly than women, and burdens then a lot more - especially when it comes to punishment for crimes.

So please, just quit this “victim mentality” tripe and if anyone has things they need to work through, best seek help.


TV

Sagamite:
[s]

What a profoundly moronic statement!

And also profoundly moronic for Njokusboy to say "Bravo".

crackhaus, did you actually think you were making sense when you decided to give this moronic "insight"?

So you think saying a "woman marries into the family of a man" as a premise of making laws is not sexist discrimination?

You even foolishly called it "common sense"?

So of you actually love to assert that the stupidity you have learnt/been taught is actually pure brilliance because many of you accepted it?

What kind of moronic common sense do they teach in this fcked up failed education system we have in Nigeria for fck sake?

Did you think you were making sense? [/s]

This struggling immigrant has come here to hate on superior reasoning he wished he thought of first...

Yes, a woman would naturally marry into the family of a man ditto his country...da fvck is sexist about that? Someone has to marry into the other's family at the end of the day, and it will still be considered sexist if it was men marrying into the woman's family...so what gives b1tch?

That aside, the constitutionion already more than makes up for the oversight in not mentioning what happens when a Nigerian woman marries a foreigner, you dvmbfvck.
You are not smarter than the people who drafted it.

And then he goes on and on about me thinking I made sense or my supposed brilliance...
Obviously, this is the only problem you had with my entire post when in fact it's your inferiority complex hitting you squarely in the face.
Hey lookie here Mr FOB struggling immigrant, anytime you encounter something profoundly out of your self-hyped depth, better recognize and show some respect.
It isn't anyone's fault that God blessed you with a tiny d1ck which you try to make up for by hyping your so-called intelligence which is actually very limited to the repeated use of moronic fvcktard and failed education system which you're also a product of at the end of the day.



BTW, the author of this thread couldn't even deal with my rebuttal as is usual with folks who go on the internet to post articles from half-azzed sources without doing some research on their own...only for this saga-numbskull-mite to come at me like a lapdog on her behalf and still ended up saying nothing but repeating 'moronic' like 500times. Nigga, you tripping.

Fvck outta my face with your deluded use of repeated lines.

B1tchazz.

TV01:

Indeed, viewing through the “modern” lens of “equality” and, specifically “gender equality”, it may well appear “sexist”. But there would have been similar burdens and expectations on the man that would equally be deemed sexist if viewed from the same perspective.

So for example, he would have been “expected” to be solely responsible to protect and provide for the woman and any children they may have”, is that not equally sexist? Have you yourself not railed against the unfairness of divorce laws? Either you’ve become an Emma Watson fan or you’ve….wait 0! Saga, Saga, you get news

No, my views are not from a "modern or so-called 21st Century lens".

I am not funky. I will never be funky. Neither am I medieval. I will never be medieval.

This is coming from the realms of Intellectual and Logical Thinking. The glorious Thinking where gender equality is supported and it actually means equality, not women getting advantage.

If there are laws based on the premise of any burden or expectations on a man, solely because of his gender, then that law is sexist.

For example, I know in the UK, it is the law that the burden to get consent for sex is solely placed on the shoulder of the man. I find that as sexist.

I am sure I have even read somewhere that a wife sued a man in Nigeria for not providing for her and the court took the case. That is sexist.

In my philosophy, both parents should provide for their child, not just the man, based on REASONABLE needs and divided based on proportion of earnings. Furthermore, there should be a mechanism to ensure the money is actually being spent on the child by the parent acting as custodian of the child.

I rail against divorce laws because, in the UK, the laws are sexist against men. In Nigeria, the laws are sexist against women.

TV01:

These things should be parsed as a whole – it was about harmony and flourishing, not discrimination. Those were the social morés agreed and in place at the time. Rightly or wrongly, the law merely sought to codify them.

I repeat, laws should not be formulated based on premises that disadvantages, directly or indirectly, ANY GENDER. That is my stance on gender equality.

When the opposite is done, sexism has taken place.

TV01:

And it’s worth mentioning that large sections of our constitution were lifted wholesale for the British one. They had like traditions and, for "better or worse", are evolving, as we all are. It’s not to say that those laws were instituted with the specific aim of oppressing women – which is the whole thrust of this pathetic thread.

We can't continue practicing stupidity based on the excuse "It was given to us under colonial times". (not saying that is your own stance)

As much as I call black people monkeys, I still believe we have a little bit of brain. Lets use it!

TV01:

Pathetic and atrociously pitiful thread. An utter fail. Women are discriminated against all over the world? Discrimination against women is institutionalised?? And for what? A married woman is was once required to have her husband’ written permission to obtain a passport What a bunch of near-unredeemable whingers. Oh my! So;

1.What was the point? – it was all about the integrity of the family and acknowledging the traditional headship of the husband – nothing implicitly wrong with that, and in that era
2. What was the implication? – the crippling cost and life-threatening trauma of having hubby pen a brief note – a totally unecessary burden on the husband !
3. What now? – the law was repealed once anyone cared to challenge it. But some still think it serves as an example of women being under the boot of the evil patriarchy

And a woman being able to obtain a Nigerian passport far more readily than a man is discrimination against women, not men? Is that all you can find? Does that mark Nigeria as an antediluvian cesspit of misogyny and it’s men as brutish cavemen. Anything meaty? or even a tad bit relevant to present?

Well, I have news for you “men are discriminated against – and institutionally – the world over”. Take a snippet of current – not dated or repealed - laws/application of laws in the West;

A father does not automatically have Parental rights to his children unless he is married to or marries the mother. If he is married to the mother of the child and it turns out not to be his, he cannot readily disclaim parental responsibility.

If a woman decides she doesn’t want a baby she wilfully conceived, she can abort it, if a man doesn’t, unless the woman agrees, tough. If the man causes the woman to miscarry, it’s murder, if the woman aborts, it’s a “clump of cells”

If the woman decides she doesn’t want the baby after delivery, she only has to put it up for adoption or simply leave it with a note at a convenient place – no questions asked. A man will be on the hook for child support till the child is 18, if it can be proven he is the biological father – whatever his views or desires at any stage from conception to birth.

Yes, there are probably some vestigial traditions that hampered women - just like there were some that disadvantaged men. Discrimination is not institutionalised against women any more than it is against men. The law actually treats men way more harshly thanr women, and burdens then a lot more - especially when it comes to punishment for crimes.

So please, just quit this “victim mentality” tripe and if anyone has things they need to work through, please seek help.


TV

All forms of discrimination, in ANY part of the world has to be reversed.

Equality should be the premise the law is based on.

If 2 people then get together and decide, to create "harmony", they want to practice some form of non-equality, then fine.

I, for one, would never practice equality in my relationship. I am the BOSS, if any girl does not like it, she is free to take a hike!

https://www.nairaland.com/1020560/relative-spouse-beaten-brother-in-law-story/9#11937820

I should not be able to force her to take it and the law should not back me to force her to take it. But we should both have the choice to decide if that is what we individually want or not.

"Choice is one of the great ingredients of happiness" - Sagamite 2015.

YourCoffin:
I think Crackhaus already did justice to this writeup. The writer is a fraudulent fellow in the sense that in his/her attempt to sound discerning, he/she tried to mask his/her limited knowledge of the law with ambigous vocabulary.

Propaganda doesn't help any cause

i fail to see any sort of discrimination myself. the OP said.... The Constitution provides in Section 26(2) that a woman who is or has been married to a citizen of Nigeria may be registered as a citizen of Nigeria, but silent as to whether a woman married to a foreign national can confer Nigerian nationality on her foreign husband.

the silence is actually an advantage to the nigerian women cos when there's no law, there's no crime. if the constitution remains silent over an issue it then means if any woman were to marry a foreign national, nothing can stop her from conferring the nigerian citizenship on her foreign husband since the law does not expressively say she has committed a crime if she were to do so.

where's the discrimination in that? since when did the nigerian passport even bear any relevance in the grand scheme of things. 3 of my oyibo friends got the nigerian passport the same day in lagos. there was no rigorous check done or anything. they rubbed palms, they were made to wait for few hours & their passports were issued to them.

mcchewwww!

crackhaus:

This struggling immigrant has come here to hate on superior reasoning he wished he thought of first...

Yes, a woman would naturally marry into the family of a man ditto his country...da fvck is sexist about that? Someone has to marry into the other's family at the end of the day, and it will still be considered sexist if it was men marrying into the woman's family...so what gives b1tch?

That aside, the constitutionion already more than makes up for the oversight in not mentioning what happens when a Nigerian woman marries a foreigner, you dvmbfvck.
You are not smarter than the men and women who drafted it.

And then he goes on and on about me thinking I made sense or my supposed brilliance...
Obviously, this is the only problem you had with my entire post when in fact it's your inferiority complex hitting you squarely in the face.
Hey lookie here Mr FOB struggling immigrant, anytime you encounter something profoundly out of your self-hyped depth, better recognize and show some respect.
It isn't anyone's fault that God blessed you with a tiny d1ck which you try to make up for by hyping your so-called intelligence which is actually very limited to the repeated use of moronic fvcktard and failed education system which you're also a product of at the end of the day.



BTW, the author of this thread couldn't even deal with my rebuttal as is usual with folks who go on the internet to post articles from half-azzed sources without doing some research on their own...only for this saga-numbskull-mite to come at me like a lapdog on her behalf and still ended up saying nothing but repeating 'moronic' like 500times. Nigga, you tripping.

Fvck outta my face with your deluded use of repeated lines.

B1tchazz.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Product of a failed education system.

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

What kind of fuukard is this?

And your moronic arsse would say "I am a graduate"?

Fuuktard, I am smarter than the cretins that drafted that stewpid law and your entire generation put together.

You think I think in the realms of moronic fuuktards like you?

crackhaus:

This struggling immigrant has come here to hate on superior reasoning he wished he thought of first...

Yes, a woman would naturally marry into the family of a man ditto his country...da fvck is sexist about that? Someone has to marry into the other's family at the end of the day, and it will still be considered sexist if it was men marrying into the woman's family...so what gives b1tch?

That aside, the constitutionion already more than makes up for the oversight in not mentioning what happens when a Nigerian woman marries a foreigner, you dvmbfvck.
You are not smarter than the people who drafted it.

And then he goes on and on about me thinking I made sense or my supposed brilliance...
Obviously, this is the only problem you had with my entire post when in fact it's your inferiority complex hitting you squarely in the face.
Hey lookie here Mr FOB struggling immigrant, anytime you encounter something profoundly out of your self-hyped depth, better recognize and show some respect.
It isn't anyone's fault that God blessed you with a tiny d1ck which you try to make up for by hyping your so-called intelligence which is actually very limited to the repeated use of moronic fvcktard and failed education system which you're also a product of at the end of the day.



BTW, the author of this thread couldn't even deal with my rebuttal as is usual with folks who go on the internet to post articles from half-azzed sources without doing some research on their own...only for this saga-numbskull-mite to come at me like a lapdog on her behalf and still ended up saying nothing but repeating 'moronic' like 500times. Nigga, you tripping.

Fvck outta my face with your deluded use of repeated lines.

B1tchazz.

bikonu ..abeg sofri no kill am

Mutaino7:
bikonu ..abeg sofri no kill am

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

If you want to join him in his obvious slaughter, you can chip in.

Don't just watch. Commit suicide!

You think despite his public "bravado", he is not quaking in his shoes when he saw my moniker was the one that picked him out?

Sagamite:


No, my views are not from a "modern or so-called 21st Century lens".

I am not funky. I will never be funky. Neither am I medieval. I will never be medieval.

This is coming from the realms of Intellectual and Logical Thinking. The glorious Thinking where gender equality is supported and it actually means equality, not women getting advantage.


I repeat, laws should not be formulated based on premises that disadvantages, directly or indirectly, ANY GENDER. That is my stance on gender equality.

When that is done, sexism has taken place.


[s] "Choice is one of the great ingredients of happiness" - Sagamite 2015.[/s]

That a woman naturally marries into the man's family ditto country, is a premise that disadvantages women - this is the opinion of saga-tinyweenie-mite.

What is the alternative genius?

Chillisauce:


As per the passport thingy, i was asked twice in Nigerian Embassy to collect an approval letter from Hubby before they issue our Kids Nigerian Passports. An approval letter from a non Nigeria to give a blood Nigerian passport? Maybe if i go to renew my passport again, i would be asked to bring approval letter eh. This is just so funny and sick at same time.
Can you imagine. I cant even just walk in and get a passport for my own children

While I freely admit that Nigeria has a lot of archaic and discriminatory laws against women, your case above is actually... very common to a lot of countries.

I hate myself for giving a point to Nairaland Association of Small Boy Misogynists but...

Most countries require the consent from both parents in issuing a passport to a child. It serves to protect each party from the other parent getting a passport and taking the child out of the country without consent aka Abduction.

I'm a US citizen, Baby E is a US citizen but she needed a letter of consent from her Nigerian father to apply for a US passport. As long as he wasn't present when I was applying, he needed to swear an affidavit that I had his permission that she could get a US passport. She needed both our signatures to apply for a Nigerian visa.

crackhaus:

That a woman naturally marries into the man's family ditto country, is a premise that disadvantages women - this is the opinion of saga-tinyweenie-mite.

What is the alternative genius?

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Product of a failed education system.

I repeat:

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

Fuuktard, do you know the meaning of naturally?

Was this another work of Sheppopotamus Patience?

coogar:


i fail to see any sort of discrimination myself. the OP said.... The Constitution provides in Section 26(2) that a woman who is or has been married to a citizen of Nigeria may be registered as a citizen of Nigeria, but silent as to whether a woman married to a foreign national can confer Nigerian nationality on her foreign husband.

the silence is actually an advantage to the nigerian women cos when there's no law, there's no crime. if the constitution remains silent over an issue it then means if any woman were to marry a foreign national, nothing can stop her from conferring the nigerian citizenship on her foreign husband since the law does not expressively say she has committed a crime if she were to do so.

where's the discrimination in that? since when did the nigerian passport even bear any relevance in the grand scheme of things. 3 of my oyibo friends got the nigerian passport the same day in lagos. there was no rigorous check done or anything. they rubbed palms, they were made to wait for few hours & their passports was issued to them.

mcchewwww!

as usual slaying retarded and half wit opinions nah ur forte....hence they avoid you like epilepsy.

Most are outdated and should be thrown out the window. Should not be applicable to the present day Nigerian.