Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[paula]

depends if u can get a sitter or not on a saturday night

[Guest]

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Jessica Rabbit @ Jul 12 2004, 18:04)

Andy et al, when you can have babies then maybe you can start moralising over whether or not women should be awarded money.

I'm not "moralising" about the child maintenance payment at all.

I'm moralising about the massive sum of money she has received for herself.

 

P.S. I do not subscribe to the (highly sexist) implication that only those who have had children have a right to an opinion on this matter.

[Jessica Rabbit]

I find it quite amusing that the men objecting to the ruling on this thread are using the argument that it's 'sexist'. If you are truly concerned about sexism, why not start a thread on:

 

1. The pay gap

2. The fact that 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence

3. The fact that 90% of rape cases fail

4. The fact that there are many men with outdated, misogynistic attitudes towards women, who think it is perfectly acceptable to grope women they don't know and rub their crotchs up against them in clubs.

 

(disclaimer: what I am about to say is merely a thought and please don't take any of it personally anyone...)

At the end of the day, this ruling is basically one which undermines male power. Before, if a woman was left in the lurch when her husband fucked off with another bird (as was the case here), she probably would've been told to sit down and shut up about it and only speak when she's spoken to. But instead she has fought, and won, so she can keep something for herself and her family instead of being left with nothing. And anyway, let's be honest, it's not like he can't afford to part with that cash. I wonder if the reason so many men are opposed to this case is because they find it threatening..... I can just see the Daily Mail headlines now - 'not only are women stealing our jobs, they are all out to rob us of all we're worth too!'

 

Kether: I'm aware there are plenty of shit women too, but to be fair it's alot more difficult for women to run off leaving men holding the baby.

[Alex]

I'm sure that if someone started a thread on each of those points, there really wouldn't be much to discuss or object to, both men and women having more in common than they would think.

 

QUOTE (Jessica Rabbit @ Jul 12 2004, 21:38)

1. The pay gap

 

I am against this and I am firmly for equality on this.

 

QUOTE

2. The fact that 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence

 

Firmly against this.

 

QUOTE

3. The fact that 90% of rape cases fail

 

I really don't know enough about this statistic, but if true that's apalling.

 

QUOTE

4. The fact that there are many men with outdated, misogynistic attitudes towards women, who think it is perfectly acceptable to grope women they don't know and rub their crotchs up against them in clubs.

 

Not sure what can be done about this (apart from enforcing a minimum distance of three foot from each other and throwing out offenders) and it's not like women don't do the same to men in clubs.

 

QUOTE

(disclaimer: what I am about to say is merely a thought and please don't take any of it personally anyone...) At the end of the day, this ruling is basically one which undermines male power. Before, if a woman was left in the lurch when her husband fucked off with another bird (as was the case here), she probably would've been told to sit down and shut up about it and only speak when she's spoken to. But instead she has fought, and won, so she can keep something for herself and her family instead of being left with nothing. And anyway, let's be honest, it's not like he can't afford to part with that cash. I wonder if the reason so many men are opposed to this case is because they find it threatening..... I can just see the Daily Mail headlines now - 'not only are women stealing our jobs, they are all out to rob us of all we're worth too!' Kether: I'm aware there are plenty of shit women too, but to be fair it's alot more difficult for women to run off leaving men holding the baby.

 

While and interesting idea... It's not so much the worry about loosing "male power"(?), but loosing money earned to someone who is capable of earning for themselves. The children are and should be looked after financially by their father, but the mother certianly doesn't need to be paid such a large sum?!

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Jessica Rabbit @ Jul 12 2004, 21:38)

I find it quite amusing that the men objecting to the ruling on this thread are using the argument that it's 'sexist'. If you are truly concerned about sexism, why not start a thread on: 1. The pay gap 2. The fact that 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence 3. The fact that 90% of rape cases fail 4. The fact that there are many men with outdated misogynistic attitudes towards women...

All of those things concern me. Actually I regret putting sexism in the title, because as I have subsequently stated many times, my issue has little to do with gender.

 

I would add that all of the matters you've mentioned are very complex, and your "strength in numbers" strategy of reeling off several issues that (superficially) sound like evidence that we live in a sexist world where women are all victims, is a little transparent.

 

I am bothered about sexism, and I'd be more than happy to join in a discussion about any of those issues.

 

QUOTE

At the end of the day, this ruling is basically one which undermines male power.

It's got nothing to do with that. As I have repeatedly said, I would be equally appalled if a man fleeced his rich ex-wife in the same way. (Although, I do think there are certain sexist aspects to the law - as Kether said, a lot of men have to pay through the nose for kids that (unjustly) they barely get to see. But that is another matter.)

 

QUOTE

And anyway, let's be honest, it's not like he can't afford to part with that cash.

What kind of argument is that? Perhaps Bill Gates should chip in too. After all, "it's not like he can't afford to part with that cash".

[Jessica Rabbit]

But why do you use the word 'fleeced'? As I said before, maybe if you actually sat in court and listened to what was said and the judge's reasoning then you would understand, you are still harping back to your 'golddigger' argument.

 

And my comments were in relation to the fact that this debate has been pretty much males vs females, and I found it interesting - just why are men so opposed to this ruling? I wasn't accusing anyone, it was just a thought. In my experience, men don't ever admit to thinking this anyway - a bit off topic, but was having a discussion with someone (male) about how men don't seem to admit the real reasons they are turned on by certain sexual acts, eg anal sex is essentially a degrading act, but men will rarely admit that that's why they like it, when it's probably a contrabuting factor for many. Liking something sexually because it is degrading doesn't make you a misogynist or mean you can't have functional relationships with women, which is what men seem to think you are accusing them of if you make an observation about it (oh yes, and me and the bloke I was having the discussion with were in agreement on this). i think the same might be true - feeling threatened by women gaining power is something some men will feel, but it does not necessarily make them a misogynist either. Ermm, some of that was quite off topic but I hope you get what I mean.

 

And my comment about him beign able to afford it - you are making out like she is robbing him of a fortune, when in all likelihood it won't have that big affect on him financially, considering he was supporting his family before the ruling anyway.

[Jessica Rabbit]

QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 12 2004, 22:03)

The children are and should be looked after financially by their father, but the mother certianly doesn't need to be paid such a large sum?!

But was the judge wasn't awarding it to the mother so she can go and buy clothes and a new car, he said he awarded to her so she can build a 'nest egg' (as her husband's income will soon drop considerably), presumerably to look after the children when they are older, fund them through university etc.

 

She was also awarded the money becasue he felt she played a large part in shaping his career and getting him where he was.

[Alex]

QUOTE (Jessica Rabbit @ Jul 12 2004, 22:51)

QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 12 2004, 22:03) The children are and should be looked after financially by their father, but the mother certianly doesn't need to be paid such a large sum?! But was the judge wasn't awarding it to the mother so she can go and buy clothes and a new car, he said he awarded to her so she can build a 'nest egg' (as her husband's income will soon drop considerably), presumerably to look after the children when they are older, fund them through university etc.   She was also awarded the money becasue he felt she played a large part in shaping his career and getting him where he was. I guess I'm just not too fond of the idea that something that was once formed on love would end in something about money... it just seems that was all that was important in the relationship. Which is partially why I have a hard time finding this as something that is justifiable, that and why should she be awarded such a large sum of money (people can and do live on less, very comfortably)?

Edited July 13, 2004 by Alex

[Dawn]

QUOTE

Suppose the wife does not work outside the home, and the husband never does any work around the house. Then the value of the wife's household service is simply equal to the husband's income. This methodology is not only easier than the standard ones, it is better in that it is a true measure of value, rather than just cost. It is better because it does not have any of the ad hoc aspects of the market measures since it relies on the revealed behavior of the individuals to assess their own value.

 

So I suppose she got made redundant ... A golden hand shake indeed!!!

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE

And my comments were in relation to the fact that this debate has been pretty much males vs females, and I found it interesting - just why are men so opposed to this ruling?

Equally interesting to note the women sticking up for their own. My sense of empathy for human beings extends beyond my own gender, my own race, etc.

 

How many times do I have to say: I would be equally appalled if a man fleeced a woman in the same way. This has nothing to do with gender.

 

I've already admitted yes, I wasn't in the courtroom, but give me ONE example scenario where a person deserves to profit from the fact his/her partner was loaded. Nobody NEEDS that amount of money. Ergo she has profited.

 

QUOTE

feeling threatened by women gaining power is something some men will feel, but it does not necessarily make them a misogynist either. Ermm, some of that was quite off topic but I hope you get what I mean.

I agree with what you say re degradation/misogyny etc, but I think you're reading between the lines too much if you think that "fear of women gaining power" has anything to do with my moral objection to a person (who happens to be female) gaining excessive money as a direct consequence of her divorce from a rich person.

 

At the risk of sounding sexist (ah well, fuck it ) I think you're exhibiting the typically female trait of trying to read too much into people's statements. Maybe if we stuck to pure logical reasoning, and you ignored your gut feelings that myself or others have some sort of ulterior motive behind our opinions, maybe we wouldn't get so sidetracked. So yes, that was an interesting observation about men, but irrelevant.

 

If you think I'm simply "sticking up for my own", you underestimate me.

 

My point is quite simple; let me put it another way for you. Man A and Man B both start off with the same amount of money. Man A marries a poor woman. Man B marries a rich woman. Both couples divorce. Now why should man B end up richer? (discounting any gifts or benefits that his wife voluntarily gave him during the marriage)

 

Any arguments about "nest eggs" are invalid, because you clearly don't NEED a quarter of a million pounds to build a nest egg. Let us draw a distinction between what you actually NEED and what you do not. That is why I used the word "fleeced": she has made a disproportionate amount of money out of the fact she was married to a rich man. I think we all agree she would NOT have received so much money if he was working in Maccy D's.

 

QUOTE

And my comment about him beign able to afford it - you are making out like she is robbing him of a fortune, when in all likelihood it won't have that big affect on him financially

My Bill Gates analogy stands. Simply declaring that "he will cope" is a very weak argument.

Edited July 13, 2004 by LiquidEyes

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 13 2004, 09:48)

My Bill Gates analogy stands. Simply declaring that "he will cope" is a very weak argument.

the same could be said, when a man walks away scot free then!! Leaving the woman to cope with kids & is decided she will cope ok on fook all!!

[LiquidEyes]

Lisa: I certainly do not think a guy should get off "scot free" if he gets his wife up the duff, then ups and leaves. But neither do I think he should have to forfeit an arbitrary proportion of his money; the maintenance should boil down to necessity.

 

As long as maintenance payouts are proportional to income, gold-digging is encouraged.

[Lisa]

Well, we cant entirely blame her can we, as this did go through court, with lawyers & judges etc etc & they were the one's who agreed to award her this amount, so we cant shift it all on her, as they obviously felt she was entitled for whatever reason eh Andy!!

If you went to court for a divorce or a settlement of any kind, would you, if you was awarded that amount, sit there & think, *woah, this is too much, im fleecing this, best tell them, No i dont want that amount*??

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 13 2004, 10:48)

Well, we cant entirely blame her can we, as this did go through court, with lawyers & judges etc etc & they were the one's who agreed to award her this amount, so we cant shift it all on her, as they obviously felt she was entitled for whatever reason eh Andy!!

So do you feel the same about people who sue their company because of an "accident" at work? Or sue the council because they slipped on the pavement? Etc.

 

I'm not disputing whether what she has done is LEGAL. I'm disputing whether it's ETHICAL.

 

QUOTE

If you went to court for a divorce or a settlement of any kind, would you, if you was awarded that amount, sit there & think, *woah, this is too much, im fleecing this, best tell them, No i dont want that amount*??

Yes, I'd like to think I would.

 

It's all very well insulating yourself from the reality of what you are doing through the legal system, but my sense of right and wrong isn't based on the letter of the law.