CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money

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.

That's all true ---but what about the mother who stays at home to raise the children and it's by mutual agreement? I've seen all kinds of cases ---both sides so in some ways I think it's hard to make a system that is completely fair. I've known men whose wives wanted out of the marriage because they got bored and found another man, and still expected full custody and child support. I know some women just don't feel like ever working and figure if they manuever things right, they will never need to work. But there are women who give up careers thinking it's best for the kids and there should be some protection for them too, if they have to start a job for the first time when they are in their 40's or 50's.

In this case there was one child under 18, the other still at home eating but over 18. The woman was willing to work ---however with no resume or job in almost 20 years, she was offered at best $6 an hour with no insurance benefits for a part time job. If she had worked, she could have made equal to what he was making I'm sure which was over $20 an hour ----and in this case it was he who chose someone else.

I think in most cases with a divorce rate so high, women should hang on to their careers ---if for no other reason that they tend to be less bitter about things in the case of divorce which is better for the kids.

Women like that seem to be very successful with men. I don't know what is so great about women like that, but they never have any problem getting more suckers--er, I mean men...

All too true. The drama of a sexpot witch is addictive. When it's good - it's real good. But when you spend a lot of time with them - the good times are overwhelmed by the nightmare times. At 42 I've never been married - and listening to these anecdotes reminds me why. It seems that when things go sour in a marriage - all the legal and societal weapons are with the woman - and the man is completely "fugued".

But, as a strong believer in voting with your feet - and the advice from the Guess Who - I've been looking at other places around the world to be married. Although, this route definitely has some serious drawbacks of its own.

Fitz, I think you have a more balanced view of this. Some of the posts from MEN here scare me half to death being a stay at home mother by MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

My mother was just such a woman as you mentioned. She wanted so desperately to keep her marriage together, but my father already had a woman waiting in the wings to marry and she exemplifies the woman you men are all scared of(the new wife--believe you me, if this one ends, she will take him to the bank despite her good income). My mother stayed home with us for quite a long time, worked at 6.00 an hour jobs part time to help put MY DAD through school, and then within months of his graduation, he left her. She got half of the bills my friends and 12 years later still does not have them all paid off. She was never able to go to school(makes just too much money for it and is inimidated by school loans because of the debt she has now). She didn't even drive until I was 18 years old and married when she was 18. She was old school and got burned big time. I know some of you have had schemers for ex-wives, but in your haste to make sure the witches you all knew don't get a dime of your income, you are not considering the truly virtuous women who got screwed when they trusted thier spouse to be faithful and loyal enough not to dump them when the children were nearly raised and thier education paid for.

One thing that is getting me irate here are these settlements by the courts. It seems that the manipulating women who want out and have good paying jobs get rewarded the most--you know the ones who basically used the husband as the sperm donor. And the women who get shafted are those left by the husband who they intended to be married to for life and at great personal sacrifice raised THIER children and in many cases supported thier spouses in such a way so they were freed from the household burdens to pursue a successful career. You are damn straight I think a woman who has mutually agreed to not pursue a career or end one, stays with a stiff for 25 years, and raises the kids should be assisted by her dh in some way when HE ends it. Let's face it, if we were to end support all together than we just make it easier for men to get out of relationships and leave good women who have cared for thier children and homes out in the cold. So all you do is turn the cards in the other direction. I think there probably needs to be some kind of balance and we need to get back to where the penalty falls on those who actually FILE for the divorce and we start looking at the REASONS for divorce again, along with the marital history(number of previous marriages, length of current marriage, etc). That seems like the most ethical way to deal with this since no fault divorce has been a disaster for both men and women save for the most manipulative of the bunch.

I think who files isn't necessarily the one who broke the marriage. Sometimes in cases of adultery the cheating partner would stay married ---have their cake and eat it too. It might be the innocent noncheating spouse who files but the vows were not broken by that spouse.

Maybe instead of letting judges and lawyers decide everything, all couples should make some kind of prenuptial agreement on how they want things to be if the marriage doesn't survive. That way if a man wants a non-career wife, there could be some kind of protection for her if he changes his mind later. If the couple both keeps a career, they would obviously decide differently how to divide the assets and provide for the kids.

I think I have a balanced view because I've seen horror stories on both sides---often with relatives. Like the guy whose wife found someone else and wanted to leave him but take his kids and money to a woman whose husband wanted to leave her with nothing and keep it all for himself and his new-found lover. He figured the wife could have nothing and since she had no job skills or job, he'd keep the kids and house and told her she could go live with her mother. She did get a job but it's not easy just starting out when you haven't had to work in 20 years.

All too true. The drama of a sexpot witch is addictive. When it's good - it's real good. But when you spend a lot of time with them - the good times are overwhelmed by the nightmare times.

Well, seeing what this crazy female put my ex-boyfriend and the kid through, I don't think there's much good about it. It's still hard to understand why men don't see through that kind of female more quickly. I thought she was a nightmare from the first time I met her. Too crazy even to go to the market to buy food for her own kid.

At 42 I've never been married - and listening to these anecdotes reminds me why. It seems that when things go sour in a marriage - all the legal and societal weapons are with the woman - and the man is completely "fugued".

I'm a 48-year-old woman who has never been married. I've also seen some women who get "fugued."

I agree that if a man and a woman voluntarily agree that the woman is to be a stay-at-home mom, and she gives up an outside career for that, she does deserve some help in getting back on her feet. You don't just dump someone out there without any job skills.

With one friend of mine, she was a SAHM with her last kid still an infant. Hubby dumped her for a bowling-alley bimbo. She went on welfare, learning to be a secretary, so that she could put hamburger meat on the table for the kids. She eventually was able to get a job and make ends meet, but it was a rough time. I don't think her ex-husband helped out much if at all. He didn't want the responsibility of a big family... but he went on to have more kids with the bimbo.

But, as a strong believer in voting with your feet - and the advice from the Guess Who - I've been looking at other places around the world to be married. Although, this route definitely has some serious drawbacks of its own.

I am not enthusiastic about that route, from what I have heard, but then most women don't look for mates that way. I'm really tall, and don't have any inclination to find a husband from the Third World, unlike some American men who apparently find it just charming.

There is, however, at least one introduction agency which helps British men find foreign wives... quite a few of them come here to find American wives. The British welfare system gives many of their women few incentives to marry, so the British men look abroad (primarily at French and American women). So I figure we can't be all bad. But I'm not all that tempted to hire someone to find me a husband.

Like the guy whose wife found someone else and wanted to leave him but take his kids and money to a woman whose husband wanted to leave her with nothing and keep it all for himself and his new-found lover. He figured the wife could have nothing and since she had no job skills or job, he'd keep the kids and house and told her she could go live with her mother. She did get a job but it's not easy just starting out when you haven't had to work in 20 years.

I have a friend who was in a situation like that... she had a small medical transcription business. When hubby wanted to dump her for his girlfriend, he not only got the house, the kids, and the dog, but he sold her business equipment out from under her... so that she, in effect, could not earn a living, although she had worked all through their marriage, and got no alimony from him when it was over. She did want to support herself, but he deliberately made it harder for her to do so. People "fugue over" each other all the time. It isn't the exclusive province of one sex or the other.

I agree with pretty much what both of u have said..... and i think u both have it pretty much right....... but i see one thing as being wrong, or at least questionable.... I think people should look less to the courts to fix the problem..... how about looking at ways of preventing the problem ( i guess the prenup does that, but it still requires all that legal crap, and a willing spouse)..... it seems to me that its more of a societal issue (people don't take marriage too seriously) that a legal issue....

ahhhh hell...... its all pot luck really...... like my father always said.... "getting married is like gambling, u can maximise your probability for success but its still a gamble.... it can go either way"

Yep that right there stops me from feeling TOOO sorry for men - at least the single ones - once the blood drops from the head on their shoulders, all of 'em - doctors to high school dropouts, tend to get stupid about some very important facts like BIRTH CONTROL. I know if *I* were the one going to be stuck paying some broodmare for 18 years I'd darn sure think twice about unzipping.

I'm 48. Lost my virginity when I was 19, almost 20. In all that time, only two men have bought condoms and used them regularly. Of the rest, maybe one or two asked me what I was doing for birth control. One man nudged me to get on the Pill, which I stopped when the relationship ended. Of the rest... they never even asked. Not one word. I guess they just assumed. Lucky for them, I never got pregnant.

A while back, I read an essay on the web by Mr. Radley Balko, entitled, "Be Careful Where You Come," dealing with many of the issues in this article. I thought it was good advice, and loooong overdue. If a guy really wants no-consequence sex, maybe he should plan things a little better, and invest in condoms just to make sure.

I think people should look less to the courts to fix the problem..... how about looking at ways of preventing the problem ( i guess the prenup does that, but it still requires all that legal crap, and a willing spouse)..... it seems to me that its more of a societal issue (people don't take marriage too seriously) that a legal issue....

Good idea. Do prenuptial agreements stand up in court? I think it'd be great if people wrote their own marriage contracts, instead of looking to the state and the courts to decide the minutest details.

Very true. Both parties, after the marriage, are capable of giving the other one a nasty surprise.

interesting that u say that........ I guess alot of nations could be classified as third world when compared to the US (in economic terms at least), but heres some interesting facts..... i can't remember the correct figures but the divorce rates in the US, Australia, Britain and a few other Western nations were a hell-of-alot higher then the "third world" nations, in some cases almost double..... maybe having nothing (economically) makes these people realise that money aint everything.... the people around you are...........

Now since im from a country that could be classified as third world (well my parents are anyway, but they brought their way of life with them, and passed it on to me), i can tell u that their tends to be more of a family bond in these "third world" families than in most western families (please excuse the classifications, i can't think of a better way)..... this is what i believe contributes to the lower divorce rates in non-western nations.......... There just seems to be a greater sense of "community" in these "third world" people.......

i may be wrong but this is what i've seen with my own two eyes so, thats all i can really base this on.....

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.