Decades ago I’d never have written this. All bar one of the “shockers” I had with wives, gfs etc. occurred long ago. At the time, even though it was personally bad between the two parties, there was still a reasonable attitude overall in the society or maybe I was imagining it. The experiences certainly didn’t sour me enough not to try again.
These days, I have nothing personally to complain of this way, so why so intransigent on the issue? I think the answer comes down to one party taking the yellow fluid. There was one lady I did part with decades ago and I still resent the $1485, even now. In general, how much she put in, how much I put in over the journey – I wouldn’t have a clue and am not interested. Who counts? But this $1485 was obtained after we’d split up and under false pretences. It was meant to be for the children but was anything but.
There is a second principle alive and kicking in this matter as well and that is that it’s always the minority of unreasonable people who ruin it for the majority. The tales we hear might only refer to a certain percentage but sadly, everyone gets tarred. This therefore is not about every woman. It’s about a particular type and the steam is coming out of my nostrils as I write.
The man in the news might have been a cad, he might have been a nice guy, she might have been a grasping bitch, she might have been genuinely concerned for her daughters. I’m not commenting on their specific situation, not least because it might be sub judice.
However, I shall comment in general.
This is so fundamental, so intrinsic to the very essence of what a marriage is, so bitter, that for a woman not to understand the depth of rancour on his part is to totally misunderstand men. And for him not to understand how she is transformed from a loving spouse into a ravening golddigger is one he can’t get his head around either.
There are two completely separate issues here – taking care of the children … and keeping her in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. I think most men, including me, would look askance at a man not contributing to his children until they’re 18. I mean, that should pretty well be taken as read.
The other matter though is where the law is an ass. By what logic does a man have any obligation whatever, particularly in this age now when women get the plumb jobs and are virtually guaranteed work, to pay her anything at all once they part?
Let’s imagine she married him and had a little nest egg of her own. He was a high-flier or became one and behind every successful man there’s a good woman, they say. No dispute so far from me. Not just that but she does have the right to say she contributed to the increase in “their” fortune – I read something somewhere about two people “running” companies.
Now that is the family business. OK, if she decides to leave that business, it’s exactly the same as a high-flying employee leaving the company. For example, our Marissa can’t expect Google to keep her in the lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed. She’s entitled to a one time payout and that’s that. Or maybe it was all his doing but she claims housekeeping and domestic service. Again, a lump sum.
The very notion that an ex-wife can keep her daughters at a prestigious school is ridiculous if it’s based on his money. The woman’s moved on, she might have married another high-flier, she might not. It’s her issue now, it’s out of his control and the daughters were given to her. The ex-hubby’s obligations have ceased. If he subsequently loses his entire fortune in some bad business moves, what’s that to us, what’s that to her?
Things like this happen to people all the time, families adjust to it, they downgrade, the children go to a local school. If she manages to find another mug, all well and good – the children can continue at the prestigious school. If she can’t rig up a deal, then they don’t. Simple. His only obligation is to ensure the children aren’t destitute and are fed and clothed, otherwise he should call in the authorities on her. He should spend what time he can with them too so at least they get some vestiges of two parents bringing them up.
Most people would accept that the business of the State, if it has any at all, would include protecting and looking after abandoned children.
And that’s it.
There are two more points – the feminist induced no-fault divorce and who actually filed. No-fault divorce is the worst thing to have happened because it excuses her behaviour completely. It technically excuses behaviour by both parties. So, in fault-based divorce, it’s critical who filed and for what reason. If violence by him is alleged, he has the right to detail how she provoked it – what steps she took over a period of time and all of it, the whole thing, is taken into account.
If he was having it away with his secretary, that also comes into it. If she had a fancy man on the side, that comes into it. When the whole sordid story comes out in court [which can be behind closed doors], leaving each parent to divulge what they will later, it’s pretty clear who was to blame and whether filing for divorce was overkill or not. The financial killing either party stands to make must also come into it.
Now, if, after all of that, he does come out as the cad who constantly beat his wife and raped his children, then he pays out big, bigger than anything mentioned so far. But if it was nothing like presented by her, then she’s told “on yer bike”, except of course for reasonable child support, i.e. the minimum required to keep a child above poverty. If he decides to continue paying for the school, then that’s out of his love for his kids. His business. Similarly, if she decides to contribute over and above the minimum, that’s her affair.
That’s the way it should be, not this abomination at present called “beat the father”. And that’s why fathers who are ousted from the marital home with the State’s collusion are taking the attitude they are. And that’s one major reason men are not committing. More than one father has said it and I say it too – once that divorce has gone through:
Not one penny more.