 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / March 2008McCartney/Mills Divorce - What are feminists thinking???
Just heard on the news about the Heather Mills -- Paul McCartney divorce settlement. The news is reporting that she was awarded "less than she was asking for". Here's my question: WHY WAS SHE AWARDED ANYTHING?? Moreover, why is ANY woman awarded anything?? In this day and age, what possible justification is there for awarding a woman even a single shilling as a result of the dissolution of a marriage??? In ancient days gone by, women were awarded alimony as compensation for the fact that they would be unable to work to support themselves -- that was the man's role, his duty. But given that feminists have fought so vociferously to ensure that being the "provider" is not longer a "man's role"......what now is the justification for alimony? When I have posed this question to women recently, some tack on a few additional words to the justification by saying alimony is compensation for the fact that a woman would be unable to work to support herself "in a lifestyle she has become accustomed to". But where the hell is it written that women are "owed" the right to maintain the lifestyle that their husbands were providing for them? Other women have attempted to justify alimony on the grounds that it is compensation to a woman for the work she did in support of the marriage. In short, alimony is essentially some form of retroactive salary. She is collecting on "back wages" she is owed. That view is hollow even on the face of it! It has as its very core the assumption that the wife was in some sense the "employee" of her husband. Doubtful many feminists would accept that notion DURING the marriage....so why so afterwards? So again I ask: When it comes to alimony...what the hell are feminists thinking?? > Just heard on the news about the Heather Mills -- Paul McCartney > divorce settlement. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In ancient days gone by, women were awarded alimony as compensation > for the fact that they would be unable to work to support themselves And that they gave up their virginity ;) What did the Ho Mills aka "pegleg" have to lose? I hear she still wants more compensation for losing her leg in that accident. > -- that was the man's role, his duty. But given that feminists have > fought so vociferously to ensure that being the "provider" is not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But where the hell is it written that women are "owed" the right to > maintain the lifestyle that their husbands were providing for them? They're not but since females are natural Ho's they'll try to grab as much as they can. In the old days if a female left her husband she would forfeit her dowry. > Other women have attempted to justify alimony on the grounds that it > is compensation to a woman for the work she did in support of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Doubtful many feminists would accept that notion DURING the > marriage....so why so afterwards? This entire subject is futile to argue. There is nothing in marriage for a man, just don't do it. Problem solved. If females want husbands or children they're going to have to pay for them. So I hope they're all saving the money they earn from their "careers" and not spending it all on shoes. > So again I ask: > When it comes to alimony...what the hell are feminists thinking?? > Just heard on the news about the Heather Mills -- Paul McCartney > divorce settlement. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > So again I ask: > When it comes to alimony...what the hell are feminists thinking?? Another excuse the bitches come up with is the claim that she gave up a wonderful career to provide him with a family. This rings so hollow it is almost unbelievable: A) the feminazis almost invariable assume that the female concerned would have enjoyed a successful career as a doctor or lawyer, etc., which is unlikely for the great majority; and B) usually it is the female that wants children while men often regard children as an undesirable burden. D.  Signature======================= Women have spent the last 30 years proving that men have been right for the last 30 centuries. ======================= > Another excuse the bitches come up with is the > claim that she gave up a wonderful career to > provide him with a family. According the feminist manifesto of personal responsibility, we all are responsible for our own decisions. So for example no how much a wife berates her husband, if he shouts back at her *he* is guilty of verbal abuse and must take full responsibility for his own actions. As such, it seems that even if it were true that a woman "gave up a wonderful career to provide him with a family"...so what? It was a decision she made and as such one for which she alone must take responsibility. Kinda hard to reconcile that doctrine with any sort of justification for alimony. But, as we all know, when feminsts put the words "responsibility" and "all" in the same sentence......what they really mean is "all men....only". >> Another excuse the bitches come up with is the >> claim that she gave up a wonderful career to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > responsibility. Kinda hard to reconcile that doctrine with any sort of > justification for alimony. It's not unlike expecting compensation for buying the wrong stock! >>> Another excuse the bitches come up with is the >>> claim that she gave up a wonderful career to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It's not unlike expecting compensation for buying the wrong stock! There are laws regarding purchasing defective products. If you were to buy a car and it turned out to be a lemon the law states that the dealer would have to replace it with a new car.Free. Same rule should apply to females :o) >>> On Mar 18, 4:26 pm, Dustbin <dustbin_addr...@blueyonder.co.uk> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > apply to females >:o) Sometimes best to change dealers or go to imports. > > "Ted" <T...@Easynet.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sometimes best to change dealers or go to imports. All tongue-in-check aside, the situation with women and feminism is sort of like the inverse of the situation with cars. Nowadays with cars, even ones that are listed as being "domestic" are built with 95% imported products manufactured elsewhere. On the other hand, nowadays when it comes to women, even shopping for one overseas you're just as likely as not going to find out that they've already been at least partially contaminated by Western "Me FIrst" feminst ideology. I recently saw a program about the rise of feminism in Asian countries. Women there are rebelling against their traditional roles. But of course, they still expect men to fulfill *their* traditional roles. ...and woe unto the guy who makes the mistake of bringing a foreign bride back to the USA...... "Screw you!! I amerika girl now..I do what I like!!" On Mar 18, 4:26 pm, Dustbin <dustbin_addr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Another excuse the bitches come up with is the > claim that she gave up a wonderful career to > provide him with a family. As such, it seems that even if it were true that a woman "gave up a wonderful career to provide him with a family"...so what? It was a decision she made and as such one for which she alone must take responsibility. Kinda hard to reconcile that doctrine with any sort of justification for alimony. Ever notice how feminist and most people refer to the children as HIS KIDS when money is involved but HER KIDS every other time. Right - like, he has to understand he has X number of kids and he has a reponsibility to provide for them... And then she says, "I've got to be able to raise and support my kids..." Personally I don't want my kids to live in squaller when with the mom however I want absolute control over the money (by way of the courts) that it goes entirely to the children in every way shape and form. I don't want to punish the mom - just not give mom a false sense of security/lifestyle. Tough love if you will, to inspire them to improve their earning capability - given that they can except for rare circumstances. I just think the courts and lawyers can abuse the system too easily and get away with rubber stamping everything. I am glad the court docs were made public. It is a mirror to many "desperate" ex spouses out there and the whiny blather they spew to justify their standard of living entitlement. Adult child support as I call it only keeps the individual stuck in a state of complaceny. Why should they improve their situation when they have free money coming in? And then when it comes time to review by the court they still do not have a better job/education or anything. And when the SS ends the courts raise the child support to make up for the spousal support ending. I got my kids 1/2 the time - I have time to work 2 jobs, look for and get a better job, go to school, etc. But see because the money isn't there for me due to going to her I am motivated to improve my situation. We need change. And yes as much as she'd argue otherwise, it is in the kids best interest if both parents strive to improve their earning capability as quickly as possible. my .02 > Ever notice how feminist and most people refer to the children as HIS KIDS > when money is involved but HER KIDS every other time. > Just heard on the news about the Heather Mills -- Paul McCartney > divorce settlement. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a woman even a single shilling as a result of the dissolution of a > marriage??? I have long wondered why one adult should somehow fund or compensate another adult if one or both decide to go their seperate ways? It's surely an offensive and demeaning notion. Support for any children of course, but partners in a marriage aren't children. How bizzare? >> Just heard on the news about the Heather Mills -- Paul McCartney >> divorce settlement. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > another adult if one or both decide to go their seperate ways? It's surely > an offensive and demeaning notion. Support for any children of course That also depends on the amount. A man should only have to contribute based on what the average salaries and living conditions are in his country. A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish lifestyle (females benefit from high child support payments and spend it on themselves while getting things like medical care, food etc from the gov't free of charge) If a rich man chooses to give his kids things that should be his choice. If child support is truly for the child then the man should just pay for these things directly rather than handing over a lump sum to an irresponsible female. , but partners in a marriage aren't children. How bizzare? I tried to post a response to this message....but it seems to have disappeared into the internet ether...so here we go again..... > > male_v...@australia.edu wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That also depends on the amount. A man should only have to contribute based > on what the average salaries and living conditions are in his country. I still ask the same question: why? Why shouldn't the ex-wife have to go out and get a job that pays the average salary...or more...just like people who manage to remain married (or never married) must do? How is it that merely being an ex- wife is enough to provides her with some special "no need to work" status? > If a rich man chooses to give his kids things that should be his > choice. > > If child support is truly for the child then the man should just pay for > these things directly rather than handing over a lump sum to an > irresponsible female. I mentioned before that the question of child support opened a can of worms best left for a seperate thread. However, I will say this: As it is implemented in the USA, there is no such thing as a "child support system". If you believe in naming things by what they actually do, then it should be called an "ex-wife custodial parent support system". A long time ago, feminist learned that the easiest way to sneak unfair and discriminatory laws past a legislature was to invoke all sorts of emotionally packed imagery. And so you got all sorts of stories about poor destitude children abanndoned by so-called "dead-beat dads". The result was a system of policies that do nothing more than unfairly tax non-custodial fathers and provide the proceeds to women.There is a tacit assumption that the funds will be used for the child....but nothing built into the system guarantees this..... .....even though that is supposedly the intended purpose. Right and the whole charities thing is all smoke and mirrors...she is no princess Di I tried to post a response to this message....but it seems to have disappeared into the internet ether...so here we go again..... On Mar 21, 8:08 am, "Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote: > > male_v...@australia.edu wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > based > on what the average salaries and living conditions are in his country. I still ask the same question: why? Why shouldn't the ex-wife have to go out and get a job that pays the average salary...or more...just like people who manage to remain married (or never married) must do? How is it that merely being an ex- wife is enough to provides her with some special "no need to work" status? > If a rich man chooses to give his kids things that should be his > choice. > > If child support is truly for the child then the man should just pay for > these things directly rather than handing over a lump sum to an > irresponsible female. I mentioned before that the question of child support opened a can of worms best left for a seperate thread. However, I will say this: As it is implemented in the USA, there is no such thing as a "child support system". If you believe in naming things by what they actually do, then it should be called an "ex-wife custodial parent support system". A long time ago, feminist learned that the easiest way to sneak unfair and discriminatory laws past a legislature was to invoke all sorts of emotionally packed imagery. And so you got all sorts of stories about poor destitude children abanndoned by so-called "dead-beat dads". The result was a system of policies that do nothing more than unfairly tax non-custodial fathers and provide the proceeds to women.There is a tacit assumption that the funds will be used for the child....but nothing built into the system guarantees this..... .....even though that is supposedly the intended purpose. > A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish lifestyle ------------------- There shouldn't BE any rich men. The rich are thieves, that's how they became rich. Profit is theft, it is charging for someone else's work and then not paying them, and keeping it. The McCartney's are an irrelevant issue to real people. Steve >> A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish >> lifestyle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Profit is theft, it is charging for someone else's work and then > not paying them, and keeping it. Socialism has been proven to work on paper but not it real life. People are greedy, especially feminists. Phil #3 > The McCartney's are an irrelevant issue to real people. > Steve > > A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish lifestyle > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The McCartney's are an irrelevant issue to real people. > Steve Apparently you want the police to manage the economy. Apparently, you want us all to be helpless before a Governmental System that can decide who gets to work and who doesn't, whether we eat live or starve. Good luck being any kind of dissident in such a system. In your system there would of course be rich people. They would be the politically powerful. Wealth would flow naturally from the posession of control over the brutal power of the state. Like, anyone would object? If you did, they would take away your license to work and your ration card. Your children would disappear into the Camps as a lesson to the others. North Korea is probably your best bet. Hurry there while there is still time to enjoy a Socialist Paradise. Ordinary human desire for simple freedom is likely to end it before long. Does urine therapy (156,000 web pages) make it easier for the couple going through divorce and the children going through their parents divorce accept divorce more easily. Erach > > > A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish lifestyle > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Apparently you want the police to manage the economy. --------------------- Sure. After we take THEM over and make them mind US! Executions for EVERY malfeasance! The police and the military, the whole government is but a very small minority when everyone stands up to get it back! > Apparently, you want us all to be helpless before a Governmental > System that can decide who gets to work and who doesn't, whether we > eat live or starve. Good luck being any kind of dissident in such a > system. ----------------------- Can't happen. The only kind of "government" that can take power away from the people is this one, where they deceive you and feed you bumper-sticker pablum and consumer crap and sports. If we can get it away from them by convincing people they must take control back, then those people cannot be defeated. If they can, then they deserve every f.cking thing they get, just like they do now! > In your system there would of course be rich people. They would be > the politically powerful. ---------------------- In my system wealth would not be either possible or permitted, mass executions are the surgery, elimination of ALL investible capital is the chemotherapy. The ONLY value is in labor hours, at genuine work, the kind NOBODY can possibly make enough to get rich at, but everyone is comfortable and taken care of. Money disappears. Each and every person who is not unfit is required by the People to work a certain number of hours a week at jobs we all have decided we want done, and anyone who doesn't is NOT ALLOWED ACCESS TO FOOD! After the minimum quota of labor hours you can use the hours to buy consumer goods and your order of them stands as a labor authorization that authorizes you to be paid that item for that specific number of hours. Rent and mortgage vanishes by fiat. The People award to each and every person title to their home or apartment, and no one can ever be charged rent or mortgage ever again, punishable by death! Over time the People will accept petitions to alter, improve, or relocate those who believe they have substandard housing, encouraging them to rebuild their home themselves at public expense. All food is free to everyone who works, and likewise all consumables that people are not likely to over-use, power, telecom, transport, retirement, and medical care is totally nationalized. Doctors are not free to leave their jobs or the country, penalty is death. And they are required to train two more people to their skill level within five years. Everyone whose job isn't eliminated by the changes is required to keep making whatever it is they are making, penalty is death, until any petition for reassignment is granted by public will at local meetings. > Wealth would flow naturally from the > posession of control over the brutal power of the state. ---------------------- The people are in control of this "brutal power of the state", whenever they want it back. Guillotine time again! > Like, anyone > would object? If you did, they would take away your license to work > and your ration card. ------------------------ Everyone is "free" to work or starve. If they want to eat from the bounty of our society, then they help the rest of us produce it. > Your children would disappear into the Camps as a lesson to the others. --------------------------- The People themselves won't vote for anything they wouldn't want visited on themselves. That's the safeguard. > North Korea is probably your best bet. ---------------------- You're delusional. Nothing the world has seen is like what I describe. The Soviets were nothing but a techno-feudalism, and not very techno, likewise Red China. They both had powerful rich classes, that violates the FIRST tenet of socialism/communism, as any political science major can tell you!! > Hurry there while there > is still time to enjoy a Socialist Paradise. --------------------- You're regurgitating your skave-lessons well, captive. You've been brainwashed with capitalist pablum, you are repeating the same scare scenarios that the rich pay for in the millions of dollars each year for the ad men to deceive you. > Ordinary human desire for > simple freedom is likely to end it before long. ------------------------------ "Freedom" is over-rated. Do people want the "right" to sleep under bridges and starve? Do they want the "right" to be denied medical care and die prematurely?? Do they want the "right" to pay tribute every month to a rich a.shole who them visibly uses their tribute to buy new cars, homes, more apartments of other people to enslave, and five or six vacations or skiing trips per year?? Do they want the "right" to struggle for years and get virtually nothing while other steal it?? Or would they rather accept DEMOCRATIC slavery to one another as common cause to get themselves a decent life together, by taking it away from the thieves that are stealing it even now and lying to you about that every day!!??? That *IS* the inevitable direction of Democracy, you know, Communism! NOT Capitalism! Capitalism wants there to be an elite of winners, a new nobility and you as their serf, they are working to do away with this annoying Democracy-thing AS FAST AS POSSIBLE!!!! Democracy says specifically that the People get to control EVERYTHING for their OWN COLLECTIVE GOOD! That means NO MORE RICH PEOPLE, UNLESS WE CAN ALL BE THAT RICH! Happy security and belonging to a group that takes care of its people trumps this freedom to be waylaid and robbed every time!! Capitalism is nothing but ORGANIZED CRIME DISGUISED!! Steve >>>> A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish lifestyle >>> ------------------- [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > is nothing but ORGANIZED CRIME DISGUISED!! > Steve wonderful,beautiful uplifting thoughts,steve,but what you have created is an ants nest with you no doubt as queen. Ants nests may indeed work,but you can stick them up your arse > >>>> A rich man should not be forced to finance his wife's lavish lifestyle > >>> ------------------- [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > wonderful,beautiful uplifting thoughts,steve,but what you have created > is an ants nest with you no doubt as queen. ------------------------- I'm not female or gay, so that's doubtful! ;-> Listen: I wouldn't want any such job as dictator, because it's a shitty boring job. But also, because I want to live in a Communism, and REAL Communism's don't HAVE dicttators, they are Democracies! > Ants nests may indeed > work,but you can stick them up your arse ----------------------------------- Ain't any such thing. Ants are unconscious machines, people are not. And neither are people in my ideal society made to work like ants, that is, any more than they are now. Every animal regardless of kind, must work to live. Nor are people in my society regimented to be all alike. They just aren't permitted to abuse the unfortunate!! In other words they aren't permitted to commit CRIME! Nor are they ruled by instinct, but instead by each other via the Democratic process. So what is this analogy to ants about, when it isn't even descriptive?? It is a desperate lie, nothing more. The "ant-hill" argument is an old disreputable con used by the propagandists of the MeCarthy era. Once again: You're regurgitating your slave-lessons well, captive. You've been brainwashed with capitalist pablum, you are repeating the same scare scenarios that the rich pay for in the millions of dollars each year for the ad men to deceive you. Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.