TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Mel Gibson's ex walked away with more than $400,000,000 during their divorce and is entitled to half of every future check he receives for the rest of his life - [xpost /r/todayilearned]

MorgothTheBauglir

August 18, 2014
568 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Mel Gibson's ex walked away with more than $400,000,000 during their divorce and is entitled to half of every future check he receives for the rest of his life - [xpost /r/todayilearned]
Author

MorgothTheBauglir

Upvotes 568
Comments 386
Date August 18, 2014 10:53 AM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2dvin1/mel_gibsons_ex_walked_away_with_more_than/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/mel-gibsons-ex-walked-away-with-more-than.228625
https://theredarchive.com/post/228625
Top posts by MorgothTheBauglir

Dude's wife leaves and checks into a homeless shelter with their kids, now bitch is trying to bargain their way home as long as dude stays out of the house for 30+ days and don't blow their budget. She doesn't have a job and claims financial instability as freaking out motivation.

11 upvotes
August 27, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Dude's wife leaves him and checks into a homeless shelter with their kids, now bitch is trying to bargain their way home since dude stays out of the house for 30+ days and don't blow their budget. She

1 upvotes
August 27, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave 140 points141 points142 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

26 years of marriage * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day = 227,916 hours of marriage

400,000,000 / 227,916 = $1755 per hour

And that doesn't include things he bought for her (or things she bought for herself with his money).

Imagine you're this guy, and you've fallen madly in love with this girl. You're just totally head-over-heels in love. She's special, she's your unicorn, and you want to give her the world. Aww!

No seriously, I get it. I really do. Love is a wonderful thing. But here's the catch: imagine that the god of TRP comes down from heaven and says, "if you want to be with this girl, then you have to wear this alarm clock, and carry around this bag of money." What the fuck for, you ask.

"Every hour on the hour, the alarm clock will sound, and you will reach into the bag and take out $1755 and give it to this woman, the love of your life." If you want to be with her, that's the price. She will never spend any of that money on you. Not a single cent. When you guys are married, you will also pay for the house. You'll also buy her a car. You'll buy her food and clothes and such - just like a normal couple.

But all the while, the alarm clock will sound at hourly intervals, and you'll have to hand her $1755.

Imagine how different their relationship would have been, if he'd actually been able to see that money going out the door each hour. Imagine the very first time she cops an attitude and they have a fight - and in the midst of that fight, the alarm clock goes off.

Nobody here in TRP is rich like Mel Gibson. We don't have rich people problems, and we'll never pay out millions to an ex. But it's interesting to think about.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]skinnysandvs15 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He paid around $60,000 per hour for sex.

That pussy better be made of gold, taste like vanilla and sing me a lullaby afterwards

[–]nophoney 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I bailed at "you have to wear this clock" http://imgur.com/BOBP21l

[–]monsieurhire2 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I think of one of the biggest things people who make these types of criticisms forget about marriage is that it is supposed to last until death. When people get married, they are NOT supposed to be thinking of a divorce as the end, but rather they are planning to spend the rest of their lives together, or else why they fuck would they get married in the first place?

In a sense, these things are like a penalty. You said you were going to be married until "death do you apart," but then you went against that, so . . . penalty.

They were married for 30 years and she had seven of his children; it's not like she put in the statutory minimum and then bolted for frivolous reasons.

There are lots of things you can't put a price on, or at the very least, are difficult to price.

People think that once you are rich, all your problems go away, but all you really do is trade them in for different problems, like all the thieves and sociopaths that come out of the woodwork that try to separate you from you wealth, or otherwise leech off you. And let's not forget your privacy, anonymity, etc. There's no getting that back.

Presumably, she couldn't have been all bad, or he wouldn't have stayed married to her for 30 years, and she wouldn't have issued that statement to come to his defense. When you compare her to the average Hollywood wife, she comes out far ahead.

And then there's the issue of wealth inequality where we have a system where some people can claim to deserve vast amounts of money while other people slave away and can barely feed and clothe themselves.

[–]asimplescribe 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't really see what exactly her penalty is for breaking those same vows.

[–]monsieurhire2 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It says the following on Wikipedia:

"After 26 years of marriage, Mel and Robyn Gibson separated on July 29, 2006.[98][99] In a 2011 interview, Gibson stated that the separation began the day following his arrest for drunk driving in Malibu.[100] Robyn Gibson filed for divorce on April 13, 2009, citing irreconcilable differences. In a joint statement, the Gibsons declared, "Throughout our marriage and separation we have always strived to maintain the privacy and integrity of our family and will continue to do so."[6] The divorce filing followed the March 2009 release of photographs appearing to show him on a beach embracing Russian pianist Oksana Grigorieva."

So, she separated from him after he got arrested for a DUI, and then the divorce filings documented his affair.

Now, I don't know what was going on in their marriage in terms of nitty gritty details, but it's not like he was madly in love with her and devoted to her, and she cynically played him after the statutory minimum so she could get half and fuck pool-boys, which is something we regularly denounce on TRP. It was likely his bad behavior that led to the separation and divorce. Also, they were separated for several years before the divorce proceedings began, so clearly he had opportunities to remain married to her.

[–]SFofallplaces 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wealth inequality, because people deserve the same outcomes.

You talk about people — CEOs, I assume, because they didn’t work sufficient to deserve their money, in your mind — “deserving vast amounts of money” as a bad thing, and then defend a cunt for thinking she deserves vast amounts of Mel Gibson’s earnings. So you contradict your own retarded conclusions.

[–]monsieurhire2 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

$400 million seems like a lot of money, perhaps an undeserved amount, because most people have nowhere near that amount. One thing you frequently see, is the argument made that a particular class of worker is overpaid because they make, say, $250,000 a year. Obviously, the target audience is all the slobs who toil for less. If the divorce settlement had been $20K and joint custody of a Yugo, I doubt anyone would be railing at the injustice of it.

Also, why is Mel Gibson's wife a cunt? Is it because she's a woman? Are all women cunts now?

They got married. Marriage is a partnership, like it or not. You're SUPPOSED to remain together for life. Had he stayed married to her, I doubt anyone on here would be bitching about the injustice of her sharing in his $800 million holdings. I mean, I hardly ever see people write, "Gee, it's so UNFAIR that the wife gets to sleep in the large mansion, she didn't EARN it! She doesn't even have a job! She should sleep in a dog-house in the backyard to reflect her lack of earnings!" People only complain when the thing ends and she gets half.

As for her deserving it, we have no way of knowing to what extent she collaborated and aided him in building his wealth. In Japan, men bring home the money, but women invest it. If you marry a shrewd woman, and she builds the 20K a year you bring to her in investable income into $2 million, is she more deserving of a larger share than you? Or are you because it was your time that was sacrificed to acquire it?

I don't care about CEOs and oligarchs making lots of money, but I do think it's ridiculous that there are people who SLAVE and do hard, brute labor, and they can barely afford to live, let along support a family. People who live WORSE than people on welfare. Clearly the people at the top are taking too big a slice for themselves if that's the case. Now, I understand the REAL reasons for why this is, but I don't have to like it. Those reasons btw, are as follows:

  1. Never give a sucker an even break; if people are willing to work for shit wages, let them, and never hint that they could get more;
  2. Most people, if given lots of money, would choose NOT to work, therefore, poverty keeps people working, and is a desirable policy goal.

[–]medi3val 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would argue the opposite, that in today's day and age, everyone knows that marriage is NOT typically permanent. Women have a brain, two arms and two legs. Why is it that they somehow don't have the responsibility to plan ahead for their finances and life risks?

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, when you marry someone, part of the financial planning is built into the marriage contract; in the result that the marriage ends, you get something. Whoever has more typically gripes at the unfairness of having to give what they know view as their sole property, to their ex-partner. You see the same thing with rich women having to pay money to their male partners who had less money. They complain about how unfair it is.

[–]Hatorader 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok fine, then give her like 10 million, but 400 million motherfuckin dollars?!

[–]Gwarh 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wasn't a penalty at all for the one that didn't earn any of that money. For them it's a Golden Parachute.

Stay with them as long as you like them and or feel like it. Then when you tire of them take half of everything they've earned. It's a Win Win for one and a loose loose for the other.

[–]monsieurhire2 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh, believe me, I get what everyone is saying about that whole angle, but she did have seven of his children. That's a lot of children to carry to term and give birth to. Had she been the stereotypical arch-villain wife, she might have had only one or two, then divorced after 7 years. Also, from what I read, he fucked up and gave her reasons and justificatio to leave him. I mean, if your adult hubby, who is supposed to have his shit together is getting DUI in his middle age, wouldn't you rightly be concerned that he could kill one or more of your children while behind the wheel, and possibly yourself?

[–]yimanya -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet people protest the high wages of athletes.

[–]liberaceswig 91 points92 points93 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

it makes virtually no sense for wealthy man to get married...

[–]SleepingSheeple33 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

It makes even less sense for a poor man to get married...

[–]EvrythingISayIsRight 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think Chris Rock said it best. If you make $30,000,000 and your wife takes half, you'll live. But if you make $30,000 and your wife wants $15,000 you might have to kill her!

[–]un-affiliated31 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Or driven men. Just because she happened to be married to you when you hit it big, doesn't mean half the effort was hers.

[–]elevul 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Unless the wife works in the same field and is equally rich, and the marriage can benefit the career of both.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Even given this magnificently rare hypothetical, if the two plan on having kids she's probably going to quit her job and 'raise' them while the man continues slaving away to support the whole family. Then, when divorce, she'll get the kids, child support, and possibly alimony for the next two decades while the man lives in a hovel and eats the cheapest foods available.

Marriage is always, always a bad idea. I've heard of prenups failing to judges who don't give a fuck about men.

[–]elevul 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's for normal families, we're talking at much higher levels here, she'd never quit her career at that level. She, they, will pay someone to take care of the children.

[–]Iupvoteforknowledge 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Cause nothing says well balanced family and kids like never having your real parents around.

[–]elevul 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And, indeed, many rich children end up being fairly broken.

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is always, always a bad idea.

No, it isn't. Firstly, it can be a positive status symbol that will boost future job promotions. It shows stability and normality. Secondly, if it never ends in divorce, what were the downsides? Less taxes?

Marriage can be a terrible idea. But it's not "always, always a bad idea." That's preposterous.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if it never ends in divorce

There's no way to know it won't before going in, but allow me to amend: unless you have a crystal ball or a time machine marriage is always, always a bad idea. Unless you're a woman.

The potential loss of half your income isn't worth the potential status boost that can potentially lead to a raise (that's probably not going to equal 200% simply because you're married). On a pure risk-reward analysis, marriage is a terrible idea for a man.

[–]LandShark805 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Let's flip a coin; if it's heads, you win and get to keep your stuff; it it's tails, you have to give half away. You don't get whether to get to play this game as your spouse can choose for you. So heads or tails?

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not all about pure statistics. People get married for the wrong reasons and fuck things up. Get married because it's practical and you are both in love with each other and have been for a long time, and it's worth it.

Thinking that every marriage is a bad idea is not a matter of opinion--it's incorrect. As a side note, there should be a TRP sub that supports LTR, because this mantra is so tiring.

[–]LandShark805 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It only takes one divorce to change a mind. LTR are good things, marriages to the economic disadvantage of another are not.

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, I do hope that I never have to experience the negative side effects.

Currently, I have just been hooking up with people here and there from the bar. But eventually I'd like to settle down. I haven't decided on marriage but I just can't get behind them all being bad ideas. YMMV.

[–]LandShark805 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Every idealistic male does. This isn't about poisoning one's views as much as opening one's eyes to the possible futures. One of those being that they take all income, divide it by two and give each half.

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It never ends in divorce only if the man submits to the woman like an animal. At least in the western world today. Or are you going to influence her more than every other person combined in your entire society?

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Really? You are saying that to make a relationship work, the man must submit to a woman? No. You can have independence and mutually beneficial structure for a long time without bowing down to a woman. Have you ever been in a relationship?

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, a western "marriage" in our current age.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was literally asking. I haven't heard of anyone's taxes raising after being married; I'm used to large income disparity with my salary.

There should be a TRP that supports LTR.

[–]aazav 121 points122 points123 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Don't get married in America. Just lease with an option to buy.

[–]lethal_weapon_five 36 points37 points38 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

George Clooney's words to live by.

[–]1kick6 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Was. he's engaged

[–]Dreamtrain 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Being an optimist here. Maybe this lady, in some way or another, has shown to him behaviour and decision-making that has led him to believe that everything he felt made marriage's cons outweight any pros is gone or at low risk with her.

Of course nothing is certain in life, he may be right or he may be wrong and his only way to truly know, if he does want to know, is to take the risk. Coupled with the fact that people at his age start to yearn for companionship, so even though he has better SMV than most men in their prime, it may be starting to make him feel want something else in life at this point. His choice either way.

[–]1kick6 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Maybe this lady, in some way or another, has shown to him behaviour and decision-making that has led him to believe that everything he felt made marriage's cons outweight any pros is gone or at low risk with her.

Well of course. But what guy goes into a marriage thinking "you know what? This bitch is totally going to fuck me out of half my shit in 5 years..."

[–]MysterManager 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, could be the lady just read how a no talent stay at home mom was awarded half a billion dollars and half of future checks and decided, "Fucking A, this marriage shit is really a no lose for the one holding the pussy!"

[–]Euphoric_Redditor 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or she's a reasonable person who is genuinely attracted to Mr Clooney. For every failed marriage, there's a successful one.

[–]1kick6 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What does her attraction to him have to do with him risking is considerable wealth on her?

[–]Dreamtrain -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well Clooney did they say. Or used to.

[–]3Ill_mumble_that 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Engaged and hopefully stays that way or doesn't opt for the legal marriage.

[–]ihavecandygetinmyvan -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Those comments. Holy shit, people are pathetic.

[–]itwasntme19 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

to a woman with a career and education. from wikipedia:

Amal Ramzi Alamuddin (Arabic: أمل علم الدين‎) (born February 3, 1978) is a London-based, British-Lebanese lawyer, activist and author. She is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, specialising in international law, criminal law, human rights, and extradition.[1] Her clients include Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in his fight against extradition.[2] She has also represented the former prime minister of Ukraine, Yulia Tymoshenko.[3]

[–]laere 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On a tangent but was billy bob thorton angelina jolie, and brad pitt is basically her BB now?

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points74 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

You could buy a bum a gun and cheeseburger for far less.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

She probably got a nice alimony package as well... though maybe the royalties deal is in place of alimony which honestly would be a pretty sweet deal all things considered.

Remember even at 1% Interest that $400M = $4M/yr in interest alone.

[–]ThorLives 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not sure why you mention 1%. (Or why people are complaining that inflation would eat that.) On average, the real estate and stock market have returned 6-7% above inflation.

"Over the very long run, the stock market has had an inflation-adjusted annualized return rate of between six and seven percent." http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

Assuming 6% above inflation, a $400 million stock portfolio will grow by $24 million a year after we adjust for losses due to inflation.

With capital gains taxes being lowered to 15% (thanks to Reagan back in the 1980s), she'll pocket a lot more of that money than someone who actually earned $24 million / year. To put it another way, his wife will earn $24 million/year and still pay a lower tax percentage than you at your job, sucker.

[–]iNiggy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He's saying worst case, she's still making a ton of money by not doing anything.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tripsiyn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Federal capital gains taxes are currently 23.8% for income above 400K/yr. And then you have state and local taxes. California will take 13.3%, living in NYC will take roughly 10%.

Someone living in CA or NY and making millions of dollars will pay 37% or 34% in taxes, respectively.

[–]Euphoric_Redditor 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeh I have averaged almost 9% over the past 7 years, obviously in more aggressive funds, but non the less...

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1% is what you get if you throw it in a savings account.

Also I bet you money earned through a divorce settlement likely isn't taxed as income.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you cant live off of $4M/yr for 50+ years you dont deserve the $400M in the first place since all you're gonna do is waste it.

[–]orezinlv -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The only person who deserves 400 million in the first place is the hypothetical individual who singlehandedly saves the human race from an extinction level event. It's more money than an individual could ever reasonably spend.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I tend to agree with you... if I had $400M I don't even think I could spend it all in my lifetime even if I bought two houses (one mansion, one cottage), a ferrari, a rolls and went to restaurants where the meals cost like $200/plate for all 3 meals of the day for the rest of my freaking life.

[–]orezinlv 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, at those levels an individual is just collecting money for the sole purpose of collecting money which sucks fluidity out of the economy which is a big part of our economic instability to begin with.

It doesn't in and of itself make the person wrong, it just makes them an asshole. Exhibit A and B: Mel Gibson and his ex.

[–]AverageInternetUser -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea you'd need a few percent

[–]_DiscoNinja_ 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She can't have any of that "Get the Gringo" money.

[–]Gami_Lon 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Murder is the number one cause of death among pregnant women. Likely for the same reason.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/us-deaths-pregnancy-idUSTRE79P7OK20111026

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"The study shows that about three out of every 100,000 women who are pregnant or have a child less than one year old are murdered, and two out of every 100,000 kill themselves."

The headline really sensationalizes that stat. It's such a small number it's irrelevant. The headline suggests it's happening at a big rate. It's not even worth looking into.

"Women who died by suicide, for example, were more likely to be white or Native American, unmarried and over 40. Older women and those under 24 were at greater risk of being murdered, as were African Americans and unmarried women."

EDIT: To the idiot who downvoted me: the national murder rate is ~5 per 100k people (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state). Pregnant women fall well below the average of a murdered demographic. If anything, these statistics show that pregnancy protects women from the the most vile acts.

Furthermore, statistics show that among pregnant women, blacks are 60% more likely to be victims of murder than any other demographic, skewing the stats even further. But since in the modern world it's not "correct" to recognize racial or minority differences, let the stats speak for themselves.

If you remove the black statistic, then the murder:100k pregnant ratio dips all the way down to 1.2:100,000.

Murder is going to happen. It's a part of life. These studies show that you're statistically (60% to be exact [76% if you're non-black]) LESS LIKELY TO BE MURDERED -BECAUSE- YOU ARE PREGNANT, rather than being more likely to be murdered because you are.

The study you linked in no way suggests that women are at risk of murder because they are pregnant. In fact, it wonderfully illustrates just the opposite. As I said, it's sensational and ignorant, counting on the ignorance of the interpreter to respond with indignity and ignorant righteousness.

Who can say what percentage of the 3:100,000 murdered pregnant women are even being murdered because they are pregnant? Just a guess, but I'd guess less than 1:3. They probably get murdered shit testing and trying to power play. The fact they are murdered while pregnant is almost certainly rarely THE cause of murder.

There's not some unrecognized wholesale murder of pregnant women going on. Plus this study also included "or have a child less than one year old." So, again, the actual number of actual pregnant murders are even more (significantly) reduced. Overall, it's a very, VERY minuscule sampling that falls far, far below the national average.

[–]DGer 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It sounds like she will get half of his residuals not future earnings from new projects. Still really fucked up, but not quite as bad as half of every check he will receive for the rest of his life.

[–]un-affiliated 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

His career is pretty much over, so there's not much difference in reality.

[–]themanbat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope he at least directs more movies. Braveheart and Apocalypto are perhaps two of the best films in history.

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you say his career is over? It's not like he's dead or anything.

[–]DGer 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not relevant. It also isn't necessarily true. I think you underestimate the general public's ability to forget controversy.

[–]Jake0024 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also their ability to pay attention to details. He can continue being a producer, director, and writer with 99% of people never realizing he was involved (besides, not many people even know or care about the controversy anymore). Indeed, IMDB confirms that he is still actively producing films.

[–]scramtek 240 points241 points242 points 12 years ago (139 children) | Copy Link

She clearly earned half of the Mel Gibson fortune. A game changing role in Mad Max, box-office busting roles in the Lethal Weapon Series, and starring and directing roles in Braveheart. Not to mention decades of acting in, directing and producing other movies. Oh, wait. She did none of that. She is a complete unknown with zero career history. Literally never earned a paycheck in her life.

But I'm sure she had a more than 50% role in spending the 'family' income. Which houses, cars and clothing to buy. And she was of course burdened with the honorous responsibility of controlling the hired help. Which room to clean first. How to do the laundry. Which pool boy to employ. Of course she earned half of the income that Mel Gibson's talents created.

[–]nomeme 60 points61 points62 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Gibson met Robyn, at the time a dental nurse, in the late 1970s after the American-born actor... had filmed his breakout role in Mad Max.

She was a dental nurse. But what I don't get is he was already successful so all this bullshit people spout about her deserving money for "supporting him" is rubbish, he was successful in his own right without her.

[–]MordorsFinest 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

supporting him how? They divorced, and because feminism it's sexist for a woman to be expected to fulfill the role of a woman. She just sat around and did nothing.

Men, if you're starting to make money ditch the bitch

[+]reason_is_why -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Red Pill Women take note! This is your future with the men who think like Mordors "Finest".

Men, if you're starting to make money ditch the bitch

[–]MordorsFinest 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

you want to end up like good ol Mel? I don't

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Don't divorce your wife, and the mother of your children, over some irrational, emotional, and impulsive nonsense.

[–]MordorsFinest 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

better yet don't get married. If you want children, get some woman with child and get courts to take it away and there you have a child without paying taxes to some two-bit bitch.

[–]reason_is_why 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are we considering the well being of the child at all? Or is it just all about you doing you?

Regardless, I think you should hold off on a family for awhile.

[–]1nf4m0uz1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The sole reason why TRP is looked down upon is because of that selfish mentality that pisses me the fuck off. Standing your ground and being as selfish little prick are totally two different things. He fuckking married her. Spent 30 years of her life with Mel. Delivered seven fucking kids. Seven... Fucking... Kids... People saying she didn't deserve a single fucking dime of Mel's money is just dumb.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say it is the SOLE reason. It is probably not even the biggest reason.

For kicks, I would argue the biggest reason people look down on TRP is the frequent running of "biological truth" up the flag pole. This despite having no demonstrable knowledge in the fields they claim to be knowledgeable in. Science is not a silly, drunk girl that is easily used and abused by blustery, alpha nonsense.

But yeah, after that, and the psychopathy, hate, entitlement, and rage, the selfish mentality is hard to swallow.

[–]stringerbell 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ummm, he had 7 fucking kids.

Think Mel Gibson would have been able to do all that - if he had to take care of 7 kids??? No, someone gave up their career to look after Mel Gibson's 7 kids - so that Mel Gibson could focus on his career and make a billion dollars. So, it's only fair that that person gets to benefit from that money.

The Nannies, butlers and maids totally deserve half of everything!

[–]hacksaw_elusive 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Deserves SOMETHING... not close to a half billion dollars.

[–]DrakeSaint 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My sarcasm detector overloaded. I'm entitled to send 50% of it's repair costs to you.

[–]ChristopherBurr 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (119 children) | Copy Link

I'm a married guy and I know this opinion won't be popular but here goes -

My wife and I are a team. She works full-time and contributes to our family. I have a moderate degree of success and I happen to make a lot more than my wife does. As a result - my career takes presidance over hers. We've moved to be closer to my job, and she's been stuck at jobs because of convenience and being close to home for our son. She recently had to turn down a job that would have more than doubled her income because of work that I am doing. She's also doing a huge amount of work with our son because of the hours that I keep.

If we were to get divorced, she deserves some money to make up for the loss she's incurred for in her career. It's money she could have had can't be made up. Her future earnings will be lower because of it.

Mel Gibson's wife didn't ask for the divorce, Mel did. It's not like she had an evil plot to gouge this guy for everything he had. She probably would have been content to just stay married.

I have one son - the kid is exhausting. I couldn't imagine having seven kids. This woman's entire life was put on hold taking care of 7 kids for him. Whatever she could have done with her life ceased when she and Mel had a conversation and came to the conclusion that they would both work to support his career.

So .. she should get 1/2 of what they have - and at least some of his future earnings. It's not like Mel was loaded when they got married. He was an unknown actor in a B movie that didn't look like it was going to be all that successful. So - it's not like his wife was a gold digger either. They both worked at his career when it became clear that he was going to be the top earner in the family

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]ChristopherBurr -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

why should she support herself on a reasonable stipend when they agreed that she would stay home and support his family and he would work?

[–]altra_hex 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It is key to realize that she wasn't forced into that role, so it was her choice.

Also, she never had anywhere close to the ability to produce what Mel did. Realistically speaking she sacrificed <.01% of what Mel produced by her choosing not to work. That means she could have earned say $72k/yr working full-time via her own labor (as opposed to the ~7.2 mil/yr on the other end) if she hadn't stayed home for "Mel's sake" (what a load of BS!). News Flash! Humans prefer not to work. They may claim to want to work, but they're generally lying when that happens.

Obviously I'm using estimates on their earning power here, but I doubt they're not too far from the real numbers.

So, assuming that's a fairly accurate assessment, you are then claiming that a bunch of intangible fairy dust crap she did for him that cannot be measured amounts to the other ~3.57 mil/yr?

edit: On second thought, my estimate on Mel Gibson's earning power was WAAAY low. Clearly if she got 1/2 and snagged 400 mil => he was averaging a whole hell of a lot more than 7.2 mil/yr.

[–]ChristopherBurr 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is key to realize that she wasn't forced into that role, so it was her choice.

actually it was THEIR choice

Also, she never had anywhere close to the ability to produce what Mel did.

the odds of making a good living as an actor are incredibly low. Not even one in a million. There was a much better chance of Mel being an out of work waiter.

[–]altra_hex 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

actually it was THEIR choice

That's not an argument. So long as there is not some sort of mafia or state-like institution using forceful coercion, individuals make their own choices. You are attempting to relieve her of some responsibility in a situation where it's not appropriate.

the odds of making a good living as an actor are incredibly low. Not even one in a million. There was a much better chance of Mel being an out of work waiter.

So? Why is that relevant to this discussion? The average actor's earning power is not what we're talking about here.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ioncloud9 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

To quote Bill Burr "She's a baby sitter. With a quarter of a billion fucking dollars. You can hear it in Mel Gibson's answering machine: 'I had to give up my LAKERS tickets!!'"

Here is the whole bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-IGCcSNlnk

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, technically she did a little bit more than just nannying them. She did have to wreck her vagina 7 times. And after the 5th or 6th... it just doesn't ever look the same...

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]reason_is_why -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Motherhood is a sacrifice of the body and it is a risk to the woman's life. Living with a man is also a sacrifice and a risk.

Women don't really need actual men to have children. They just need the sperm. They come equipped with their own uteruses (uterii?)

Men do need women to have children. As much as TRP drools over artificial wombs and robotic sex toys, Men Going Their Own Way are completely irrelevant and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

Also: A nanny isn't a mother.

[–]alclarkey 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

And a mother is only the person that spread her legs and got knocked up. I guarantee you she didn't do 400 million dollars worth of work to get preggers. And only in the world of the sexist feminist does the role of mother mean more than the role of father.

[+]reason_is_why -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It is the world of nature, biology and evolution. You know: science.

You live in a world of one egg, many sperm. For every one womb, there are many eager penii.

Men compete, women choose. Period.

If you are going to justify your actions, nay, define yourself as a man, in terms of the biological truths of animals, then you made your bed.

Now sleep in it.

[–]alclarkey 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Let me rephrase that, since you obviously missed the point I was trying to make. Because you can spread your legs and get knocked up, does not make you a mother. If the kids are taken care of by a nanny, then you are not their mother, only the person that birthed them. Therefore the supposed value of "Motherhood" is non-existent. And even if it did have value, the father contributed just as much value, therefore negating her claim to his wealth.

[–]reason_is_why -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You think you can replace one women with many, but you cannot. Not only is it not economical, it is highly unlikely that the nanny will go the distance for your children.

Just because it has no value to you, there is no love like a mother's love.

[–]alclarkey 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And you continue with this sexist thing of completely ignoring the value a father adds.

[–]reason_is_why -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

the supposed value of "Motherhood" is non-existent... and even if it did have value...

This quote by you reveals a complete lack of understanding of human biology.

And you continue with this sexist thing of completely ignoring the value a father adds.

TRP is sexist. Nature is sexist. You are sexist. Get used to it maybe?

Edit: spelling

[–]alclarkey3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And alimony is anything but natural. It says to women, it's ok to ruin a man's life, we'll make him support you too.

[–]alclarkey 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Being a good mother is not charity work It's expected. You don't get extra credit for doing your part. That's like a roommate who uses dishes, then does those dishes and expects to get paid for doing the doing the dishes.

[–]reason_is_why -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Conversely, handing over half of his income isn't charity, nor is it "expected"; it is contractually required.

He doesn't get to wiggle out of that contract just because he made X amount of money, unless it says so in the contract, which it does not.

[–]alclarkey3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Um. Alimony is not a contract, it's an order by a judge to support a person who doesn't want to be with you anymore. And of course you can't wiggle out of a judge's order. The question is, should judges be giving such orders in the first place? And that is what we are talking about here. And the answer is no, they shouldn't. At least not lifetime alimony anyways.

[–]reason_is_why-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The marriage contract is the contract to which I am referring.

He could have just as easily ended up in massive debt, being an actor and all. Certainly, he is not the most stable person. Should she be responsible for the debts they incurred together?

[–]alclarkey2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So marriage contract means wife gets to end the marriage for any reason frivolous or not, and she gets to take half of his earnings with her? For life? He may have been crazy, and maybe she should be compensated some what for dealing with his shit, but that doesn't excuse all the other times men have been divorce raped because princess got bored. I think I'll pass on the whole marriage thing thank you.

[–]reason_is_why0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did the princess end the marriage? She did not. The King did.

Or to put it another way: the Captain abandoned ship.

He asked for a Frivorce because of "spiritual" reasons. Imagine the hamstering he must have gone through to justify that. He is said to be Catholic and divorce isn't allowed.

Marriage contracts generally say that all debts and all assets, INCURED DURING the marriage, will be split down the middle in the event of divorce.

She gambled and she won. It could have just as easily gone the other way.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 39 points40 points41 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

If we were to get divorced, she deserves some money to make up for the loss she's incurred for in her career.

This is the popular reasoning behind alimony, and it is a little trick that plays into the feminine imperative. I know you guys are selfless, but consider the opposite for a minute:

A guy has a job he really likes, it's creative, it has good hours. It doesn't pay a ton, but he doesn't care, because it allows him to live his life comfortably, and he's happier with the fulfillment and free time than he would be with more money. Then a girl comes into the picture, and suddenly she asks for a higher living standard. The guy takes up more hours at the job for it. Finally, she gets pregnant, they decide to get married (in whichever order, doesn't seem to matter these days), and the guy is now pressured to drop that creative job and take one that pays more, and also forces longer hours upon him. He's a responsible husband and father, so he does what is expected of him and takes up that other job.

A few years later, he and his wife divorce. Let's assume we live in a world without alimony, and child support, if any, is very reasonable. Our hypothetical dude now finds himself without a wife, without a family, and with a job he hates. He would like to go back to that first, creative job of his, but since he's been out of that market for a few years, it's no longer possible. Couldn't you use the same argument, that because he got married, he made some career choices and should now be somewhat compensated for it?

No, to the man we say "man the fuck up, you made your choices, now you have to live with them". Same goes for the woman. Oh, you sacrificed a higher paying job for your husband and your children? Guess what, that's what's expected of you. And no bullshit about "but what if the guy asks for the divorce", women file 70% of them, and are the cause of an estimated 90%. If you don't like the prospect of finding your life fucked because of someone else's decision, maybe we should abolish no-fault divorce.

[–]ChristopherBurr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

it sounds like you have something very specific in mind. Not all relationships/responsibilities follow the scenario you've outlined. Everyone makes some sacrifices for a family/career/social life/ - contrary to popular belief - you can't have it all.

I personally did not sacrifice what I love to do. It simply pays well. My wife's job is something she loves too, but had to sacrifice professional status because my profession pays more. It's not like she majored in woman's studies and doesn't have professional options - She's in contract management and has the opportunity to do quite well in her own right. Unfortunately - it makes more sense for me to be the breadwinner.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's specific, it was just an example. You could be doing what you like, but if you were to divorce, your quality of life would suffer in one way or another. I find it simply misleading to single out a woman's career sacrifice for her husband, and pretend she has some sort of right to support. Your employer doesn't keep paying you if he fires you or if you quit, same deal.

[–]ChristopherBurr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

In a divorce, everyone's quality of life suffers.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's my point, why then does the law get to say "man's quality of life has to suffer more so woman's gets to suffer less"?

[+]ChristopherBurr -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

mel still has 4000000000 dollars. I don't think he's suffering

[–]UnderwearStain 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

can you answer his question tho? It wasn't specifically about Mel.

[–]krystyin 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The funny thing is if they never got married she would be in a tricky situation and would likely only get awarded 50% of historical (at the most). This is a sign of a legal system with double standards.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ChristopherBurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

of course ChristopherBurr isn't my real name - It comes from here.

But thanks for the heads up!

[–]papadop1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Losing half of your life's earnings and work is absolutely suffering. Consider that Mel is also very active in the movie industry, and he needs his own earned capital to start his own major film projects and continue to make money and pursue his passions.

[–]rpkarma 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So why should the female be compensated to make up for it?

[–]ChristopherBurr -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

females generally don't come out of a divorce on top. They are compensated to remain equal. It is generally men who have the 401K's and assets. When it's the women that are working instead of the man, the man is compensated IE - Kevin Federline.

Let;s take my own situation. I work for a company that matches my 401K, and pays me a bundle. My wife was not able to take a recent job that doubled her salary and gave her matching 401K benefits because she's supporting my career. If we were to get divorced tomorrow are you saying that she should just go her way and I should go mine? In that case she'd be the one that got screwed.

I'm not saying every divorce is fair .. but I am saying that she should be compensated for the decisions that we've both made as a couple.

Now .. I don;t think everyone should get married. My own son will grow up knowing the financial downfalls of marriage and all the possible outcomes. I've walked away from previous engagements because I realized I was going to end up marrying someone I really didn't trust.. If I didn't meet specifically my wife, I would have chosen to remain single myself.

[–]rpkarma 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Meanwhile back in the real world, equal? I'm sure you've had friends go through divorces. Equal? You're kidding me.

[–]ChristopherBurr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've had friends that went through divorce. And one of my best friends got completely screwed. THis isn;t the case with Mel Gibson though. The guy was cheating on his wife, had a love child .. was a binge drinker ..

[–]rpkarma1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, Gibson isn't a sympathetic case, I'm not really talking about him but in general :)

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Meglomaniac 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is the crux of the arguement here.

not a single person on this subreddit is arguing that she shouldnt get a decent standard of life, maybe even a couple hundred grand a year given who she was married too.

Half his fortune? Get fucked.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Deserve it? Didn't they get enough money while they were married?

[–]Kolperz -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They were together 30 years, in which I'm sure she put up with his crazy behavior. However he knew what he was getting into (or should have known) at the time, or else he would've made her sign an agreement beforehand.

Basically she got lucky by landing him, and whether or not she deserves it she gets it. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, but I understand why a lot of new people to TRP are angry about it.

[–]Kardlonoc 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I am sure Mel had hired help throughout years. Should they get portion of his finances too? Like should ten percent go to his nanny?

I think in normal cases going halfies and all Solomons law in a divorce can be fair. But 400 million dollars, there is no way she needs that much money even if she got all the kids . A million dollars can have you set up for life. 5 million your golden. But this bullshit is the shit that killed Robin Williams and Robin was just an actor. Mel Gibson was also a crazy but a director and he probably invested in his own projects. That 400 million and half on every future check is going to cripple him in this current industry.

I don't really care for Mel Gibson, but I worry for future millionaires, the good ones, who might fall due to the wrath of ancient divorce proceedings.

[+]ChristopherBurr -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Mel was religious and wanted lots of kids. She also supported him before he made it big. They had a partnership. When partners split up, they divide the assets. Even if the assets were substantial. She married not even a B rated actor and supported him. He was fortunate that he made it big, but she was a huge part of that. While he was glob trotting to hawk movies and do appearance she was stuck with seven kids in Australia.

[–]1aguy01 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You really believe someone is entitled to that much money for loving a guy and raising her own children?

[–]ChristopherBurr -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe if they both entered into an agreement - which they did - then yes.

Nobody here is screaming about Kevin Federline making millions.

[–]Thomas_Crapper 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

stuck with seven kids in Australia

Stuck in paradise? Stuck raising children with so much assistance that she got to enjoy all the rewards of offspring's love without much of the effort of caretaking of the offspring? Stuck doing the very thing that women love most, raising children? Stuck bending over at the waist and putting the DVD into the DVD player?

Stuck spending unlimited amounts of money on whatever she wanted?

Come off it dude or you will be singing a different tune in ~7.5 years. She get's a house and 50 mil. There is nothing unfair about that and perfectly compensates her for her time invested.

If Bill Gates gets caught banging an intern, Melinda gets 40 billion dollars? Just because the books say so. No.

[–]ChristopherBurr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If Bill Gates gets caught banging an intern, Melinda gets 40 billion dollars? Just because the books say so. No.

actually - yes. Bill knew what he was getting into.

[–]JohnnyLawman 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

oooooh, so that deserves 400 fucking million dollars???

[–]Panzer_Geist 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Mel and his wife were not a team. Mel earned hundreds of millions while she sat at home and supervised their nannies. Don't compare this case to your average American home. Mel made so much money that his wife's only job was spreading her legs in the bedroom.

What? Did you think she cooked, cleaned and took care of 7 children while he was out there making $ 100,000,000?

[+]ChristopherBurr -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Marriage actually is a partnership/team. You enter it knowing this.

[–]Panzer_Geist 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

You keep saying that, what does that mean!? If it's your picture-perfect American home where the man goes out and earns money and the woman stays at home, keeps the house clean, cooks good food and raises well behaved children then yes it's teamwork. Make no mistake, however, there's always a team captain. Your wife may very well be your first mate but no ship has two captains.

But yet again. This is far from how Mr Gibson's life looked. In fact any upper class home doesn't fit that description. They have an army of nannies and servants who take care of all the work. The man goes out and earns millions of dollars and the wife goes shopping and maybe attends her afternoon yoga-class. How is that teamwork? Would she be entitled to some money after a divorce? Yeah, sure. In the extreme case like Mr Gibson's you can give her a million dollars. That's more than she would have made on her own in 20 years of work. How the fuck can anyone justify her getting $ 400,000,000 ?! That's a preposterous amount of money. It's divorce RAPE.

[–]reason_is_why -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

This is changing the goal posts in the middle of the game. She is entitled to half. He knew it when they married.

A man cannot ask a woman to give up her professional life for his, then dump her without severe consequences. That is as it should be.

Motherhood IS the most important job in the species. It also makes women vulnerable and nearly unemployable.

He was her Captain. She played the support role, ran the household, and put up with his no-doubt uplifting "spiritual" views. And he dumped her.

She got what is rightfully hers. You cannot say "She doesn't need that kind of money."

Nobody needs that kind of money.

[–]Panzer_Geist 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

She is entitled to half of it only because divorce laws have been unchanged for centuries. We all know what the law says. We're discussing whether or not the law should change. When he married her, he also "knew" that they would be together until death did them apart. That's the whole point of getting married. Now we can either scream ERROR! ERROR! and have our heads explode at the fact that it didn't last forever - OR - we can analyze the situation.

When did I say that she should walk away with nothing? Give her one or two million dollars. That's fair. Why isn't she entitled to half of it? Because, yet gain, she didn't earn half of it. You're acting as if Mr Gibson was out there earning hundreds of millions of dollars while she was working her ass of to keep the house clean and cooking a nice meal for Mr Gibson when he came home. What part of "upper class" do you not comprehend? They had an army of nannies and servants. Her job was about as difficult as picking your nose.

Motherhood is important. Is it $ 400,000,000 important? No. It's not. What you're essentially saying is that she's a $ 400,000,000 nanny. Yeah. I'd like to see that nanny. Fucking Mary Poppins isn't worth that amount of money. I don't care if she raises the next fucking President of the Galactic Council.

It's not a matter of needing the money. It's about earning it. I have no issues with wealthy people who earned their money. Mr Gibson created movies that people wanted to see. He made money out of it. Good for him.

[–]reason_is_why -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

An army of servants needs someone to command them. That would be the mistress of the house.

Motherhood is important. Is it $ 400,000,000 important?

$400,000,000 cannot buy a man a womb. Much less 7 wombs. There are no dollar amounts that can be ascribed to motherhood and the production of children.

Between making movies and making babies, the skill of making babies is more valuable to society.

[–]Panzer_Geist 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Sure, is that commander worthy of $ 400,000,000? No. It's really not that difficult. Hey Jorge - cut the grass. Yo Maria take the kids to school - I've got yoga at nine.

Actually $ 400,000,000 can buy a man 8000+ wombs. I think the average price for a white surrogate mother in the US is $ 50,000. If you want Mexican or Black kids you can get away with half the price. If you want blonde kinds you might have to pay slightly more. Point being - you can buy a womb.

Yes, making babies is a cornerstone of society. How is that relevant, at all?

[+]reason_is_why -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Remember commanding the servants is only one of her many jobs. If you have ever had the pleasure of commanding an army of servants (especially foreign) you know it isn't all sunshine.

An aside about yoga: Yoga would be another one of her jobs. I don't know if his wife literally did yoga, but if we use yoga as a metaphor for keeping fit, then according to TRP it is part of her job.

Back to buying wombs: $400,000,000 in the scenario you described RENTS the wombs of 8000+ women. You don't get to keep them. You don't get to have sex with them. You don't get to love them.

The womb itself belongs to that annoying bit of flesh attached to it. You know, the woman. The womb doesn't do infant care, doesn't nurse, doesn't get up all night when the man needs to be at work in the morning.

For that you are going to have to hire a whole other group of women in addition to the army of servants you already have. And yes you are going to have to command all of them yourself.

The conclusion: men spending an enormous fortune to replace something that already exists, at the expense of the health and well being of the offspring.

...making babies is a cornerstone of society. How is that relevant, at all?

LOL

[–]TheBold3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Woah i just... Are you even serious man?

[–]reason_is_why-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If 90% of men stopped having sex with women, the birthrate of the species would go on normally.

If 90% of women stopped having sex with men, the birthrate of the species would plunge. Society would collapse.

Do you math?

[–]Panzer_Geist3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're missing my point. The point was that her job wasn't difficult and she wasn't adding $ 400,000,000 worth of value to the relationship.

So what? He obviously doesn't love his wife either, they're divorced. You said that his money couldn't buy him a womb. I disproved your claim. He could rent a surrogate mother or a hooker, or ten, for the rest of his life for $ 400,000,000. Not that he needs to. It's Mel fucking Gibson. He's rich and he's famous. 20 year-old women would line up outside of his bedroom for a chance to ride cock for five minutes.

Again. You're acting as if Mrs Gibson had to wake up at 3 am when her baby was crying if she didn't want to. With the money that Mr Gibson was making they probably had Consuela on night watch. Stop trying to make this marriage look like an average American home. It's not.

You're either delusional or just stupid. A well payed nanny - one person - could do all the jobs of a normal house wife aside from sex (although I suspect that's part of the deal too in many cases). There's no reason why you'd need one for cooking, one for cleaning etc. No. One person. Pay her maybe 15 - 20 bucks/h. That's not uncommon in upper class homes in America. It's not like you're hiring a retard with the mental capacity of a Bulldog. You hire an experienced nanny who needs next to no supervising. She knows her shit.

Again. How is the fact that Mr Gibson earned his money making movies relevant to the subject? He could have made his money as a hitman or found a cure for cancer. The point still stands. She didn't do half of the work. She hasn't earned half of the money.

[–]reason_is_why0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sure everyone will be pleased to meet the bastard children of your union with your egg donor/surrogate/wet nurse/ hooker/ housekeeper/nanny at the family reunion.

I'm afraid, sir, that you miss the point. It is you who isn't needed.

When no part of your life exists outside of the business ledger, you are a fallen man. When you can assign dollar values to your children certainly you value very little in this world. When your life is devoid of love, honor and integrity then no man, woman or child is safe around you.

Edit: especially child

[–]Panzer_Geist3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aww he brings in the touchy-feely stuff. Or should I say she?

I'm sure everyone will be pleased to meet your dysfunctional divorced family, your estranged children who hate you after your ex-wife spent every dinner discussion for the past 18 years telling them what an asshole you are. Sounds like a wonderful reunion.

Is she gonna impregnate herself? What is she? A fucking sponge? Women want quality sperm. Sure they could go out and get impregnated by a loser any second. They don't do that. They want to be impregnated by the handsome and successful Mr Gibsons of the world.

I don't even know what the hell you're getting at with that last line of completely irrelevant load of horse shit. Go write a poem if you're feeling emotional. I don't care about emotions. I'm talking logic here.

[–]reason_is_why0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aww he brings in the touchy-feely stuff. Or should I say she?

So you're a psychopath? Got it.

I'm sure everyone will be pleased to meet your dysfunctional divorced family, your estranged children who hate you after your ex-wife spent every dinner discussion for the past 18 years telling them what an asshole you are. Sounds like a wonderful reunion.

One thing we many people can agree on is that Mel Gibson is an asshole. And he divorced her. Remember? People will talk when you abandon a promise you made before man and god. Go figure.

Is she gonna impregnate herself?

One man can impregnate 2000 women. That's a surplus of men by any standard.

Sure they could go out and get impregnated by a loser any second. They don't do that.

Actually, they kinda do. Hence welfare.

I don't even know what the hell you're getting at with that last line of completely irrelevant... I don't care about emotions. I'm talking logic here.

I get it: You would sell your children for the right price and you think love, honor and integrity are foolish emotions.

Your logic needs work.

[–]Panzer_Geist3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think he's an asshole at all. I don't know under what circumstances they got divorced. It doesn't even matter. Nothing warrants her getting half of his fortune. She didn't create value worthy of $ 400,000,000. That's the bottom line here.

[–]reason_is_why0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think he's an asshole at all.

He has an adversarial relationship with niggers, jews, and fags. Does that qualify as being an asshole?

That, sir, is up to you.

Edit: spelling

[–]altra_hex 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

There are no dollar amounts that can be ascribed to motherhood and the production of children.

I call Bullshit on that. There is in fact a dollar value that can be assigned to a baby. There is a dollar value that can be placed on just about anything, so stow your priceless heartfelt nonsense.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_choosing-adoption-cost-benefits-and-risk-of-the-main-options_1373536.bc

Note the monetary costs sections.

Depending on what attributes you're looking for, it will vary. Generally speaking, things like claiming to be "color-blind" when it comes to race are shown to be completely full of shit. It's just supply/demand and subjective value.

edit: Oh and you're completely wrong on your last point too. You made a claim with zero factual support. To the contrary, there is evidence in what society values the two skills in terms of money. Again, look at what it costs to adopt a baby. Compare that to what it costs to hire a A-list actor. Which one is in the millions and which one is in the thousands?

Damn, looking at your username "reason_is_why", I would have thought you to be a logical/rational person. You've shown yourself to be an economic illiterate who is ruled by emotional impulses and "my opinion = fact". The short of it is you're a fucking moron.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Adopting the offspring of others is not a winning reproductive strategy. You cannot outsource your biological imperative.

Bye now.

[–]altra_hex2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who's arguing about reproductive strategies now? You and the wall?

You were shown to be wrong. Big surprise. You had nothing of substance to retort with.

[–]reason_is_why0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is in fact a dollar value that can be assigned to a baby.

Perhaps. But there is not a dollar value that can be assigned to the mother, the family unit, the legitimization a woman gives a man, or the fact that married men live longer than single men.

Biology cannot be tallied up on a balance sheet.

Men cannot give birth and are not suitable for infant care. Just accept it and move on.

[–]altra_hex1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men cannot give birth and are not suitable for infant care. Just accept it and move on.

Who was contending otherwise? You must be arguing with that wall again.

Hire a nanny -> you've now assigned a monetary value to a mother. The other concepts you brought up are too intangible to address.

[–]reason_is_why1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The concept of reproduction, in general, is too intangible to address in the way you want to address it. Reproduction in human society is more than the sum of its parts.

If you hire a nanny, you have assigned a monetary value to a nanny.

If you rent a womb, you have assigned a monetary value to a womb.

There are some things, however, that money cannot buy. You can rage against it all you like, but you can never replace the role of the mother.

[+]ChristopherBurr -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mr. Gibson's life apparently included mistresses and drunken binges, anti-semetism, and overly religious views. Yea, I'm sure that was great to live with.

[–]Panzer_Geist 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you know that the blue whale is the largest existing animal?

Irrelevant? Oh I thought we were bringing up completely irrelevant facts. My bad.

[–]genghistom3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Flip this argument around: think about all the women he didn't go after and sleep with because of her. Surely he'd have had a harem if not for her, so he deserves what Chris Rock calls "pussy payments" from her, for his lost opportunity.

[–]ChristopherBurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

sure - if his remaining $400M weren't going to get him laid I'd probably agree with you

[–]genghistom1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, if she couldn't survive on $1m or so I'd agree with you

[–]ChristopherBurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure she could too, but that's not how the marriage contract works. DO NOT get married without understanding it.

[–]cali_gunner 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A) your wife and team are irrelevant to Mel's situation and B) she might deserve some money but certainly not 400 million and half of future checks for opting to fuck him as a career choice.

[–]ChristopherBurr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the sums are different but the marriage contract is exactly the same. Marriage is a financial contract.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The way I see it is she might be deserving of something but not necessarily half.

Even if she pursued her career as a dental nurse to the fullest extent of her abilities she would not make $400M. Hell she should be fucking pleased as punch to get something like $40M and one of the properties they jointly own as her primary residence.

Divorce always sucks when it involves massive fortunes like this because one side can be considered earning far more than the other ever would have and women always insist on a 50/50 split when it's favorable to them but you can be sure as shit if she was a hollywood star and made $400M that she'd be arguing for more like $4 Million is what he'd be entitled to.

[+]ChristopherBurr -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The odds were that if he pursued his acting career to the fullest extent - she would have made more at the dental gig. Not many actors make it. IN FACT, she supported him during the lean years.

[–]REDDITCanSuckMyCOCK11 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Dental Nurse Average salary: $62,000 P/A

Yeah, she would totally have made $4M as a dental nurse.........

Like, how fucking dense are you, bro? He was already a successful actor in Mad Max.

[–]JohnnyLawman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

minus expenses, taxes, she'd deserve much less.

[+]ChristopherBurr -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

mad max was not even a B rated movie when it came out. and he was less than a B rated actor when they met. And the average salary for an actor is about 51k. She was also supporting him when he was Mad Max. It doesn't matter how much the average salary is for her profession. A married couple do what is best for the couple. In this case it was having 7 kids and supporting her husbands career. The career got bigger than either of them probably suspected - now she gets half because she was a 50% partner in their marriage.

It's basically like saying - a couple doesn't make very much .. they invest both of their money in a company through the husbands brokerage account. They make a fortune. Now the husband wants to walk away with all of it since it was done through his brokerage account, despite the fact that they were both investors.

Marriage is a 50/50 partnership. It's not for everyone. If you made a mistake getting married, it's your own fault. Nobody held you at gunpoint and made you say "I do". EVERYONE knows what they are getting into. Nobody really has the right to complain when they lose half their stuff.

Before you get married - lots of people remind you that loads of marriages fail. If you proceed, and it fails you have nobody to blame but yourself. Even if the divorce wasn't your fault - you know the rules when you get into it.

[–]hitachai 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have read every single one of your comments in this thread. You are beta as fuck dude. Get out of this sub.

[–]ChristopherBurr -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the fact that you don't agree with me doesn't mean anything. And being a tough guy on the internet is laughable.

[–]hitachai 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I never acted like a tough guy, I just stated a fact. You are so far beta that you have convinced yourself you're alpha, and that's sad.

[–]ChristopherBurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

buddy, you're the one getting emotional about a financial contract, not me.. You haven't been able to tell me why I'm wrong, only that it just doesn't "feel" right to you. TRP is about understanding the facts. In my posts I've explained the theory behind why she is getting so much money and how it is viewed in divorce courts. All the people who work in the courts who replied to this thread agree with what I've said. No amount of anger you have over it is going to change anything. TRP is about understanding the nature of things and learning how to deal with it. Go read the sidebar

[–]gregd28 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I logged in just to downvote you. Beta, beta, beta!!!

[+]ChristopherBurr -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

you wish buddy. I have more swagger than you can even comprehend.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Swag!

[–]DoctorsHateHim 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You do seem to care enough about the opinion of random internet strangers to let an accusation like "beta" get to you.

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So .. she should get 1/2 of what they have - and at least some of his future earnings.

I agree with everything you said except that. I can understand getting a hefty amount, as they were very wealthy, but that's just too much. What the hell can she do with $400 million that she couldn't do with $50 or $70 million? Indeed he left her, which is why my numbers are still in the millions, but $400,000,000 PLUS half of all future royalties is just a stupid amount of money.

[–]papadop1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok granted she made sacrifices....but half of his worth doesn't strike you as excessive? I get that the wife took potential a income loss and should be compensated. But 400 million is not 'fair' or accurate compensation. Does he even get half of her assets in exchange? Of course not.

Future worth? Sorry if you can't make ends met with 400 million that is not excusable. Assuming she lives another 100 years old she'd have 4 million a year to live off of. More than most people earn in their lifetimes. In a year. Times 100.

[–]ChristopherBurr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

marriage is a financial contract. The agreement is to combine wealth and assets. There are prenuptial agreements for the purpose of preserving your wealth prior to marriage, but the marital agreement is to split evenly marital assets. Since Mel and his ex. didn't have any wealth to begin with, they did not have a prenup.

If a marriage works out, it can be financially beneficial to everyone involved. 1/2 the housing costs, twice the retirement money, twice the inheritance (if there is any), a family etc. This is what marriage is about. Entering into an agreement with someone you trust.

So, over the course of time the as a couple earned an ungodly sum of money, it is THEIR money. BOTH of them, while they were/are married. This is what the contract is. If you don't like the contract - don't enter it.

As for future earnings - In this case, I think it's a bit excessive, however she should be compensated for some future earnings. She spent 30 years with the guy. She has no other career and will not be able to make any further income on her own. She essentially gave up her earning potential for her husband.

The point that everyone is trying to express is that HE is the one that is actually MAKING the money. This isn't lost on me, however it's misguided. It gets lost in the translation because it is such a huge sum of money - but take the same situation and diminish the sums - take for instance a cop.

a cop works for 20 years while his wife stays home with the kids - which was their marital agreement. Now the cop retires and gets a divorce. They split the marital assets per the contract.. He now has his pension to live on, while she is left with no future earnings. The divorce settlement takes that into account and distributes the future earnings evenly as well.

This is exactly what has happened to the Gibsons. It doesn't matter what or who made the money during the marriage - the agreement was that they would live as one financial entity the moment they said "I do".

In the past this has worked against men because they were traditionally the bread winners in the family. Also fucked up family courts unfairly give women full custody of the children most of the time, but that is a different issue. Going forward, it is probabl that women of the millennial generation will make more money on average than their male counterparts because they are better educated and have better earning opportunities as a result of that. In the future, men will often be the beneficiaries of a divorce settlement

[–]weirdnamedindian 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree except about the "in perpetuity" part - she gets half of all his money while they were married.

But the part where he has to pay her till the day he dies? Cmon!!

[–]whitey_male 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree this is one instance where I think the wife deserved it.a

[–]georgedonnelly 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What loss has she incurred? If she considered it a loss to be part of your team, then why did she do it?

No, she gained from being a part of your team. That's why she joined Team You.

She didn't lose a damned thing. She won quite a lot.

I personally don't like the idea of leaving someone I was married to for a decade (or whatever time frame) with absolutely nothing.

But don't spin that bullshit about how she took a fucking loss and deserves half. That's utter crap.

[+]The_KoNP -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

exactly, people dont understand divorce. Of course its a little screwed up when youre talking about millions and billions but scale it back down.

You make 100k while your wife stopped worked to raise the kids as you both agreed. Now 20 years later shes in her 40s. And people think its OK to just say well she didnt earn anything so she doesnt get any of my money. Great now shes penniless, OK lets find her a job. Nope that wont really work because shes a 40 year old women with no experience.

How is that that for her?

[–]Panzer_Geist 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See that's where you're making the mistake. You're analyzing this from the average American household perspective. If the wife stays at home, raises the children, cooks food and keeps the house clean it's a fair argument to say that she did somewhere near half of the work.

In an upper class home the wife has servants doing the jobs for her. All she needs to do is spread her legs. That's not doing half of the work. Is she entitled to some money? Yes. Is she entitled to $ 400,000,000. No.

[–]DumpyLips 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is some logic in the whole idea in general but there are so many specific circumstances that are just so damn insulting to any common rational persons sense of justice.

There are just a mind numbing number of examples where the women cheats on the husband, treats him like shit, divorces him to run off with another guy and THEN takes all his shit, too?

That's just nuts.

Also, implied here is that the woman reluctantly gives up her career. I can't tell you how many women I've met that point blank say that becoming a stay at home wife is their idea of the american dream. Just hanging out all day spending their husbands money, watching rachel ray and making new interesting dinners.

Why should we pity these women for living their dream lives? The fact of the matter is most of the women are pressuring their husband in some way to let them quit their job so that can fulfill this dream.

[–]Fenrisulfr22 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm in this situation. Wife is begging me to be a stay at home mom, and has pressured me since she married me when she was 19. "So, you think you just get to work at Target for a year and then basically retire, while I work for the rest of my natural life? Get real."

I doubt Mel's wife was forced into anything...what is often missed in this type of conversation is that men seek out higher paying jobs, giving up their dreams, to support these families, an obligation even feminist women don't bear. I won't believe any of their nonsense until I see women lining up to go work on the oil line.

[–]The_KoNP 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I worked for 10 years with a group that handled the aftermath of divorces. I know you think you hear ton about how the man "gets taken to the cleaners" but it just doesnt really happen. I can think of a handful of cases where someone was clearly being treated very unfairly out of 100s of cases. Youre hearing 1 side a story from someone who is usually bitter about it.

What exactly is your point about their dream being a stay at home mom? You know what else probably their dream? Being married. Stop acting like the end game for most people is to get divorced and take half of a shared estate because its not.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It seems a number of gentlemen on this forum think children and women are parasites.

Apparently one half the species is supposed to give birth to, and raise, the other half of the species while simultaneously supporting them, building cities and making millions of dollars.

Damn bothersome women and their vampiric spawn.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]ChristopherBurr -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

nobody made Mel get married. You know the rules if you say "I do". If you don't want to find yourself in that situation, don't get married. If you already did get married and figured you'd just change the rules, than you're the idiot.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you fail to understand the reproduction part of the reproductive act, sir.

[–]throwwhatthere 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Friendly verbiage correction:

"Honorous" =! "Onerous"

You meant the latter. The former is not a word.

[–]Squeezymypenisy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The guy isn't that smart. You don't insult a religion that many powerful people belong to. At least publicly. When you are famous you have to have a lot more self control. Your public image has to be carefully crafted. But this should be true for any smart guy.

[–]raouldukeesq -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The numbers are astounding. But that's because Gibson is overpaid. $850 million. Good god! In California the money would have just as easily gone in the other direction. She did pop out ten (10) kids.

[–]Panzer_Geist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have no idea what communist shit hole you come from but it's not up to you to decide whether or not he's overpaid. He makes movies that people want to see. He made his money legitimately. There is no "overpaid" in a free market.

[–]insideman83 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

360 NO SCOPE THE BITCH AND RUN OFF TO EUROPE. Holy shit, that's horrific.

[–]Sexualreddit0r 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I concur. If by some miracle of fate, I managed to amass a fortune of nearly a billion dollars... Lets just say, of all possible futures, a quarter of that settlement could (and would) be used to release everyone involved in that fuckery, from this mortal coil and seemingly by accident at that. It's the only way to be sure.

[–]elevul 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep, at that level of money you can risk hiring someone to kill the person leeching off you. Worst case scenario, you have to pay lawyers and politicians so you don't end up in prison, but that's a remote possibility if you hire the right professional.

[–]IamAwaken3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Might want a reality check. Casually killing people is a bad frame to come from.

[–]Iupvoteforknowledge 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but if you are rich enough you can get away with anything.

[–]sirhorsechoker 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No fucking body is entitled to 400 million damn dollars.

[–]2RedPill4LYF 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her vagina is according to the just legal system we live under. God bless America. I'm so proud.

[–]JovianTrainWreck 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't care how much I dislike Mel Gibson, nobody deserves to be divorce raped. Even if you're loaded. Look at all those fucking zeroes, man!

[–]HahahaloLolol 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He will probably kill himself too.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He better make a will that leaves everything to his kids because if he doesn't his wife might get the other half too.

[–]WardlyHasted35 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

A strong history of alcohol abuse and a diagnosed manic depressive. Mel might not make it to 2015 and everyone will focus on his "mental health problems" as the main cause.

Bill Burr was bang on with the epidemic of gold digging whores in America. Unfortunately, it will never be seen as a serious issue.

Makes me fucking sick.

[–]CauisCosades 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is why we have hitmen.

[Edit] Not condoning hiring a hitman. I'm just saying that a situation like this could push someone male or female over the edge.

[–]Endorsed Contributor30303030303030 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What's up feminists? Oppressed much?

[–]Cyhawk 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they still have consequences for their actions. If they can't get away with murder every time without even so much as being detained, they're still oppressed.

[–]Mrswhiskers 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't even understand this.

[–]Red_Shirt_Blue_Pants 42 points43 points44 points 12 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

"Women are just women. Don't get mad" How is this not supposed to anger me?

[–]rbrtpwll6 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

How is this not supposed to anger me?

thats pretty much the basis for TRP. people will act like people and you have to expect that. you should read The Selfish Gene if you haven't already

[–]ThePedanticCynic 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The anger doesn't stem from people acting like people. The anger comes from ostensibly rational people writing and enforcing such bullshit laws that a person, any person, can legally abscond with half of another person's wealth. That this practiced is so institutionalized that few people even question it, and it has become common knowledge that divorce ends with the woman taking half a man's stuff. That this is accepted by society.

It's beyond retarded that this is even allowed to exist.

[–]rbrtpwll0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The comment was

"Women are just women. Don't get mad" How is this not supposed to anger me?

What I was saying is "don't get mad at women for acting like women"

[–]Software_Engineer -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Selfish Gene is easily debunked: If it were true that human behavior can be described as genes trying their best to self-replicate then men would be going to sperm donation banks as often as possible. This is neither how men behave nor how anyone believes men ought to behave.

[–]rbrtpwll0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your genes don't know what a sperm bank is, they just try to replicate (read: ejaculate) as much as possible. Which is exactly how men behave.

[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

It angers you because you still maintain expectations about certain people and about life in general. Remove your expectations, see the world for what it is, and adjust your actions accordingly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The expectations are not unfounded though. We are raised to believe BP. The media forces BP down our throat. Women tell us BP is true directly to our face.

Women are liars. And that is why I hate them.

[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And yet, when you think about it, you don't want to opt out of interacting with them. Maybe you do, but if you did, why would you continue to come back here?

When we begin to learn that humans are opportunistic creatures, it helps us deal with different circumstances. You look at a man who cheats on his wife with disdain; he's got a great, loving wife! Why would he cheat on her? Because he had the opportunity to do so. You project your own beliefs as to why the whole situation is wrong, without realizing that if you had as many opportunities as that guy did, you'd likely have done the same thing.

The same thing applies to most women: most women are hypergamous because they afforded that opportunity. They have a huge pool of men to choose from, but only a handful of such men are acceptable. Contrarily, for many men, many women are acceptable if not exceedingly acceptable. But their pool is limited by who would actually select them. Men with the veil over the faces are still convinced that there is some glimmer of hope that people can be proper.

Women and men are both opportunistic, but women have far more opportunities. People hate the thought because they expect men and women to behave by the same set of rules; they do not.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that's all true. But women lie about their behavior, men do not. When you ask a girl what her dream guy is like, she'll say, "He has to be nice, kind, generous, and always goes out of his way to make me happy." A guy will say, "She has to be hot and not crazy."

[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most women aren't as direct as men are. When she describes all the qualities she wants in a man, she is listing beta qualities... but she isn't lying to you. She wants a guy to be all of the things she listed, but she wants that guy to be attractive to her first.

If she were to describe all the specific things she is attracted to, she'd be hesitant to say. Why? She'd drive all her orbiters away. "My man has to be tall, dark, handsome, muscular, famous, a musician, etc." How do you expect a girl to keep her orbiters if she spells it out as plain as day like that?

Most girls are attuned to manipulation. Manipulation is not necessarily a bad thing, but most males will fall prey to it. When she is telling you she wants all those qualities in a guy, she is trying to manipulate you into believing that you have a chance with her. That keeps you hooked as an orbiter. Because frankly, any guy can emulate the qualities she described. If she says that you must be "white, taller than 6 feet, be a star athlete..." she's going to eliminate a lot of people. The only orbiters stupid enough to stay around are those that are desperate enough to believe that they have odds equal to winning the lottery.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So in this case, manipulation IS a bad thing.

[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this form of manipulation is a bad thing.

[–]rbrtpwll 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you meant

The expectations are not unfounded though

Consider yourself ahead of the game if you're not listening to the media and thinking for yourself, but you shouldn't hate women. Women are awesome for certain things and as a heterosexual I could definitely not live without them. You just can't expect to give them anything/everything in exchange for trust, because that usually won't happen. I think this is where a lot of TRP goes wrong. TRP was never about hating women, just understanding people (both men and women) for who they are, viz., that they are not as trusting as they seem. BP is about trusting people unless they give you a reason not to, and RP is about NOT trusting people until they give you many many reasons to, and sometimes not even then.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying that is TRP philosophy. I'm saying, I personally hate women, and it's for justifiable reasons.

[–]rbrtpwll0 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

ok well you can sit there and hate women and feel sorry for yourself but I'm gonna go out and have fun and get laid

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well actually, my plan was to go out and have fun and get laid, and entertain my sadism for women at the same time.

[–]rbrtpwll1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

to each his own I guess, but thats pretty beta

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are a danger to society.

[–]reason_is_why -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Woman hating is a dead end Mr. Elliot

[–]meekwai 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Do you also get mad whenever you see a lion eating a zebra?

[–]ThePedanticCynic 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a lion eating a zebra.

This is a rat marrying a lion then using the votes and power of the rest of the animal kingdom to divorce the lion and shave his mane as a trophy. The lion either submits or gets trampled and eaten by elephants, wolverines, and whatever other nasty things are out there.

This is not nature being nature. This is scumbags supporting other scumbags with bullshit laws.

[–]meekwai 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Females extracting resources from males for themselves and their offspring is nature (and not just in our species).

Sure, the legal system is helping out here, that's the sensational bit.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But women aren't extracting it, is my point. Everyone else is, then handing it to her on a silver plate. People who should know better.

[–]meekwai 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mel Gibson should have known better.

OK, to his credit, they got married in 1980 when family law biases (to put it politely) were not quite as widely known as they are today.

[–]1aguy01 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women extract resources by making a man want to give her his resources. This is a gang of armed men taking one dudes shit and giving it to a women with the threat of being locked in a cage.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't like it? Don't fuck. Despite popular opinion there is more to life than getting laid.

The reproductive arena is harsh and many don't succeed. Human fitness depends on deception and polygamy on the part of BOTH sexes.

If you don't want to play, take your ball and go home.

[+]Red_Shirt_Blue_Pants -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you get mad when big bang? Oh sorry i thought we were getting further and further from relevance.

[–]HMNbean -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

it's not like men haven't stolen money from others before. Ponzi schemes come to mind. People will take advantage of any situation they can take advantage of, not just women. That said, I'd be mad at either a man or woman that steals another person's cash.

[–]Fzed600 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yea but they had to be intelligent, cunning, and convincing. She just has a vagina.

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Intelligent, cunning and convincing vaginas are more successful than trusting, loyal and stupid vaginas.

[+]HMNbean -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

idk, you can't be 100% stupid and get 400 mil

[–]mainst 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

After X number of years (varies by jurisdiction) your spouse is entitled to half of everything. Doesn't matter how smart or stupid the person is.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you not read the story? Pretty compelling evidence that intelligence isn't even remotely a factor.

[–]Magnum256 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would respect someone who had the fortitude, cunning, and intellect to concoct some kind of elaborate scheme to steal someones fortune a hell of a lot more than some woman who just shows up to the party and lets the 'Murican legal system do the rest.

[–]HMNbean -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean...maybe? I would too, I guess, but the latter did considerably less "work" and took the more efficient route. Spineless, yes, but as a wealthy man you always have to look over your shoulder for these things.

[–]Dreamtrain 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's perfectly natural to be angered by what you see is unfair. To allow it to have any sort of power over you and affect your decisions and your life is what you shouldn't do.

[–]grateday 37 points38 points39 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welp... The Jews finally got their revenge on those remarks me made.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Patriarchysaurus 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They'd stay married so they could maintain the high-class lifestyle.

With the laws though, they get stolen cash and prizes with their divorce. It's incentivized.

[–]un-affiliated 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When you're married you have to ask a man for permission to spend half his fortune. Divorce means the government forcefully takes it and gives it to you.

That's clearly a much better deal.

[–]Sleazyridr 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A couple of days ago there was a TIL that Russell Brand could have taken some millions from Katy Perry, but didn't. Probably because a headline like this with a male benefitting would cause the world to riot.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, it's because men have a sense of right and wrong. Some call it honor. Some call it emotions. Whatever you call it, we're not generally irrational and vindictive; which is the default state of most women.

[–]iwishiwasntfat 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's a comparative example. In Russel Brand's case you have 2 people who already have careers and wealth. In Mel Gibson's example you have 2 people in their early 20s getting married with nothing, his acting career takes off, she quits nursing and stays at home with the kids, doesn't pursue her own career/goals etc because he is financially providing for the family and it isn't necessary. "Together" they raise a family and build their wealth and after 30 years he has to give her half... Half of what they built together in 30 years of marriage. That doesn't seem very unfair to me.

Meanwhile she comes out in defense of her former husband (who left her for another woman) when he needed it.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They didn't build his wealth together. He built his wealth despite her not having a job. Nobody forced her to quit her job and raise the kids, as he could clearly afford daycare and a nanny. She chose to, so why is he suffering for her choices?

That's the crux of feminism: women making choices and men suffering the consequences.

[–]iwishiwasntfat 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is a load of horse shit. But sure, this is "theredpill" so it's not like I don't expect the majority of these comments to lean this way. I'm all for men not getting railroaded and there are many instances in society where they do and I'm all for a good discussion on that... with objectivity and reason.

First, everyone makes a lot of assumptions about "nannies and daycare" but we have no idea. We just like to imagine that's what's going on because then we can get behind this idea that he's getting fucked over. yeah! She wasn't doing shit anyway!

There is a lot of undervalue being placed on being in a relationship, encouragement, support, and love and how that alone helps a person (man or woman) with their careers, confidence, stress levels, ability to cope etc... There is a reason it is a "partnership". Though we have no idea whether or not the marriage was a happy one, it did last 30 years with 7 children... we can at least assume a decent portion of those years were happy ones.

If we look at it in black and whites, sure... he was the "Star" who made all the blockbusters and made all that money... but life and relationships are not black and white. We don't know if she helped invest the money, helped him decide which movies to be in, etc... We can SAY it was "her choice" but again we have no idea... maybe they had a healthy relationship in the beginning and discussed it all... maybe it was THEIR choice that she not work and stay home with the kids.

Maybe, even though they could afford daycare and a nanny they BOTH decided that they didn't want a nanny raising their children... that it was important to both of them that the parents play an active role.

Really, none of us know much but we can certainly skew it all to fit our agenda. What I have read though, is that they were married for 30 years... that she is a private non-attention wanting person who prefers to remain that way... that she was left by him for another woman and despite that she would not have his name drug through the mud without coming to the defence of the man she knew and loved and the father of her children. And what she received in the divorce was an equal share of what they had within that 30 years of marriage. Doesn't seem like a bad person to me at all or an unfair deal.

[–]nsummy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men have a sense of right and wrong? Not all of them. This had more to do with Russell Brand being a cool guy.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I said generally. You encounter a dude on the street and 9 times out of 10 he's a decent guy. You meet a random woman and she'll think you're a creep/stalker/pile of cash to use. Women don't go to bars to meet guys: women go to bars for attention and free drinks. That's really all you need to know.

[–]nsummy -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This needs more upvotes. The system works both ways.

[–]MorgothTheBauglir[S] 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

His ex on the divorce: 'Learn something from this, Wallstreet!'

[–]ThePedanticCynic 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

... what the fuck does that even mean? Marry rich and become the .0001% as you shuffle off with your whoregold?

[–]Bolshevik-Slayer 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Check out this whopper of a comment.

She had 7 of THEIR Kids and while she was at home taking Care of THEIR household he was out making movies. Who had the hardest job? A women taking care of a household or someone flying around the world doing movies?? Don't worry I'll wait

If raising seven kids is harder than amassing $800,000,000, then why isn't every women a mutli-millionaire?

[–]dominant_driver 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think she had help taking care of the kids and the household. Paid help.

[–]reason_is_why -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

why isn't every women a mutli-millionaire?

Because reproduction exists OUTSIDE the marketplace. It is a natural phenomenon that cannot be controlled by man. Mate selection precludes economics.

Men provide for the mother and offspring; females reproduce with the best combination of genes and provider available (often not the same person!)

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]yourenogood 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He did, and with two divorces that's a hell of a bill each month.

[–]Kanyin 50 points51 points52 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He did and it's what's not being talked about in relation to his suicide.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The feminized media won't touch that story.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As much as I'm not a fan of a lot of Mel's views on damn near everything, even I know the poor guy has been divorced raped to the point where his asshole is probably the size of a grapefruit.

Also, this kind of shit has been spawned from a massive uptick of girlfriends "secretly" recording their boyfriend's conversations. I don't understand why the media isn't calling it what it really is...blackmail and extortion.

I seem to remember women who go total apeshit when they're fucking around and when the guy records their shit and checks their phones, it's "weird and creepy" but when a woman records her man's shit, it's "empowering" and "exposing injustice"

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Bill Burr, talking about Tiger Woods's ex-wife: "She's a fucking babysitter... with a quarter of a billion dollars!"

[–]reason_is_why -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least she isn't likely to spend it on prostitutes.

[–]Deedb4creed 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can't say I'm a true believer of RedPill yet. But stories like these are definitely convincing points for driving me towards the dark side.

[–]reason_is_why 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Just remember...

"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or not at all..." -Pope

Edit: was missing a word

[–]RPSavant 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

did I read the correctly? 400...million? dollars? for having a vagina?

[–]itsxeno4 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

If you ain't no punk, HOLLA WE WANT PRE-NUP!

[–]ThePedanticCynic 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've read about prenups failing to feminist judges. Just don't get married, and make sure you break up with a girl before it becomes a common law marriage.

[–]pupplenupple 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The sheer number of zeros on her settlement is a testament to the ridiculousness of the divorce system, but if I had to nominate a Hollywood wife who deserved a full ride post-divorce it would be her.

[–]aazav 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But, you see, she needs it to raise his kids.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. That' 30K/year nanny isn't going to pay herself!

[–]orthros 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, this is a hilarious post.

If anyone is the counterexample to TRP's general thesis about divorce rape, it's Robyn freakin' Gibson. Let's break it down.

  • Married Mel when he was a nobody and they were living in a $30/week flophose
  • She had the higher earnings potential; Mel was a loser actor who managed to make it big. That's winning the lottery, folks
  • Stayed with him 30 years, including tolerating Mel's "Robyn's a better person than me but she's going to Hell" public interview (Google it)
  • Seven children (S-E-V-E-N)
  • Separating (but not divorcing) for 3 years while Mel went into his alcohol-fueled, Jew hating whorebanging phase
  • Finally throwing in the towel after 31 fucking years because he knocked up some slut, thereby completely alienating his 7 legitimate children who now have to deal with a bastard kid

Yeah, frivorce is a thing but this is the definitional opposite

[–]gustavsmg 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

hence why you never get married ever...such a stupid agreement

[–]reason_is_why -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Depends on if you want to reproduce.

[–]gustavsmg 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

you can reproduce without getting married

[–]reason_is_why -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

True. If you don't really care about the well being of the bastard child you made.

[–]gustavsmg 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

that's a massive stretch...obviously you don't see things i do so agree to disagree

[–]Kakistokratic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm speculating this is what took a lot of the steam out of the great Robin Williams as well. He was married thrice!

[–]1sailorJery 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah my ex would have an accident before she got $400 million

[–]Endorsed Contributorseattleron10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

All the more reason for rich and/or famous men to get a vasectomy, freeze some of your sperm, and NOT get married.

Why would a guy like that get married? Marriage is not going to change how a woman acts/feels about a guy like him in a positive way.

[–]heeb 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why would a guy like that get married?

Mel Gibson is a fundamentalist Catholic (yes, these seem to exist), so that could be a reason for him to get married.

[–]Endorsed Contributorseattleron3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

True.

I bet he changes his mind soon, though.

[–]loghead11 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I doubt it. 'The Passion of The Christ' was his most successful project.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=passionofthechrist.htm

[–]bad_pattern2 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I wonder if this is enforceable in foreign countries that are friendly with the US

why doesn't he move to UK or canada. although UK is understandable with how they're always the antagonists in mel gibson films

[–]TattedGuyser 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't come to Canada, we'll extradite. Our government is such a bunch of pussies that they'll hand over a citizen whose been brought up on charges in another country without them ever entering said country. Especially the US.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Marc Emery is finally free!

[–]TattedGuyser 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marc Emery

This is an excellent example of how fast our government bent over and took the DEA's big ol dick up the ass. What's extra funny is he didn't even do anything illegal by Canada's standards, it was all the US and because his product got shipped down there, Canada just didn't want to deal with the problem. Bunch of pussies.

Another example is Torrenting laws. In Canada it's perfectly legal to download any torrent (including copyrighted content) but illegal to upload such content. Because of this, Canada allows American lawyers to come in and issue subpoenas on infringed content, even though here we did nothing illegal. It's ridiculous, I wish we had a government that would give the states the finger on these issues.

[–]cbnyc0 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The checks are coming from US companies as residuals for films he made during the marriage, so even if he leaves the country, the checks can still be seized by the US government before he gets them.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is there such thing as a US company anymore? It would be pretty easy for him to pay a little bit and expand them to international companies, then receive a check from some other country that the US can't seize. Whatever the cost of going international, i'm sure it's less than 400M.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For starters he has a serious problem with the UK. They are always pointed to as the bad people in his movies, plus the Lion's share of his monies were made (and most likely kept) in the states so no matter what he's screwed himself.

[–]MustangGuy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm wondering if there's a way to set it up so all his money and future checks go to another person and then that person gifts the money back to Mel for a tiny % thereby sidestepping him receiving "income" since it's in the form of a "gift."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Something tells me the people who wrote the laws on civil judgments thought of this already.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My plan would be to force/pay the companies who are paying him royalties to become international companies, then he receives those checks from overseas where the US can't seize them. Sure, he can't come back to the US... but Australia seems pretty nice too.

[–]thick_knees 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

man, how many high class escorts could he have gotten with 400mill

[–]cbnyc0 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think probably all of them. That's a lot of money, even at $10K-50K a night.

[–]ionlyuseredditatwork 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At $400M USD, he basically paid his ex wife $52,000 every single day they were married for 26 years. Your assessment is spot on.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And escorts don't age. Better deal all around.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Always get a prenup. Period.

[–]grateday 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Judges hate prenups and often disregard them when a marriage lasts X amount of years.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ThePedanticCynic 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Even trusts can be raided in some states.

The courts give zero fucks about men.

[–]hermit087 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My mom got half my college fund when my parents divorced...

[–]ThePedanticCynic 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's official: women are more important than children in a divorce.

[–]elevul 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A trust outside of the country.

[–]atworknewaccount 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they defy the whole point of a marriage. If you don't want to split assets with someone then don't sign documents splitting your assets with a person. Pretty fucking simple.

[–]kafkarockhouse 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More prenups are thrown out than honored.

[–]1independentmale 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source to back up that claim? I find this very hard to believe.

[–]vicious_armbar 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It wouldn't have mattered. Prenups only cover assets that were earned before you got married, and even then many judges just throw them away anyway.

Simply don't get married. If you want to live the married lifestyle then make sure you're living in a state that doesn't have common law marriage. Then you can let her have: the party, the ring, the dress; that way she can save face and have the whole experience if she wants. But tell her you draw the line at signing any paperwork to make it legal.

[–]iwishiwasntfat 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't see where it says she is entitled to half of every future check he receives for the rest of his life. He is accountable for the residuals... this is money continued to be earned on films made during their marriage, not on new projects, etc. 50% for everything earned during the 30 years of marriage seems fair though.

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are...you....reading? And thinking for yourself? Are you new here?

[–]joansez 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your comments are the only ones that make sense here. I think.... I think I'm in love.

[–]Lj27 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand why she's entitled to his future earnings?

[–]MorgothTheBauglir[S] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because... she's not a man?

[–]mainst 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Spouse support. Can't expect the judge to throw that bitch on the street. She's only got 400m! i mean fuck that doesn't last very long nowadays.

[–]RedForMe 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's all future earnings, I think it's continuing residuals from projects completed during the marriage. Still fucked up, but at least slightly more logical.

[–]shaggyshag420 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Perfect reason to never get married. My money is my fucking money, regardless if it was before, during or after the marriage. You aint entitled to shit.

[–]reason_is_why -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What do you spend it on? That's what I thought. You're money is worthless without women to spend it on.

[–]shaggyshag420 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Certainly not jewelry and a dress that will only be worn once...

[–]reason_is_why -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You will spend it on women.

[–]shaggyshag420 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That may very well be, but it will be my money that I spend on women.

[–]reason_is_why -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is all very well but evolutionarily it may not end well for you.

[–]mc0079 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know this is nice circle jerk material...but using examples from the elite and super rich does no one favors.

[–]gearshift 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eddie .....what have you done for me lately ?

[–]Dr_Bishop 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sad, Mel Gibson pays the Ransom in real life.

[–]Blacquebit 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gentlemen..NEVER GET MARRIED.

[–]skekze 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tax em all and let the IRS sort it out. Fucking tax dodging scrooge mcduck fucks.

[–]reason_is_why -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Tax dodging? scratching head

[–]skekze 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rich people like to hide money. They also used to pay a much higher rate when America was on the rise, so I think just because it was legal evasion doesn't make it any better.

[–]1aguy01 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't understand how there isn't a fucking limit on divorce settlements. Hearing this always make me furious at our joke of a legal system.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because women don't have to marry you, and they don't want to marry you, unless you make the pot very, very sweet.

[–]Bucky_Goldstein 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This brings so much clarity to the old saying "you don't pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to leave"

Can you imagine how much crazy sex you could have with $400,000,000 dollars all spent on escorts who are 10's

[–]reason_is_why -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's why they gave it to the wife.

[–]TerryYockey 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm willing to bet that if their genders had been reversed, the outcome would have been very different.

[–]reason_is_why -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. If things had been different they wouldn't be the same.

[–]RedDeadRepentance 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't even know he had money like that. lol

[–]chemclouds 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am assuming there wont be anymore mel gibson movies now. Unless he finds a way around paying her.

[–]Str8tuptrollin 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly a hit man would be cheaper

[–]bh3244 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i would never pay it. i would burn everything rather than pay it.

[–]Squeezymypenisy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mel Gibson really is not that smart anyways. He got drunk and insulted a religion that many powerful people belonged too. You never lose control like that. Especially if your a celebrity. Now he's paying for all of his past mistakes. He was also told not to marry this woman.

[–]WillClickOnAnything 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only thing I learned from that is that Mel was born in America.

[–]atworknewaccount 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand what this has to do with the red pill at all let alone why it warrants the number one position.

[–]Bringyourfugshiz 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As an example to men that marriage is biased and unfair in the favor of women. That all a woman has to do is divorce a man to get half of his paycheck for the rest of his life for doing jack shit

[–]atworknewaccount 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage are 'unfair' in favor to whoever earned less in them and that's an obvious, overt part of their design. If you sit down with a lawyer and your girlfriend and sign documents stating you wish to be treated as a single economic entity I don't see how that's unfair at all. It was Mel's decision that she was worth that much when he married her and then stayed married to her for 30 years. She doesn't get earnings from his future work, just from work he did during their economic, legally enforceable, partnership. He could have never married her and she wouldn't have got anything. He could have divorced her a year after getting married, or the year after that, or the year after that, and so on, but no, he maintained that partnership the whole time they as an economic unit accrued $850mil. A stupid decision on his part but it has nothing to do with bias in the courts at all. They didn't make him get married.

[–]richardnorth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

the blue pill makes you think that marriage is some special bond between a man and woman.

the red pill makes you realize that it is a legal contract that heavily favors the woman in the event of divorce, to the point where she can have the state pillage your wealth and force you to support her indefinitely while she shacks up with her new boyfriend and avoids remarrying specifically to keep receiving alimony payments AND whereby the state will not hold her accountable for any of this BUT the state will be EXTREMELY focused on making sure that you are always paying her

  • the woman is most likely able to steal your children
  • plus women undergoing divorces are routinely coached by their lawyers to file false charges of threats from you so they can get a restraining order to throw you out of your own house (restraining orders are secretly given to women based on their word alone)

[–]busior 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...and yet she prooly had some FWB fuckbuddy when she was 20 and still hot. Sucked him of, A2M, treated her like a slut she was and she loved it

[–]SteakhouseXT 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, 7 kids and 30 years of marriage?

kind of mixed feelings, I mean the woman was pregnant for about 5 years of her life and raised 7 kids as a catholic, not to say they weren't well off but realistically I don't know how to take this.

It would seem messed up to just up and throw her out after so much, then again, the world is a fucked place and people do get dealt shit hands.

[–]Hughtub 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Half of every FUTURE CHECK? Jesus fucking christ. That's slavery. Not mincing words. How the fuck is that legal?

[–]thisgamesucks1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bitch doesn't deserve a fucking dime.

[–]Gstreetshit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This is why suicide doesn't seem like too bad of an option to a lot of middle aged guys that we think of as being in their prime.

Anyone post to r/MRA?

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If suicide is your solution for a financial setback, you are unhealthy anyway. You can always make more money.

[–]Gstreetshit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Talk to me when you get your family taken away and have crippling payments that if not met will result in jail time /debtors prison.

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Life is hard. Suicide is the easy way out.

[–]Gstreetshit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, ok. Doesn't have anything to do with mental illness or trauma. Its just simple and easy and selfish

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

“Men’s Rights Activism began as the natural response of American males to the growing threat of feminism, in much the same way that burning your house down is the natural response to the threat of ghosts. In both cases, a better solution would be to walk away and let a less emotionally fragile man deal with the situation.” - Cracked

[–]Gstreetshit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't even know what that means

[–]reason_is_why 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My take on it is that you don't kill yourself because your wife takes you to the cleaners.

"a better solution would be to walk away and let a less emotionally fragile man deal with the situation.”

[–]Ohmyqueef 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, we got some people stickin up for the team in the comments over there

[–]Hrodrik 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Was she jewish? That would explain a lot.

[–]Reddymatt1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well who's to say that she isn't entitled to the $400,000,000? She has been with Mel Gibson essentially his entire acting career, who's to say that she wasn't crucial in his role with becoming one of hollywoods biggest? Her influence in Mel Gibsons decisions and choices is likely what made him the filthy rich actor he is today, so why does she not deserve half of what she helped invent.

Sure you could look on the flip side and say, but "its so much money, why does she deserve it?" You also have to keep in mind she's been living like someone with $400,000,000 for a while now. And to take that lifestyle away even though she's obliged to it is wrong. If it were a significantly smaller sum of money, I guarantee everyone on this subreddit would be seeing the fair point in things. Another thing to look at is what is Mel Gibsons wife gonna do with her life now? She doesn't really have any skills due to marrying large, no workplace experience, and a general stigma due to being associated with Mel Gibson. So why shouldn't she get the money so she can live her life? And why does Mel Gibson deserve to be so significantly better off?

All I'm saying is, you guys see some large some of money being given to someone who "doesn't deserve it", but I see the equality and fairness this subreddit should try to amount to.

[–]2johnnight -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

She gave him 7 children and was his wife for 30 years. This should count for something. She gave him superior procreative success and probably ruined her body in the process.

I'm generally against 50/50 splits, because this is an affront to the effort of the producer. But with Mel worth 800M I would say he can afford to fork over at least tens of millions to the mother of his numerous children.

[–]DumpyLips -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Am I really reading 400 million dollars?

[–]LuciusExitius -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The $400mill is fair, they were married for 30 years. The 50% of future checks is ridiculous.

[–]Rougepellet -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

WTF! This is fucking stupid. After getting 400 fucking million dollars during the divorce, she gets half of EVERY FUTURE CHECK he receives? WHAT THE FUCK!

[–]RU_Crazy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Slightly misleading. She gets royalty checks on films produced during the marriage. If he were to go make a new movie she wouldn't receive a cut of those checks.

[–]reason_is_why -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We wouldn't want any clarity or calm thought around here! Grab the pitchforks! Kill the everything!

[–]scubar -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only way a woman will make you a millionaire is if you are already an (almost) billionaire. -Me

[–]deville05 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it sucks that a judge and jury think this is ok. I think the ex knows she doesnt deserve it but why would she deny 400 million?! I think gibson shoukd just hire hitmen to take the wife out, the judge and the jury and go out in a blaze of glory. We shall root for him. It might only cost him 5 million.

[–]retiredALPHA -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do any of you children know what a prenup is? For fucks sake, I'm done with this sub

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]retiredALPHA -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sure thing kid. ill bring it up to my attorneys when i meet them for lunch on weds

[–]Crazy3ddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you have to marry a skank wife who will divorce you to get pity? This subreddit is shit

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Too much bitching here.

When you enter into a marriage "contract" you better know the risks, for better or worse, plain and simple.

Whether she deserves the money or not is irrelevant. It's what he signed up for.

It's a sucker's bet no matter what.

[–]Tqbfjotlds1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The definition of marriage has literally been re-written in the last 30 years. Most older folks did not sign up for this contact. It is only relatively recently (10 years) that men have begun to openly discuss the ills of marriage. Heck even now, try discussing this anywhere outside this sub and a few MRA sites and you'll face a battery of feminist diatribe.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I doubt that there have been huge changes vis-a-vis the division of assets. (I'll admit that I could be wrong). Is the division of marital assets down the middle irregardless of who earned it fair? Maybe not, but it's the way that the laws are written and therefore should be taken into account when you choose to get married.

Lets face it, it's the new way of doing things. A proposal now should really be "I'll get my attorney to contact your attorney to enter discussions of a merger. Part of which we must come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with regards to the division of future assets in the event of the dissolution of aforementioned merger."

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter