Thursday, June 28, 2007

A blatantly unfair wife-support case

You know, I think that nowadays the system doesn't even care about appearing gender neutral - the judges and lawyers are just like "Fuck you man, what you gonna do huh?" and giving out settlements that should get them disbarred and thrown in jail for perverting the course of justice so badly.

But the abuse continues... because only men are suffering.

Look at the first one - a man divorces his cheating wife in 1981, is ordered by the court to give her money, and gives her enough to never need to work in her entire lifetime.

Alimony 30 years after the divorce.

Just think about that for a second. Do you go to work? Do you suffer under a boss who doesn't appreciate you, snarky coworkers who take all the credit, or bitchy customers or harsh deadlines?

Well, this CUNT has never seen that world. She has never worked. Not once in her life. She has always been a albatross on some man - first her Dad, then her Husband. Her kids (if there were any) are long grown up and gone, and she has been living the high life with support from her ex-husband and from Britain's welfare-state-gone-wild. This bitch had the audacity to move to the poshest area of Sidney, Australia, blow the money on useless shit and "investments" and now she's back for more.

And the court fucking gives it to her! The judge, may he die in a fire, gave her GBP 202,000. At today's exchange rate, that's $404,518.67. And that's after she blew the rest, don't forget that.

So now divorces that had been settled 30 years ago can be re-opened for the purposes of wealth-redistribution under Britain's new female-friendly laws. And who has the balls to say that female-friendly can be bad too? Nobody!

... NOBODY can say that female-friendly can be bad. Not because everything is automatically male-friendly unless its female-friendly, although that's a nice drum for female supremacists to beat, but because its men's job to make things better for women.

Remember: Women are the royal sex, and men were put on earth to serve them.


  1. Though this case sucks.. it must be pointed out that unless a clean break at divorce is obtained -variations in payments are possible- at any time!
    I think that this may be the final deal now.
    I hope so for the guys sake,though he can probably afford it.
    But maybe not the anger and disruption at 70 years of age.
    Seems like a decent bloke,,,what a surprise :(

  2. Anon, some would say that the very definition of divorce is to do a clean break and asset transfer. Why such an unfair judge is on the bench is beyond me. Ask any reasonable person on the street what he would do in a case like this and I bet the answer will be "She needs to take responsibility," even more so if the sexes were reversed.