Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 14:58)

Yes if they've gave their career up or their chance of getting a good career to bring their children up.

Lots of people give up their careers to bring up children. But most of them don't get £400k a year.

 

Have you actually read the news story?

[Dawn]

Because perhaps, just perhaps, she may have earnt more than her husband had she had the chance to further or fulfill her career choice.

 

No one knows what her choice of career would have been.

 

 

Yes I have read the story.

[LiquidEyes]

The way I see it, it was her privelige, not her right, to share the benefits of his fortune while they were married.

 

Here's another point: were they to stay married, and he jacked his career in (a perfectly legitimate thing to do) they might be on a much smaller income. But now he has to pay her massive amounts of maintenance, presumably that puts a disproportionate strain on him to continue his current career?

 

Isn't it his right to follow whichever career he chooses?

And who the fuck needs £400 to bring up a couple of kids?

And who earned that money?

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:05)

And who the fuck needs £400 to bring up a couple of kids? And who earned that money?

have kids & say that again!!!

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:05)

Because perhaps, just perhaps, she may have earnt more than her husband had she had the chance to further or fulfill her career choice.

Perhaps she could have earned £10m a year. So maybe he should pay her what she could have earned...? I think you're clutching at straws.

 

He chose his career and she chose hers. The keyword is CHOICE.

 

Sometimes I think we're a nation of people who can't take responsibility for our own actions.

Edited July 9, 2004 by LiquidEyes

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:07)

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:05) And who the fuck needs £400 to bring up a couple of kids? have kids & say that again!!! Oops I meant to say £400k not £400!   Dawn: please can you tell me what this woman has done to deserve £400k per year.

[Dawn]

He gave her the right when he married her and kept her in the style she became accustomed to.

 

If he jacked his career in and took one of a smaller income then i'm sure she'd have managed to cope, and if his bank balance does take a dive in later years then i'm sure the judicial system will re-evaluate his circumstances.

 

Who knows what she did to deserve the settlement, obviously the court believed she deserved it, perhaps being the mother of his children and bringing them up, perhaps fofeiting her career to do this, who knows.

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:09)

He chose his career and she chose hers. The keyword is CHOICE. Sometimes I think we're a nation of people who can't take responsibility for our own actions.

What was her career choice then ... motherhood?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:16)

He gave her the right when he married her and kept her in the style she became accustomed to.

Please can you explain this statement?

 

Marriage should be a declaration of love. The more financial strings are attached, the further you get away from the real meaning of marriage.

[Lisa]

well clearly Andy, if the marriage is over, that satement of yours becomes null & void & means jack shit

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:19)

What was her career choice then ... motherhood?

Yes, in the sense that she chose that over a career in the strictest sense.

 

Are you trying to tell me she DESERVES £400k, or that she NEEDS £400k, or what?

 

Just because a court made a certain ruling, doesn't make it morally right. That's the whole point of this debate!

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:23)

well clearly Andy, if the marriage is over, that satement of yours becomes null & void & means jack shit

The judicial system has made a ruling (with regard to the divorce settlement) based on their circumstances PRIOR to the divorce, on the basis that they were married. Ergo, the meaning of marriage is central to this debate.

[LiquidEyes]

In other words: marriage seems to have a dual meaning in our society.

 

1. I love you.

2. If the marriage goes pear-shaped, you can royally fuck me over.

[Lisa]

well, obviously the system have looked at it & have decided she is worthy of that amount a year regardless.

 

I guess it depends on how they work it all out etc on his earnings & means & her way of living, kids, morgage etc etc.

 

I do agree 400K is a hell of alot a year & I take it he is on good earnings to be able to allow for that.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:27)

In other words: marriage seems to have a dual meaning in our society. 1. I love you. 2. If the marriage goes pear-shaped, you can royally fuck me over.

well, yeh, you been royaly fucking each other anyway, so why not

 

As I say it depends on full circumstances & if the law says she or he, is entitled to that, who are we to say ought, is he appealling??