On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:16:13 GMT, suckmysav  wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:50:37 -0800, Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>>
>> Cloaked wrote:
>>> As I said before, it should not matter how much he makes. Courts have
>>> this nasty propensity to award the woman money simply because the man
>>> has it - especially if he is loaded.
>>
>> No.  The courts tend to look at the benefit of the bargain.
>
>No. The courts tend to pander to the wants of women.
>

Yup!

>
>>  Absent a prenup, in matters of alimony after a long
>> term marriage, the courts look at her loss of career
>
>Carol Ann spits out this tired assertation on a regular
>basis. In a way she is correct, this is in fact how the
>courts tend to view the situation, but that is simply
>evidence of the bias within the "family" court system
>and in no way can it be seen as an indication that there
>is any justice involved in "family" court system.
>

There is no justice if you happen to have a penis.

>Considering that any "loss of career" is entirely her
>own choice (it is illegal for a man to forbid his wife
>to work, ergo if she does not work it is by her choice)
>then it is entirely wrong to award to her a financial
>reward when she chooses to leave the marriage (92% of
>divorces are sought by women; Sanford Braver)
>

My ex wanted to begin a career "at home" after years of working at a
"real" job. Since my ex was abusive, there is no possible way for me
to say "No, keep your f&cking day job!" and win that arguement.
Believe me, I tried. We could ill aford her starting a home based
business when she did - especially one with doubious chance of
success.

The courts determined that I "acquiesced" in allowing her to do this.
And then used this little gem to punish me by ordering "spousal
support"!

The courts did not give a flying fig that she purgered herself, that
she stole money and tried to hide it, or that she was abusive and her
abuse had escelated to physical abuse of me. What the courts DID care
about was making sure that she got my money!

She had had to work for the entire duration of the marriage - except
for approximately the last year of the marriage. And we had no
children. So why didn't the courts order her to get off her fat a$$
and get a job??? Because it is not politically correct to do so! I, on
the other had, was ordered to pay. I was enlisted in a government
sponsored program to make sure that I paid. I was threatened with
legal action, garnishment, the ruination of my credit rating, and jail
if I did not. Had I found myself unemployed, then the judge would have
"imputed" my former income upon me, and upheld the order - forcing me
into jail until I could pay! But wait! How can I pay what I don't
have??? How could I get a job from jail???? Oh yeah, that's my problem
for being a man!

Lovely system. We may as well bring back debtor's prisons. At least no
one lied about what they were! This new "justice" that we have is just
a way to sugar-coat the back-stabbing of men. Nothing less.

Don't even try to argue with me on this one. This is my first hand
experience. It DID happen, and I suspect it happens way more often
than anyone would care to admit.


>If a woman chooses to leave the arrangement known as
>marriage then she should lose all the benefits that
>went with that arrangement.
>
>
>> dependant upon his level of income.  That
>> was the bargain.
>
>No it was not. "Till death do us part" was the
>bargain, and (most likely) she chose to break
>that bargain. She should take the consequences
>of _her_choice_ to break that arrangement.
>

No way! That would demand that she take responsibility for her life
and her circumstances! This would deny the woman's arguement and
position of "victim"! We all know that women are victims at the hands
of men, and than men must be punished and held accountable, especially
when the woman leaves for feeling oppressed!

NOT!!!!

>The way Carol Ann talks women are marrying a
>mans income and not the man himself.
>
>There may be some truth to that position actually.
>
>The rest of Carol Anns worthless dribble.
>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 1:34:19 PM ---