Divorce ruling - don't stop...

for everyone crying misogyny how about a woman's perspective on this

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a5316/why-every-woman-should-get-a-prenup/

Why Every Woman Should Get a Prenup
When I got married as a penniless 24-year-old, I never imagined I'd outearn my husband or how that would affect me financially, especially when we got divorced.
Click to expand...


oh yes after mooching off the guy for years she finnaly gets rich from a book deal and divorces hi mas she thinks she can do better now, and hses ****ed off he gets money/alimony.

conclusion women should all have prenups.


Because some day, all of you fun, fearless women will invent something or write something or build something or sing something or paint something or design something or act in something or start a company that makes you a lot of money, and there is no reason on this earth why you should be penalized for your success by having to continue to support an ex-husband.
Click to expand...
 
platypus said:
Or you apply common sense and treat them like normal human beings.
Click to expand...

Nah, they're not normal humans, they've got the wrong bits to be "normal" if you treat them like they're human you'll get cooties or something.


I've never quite understood the mentality of people who can't grasp the idea that treating everyone roughly the same (at least initially until you know them better) is something unusual or somehow makes you a crusader.
 
Werewolf said:
I've never quite understood the mentality of people who can't grasp the idea that treating everyone roughly the same (at least initially until you know them better) is something unusual or somehow makes you a crusader.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a leap in logic between 'I've had bad relationships with women' to 'all women are evil and out to screw men over'.

The women in this story sound awful but their ex-husbands don't sound any better!
 
I don't know, I don't hate women and don't think they're all evil and out to screw men over, and yet there is something bizarre about an idea that being a stay at home mother to your own children is (with few special exceptions) somehow a) anything else than a personal choice b) required career sacrifice c) would otherwise break the other party's/husband's pre-existing path to financial well being and therefore requires lifetime financial support from ex-husband and/or any sizeable share of wealth if said wealth was accumulated single handedly by only one of the parties.
 
Tunney said:
I think his favourite website is actually MGTOW.
Click to expand...

Oh god... here we go. The insults follow a predictable pattern I find.

If you disagree with marriage and the retarded system which screws men over(Some cases woman have been too I guess? russell brand could have taken 50 million from katy perry but didn't, but put it this way it's RARE) you must be a virgin neck beard who follows MGTOW or reads bb.com misc.

Come now kids, lets all put on our thinking caps and be rational for a minute.

Tefal said:
for everyone crying misogyny how about a woman's perspective on this

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a5316/why-every-woman-should-get-a-prenup/




oh yes after mooching off the guy for years she finnaly gets rich from a book deal and divorces hi mas she thinks she can do better now, and hses ****ed off he gets money/alimony.

conclusion women should all have prenups.
Click to expand...

I bet my LEFT NUT that if that was the other way round "All men should get a prenup" and it was written by a man woman would be up in arms saying they don't really love their girlfriends/wives etc.

Tunney will leap to their aid and proclaim "YES I AGREE YOU FILTHY MEN THOU DOES NOT LOVE THY PRINCESS!". In the presence of Tunneys knightly glory the men/mere morals will quake in their boots and hand over 50% of their business to their ex wife.

(Note: I don't believe in not financially supporting your ex at all, for example if I was rich and my ex wife stayed at home looked after kids etc of course there would be some form of agreement in place to ensure she was compensated for years she spent at home doing the family side of things).
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
for everyone crying misogyny how about a woman's perspective on this
Click to expand...

Which appears to be the majority posting in the thread, now...

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a5316/why-every-woman-should-get-a-prenup/




oh yes after mooching off the guy for years she finnaly gets rich from a book deal and divorces hi mas she thinks she can do better now, and hses ****ed off he gets money/alimony.

conclusion women should all have prenups.
Click to expand...

Disgusting, isn't it.

But it's not about equality, is it. "Equality" is just a buzz-word now. Used to promote such things as "positive discrimination".

Men are being conditioned to be subservient to women. Same as whites are being conditioned feel guilt and be subservient to minorities.

I noticed an article the other days saying women are expected to hold 60% of the country's wealth in the next decade. We mustn't question why this is. We must celebrate it. Power to women! Go women! They must be inherently better than men, and deserve to be paid more.

Do not ask why, you racist, misogynist.

(If someone would like to explain why this country's wealth distribution shouldn't be roughly 50/50, in line with gender distribution, feel free).
 
FoxEye said:
Which appears to be the majority posting in the thread, now...



Disgusting, isn't it.

But it's not about equality, is it. "Equality" is just a buzz-word now. Used to promote such things as "positive discrimination".

Men are being conditioned to be subservient to women. Same as whites are being conditioned feel guilt and be subservient to minorities.

I noticed an article the other days saying women are expected to hold 60% of the country's wealth in the next decade. We mustn't question why this is. We must celebrate it. Power to women! Go women! They must be inherently better than men, and deserve to be paid more.

Do not ask why, you racist, misogynist.

(If someone would like to explain why this country's wealth distribution shouldn't be roughly 50/50, in line with gender distribution, feel free).
Click to expand...


There is a difference between equality and positive discrimination.

As for the wealth I can think of several reasons for that, including that for a number of years Girls have been doing better at school (apparently they pay attention more or something), which on it's own would tend to start to swing the balance due to the jobs they're likely to be taking on over time.

There are also minor things like the average life span of women being slightly longer (so they'll be more likely to inherit), and even things like J.K. Rowling being successful will likely have been enough to swing the balance by a small but noticeable amount in a single case* (she's one of the richest people in the country, let alone Women).



*When someone earns an estimated billion in a few years from scratch it makes a blip in the figures.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Tunney will leap to their aid and proclaim "YES I AGREE YOU FILTHY MEN THOU DOES NOT LOVE THY PRINCESS!". In the presence of Tunneys knightly glory the men/mere morals will quake in their boots and hand over 50% of their business to their ex wife.
Click to expand...

Do I get a horse if I'm a white knight? I like horses.
 
the whole thing is rubbish lol

I know a couple who won 4mil on the lottery a few years back and at the time divided the money 50/50. Shortly after winning however there was a massive fall out which arose from the money and they go a divorce. he was ordered to pay her 50%....

So they started with 4mil split between 2. thats 2 mill each.

a few months down the line the seperate... it was declared that he had roughly 1.4 million left as the only thing he had spend his money on was clearing the mortgage of the house and clearing the debt of both of them. she on the otherhand had about 1.9mil remaining as the only significant purchase she had done was a new car.

At the hearing he was ordered to pay £698,042 to her out of what he had left and of course along with half the house and and stuff like that as well.


What I dont understand about this is why is it always the mens 50% that is chased... why never what the woman has ? They had no kids as well.
 
Werewolf said:
There is a difference between equality and positive discrimination.

As for the wealth I can think of several reasons for that, including that for a number of years Girls have been doing better at school (apparently they pay attention more or something), which on it's own would tend to start to swing the balance due to the jobs they're likely to be taking on over time.
Click to expand...

But we *do* practice positive discrimination. And you've been conditioned to believe that the increased success of women is due entirely to their superior attention/intelligence/worthiness. Instead of saying "probably the positive discrimination has had some effect."

You know how many companies are now falling over themselves to hire more women, on account of the fact that they think it's the right thing to do? Not exactly on merit.

Our ethics in this country is like an out of control swinging pendulum. If you swung in one direction historically, you now have to swing wildly in the opposite direction "to make things right".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28293670

Embrace it. Positive discrimination is here to stay. Until women and minorities control everything, we'll just keep feeling that white men's guilt.
 
Last edited:
IceWind said:
the whole thing is rubbish lol

I know a couple who won 4mil on the lottery a few years back and at the time divided the money 50/50. Shortly after winning however there was a massive fall out which arose from the money and they go a divorce. he was ordered to pay her 50%....

So they started with 4mil split between 2. thats 2 mill each.

a few months down the line the seperate... it was declared that he had roughly 1.4 million left as the only thing he had spend his money on was clearing the mortgage of the house and clearing the debt of both of them. she on the otherhand had about 1.9mil remaining as the only significant purchase she had done was a new car.

At the hearing he was ordered to pay £698,042 to her out of what he had left and of course along with half the house and and stuff like that as well.


What I dont understand about this is why is it always the mens 50% that is chased... why never what the woman has ? They had no kids as well.
Click to expand...

2450994-9258833253-13928.gif


Tunney will be along shortly to defend this claiming the man must support his wife, she was there by his side when he made all those mills. And when she leaves she must be handed them on a plate too.

If not you are a misogynist who doesn't believe in woman's rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom