Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[Guest Kether]

I didn't say that did I?

 

I was referring to the tone of the arguements rather than the actual content. To me the content was pretty much, "men are useless, they don't give birth, we give up our careers, they owe us loads of money, let's take them to court and fuck them."

 

[Lisa]

oh righty, with you now

[Jessica Rabbit]

There are some incredibly sexist views being branded around here. How can you call the woman a 'money-grabbing bitch' if she had been with her husband since they were in their late teens (they are now in their thirties) when he was just a trainee footballer being paid fuck-all?

 

Also, when I read about this case in the guardian, the judge said he awarded such a substantial amount of money to her because he guessed that her husbands income would plummet in about 3 yrs time, the reason she is getting this much money is so that she can make a nest egg for her and the children.

 

Seriously, how many women do you know who get married PURELY for money, with no other contributing factors. I think calling a woman a golddigger is an incredibly sexist thing to say. At the end of the day, you know fuck all about them and their relationship, apart from this case you've read in the paper.

[Guest]

QUOTE (Jessica Rabbit @ Jul 9 2004, 18:22)

At the end of the day, you know fuck all about them and their relationship, apart from this case you've read in the paper.

Precisely.

[Alex]

QUOTE (Jessica Rabbit @ Jul 9 2004, 18:22)

At the end of the day, you know fuck all about them and their relationship, apart from this case you've read in the paper.

And hope that what has been presented by the media, if truethful, that it doesn't set a precedent that other cases will follow.

 

A sensible review of the divorce laws would be welcome.

[Guest Kether]

When a couple divorces it should be a clean break, that's the whole point of it, a separation of the union created by the marriage.

 

If one parent has custody of the children then I believe it should be the duty of the other parent to provide maintenance. That should be the only payment made after the divorce.

 

All other assets should be divided as they see fit and if they can't decide, take it to court.

 

I this case, the woman got 2 houses, a car, loads of money, a £115k a year maintenance award ASWELL as the 37% of his future earnings.

 

The maintenance package is very large but you think, fair enough, he can afford and he's not that unhappy to pay it. But for her to try and claim credit for his career and subsequent income when she's already taken about £3m + costs off him is a joke.

 

It also means that this case can now be called as precendent and used as case law in future trials so gold digging ex-wives can stitch up their husbands.

 

Jessica> I don't think anybody was suggesting that she was gold digging when they got together but she most definitely is now and this case is going to put a lot of people in the shit and will be a litigous minefield.

[LiquidEyes]

Some good points there Jess. I was trying to look at the wider issue of divorce settlements rather than one specific case. Now this case seems slightly less one-sided, in the light of your info.

 

I wasn't trying to say this particular woman was a "gold-digger". But as long as it is possible for people to profit out of divorce, gold-diggers are encouraged.

 

I still say this bint sounds like she's money-grabbing. But yeah, maybe there are other factors I don't know about in this case.

 

I still find it hard to stomach this idea that a person (male or female) is ENTITLED to an arbitrary proportion of their richer partner's money upon divorce. Nobody has given a satisfactory explanation for this, other than "so that he/she can continue to live in the manner to which he/she has become accustomed", which is hardly a solid argument.

 

One final point about the footballer - as you say he has a shelf-life, so his income will no doubt plummet in the not-too-distant future .... even MORE reason not to penalise him arbitrarily! I agree he should pay maintenance to the kids, but why should his ex profit from her marriage which is now OVER?

 

I just get the impression that nobody is looking at this from his perspective.

[Guest]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 19:04)

Some good points there Jess. I was trying to look at the wider issue of divorce settlements rather than one specific case. Now this case seems slightly less one-sided, in the light of your info. I wasn't trying to say this particular woman was a "gold-digger". But as long as it is possible for people to profit out of divorce, gold-diggers are encouraged. I still say this bint sounds like she's money-grabbing. But yeah, maybe there are other factors I don't know about in this case. I still find it hard to stomach this idea that a person (male or female) is ENTITLED to an arbitrary proportion of their richer partner's money upon divorce. Nobody has given a satisfactory explanation for this, other than "so that he/she can continue to live in the manner to which he/she has become accustomed", which is hardly a solid argument. One final point about the footballer - as you say he has a shelf-life, so his income will no doubt plummet in the not-too-distant future .... even MORE reason not to penalise him arbitrarily! I agree he should pay maintenance to the kids, but why should his ex profit from her marriage which is now OVER? I just get the impression that nobody is looking at this from his perspective.

Bloody hell ! Finally !

 

You have just posted what most of us have actually been saying over 8 pages of debate.

 

Do you have some kind of split personality ?

 

 

 

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Kether @ Jul 9 2004, 18:49)

But for her to try and claim credit for his career and subsequent income when she's already taken about £3m + costs off him is a joke.

Agreed, it doesn't take much imagination to see how this style of logic could be taken to its logical conclusion.

 

Did she help him out of his alcoholism because she loved him, or so that he could get his career back on track and make a shitload of dosh?

 

If I save my girlfriend from being knocked down by a bus, does that mean she owes me x% of her future earnings? After all, she wouldn't have earnt that money if she was brown bread.

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Maria @ Jul 9 2004, 19:07)

Bloody hell ! Finally ! You have just posted what most of us have actually been saying over 8 pages of debate.

Maria, do you have to reduce the argument to side-taking?

 

Anyway, back to Jess's post: Jess made two key points that you, Dawn and Lisa never mentioned.

 

"she had been with her husband since they were in their late teens"

"her husbands income would plummet in about 3 yrs time"

 

Or have you been trying to tell me this for 8 pages...?

 

You still don't seem to have grasped the crux of this debate: why should the poorer party profit from the divorce?

[Guest]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 19:17)

Maria, do you have to reduce the argument to side-taking?

I am not :s

 

I was just pointing something out dude that's all.

 

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 19:17)

Anyway, back to Jess's post: Jess made two key points that you, Dawn and Lisa never mentioned. "she had been with her husband since they were in their late teens" "her husbands income would plummet in about 3 yrs time" Or have you been trying to tell me this for 8 pages...?

 

Didn't realise you needed it pointing out to you, after all, it was in the link ... You did read the actual link you posted, didn't you?

 

QUOTE

The couple met in 1990 when Parlour was a 17-year-old apprentice footballer and married in 1998 after the birth of their second child.

 

QUOTE

The three-judge panel ordered him to pay the increased amount for four years, after which it should be reconsidered because his income was "likely to plummet" when his career as a professional footballer ended.

Edited July 9, 2004 by Dawn

[ChrisT]

Cant be fukt to read all that, it will endup the same as everyother post in this part of the site, Blokes V's Birds (we all know the blokes are right)

Shes just bitter and twisted that he got another bird up the duff now she wants to take him for all his worth..

 

Am i sexist? yep...

How many women open doors for me?

 

[Lisa]

QUOTE (ChrisT @ Jul 9 2004, 22:58)

Cant be fukt to read all that, it will endup the same as everyother post in this part of the site, Blokes V's Birds (we all know the blokes are right) Shes just bitter and twisted that he got another bird up the duff now she wants to take him for all his worth.. Am i sexist? yep... How many women open doors for me?

I would

[ChrisT]

Thankyou