Elin now dating a white guy

Can you ever make a logical point that isn't so blatantly dripping with sexism?

Why does golf have value? I know how capitalism works. Capitalism is based on goods and services. How exactly does 'golf' qualify as a good or service? How does Tiger Woods qualify as a good or service...maybe you can explain that to me.

Explain to me why Tiger Woods is more valuable when it comes to capitalism than Elin Nordegren??

AND again, since you know Elin so intimately. How many staff members does she have? How many days does the nanny she has work? Does she get time off? What does Elin do during the times she's not with the children?

 

Howso? Women have been reduced to vessels for sex and childbirth for hundreds of years.

The point I was making is that you can't NOT say that Elin is a valuable member of a family simply because she gave birth.

 

This is comical.

Professional golf qualifies as entertainment which garners a paying audience. No different than a singer, actor or dancer.

The CONSUMER determines the worth. Not you or I's opinion.

And I HATE golf.

 

women garner money and an audience for their pussy.....porn stars, gold diggers, models and hookers. so there you go

 

Who said she wasnt?

What you also need to do is define your metric for value. Family value should not measured in money unless a paying individual feels it needs to be or an athority says it must be. I.E. the courts.

 

And where the fuck is your responsibility in all this? You CHOOSE to have children not us. So pull up your big girl pants and quit trying to blame others for your choices. Child support is one thing but give you some sort of rental fee for your womb is down right disgusting and you should be shamed of yourself.
do yourself and the poor guy you end up with a favor and just don't have kids. Its obvious you don't want them since you want compensation for bring them into the world.

 

In your own strange way, youre technically right.

Not all women of course.

 

Again thank you for saying it so I didn't have to sir.

 

Holy hell Andrae, that's quite a leap you just took there, I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you landed.

You know you come across about as inflammatory as possible, which I suspect is largely intentional, however it really does cause your thoughts and message to get somewhat, to completely overlooked. I actually agree with you that no woman deserves compensation solely on the basis of having brought a child or children into the world. DB is correct, women carry the child, which a man cannot do, and childbirth isn't easy for all women, however it is what the female body was designed to do. I personally don't feel entitled to any form of compensation for having my children, their presence in my life is the ultimate reward. I think sadly in divorces when custody issues arise, to often the children become dollar signs, and that's generally everyone's fault except the children.

I think if one parent cannot support the child(ren) on their own, then child support is clearly appropriate, and the court formula for child support is actually very fair IMO. It deals strictly with the numbers, they plug in income, number of nights with each parent, and health insurance costs and then it spits out a number for each parent. If one parent doesn't want to pay as much in child support, they can simply increase the number of nights that they have the children, and the child support drops. So for all the men who bitch and moan about how much child support they pay, spend more time with your kids, if your Ex doesn't like that, then fight her on it. At least that's how it is in Oklahoma, and the court doesn't deviate without cause. I had to jump through major hoops to refuse child support from my Ex in the divorce, which I find ridiculous, but the courts have a very firm mindset that both parents share expense and custody, which I agree is ultimately in the best interest of the child(ren) in most cases.

I agree that family value is priceless and shouldn't be a commodity, however generally when dealing with morals or values that are by their very nature without price, society will seek to assign a monetary value to them. It's one of those, 'money could never commensate you adequately for X, because it's priceless, so we'll assign a preset value to ensure people don't get cheated', thought processes. It would be nice if that wasn't necessary, but sadly there are people who would let their children do without basic needs just to get back at their Ex, and that's men and women. Some folks are just hateful and without parental instincts. I really don't see a better solution as too many of these types of issues are very case-by-case, and the courts seek to find one standard that can be fairly applied to all to ensure no one gets overlooked or screwed over.


Back to the topic of Tiger and Elin, I'm not sure why any of this is back up for debate anyway? He offered her the settlement, she accepted. It's not like she drug him through a long protracted court battle and won, he offered up front. I suspect that was simply a business decision on his part, and perhaps somewhat mitigated by guilt (I'm not saying he has reason to feel guilty, but I would, so I see it as a possibility). The quicker they settled matters, the less media attention it would receive. That's both better for him in terms of privacy, as well as business. Regardless, he gave what he wanted to give, she took it, I don't see how that makes her a gold-digging bitch, anymore than it makes him a stupid pushover who got backed into a corner by his own dick.

 

And goodlove, before you wander in here to tell your tale of woe and assert that all us ex-wives are money crazy bitches who won't let men see their kids, please save it, I don't want to hear it. Your one experience does not translate into the experience of all men everywhere. If you want something, you fight for it, in divorce I have found that is particularly true. If you don't fight & keep fighting, and you don't get what you want, you have no room to bitch.

Your ex was mean, she lied, she uses your child as a bargaining chip... it's not right, but it's a divorce, they aren't easy or enjoyable. Rarely do you find two individuals who can be reasonable in a divorce, even if issues like infidelity don't exist, there is just something about divorce that makes a lot of people crazy and mean spirited. It's something you just have to get through so you can move on. As Jordan said, if you aren't happy with the results, go back and fight. Saying that it's expensive to do that and bitching that it costs men more in a divorce is horseshit. Yes divorce attorneys cost you, sometimes a lot, and it can be incredibly time consuming, but saying I didn't get custody of my kid because it would have cost me too much to fight... how is that not putting a price tag on your relationship with your child? That's a rhetorical question BTW, and an answer isn't necessary.

 

Well I do declare the Queen has graced us with her presence he said as he bowed lol.

Esp glad to see you post but I think you're wrong on this one boo. She is arguing that women bring life forth and wouldn't do it without a man wanting them to and as a result should be compensated. All her words not mine.
For me this argument becomes a problem when women on this forum act as if she was entitled to that money and I simply keep asking why?
your argument of them reaching an understanding is about the only fair and logical argument in this whole thread from the female side of things.

 

All we're saying is that she didnt deserve 100 million. THATs IT.

 

It doesn't matter if he's white, black, brown, green or purple...it's all about time, and she knew it...it was only a matter of time before he cheated or broke it off some how (it always is with stars, and usually, yes, infidelity). The long she hung in there the more she knew she would get.

 

that's not fair, atheletes are a form of entertainment, but in this case one based on skill and not on media gimmicks. it's results oriented. what is a complete waste of time is all the attention ppl like kate and william get or justin bieber recieve. they contribute nothing to society.

 

I think you're paraphrasing there, and that's not how I read DB's comment. She specifically stated 'if we're married', and I guess I took her statement to imply it was a mutual decision. I fully realize that women don't need men to consent to them having a child, I actually know a frightening number of women who see pregnancy as a solution to a failing relationship and who got pregnant on purpose, but without their man's knowledge just to extend a relationship. In those instances, I don't really think it appropriate to then expect him to support that child, which I'm sure is not a popular stance. But I digress, I don't think DB meant it as you took it, however if she did that's her opinion and she's entitled to it. Just because you don't agree with something, you don't have to demean, belittle or insult... sometimes asking for clarification is all that's necessary. I find DB to be one of the more level-headed people on here, and I appreciate how she typically states things in an objective and fair manner. When I get to know a poster over time, and I run across a post that seems to say something that appears out of character for them, my first instinct is to assume I took it wrong, rather to assume they wrote it wrong. That's all I'm saying.

(And before the haters rush in to jump on the previous paragraph... save it. If I'm not addressing you, I'm not talking to you, and if you have a problem with something I say, that's your issue not mine.)

BTW, I thought the latest Harry Potter was sadly lacking. It had a few good points, but overall I felt it missed the mark. If you didn't read the book, it would likely have been adequate. However, I've read the book and I actually remember the details, and they varied more from the book than they did on any of the previous movies. I know that the movie rarely is as good as the book, but Lord of the Rings spoiled me and now that's what I expect. HP just fell short in too many areas. I had a feeling you would like it though, which is why I told you last week that I'd keep my thoughts to myself until you saw it.

Wow, how's that for some major off-topic thread-jacking! :smt081 Sorry, but I'm too lazy to look for the HP thread at the moment. Bookie already knows my thoughts anyway.

 

And there lies the drastic difference between sensible care for a child, 100 Million dollars alimony and whether or not a particular athlete's salary is justified. All three arguments have been strategically meshed and or ignored at various points of this thread to win an argument.

I dont think theres a half reasonable person in here that believes a man is not responsible for his child.

 

Ultimately, I don't think it's anyone's business to say whether she deserved what she got. He offered it, and since he's paying it, he's really the only one who should be bitching about it. As far as I'm concerned, that's between them.

As to the concept of alimony, I don't agree with it at all under any circumstances. I can see instances where one spouse might be entitled to a portion of the other spouses earnings, such as if one worked and put the other through school. However that should be limited to whatever costs were paid, and the amount of income that would have been earned by the non-working spouse, and credit should be given for years following the education when the spouse worked in whatever his chosen career was. I.e. if you put your husband/wife through medical school, they graduate, finish fellowship, etc. and go into private practice and you stay married for say 10 years, then I think you benefited from the increased income and lifestyle for 10 years and that debt is likely paid. No one is entitled to life-long alimony solely because they were married to someone else, especially if they didn't earn any of it themselves. You want to maintain the lifestyle you're accustomed to... go out and work and earn your own way. But again Tiger offered to pay, so that's his deal.

 

Well said. The child aside, its a simple matter of the fundamental responsibly that goes along with being a functional adult. Male or Female.

 

Your point sucks. Tiger isnt lucky AT ALL. He didnt get to where he is with luck. Its ALL skill period.