Posted on 04/15/2009 1:54:44 PM PDT by lewisglad
THREE cheers for feminism. With a desperate lack of anything worthwhile to aim their gunsights at, they turn on self-made billionaire Mel Gibson to support his estranged wife Robyn's demands for half his $US1 billion fortune.
The problem with absurd demands like this, underwritten by feminist approval, is that the girls always want it both ways.
For many years Robyn was prepared to remain at home as a loving wife. Retired as a dental nurse, supported by her husband.
Now, after the marriage has soured, Gibson has to pay for the life she apparently "gave up" to run their home, slave over a stove, and clean and raise their kids so he could make their millions.
I'm confused. Does that mean the traditional homemaking duties are not acts of love but merely bargaining chips in case of an iceberg down the line?
Over 28 years her claim for $500,000,000 works out at $4879 a day. Or $34,153 a week.
To argue that they are living in California, entitling her to half the fortune under California law, is once again more evidence of wanting it both ways.
It penalises Gibson for once having faith in his marriage and believing it would last.
Imagine the outcry if he had insisted on a pre-nup, to be applied retroactively, when they moved to California.
For years Gibson has taken the bullets that are a by-product of his fortune - privacy invasions, critical attacks, slander.
It entitles Gibson to keep the greater share of his wealth, a fortune amassed through his own creative genius.
Only a handful of people in the world have the talent to do what he does.
The argument that without Robyn's support he would never have succeeded is just desperate. The truer argument is that talent finds a way.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
While I have been married for over 30 years and have never been divorced, the unanimous sentiment among those who have gone through divorce proceedings is that the system is totally unfair to men and that divorce lawyers are the scum of the earth.
Why does it depend on what she does with the money? The law says half of what is in the bank is his, half is hers - no statement of intent to spend is needed.
Yep, the word should have “deserve” how SERVER came out, only God knows.
I can screw-up with the best of them
I wonder what the author thinks she is entitled to? She was with him for 28 years and had seven children by him.
Do they want her going back to work just to support herself and their child who is still a minor?
I left a fairly good paying job in the early 90’s to be a stay at home mom. The whole family benefited because of that. Years later when I tried to re-enter the workforce, I had difficulty finding jobs that paid much more than minimum wage. I am still happily in my long term marriage, and wouldn’t trade my sweet husband for anything (not even Mel Gibson). But if I had to start over, I would be in deep trouble financially!
Is that what the author wants for Mel Gibson’s wife? To see her struggling and not able to make ends meet?
And you think that Mr. Gibson's (soon to be ex) wife should get, what, nothing? Mr. Gibson was the one who broke the vows. Mr. Gibson was the one who desecrated the holy union. Mr. Gibson was the one who humiliated Mrs. Gibson.
They live in a community property state and she's entitled to half since she was his partner throughout his endeavors. How is that unfair?
I think the debate is about getting a full 500 million dollars. I doubt she will have to worry about where her next meal is coming from.
I agree. And I know a Steve B. IRL!
If he had then he wouldn't be having this problem.
Fair or not, California is a community property state so she's entitled to half. Now if the divorce is his idea, well, freedom isn't free.
California is a community property state— everything earned during the marriage is split 50-50, no questions asked. Fault doesn’t come into it.
Depends on the reason for the divorce I suppose.. If It is through no serious fault of Mel’s and he is amenable to reconcile but she wants to walk away then she should *maybe* be entitled to whatever she would be makeing per year had she not become a home maker.
Yup, imo. And my *husband* - whose views on the legal system’s treatment of men and divorce is rather jaded - says she should get half!
What a foolish man. Didn’t it occur to him that some paparazzi might be around?
Cheating on your wife is a serious fault.
I love Mel, but I think his wife has had to put up with major BS from him over the years. I would love to see them stay together because they lasted this long, but if she’s had enough and there’s no help for it, yes, she should get recompense big time.
Either you are not married or are just plain snarky today. On your basis, a battered spouse must continue to endure until death because they can’t afford to buy their way out. Marriage is indeed a contract. And I do believe that Mel broke that contract on multiple occassions. Perhaps the money is to cover his breach
There is no way she is entitled to 10% of his money much less half. I don't know the private details of what caused the marriage to break up and neither do you. As his wife of many years she should receive enough to live comfortably but there is no way she should receive hundreds of millions. I don't care what slimy divorce lawyers say.
Men who work hard all their lives and are successful always have someone trying to take their money.
I see that now, sorry I was unaware as I dont follow this kind of stuff. But from the looks of it she is entitled to every penny..
If it was a 5 year marriage I'd agree with you .... 30 something years ... yeah .. HALF.
What a foolish man indeed. He had steak at home but ordered a skanky little hamburger instead. Does he really think this woman (who is probably close to the age of his older kids) will stick around and really loves him for who is is rather than what he is?
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.