Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[alasdairm]

i agree with a lot of what jessica rabbit is saying.

 

you have to look at this in context or, if you can't or won't do that, look at it completely on its merits. a lot of people seem to be picking and choosing somewhere in the gray area in between and that seems to lead to poor generalisations and a lot of flawed logic.

 

andy, if you're looking for a good debate on morals and ethics, i know this place...

 

 

alasdair

[LiquidEyes]

Yeah; I guess the reason Jess & I have a difference of opinion is because she's looking at my objection as an example of the broader issue of sexism, whereas I'm trying to look at a specific type of divorce scenario on its own merits.

 

I too agree with a lot of Jess's points in isolation, but I don't see their relevance in this case.

 

For example, I don't pretend that sexism against women doesn't exist in our society, but I hardly think that we can cite this as some kind of contrived justification for a gross injustice towards (in this and/or similar cases) a man; this has undertones of positive discrimination. (Okay, I'm being 'girly' and reading between the lines now! )

 

You can't be racist against a white man, and cite as your defence, "yeah well, people are racist against blacks all the time".

 

The counter-arguments against my views have been a hodge-podge of:

* denying that a person can [or that this particular woman did] profit from divorcing a rich person under our laws;

* what she has done is legal, therefore must be acceptable;

* he can afford it anyway, so sod it;

* she "needs" the money (for a nest egg or whatever);

* she "deserves" the money (even though the given information specifies that a massive part of her payout related to neither her contribution to her career, nor their kids);

* there must be some magical argument that her lawyer concocted, that was not reported by the media, that does in fact morally justify the massive sum of money she has received, benefiting her in a way that would not have occurred had she been married to somebody less wealthy;

* the insulting notion that the men are simply taking sides with the man.

 

However, every time I criticise one of these counter-arguments, it seems that my "opposition" simply switch to a different argument. Nobody seems to be clear which angle(s) they are taking.

 

By repeatedly side-stepping my point about a person of non-specific gender profiting from a marriage to a wealthier person, and continually bringing up matters of sexism which do not relate to my arguments, little wonder the discussion is going round in circles, as others have observed.

 

My fault, I guess, for using the word "sexism" in the title.

Edited July 13, 2004 by LiquidEyes

[Alex]

It's often easier to create a seperate and simple issue to oppose, than it is to oppose the main theme of the disussion.

[Guest RickD]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 11:40)

There's another high-profile divorce story in the news at the moment. It's the same old tale: bint ends up with a massive proportion of her husband's fortune. I'm just wondering how people feel about this. To me, it seems morally questionable if it is possible for someone to 'profit' out of divorce. It must be quite daunting to be a high-earning bachelor looking for a sincere partner, as we still seem to live in a culture that rewards gold-digging. Generally it seems to be men who get the short straw in divorce. But it's not as though women are all dependent housewives in this day and age! In cases where maintenance is to be paid, the dependent party appears to have a right to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed (as opposed to a 'reasonable' manner). How do we feel about this? Is it really an absolute right? I'm trying to look at both perspectives, but it does strike me as a dated and slightly sexist aspect of our law. I can also see how gutting it must be for fathers who have to cough up loads of dosh to support their kids, but barely get to see them grow up.

Fucked if i'll ever get married again, once was too much...

[paula]

same here rick

 

but twice

[ChrisT]

QUOTE

All men are bastards All men want is sex He dosent pay any attention to me He'd rather be with his mates than me Etc Etc Etc

 

[Phil rr]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:46)

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:44) QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:42) Why should her life change just because of a divorce? Why should HIS life change just because of a divorce? Who is the victim in this case? The children!!! will someone PLEASE think of the children!     hmm   he's a footballer, he probably thought he was being asked for his autograph when he signed the settlement.   He may have had a different great career if he'd never met her   She may have met another even richer man if she hadn't met him   Her hair highlighting advice to him may have meant she was the reason he got a 5 million vidal sassoon contract   It may be that because of her brilliant business acumen and networking skills, he talked to the right people to get him his career.   d'oh