|
|
Sunday, March 28, 2004
|
|
WHEREIN YOUR HUMBLE HOST ALIENATES MOST OF HIS FEMALE READERSHIP
The Supreme Court of Canada is not widely celebrated for it's wise decision. The Court is noted for taking the broadest possible interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an already vague and nonsensical document, imaginable. Unlike the U.S Supreme Court, which routinely tells both the government and various appellate interests (like retarded 15 year olds trying to avoid execution) to go fuck themselves, the Supreme Court of Canada wants to make everybody feel good. It's the McHappy court. Mostly, the rulings it hands down greatly please Hungarian Lesbian dance troupes when it affirms their right to federal grants but pisses off the populace to no end.
That's why I was pleasantly surprised by the Court this week.
I'm all for freedom. You may have noticed that about me by now. But I'm immovable in my position that one should be held accountable for their fuck-ups. You sign your name to something, you live the with the consequences. Period.
Please allow me to elaborate for my link averse readers who happen to be on dial-up modems (henceforth described as "savages.") Robert and Kathleen Hartshorne were a happy couple who had lived together for a few years in Vancouver, British Columbia. They liked each other so much that they decided to marry. This was good for Kathleen as Bob had cash and she had debt. Who said opposites don't attract? Oh, did I mention that they were both lawyers?
What could go wrong?
Apparently lots. Just before the wedding Bob presented Kathleen with a prenuptal agreement. Kathleen took the deal to her lawyer,who said "This deal is so sucky that we can easily still rape him when things fall apart. Go ahead and marry the prick." Am I the only one who thinks that planning Divorce Court strategy before the wedding ceremony is odd? Maybe I am a hopeless romantic.
Predictably, the marriage didn't work out. Kathleen then implemented her "let's rape Bob" strategy. Boiled to it's essentials her argument was this; "I'm just a dumb woman who fell in love. Who knew that being shanghaied with a prenup ten seconds before I walked down the aisle was a good indication that I was marrying an asshole? Anyway, can you ignore my silly signature and give me half his shit anyway?" And the B.C Court of Appeal actually bought it! They nullified the prenup.
Bob was understandably pissed and, as lawyers are known to do, appealed the decision. So off to see the Supremes Bob and Kathleen went.
The High Court made an unexpectedly sensible decision. While it's crystal clear that Bob is a prick any other ruling would have disastrous for women. See, women have this thing about equality. That thing is that they expect it. Well, they expect equality most of the time. When it comes to things like alimony, they want it both ways.
I see it this way, As much as Bob was a prick, Kathleen was a conniving bitch. Herself a lawyer, although, given her debt not a particularly good one, read the deal and knew it was a shitty one. Her own lawyer thought the same thing. For her to come back when the marriage inevitably ended is to imply one of two things, either Kathleen is stupid or that she shouldn't be complelled to honor her agreements because she's a woman, and women are all flighty and emotional and stuff.
I should note that none of what I'm arguing applies to child support. That is separate from everything that I'm railing against. Alimony itself is a unequal concept. It presumes that women are too helpless to provide for themselves without a big strong man. The argument classically springs forward that women often give up careers to raise children. I've always found that argument interesting. Women never tire of reminding society of their "right to choose" what to do with their bodies. They are decidedly less enthusiastic in embracing the responsibility that those choices bring. Yes, you have the choice to have kids or not. But if your career is so important to you, don't have them. It's called being an adult.
Remember the 630 guys that married Elizabeth Taylor? Well, a few of them went for support. They were viewed in a less than favorable light. The common view was that this is not the conduct of a man. A man suffers a setback, picks himself up, dusts himself off and gets back to fucking work. How is it equal for men to be so viewed for seeking what women are actively encouraged to seek, often vindictive and puntative divorce settlements?
People can't expect to be treated equal most of the time, or when it's in their interest to be so treated. It's a zero sum game. I'm not saying a wife should leave a marriage with nothing. She should be compensated for whatever actual investments she made into the marriage (note that I said "actual" investments. Silly concepts like "love" and "commitment" don't count) and the children should be provided for. But taking this "I'm getting half the shit just because I can" attitude not only perpetuates an antiquated attitude of victimhood, it undermines that women are equal and can take care of themselves. Besides, it's childish.
And childish people are a big pain the ass to be married to. That's why we leave them for our younger, hotter secretaries who don't complain when it comes to anal.
|
|
|
| |
