Bad precedent: Divorce Suit Awards $184M to Chicago Woman

Dustbin

2007-06-08 11:38:13 UTC

Post by Viking
Divorce Suit Awards $184M to Chicago Woman
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278102,00.html
This is a bad precedent because it awarded the female 50%, reinforcing
the idea that marriage is an obligation for life for the man, while
not being an obligation at all for the female, no matter how big the
award (and it's obvious she didn't earn $184M). Just like Heather
Mills.
Marriage continues to be an utter gravy train for the female. And
utter robbery for the man.

What strikes me as absurd is the idea that her
contribution is equal to his.

This, then, means that the contribution of a
dustman's wife is half of a dustman's income;
while the contribution of, say, Richard
Branson's wife is about £1.9Billion. But key to
this is that they both contribute about the same
effort: e.g. they both look after the home. In
fact, wives of richer men often employ staff to
do the dirtier work and therefore actually
contribute less than, say, the dustman's wife
who has no option but to do all the housework
herself.

The female should get the same irrespective of
her husband's income; and only on condition that
she continues to provide wifely services ;-)

D.

Post by Viking
The US needs to revise the divorce laws so the female doesn't get half
of what he earned by default - he should give her only what she needs
to get started in life by herself (if that), as is the case in
Maryland. Such payments can include money for education.
No wonder men are reluctant to marry - it gives the female 50% of all
savings, pensions, house, cars, etc. Not to mention alimony - an award
for life.
The female has to give nothing at all.
Hence all those horrible articles one sees in the media by females
screaming that men just can't "commit".