750 million for blackmail?
Over at Instapundit, Guestblogger Ann Althouse asks the question: Should Elin Nordegren settle with Tiger Woods for $750 million if it includes “a lifetime ‘confidentiality clause’ that would prevent her from writing a book or doing any interviews about the split”? She has a poll up over at her blog asking readers what they thought with the following options:
Yes. That’s so much money!
Yes. We’ll all be better off if that nasty material never sees the light of day.
Yes. Elin, you will be better off looking for the future and not dwelling on the past.
No. Tiger must pay for what he did and shouldn’t get anything back in exchange.
No. You need to explore and air this all out for your own good.
No. I want to read all about it! Come on! Dish it out!
None of those options seems adequate. How about:
"No, this thief does not deserve that kind of money for engaging in blackmail."
What would your response be?
Yes. That’s so much money!
Yes. We’ll all be better off if that nasty material never sees the light of day.
Yes. Elin, you will be better off looking for the future and not dwelling on the past.
No. Tiger must pay for what he did and shouldn’t get anything back in exchange.
No. You need to explore and air this all out for your own good.
No. I want to read all about it! Come on! Dish it out!
None of those options seems adequate. How about:
"No, this thief does not deserve that kind of money for engaging in blackmail."
What would your response be?
Labels: alimony, men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 3:08 PM
121 Comments:
It's not my business.
Tiger shouldn't settle; the court should enforce the terms of whatever prenup they have. A prenup is an agreement dictating what will happen if the marriage dissolves, and the marriage is dissolving.
If a court throws out the prenup and seeks to give Mrs Wood more than 70% of Tiger's worth, it will be another good reason for men to not marry. Why have a prenup if it's not going to be enforced even with the best lawyers money can buy?
I honestly never understood why there is any reason at all for a man to pay money over to a divorcing wife of this type.
None of the common theories (fictions?) about marriage hold in these situations.
No, she didn't earn half of the assets like a business partner or sports teammate.
No, her housework, if any, is not worth that kind of money; in fact, housewives of poorer men do far more work (because they don't have maids and nannies and cooks and gardeners and all the rest), so there is actually an inverse relationship with regard to work and a woman married to a rich guy.
There is no clear reason why these types of women should get anything other than a kick in the butt as they go out the door. The relationship is over, maybe Tiger was the screw-up in this one, maybe a wife will be in the next celebrity break-up, but I don't understand the logic of giving these do-nothings so much money.
The least persuasive argument to me is some "sanctity of marriage" argument. Yeah, that usually figures in big in celebrity marriages and divorces.
A man who fails at his career and then leeches off a wealthy woman is usually seen for what he is.
A woman who does exactly the same thing is entitled to millions or billions and sympathy and chivalrous protection and coddling.
I remember my first introduction to this type of thing in the 1980s: A woman named Lorna Wendt divorced her husband Gary Wendt, who was a high-level executive at General Electric.
The husband clearly worked his butt off in 12-hour days to struggle his way up in the company.
The wife also clearly enjoyed his money and didn't do much else over all those years.
So she not only demanded half, the new wrinkle was that she demanded half of his stock options - which he himself was not yet able to cash in and which were based in part on his FUTURE work. Plus a chunk of his salary (alimony) and some other odds and ends. He did all the work, she had fun off his money, and the result was that he was supposed to not only give her half, also a good chunk of his future income stream.
And her justification - since she couldn't think up anything else - was that she "coordinated moves" (meaning she relayed the message to the moving company) and "had to sometimes attend formal General Electric functions" (where they served lobster and caviar).
What a bitch.
But she is worth far more than many emergency-room physicians, firemen and software engineers combined.
Are women like Ivanna Trump, Heather Mills or Lorna Wendt worth all these millions and billions?
No one has ever explained to my why these cunts should get a dime. But men enforce this vigorously.
And yeah, I know the situation here is one of blackmail, but she's going to get that kind of money no matter what.
If she's smart, she'll just squeeze the money out of him without giving anything in return (probably nothing new there) and then write a tell-all book.
I have a white-knighting friend who has really bit the chivalric bit about this kind of stuff. When I brought up vaginamony to him, he said "what about compensation for lost income opportunity?"
In the Tiger Woods case, Elin was a nanny before she married him, so she is looking at "lost income" in the vein of five figures, nto eight or nine.
More generally, no one forces someone else to not work. Anyone who drops out of the workforce faces an opportunity cost - they are pursuing other activities. Then they want to turn the responsibility for their losses onto somebody else.
It's the same opportunity cost as if you make an investment in one business instead of another. If the business fails, the other investors don't owe you money based on the presumed value of the business you didn't invest in.
Seen through that lens, vaginamony is simply punitive, even in cases where a wife "gave up her career" for the benefit of her husband's. It has been a sad process for me to realize that generally, women want to get paid to be with men - paid to go out on dates, paid to get married (engagement ring), paid to divorce ("you ruined my life!"). Thanks in part to divorce lawyers and whipped legislators, American women generally see themselves as prostitutional financial instruments with boobs.
It has been a sad wakeup for me.
To quote the Duke of Wellington, in a somewhat similar case:
Publish and be damned.
Ern - LOL
Elin doesn't deserve $750 million and whatever she gets will probably be more than she deserves. Just another reason men shouldn't marry, especially wealthy, successful men.
Speaking of divorce, anybody notice the Berlusconi divorce?
Silvio met his second wife when she was a stripper, and had an affair with her while he was married to his first wife.
Now Mrs B II is upset he has eyes for younger, hotter babes. Apparently the last straw was his socializing with an underwear model.
WTF?
"what about compensation for lost income opportunity?"
-----
She received far more - in kind and directly in cash - than she would have gotten in her "profession". She had a far higher lifestyle than she would have had in her job as a nanny.
Why do men go out of their way - and defy logic and due pretzel-like twists and turns - to try to find any justification that these cunts should get any money?
There is no justification.
But I can't understand this urgency on the part of so many men to try to think of a reason why she should get all this money. And male legislators and male judges turn it into reality.
Absolutely bizarre.
She should get the $750 million only on condition that: 1) she faces him in a fair fight, to be televised on SPIKE; and 2) they're both armed with 3-woods.
I mean, fair is fair, right?
If she's smart, she'll just squeeze the money out of him [...] and then write a tell-all book.
If she's really smart she can promise not to write a tell-all, then after the check clears she can write a "novel" about a woman who marries a golf pro. All she needs is a disclaimer that any resemblance to real people is purely coincidental.
Topher,
Have you taken our advice yet, regarding your own girlfriend?
Start running Game on her, and take notes on what worked and what didn't.
Simultaneously, stop spending money on her and her friends. They are not grateful, they are DEMANDING this from you.
If it doesn't work, dump her and start Gaming some new girls.
I mean it, Topher. You need to apply your learnings both here and at Roissy's to your real life.
The way to expose Alimony is to talk in terms of a business.
If an employee and employer enter into an 'at will' employment contract.
But if the employee leaves, without cause, the employee still gets 50% of her paycheck for the rest of her life.... and the CEO of the company can go to jail for non-payment.....
Would anyone want to hire an employee? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Will new businesses even form, and will new wealth be created?
It amazes me that Americans discuss far more trivial political matters, but not this.
Tiger's biggest mistake was to marry.
He should have done what Ricky Martin did (even though Tiger is straight) and gotten donor eggs and a surrogate. He has the money to hire nannies, pay salaries to his parents to watch his kids, etc.
And he would be free to date whoever he wanted.
That is what Tiger should have done.
If he absolutely was determined to marry, he should live in a place with better divorce laws (say, Dubai), and not own houses anywhere else. That way, Elin would be bound by those laws. Keep Elin in luxury in Dubai, let her visit Sweden, the US, etc. but make sure she never get the right to divorce outside of Dubai.
It is amazing to me that slavery can return to 21st century America, and that this slavery is being aided by the very group that is enslaved (white-knighting men backstabbing other men, thinking this will get them laid).
Let's keep in mind that OJ Simpson, with no prior record of violence, was pushed to murder because of unfair alimony. 'Race' had nothing to do with it.
Both Chris Rock and Hulk Hogan said as much about OJ. This opened my eyes - the OJ story was not about race at all, it was about unfair alimony laws pushing a previously peaceful man to the breaking point.
Yeah, it was the alimony that pushed the brain damaged 'roid-ragin OJ over the edge. The man (!) was a ticking time bomb, and alimony may or may not contributed to his insanity, but what about his many concussions and his use of drugs?
Talking about the asset split without talking about child support? Given Tiger's income she'll be given several million a year in tax-free child support payments. I bet you thought child support was for the children! Don't forget child support includes imputed income, so if Tiger can't make as much money as the judge says he should, due to lowered public opinion (endorsements), lower tournament standings due to the decline of age, or simple disinterest, he must still maintain the child support payments. No rest for this slave.
It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what the law says.
He knew what he was doing when he entered into the marriage contract. He knew what he was doing when he violated that contract. Now he has to pay for it, simple as that.
If you don't like it, change the law. Change the terms and conditions of the contract. Otherwise, all of this posturing and protesting is nothing more than whining.
"He knew what he was doing when he entered into the marriage contract."
-----
I don't think he knew at all. I think he was a young, naive kid who felt pressured to get married to keep up his fairy-tale appearances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"He knew what he was doing when he violated that contract. Now he has to pay for it, simple as that."
----
No, that's not how it works, Bunky. Today we have no-fault law and it doesn't matter who does what; someone wants out, that person gets out, husband gives wife money. No matter what happened. Lots of husbands have done nothing wrong at all, but the wife still gets paid upon divorce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"If you don't like it, change the law."
----
OK, Dude, I'll get right on that. Cuz I can change all the laws.
There are lots and lots of men who are looking for ANY excuse to make the man pay the woman everything possible upon divorce.
I just don't get what is going through their heads.
My response to her would be "Adultery isn't a crime. Spousal abuse is."
You may recall that what really broke this whole story is an incident in which she chased him out of the house, beating him with a golf club. When some rapper guy smacked his girl around (Beyonce? Rihanna? Whatever...), the prosecutor threatened to charge him with attempted murder. Elin attacks her hubby with a golf club, and it's "You go girl!"
That said, Tiger is pretty much the scum of the earth. I think he should be banned from playing in the PGA.
I just don't get what is going through their heads.
They think being a hero to women will get them laid.
Of course, such behavior in men turns OFF women, quite the opposite of what the 'whiteknights' were hoping for.
You must read The Misandry Bubble for a full explanation :
http://www.singularity2050.com/
Gawain'sGhost is justifying domestic violence with a dangerous weapon, just because the victim was a man.
This tells you everything about how anti-male US society has become.
There needs to be SOME country in the world that says :
"All Anglosphere men under crushing alimony and CS burden, come immigrate here. We will not extradite you. We want your skills, talents, and knowledge to help build our economy."
I hope China does this, or some other country. It would be the best decision that country ever made, and they would be doing a humanitarian service by ending the 21st century version of slavery.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm just saying that the law is the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
He knew what he was doing. He knew the penalties involved. But he chose to continue his behavior. And now he has to pay.
I'm the only one who is offering a real solution, which is to change the law. The rest of you are just bitching about the law, but are impotent to do anything about it.
Gawain,
Actually, there is something one can do about it (without resorting to law). It's called "don't get into a relationship." If you don't get involved, then you can't be held liable.
It amazes me how many guys on here bitch about women and then talk about their girlfriends (and no, I'm not counting wives because it's way too late then). Newsflash, if you're that worried about it, then dump her and stay single. It's really not that difficult. And you don't have to even play any "games" (or whatever the PUAs call that nonsense).
GawainsGhost,
I agree, the law should be changed. However, as I am sure you are aware, it is not that easy to change a law that is biased against men. And if this is really the law, that a man has to pay up no matter what and a woman does not, or rarely does, the laws need to be spelled out prior to marriage to the man. He needs to be counseled on what he is getting into prior to the marriage contract. It should be stated in a contract in clear language at the court house, prior to his signature that he is willing to be used as an indentured servant/slave of the the woman should they break up. The laws on these matters are vague and there is no excuse for using man as a slave and a woman as recipient of services. It is unjust and should be unAmerican, though in these times, what isn't?
"I'm just saying that the law is the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse."
------
By the way, as a counter-example, there have been many cases in which women have broken antenuptial agreements by asserting that they didn't know what they were signing or they had inadequate legal representation to explain the consequences to them.
Among others, Amy Irving successfully used that strategy to break a prenuptial agreement and soak Steven Spielberg for half of his assets at that time.
There is a strong current in society that men are going to be held to anything they enter into, no matter what. We are going to rub their nose in it and make them suffer, plus add on some stuff just for fun.
Conversely, there is an equally strong current that tries to absolve women of any and all responsibility. She didn't know what she was doing. She was confused and distraught when she shot her sleeping husband in the back with a shotgun. She is a victim. She is only a weak woman getting taken advantage of by the evil man. He should pay her just because.
GawainsGhost is only a representative of this way of thinking. It's extremely strong, and it pervades legislatures, courthouses and social services, in fact all areas of society.
Second point:
When I was younger, I used to naively believe that most "rich people" got that way through their hard work. It was therefore wrong to take money away from people who earned it by the sweat of their brow and give it to lazy people who don't want to work.
That's what I used to think.
And then I started really looking at society. Cases like this (actually the Lorna / Gary Wendt case in the 1980s, when I was in my 20s) prompted me to look under the hood of society.
Most people with money didn't earn it in any way, shape or form. This woman will not have earned her 750 million, or however much she gets, by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, Helen, actually the marriage contract is over 600 years old. It descends from the medieval period when the Cult of Mary (read woman worship) and chivalry were all the rage. But at that time divorce was not allowed and the penalty for adultery was severe--banishment for the woman and castration for the man.
The real problem came in the late 20th century with the advent of no fault divorce, which renders the marriage contract moot, null and void. Also, with the rise of feminism which infested the court system.
I agree that the law is unjust. I don't have a problem with community property, community funds or sweat equity, because I look upon marriage as primarily a financial agreement. But I have a real problem with presumptive paternity and no fault divorce.
This is why I have not married. I do not agree with the terms and conditions of the contract, and I am not about to expose myself to abandonment, betrayal and bankruptcy at the whim of a woman. I understand that there are traditional women out there who are worth the investment, but they are few and far between.
That said, this man knew what he was doing, and if he didn't then he's an idiot. This is not a case in which a woman perpetrated a deliberate act of fraud, misprepresentation, deciet, and theft, as happened with Paul McCartney. This is a case in which a man knowingly and willingly violated his vows. The penalty for that is very expensive.
But in either case, the court has no choice but to enforce the existing contract. The law is set up to protect women from men. There is no law to protect men from women. Yes, that is grossly unfair and inequitable, but that's the way it is and shall remain until the terms and conditions of the contract are changed.
However, that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The vast majority of women are not going to agree to change the law, because it gives them power. The vast majority of men are not going to insist the law be changed, because they're, well, love sick and stupid.
So there's really no way out of this mess other than the complete dissolution of marriage as an institution, followed by societal collapse.
For every rich guy, there is usually a parasitical spouse and usually multiple spouses (think Johnny Carson, Larry King etc.). People inherit money. People get sinecures. Billions or hundreds of billions are transferred from men to women in society without the women earning it by work (I can list the ways, or you can think of them yourself).
I would honestly have no qualms at all about taking this woman's money away from her (and women like her) and distributing it to hard-working schmucks who are laboring 10 hours a day for near minimum wage. They have earned money, this hooker and manipulator has not earned it.
GawainsGhost,
There is a value to talking about this and spreading the message. The more men who hear it and think about it, the better.
They can then avoid marriage AND work to get the laws changed for men who do marry.
It's not whining.
And if you feel that you are being mischaracterized, why would you choose that formulation?
Have a little empathy for men. I doubt people are going to respect your chivalry on this board very much, and it is not going to get you laid.
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Missing the Point
What would your response be? -- Dr. Helen
These people are just another of the vast array of examples of people feeding on each other.
There's no 'love' here. Probably never was in the first place.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A generation of vipers....]
I don't really care except to note that Elin apparently turned down this offer. But if there was a pre-nup, why would Tiger make the offer unless he violated a provision of the pre-nup.
Frankly, with the type of money Tiger has, who the hell cares?
This is one end of a large continuum, Joe.
Unfairness in the family court system will never happen to you, though. Because you're you.
This is also just part of the pattern of parasitical, manipulative woman taking money away from gullible earner.
Why?
Whether it matters to him or not, why should these useless women get anything? Give the money to charity and hand her a shovel.
Take that money and spend it on making conditions better for people who WORK.
This really is ridiculous.
Tiger Woods violated his vows, betrayed his wife, committed rampant infidelity, exposed her to possible infection by any number of diseases, and flagrantly humiliated himself and his family, not to mention his sponsors, on the world stage.
You're damn right he's going to pay for that, and well he should.
Yet the boys on this blog keep trying to rationalize, even excuse, Woods's behavior, because some other woman betrayed or took advantage of some other man. That's like a five-year old getting his hand caught in the cookie jar and pointing to his baby sister and saying, "She did it too!"
It's infantile. And it's pathetic.
I have zero empathy or respect for men and women who do not keep their vows, who betray their partners, who take advantage of or abuse their positions, or otherwise commit acts of fraud, deception, misrepresentation, deceit, and larceny.
Yeah, there are a lot of women out their who take advantage of the privelges granted to them in the marriage contract. Tell it to Paul McCartney.
The obvious solution is to avoid those women like the plague.
But that is not the case in this instance. Tiger betrayed and humiliated Elin. She did not betray or humiliate him. Even in the absence of no fault divorce, she has legitimate cause for dissolving the marriage and every right to receive compensation. It's in the contract, and the court will enforce the contract. This is black letter law.
What is it that you children do not understand? If you do not like the terms and conditions of the contract, then you have two choices. 1) Change the terms and conditions of the contract; or 2) Do not enter into the contract to begin with.
Whining after the fact is not an option. And it is whining, as long as you don't or won't change the terms and conditions of the contract.
Many men betray their wives. Many women, probably more, betray their husbands. That is the reality. And as long as people are willing to put up with it, by not changing the law, changing the culture and reforming the court system, that's the way it's going to be for the rest of time.
I've got real and serious problems with the marriage contract, which is why I refuse to enter into one. I've got real and serious problems with the bad attitudes of stupid, spoiled, conceited litte girls who have a sense of entitlement and pretense to superiority that would make Scarlett O'Hara blush, which is why I ignore them completely and won't have anything to do with them.
Scarlett ruined every man she come in contact with, and these girls will do no less. But that was no excuse for Ashley to not marry Melanie.
There are honest men and honest women. There are also liars, cheaters and thieves of both sexes. It's called the real world.
Some of you need to grow up or shut up.
People with dull intellects shouldn't also be crashing bores, GawainsGhost.
You are full of moral self-righteousness, but it's all a bit silly when it comes from you.
This woman hasn't earned anything, I don't understand why you are so adamant about her getting her "compensation". And quit trying to be Uber-Web-Lawyer. Dude.
"Tiger Woods violated his vows, betrayed his wife, committed rampant infidelity, exposed her to possible infection by any number of diseases, and flagrantly humiliated himself and his family, not to mention his sponsors, on the world stage."
Again, the only thing in this list that is financial per se is his sponsors, who have already cut or modified his contracts as they see fit. Exposure to diseases is probably quantifiable with damages.
But as far as vows and humiliations, that's nasty stuff - but none of it is criminal. What is the obsession with punishing him? They're going to get divorced. They have a prenup that dictates what happens if the marriage dissolves. Why should it be thrown out and replaced with raw vengeance?
I'm not rationalizing Tiger's behavior at all - it's just not criminal in nature (maybe in sharia law it is), and I'm not buying into the vindictive moralizing of people who want him ruined.
kmg, why don't you drop me a line at pac10brewhouse -at- gmail -dot- com.
GawainsGhost sez: "Yet the boys on this blog keep ... "
----
The "boys versus men" (or better: REAL MEN) shaming tactic is quite effective at keeping *males* in order every step of the way in their lives.
They have to prepare themselves to protect women and earn money for them. Then they have to marry a woman. Then a REAL MAN will tend to all her needs. Then, in the divorce, a REAL MAN will not quibble about money. He will just give it to her, and also support her for the rest of her life. And then a REAL MAN will take out life insurance with the ex as a beneficiary, wait the required period before suicide is not a bar to the payout, and then off himself.
It's obvious why women enforce this societal role by making fun of men who don't toe the line. It's less obvious to me why men - or *males* - also enforce this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You're damn right he's going to pay for that, and well he should.
How do you figure? Feminists demanded and got no-fault divorce. Ergo, what Tiger does is irrelevant.
It's really none of my business.
"It's really none of my business."
What the law can force men to do - ultimately at the point of a gun - is none of your business?
Apparently the word "contract" has too many syllables for the children on this site to understand. But then the word "law" has only one syllable, and none of you have demonstrated any ability to understand that word either.
It's not a question of what she deserves. It's a question of what she is entitled to under the terms and conditions of the contract.
How hard is that to comprehend? The court is going to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract. It has no other choice and can do nothing else.
I'm not being self-righteous. I'm simply recognizing the reality of the situation. As a man, I fully understand that I am held accountable under the law. A woman, not so much.
Do I have a problem with that? Yeah, because I believe in equality under the law. But just because some other woman betrayed her husband is no excuse for Tiger Woods to betray and humiliate his wife.
You children who think it doesn't matter are fools. He is going to be held accountable under the terms and conditions of the contract, and he should be. Period. He's supposed to be a man, after all.
She has all of the power in court. All of it. If he didn't know that going in, well, sucks to be him then, doesn't it? Because it's going to cost him a whole lot of money.
Is it okay for some guy to commit serial adultery just because some other girl cheated on her husband? Not in any court I know of.
I could care less about Tiger Woods. He deserves to be bankrupted by his soon-to-be ex-wife. The same cannot be said of Paul McCartney, who truly was betrayed and robbed by a lying bitch.
That was the largest divorce settlement thus far. Because the court had no choice other than to enforce the marriage contract, according to existing law.
If any of you don't like it, then change the marriage contract. It's very simple. But none of you are willing or able to do that, are you? So instead you whine and complain like some mindless child who woke up one day and found out the Tooth Fairy isn't real, and that girls aren't made of sugar and spice and everything nice.
Give me a break.
Actually we need many more cases like this. We need big "kills" like Tiger Woods and millions more cases of small fry getting fried in court.
Marriage is on the way out now in our culture but we need millions more nails to come forward as human sacrifices to bury it.
Change the law? We will destroy the law. Judges, lawyers and pols have an essential role here and are years ahead of the average citizen. We are simply shuffling around in the wreckage after the legal tornado has gone through looking for family pictures.
Nothing can be more expensive than marriage so avoid it and counsel all the men you encounter to avoid it as well. Advise all young men especially to never marry or co-habit.
Surrogacy and child care expenses will be cheaper immediately and ever after. Top quality eggs are available for less than the cost of a used car from our best colleges.
Have your sperm stored at age 18 and then have a vasectomy performed. This will spare most of the danger.
In addition given the average age of marriage in the developed countries your "wife" may have been with 100s of men, have herpes and genital warts not to mention two or three abortions and may well be almost or totally infertile from chlamydia or other diseases. You yourself may well be ill with STDs and your sperm well past its best by date.
If you want healthy children select a fine 20 year old and fertilize with your best sperm on store for 10-20 years perhaps.
You have guaranteed enforceable paternity in that case.
Today's "good woman" is about as moral as the most debauched courtesan of the 18th Century in terms of "experience" as the majority of women are "barter prostitutes" now and since this is the case you can bargain right down to the age of consent in your jurisdiction.
Find a nice person and ask if she would accompany you on a trip to Cancun for 2 weeks. Be super fit and presentable and have a good job and a vasectomy but do not mention it.
Any kind of relationship is adequate including store help and so forth.
If they have not gone with a guy 20 years older they will want to try it especially if they get to brag to friends about what they "got for it."
Drop them off at their place when you get back promising to call "real soon" but never call and start planning the next trip with someone else.
Remember above all that the chance of marrying for life in 2010 if you are a secular person should be assumed to be zero.
Would you try Russian Roulette? How about with 4 cylinders loaded :-).
Maybe we should all strive for a change in the law with respect to Russian Roulette.
"How hard is that to comprehend? The court is going to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract. It has no other choice and can do nothing else."
Gawain, have you paid attention to the facts of the case? They DO have a contract...ELIN is the one who wants to reneg, and negotiate a new one on the spot.
"Law and order" types in America have this weird disregard for the rights of offenders and convicts, particularly when it comes to reasonable punishments. We have laws that dictate socially-agreed punishments, what we think is appropriate for certain infractions. But there's always a group suborning vigilantism or legal invention, claiming that one's behavior is so "disgusting" that no matter how horrific the extra punishment, it's OK because "he deserves it."
Typical examples would be women after breakups, who fantasize or execute plans of violence or vandalism. Also includes animal people after the Michael Vick trial, and the president of Duke, who rationalized the horrific treatment of innocent men by saying "whatever they did is bad enough."
It's total vindictive baloney. The Reconstruction and the Treaty of Versailles should both teach us that vengeance is a poor strategy.
You appear to be in that camp. So if you have such a hard-on about contracts, your "Tiger is disgusting and deserves to pay" tack is not really reasonable. He's not the one trying to break the contract they set out for the event that the marriage is breached.
This is one end of a large continuum, Joe.
Oh, nonsense. This is a total outlier of a case. Tiger cheated on his wife with over a hundred women (what is the price for an extremely high risk of contracting an STD from your cheating spouse?) It is in no way comparable to anything within the bell curve of normality.
Yes, the law needs to be adjusted and attitudes in court changed, but this isn't the case on which to base or argue those changes.
(I pass no judgment on a spouse that cheats once or even twice--I do not know their circumstances-- but I have no sympathy for an asshole like Tiger who seems to have no limits to his infidelity. Nothing Elin could have done save, sleep with as many men, could even remotely explain, let alone justify, Tiger's behavior [and the manner in which he put his wife's life at risk.])
Just re-read your last post and it makes even less sense.
"Is it okay for some guy to commit serial adultery just because some other girl cheated on her husband? Not in any court I know of."
Who is saying this? I've seen a lot of carping about divorce settlements, but I haven't read one comment that syllogizes "my wife cheated on me so Tiger Woods shouldn't have to pay alimony after cheating on his.
"If any of you don't like it, then change the marriage contract. It's very simple. But none of you are willing or able to do that, are you?"
Again - the Woods family HAS A CONTRACT. MRS WOODS is asking for the contract to be thrown out. (BTW, the proclivity of courts to throw out prenups at will is a large reason your advice to "change the marriage contract" is hollow.)
Mrs Woods' attempt to evade her agreement is being cheered on by a bunch of white-knighters like yourself who believe that because Tiger cheated on his wife with a secret, high-sex lifestyle, he should lose every penny he's made playing a game that has nothing to do with sex and apparently nothing to do with his wife's special ability to facilitate his career (as he made boatloads of money before he got married).
This is just sadism.
"I have no sympathy for an asshole like Tiger who seems to have no limits to his infidelity."
Don't want to pull a John Adams here, but remember that to have any integrity, our justice system needs to give a fair shake to even the most detestable defendants. If it doesn't, and we start allowing a lack of "sympathy" for that person to cloud our ability to give him a fair shake, we have a broken system that is easy to manipulate against you or me. Even guilty people are due their best possible defense, not so much to beat the rap as to make sure that popular sentiment doesn't railroad them into a undue punishment.
Slipping over into civil law, even the nastiest scoundrel is entitled to the benefit of his contracts. If we find some behavior (that's not even illegal, in Woods' case) so abhorrent that we disallow their access to agreed-upon contracts, we're just a banana republic. We are one already, in family law.
Hey :-)
Get off Tiger Woods!
He is an enormously successful and good looking Professional Sportsman.
Everyone understands that he can easily have sex with 1000s of women who will joyously jump his bones, many hoping to carry his Triple A Alpha baby.
His only error was marrying a nanny.
He should get on TV and say that all boys should strive to become exactly like him. Get rich and successful and have a super sex life with the most beautiful partners possible.
It is 100% legal, consensual sex we are talking about here between adults.
If men with the status of Tiger can pull sex like this and we cannot this is simple natural justice and we must recognize our own lack of reproductive fitness.
A billionaire athlete should restrict himself to 2 kids with one woman??? This is not well thought out. Tiger should have a million children by natural and artificial insemination.
Certainly in those cases where infertility is due to weak male factors you could raise TWs son. Do you really prefer the offspring of a guy who sells seed for party money?
The Courts have declared that children are the property of the mother and the government in virtual terms so let us end the idea of alimony and child support.
Great talent like Tiger's can never be in over supply in society. Every woman should have the opportunity to upgrade her children with better sires.
If any law were to be passed it would be to free outstanding individuals from marriage in any way shape or form.
Let us start to think and talk about where we want to go in the coming years not where we have been. In order to reform marriage you would need some type of authoritarian government that would make the current intrusive bureaucracy look mild by comparison.
Topher,
kmg, why don't you drop me a line at pac10brewhouse -at- gmail -dot- com.
Tell you what : go over to Roissy's, and state your situation. If not me, than any of 5-6 other guys will give you good advice, and you will get a couple of different opinions on strategy.
I do think you must immediately break the expectation that you have to step up to pick up the tab. Game can solve this problem (and others).
But I really don't want a young guy to enter into a trap that will serve him badly for decades to come.
JG,
It's less obvious to me why men - or *males* - also enforce this.
Because they think that this will earn them a pat on the head from women, and, if they are lucky, get them laid.
'WhiteKnighting' is a major component of our culture today.
Anyone who actually has a lot of experience with women knows that women are repelled by appeasing guys. A convicted felon will do vastly better with women than the niceguy who proactively offers to pick a woman up from the airport.
Gawain'sGhost,
You are a fool.
SHE assualted him with a weapons, due to his cheating. Yet you make Elin the victim.
If the genders were revesred, and Elin cheated, resulting in Tiger assualting her, you would gladly send Tiger to prison for years for assualt.
What is the common theme here?
That the MAN is always at fault, even if you reverse the genders.
That is why you are pathetic.
Take the money and then write "If I Wrote It".
Hey, it worked for OJ.
Q: Why is divorce so expensive?
A: Because it is worth it.
Wait a minute, we're not talking mere divorce here, but about an NDA. Legal blackmail, sure, but perfectly reasonable legal blackmail.
Elin has dirt on Tiger which she could expose without violating any laws; Tiger should be allowed to buy her silence at whatever price they're willing to agree to. And the rest of us have no reason to care.
Two reasons:
1. Men support this system because men care about women. That is simply it. Most men, really, deeply and truly care about women.
2. They say if he cheated he had it coming to him. They also say if she was the one that cheated, that he should have paid more attention to her and such.
Florida is a no-fault divorce state. Either party can file for divorce and the divorce will proceed regardless of what the other party wishes/wants. Also, the non-wage earner is entitled to 50% of all earnings the wage earner made since the time of the marriage. I've heard that Tiger has earned roughly $600,000,000 since they've been married, so Elin is legally entitled to half that. And no amount of lawyering will alter those facts.
And the no-fault divorce law trumps prenuptial agreements.
Internet Attorney Ken sez: "Also, the non-wage earner is entitled to 50% of all earnings the wage earner made since the time of the marriage."
------
No, the assets are to be divided in an "equitable" and fair manner according to Florida statute.
You are probably thinking of community property states, Florida is not one of them.
But your confused mish-mosh of kinda-sorta truths with misinterpretations is interesting.
Respectability, for a woman, comes from how good a deal she makes for herself.
Which is what she's negotiating.
Who is Elin Nordegren?
Is she his wife or one of his girlfriends?
Not all of us follow the tabloids. The only person in the Tiger Woods scandal whose name I actually know is Tiger Woods. The other players are still unknown to me, largely because I have paid no attention.
I don't think I'm alone in this.
I also don't think I'm alone in simply not caring what any of these people do. I feel for his wife who was betrayed in ways that boggle the mind, but beyond that I just don't care. This isn't news, but spectacle, and I'm not interested in dwelling on it.
Then why are you reading this article and taking the time to post on it (to post that you just don't care)?
I don't read stuff I don't care about, and I certainly don't take the time to formulate a 9-sentence response saying that I don't care.
Once again this blog crosses the line from rationally valuing male comportment into a foam-mouthed reflexive snarl like someone touched your food dish.
There is someone defending OJ Friggin' Simpson in this thread, a "peaceful" (their word!) man driven to kill by alimony. Previously, he was just driven to beat the shit out of her, obviously because she must have spent all his money on shoes and baubles she didn't "earn" during their marriage. Apparently, being a punching bag is not a remunerative occupation.
Other mangy posters ask why these "cunts" should get anything. Tiger Woods wife is a cunt? Is that you OJ?
Dr. Helen, look at this from the perspective of your profession - what are you espousing that is drawing this kind of sympatico commentary? What seed are you planting to reap this kind of crop?
When you see this kind of crowd, it's time to look at what you're leaving out that is attracting them.
Oh - and if Tiger was a groundskeeper who won the lottery, would his wife who caught him banging everything that moved be more, or less, entitled the half of their estate, since Tiger didn't then earn it, just won it?
There are a sizable number of women who don't get press and don't get attention, but who are dumped by their husbands capriciously or leave their husbands for adulterous or abusive behavior. I was one of those women. I sacrificed my career and the best earning years of my life for a man I thought would love me until death. He changed the rules and damn straight he's going to pay me for standing by his side while he worked his way up from nothing; bore his children; mostly raised his children and watched his back. I'm sorry Dr. Helen, this is not blackmail. Until you've walked this path, I really don't want to hear any criticism. Yeah, there are women who take advantage, but from my vantage point, it is more likely that the men have the upper hand. And the statistics bear that out, divorced women overall come out on the short end financially. So don't use Elin as the model - she is an outlier. And if my husband had been a serial adulterer whose sordid sex life was played out on the public stage, I'd go for every penny he had, too. It's the only thing that will get the attention of men like Tiger Woods.
If Elin assaulted Tiger with a golf club, why didn't he press charges?
Absent a complaining witness, there is nothing the court can do about that.
What I'm seeing here is a complete lack of understanding of the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, and a failure to comprehend the nature of the court system.
In a divorce proceeding, she has all the power in court. All of it. As egregious and unfair as that might be, it is the reality.
He made her an offer. She turned it down, as is her perogative. Now the lawyers can battle it out.
If I were her lawyer, given the terms and conditions the contract and the nature of the court system, I'd take him to the cleaners. Knowing that the court is always going to side with her.
A lot of you are missing the salient point here. All that matters is the terms and conditions of the contract, willingly entered into. The court is going to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract. It's that simple.
It doesn't matter how Tiger earned or won his money. What matters is how much Elin is entitled to under the terms and conditions of the contract, because that is what she is going to get. Period.
Tiger Woods brought all of this upon himself. He knowingly and willingly entered into a contract, and then violated that contract. Now he has to pay for his transgressions. And pay he will.
Those of you who have a problem with that really have a problem with the terms and conditions of the contract. But since none of you have advocated, much less insisted upon, changing those terms and conditions, all you're really doing is pissing in the wind and having your own urine blow back into your faces.
The contract is the contract, knowingly and willingly entered into by both parties. The law is the law. The court is going to enforce the contract according to the law. There is nothing else for the court to do.
All the whining and complaining in the world is not going to change that fact.
I'm not about to defend Tiger Woods; he knew what he was doing. Nor am I about to defend Heather Mills; she knew what she was doing.
I will however defend Elin Nordegren and Paul McCartney, because they were both taken advantage of and abused by their supposed partners.
Elin has the court on her side; Paul did not. The real problem here is in the terms and conditions of the marriage contract and the nature of the court system, which priveleges women and discriminates against men.
If you don't like it, then change it. But don't whine about it like a small child. That doesn't accomplish anything, other than exposing you as the infant you are.
The real problem here is in the terms and conditions of the marriage contract and the nature of the court system, which priveleges women and discriminates against men.
If you don't like it, then change it. But don't whine about it like a small child.
And where and I'm supposed to get this mythical power where I can changed the court system? Sometimes complaining loudly and often is all you can do. The system is so unfair and unbalanced, it will likely take decades to change, even if I had any power to help effect that change. Meanwhile, lives are destroyed, children scarred for life, and divorced dads forced into bankruptcy (and thus deadbeat dadness), and all you can do is stay "stop whining"?
Debbie,
No ONE to get married anymore. Personally I do not know any divorced men who came out ahead but it must happen.
Perhaps it depends on your jurisdiction.
It might be a lot easier for men if all women simply refused to marry at the outset now that I think about it.
This will take time but for now if each man or woman would refuse marriage at least they would spare themselves.
Women would simply turn to facilities like Fairfax Cryobank when it became time to start a family.
No one will have anyone else to blame.
Couples who insisted on marriage would go for pre-nuptial legal and psychiatric counselling.
There is no room for hope, love, or optimism in marriage.
"And the statistics bear that out, divorced women overall come out on the short end financially."
-----
If you think that, then don't get married (I won't ever marry, by the way).
Women tend to "marry up" and then tend to very quickly forget that their standard of living was raised because of marriage. Sometimes drastically. Sometimes slowly over the years as the husband works his butt off.
If you want money, get it yourself. Quit trying to rationalize taking it from someone else with your Lifetime Network / Oprah-type justifications.
Men: If you get married, this is the kind of woman you could be facing in divorce court. She's 100% sure that your money belongs to her, and a court will back her up.
Just don't get married, and then you solve the problem of all of these women getting the short end of the stick financially (according to Debbie).
I'm doing my part, Debbie, by not marrying and not subjecting a woman to this horrible financial abuse.
"If Elin assaulted Tiger with a golf club, why didn't he press charges?"
---
Quite likely because he is the chivalrous male who has an instinct to protect her.
I look at the world through the eyes of an adult. I know the law. I understand the terms and conditions of the marriage contract. I realize the nature of the court system.
Obviously, all of that is beyond the intellectual capacity of a child.
750 million for blackmail?
Choose a comment from these options...
+1: Do what is best for the children.
She had better choose their bodyguards
very carefully indeed, and try really
hard to compensate for their isolation
from society.
As to the modern warfare between men
and women in general, the effect of the
coming Hard Times will be as harsh
as the most mysogynistic male might
wish; Those of both sexes who have
gotten past a fixation on their genitalia,
and their gender, to their common
humanity, need to foucus on +1
above as their guiding principle.
Point 1) None of us have even met these people, let alone be close personal friends or relatives of these people. It's their lives, people. Quite literally, it's THEIR F@@#$%G business!
Point 2) Why the fascination with this guy? Has he cured cancer? poverty? No, he hits a ball with a stick.
Please allow me to me to add my name to the roll of those who state, emphatically, that we don't care. Why a guy gets to be a billionaire because he's the best person in the world at hitting balls toward holes will surely puzzle future generations of historians (assuming evolution has not yet stopped). Ditto on why that fact should enure to her benefit. It's as if that guy from Japan who eats all those hot dogs in one sitting got a billion bucks for it. Or that guy with the world's longest beard.
Why some people care is amazing to us, though.
I don't think blackmail is the right term. Hush money is the better term. He is offering the money for her not to talk about the marriage. If it is that important to him for her not to talk, well...
She is this case is the wronged party is this case. He cheated on her maybe she was willing to look the other way until she couldn't. I doubt they had an open marriage.
"I don't think blackmail is the right term. Hush money is the better term."
----
That's like when beefy extortionists come into a restaurant, accidently knock over some china and glasses, and suggest a monthly payment.
It's not extortion money, it's "insurance".
Anyone know what the putative pre-nup was/is? We don't know WHAT their agreements were - written or verbal, so a lot of the comments are hot air because no one knows what the deal making is behind the scenes.
As for him being naive -- Tiger Woods was 28 years old when he got married. He was not "young." And maybe he thought infidelity wouldn't make any difference as he saw his dad mess around on his mom and that worked out. (Maybe.)
Most of the comments here are hostile to Elin Nordegen. Just because of the amount of money she has apparently turned down? Or just because she is the Wife in a marriage that is ending because hubby couldn't keep it in his pants?
The money doesn't mean much to me as $750 million doesn't compute in my real world as it is, but since they recently purchased a $39 million home, would $100 million be more acceptable for you folks? Plus 2 of the 5 houses? We can speculate and opine, but we can't know what something is worth to other people. It's their story.
So she now has two young children to raise responsibly. You know -- that limits her options for life, somehow. And she may have been an
"au pair" -- but her backgroud and connections are pretty up scale. He can move on, sleep with whoever he wants (how much will he pay them to keep them from saving his text messages? Will they all "threaten" to write books?) And she is going to spend her time raising their kids. Vomit at 2 am ... ballet and soccer ... you know the things that make pursuing her stuff a bit more complicated.
Is she supposed to raise them as if they are Tiger Woods legitimate children and heirs? Well, yes. They can get a house down the beach from him so they can go back and forth, now that the baby can walk!
Is he going to hire around the clock care for the kids when they come stay with him? His career doesn't make him a 9 to 5'er, so he's not going to be home much. Ahhh, but the kids are little, they won't care. Maybe one of the babes he bedded will jump in. That'll cost him too. But maybe he can get them at minimum wage? That would be about right.
As for "blackmail," that implies that she is calling the shots on this based on *threatening* him. Does anyone have any evidence that this is what is going on? Or are people just connecting random dots?
Of course, as a couple people above have mentioned ... it is none of our business.
And this OJ was driven to double homicide because of his divorce settlement claim -- and how did that work out for him exactly? And the kids? And the victims? {Get a life.}
Woods & Nordegen will work it out without our votes. And without murder.
"And the statistics bear that out, divorced women overall come out on the short end financially."
This is a tired old lie, just like the lie that women are paid jsut 77% of what men are paid for the same job (in fact, women are paid more).
If women were even remotely losing financially from marriage, you would see feminists shrieking to change the laws from what they are now.
Such an irresponsible claim shows why misandry is vastly more common than misogyny, in America today.
Read this article to get fully educated about misandry in America.
Gawain'sGhost,
Your answer reeks of desperation and defeat. Your projection at being swiftly outsmarted shows out intellectually outclassed you were.
The point is, if Elin cheated and Tiger assualted her, you would still be against the man. You are an anti-male bigot, period.
On OJ Simpson :
Yes, it is quite appropriate to debate why a man who was never violent before, got pushed to murder, on account to alimony laws worthy of a tyrannical dictatorship rather than the US.
Should we, as a society, be sanctioning this level of unfairness? That too on a 'no fault' basis?
"Until you've walked this path, I really don't want to hear any criticism."
Debbie, I'm sorry your situation turned out the way it did. But your line of argument is unsustainable - by that rationale, none of us can comment on the issue of murder because none of us have been murdered.
In fact, having this hardcore emotional experience gives you a conflict of interest in the matter, as evidenced by your telling us that WE can't partake in a logical analysis of the issue.
"And the statistics bear that out, divorced women overall come out on the short end financially."
This is a selection bias. It's not just taking time off work to have kids; American women come out on the short end because they typically look to marry up - guaranteeing they will be on the outside if the money they married separates from them. Even single woman I have asked about this in the last year has told me she'd be ashamed to be married to a man who makes less than she does.
That being said, I think a prenup should state what the stay-home parent should receive in the event of a divorce, for the opportunity cost of taking the effort to work more with the kids. That is not at all unreasonable.
But if he provided for the family while married, there's just not a good reason to strip him of ALL his economic assets. That's just pure vengeance, and it's not a good social policy.
Finally (just commenting on other things), I find it funny how American women typically take all parental prerogatives for themselves - right up to Ms How To Train Your Man, the control freak who berates her husband for not enforcing all the silly rules she has unilaterally set for the kids - but when it's time for divorce, they are now "HIS kids" and he owes her for it as if she was just a daycare worker.
Because it's American MEN who fall over every infant on the street and coo and beg "we should have one, dear!!!" Right.
Gawain'sGhost is the type of person who, before the civil war, probably told black slaves :
"If you don't like slavery, quit whining, and change the law.
I am an adult, and that is true because I said so."
Except, of course, that Gawain'sGhost would still be against Tiger and pro-Elin if the genders were reversed in the exact same situation (i.e. Elin cheated and Tiger beat her with a club).
I would not be pro-Elin and anti-Tiger if she had betrayed him. Just as I am not pro-Mills and anti-McCartney.
I am literally amazed at the lack of reading ability of the most of the commenters on this blog. I have made my position perfectly clear, to anyone who knows how to read.
Denigrating me because you don't like what I have to say, which is the truth, serves no purpose other than to reveal how truly ignorant you are.
The contract is the contract. I cannot state that more clearly. The court will enforce the contract. I cannot state that more clearly either.
If you do not like it, then change the contract. Because until you do that, nothing you say is anything other than the whining of a child.
There is a real world we live in. It is a world of contracts and law. Only little children cry about it. Adults accept their responsibilities without question, and do what they have to do.
Grow up or shut up.
Look, we are just taking this as an example to discuss salient points with respect to the larger Culture.
One of the points might be how an earnest young man might earn 750 million hitting a little ball with a stick.
Gawain'sGhost predictable dodges the main points to hide behind the flisiest of strawmen.
Also, this obsession with insisting he is an adult is quite odd. Did you grow up in a two-parent home? I am guessing not.
At any rate, the only constant in Gawain's pedestalization of women is that the 'man is always wrong'. He trys to weasel out of this by using Paul McCartney, but that is not adequate.
At a minimum, he is excusing assault with a deadly weapon, just because the victim is a man.
Also, note that every law is always just, at all times, according to Gawain. Changing the law is as easy as going to a different barber. Blacks should have changed the laws about slavery if they had a problem with them, eh?
Gawain, if you were ready to be a grown-up, you might find someone to agree with you. Until then, you need to gain some direct experience with relationships first.
Also, if Gawain had any exposure to the adult world, he would know that a pre-nup is a 'contract' that is routinely tossed aside if it stands in the way of the woman getting a huge payday.
Also, a lot of things are at a judge's discretion. Why can't a couple specify BEFORE marraige who will get custody of the children if one party wants to end the marriage on a 'no fault' basis?
Why?
These are questions that Mr. "I wanna pretend to be not just any adult, but an adult who enforces contracts!!", just cannot ponder.
"male legislators and male judges turn it into reality.
Absolutely bizarre."
"It is amazing to me that slavery can return to 21st century America, and that this slavery is being aided by the very group that is enslaved (white-knighting men backstabbing other men, thinking this will get them laid)."
CHECK OUT Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family) and/or do a Google search of the author for his website…
http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943
See a couple of excerpts here:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
"…the ideologues who control organized feminism today have found that the penal apparatus provides an effective instrument for waging gender warfare on the most personal level, institutionalizing feminist ideology within private life, and criminalizing individual men (and sometimes women) who fail to measure up to the feminist ideal of ideologically correct behavior in their private lives…"
"There are lots and lots of men who are looking for ANY excuse to make the man pay the woman everything possible upon divorce.
I just don't get what is going through their heads."
Again, from Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family) :
http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943
"What we confront here is a bureaucratic machine of a kind that has never before been seen in the United States or the other English-speaking democracies. … The implications reach far beyond fathers and even beyond the family itself, for forcibly severing the intimate bond between parents and their children threatens the liberties of all of us.
"…child support is no longer primarily a method for requiring men to take responsibility for the offspring they have sired and then abandoned, as most people are led to believe. Overwhelmingly it is now a regime whereby 'a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children.'
"…Ironically, the one thing that cannot be debated in the court is legal guilt or innocence — such as violating the marriage contract or leveling false accusations. For to admit the most rudimentary notions of justice would be to undermine the logic of the proceeding.
"…the media will go to any lengths to avoid admitting that we are in a massive epidemic of government-sponsored child stealing."
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
Don't forget to go see what Baskerville writes about "kleptocracy," or government by thieves…
("Summoning legally unimpeachable citizens to court and forcing them to empty their bank accounts to people they have neither hired for services they have requested nor received on threat of physical punishment is what most people would call a protection racket.")
To Gawain (and to those who state that they don't care and imply that none of us should care) :
"I'm not justifying anything. I'm just saying that the law is the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. … And now he has to pay. I'm the only one who is offering a real solution, which is to change the law. The rest of you are just bitching about the law, but are impotent to do anything about it."
If the law is unconstitutional and, therefore, goes against man's (and woman's) natural rights, entitling government to rights (i.e., interventionist rights) that IT does not have and to trample on man's (natural) rights, then the above description, by Gawain, is just not that straightforward…
No, Gawain, "The law is" NOT always just "the law" and it ISN'T just "that simple." (His rants can be compared, albeit on a smaller scale — no offense meant — perhaps, to a Westerner saying of a foreign dictatorship that "all" the downtrodden citizens need do — IF they want a democracy — is to stop complaining (like crybabies) and to revolt (like adults), i.e., without Gawain noting the MANY obstacles in their path…)
One final time, from Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family) — the final paragraph is the most important:
http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943
"…the intrusive tendencies of law governing sexual harassment or date rape are minor compared to the invasiveness government-enforced feminism has already realized in family law. Yet this receives no comparable scrutiny from critics of feminism, let alone from the mainstream media or civil libertarians. …
"What we confront here is a bureaucratic machine of a kind that has never before been seen in the United States or the other English-speaking democracies. … The implications reach far beyond fathers and even beyond the family itself, for forcibly severing the intimate bond between parents and their children threatens the liberties of all of us. …
"The growth of this machinery [the divorce industry] has been accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign that has served to justify punitive measures against citizens who are not convicted of any crime. 'Is there a species on the planet who is more unjustly maligned than fathers?' writes columnist Naomi Lakritz. 'Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, molesters, and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the initial moment of conception is over.'
"Far from simple violations of particular constitutional clauses, these practices and powers are undermining constitutional government in its most fundamental principles. The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose."
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
"One of the points might be how an earnest young man might earn 750 million hitting a little ball with a stick."
----
I find it silly too, and I am also no fan of golf.
But at least he made money by his efforts, giving something to society that some people apparently want to see.
The same can't be said for these parasitical women who attach themselves to these producers. They do nothing for their money except manipulate men.
It's truly hard to fathom why the statutes and common law and court practices are what they are. It's absolutely astounding to me that this leeches should get a penny.
Men have to stop overvaluing the vagina.
Put the correct value on it, and that value ain't $750,000,000. Not even if it's lined in gold and sprayed with an anti-crust coating.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that Tiger will have a problem enforcing a prenup. His problem seems to be that the prenup does not bar Elin from publishing her side of the story.
Tiger fears, justifiably, that he will lose more than $750,000,000 in endorsement income if Elin tells the truth about him. Hence the hush money.
Tiger is afraid of "publish and be damned" -- by Nike.
One Word: Pre-Nup
Is the wife a bit of a pig for wanting that much cash to keep quiet? Maybe, but while I am very jaded toward what women get away with in terms of divorce nowadays, Tiger was the one who screwed the pooch, and was definitely a pig.
Mr. Squeaky-clean image who made much of those millions off that image was screwing around on his wife indiscriminately, humiliated her publicly to billions, exposed her potentially to disease, etc.
Tiger COULD have not gotten married and screwed around all he wanted, OR he could have been faithful to his wife OR at the very least, he could have been a little more circumspect with where he was looking for action on the side.
Sorry, but I can't muster much sympathy for Tiger, here, because he'll survive with many hundreds of millions to his name. I'll reserve my sympathy for the poor bastards whose wife cheated on them, screwed THEM over, and then took most everything they had.
"Sorry, but I can't muster much sympathy for Tiger, here ..."
-----
Yes, this woman had NO IDEA that he had lots and lots of money.
What a horrible thing - millions and millions spent on you in a very high lifestyle - while you don't work - and then you leave with something approaching a billion dollars.
Good work if you can get it.
This is the most lucrative job in the world.
Weary G:
So if a woman in a marriage screws around and a man beats her with a club, and then they wisely decide to separate, the woman should pay the man lots and lots of money?
Huh.
Well, most of you are idiots.
The contract is the contract. Period. If you don't agreee to it, don't sign it. Or change the terms and conditions before you do sign it. There are no other options.
I am amazed at the petty commenters on this blog, how easily they hurl insults, like children, without demonstrating any real understanding of the real issue.
The real issue is the marriage contract. If you don't like it, then change it. To the extent that you are unwilling or incapable of doing that is the extent to which you are nothing more than a whining child.
GawainsGhost,
You probably aren't going to win the Miss Congeniality award here.
Maybe the next pageant, but I am not very optimistic about this one.
Here's a puzzler for you, though: What about men who married under one set of rules, believing in good faith that those were the rules, like you say, and then the state changed the divorce rules?
Like a man who married in the 1960s under fault divorce, and then the state yanked the carpet out in the 1970s and changed the divorce law to no-fault.
Is he a whining child that is not fit to carry your jock strap as well?
How about people who live together who have not completely studied current family law, and they are deemed to also have the same "rights" as married couples? (That is happening in the United Kingdom and also slowly in Canada - the US is certainly next).
Should all men be on the top of their legal game at all times, even if they are working a 12-hour-a-day job to support Pumpkin's lifestyle?
On a final note: Who pissed in your Cheerios?
And as an Internet Attorney Extraordinaire*, you know, GawainsGhost, that family law is not always as clear cut as other areas of the law (like patent law).
Many of the statutes just offer "balancing aspects" (a long laundry list of factors to take into consideration in splitting assets) or they call for an "equitable and fair" split. That means a judge in family court has a LOT more leeway to do whatever the hell he/she wants.
That seems to conflict with your constant pronouncements of "black letter law" and "he knew exactly what he was getting into".
* I'm just kidding, it's very clear that you are not an attorney.
I am amazed that someone as stupid as Gawain actually knows how to type.
He talks as though changing divorce laws is as easy as changing your auto insurance.
Of course, he fled with great cowardice after I pointed out that his position that "Blacks who did not like slavery should have changed the laws to make slavery illegal". Notice how he is hiding from his absurd position on this.
Also, Gawain further dodges these points :
a) The divorce laws can change AFTER marraige (i.e. no fault laws retroactively affect people who got married before the law).
b) That pre-nups can be voided by the judge, making the 'contract' invalid.
c) That Gawain is against following the 'contract' if it were to become disadvantaguous to the woman.
'Men' like Gawain are how women justify misandry - Gawain makes it hard to make the case against misandry.
* I'm just kidding, it's very clear that you are not an attorney.
But he is more than that, you see : He is an ADULT. An adult that enforces CONTRACTS.
JG :-)
I enjoyed your post. It is correct that the law on
co-habitation is to take it as a marriage without ceremony or even any sort of discussion.
Men who are sharp in Canada will refuse to live under the same roof with any woman. Sadly they have learned this from getting divorced in the first place.
It really is an income hunt with open season on the male.
Where it was noted some men were evading capture the laws were taken down another few turns and you are correct, the laws are changed and applied retroactively. The legal nature of your relationship is redefined after you have entered into it. A man can own his place and his GF can call the police and have him ejected with no notice whatsoever - immediate departure.
A judge can toss out any sort of pre-nup agreement - no hesitation.
This is why "marriage" as such is simply fading away from the perspective of man, woman, and the law. Where the law has impeded the pursuit of the male it has been pushed aside by the courts.
In Canada the entire idea of blame is irrelevant in conjugal separation. Any male could be 100% faithful and completely peaceful AND employed and it makes no difference whatsoever in the outcome.
Who can honestly say that they do not know what is happening in this area and if they are 40-50 years of age that they do not know of many cases from personal associations?
Marriage might work out for you, it is not impossible, but there is nothing any man can do that will determine this with any sort of predictability. You can be turfed for any reason or no reason. Sex now is really a kind of crime like drug dealing. You might get away with it or you might wind up ruined and in jail. Chance will have a lot to do with it.
Mike,
As Gawain'sGhost would say, "if you don't like the law, change the law. Both sides are fully aware of the laws going in, and retroactive application never happens.
Aslo, pre-nups are never tossed out.
If real-life experience leads you to disagree this, you are a child."
This is GawainGhost's position. It is people like him who are responsible for the 21st-century return of slavery to America.
Marriage will die in this nation, as an institution. But it will not matter, because the government will take everyone's money and redistribute it as they see fit. The lion's share, of course, going to loyal government workers.
Family, religion.... anti-socialist.
Both institutions must be destroyed.
The government isn't stupid, they see exactly what is going on. People like the idea of marriage in theory, they just don't want to do it. We all like the image of mom, dad and kids. Considering that 41% of all children in the US are born out of wedlock, a percentage that is increasing every year, we know that people are getting married less and less. The government's take is to send the message of "family values" which plays really well in Peoria. But the government isn't doing much to encourage marriage, the voters don't want to be forced into it. The government can collect more tax dollars from single people.
I'm not saying marriage is good or bad, I certainly don't want to get married if it doesn't make anything better for me. I'm merely pointing out this is the way it is.
"The government's take is to send the message of "family values" which plays really well in Peoria. But the government isn't doing much to encourage marriage, the voters don't want to be forced into it."
I don't believe the government should be 'encouraging marriage.' Aside from the lifestyle judgment involved, it's just poor policy to lure people into it with tax policy or government giveaways - that will bring more people unfit for marriage into the institution and further weaken it.
We should be making GETTING married a difficult process, with lots of bureaucracy/medical screening/prenup counseling/financial oversight, and BEING married less of a suicide pact (i.e. eliminate alimony except for extreme circumstances, lower the child support %'s, eliminate presumptive maternal custody, restore due process to domestic violence accusations, restore the expectation of carnal activity in marriage and mandate paternity testing). This will disincentivize divorce, and thus make being married a much better enterprise.
Topher, I agree with you somewhat. I always say just about anything can be undone, with the exception of buying a new car, any house and getting married. Though the funny thing is, that if you buy a new car or a house it involves a tremendous amount of paperwork explaining all the expectations and ramifications. Yet, if you get married you are given a small marriage license and not much else. Marriage is the one thing that is most difficult to undo, yet our society spends very little time explaining to people about the legal ramifications if one wants to exit the marriage.
Of course, if we make people review paperwork and understand what they are getting themselves into someone will complain of too much government oversight and that nobody has ever expected that before and society has been doing everything the same way for thousands of years so why change now blah blah blah. It is what it is.
It is obvious to me that most of you people don't deal with contracts. I do, on a daily basis.
It is true that a prenuptial can be tossed out, since the woman can claim she was forced to sign under duress.
That is not true of the marriage contract. No court is ever going to toss that out.
If you do not understand or agree to the terms and conditions of the contract, you have two and only two options: 1) do not sign it; 2) change the terms and conditions.
If you do sign and thereby agree to the terms and conditions, you have no one to blame but yourself if things don't work out the way you thought they would.
It's just like buying a repossessed home. There is an addendum to the sales contract which clearly and specifically states that the seller is not responsible for any repairs or rennovations after closing. If you sign that contract and close the deal, you cannot later come back and blame the seller if the repairs or rennovations cost more than you thought they would. That is your problem now, not the seller's.
The contract is the contract. The court has no choice but to enforce the contract, as willingly entered into and agreed upon by both parties.
I find it amazing how simple this is to understand, but how difficult it is for most commenters to admit, much less comprehend.
The court is going to enforce the contract. Period. It can do nothing else.
You want to whine and complain about the contract? Fine. Act like a child.
Until or unless you actually change the terms and conditions, then you can cry all you want. But it's not going to change the reality.
Obviously, what is happening here is that Elin is entitled to far more money, under the terms and conditions of the contract that Tiger willingly entered into, than the commenters on this blog and their entire extended families will ever earn in their collective lives. Thus, jealousy rears its ugly head.
Hey, it's not your money, so I cannot comprehend why any of you should be so upset about it. Unless some woman took you to the cleaners. That's the real problem, isn't it?
In your love-sick, sex-obsessed mind, you agreed to a contract and ended up losing everything. Well, sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Children live in a fantasy world wherein they can whine and complain and get what they want.
I live in the real world. The world of contracts and law. Since I do not agree to the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, I choose not to enter into it. I'd rather have the money, and I do.
What I did not do is agree to the terms and conditions then bitch about it after the fact, when I was betrayed or went bankrupt.
I make a lot of money, I carry no dept, other than one student loan and the new sports car I bought. My expenses compared to my income are miniscule. I'm certainly not responsible for paying child support for some bastard that isn't mine.
I can get laid anytime I want. And it will never cost me more than a tequila shot and a lie to the face.
So I have the best of both worlds. I can save money and have all of the sex I want. And retire with a net worth of around $10 million.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Gawain is such a troll. He's never directly addressed ANY of the concerns of the commentors he lambasts. He's just called us all children and told us to get on the phone to our Congresspeople, or to simply avoid marriage. Nor has he, Mr Contracts Genius, given anybody any serious advice on how to "change the contract." (He has alluded to the fact that prenups, which are 'changes to the marriage contract' he so espouses, can be and are tossed out. I guess some 'contracts' are more equal than others.)
He also doesn't seem to understand that the way laws get changed in this country is that people discuss amongst themselves whether the law is right or not, then a groundswell of opinion builds, then lobbying is engaged to rectify the situation according to the legislators' political interests. He wants us to go straight into the halls of law
and calls us children for arguing to convince others of the need for change before we propose new law.
His constantly finding fault with counterarguments and his trolling superiority in his own life choices are indicative of narcissism.
Not that I should be surprised. People who work with the law and "contracts" are never concerned with what's right - only what they can do on paper or in court.
GawainsGhost,
Contracts and family law are fundamentally different. That's why they are taught in completely separate courses in law school. Marriage is not "just a contract".
But even among the contracts you are talking about, it's clearly not a black-and-white situation. Many states make a difference between a commercial real estate purchaser and a joe-six-pack home buyer. The latter is protected to a certain extent (in some states) against certain abusive and "as is" clauses in sales contracts. There are lots and lots of issues to pay attention and worry about with regard to contracts that go above and beyond what is set down in the agreement.
You are just being self-righteously silly for some reason.
And you haven't addressed points made above, for instance with regard to the state CHANGING THE CONDITIONS OF DIVORCE AFTER you marry (like the example of a guy marrying in the 60s under fault law and then getting hit by no-fault divorce law in the 1970s).
Quit being irritating. Please.
Well, as I am such a troll, I'll tell you how to change the contract. Start electing legislators with that in mind.
Oh, can't do that, can you? Then shut up and live under the terms and conditions of the contract like an adult.
I've made my position perfectly clear, as to the contract in question. 1) Eliminate presumptive paternity. The biological father should be responsible for paying child support, not the husband of an adulterate wife. 2) Eliminate no fault divorce. The dissolution of a marriage should ony be allowed for just cause, as both parties knew what they were doing when they entered into the contract. Abandonment, betrayal, infidelity should not be allowed or rewarded, as they are under the current contract and court system.
Community property, community funds and sweat equity are a different matter, as a marriage is primarily a financial contract. In a corporation with two co-equal partners, I don't see how it could work any other way.
Oh, that's right, the husband is supposed to pay so the wife can stay at home.
Uh, huh. That only becomes a problem when the wife is supposed to pay so the husband can stay at home, right?
The real issue here is cultural, not just legal. And both must be addressed and changed in order for a marital relationship to be equitable.
Anything else is the crying of children.
Cham:
Your train of thought is interesting. One might read current marriage law as aiming to eliminate the family over decades.
Though I think it is correct that women are favored as to the terms of divorce this is really by the power of the state.
The idea is that the men are crushed first and the women can be crushed later. There must be some incentive to someone to invite the state in to begin with.
The reality is that a lot of children will be wrecked in this way by the process of extending state power but there is a more than adequate supply of immigrants so casualties can be replaced.
States always advance moral pretexts to justify actions extending power but these are really window dressing.
"Start electing legislators with that in mind.
Oh, can't do that, can you? Then shut up and live under the terms and conditions of the contract like an adult."
You are a troll. What is with your flip dismissal that we "can't elect legislators"? Many people on this blog have been working to do just that. By your logic, abolitionists in the antebellum north should have simply let the slave system roll on instead of turning public and political opinion against it through philosophy, journalism, performance and protest.
Or more close to today, those protesting fault-divorce laws (and there were good reasons to change that system, for couples who truly and mutually just wanted to call it quits*) should have "shut up and lived under the contract" without complaint.
It's not childish to debate an issue and make the case that a law is unjust (or more directly, "an ass.")
*Important to keep the ideas separate. I don't think the problem is no-fault divorce...the problem is _unilateral_ divorce, with punishment as if fault existed. Today, if your spouse is doing their part and doesn't want to get divorced, you can force the issue without showing fault.
There is not going to be any big legal reform movement rectifying marriage law to be anything that would be recognizable.
It is already completely diluted.
I suppose it could be moved strictly into commercial law as a purely commercial proposition with limited liability where either partner could call for the dissolution on 30 days notice according to the terms originally signed.
The state is recognized as the entity holding title to the children as such up to the age of majority. The court would then order one or the other parent or another agent to raise the children. Many would go directly into state care and be raised institutionally under communal conditions.
This seems like a totalitarian state but if we continue to abolish the family such that 51% of the children are born to single women 10 years from now who or what is going to be left? The churches are almost gone in most countries now.
The family ( good or bad ) was the last NGO you could retreat to and have some sanctuary from state authority. Most of these unwed children will effectively be wards of the state anyway via the single payer system.
Sure there will be a number of "marriage survivalists and fundamentalists" out there but the state does not need anything like 100% to achieve control.
It is true that the roots of marriage go back 1000s of years and most men and women think that they can still have one of these archaic families but they cannot because the state is opposed and the culture is decaying. I do not think parents are educating their children in this emerging reality so they make mistakes.
One cannot really fault people for acting according to their education and training. We can upbraid them for not having penetrating legal insights contrary to their education but what is the point?
Mike:
There are plenty of women that have been crushed financially by marriage, I know lots of them. The reason people get married is because of culture and cultural pressure. Cultural pressure is only good for so long. As long as people are not dependent on the other gender for survival and satisfaction they will eventually cast the cultural norms aside and do what is best for them, which is what is happening.
Cham:
After reading these many posts I am thinking about moving from a male/female confrontation. Even if all the outcomes were reversed in 2010 ,2011 such that all agreed that men came way out ahead in marriage the result would still be the same in effect.
Either party signals and the state steps in and the family is broken.
One adult or the other may feel they "won" but it is the ever growing power of the state that has won.
Split the corporate assets 50/50 between the two partners and send the children to an orphanage as potential adoptees.
The parents apply along with others for the state subsidized parenting positions and naturally the child's wishes are considered.
The state looks on children as future payers of taxes and looks to investing in them through various forms of support to the day when they will pay in far more than the amount invested in them.
The dysfunctional, collapsing family is not producing adequate numbers of tax payers. It might be that we should look more to immigration reform rather than marriage reform. We could look to recruiting ONLY those likely to be income producers and tax payers by the 10s of millions to first pay for then replace our current population.
If a family is broken an effort is made to save the children's economic future and the adults are both "free". Both parents would pay some moderate support fee based on their incomes to cover the reassignment of costs entirely to the state. This is an effective club to wield. Having established the precedent of arbitrary power the court can then "fine" either power for complaining about the divorce terms.
I would like to know what the total cost is to raise one child from before conception to college graduation. You could say that this is the one aim of the entire state apparatus - secure the current and future herd of taxpayers. I would guess that parents pay a small fraction privately as opposed to public costs for the upbringing.
Well, what about corporations? This is interesting because the state is a corporate body. Corporations which are owned as private entities engaged in some sort of business are other sorts of collective, corporate bodies.
So for those seeking support via subsidy like private families the bill is often passed up to a collective body which shares out the costs. Increasingly this ultimate collective body is the government.
So to manage family costs associated with marriage the state has stepped in just as the state will manage your collective healthcare controlling who will get what when and how.
I am seeing that we have a case of divide and rule here. Turning the men and women who are married to each other facilitates state control. This takes much less power than a naked attack on all parties in a family.
In divorce the "winner" is simply the next loser.
"There are plenty of women that have been crushed financially by marriage, I know lots of them."
----
If you look carefully, a lot of the men's complaints are that "she took too much from me" and the women's complaints are that she didn't "get enough out of him".
Kind of lop-sided, but that's how society views marriage - men are supposed to pay for women to be with them, apparently.
I never bought the fiction of a 50/50 labor split - that a hard, full-time job capable of paying for a household is equal to sitting on your butt watching Oprah - so I not only don't like the divorce laws based on this fiction, I wouldn't want to be involved in a marriage based on that fiction.
In your dreams, JG. If you think stay-at-home wives go for the jugular you should see what stay-at-home husbands attempt when it comes to divorce. When a wife has a good dependable and lucrative job as well as assets sometimes the new husband becomes allergic to gainful employment, and the inevitable divorce quickly becomes bloody.
If you cannot read and do not understand the terms and conditions of the contract, and then sign it, you're an idiot.
If you can read and do understand the terms and conditions of the contract, and then sign it, only to whine and complain about it later, then you're a fool, or a child at best.
If you can read and do understand the terms and conditions of the contract, refuse to agree to them and do not sign, then you're a man.
The problem here is with the terms and conditions of the contract. Heather married Paul with the intention of divorcing him, in less than two years, and now he has to pay. Elin married Tiger with the intention of forming a family. He betrayed her, and now he has to pay.
It really is as simple as that. Whining, complaining, throwing a fit, calling people names, hurling insults accomplishes nothing. An adult would deal with the fundamental problem, which is the terms and conditions of the contract, and do something about it. A child will only cry about it.
Gawain,
What we are doing is discussing and debating the issue, determining the right or wrong, and forming opinions as to what action should be taken.
I don't know why I am replying to a troll, but I wish you would reply to SOMEBODY's concern directly...so answer me this straight. Pick one of these and post it in your reply.
"These the actions of mature adults, debating a social issue, proposing and debating actions and changes in law, to motivate future lobbying and action. This is 'dealing with the fundamental problem.'"
"The debating of a social issue, deciding what (if any) is the degree of injustice or unfairness in the situation, whether it merits social or legislative action, and what action to take, is the action of a child."
if you can't pick one (I've even given you the opportunity to call us children in one of the responses), and choose instead to go off on another tangent about how important your contracts are, you will have just punched your troll card again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home