Minor blow to gold-digging cunts


——————————————————-

14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements

PDF

The balance of power in divorces tilted away from wives yesterday as a judge warned that ex-husbands could not be expected to provide women with a share of future earnings for life.

Don’t get too excited chaps, this is hardly the swift kick to the cunt of divorce laws we demand.

All it means is that a woman may not be entitled to future earnings of her ex-husband providing she has received enough of a lump-sum divorce settlement.

The case before him concerned Mr and Mrs H who met at St John’s College, Oxford, in 1982 and married three years later. She gave up her job as a teacher to follow him to a posting with a bank in Tokyo, and took charge of caring for their four children, now aged 9 to 19. Mr H formed a new relationship in 2004 and left their £2.7 million marital home, which the wife will keep, after 20 years of marriage.

Mrs H, 46, has been awarded £13 million in cash and assets but told she could have nothing more.

See? She’s entitled to “nothing more” but for, ahem, “sacrificing” a career she no doubt didn’t want in the first place, she’s got a great big mansion and £13,000,000. Her ex-husband doesn’t have to pay her anymore? Well, that’s something I suppose (or nothing, from her point of view) but she’s still made a great big fucking fortune by simply being married to a hard-working rich guy. I dare say it was his future earning potential, and her boredom of having to hold down a job, that resulted in her being attracted to him. To be fair, she has borne and raised her husband’s four kids (at least we assume they’re his) and he did walk out on her, but surely the £2.7million home he gave up is enough for her. Let alone the thirteen-million quid. Yet she wanted more? How fucking greedy. Besides, married women “form new a new relationship” all the time and yet, not only do they not have to hand over any assets and/or continue cooking and cleaning for their ex-husband, they frequently get the house, savings, car, kids, husband’s future income, etc. Surely it is only equality – which, when it doesn’t go their way, women hate with a passion – for a man to ditch his wife and not have to give her anything?


This sums this up the best:

Divorce specialists began warning rich people to avoid marriage. Caroline Garnham, private client partner at Lawrence Graham, said: “Savvy spouses have been trying to manipulate their husbands to come and live in the UK. It’s the best place on earth to get a divorce.” Even yesterday’s decision only tilted the position of wives from “extreme” to “extremely good”, she said.

So from men’s point of view, getting divorced (and therefore getting married, or indeed co-habiting, which is the same thing as being married in the view of recent laws) has gone from “really fucking bad” to “still pretty fucking bad!”

But Ranjit Kaur, director of the Rights of Women advice group, said: “This woman would be in great difficulty to have a career as financially rewarding as her husband’s. She sacrificed to invest in the family helping him to achieve the position he has achieved.”

No, she didn’t sacrifice her fucking career you dumb cunt. I fucking hate that phrase, “she sacrificed her career.” All I hear from unmarried 25+ women at work is how they hate their jobs, how they wish they could be a lady of leisure, how they would like to be “kept” by a wealthy husband. Yet these are the same work-loathing cunts who would whine “I sacrificed my beloved career, boo-hoo!” in the divorce courts when trying to rob any husband of his hard-earned cash.

Women marry for money, so they don’t have to earn their own. Simple as that.

This judgement isn’t too bad I suppose, it’s a step in the right direction, but it is still a million-mile hike to some proper equality, whereby women aren’t rewarded for divorce or judged to have somehow helped their husband’s career by basically leaching off him.

Basically this still doesn’t alter the advice I humbly offer to fellow men: don’t marry, don’t co-habit.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:56 PM
——————————————————-

At 3:08 PM, notafemcuntbut said…

Another example of men OPPRESSING women. If the fact that 2 out of every 1 women will be raped 10,000 times during their lifetime wasn’t bad enough, men are now STEALING their hard-earned money.

——————————————————-

At 3:42 PM, Tainted said…

Rights For Women advice group…

What kind of advice does a Women’s Rights group give?

“It’s the mans fault. It’s the Patriarchy. You’re oppressed. He wants to rape you. Use the System. You’re Empowered!”

It beats having to staff the calling centres. Just have the typical fembot phrases recorded and repeated over and over.

At any rate, ‘Tis a good thing the courts have actually shown an iota of common sense this time. Bets are on for how long it will be before another retarded ruling comes along to “de-karma” the good one.

——————————————————-

At 4:57 PM, Anonymous said…

“This woman would be in great difficulty to have a career as financially rewarding as her husband’s.

She was a teacher, of course a teacher earns limited amount of money. having difficulties to earn millions is not a reason to rob someone of his money.

She sacrificed to invest in the family helping him to achieve the position he has achieved.”

This is the usual lie: women do not help a man having a career by doing the household chores.
They slow the career down, because the man has to pay for her and has to respect her wishes.

Women who demand divorce have no right to anything. Just wives have the right to get nourished.

——————————————————-

At 5:48 PM, Anonymous said…

Rich banker boy is smart enough to earn the dosh but the STUPID MOTHERFUCKER has one fatal flaw.

Dont Co Habit motherfuckers.

Smash the mangina cunt’s bank account who gives a fuck. I’ve gotten to a level where I don’t even care about divorce law. Any man DUMB ENOUGH to marry deserves to have his guts had for garters.

I bet this whore spent hours crying her foul blind eyes out when she heard she’d have 12 million pounds! Thats fucking as obscene as her face!

I hate women.

——————————————————-

At 6:59 PM, Anonymous said…

She sacrificed to invest in the family helping him to achieve the position he has achieved.”

Sacrifice is giving up something for an intangible reward (e.g., respect of comrades, love of family).

Investment is giving up something for a tangible reward (e.g., study hard to get into a high income profession, risk money in the stock market for a large capital gain).

If the typical princess had nothing to show for her relationship with a man (i.e., no kids produced who can she rely on in old age to support her, no vast divorce settlement with tax-free income potentially for life, no INNATE biological desire to have children and form a family to begin with) THEN I could see an argument for her making a sacrifice. Especially, if she had a promising career.

As it is a shrewd soon to be divorced female does, in fact, stand to gain a substantial financial windfall from her investment. If she chooses her sucker and financial advisor (i.e., divorce lawyer) right:

#1
She can stop working immediately upon entering the limited partnership (limited in the sense that one party bears all the risk and the other party bears none and can receive a huge financial windfall upon dissolution of the partnership).

#2
She can produce 2-3 (on average) dividend paying assets (aka children) that can be leveraged for additional tax-free income upon dissolution of the partnership + she can rely on these assets for income support (if needed) in later years once the assets mature to become positive in the profit/loss column.

#3
When she chooses to dissolve the partnership (i.e., marriage) she receives the capital assets of the limited partnership and income transfers from the former partner (via alimony) with no reciprocity required.

By these outcomes it can be more accurately stated that western females receive the tangible gains of an investment rather than the intangible gains of a sacrifice.

Western women claiming they are sacrificing something they are biological compelled to do anyways (i.e., mate, have-children, form a family) is like a man claiming he sacrificed the contents of his wallet to have intercourse with a hot hooker.

For western women marriage is an investment to reap status and, if she is shrewd, wealth.

——————————————————-

At 7:17 PM, Anonymous said…

thought my UK mates might find this interesting…

——————————————————-

At 12:33 AM, Mark said…

There’s not enough info in the article to determine that this is beneficial to guys at all. In fact it could even be detrimental to them. This is the key comment:
“Mr Justice Charles said in the High Court that anyone given an adequate lump sum could not expect a share of future earnings.”
All it seems to say is that the court is going to favour clean break type settlements. Who benefits all turns on what the court considers to be ‘adequate’ for the lump sum.

Think of it like this: Madam wins the lottery. Previously she received 10k a year for an expected 30 years whereas now she can just take a lump sum. Is she better or worse off? For simplicity, let’s ignore inflation and gains from reinvestment. 10k over 30 years is 300k. If the lump sum is more than that, she’s better off with the lump sum; less than that and she’s better off with 10k a year.

There’s more to it than that of course. If she takes the lump sum, she is no longer exposed to the risk of hubby dying early, but at the same time, she forgoes the chance that he may live longer or remarry or get promoted faster than expected.

For hubby, the position may be no different at all, other than who he owes the money to. Under the 10k a year plan, he may pay direct to the ex-wife, but it is easy to envisage the court awarding a lump sum to her and then compelling hubby to pay the court 10k a year to finance the debt, in which case his position is the same as before. Either way, he shouldn’t have married.

More generally, it seems to me inequitable for a wife to be awarded any more than the HALF the sum of the following

– net of wife’s lost salary while pregnant plus, say 3 months afterwards, less any state or employer bens received
– cost of full time maid/nanny service x (years of parenthood up to earlier of divorce or last child reaching age 18)
– total of those future salary reductions wife experiences that are directly attributable to pregnancy (plus 3 months) absence (but not absences for childcare)

With the provision of full time maid/nanny service, the wife would be free to work and so if she chose not to, the losses so incurred are taken on voluntarily by her and should not count against the husband. If she chooses to sit on her ass, then she’s free to do so but she’s an adult and should not be able to force hubby to finance it.

Ugh. Who in their right minds would want to get themselves embroiled in all this? Even when not thinking about the above, there is not a single day that goes by, not one, that I do not thank my lucky stars that I never got married and never got any girl pregnant. Don’t do it, you young guys, it’s just not worth it.

——————————————————-

At 5:53 AM, butcher said…

I hope the father of Anna Nicole’s baby femcunt spends every penny before the little shit turns 18.
Gold digging bitches!

——————————————————-

At 6:35 AM, Masculist Man said…

Notafemcuntbut,

How do you get 2 out of just 1?
10,000 times? I don’t think so. Just like every other feminist cunt you are a moron.

——————————————————-

At 4:52 PM, Javier said…

The case before him concerned Mr and Mrs H who met at St John’s College, Oxford, in 1982 and married three years later. She gave up her job as a teacher to follow him to a posting with a bank in Tokyo, and took charge of caring for their four children, now aged 9 to 19. Mr H formed a new relationship in 2004 and left their £2.7 million marital home, which the wife will keep, after 20 years of marriage.

Mrs H, 46, has been awarded £13 million in cash and assets but told she could have nothing more.

I’m no teacher salary expert, but I highly doubt she would have made £13 million over her lifetime, let alone in one lump (and I’m sure, tax-free) sum.

Yeah, that’s fair.

If I were the man, I’d sue her for all the time he had to actually drag himself to his corporate while she got to stay at home and not worry about meetings, schedules, deadlines, etc.

——————————————————-

At 7:23 PM, Anonymous said…

>>Another example of men OPPRESSING women. If the fact that 2 out of every 1 women will be raped 10,000 times during their lifetime wasn’t bad enough, men are now STEALING their hard-earned money.

>>How do you get 2 out of just 1?
10,000 times? I don’t think so. Just like every other feminist cunt you are a moron.

There may have been a moron here, but it wasn’t notafemcuntbut. His comment, the first one, was very clearly extreme sarcasm. I thought it was hilarious and clever. He was paraphrasing the extreme statistic lies of the rape crisis man-haters. I call it Old McDonald rape.

Old McDonald had a rape. Here a rape; there a rape; everywhere a rape, rape. E-I-E-I-O.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: