Brian Austin Green Asks for Spousal Support in Response to Megan Fox's Divorce Filing

More than a month after Megan Fox filed papers in Los Angeles, E! News has uncovered what the Beverly Hills, 90210 alum is asking as proceedings to make their split permanent get underway.

In court documents obtained by E! News, Green follows Fox's lead and cites irreconcilable differences as the reason for the divorce. In fact, the actor's response mimics Fox's divorce filing in almost every category including the desire for joint custody of their two children.

Celebrities like in the story are a different matter. But when it comes to Joe and Jane Schmoe, if one of them (usually the woman) stays home and takes care of the house and kids while the other works, and then they divorce, well, he’s better off now because he has the same salary and only has himself to support. She’s destitute because she has no recent job skills or experience, she’s spent her adult life supporting HIS career, putting him through school, shushing the kids when he worked or studied at home, cooking dinner when the boss came over, etc. Now she’s probably got custody of the kids, has to find a job (which won’t pay as much as her ex’s job,) and she won’t have anyone to do the wifely/motherly duties she did for him. It really isn’t fair to use a spouse to support your career, then dump that spouse and leave them with nothing. I think that’s why the idea of alimony and community property came about. If you think it’s unfair, imagine, say, your daughter in the position of the dumped stay-at-home wife. Yeah, she could have pursued her own career and put the kids in daycare, but then she’s a “selfish Feminazi.” Women really can’t win.

So when a man marries, he is making a legal commitment to pay the woman's expenses in perpetuity regardless of the outcome of the marriage? What if he just dies, what does she do then? Somehow she moves on and has to find ways to pay her own bills, right? But since he's alive it's okay to have the state make him a slave?

If you want to make the case that in the divorce settlement there should be some ability to split the assets non-evenly so as to compensate for special circumstances (for example, giving a wife who stayed home with the kids 80% instead of 50% of the assets to compensate for her loss of marketability) then that might be a decent argument. Maybe even a period of, say, five years where she receives training while he pays a stipend. But saying that as long as he lives, he is her wage slave doesn't seem fair. I'm sorry, I know many will never see it that way. All I can say is this is our current legal system and men are avoiding marriage because, in part, they know it's a one-sided deal, legally speaking.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.