Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money
World Net Daily ^ | Debbie Schlussel

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last

1 posted on 01/20/2002 12:47:54 PM PST by DNA Rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
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, . 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.

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.

2 posted on 01/20/2002 12:57:55 PM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
At least the guys in the article can afford it. How about the poor stiff who's wife leaves him through no fault of his own? If he's got two kids, he'll be lucky to see them more than four or five days a month. And if he brings home $3000 a month, he's going to pay at least half of that in child support while his ex continues working at her $40000 a year job.
3 posted on 01/20/2002 1:00:23 PM PST by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
My ex-wife has bled me for 18 years. She has refused to work, just collect any kind of check that is available to her. 5 kids by 3 fathers(I was the first). She gets free rent, food stamps, free medical, child support and whatever else the govt hands out. OH YEAH, she always has a brand new car.(for the kids)

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)!!

4 posted on 01/20/2002 1:00:30 PM PST by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
The Feminist Idea Of Independence

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.

5 posted on 01/20/2002 1:02:31 PM PST by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
"...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.

6 posted on 01/20/2002 1:15:50 PM PST by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
high-class prostitution act

Highly PAID prostitution maybe. There's no CLASS to it!

7 posted on 01/20/2002 1:21:59 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Yep. THAT'S the real crime here. Women now have the same earning power as men, yet it is automatically assumed that the woman will get custody in a divorce, and that the man has to pay for the difference.

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.

8 posted on 01/20/2002 1:26:44 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
OH YEAH, she always has a brand new car.(for the kids)

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.

9 posted on 01/20/2002 1:42:37 PM PST by LaineyDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
As to alimony, that's simply the same fee hookers are paid, with the government acting as pimp.

Except you are paying them NOT to perform.(just like it was before the divorce:) )

10 posted on 01/20/2002 1:45:32 PM PST by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: LaineyDee
I thought it was national regulation?

Common sense tends to be confined to states like Texas (and Texas is the ONLY state that can claim to be "like Texas")

13 posted on 01/20/2002 1:49:22 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
Come May 1st, my son will be 18 and she can kiss my a$$.

Holy cow! For your sake I wish it were May 1st today!!

14 posted on 01/20/2002 1:54:24 PM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Both parents should be required to support their child until he or she turns 18. On the other hand there is no reason in the world men should be required to pay women alimony when men wouldn't consider mooching off women and society in such a manner. Perhaps this female dependence on men relates to women's support for government and liberalism. After all why complain when Hubby's around to take care of you whether he's a man or the government. Turns out the femininazis far from emanicipating women from subordination to men, merely suceeded in exchanging it for another form of it subordination to government. What one can't say is there's been harmony between the sexes nor have women's lives materially improved as a result of this Faustian Bargain. Don't expect the feminazis to confess though and let men off the hook for they're too good a cash cow to easily relinquish.
15 posted on 01/20/2002 2:01:07 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
And if he brings home $3000 a month, he's going to pay at least half of that in child support while his ex continues working at her $40000 a year job.

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.

16 posted on 01/20/2002 2:03:10 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
The FEE is the same. The service is generally not.
17 posted on 01/20/2002 2:05:42 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
Heh... I have an ex-boyfriend who has an ex-girlfriend like your ex-wife. She had five kids by as many fathers and an unknown number of abortions. Every time I heard she was pregnant, I asked, well, who's the father? The answer was always: She doesn't know.

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...

18 posted on 01/20/2002 2:06:18 PM PST by pbmaltzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tunafish
It is also a way to dissolve one of the core bonds that defines our culture: the family. If women can't easily (and profitably) escape from marriage, the family unit tends to be stronger. Give women an easy exit -- and punish men in the process -- and you erode the culture from within. It's the standard dialectic, the wedge the Left has used to split cultures for years.
19 posted on 01/20/2002 2:08:04 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
"Alimony. Ain't that when you pays a woman not to live with you?"- John Wayne's butler in "McLintock!"
20 posted on 01/20/2002 2:10:26 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
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.

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.

21 posted on 01/20/2002 2:12:07 PM PST by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
Like they say --- a fool and his money are easily parted. If these very wealthy men really thought the women loved them for themselves and not for their money, they got to learn the hard way. Anyone who meets a stripper like Anna Nicole Smith and brings her home deserves losing his money to her.
22 posted on 01/20/2002 2:13:42 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
Come May 1st, my son will be 18 and she can kiss my a$$.

Depends...in some places if your son goes to college, she can use that to milk you until he's 21
23 posted on 01/20/2002 2:17:50 PM PST by GussiedUp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I can see what you suggest if the woman does maintain her career ---but what about those cases where the woman --by mutual agreement gives up a career to raise kids and the man changes his mind about being married when she's in her 40's. I've seen that happen too ---and the man figured the ex-wife should end up with nothing at all. I saw that with my sister-in-law, the husband found someone else and tried to keep the house and the kids because she couldn't afford anything because she had no job or resume. He wanted a stay-at-home wife before that point though.
24 posted on 01/20/2002 2:18:39 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: pbmaltzman
She was also very careless with the birth control, and apparently lots of men just don't ask about stuff like that

Yep that right there stops me from feeling TOOO sorry for men - at least the single ones - once the blood drops from the head on their shoulders, all of 'em - doctors to high school dropouts, tend to get stupid about some very important facts like BIRTH CONTROL. I know if *I* were the one going to be stuck paying some broodmare for 18 years I'd darn sure think twice about unzipping.
26 posted on 01/20/2002 2:24:54 PM PST by GussiedUp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
Certainly the way myparents divorced worked out. I will never get married now unless Im rich and have a prenup.
27 posted on 01/20/2002 2:26:25 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
sounds exactly like what happened to me. Maybe they're sisters.
28 posted on 01/20/2002 2:26:36 PM PST by roballen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GussiedUp
My fathergets milked onmy sister until she is 23 here in Taxachussetts.
29 posted on 01/20/2002 2:27:30 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pbmaltzman
She had five kids by as many fathers and an unknown number of abortions.

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.

30 posted on 01/20/2002 2:27:58 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
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.

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.

31 posted on 01/20/2002 2:28:26 PM PST by holly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: weikel
You should stand on a street corner in torn dirty clothes begging for money and just marry the ones you can get that way. Then you'll know they were attracted to something besides your money.
32 posted on 01/20/2002 2:29:39 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
I ain't rich yet and I don't really care if they are attracted to my money or not so long as I can get a prenup and find a state where prenups are honored.
33 posted on 01/20/2002 2:32:04 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
And if he brings home $3000 a month, he's going to pay at least half of that in child support while his ex continues working at her $40000 a year job

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.

34 posted on 01/20/2002 2:34:45 PM PST by conservative cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"Alimony. Ain't that when you pays a woman not to live with you?"

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.

35 posted on 01/20/2002 2:36:13 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I agree for instance there is NO incentive under Taxachussetts law for parents to act responsibly ifmy father had beat the s*** outta my mother every night itwould have no effecton the divorce settlement. It also would have no affect if either one of them came home drunk every night etc etc.
36 posted on 01/20/2002 2:36:51 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
If she "gave up" her career voluntarily, why is he responsible for her upkeep after they're divorced? She spent 20 years schlepping around the house while he paid for everything and she thinks he's ripping HER off??? Why should any person have to pay for the lifestyle of another? Why should I buy my ex-wife a house, a car, new clothes, trips to the casino, or anything else? Why does a man's "responsibility" to his ex extend beyond the marriage contract itself?

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.

37 posted on 01/20/2002 2:39:13 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tunafish
So, when a man divorces or is divorced, his children are no longer his children? No longer should they look to a father for support? Since when does fatherhood end with divorce?

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.

38 posted on 01/20/2002 2:42:24 PM PST by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I don't even think they should get half the bills and assets in most cases ussually they are not responsible for that much of the income.
39 posted on 01/20/2002 2:42:40 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
There is a mindset in the female community that affects many with this "child support is a substitute for alimony" belief.

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.

40 posted on 01/20/2002 2:42:48 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat
That's all true ---but what about the mother who stays at home to raise the children and it's by mutual agreement? I've seen all kinds of cases ---both sides so in some ways I think it's hard to make a system that is completely fair. I've known men whose wives wanted out of the marriage because they got bored and found another man, and still expected full custody and child support. I know some women just don't feel like ever working and figure if they manuever things right, they will never need to work. But there are women who give up careers thinking it's best for the kids and there should be some protection for them too, if they have to start a job for the first time when they are in their 40's or 50's.
41 posted on 01/20/2002 2:43:43 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: IronJack
In this case there was one child under 18, the other still at home eating but over 18. The woman was willing to work ---however with no resume or job in almost 20 years, she was offered at best $6 an hour with no insurance benefits for a part time job. If she had worked, she could have made equal to what he was making I'm sure which was over $20 an hour ----and in this case it was he who chose someone else.

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.

43 posted on 01/20/2002 2:49:06 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Substitute "joint physical custody" for "support" and then make the same argument!!!
44 posted on 01/20/2002 2:51:38 PM PST by DNA Rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"Alimony. Ain't that when you pays a woman not to live with
you?"- John Wayne's butler in "McLintock!"

Chill Wills as I recall.

45 posted on 01/20/2002 2:53:05 PM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
You would be correct. His character was named "Drago". Wayne's wife was the wonderful Maureen O'Hara. One of my favorite old films...
46 posted on 01/20/2002 2:58:04 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pbmaltzman
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...

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.

47 posted on 01/20/2002 3:01:36 PM PST by ctonious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Is the law the same for all states? Is there a state where wages are not garnished? Anybody know? I know a young man who is paying child support to where he barely has enough left for groceries. The mother of the two children lives in state-subsidized rent, has 3 cars in the parking lot (one that was brand new in 1999 that she paid cash for), refuses to work, and has the father's wages garnished. Is there any help anywhere for a person in this situation?
48 posted on 01/20/2002 3:27:30 PM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Fitz, I think you have a more balanced view of this. Some of the posts from MEN here scare me half to death being a stay at home mother by MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

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.

49 posted on 01/20/2002 3:36:08 PM PST by glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ctonious
I've been looking at other places around the world to be married. Although, this route definitely has some serious drawbacks of its own.

Yeah, I guess it's safe to assume your average Taliban husband didn't have too many sleepless nights fretting about child support ;^)

50 posted on 01/20/2002 3:39:26 PM PST by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson