Married for only 2 years, husband was ordered to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month indefinitely
May 3rd, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Here's a case in which a man and woman, Rod and Katia Refcio, were married for two years, got divorced and he was ordered to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month...indefinitely (The Globe and Mail, 4/27/09). He appealed the order and the court capped his obligation. Some time next year Rod can quit supporting Katia.
But that doesn't keep attorneys from criticizing a spousal support system they think is almost completely arbitrary. Canadian family courts in every province but Alberta adopted guidelines for amounts and durations of spousal support obligations, but attorneys say they bear little resemblance to what a court might order. In Refcio's case, the guidelines say he would pay $180-$300 per month, but the court ordered $1,500. That's like saying the New Orleans levies were a guideline for Hurricane Katrina.
Attorneys point out that it's impossible, under the "honored in the breach" guidelines, to advise a client about what to expect. Given that, it's hard to get clients to enter into an agreement, which forces them to trial and that of course wastes court time. After all, many people might look on Katia Refcio's $1,500 per month indefinitely as a pretty good payoff for two years of marriage.
For the most part, the idea of spousal support is outmoded. In a few extreme cases, I can see the point. If a spouse is disabled and can't work or would be forced into poverty by divorce, I can see that the other spouse should be obliged to contribute to her/his support. But the idea that, in all cases, one spouse should be required to support the other for any time after divorce, much less indefinitely, is an affront to the legal equality of the sexes. All things being equal, adults should support themselves.
Spousal support should be both legal and rare.
"));
19 queries. 0.384 seconds.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
I understand spousal support, when a partner gives up his/her career to raise the kids, but only if:
- the couple actually has kids (I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to claim that hey gave up their career, to keep the house)
- the kid(s) are not in school full-time
- the couple doesn't use extensive hired help (especially baby-sitters and nannies)
When it comes to disability, spousal support would only makes sense if the disabled person does not benefit from significant disability insurance payments.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
M Franklin
This should be a good subject to develop but a lot of situations today will make it very difficult
to set guidelines that are appropriate what about a case where a women decides to be a stay-at-home-mom? how do you compensate the mother and for how long ? does she get just the child support what if she needs to learn or upgrade her skills since she did not work
for many years to raise the kids saying this I would find logical and extremely important that if we are to have more mothers to have kids society needs to think seriously the role of motherhood by insuring proper compensation and support for the childbearing years devoted to the family by women it is in their wonderful nature to want to form and raise a family but not to sacrifice so much and gamble on a miserable future.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
guess i'll scratch hurricane katia off of my "women to pursue" list.
either this guy is the anti-christ or canada is most definitely not the place to get married....if your a man. wondering out loud if a prenuptial spelling out "no spousal support if married less than 10 years unless spouse is proved to be satan" would have helped?
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Because of this case and the way it was held even against the preset guideline will this in anyway have a presidence in American courts. If it is not happening already?
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I’m confused, why does the headline read “Father gets 'clean break' on spousal costs”? He isn’t the father of her twins.
So, the original order for $1500/mth was in 2006. She “has since had twins with another man”. She works fast! The fact that she is “bringing them up alone” is not her ex-husband’s responsibility. Can’t really tell from the timeline, but he should consider himself lucky he ISN’T supporting those babies! But from what I gather they are not his, divorce was probably final before she had them.
In any case, in this day and age she should be able to take care of herself. As a former military spouse of 15 years I could have gone after half of my ex’s retirement. I didn’t because I do take care of myself. I don’t expect anyone else to do that for me. Although it would be nice to hit the lottery! lol
If she was able to wrangle that much a month is spousal support in the first place, I’m sure she is getting a pretty penny in CS from the father of the twins.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
the state treat women like children, actually children don't get support forever, but they pass it off as "rights"
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
This should be a dead issue, because alimony should be outlawed anyway. Enough allowances for adult children!!
This also shows the complete lawlessness of family courts in the west. It's the same in every western country. Family court judges makes it all up as they go.
There's nothing like being a man, asking your $350 an hour divorce attorney how he/she thinks it's going to go, and hearing the answer, "It all depends on the judge." Huh? Aren't there laws? Aren't there precedents, case histories, etc? Nope. All that matters is some d_____bag in a black robe. Great.
The big secret that lawyers don't want men to know is that pre-nups mean nothing. A judge can rip your pre-nup in half right in front of you, and there's not a thing you can do about it. Not your kids? Doesn't matter. Married only two years? Tough.
Don't get married. Don't have kids. Don't cohabitate. Live long and prosper. There is NO OTHER way. DON'T listen to women who tell you that 'Not all women are like that.' DON'T listen to those who try and shame you back into the game. DON'T listen to the manginas and therapists and apologists and relationship industry hacks. They're ALL in on it!!
Maybe Robert will allow my comment through this time. Maybe not. It's up to him.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
How much hogwash are we to believe????
"As a former military spouse of 15 years I could have gone after half of my ex’s retirement. I didn’t because I do take care of myself. I don’t expect anyone else to do that for me. Although it would be nice to hit the lottery! lol"
Jeanb, you screwed up because you didn't KNOW you were entitled to half of his retirement. You had a bad attorney (or none at all).
And, hey, how are you enjoying those non-stop, non-capped medical health benefits .... all made possible by your EX-military husband?
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
GG, you are beyond belief!!
You read JeanB's post, then call her a liar, knowing NOTHING of her case, her attorney, or her!!! How DARE you make such an arbitrary judgement???
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Because woman graduate in greater numbers from college and during recession they generally do not get fired, the government's family court ought to not award support to either party.
If support is provided by either party, the couple ought to work it out themselves.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Thank you, Sonja. I have known my “rights” all along. Just because some court says you are entitled does not make it right to take it. Some people have morals and some people don’t. My medical insurance is covered by my employer. Unlike some people, I am an adult and take care of myself. That includes being responsible for me rather than making someone else be responsible for me.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Georgia Girl Says:
How much hogwash are we to believe????
GG you are a bully. I'm not sure the reason you made those comments this lady did not make any attack on you she simply stated she decide not to go after her husband for more money its not the first time i hear of a wife who simply left with less that they were entitled for
and to assume she was not informed by a lawyer if someone here is ignorant its you GG
and very disrespectful to JeanB I really enjoy this site where there are many bloggers who are very intelligent and show a mutual respect not all the time but when they do attack its because they had a reason to do so not because they felt like bulling . GG maybe this is not the place you should visit i'm sure you can find other blogs where you can spew you hatred with bullies just like yourself we now know what type of person you are
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
And by the way, when you divorce a service member all benefits cease. Rarely will a court order the ex-spouse be permitted to maintain their ID card and all benefits that go with it. That usually happens when the marriage exceeded 20 years, especially if the service member retired while still in the marriage. Of all the ex military spouses I know, and that is quite a few, I’ve known one who was able to keep her benefits for 5 years after the divorce and two who have them for life. I do not know all the circumstances of them being allowed to keep their benefits, but I’m pretty sure the military would have to agree to it. If I am wrong about the military having to agree, someone who actually knows what they are talking about please correct me.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Maybe I'm just not "getting the logic"? What ex-military wife in her right mind would voluntarily forfeit the best medical benefits the country has to offer for herself and her children? These benefits are free and can NEVER be cancelled under any condition with the exception of "re-marriage". I wish somebody would explain to me that kind of logic!
Am I the only the in the dark here?
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
oh wait .... i might be wrong on that (how unusual).
The 2 military couples I knew were "separated", but never actually obtained a divorce. One of these women refused to give her husband a divorce, main reason being loss of benefits. I might have to eat some crow *cough* I just hate it when i'm totally wrong.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:27 am
GG,
As I said, there are some cases where the benefits are kept by the ex spouse (benefits and money are two different things), but it is rare. Children are a different story. My daughter is 19 and still has full benefits because she is a full time college student. I forget the cut off age for her to keep her benefits while a student, it's either 24 or 26.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
A neighbor in his 70s is retired military. He divorced once and remarried many years ago. Because of the divorce decree, his ex is supposed to get his widow's benefit after he dies, and his present wife (married to him for over 25 years) won't get anything. The ex already does get half of his pension.
However, he fixed his ex. He simply chose not to have anything deducted from his pension for the widow's benefit (he did this before the requirement that the wife agree to this in writing). The ex won't get anything after he dies.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
People cannot simultaneously condemn “career women” who work and have “strangers” watch their kids and pump up stay at home moms as the way better option, and then say that after a divorce, the stay at home, non-skilled woman is entitled to no support. That is stupid.
And JeanB, if you were entitled to your husband’s retirement, you should have taken it. You were married long enough.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:07 am
If one assumes that the law is what separates us from the wild wild west, then judges pulling this nonsense is the SAME as vigilante justice.
Angry Dad knows this all to well all the way up to appellate courts legalizing kidnaping. The court ruled that its ok to keep his kids from him even with no evidence in the case file indicating any abuse. http://angrydad.blogspot.com/
In his case they also imputed income based on his paying off of his mortgage.
These cases indicate that there simply IS NO LAW.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
[...] In Canadian Family Courts, Men Roll the Dice on Spousal Support Collaborative divorce leads to quantifiable improvements in relationships Sampling of Provincial & Federal Legislation Affecting Women in Western Canada [...]
May 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
jeana,
I already said that just because the court says I am entitled that does not mean it would be the right thing to do. The court also said I was entitled to more CS than I actually did get for our daughter's care. I only accepted what I thought was actually needed, anything more than that and I would have been stealing.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
And Jean its people with that mentality who are looking for what exactly is needed for the children instead of all that can be got over and above what a childs needs are ........ child support should be just that ...... child support and in a situation I have no doubt that your ex would have been more willing to meet extra needs in that situation.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Is it really a mystery why more and more men are opting not to get married [at least before they're 30]. The system is designed to discourage [men]. For those who are considering marriage, they may want to consider someone in their social/monetary element. I've seen it more than a few times, men/women that are successful in those elements are in positions where they "CHOOSE" to take care of themselves should their marriage dissolves. There's a clean break and neither spouse is left paying the other [indefinitely]. Even when there is a child(ren) involved, the two individuals are confident enough to find a solution without the so-called assistance from the courts.
My advice to young men: "Marry Up" or get a darn good prenuptial. If she refuses to sign it, she's suspect and you should fire her!
Georgia Girl, it is my guess you lack the self-confidence (or capability) to take care of yourself. Leeches such as you need legal systems like this to exist so you can stay fat and happy! P.S. I spent ten years in the military; they do not offer the best medical treatment. Basically, you get what you pay for… and military medical care is free!
May 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Jeana, it's not a paradox at all. Consider that many if not most men don't have "careers" and high paying jobs yet support themselves. The choice to quit ones job and stay at home isn't a sacrifice, it's a luxury. It's her child too and she is 1/2 responsible for caring for and providing for it. (A friend of mine joked that when his girlfriend referring to the child's expenses and problems, she was "his" child but when making decisions, it was "her" child. This same woman was a feminist who complained that men were power hungry hypocrites. That's projection)
May 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Actually, duncan, if it wasn't court ordered he would have done nothing. Which is really sad. At the time of the divorce it never occurred to me he would treat his own child that way. But unlike some people I do realize that just because my ex is like that it does not mean all men are like that. In the end I did spend more than CS covered, mostly from the time she hit HS. Dresses and shoes for JROTC balls and proms are expensive (even when recycled), not to mention the car insurance when she started driving. But that’s OK, I made sure she had what she needed and didn’t waste my time or energy being angry with him.
Just last month during a conversation they had he told her straight up that he didn’t want much to do with her in the past because she reminds him too much of me. He is not able to separate the two of us as different people. Poor thing was so upset about it. I’m surprised she agreed to visit with him this month. I hope he can get his sh*t together and realize she is NOT me, she is his daughter. This is part of the reason I am able to relate to you guys here, this is the type of mindset my ex has, the type of person he is. He is more like the psycho gatekeeper moms and if he had had custody I never would have seen her again.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I have a Laborador retriever that knows the difference between what one CAN do and what one SHOULD do better than some of the posers on this site.
"Stupid is as stupid does."- Forrest Gump. Heaven forbid a certain someone thinks outside the box or acknowledges that a father can "give up" a few years of his career to stay at home while the bold, modern woman sallies forth into the work-a-day world. Wow! She's so impressive! Doing what millions of fathers have done for decades!
See the modern feminist disparage SAH mothers as "non-skilled"? My mom was highly educated and highly skilled, a SAH mom while the kids were young, and well-employed when we were all off to school. All that without modern- or fourth-wave- or whatever you call this round of feminism.
Personally, I think SAH dads are a way-better option, and less likely to let their job skills get stale.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
K-Dog,
I talked to my BF about this, which is why it has taken so long to respond, had to wait until I was home from work. He is retired military.
First, “widow’s benefit” is not something that is paid into by the retiree. He may have selected to drop the SGLI, which is a life insurance policy, but it is totally different than the widow’s benefit. For all intense and purposes, the so-called widow’s benefit is his pension paid to his widow from the time of his death until her death. If he had it put into his divorce decree that his first wife gets the widow’s benefit he screwed his current wife. However, he can probably change the beneficiary now and when he does pass there isn’t anything his ex wife can do about it. She is not entitled to it, his current wife is.
I suggest your neighbor check into this further as soon as he can.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Rob tells it like it is ---
"Georgia Girl, it is my guess you lack the self-confidence (or capability) to take care of yourself. Leeches such as you need legal systems like this to exist so you can stay fat and happy!
Stay-at-home moms (housewives) are leeches? ... and fat?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
JeanB,
So you think it would be “stealing” to get the proper amount of support from your ex-husband, who sounds like a real winner. It also sounds like his child support didn’t increase as his daughter grew older. To me, he sounds like a loser. Still happy that you didn’t accept the money that you were entitled to? Even after he treats your daughter like dirt? You should tell your daughter to have nothing to do with him. I’d never have my son be with anyone like your ex-husband. There’s a reason that women keep kids from ex-spouses.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:16 am
PK,
It is a sacrifice to quit your job if you really liked your job and liked your career. It is a sacrifice to have to rely on your husband to pay for everything and have to deal with him if you want to buy anything. It’s a huge loss of control. And then if you get divorced, you start out at a huge, huge disadvantage. The guy advances and advances in his job, and the female begins at entry level. That is a huge sacrifice.
And yes, caring for the child should be 50/50. Too bad the guy never does his 50%. But people like you are oh so quick to point out that it’s women’s responsibility to take care of her kid.
And it’s weird that it’s always the female’s income that’s taken into account when deciding whether a spouse works or not (as in, the female makes less, child care is $X, is that worthwhile for us to have her work? Instead of saying that child care costs $X, we both make $X, so let’s figure things out.)
And excuse me if I don’t believe you or your friend about your friend’s feminist girlfriend.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Serenity Now,
Exactly what about SAH moms makes you think they are equipped to go into the world of work and not be entry-level? Every MRA here disparages women who don’t work as expecting to get high-paying jobs and expecting to make as much as men working 80 hours a week who worked 15 years longer. I don’t think that uneducated, unskilled people are skilled by virtue of them having or caring for babies. Maybe it prepares you for child care. But that’s pretty much it. Doesn’t mean you’re dumb or can’t learn. But you are technically unskilled.
And why do you think SAH dads won’t let their skills go stale? Assuming they had any to begin with.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Jean B,
With respect to the "widow's benefit", your BF is incorrect. The US military offers the Survivor's Benefit Pan (SBP). Retirees who do not elect out of the SBP, pay into the plan from their retired pay. If married, the spouse must attend a required briefing on the SBP, and the retiring servicemember cannot elect out of the plan without the spouses concurrence. Should the retiree predecease the named beneficiary, the SBP pays benefits to the spouse. The purpose of the plan is to allow servicemembers to provide for spouses (or children) after the retiree dies (retired pay ceases on the death of the servicemember). While essentially a form of life insureance, it is not the same as SGLI (which ceases after retirement) or VGLI.
Problems with the plan are a) it is the spouse, not the servicemember, who makes the decision to enroll in the plan, and b) even after the servicemember divorces and remarries, he or she cannot change the beneficiary of the plan.
The issue of retired pay being allocated to former spouses is an even greater injustice to servicemembers. Previously, retired pay was appropriately treated as income, i.e., reduced pay for reduced services. As such, it was used in the computation of child and spousal support. With the passage of the USFSPA, courts are allowed to treat retired pay as both property and income. Courts now routinely award former spouses a portion of retired pay in the 'equitable' distribution of property and continue to use the remainder in the compuation of child and spousal support. Military Retirees are often left with little to nothing of the retirement they earned. No other form of civilian, government service,or military compensation is treated as both income and property. While one might make the argument that military retired pay should be treated as property instead of income (I disagree), it certainly should not be treated as both.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:32 am
I don't ever want to hear how bad women have it. 1500 a month for 2 years of complaining sign me up.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Rob tells it like it is ---
"Georgia Girl, it is my guess you lack the self-confidence (or capability) to take care of yourself. Leeches such as you need legal systems like this to exist so you can stay fat and happy!
Stay-at-home moms (housewives) are leeches? ... and fat?
No GG he was talking to you. Don't try and hide in the crowd.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:54 am
JeanB:
"I already said that just because the court says I am entitled that does not mean it would be the right thing to do."
Don't hold your breath and think ANY feminist - or modern woman for that matter - will even understand this statement. It's like explaining calculus to a four year old. Noting but blank stares. Perhaps one out of every thousand women gets this. Sounds like you're one of them. But you're the vast minority. Women by and large have had any vestige of altruism completely bred out of them.
The thing is that it's MEN'S fault. It's our fault for rewarding dishonesty and double standards for decades. WE are the ones to blame. Marc Rudov talks about this all the time, and I agree with him. Only MEN can change it. The first thing we have to do is STOP treating women like defenseless children and STOP rewarding crappy behavior.
The reason women use double standards and dishonesty is because it WORKS and they're rewarded for it. They have no reason to stop, because we haven't given them a reason. Change the motivation and the reward, and they'll change their behavior.
I admire your beliefs and comments, but I hope you talk to other women about this. They're the ones who need to hear it. Forget the GG's of this world. They're beyond help.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Vas... or NO VAS!
Jeana says: "It is a sacrifice to quit your job if you really liked your job and liked your career."
PK responds: Jeana, for most men out there, working isn't about having fun but about earning a living. This is a perfect example of how you think The World Owes You A Living (or at least, just men).
Jeana continues: "It is a sacrifice to have to rely on your husband to pay for everything and have to deal with him if you want to buy anything."
PK responds: Hahahaha! Yeah, Jeana, we all know how much you HATE it when men buy you stuff. You really believe in this despite the fact that you would have gone childless and/or single rather than pay a man's way.
Jeana says: "It’s a huge loss of control. And then if you get divorced, you start out at a huge, huge disadvantage. The guy advances and advances in his job, and the female begins at entry level. That is a huge sacrifice. "
PK responds: Did you ever watch, Deal or No Deal? Howie Mandell offers (mostly) women a choice between opening a suitcase to reveal whether the big money is inside or taking "the deal". The fun is watching the contestant squirm because they really would like to take the money but hate risking losing it. My wife and I laughed at an SNL parody where David Duchovny played a contestant who asked to open the suitcase and then when he lost, he cried: "I take the deal! Deal!"
You seem to think that women should be able to make risk-free negative-consequence free choices. Live off of a man, the most horrible nightmare you can imagine, but at the same time still make gobs of money at a fun hobby job. Oh, sometimes it's hard to be a woman...
Jeana continues with her self-centered fantasy: "And yes, caring for the child should be 50/50. Too bad the guy never does his 50%."
PK responds: Jeana, did you EVER discuss, or select, men for dates based upon their housekeeping or childcare skills? Gee, I love to eat greasy fast food and it's too bad that I never seem to lose weight...
Jeana says: "But people like you are oh so quick to point out that it’s women’s responsibility to take care of her kid."
PK responds: Not just me. Women themselves and feminists prefer primary custody of the child when there's money to be had. Really, Jeana, the low moral character of modern western women today is astounding: Mooches AND lazy.
Jeana ponders: "And it’s weird that it’s always the female’s income that’s taken into account when deciding whether a spouse works or not (as in, the female makes less, child care is $X, is that worthwhile for us to have her work? Instead of saying that child care costs $X, we both make $X, so let’s figure things out.)"
PK responds: Jeana, you've been here long enough to know that it's no coincidence that the female usually evaluates the man's income from the moment the relationship begins while her money is hobby job money. Indeed, this calculation is so easy to make because the woman has established that her "career" is WORTHLESS in terms of contributions to the FAMILY. A few more vacations SHE would like to take and a bigger home SHE wants, perhaps, but otherwise your job is a joke. Don't bother asking hubby. He'll just say: "Yes dear."
Jeana says: "And excuse me if I don’t believe you or your friend about your friend’s feminist girlfriend."
PK responds: I don't make this stuff up and you count on it. After all, if more than a few "nice" feminists really lived up to equality, you would have been called on your double standards by men a long time ago.
I had a lot of fun doing this to career women and watching them squirm in their seats. Their games are pretty obvious and easy to work around ("Asker pays?" I didn't do the formal asking!) For example, I would carefully maneauver the conversation so she would up suggesting going out and the restaurant. "What do you like to do?" "Oh, really? What's your favorite place to eat?" "What do you suggest we do?" Tee hee. Then their "true colors" shone through when the dinner check arrived. "But... my money is to be spent on jewelry and walking out of relationships I expect you to commit to!"
May 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
metalman,
Thank you. I do try to talk to other women about this. I understand what you mean when you say it is like trying to teach calculus to a four year old. *sigh*
jeana,
Our daughter was 11 when we divorced. She is now 19. She may not always make smart decisions but she is by no means stupid. At the age of 11 she was already old enough to take care of herself and knew full well how to get a hold of me if she needed to. Her father is not physically abusive and, to the best of my knowledge, never did anything that put her in harm’s way (i.e., drinking and driving). As for keeping her from him so she would not have to deal with him, she had to make that choice. As for her figuring out what kind of person he is, she had to come to that conclusion on her own. And as for taking more money from him, I do not regret how I handled that. Taking money from him in order to punish him for how he treats his daughter #1 is still not the right thing to do and #2 would not have taught him anything because he wouldn’t have connected the dots. At her current age of 19 years (not months) she is an adult and free to choose whom she spends her time with. She is no longer at an age where I can “tell her” what to do.
You stated “There’s a reason that women keep kids from ex-spouses.” Here are actual good reasons for keeping a child away from any parent: physically abusive; drinks or does drugs the point of not being able to care for anyone; is a rapist and actually is a threat to his/her own child; is a murderer and actually is a threat to his/her own child; is just SO irresponsible the child will not be cared for and/or is put into danger. These are examples, but the list, if completed, would not be too much longer. That last example, about irresponsibility, I do know of one case like that which is on-going. The father was recently pulled over for speeding and had an outstanding warrant for drug possession. He was arrested on the spot with his 6 year old child in the car. This is an on-going problem with him and he shows no inclination to change. The mother is currently seeking to have his visitations supervised. Not revoked, supervised. I think in that case she is being fair.
jeana and GG,
Neither one of you seem to understand the words “fair” and “equal”. You want to be seen as equal to men and be treated fairly but you refuse to do the same in return. That is neither fair nor equal by any definition.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
JeanB, RRR is correct. My late stepfather was retired Navy, and he had to pay a percentage of his pension into the Survivor's Benefit Plan so my mother could get widow's benefits after he died. The neighbor tried to do the same for his current wife years ago, but the Navy told him his beneficiary had to be his ex-wife because of the court decrees after his divorce. His current wife wouldn't get any survivor's benefits. The Navy would not allow him to make his current wife the SBP beneficiary. He chose not to have anything deducted from his pension for SBP so that his ex wouldn't get anything either.
If his present wife is going to get screwed over, why not screw over his ex as well? Again, she's been getting half of his pension for all these years already--and she's going to get widow's benefits as well, to the exclusion of his current wife? But that's the reality.
I see why he and his first wife got divorced. I'll bet she was a real peach during the marriage.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
"jeana and GG, either one of you seem to understand the words “fair” and “equal”. You want to be seen as equal to men and be treated fairly but you refuse to do the same in return. That is neither fair nor equal by any definition."
And what YOU don't seem to get .... is that life is not fair or equal. Why would I want to be "equal" to a man. My role as a woman is important. My husband's role is equally important. We play different roles and it's NEVER a 50/50 proposition.
I swear, I don't understand the mra cheerleaders. You say that jeana and i are unfair, yet you conveniently omit the definition of "fairness" and "equality".
In all fairness, don't you think you should clue us in on how I we are being "unfair" and "unreciprical" to our husbands? And if we're such monsters, why do they adore us?
If our husbands are such happy fools, then we must be doing something right ... ya think?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
ugh .... typo~
May 5th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Why do Jeana and Georgia Girl post their comments FOR EVERY ARTICLE on this site. This is a site for MRAs. Why are they here? This isn't their forum.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:54 am
JeanB says
"didn’t want much to do with her in the past because she reminds him too much of me"
Now could someone explain to me what is so terrible about this comment I agree it sounds dramatic but it could also be classified at being just plain awkward just curious did one of you ask him what he meant by saying this it could be interpreted many ways but as someone suggested he is an unfit father for saying those words what ever happened to second chance? to hold someone to all the words that are being said? no one is that perfect some don't have the necessary skills to explain their feelings properly so that is why most will judge a person by his actions not by inappropriate or awkward comment.
There is an assumption those words were meant to hurt the daughter what if he was trying to explain honestly how he felt he did not say he was proud of this I often hear that men don't open up more about their feelings wonder why?
May 6th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Jeana and Georgia Girl are femminist. They do not care in the slightest about men. They are here just to kick at men and they enjoy it. They love being the center of attention. (a very female trait) As far as this not being there forum, well this is a public forum and it shows that men are not the same as femminist are on femminist furums by them being here. Overall they like being considered. It is also good practice for us because this is how the femminist are in legal arguements and the setting of public policy. In some ways it's good to have the training aids on hand to help educate why we have laws and stories that clearly show strong bias, hatred and at times crimes against men. And how femminist types rationalize and justify even the murder of an innocent man or even children.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Dennis Says:
"Why do Jeana and Georgia Girl post their comments FOR EVERY ARTICLE on this site. This is a site for MRAs. Why are they here?"
Comic relief?
May 6th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
JeanB
She is no longer at an age where I can “tell her” what to do.
She is your daughter. You always have the right to tell her what you think she should do. She may not obey you, but as her mother, you have an obligation to give her advice as you see fit. Like to stay away from her loser father until he grows up and becomes a man (which I bet he never will).
And equality doesn’t mean letting men run all over you or giving in to anything men want.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Dave, Greyghost, & Dennis the Menace:
FYI, I only post a few articles at a time. And then I take a break since you people are mentally exhausting. I went thru everything I said in this thread and NOTHING I said is offensive or irritating. But it also isn’t rah rah rah go MRAs either. If you can’t take a contrary opinion, then what good are your arguments?
May 6th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
jeana, being a parent does NOT automatically give you the "right" to tell your kid anything when they're a legal adult. JeanB doesn't HAVE to give her daughter advice, and while her ex might not be the best of men, I can somewhat understand where he's coming from. I can theorise that perhaps the divorce hurt him, and he doesn't want to keep living the pain by seeing his ex-wife in their daughter. I'm possibly far wide of the mark with it, but none of us are inside his head. And thus, it is wholly uncalled for for you to judge the man as a "loser" and "not a man" based solely on Jean's posts.
And as far as I can see, JeanB has not "let men run all over her". She's made her decisions for her own reasons, not allowed others to dictate it, and I certainly don't believe she'll bow to some keyboard-hero feminist telling her what to do and how to treat her daughter.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Sonja,
Oh, so you stop being a parent once the kid turns 18? Really? How sad for any kids of parents who think that way. I have news for you, Sonja: when you choose to be a parent (and it should always be a choice), it’s for life. There is a line that you should be aware of so that you don’t make all your children’s decisions, but it is your obligation to help them and give them advice and stick up for them when they are struggling and hurting.
Her husband needs to grow up and be a man and stop hurting his daughter because he’s “wounded” from being divorced. How many years ago was that again? I bet you’d change your tune if it were a woman who acted that way instead of a man.