Every once in a while, man bites dog. Or there's a freak snowstorm in August. Or a black man gets pulled over by cops who don't shoot at him 100 million times when he reaches for his driver's license.
But rarely does a man get over in divorce court. So rare it is, in fact, that when it happens, it's newsworthy: CBS Sportsline reports today that the former tennis great Chris Evert has to pay out $7 million to get unhitched from her husband. Yeah, you read it right -- a judge, in Florida of all places, let a man walk into court with divorce papers and walk out with cash. Her cash. Cats must be barking at dogs today. Pigs flying. Nelly speaking on Spelman's campus.....
19 comments:
Doubt that would happen if it was the average chick with a average husband...
Pigs ain't flying yet...
Well today the pigs will fly. Score one for the men. This is like a solar eclipse so we have to enjoy the crumbs we get.
Off the cuff: Her fault for not having a pre-nup. But, um, what's new about a man taking sh*t (he didn't earn) from a woman that obviously supported him? LOL It's just newsworthy because it's a court settlement now. She keeps the three kids and she has to pay his a$$? And he keeps the more expensive home, keeping him far removed from his fatherly responsibilities? Leave it to a man to duck out on being a man. LOL
BZ: Thas the biggest load of BS I've seen posted on here. Let's see: obviously supported him? Um, no. He had his own career and made his own money, and the judge thought he deserved some of hers, too.
"what's new about a man taking sh*t (he didn't earn)..." Um, nothing's new about that, except when it happens in court, 9.9999989 percent of the time, it's a woman being handed things she didn't earn. And women never get indignant when that happens to us. Not so funny now, is it?
Meo--- uh... meo--- damn...I can't get that cat sound to come out. Don't know yet if all dogs will stop barking yet, but I know some will after hearing this.
Tupac
lol @ skinny g...
who cares? it's an anomaly. i wouldn't get used to this kind of shit.
here's some confetti. have fun with your small victory.
what state did u say? Fl. let me go look him up. lol
Actually, this is based on which party has more money. She had the most money and obviously didn't have a pre-nup. Her fault.
It's really not a victory for men or women and let's not sit here and claim that "women always take men to the cleaners in divorce and take what they haven't earned" because that's a goddamn lie. First of all, those cases get publicized more and secondly let's not forget that there are far more rich MEN in this world than their are rich WOMEN. Hmm...could that be a factor? HELL YEAH.
Secondly seeing as how this society always feels mothers should have the burden of physical custody when there is a divorce, the woman is ENTITLED to more money when she takes care of the man's damn kids. If men don't feel like they should have to pay so much when there are kids involved, maybe they should go for custody.
But we don't see that too often now do we?
The flaw in the women being entitled to more money cause they overwhelmingly get the kids. A man has to damn near prove a woman is on crack and homeless to win a custody battle.
Sorry that is the greatest story ever SOLD. When men take the time to LEGALLY FIGHT women for custody, they prevail most of the time...85% per a story on the Today show a few months ago.
Problem is, most men don't try.
"That is the greatest story ever sold..."
Um, no. I don't know what Today show story you were watching, but were I you, I'd never watch them again. Clearly, they're engaging in some faulty journalism. There's abosolutley no way in hell 85 percent of men who petition for custody in this country win it; that's pure, undadulterated bullshit. Ask any family court attorney -- the first thing they tell any man who calls them about a custody case its "well, it's a long shot." That ain't because the odds are 85 percent in their favor.
Believe what you will. I keep myself informed on this type of thing so I'm quite confident in what I've stated here...no reason to lie. I haven't mistaken what I heard on a reputable news program...I watched it the first time so I don't need to "watch it again". You however, maybe should have caught the first airing?
The fact remains, men do not in great numbers attempt to gain custody of their children.
Also in relation to this article and the notion that women "take men to the cleaners" regarding alimony etc....let's be real. These cases are presided over by JUDGES, the majority of whom are MALE in this country. Do you really think for a second that a bunch of MALE judges are in some sort of conspiracy to allow women to WRONGLY take a man for everything he's worth in a divorce?
Um no.
Oh wait, I'm just realizing...you said "never watch them again" right?
Ok, I'll never watch a credible news program such as the Today show again because you (obviously a news authority) don't "believe" their facts.
Got it.
Hmm, not a news authority. Damn, and I thought writing for one of the biggest papers in the country, being a contributor to some of the biggest magazines out there and having hosted TV and radio shows qualified me as a news authority moreso than somebody who watched the Today Show once. Guess you told me.
Let's see: judges are overwhelmingly male. Yes, this is true. But judges don't rule their gender, they rule the law. Family court doctrine in this country does now and always has been written and ruled in practice in favor of women. So goes your conspiracy argument: there need be no "conspiracy" among male judges when the laws they're enforcing are so overwhelmingly one-sided.
You're right about one thing: Men don't pursue custody in great numbers. That's not becuase they don't want to, but because many don't have the wherewithal financially or otherwise to challenge a system that puts a heavier burden of proof on them than it does on the women they have to battle to gain custody of their children.
As far as you "keeping yourself informed" about such issues, good for you, but I'd have to say there's no better source of information than a primary one, i.e., somebody who's been there -- and I have. Spent the last 10 years dealing with the family courts for various reasons and unlike some, I don't need the Today show to tell me what goes on there. I've seen how dismissive judges are when they deal with men trying to get custody of their kids, or enforce visitation or dealing with child support, and so on and so on. And I can honestly say never have I witnessed a woman in a family court be treated nearly half as bad as a man has been, beyond that, I know plenty of women who agree.
Next time you want to inform yourself, turn the TV off and holla at me. You might learn a lil bit.
Oh yes, I bet I could learn myriads of information from you.
Maybe if your first response hadn't been so facetious and rooted in OPINION and what you think rather than FACT, you would have gotten a better response the last time around and not had to write a BOOK detailing your "credentials". Congrats to you on your astute career in journalism and please excuse me for being a lowly connoisseur of televison news. I should be ashamed of myself!!!
Really though, your personal situation is not an indication of how all or even most custody cases are handled. When you have a small number of individuals pursuing certain things like for instance men and custody, it's not at all hard to believe that 85% of them prevail. We could be talking about 500 men for all we know! 85% of that number would not be an astronomical or unbelievable figure. That's the point you're missing here and again it's due to your personal situation influencing your belief that ALL of most all cases go the way yours did.
It really is inconsequential to what I first stated here.
We agree on the fact that most men don't pursue custody but I'm sorry, I strongly disgaree on the reasoning. I don't believe for a second that the majority of men who are separated from the mother of their child are just pining away for custody but are afriad their efforts will be futile. The fact is most men are comfortable with the mother having full custody and receiving some sort of visitation.
I don't believe I stated that was wrong, it's simply the way it is.
Now, you being a journalist is noteworthy and I would assume that you're a "fact finder" with investigative sensibilities but still we are only dealing with your opinions here. You haven't backed up any of your beliefs with factual information, so again you may be a journalist but you're operating exclusively on ASSUMPTIONS. I didn't bring an assumption to the table in my first comment here...I watched the news, retained the information and restated it.
But oh I forgot, I shouldn't be watching the news or trying to remain abreast of what goes on in the world via the TV, I should be coming to YOU for your all-encompassing knowledge of everything.
My mistake.
the mistress: Naw, listen to me. Besides custody battles (I'm fixed), I can break anything down for you. Watcha wanna know?
Tupac
Credentials:
Since I am the lawyer here.
International Ivy League I hasten to add and lets not forget...
TV Journalist.
Most men do not fight for their kids. Those that do get a hard time.
The law and the interpretation of it is sexist. Yes even in family court. If you subscribe to the view that it is not then we can also pretend that it is not skewed by the vagaries of race either.
"Whats new about taking shit he didn't earn?"
Your fault for messin with good pussy trflin' hoes and sweet dick bastards!
Alternatively everyone earns shit in a relationship!
AND one does not have to work outside the home to make a valid contribution to a family unit.
Please believe if I am gettin' stretch marks and fat deposits cos I'm pushing out your kids! You are payin' for that shit.
I will be working less which means less 401K and pension contributions and less$$$$ for me when I am old. You are paying for the time I spent at home caring for you and our kids!
Men yes even black ones still get paid more per hour for doing the same job as black women.
@ Pimps God'sson: I love your work but you're movin' to the left on this one.
Post a Comment