Posted on 01/20/2002 12:47:53 PM PST by DNA Rules
Tennis Lolita Anna Kournikova soaks her billionaire ex-husband for millions.
Not the real Anna Kournikova. But Lisa Bonder, who was Anna Kournikova before there was Anna Kournikova – 20 years ago.
If you've read about Bonder's child-support fight with her husband-for-a-month – billionaire Kirk Kerkorian – and before her, Anna Nicole Smith's continuing travails over her deceased Methuselah of a husband – you've been introduced to litigation's latest overcompensated victims: scorned women.
The current specimens all have ties to pro sports. But they're stark examples of a clogged legal system turning relationships into lifelong ATM machines for women. They're also excellent examples of the failure of feminism. In the end, these women achieve "independence" by using courts to mooch off men and the rest of society.
Whether it's Bonder-Kerkorian, Kelci Stringer, or even Juanita Jordan (soon to be ex-wife of Michael), these "disadvantaged" women are out for an unearned payday bigger than winning the lottery.
Tennis fans likely remember Lisa Kerkorian as Lisa Bonder, the '80s' sexy, tall blonde from Michigan, who hit pro tennis' top-10 rankings and dabbled in modeling and posters. Unlike Kournikova, she never achieved the crossover appeal outside the tennis world that garners the Russian tennis starlet an estimated $15 million per year in endorsement income. But Bonder did garner enough lucrative endorsements and tournament winnings to keep her in comfort.
She should be set for life, rather than seeking out, shacking up with, and shaking down a senior-citizen billionaire, Kerkorian.
Instead, Bonder, 36, had a multi-year affair with Kerkorian, 84, beginning in 1991. Does anyone believe a 26-year-old was truly interested in a 74-year-old? She was likely more interested in his billions. Kerkorian, the MGM studio and casino mogul worth over $6 billion, is so wealthy that he was the single-largest non-institutional stockholder in Chrysler and threatened a hostile takeover in the '90s.
But while he easily fought Chrysler's then-Chairman Lee Iaccoca, Kerkorian met his match in the scheming Bonder. He refused her constant begging for marriage so, in 1997, she got pregnant with his daughter. In a move to legitimize the child's birth, they married on the condition that she waive all spousal support and divorce a month later.
But Bonder found a way to get paid for this high-class prostitution act: child-support, perhaps the only reason she had this child with an 80-year-old. The prenuptial pact set per month support at $35,000, the divorce agreement specified $50,000 monthly, and Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3-year-old! Not enough, says Bonder, who sued for $320,000 per month, claiming the young child needs $144,000 monthly for travel, $7,000 monthly for charity, and $102,000 monthly for food.
Bonder lives in three estates, worth a combined $26 million. Yet, she's using the legal system – and her daughter – to play the victim. That's the legacy of feminism: Even rich, "independent" women's sports stars resort to shacking up with octogenarians and suing them for a big payday.
Kelci Stringer is another "victim." It's lamentable her pro-football player husband, Korey Stringer, died in Minnesota Vikings training camp on a hot day. But, as a first-round draft pick and starter, he was well compensated and insured for risk of injury. Stringer was also paid his multi-million dollar salary to stay in shape. But he didn't – getting fat over the off-season, dangerously trying to lose it and get in shape just a few days before camp.
But is that his fault? Not according to Mrs. Stringer's lawyers (and Jesse Jackson, who has – surprise! – interjected himself in this shakedown). They've filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Vikings. No matter that out-of-shape Stringer was up to a bloated 335-pounds. Newspaper photos showed him doubling over, gasping for breath during drills that in-shape athletes finessed.
Mrs. Stringer is a "victim," and instead of quietly dealing with her grief, everyone else must pay for this woman "scorned" by the Vikings. Costs of the suit will be passed on to Vikings' ticket-buying fans who, unlike wealthy Mrs. Stringer, are mostly working-class stiffs.
Don't feel sorry for Juanita Jordan – divorcing wife of basketball great, Michael – either. According to the New York Post, she put up with his affairs for years, tailing him with a private investigator.
What did she expect? Her own marriage was the result of a tawdry, litigious affair. She met Michael at Bennigan's restaurant in Chicago in 1988, got pregnant, gave birth and slapped him with a paternity suit. To avoid the suit, Michael whisked her off to a tacky Vegas quickie-wedding at the Little White Wedding Chapel in 1989. What an omen for the kind of smarmy marriage she'd have with a philandering sports star.
But even though she had prior warning and was an operative from the beginning in this questionable partnership, she could win 90 percent of the Jordans' property under Illinois law. Illinois is not a community-property state. Rather than splitting property 50-50, fault is a factor in deciding property division. Totally immoral, should Jordan's philandering, of which former groupie Juanita was well aware, entitle her to 90 percent of his worth? Is she really a victim? Under the law, yes.
The song, "The Sisters Are Doing it For Themselves," is bogus. Just look on the sports pages and the overburdened courthouses. For these newest Anna Nicole Smiths, The Sisters Are Suing it For Themselves. The litigation Lolitas will get their big payday in court.
Should? Yeah, probably. But men are second-class citizens. They are EXPECTED to pursue a career and sacrifice whatever it takes. And if they do, they've simply met their obligations.
Women, on the other hand, are free to parent if they choose, work if they choose, then divorce and find a greener pasture elsewhere if they choose, all the while sticking their former schlub with the bill.
See? It makes perfect sense. For women.
Its a two-way street, I know of a few women who only keep the kids around to collect a check, and in every sense of the word they are complete failures at being a parent.
But lots of men and lots of women really get treated like garbage when marriage goes down the tubes. Insanity prevails in the courts.
By demanding the same equity in court that women have been demanding for half a century. Unless a court wants to baldly declare that women are inherently the better gender for parenting -- as archaic a notion as any I've heard lately -- then they have to parse maintenance responsibilities and custodial rights equally.
There are concerned mens' groups who are starting to advocate for men's rights in divorce settlements. FOr example, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children (www.acfc.org). Start there.
The DA here intercepted my exwife's federal refund check to pay back child support she owed me.
Do you mean to say that you care for your children's welfare only as long as you can see them? If a man is not allowed to see his children - he can take it back to court. The same as a woman can take a man back to court when he does not pay child support.
Children still get hungry whether they live with one or two parents. They are pushed into a life without a father at home, the mother works and can give them less attention and then it is ok to also make them have less food, worse clothes?
The children are innocent and a divorce should give the best possible life with one parent instead of two - NO MATTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER.
Anything else is making the children pay for their parents actions, making them a pawn to be used to hurt the ex-spouse, and making their lives worse for revenge of a parent.
Seems to me - a loving parent would do right by his children no matter where they live, what their mother does or who she sees. To do any less is cheating your children and they will remember how they are treated by the absent mother or father.
In NJ if my sister decides to go to graduate school my father still has to pay(on top of splitting tuition). I think it stops at 25 or 26 regardless.
Ooooh, I'm so scared.
Clearly, you spend your pathetic existence as a marionette on apron strings...
...periodically stumbling over to the computer to type in something incoherent and clearly reflective of a drunken haze.
F' off!
True in theory, false in practice. A man can be forced to pay ex-wife support (under the name "child support") based upon what career the judge SAYS the man should have. If the man doesn't pay the set percentage of what the judge says SHOULD be the man's income, the man is put in jail.
Slavery.
Gender apartheid.
Feminism.
Come now, that is markedly sexist. Do you claim that fathers love their children less than mothers do? Want to raise them less? Is that an egalitarian view or a misandric one?
So is debtor's prison. Try being a man and missing a child support payment.
The First District Court of Political Correctness hereby negates Amendment XIII and remands this case to appellate jurisdiction for assessment of a term of involuntary servitude for the defendant. Henceforth, Amendment XIII's prohibitions on involuntary servitude shall be construed to extend solely to important people, excluding white males.
Court further finds that men are all pigs and lousy fathers and that a fictional "maternal instinct" inherently renders the lowliest female superior to the most elevated male for purposes of rearing offspring.
The First District Court of Political Correctness hereby negates Amendment XIII and remands this case to appellate jurisdiction for assessment of a term of involuntary servitude for the defendant.
Henceforth, Amendment XIII's prohibitions on involuntary servitude shall be construed to extend solely to important people, excluding white males. Court further finds that men are all pigs and lousy fathers and that a fictional "maternal instinct" inherently renders the lowliest female superior to the most elevated male for purposes of rearing offspring.
And that's the entire size of pretty much everything. It's not a patriarchy, it's a matriarchy. It's not a constitutional republic, it's a dictatorship via feminist-matercentric judicial fiat.
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.