Skip to comments.CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money
Posted on 01/20/2002 12:47:53 PM PST by DNA Rules
Tennis Lolita Anna Kournikova soaks her billionaire ex-husband for millions.
Not the real Anna Kournikova. But Lisa Bonder, who was Anna Kournikova before there was Anna Kournikova 20 years ago.
If you've read about Bonder's child-support fight with her husband-for-a-month billionaire Kirk Kerkorian and before her, Anna Nicole Smith's continuing travails over her deceased Methuselah of a husband you've been introduced to litigation's latest overcompensated victims: scorned women.
The current specimens all have ties to pro sports. But they're stark examples of a clogged legal system turning relationships into lifelong ATM machines for women. They're also excellent examples of the failure of feminism. In the end, these women achieve "independence" by using courts to mooch off men and the rest of society.
Whether it's Bonder-Kerkorian, Kelci Stringer, or even Juanita Jordan (soon to be ex-wife of Michael), these "disadvantaged" women are out for an unearned payday bigger than winning the lottery.
Tennis fans likely remember Lisa Kerkorian as Lisa Bonder, the '80s' sexy, tall blonde from Michigan, who hit pro tennis' top-10 rankings and dabbled in modeling and posters. Unlike Kournikova, she never achieved the crossover appeal outside the tennis world that garners the Russian tennis starlet an estimated $15 million per year in endorsement income. But Bonder did garner enough lucrative endorsements and tournament winnings to keep her in comfort.
She should be set for life, rather than seeking out, shacking up with, and shaking down a senior-citizen billionaire, Kerkorian.
Instead, Bonder, 36, had a multi-year affair with Kerkorian, 84, beginning in 1991. Does anyone believe a 26-year-old was truly interested in a 74-year-old? She was likely more interested in his billions. Kerkorian, the MGM studio and casino mogul worth over $6 billion, is so wealthy that he was the single-largest non-institutional stockholder in Chrysler and threatened a hostile takeover in the '90s.
But while he easily fought Chrysler's then-Chairman Lee Iaccoca, Kerkorian met his match in the scheming Bonder. He refused her constant begging for marriage so, in 1997, she got pregnant with his daughter. In a move to legitimize the child's birth, they married on the condition that she waive all spousal support and divorce a month later.
But Bonder found a way to get paid for this high-class prostitution act: child-support, perhaps the only reason she had this child with an 80-year-old. The prenuptial pact set per month support at $35,000, the divorce agreement specified $50,000 monthly, and Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3-year-old! Not enough, says Bonder, who sued for $320,000 per month, claiming the young child needs $144,000 monthly for travel, $7,000 monthly for charity, and $102,000 monthly for food.
Bonder lives in three estates, worth a combined $26 million. Yet, she's using the legal system and her daughter to play the victim. That's the legacy of feminism: Even rich, "independent" women's sports stars resort to shacking up with octogenarians and suing them for a big payday.
Kelci Stringer is another "victim." It's lamentable her pro-football player husband, Korey Stringer, died in Minnesota Vikings training camp on a hot day. But, as a first-round draft pick and starter, he was well compensated and insured for risk of injury. Stringer was also paid his multi-million dollar salary to stay in shape. But he didn't getting fat over the off-season, dangerously trying to lose it and get in shape just a few days before camp.
But is that his fault? Not according to Mrs. Stringer's lawyers (and Jesse Jackson, who has surprise! interjected himself in this shakedown). They've filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Vikings. No matter that out-of-shape Stringer was up to a bloated 335-pounds. Newspaper photos showed him doubling over, gasping for breath during drills that in-shape athletes finessed.
Mrs. Stringer is a "victim," and instead of quietly dealing with her grief, everyone else must pay for this woman "scorned" by the Vikings. Costs of the suit will be passed on to Vikings' ticket-buying fans who, unlike wealthy Mrs. Stringer, are mostly working-class stiffs.
Don't feel sorry for Juanita Jordan divorcing wife of basketball great, Michael either. According to the New York Post, she put up with his affairs for years, tailing him with a private investigator.
What did she expect? Her own marriage was the result of a tawdry, litigious affair. She met Michael at Bennigan's restaurant in Chicago in 1988, got pregnant, gave birth and slapped him with a paternity suit. To avoid the suit, Michael whisked her off to a tacky Vegas quickie-wedding at the Little White Wedding Chapel in 1989. What an omen for the kind of smarmy marriage she'd have with a philandering sports star.
But even though she had prior warning and was an operative from the beginning in this questionable partnership, she could win 90 percent of the Jordans' property under Illinois law. Illinois is not a community-property state. Rather than splitting property 50-50, fault is a factor in deciding property division. Totally immoral, should Jordan's philandering, of which former groupie Juanita was well aware, entitle her to 90 percent of his worth? Is she really a victim? Under the law, yes.
The song, "The Sisters Are Doing it For Themselves," is bogus. Just look on the sports pages and the overburdened courthouses. For these newest Anna Nicole Smiths, The Sisters Are Suing it For Themselves. The litigation Lolitas will get their big payday in court.
Excuse me, she didn't get pregnant by herself. He did carry on a decade long affair with the woman. He could have broken up with her if she was scheming. It takes two to tangle. No 74 year old billionaire takes up with a 26 year old hottie because he thinks she is a great homemaker and no 26 year old hooks up with a 74 year old billionaire because they both like The BackStreet Boys.
Come May 1st, my son will be 18 and she can kiss my a$$.
If it sounds like I'm bitter, well I'm past that stage now(LOL)!!
They can take it all, but in the end they still remain frustrated, for as a phoenix we rise with our manhood intact once again to rebuild our lives, and that my friend is a mouthful.
Not all of us. Some family courts are prone to impose support orders not based on what a man earns, but on what the court thinks he should earn. Anyone who thinks the U.S. has done away with debtors prison should think again. This just might be a contributing factor in the 400% disparity between male and female suicide.
Highly PAID prostitution maybe. There's no CLASS to it!
To stop this outrage, men need to be willing to shoulder the responsibility for their children. Demand that your attorney seek at least joint custody. Then, in most states, the only child support you can be assessed is an equitable division of the child's costs based on income.
As to alimony, that's simply the same fee hookers are paid, with the government acting as pimp.
Wow... in Texas you can't have better than a 4yr old vehicle... or they'll rip all assistance; including the food stamps. I thought it was national regulation? Guess not.
Except you are paying them NOT to perform.(just like it was before the divorce:) )
Common sense tends to be confined to states like Texas (and Texas is the ONLY state that can claim to be "like Texas")
Holy cow! For your sake I wish it were May 1st today!!
Sue for full custody. If you don't think you can handle that, sue for joint custody (50%/50%).
Nobody pays anybody anything. You make an agreement of how to split major expenses such as medical, dental, orthadontia, and school clothes, supplies, and tuition. There is an agreement about who declares the child on their income tax. Sometimes this means you declare the child in alternate years. Of course you have to live near your ex souse -- probably in the same school district for this to work. And you have to remain on civil terms.
She could go through men like Kleenex, as long as her looks held out, though: She was short and busty, with long blonde hair and blue eyes which got brighter when she was screaming, which was often. She was extremely sexually aggressive with men. She was also a druggie, and she thought the world owed her a living.
A week after I got involved with the guy, she was trying to get ME to quit school and support her @ss through college... never mind that she had never so much as graduated from high school, but SHE was going to Stanford, whereas Cal State University was good enough for ME. Really amazing. Her favorite saying is, "You're ruining my life!"
Guys apparently thought they had found sexual nirvana, until they finally figured out how crazy and manipulative she was... or until she became pregnant. She was also very careless with the birth control, and apparently lots of men just don't ask about stuff like that. I know several men who got involved with her; none were ever the same afterwards--and not in a good way, I might add.
She was THE major factor in why I dumped that poor guy... I had no problems with the kid of hers he was raising, but I couldn't see putting up with HER until the kid turned 18. BTW, I'm still friends with the guy and the kid. He eventually married, I went to his wedding, and the ex was a thorn in the wife's side as well.
You guys who have problems with women like that--I have a lot of sympathy for you; but it also seems that men really go for women like that, at least until they know better. Women like that seem to be very successful with men. I don't know what is so great about women like that, but they never have any problem getting more suckers--er, I mean men...
I have several friends who have come to this arrangement. The difference between their situations and mine? In their divorces both parties were mature enough to put the child first. My wife failed Maturity 101.
Sounds like she killed the kids from the fathers who couldn't support them and kept them if there was money in it for herself.
Yep I went through that one. And they will lock you up for not paying child support (which is interesting since how are you going to pay child support in prison). However the reverse is not true. Years later when I got full custody of the children, the ex paid not a dime of child support even though she was ordered to do so.
Well, as a female living in Washington state, it's the opposite. They have charts that set out the prescribed amount of child support based on total combined income, then they give each person a percent they are responsible for- based on their percent of that income. It makes it more fair for the husband when the woman works and makes good money, but it rewards women who don't take initiative to support themselves.
For instance, my brother in-law pays his ex-wife double what my husband would pay me, although they make close to the same amount- all because I stay employed.
My brother once said, " You don't pay hookers for the party, you pay 'em to leave afterwards!"
Kind of like ex-wives, we pay them to leave us alone...
BTW, while I was standing around in a crowd of soon-to-be-single guys at the courthouse, I asked if any of them had filed for the divorce.
They all said the wife did it.
Mind you, we're not talking about paying for a child here. We're just talking about some women who think they can retire on the extorted largesse of some boob who was stupid enough to marry them. If they want out, let them out. But they take half the bills and half the assets. Nothing more.
In fact, this paternalism (ironic, isn't it?) does women a disservice. If their "independence" from men comes at the price of dependence on the government, they've just traded one master for another. The truly FREE woman is one can stand on her own, without a husband OR a handout. She is also the woman who can then decide if she wants to be married at all, and under what conditions, instead of being forced into a dysfunctional relationship for economic (or biological) reasons.
So easy to find fault with an ex-wife when it comes to money going out of their pockets. All of a sudden all that money goes to the wife not the children.
IMHO a real man would demand to help support his children - they are his no matter what an ex does or does not do. They need him no matter what an ex does or does not do. He should be there for them no matter what an ex does or does not do.
How great to come to the end of your life and remember that you were a great father UNTIL the divorce - then the children suddenly were supported, comforted and raised by others, or not.
My ex was getting close to $1000/out of me for child support, partially due to my having an idiot for my first attorney. I faithfully paid to keep things smooth even when it got to the point where the kids were about 50/50 at each house (live near each other).
Long story short, she did something stupid that put herself in a postion where I had to pay her only 1/10 of the original amount.
Hell hath no fury like a woman who loses her child support. She spent thousands trying to get me to pay her more and ended up only getting an additional $40/mo.
I think in most cases with a divorce rate so high, women should hang on to their careers ---if for no other reason that they tend to be less bitter about things in the case of divorce which is better for the kids.
Chill Wills as I recall.
All too true. The drama of a sexpot witch is addictive. When it's good - it's real good. But when you spend a lot of time with them - the good times are overwhelmed by the nightmare times. At 42 I've never been married - and listening to these anecdotes reminds me why. It seems that when things go sour in a marriage - all the legal and societal weapons are with the woman - and the man is completely "fugued".
But, as a strong believer in voting with your feet - and the advice from the Guess Who - I've been looking at other places around the world to be married. Although, this route definitely has some serious drawbacks of its own.
My mother was just such a woman as you mentioned. She wanted so desperately to keep her marriage together, but my father already had a woman waiting in the wings to marry and she exemplifies the woman you men are all scared of(the new wife--believe you me, if this one ends, she will take him to the bank despite her good income). My mother stayed home with us for quite a long time, worked at 6.00 an hour jobs part time to help put MY DAD through school, and then within months of his graduation, he left her. She got half of the bills my friends and 12 years later still does not have them all paid off. She was never able to go to school(makes just too much money for it and is inimidated by school loans because of the debt she has now). She didn't even drive until I was 18 years old and married when she was 18. She was old school and got burned big time. I know some of you have had schemers for ex-wives, but in your haste to make sure the witches you all knew don't get a dime of your income, you are not considering the truly virtuous women who got screwed when they trusted thier spouse to be faithful and loyal enough not to dump them when the children were nearly raised and thier education paid for.
One thing that is getting me irate here are these settlements by the courts. It seems that the manipulating women who want out and have good paying jobs get rewarded the most--you know the ones who basically used the husband as the sperm donor. And the women who get shafted are those left by the husband who they intended to be married to for life and at great personal sacrifice raised THIER children and in many cases supported thier spouses in such a way so they were freed from the household burdens to pursue a successful career. You are damn straight I think a woman who has mutually agreed to not pursue a career or end one, stays with a stiff for 25 years, and raises the kids should be assisted by her dh in some way when HE ends it. Let's face it, if we were to end support all together than we just make it easier for men to get out of relationships and leave good women who have cared for thier children and homes out in the cold. So all you do is turn the cards in the other direction. I think there probably needs to be some kind of balance and we need to get back to where the penalty falls on those who actually FILE for the divorce and we start looking at the REASONS for divorce again, along with the marital history(number of previous marriages, length of current marriage, etc). That seems like the most ethical way to deal with this since no fault divorce has been a disaster for both men and women save for the most manipulative of the bunch.
Yeah, I guess it's safe to assume your average Taliban husband didn't have too many sleepless nights fretting about child support ;^)