1. I don’t think the law should treat men and women differently in somehow trying to imagine what “most women” want out of marriage as opposed to what “most men” want.
She should get the same the same divorce settlement whether they had children or not.
The law should presume that both parties equally wanted the children, absent evidence otherwise.
The children should only be relevant in terms of child support.
2. Women can tell themselves that they will be the one to “change” their man from a “bachelor party”-type womanizer, but it fails time and time again. It’s a risk a woman takes in marrying that type of character.
I think it would be fair for her to get a healthy sum after all the cheating he did, but to justify half his vast fortune on that basis is nonsense.
3. Yes, the fact that a fabulously wealthy man employs cooks, maids, nannies, gardeners, etc. IS a “strike against” the argument that his wife was burdened with domestic chores and responsibilities and on that argument is somehow entitled to half his fortune.
“1. I don’t think the law should treat men and women differently in somehow trying to imagine what “most women” want out of marriage as opposed to what “most men” want.”
That isn’t what I was trying to address.
I was addressing your preoccupation with the situation with the children.
He gave her the promises and expectations that go along with any reasonable person entering the contract of marriage - and he lied.
“She should get the same the same divorce settlement whether they had children or not.”
According to? You?
The prenup and divorce law will address all of that.
“The law should presume that both parties equally wanted the children, absent evidence otherwise.”
The law should also address blatant dishonesty.
“2. Women can tell themselves that they will be the one to “change” their man from a “bachelor party”-type womanizer, but it fails time and time again. It’s a risk a woman takes in marrying that type of character.”
Ahhh yes. So there it is.
She shouldn’t have believed him.
So -regardless of many instances where some men have managed to grow up and move onto adulthood, she should have “known” he was a liar.
And that is one of the great mysteries isn’t it?
Which men mean it when they say they are ready? Which men do not?
And those that don’t mean it? Well -they can hardly be blamed for their dishonesty right? Afterall - she knew what she was getting right?
The responsibility was his to either accept his status as a bachelor - or to live up to his promises.
She did not drag him unwillingly to the altar.
On the contrary - from descriptions from their friends? It sounds like he was the insistent one.
“I think it would be fair for her to get a healthy sum after all the cheating he did, but to justify half his vast fortune on that basis is nonsense.”
It doesn’t really matter what you think.
Now they are 2 sides that have to enter negotiations.
Tiger’s side not only has to deal with the present problem, but look to his future.
How he deals with this now will affect his future earnings.
We all know he can continue on with winning golf tourneys.
The problem is his earning potential with sponsors.
If I were Tiger’s mama I would advise him to do everything possible to avoid the nasty public divorce spectacle.
If that means being “too” generous - so be it.
He needs to make Elin go away quietly.
He needs to disappear for awhile and decide what kind of man he is going to be from here on out.
He could try to “repent” - or he could embrace his randiness and become golf’s version of Charlie Sheen.
” IS a “strike against” the argument that his wife was burdened with domestic chores and responsibilities and on that argument is somehow entitled to half his fortune.”
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with her.
I never claimed she was slaving away.
As someone who is acquainted with a fabulously wealthy couple I’ve seen that type of lifestyle.
Sure - there is a personal staff taking care of many things - but they don’t take care of everything.
Mommy is still mommy - daddy still daddy.
“Somebody” has to be the authority at home - the one taking responsibility for the household.
Somebody has to be there for the kids.
A marriage is a partnership.
The fact this cannot be compared to a 20+ yr. marriage is not Elin’s fault.She was keeping up her end of the bargain.
Tiger is the one who prevented the continuation of this partnership.
By all accounts - no one has come forth with evidence of misdeeds from the wife.
And that staff has to be overseen and supervised, making the wife an unpaid, but high level executive assistant. So pretenting that she isn't contributing because they have paid staff is unpersuasive. She also has maintained his desire for strict privacy and decorum both before and after marriage, never speaking "off the record" or behaving ungraciously in public. And you know the tabbies were watching.
All of that was a huge contribution to "the marriage". Your belief that she hasn't earned her share is pathetically mistaken as to what a woman brings to a high profile marriage. It takes a lot of grit, it's a high pressure position with not a lot of downtime and requires superior management skills.