Male Parliamentarians in Kenya Oppose 50-50 Matrimonial Wealth Sharing

  • Thread starter Thread starter abujagirl
  • Start date Start date
A

abujagirl

Guest
The Kenya Parliament has approved a bill stopping the 50-50 sharing of matrimonial property by spouses after dissolution of marriage, Kenyan local media reported on Wednesday.

However, 28 female legislators rejected the proposed law.

If the bill gets signed into law, matrimonial property would now be shared on the basis of contribution by each spouse and not equally as had been envisaged in the Matrimonial Property Bill 2013. Liabilities in the union would however, be shared equally.

Male MPs against the 50-50 sharing formula argued that it would not be fair to share equally properties acquired during the marriage, saying this would encourage women to force their way into marriage only to run away in order to demand property.

James Lomenen who led the debate, argued that it would be unfair for the properties to be shared even after husbands had paid dowry.

"After paying so much in dowry, is it unfair to again ask the husbands to share properties you have made during the marriage",Lomenen said.

Asman Kamama representing Tiaty said in many situations women find men with properties made before the marriage, saying that it would be against the rule of natural justice to share equally the wealth with a woman who came with nothing.

Female Parliamentarians have petitioned Kenyatta not to sign the bill into law.

Esther Murugi said it was wrong to treat married women unfairly, because "a woman would have fed and cleaned her husband even if she contributed nothing to acquiring of family properties''.(NAN)

upload_2013-11-13_15-26-30.png
 
@[USERGROUP=4]Senior Member[/USERGROUP] @[USERGROUP=2]Personal account[/USERGROUP]
what sayest thou...me i love this bill in some ways, though it could be seen as unfair in several other ways
 
I think 50:50 is fair enough. If the woman would look after the children with her 50% and the man would look after his girlfriends with his 50%.

@[USERGROUP=2]Personal account[/USERGROUP] @[USERGROUP=4]Senior Member[/USERGROUP]
 
I think 50:50 is fair enough. If the woman would look after the children with her 50% and the man would look after his girlfriends with his 50%.

@[USERGROUP=2]Personal account[/USERGROUP] @[USERGROUP=4]Senior Member[/USERGROUP]
wait...you mean she can come with nothing and leave with 50% of all you own?
 
50 wot? Heck no. :mad:

Those in favour of this bill are either gold diggers or they are too lazy to work.
 
i support this actually. housewife or not, a wife provides so many things for the wellbeing of the husband. emotional support (therapy costs hundreds of dollars), taking care of the family (have u heard the amount nannies get per hour?). of course, it shd be the other way round too i.e if the wife is wealthier, she shd share. God loves the cheerful givers.
 
After reading through, I personally do not favour the 50-50 bill. So as not to seem chauvinistic, lemme explain.

First of all the new bill will favour sharing on the basis of contribution. I see no problem here for someone that did not plan to be a gold digger. I may be wrong but I believe the bill will make both parties hardworking.

There's always this belief that women will suffer more when such situations occur. Does this mean women are naturally lazy? Do they cower behind in the kitchen because of their fear of being unproductive?

This new bill will allow for rights to be expressed. The children will be taken care of, no need to use that cliche line to steal from a man.

...and why do we always believe it's always the female doing the gold digging?

Let's forget about using that dowry clause, it does not hold much weight. When push comes to shove, let everybody's contribution be weighed on a scale.

Women liberation has made the 50-50 bill obsolete. If she works successfully, it would be unfair to still take from the man. If she does not work, it's not too late to find a job before the marriage hit rock bottom.

Men that won't allow their wives to work should have the 50-50 bill placed on them.
 
This news story brought a smile to my impressively handsome face.

When we talk about contributions, in the eyes of the law, we are looking into empirically quantifiable/measurable elements. As was mentioned by the Esther lady, cooking, cleaning the house and caring for kids cannot be measured on a universal scale, so alas, the removal of the 50-50 law deals them a big blow.

The James Lomenen guy should rest abeg. We are discussing wealth, he's discussing his dowry. He. Should. Rest.

Now, the alternative is separation based on contributions. I think - correct me if I am wrong, friends - that before this law can go into effect, EVERYTHING should be put in place to ensure TOTAL GENDER EQUALITY so that a woman has as equal a chance as any man in getting a job that will pay her a wage as high as any man's.

I don't know Kenyan laws, but if this is already put in place, well, I support the stoppage of the 50-50 law, since women in Kenya, to put it crudely, have become grown-ass men :D

If this isn't so, it would be insensitive to remove the protective 50-50 arrangement.
 
I think 50:50 is fair enough. If the woman would look after the children with her 50% and the man would look after his girlfriends with his 50%.

@[USERGROUP=2]Personal account[/USERGROUP] @[USERGROUP=4]Senior Member[/USERGROUP]
And we know, if we don't take care of our girlfriends, who will? :D
 
There is no need for this brouhaha. Why not sign a prenup?
Marriage is fast becoming a paper contract anyway.

And @The_HeadCase stop imagining things. *impressively handsome face my foot* Maybe @Bolanle Akanji and @Jules can buy that. I don't. You prolly look lik Olusegun Obasanjo. :D
 
Human beings generally behave the same way all over the world.
And you know this because you've happened to lived, worked, socially interacted with and been a part of the law and life of each and every nation where humans thrive?
Or is that just you making an assumption?
Don't make generalisations. Human beings aren't as "general" and don't necessarily think the way you do
 
Back
Top