As a stay at home dad that has a marriage that is on rocky ground, I have to agree. Should I end up getting divorced, I'm pretty sure that the court will side heavily on my wife's side. I say that's total horseshit.
that would be VHR. I think a stay at home dad should basically have the same rights as a stay at home mom. As long as you're willing to take custody of the kids, you should get every benefit that a stay at home mom would get. The courts, for whatever reason, have not been quick to pick up on this.
Rolled up on here to see what the WS talk would be, and I find this little gem. Holly shit! Jim Nantz is getting fucked over big time. WTF is that all about? How in the hell could anyone agree with that ruling? Taking care of the kids...hell yeah. Taking care of her fucking country club dues etc...Fuck that. Dude, he's paying out 72 large a month to her ass and that ain't enough? Fucking bitch. Out.
It is one of the great ironies of this world that it was men who made the act of marriage legally binding so women of the day could be essentially construed as property. What the hell were they thinking?
Love and money are like oil and water.
That was when the world was mostly an agrarain society and traditional roles of the wife were cooking, cleaning,and child raising. I think marriage now should be a renewable contract and not for life. You could take a 10 yr or 15 yr contract and specify the percent of property distribution if the contract is ended and child care too. A prenup with term limits.
this thread beautifully desribes why society is the mess that it is. You have men who seem to think that getting married should be looked at in the same way as buying a piece of furniture. That you pay for it once and once you're done with it, it can merely be thrown away with no further committment. It's pathetic. The level of hatred toward women seen here is sad. A woman who married a man right out of school (when he was worth nothing) and stayed married for 26 years is now a gold digger?
With marriage comes responsbility. With having kids comes responsbility. If you don't like this concept then please don't get married, for the good of the world don't have kids.
i moved this year just to get everyone's take on this - it's more a news story than a sports story. Nantz's job doesn't matter so much.
Yeah, sure, bounce it over here to Non where the whole world will take a crack at it...I see how you are now!
__________________
11/05/78 Hollywood Sportatorium
12/10/82 Hollywood Sportatorium
01/20/84 Hollywood Sportatorium
01/21/84 Hollywood Sportatorium
02/16/08 Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena
Mike I respect your views but I hope you never go thru a divorce.
Let alone two of them.
__________________ "People don't become better when they're dead; you just talk about them as if they are...but it's not true. People are still assholes, they're just dead assholes."
Lemmy Kilmister - White Line Fever
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
Point taken. The thing is, I can understand the cro-magnon thinking on display in this thread. While I do not see Nantz's ex to be in the same league as a gold digger like Heather "Drop Dead Leg" Mills McCartney, and understand that she raised a family for nearly 30 years while Nantz was often absent, I question the whole idea of maintaining a lifestyle she has grown accustomed to. I'm not saying that after nearly 3 decades she should be banished to a one room apartment someplace in a seedy neighborhood, but how exactly can someone spend $72,000 a month? How was that figure settled upon, when the kids get only a grand a month for 2 years? Plus Nantz has to pay for country club dues? Does this mean his wife is incapable of budgeting and socking away some of that $72,000 per month toward joining a resort and spa?
Personally, I'd be happy to get that little stack of dough represented by the money I could be saving with Geico every so often. The world of celebrity is a foreign land and indeed a very strange, very scary place.
__________________ "People don't become better when they're dead; you just talk about them as if they are...but it's not true. People are still assholes, they're just dead assholes."
Lemmy Kilmister - White Line Fever
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
i will work under the assumption that a judge received a list of household expenditures in the years previous to the divorce and he used this as the base for the alimony.
this thread beautifully desribes why society is the mess that it is. You have men who seem to think that getting married should be looked at in the same way as buying a piece of furniture. That you pay for it once and once you're done with it, it can merely be thrown away with no further committment. It's pathetic. The level of hatred toward women seen here is sad. A woman who married a man right out of school (when he was worth nothing) and stayed married for 26 years is now a gold digger?
With marriage comes responsbility. With having kids comes responsbility. If you don't like this concept then please don't get married, for the good of the world don't have kids.
Yep.....don't do the crime if you can't do the time.....
I'm glad you moved this....I kept waiting for some of the women here to chime in on this...
Location: Massachusetts by way of the Great State of New Jersey
Join Date: 12.12.01
Age: 40
Favorite VH Album: 5150
Favorite VH Song: Changes with the day
Problem is, we're branching out into multiple areas - we're arguing about "all" divorces AND this divorce, and you can't really do that.
My problem is that the marriage, according to the judge's quotes which I fully acknowledge may be out of context, broke up because the Mrs. grew tired of the very lifestyle that GOT HER THE MILLIONS. That's pretty fucked up. I have no problem with her jumping off the merry-go-round, but she shouldn't be entitled to continue to reap the benefits of that merry-go-round. She chose to get off, she should live with the consequences.
And take the kid out of it - $52k a year solely going towards her, plus college paid for, is PLENTY.
I wouldn't have a problem if she got material items - like the house - that he had to pay for. That's also involving her kid. I do have a problem when they get continuing cash that they can use at their discretion that they PERHAPS (depending on the circumstances) aren't earning. Again - they chose to get off the train, they need to be responsible going forward. Stay in the house, he can pay for it. Fine. But as far as I'm concerned, "alimony" should be minimal and be dependent on the choices THEY made together that impacted her viability to earn money. If, at 25, they made a choice together that she'd forgo a career and raise the kids, that should be taken into consideration. But for a million a year!?!?!?! Uh, no. She shouldn't have the right to a standard of living that was attained by the very lifestyle she is walking away from. Maybe if she was some star student in finance that had the potential to make those millions...
__________________
The poster formerly known as IED
DIF
Craps
Linear Mode
