For centuries there has been inequality. From the moment the first factory opened and the husband went off to work an assembly line leaving the wife at home to cook, clean and raise the family there were serious problems. But they haven't gotten better, not one iota. Instead of finding real life solutions for the women of society their squeaky wheel approach to change has resulted in inequality all around.
There's no getting around it. Anywhere the "Old Boys Network" remains, and it remains anywhere men are allowed to pee in gender segregation, the fight is waged, in quiet, behind backs, to retain some vestage of power against the women. Meanwhile the women have been on a full frontal assault reducing whereever possible the ability of men to speak freely, decorate their workstations with any pictures of interest, pictures that remind them of fun and freedom. All in the name of protecting sensibilities, political correctness.
This article isn't about PC, that's for another time. What's got me going today is the recent news story of Toronto Dominion Bank boss Daniel Marinangeli, who was just recently ordered by the courts to split profits with his ex-wife that he made AFTER their divorce was finalized. AFTER!
We understand that half the money earned, half of everything earned during the marriage should be split, we accept that unless a prenuptual agreement was signed that half of what was owned before the marriage should be split if they divorce but the very idea that former spouses can now go after money earned following the divorce is wrong!
It reduces the male of the species to nothing more than sperm bank and a pocket book.
Never mind that maybe the reason he was able to get so wealthy was because she was no longer there to interfere in his investments, was no longer around to pressure him to take things conservatively. Never mind that being free of such pressure he was able to gamble and it paid off. Millions gamble regularly and lose everything, where's the former spouse then?
The child support deal set at the time of divorce is quite the binding agreement, if he goes bankrupt and doesn't have enough money he still has to pay at the same level, its his problem, not hers. Why then if he goes the other way, becomes fabulously wealthy does he have to pay more?
This is more of a worry when he isn't living with the child, does not have the right to decide where the child goes to school and cannot stop the mother if she decides to move across country so that his visitation rights are cut off. Even if she takes the child half way around the world he still has to pay!
Is this a trend that is going to reverse itself? Unlikely. The Justice who made the determination was male. The courts are not interested in the reproductive rights of men offering them nothing even remotely equal to the rights woman have to abortion.
In the category of financial rights men come a far and distant second.
The woman can completely ignore any responsibility for getting pregnant, confident in the knowledge that she can sue the man for child support and get a health portion of his earnings no matter how hard he works.
The woman has the sole ability to decide to carry the child to term or abort it, the man has no legal input at all on this issue. Additionally case after case is showing the woman has the sole right to give the child up for adoption while the man has no ability at all without her consent.
The woman can abort the child because she doesn't want the bother of it for any reason whatsoever, the man has no method legally to remove himself from financial responsibility even if he knows the child isn't his. That's right guys, you can be made to pay for a child that isn't yours if at any time you were the "acting" father to that child. Fun huh?
And women wonder why men are skittish about committment. Here's a real good reason ladies, some of you don't play nice and you're winning the game!