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 ...
Good reply.
Unfortunately you’re talking about a world that is foreign to many of the guys here who feel women deserve little or nothing in divorce court. They probably lost half of their Corvette or Comaro in their last divorce and haven’t gotten over it.
look, it's really not that important. the law is the law. my sense is that gibson ain't that great of a guy anyway. the girl i am going to marry makes a lot more than i do. do i get half her stuff if we get divorced? probably not.
Well, since you admit you don't know what caused the marriage to break up, then you must admit that it is possible that Mr. Gibson is an immoral womanizer and that he humiliated Mrs. Gibson while desecrating his marriage.
Since you admit that, then you must admit that maybe Mrs. Gibson is entitled to her half of the accumulated assets.
Fortunately for Mrs. Gibson, your opinion of the situation matters not. She is going to get in excess of $400 million dollars in the divorce settlement.
Of which she has earned well < $1,000,000 giving her grand larceny a profit of > $399,000,000.00.
Whether she deserves it or not isn’t the point. If they live in a community property state she will get it. Plus, if Mel can’t live on 250 mill he has a problem.
Yes, she deserves half, everything he earned was not HIS, it was THEIRS.
If you guys live in a community state you will.
Mel should give it all to her. He gains his freedom and a future while she collects the baggage.
Legally it’s her’s to do what she wants with. Leave it to the kids or whatever. It’s the amount that she’s getting that gives one pause, well beyond anything she’ll ever spend on herself so can she handle it or at least get a good finance guy to handle it. How many Lotto winners have gone bankrupt after winning millions? I only wish I had that problem.
It is totally unlike winning a lottery though. This woman has lived with this wealth for 20 or more years now. I’m sure they have had accountants and financial advisors all along the way, so it isn’t like suddenly coming into a huge amount of money - she’s already had it..... unless you’re telling me that Mel didn’t allow her any access to a joint checking account or credit cards... ;^)
The law is 50% of assets aquired after the date of marriage. In the Gibson’s case they married in 1980 when she had a job and household goods and Mel had zip.
All of the Gibson’s wealth was acquired after they married. That’s why she is legally and morally entitled to half.
History always matters, especially if you are talking about ultimate success. Courts don’t look at coulda, woulda, shoulda. Mr. Gibson cannot claim he would have or could have earned all that wealth without his wife by his side, because the facts are just the opposite. He DID earn all that wealth with her by his side and she DID contribute to his ability to focus on his career by being there to pick up and weave all the loose ends.
As for saying she had help raising the kids or doing the housework. Doesn’t mean jack. What it means is that she was managing and directing a professional staff, hiring and firing as necessary to make Mr. Gibson free to focus and pursue his career. Even taken from a work value standpoint her contribution would be more rather than less because that would be an executive position rather than a menial one.
Wouldn’t her “half” mean money he made after moving to California? How can she claim half of the money he made in Australia or states without California’s community property laws? I’m sure his lawyers will take of this.
Just they way the law was in Santa Clara County when we went through family court. In the end it doesn’t matter, if you are before a judge they look at the law and say”boom” that’s it
Hey you are the one who chose the words. You want to treat marriage as simply a “business contract” but there is a social contract as well ( particularly if there are children involved)
good point, hope they keep the wealth moving.
How do you KNOW she is steak and not a real bitch?
Is a bitchy wife a license to commit adultery? I say she put up with, at the least, rumors of affairs for years as well as an alcoholic husband. Who’s the bitch in the relationship?
Legally or ethically? The answer may be different.
A more salient question may be “Do FReepers deserve a voice in whether she deserves half of his fortune?” ;-P
Now, off to read tha article...
It is a legitimate question that has been avoided and still not answered. Maybe it is worth 500 million to get rid of her.
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.