Reply to Dixie Chicks new song

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Dixie Chicks new song - Gaslighter"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Natalie Maines' ex seems like a total pr*ck.[/quote]

Why? Because he asked for support? If he'd been a woman and they'd been married 17 years (like they were), ya'll would be saying he's owed that and more.[/quote]

Not if he'd been a woman that signed a prenup saying otherwise.  It's not like he was at home managing the house and children behind the scenes.  He had his own career, she was just better at hers.[/quote]

Women try to get around prenups ALL the time. He just used the same tactic. You support outrageous child support and maintainence ence levels for one type of spouse - you have to do it for both. [/quote]

Child support is one thing--the kids should have the same lifestyle they had before.  But he wanted $45k extra in spousal support, which he did not get because he signed a valid prenup.  I dont support "outrageous" maintenance levels for anybody in a divorce.[/quote]

Sounds like he did exactly what you said a SAHM does. He raised the children, saw them off to school, made sure their meals were made, and put them to bed while Natalie was making music, touring, and fighting the establishment.

[b]At the time, he claimed he sacrificed his professional career to focus on the former couple's children while Maines toured and made music.[/b][/quote]

At one point, the kids came on tour with them.  And their son played at some of the DCX shows.  He just sounds like a jerk. He wasn't manipulated into a prenup. [b]They're both professional entertainers with potential to make big bucks[/b]. He made an agreement with full capacity to understand it, and then went back on what he agreed to.  Destroys his credibility.[/quote]

This is an interesting perspective. If I understand you correctly, you believe that if a woman who has potential to make good money (maybe she was lawyer) makes a personal choice to stay at home or follow her husband's career - then she shouldn't be entitled to any alimony or child support. I am sure many others agree with you. The courts generally don't.

The court awarded him 350,000 in legal fees that she had to pay so there was something to the case he brought forward. I am not sure it was ever disclosed what the final ruling was in terms of alimony / child support she needed to pay. [/quote]

Not PP, but she's specifically talking about the [b]prenup[/b], not about being a SAHP in a marriage.  If a woman has the potential to make good money and makes a personal choice to have a prenup (to protect her assets because she thinks she'll make more), and then the DH's career takes off and she tries to get out of the prenup, then no, she's not entitled to alimony (child support cannot be avoided with a prenup).  The point is that he was just as sophisticated a player and had just as much to protect at the time of the prenup - he wasn't conned into it and she didn't use her position to coerce him into acting against his interests.  They both had not much but high hopes for themselves.  He signed it thinking he might get rich and need to protect that money in a divorce.  She did the same.  Trying to get out of it because the other party benefits and you don't is predictable but not really compelling.[/quote]

Thanks. That makes sense. So his argument that he needed more child support to maintain the same standard of living as pre-divorce is valid but his claim that he should get alimony after a 17 year marriage where he took on the role of the trailing spouse / primary parent so she could focus on building her career is not because he signed a prenup. He was either a fool to sign the prenup or a fool to support her in building her career at the expense of his own. [/quote]

If he did give up his career to support hers, he should have insisted on a post-nup when the marriage shifted from everybody-for-themselves to "we're going all in on the Dixie Chicks."  But I think it's just as likely that he didn't actually take on the role of trailing spouse/ primary parent/ focus on her career, but rather his career, which he remained focused on, just never took off like hers did.  Which makes sense, because it's rare for lightning to strike the same house twice.  This is why I wouldn't want to sign a prenup for myself, because I view any income as family good fortune, not me getting rich while my husband doesn't (and vice versa).  The thing to remember is they both signed it with the same goal - protecting their own assets in case of a divorce.  If his career had taken off and hers didn't, I doubt he'd be making an argument that he should pay her alimony because the marriage lasted 17 years and she wasn't as successful.

It's like buying a stock thinking you'll get rich and then ten years later trying to sell it for the same price after it tanks because you really only wanted the stock if it went up.  That's just not how it works.  He wanted the prenup because he figured he'd get rich and could shelter the money from her.  (She must have felt the same way in reverse; they both signed.)  But the terms cut both ways - you can't try to set up a legal situation to protect the higher earning and then complain when the document takes effect because you weren't the beneficiary as you expected to be.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics