₦airaland Forum

You are the one missing the point in this argument. The argument mother does not belong to the husband's family. She is part of the family by virtue of marriage. Last I checked, marriage is said to be between two families not one against another. Marriage does not mean they get to decide what happens to someone's child.

His argument is that the child belongs to the father's family. Once she decides to remarry, she shouldn't carry that child to another family...whatever that meant in his archaic mind.

alphaNomega:
Two of you are missing some points from your argument. Let me put it this way,

1. The child belongs to the mother (obviously, anyone who argues against this should be flogged 5 times)

2. The mother is now a member of the husband's family. I mean, what was the point of a traditional wedding if you were not going to accept the lady in your home.

3. Following the above points, both child and mum belong to husband's family. (Damn I'm beginning to sound like a broken record )

4. You SHOULD NOT separate mother from child. This is everyone's grief against the father's family, at least going by the story the OP has shared so far.

No matter how patriarchal your culture is, the mother still deserves some respect. We still need to know the whole truth of this matter. Yoruba, Edo and Esan people are not as bad as some posters have tried to make it here.

Let me add that going by some traditions, a mother will loose custody of a child if she decides to remarry outside the husband's family. These terms and conditions are clearly explained to all parties involved I.e. the mother, the new husband, the husband's family members and even the child when he/she comes of age (if necessary, because they will ask questions)

I am very much Yoruba by the way. It happens but it is not common and it is not be norm. Besides ours is a patriarchal society, nothing should suprise you.

kaziblake:
Bleep The hate on yorubas is real mehn because these are pure lies

You linked piercing and anklets to being a prostitute. That is my problem with you.

nobodytestme:
I just answered you, my relationship, my choice.
you can pierce everywhere around your body for all I care, that is none of my business.
I just laid down my own., and you talk about civilisation, and also say I went off track??
go read what you wrote down again.
This is going to be my last reply, cuz don't want to make this thread about us,..trust me you wouldn't like that. I'm just gonna act matured plus a I'm little busy too to be replying,so I'm just going let this slide away.
you should get busy too, you need it.

You have gone off track. Please answer the question

Are tribal women hoes?

If you don't like the fashion, that is your choice. However you don't get to cal their who do goes? Your babe may not be putting on anklets but she may more mileage than that babe you see around with tons of piercing.

nobodytestme:
my dear, my relationship, my life.. I'm settling down with her early next year, and not with you plus her simplicity is what attracted me to her.
if you don't like "CIVILIZATION" like you said, go back to wearing leafs and stop wearing clothes na, also stop wearing shoes either, walk around bare footed, since you want to talk about civilization
My relationship, my choice, not yours dear.. Gracias

Does that mean all tribal women are hoes?

See what 'civilisation' has caused?

nobodytestme:
good one from the guy.. the issue also came up with my girl yesterday, she wants a second piercing on her ear, asked her what was wrong with the first one..? Ear dey pain you
long story short, pierce a second one and we break up.
From second piercing now, to wearing anklet, and then spraying hair follows.
if I want to date a hoe, I know where to go pick one, I look responsible, so you have to as well.

I have confirmed that irredeemable sexist if you think that archaic tradition still holds water at this point in time. You must think we are still living in that age where your folks walk around covered with leaves.

Let a divorced man go to court and claim custody because he owns his children and they bear his name or the father's family justify why they have more claim to a child that had a living mother.

deltateam:
I have confirmed you are nuts and beyond simple comprehension.

Wow! There are lot of kidnappers on the forum. Who knew? How many children have you kidnaped from the mothers in name of a stupid archaic tradition?

deltateam:
Its either you are not living in Nigeria or you were born in the bush otherwise you will know a child married traditionally belongs to the man's family and bears their name.

The child in question is a minor and should be raised by the mother unless she's incapacitated.

Go back and tell your father or uncle if you have to educate you. Stop spreading your ignorance.

You will be alright

phineas:
You are obviously a representative of the family or you speak for them. Go and return the child to the recuperating widow

Yorubas family that insist on marrying the widow. There are Yoruba families that exclude the wife and children from inheriting their husband and father's. There are Yoruba families that have kidnapped someone else's child( this is very rare though, it depends on the family)

Most cultures are patriarchical which means in every culture women including widows widow is often treated unfairly and unjust. This is not a war between tribes. Nothing is special about our tribe.

phineas:
Then you are the type they call omo ale jati jati. For bringing your Yoruba heritage as an excuse to justify nonsense.

Yoruba people are noble and they don't stand for injustice. No Yoruba family will do this without widespread condemnation from all Yoruba persons. They will even shun and blacklist the guys family. So what exactly is your point

List of father's family

1. Grandfather- Father's father
2. Grandmother- father's mothrt
3. Uncle- Father's brother
4. Aunt- Father's sister
5. Cousins- father's nieces and nephews

Your claim is that the above have rights over a woman whose egg was fertilised, carried the child for nine months, delivered the child and probably breastfed the child all because it is the father's family that owns the child.

djon78:
Grandmother never came in the particular case I mentioned. You are the one twisting things to suit your narrative

The definition of father's family excludes grandmother abi.

djon78:
And where was grandmother mentioned in what I said. Go and read my 1st post here, your understanding is suspect

Muric needs to mnd it's business

You think it is me that has time to engage words with a man who thinks a grandmother has a right over child than the birth mother.

djon78:
And you have had reasoning Abeg shift one side. You think its to blow grammar. I no get time to exchange word with woman

That is because you don't have any other thing to add.
You post has been devoid of reasoning. It is not going to change now.

djon78:
You call traditional marriage bloody formalities?

I don't have any other thing to say

The woman was the one that fell from sky. The woman's DNA, family history etc iare absent in the child's abi? She was born by vigin Mary abi? She no get bloodline or family?

It takes two people to have a particular child. Traditional marriage and every other bloody event are formalities that doesn't add or remove the fact that it takes two human to have a child. They have equal right over the seed that flows from both of them.

The child cannot have two mothers. Any mother that cares about her child will not remarry a man that does want a child to be with his mother. To hell with stupid roof, house and other stupid rubbish that doesn't mean shit!!!

djon78:
Let me ask you a question. Why is traditional marriage done? Even before churches sanction you for a wedding, traditional marriage is done.

A man owns the children according to traditional marriage. The man came out from somewhere, a family or bloodline brought him to the world, he didn't fall from heaven. So the man and his offspring all belong to the same bloodline.

Woman going to marry another man cannot bring another man s children under the new husband, that's why the guys people talked to the new husband, and he clearly understood and saw reason with them.
And his dads family are taking good care of him till his teenage years. He is representing his father in that family history.



My case is totally different from this case.

Is it within EFCC powers to gift seized properties?

You can go and meet her husband on behalf of the family. Tell him to come and give his child another name. If anyone of you kidnappers cannot force the father to change his son's name, you have no point.

I can't see that stupid link you keep hammering on. He remains his father's child and therefore a right to inherit his father's property. The right to his property isn't only by name. His father recognised him as his son and that is all that matters. If the family like, they should even consider him a bastard, it is your headache. They want a fight, let them take it up with him.

Does your own logic make sense to you? Are you one of those douchebags in-laws? We hope to see you Roy in hell. Wicked people!

neyobills:
Oh the mom is disinterested in maintaining the link,then she should go ahead to change the name of the child to whatever name she is interested in the link.

You can't be disinterested in the link and at the same time use the link to own properties,you have to be be as disinterested in the properties as with the link.

Does your logic even make any sense to you,why am I not surprised with your comments I can see a cold hearted cunny double faced hypocrite.

HIS father's property. He is his father's dependant. He is his issue, his father's son. His right over his father's property superscedes his father's family. Unfortunately for you, they cannot enforce those silly rights in court.

Is it so difficult for you to grasp? Why on earth would you assume that those rights are even remotely equal? Let me break it down for you.

See ehn, my dad can ask me not to visit my grandparents. There is nothing my grandparents can do but lament. They cannot enforce such right or bar me from inheriting my mum's. However, it changes with me being an adult, my dad can say what he likes but he can't bar me from visiting them. Relationship between the child and his father's family is to be encouraged however they cannot force it or claim that is a right they are entitled to especially where the mum is disinterested maintaining that link. No one can blame her in the circumstance, they have proven themselves to be distrustful and wicked.

neyobills:
Oh I now get it you want to enforce the child's right over his father's property at the same time deny the family members of the deceased the right of identity over their own grandchild,isnt God just wonderful?

The child doesn't owe it to them, it is his father's name. The name that his father gave to him. If they have a problem with it, they should confront their son. I expect them to have dial number for the dead.

neyobills:
Technically if the family does not have a right to the child then the child does not have a right bearing the family name either technically losing any rights to any properties in the man's name.

Technically, the family does not have a right to that child when is mum is a live and when the mum has not expressly appointed them as the guidian. His father's properties are his and his mum for their upkeep, the father's family may have some rights in the propertybut it is limited. They can choose not to give the child his father's inheritance, it is their choice. None of the above justifies kidnapping a child from his parent.

neyobills:
I'm not supporting taking the kid, away, from the mom,the family didn't give birth to the child but their son did so technically they equally have a right to the child,But if the deceased has properties and the kid is the next of kin does that mean the properties belong to the fathers family since the fathers family didn't give birth to the kid anyway in your words.

I couldn't ignore his ass. This is really scary, I feel bad for those women out there.

pocohantas:
I just decided to ignore him. The kind of men I avoid...

How does that change that the fact that the father's family didn't give birth to the child? Surname is bullshit because it is a norm doesn't mean you get to take a child away from his mother.

neyobills:
I don't get this your logic sorry the surname of the child is of the fathers so the kid definitely belong to the fathers family in my opinion

A child belongs to his parents. It took two people to birth a child. In the absence of the father, the father's family has no right to take over the child unless the mother wishes or is incapable of taking of the child. If she likes, let her marry a million times. It is her child. That child is a relative to everyone else.

djon78:
Its different. Because the child belongs to the man. He paid the bride price. So its his offspring. But as long as woman is not married to another man, she can keep the baby or children, but once she remarries the children becomes the mans peoples own.
I know a friend of mine it happened to his brother. The guy died when his wife was 7 months pregnant. The guys family continued taking care of her and the child, but a rich man saw the girl and wanted to marry her, but she wanted to go with her son. The family talked and explained everything to the rich man, and the man gave the girl ultimatum to chose between being his wife OE following her son. Of course she choose marriage. Today that child is a teenager, very well cared for by the mans family,

Not your concern. Adeleke was the people's choice.

They need to start posting pictures of the police and their full names, the world need to recognise these monsters.

We are not in the same page, amigos.

If you want to talk about Fulani herdsmen, let's talk about them

If you want to talk about criminals who may or may no be Fulani and who may or may not have been former herdsmen, lets talk about those.

oldtruth:
That is why everyone need to stand up against them. Nobody has the monopoly of being violent. We all get craze for head. All Fulanis herdsmen are either a terrorist or a lawless. They don't care about people's farm nor wellbeing. Did you know that overgrazing that is being practiced is reduces biodiversity, increases deforestation and causes climate change?

Let the stupid president declared any herdsmen without a ranch a criminal. That is the only way. If not, we are deep shut in this country becuase they will definitely cause havoc. Treat them like criminals! That is the only solution. Mabinu

That is because people are getting it wrong.

The war in Libya and terroriam in other parts of Africa created a number of issues. When you also consider the effects of Boko Haram and the crippling economy. It is not hard to figure out this will not end well at all.

So you have youths from the North who may or may not be Fulani, who may or may not have been herdsmen. These people are also problem for Fulani herdsmen. They herd their cattles in fear from these set of people. These criminals started up North against *their people*. Now that they have expanded their criminal entity, why should Fulani herdsmen be blamed for their crimes? The only thing these criminals want his ransom and they have no care for human lives. These crimes is not different from those perpetrated in the South. They are criminals, let's not tribalise it.

However, I am not saying actual Fulani herdsmen don't have issues with locals. Unfortunately, the story most people don't tell is that, sometimes locals also attack them and their animals.

DonMekino:
Ppl still supporting these Fulani stuffs amaze me, how can these ppl be armed and we still expect peaceful coexistence with them? In my secondary school days in awka north lga, there were Fulani in urum town, the arms they had were sticks, nobody disturbed them neither did they disturb anyone....there was an instance a car killed one cow in an accident, the ppl around paid the herdsman and took the dead animal. Now things have changed, they move around killing ppl who don't even attack them. I think this recent incident is just to force the RUGA idea down our throats but it will fail. This govt is filled with cow-loving individuals.

Don't worry. No one is slitting their throats anytime soon but you should be careful, with the way you and your bastards friends are going at this, they will soon end up raping your women and your men will be left for dead. Till both you and your *Fulani herdsmen get sense*.

oldtruth:
Eranko lawon obi e...

When are we still not going to see that? Not all of us are like your family members who will sit and await a nonentity slit their throats.

Omo ale ni awon tobi e

Are people going through Abuja-Kaduna not mostly Northerners and Muslims? This issue has been since 2016, the Government did very little about it because it is Nigeria. Our lives don't matter.

Now that they have extended their wings to the South, why the Bleep should we tribalise it?

gbosaa:
This is no news. It’s information that has been out there. There have been lots of complaints about the locals in Ondo, Edo and Delta states about strange Fulani men camping in the forests.
Emerging from bushes and shooting at vehicles is the modus operandi of these bandits.
They did that along Abuja-Nasarawa-kaduna roads forcing many to use the trains. Even the trains were reported to be escorted by helicopters initially. All these could be searched and read.

People were shot at along those roads, vehicles stopped and passengers panicked and ran into the bushes. Some of them were captured by Fulani bandits. Victims narrated their various experiences and these could be retrieved online.

There was a viral video of similar attack in which the mobile police escorts returned fire causing the bandits to retreat.

In a sane country, the Nigeria security forces would’ve launched an extensive manhunt inside those forests/area to apprehend the bad guys.
I believe strongly that this recent attack was carried out by the same group of bandits.

Can we stop calling these guys herdsmen! A Fulani bandit who probably relocated from north east or some part of west Africa with the help of their brothers here in Nigeria is different from a herdsman.

Okay

Goodbloke:
Another wimp has spoken, where has all our tactful pattern led us, while people are been maimed and killed .Fake news indeed am sure youve sold your tribe out because of APC #1000