I was not sure that I wanted to write about these two issues, but since they won’t go away in my head…well that means that I should write about them.
At the beginning of the month, Vanessa Bryant filed for divorce from her husband Kobe. Twitter last night was a flitter with talk about the break up. As I read the tweets from Twitter friends and foes, I imagined Shaunie O’Neal calling Edible Fruits and asking how big a basket they can create.
Lots of things disturbed me about what I read – so much that I am not entirely sure where to start.
There was talk of Vanessa being a gold digger.
Anger that she could walk off with half of Kobe’s money
General slander about Vanessa and who the fuck was she before Kobe put a ring on it
There was a lengthy rant from someone that I follow that essentially was – no man should have to pay more than 300-400 a month in child support.
There was talk of divorce being too difficult and how it should be much easier.
I stayed out of most of the conversation….I mean what really would the point have been? Raise my blood pressure? Call some people stupid and foolish? Remind people why the fuck they are single now?
|Mr. and Mrs. Kobe Bryant in happier times|
I will bypass my discussion about 18 year old Kobe.It is irrelevant to this topic.
What I want to first talk about is….sure we can look on the outside in and place fault and judgment about how the Bryant marriage ended up in divorce court, but at the end of the day…we don’t know what the fuck happened other than Vanessa decided she wanted out.
Tossing blame at him or her is conjecture, and it is pretty much a waste of time and energy.
The idea that two people who married at 21 & 18, and lived a very public life, divorcing is not a novel concept. She stood by him through sexual assault trials, and sexual harassment lawsuits. He chose to impregnate her three times (one pregnancy did not result in a live birth), and regardless of how many other women he *may* have been with, he chose ONE wife.
The complexity that goes into deciding to end a marriage is not something that you can judge from the outside. We can try….as we always do….but only the two of them understand why it was time to leave the commitment they made to one another.
Now about her being a gold digger…..
If she is one…she is the dumbest one that I’ve seen. It doesn’t take 10 years to score a payday. I think that the anger comes from resentment that she could walk away a wealthy woman simply by fucking a baller.
Let’s talk about that shall we?
Why should Vanessa get a financial settlement? Because that is the price that you pay when you choose to dissolve a marriage. But SHE filed!!!!!!!!!!! And?
I think that so many miss the point of financial settlements when it comes to dissolution of marriage.
First the *idea* behind marriage is that the two people who enter into the civil union, will keep that commitment in tact until one of the other dies. There is a reason why ’till death do us part’ has been a part of the vows. It is not morbid, nor archaic. Marriage is not something that should be entered into without due diligence, and it is intended to be life long. When you decide to walk away from that commitment, there are consequences.
In Vanessa Bryant’s case…she was an 18 year old girl, with a high school diploma, who for the past 10 years has been a housewife, raising babies. Her husband happens to be a very rich man.
When they entered into the marriage, it was assumed that Vanessa would live that life for the rest of her life.
When the marriage ends, she will not be able to live an even comparable life to the one that Kobe has provided for her.
That is part of what financial settlement means people. That the parties who enter into the contract leave the contract *whole*.
Now it doesn’t always work out that way, and there are many ways to work around the concept, but that is how it was *meant* to be, if you don’t like it? My suggestion? Do not get married, then you need not worry about an inequitable division of property *if* you can’t be adult enough to live up to ’till death do us part’.
Sounds kind of cold…it kind of is…but divorce is simply far too simple for something so important as marriage.
Kobe should pay child support, and in the form of thousands upon thousands a month. Why?
Because Vanessa will not be able to provide the life those girls have experienced they should not have to suffer when Kobe is able to provide a method for them to maintain what they have always known.
Kobe should pay spousal support, in the form of thousands upon thousands a month. Why?
Because Vanessa in giving up the last 10 years of her life to be Mrs. Kobe Bryant, has handicapped her ability to produce for herself in society in the manner that Kobe produced for her.
You don’t have to like it….it is what it is.
But to get ‘angry’ that Kobe could lose 45 million of his 90 million contract because he is getting divorced? Stop being naive and start understanding that marriage is serious. If you are not prepared to be serious about it? Then the price you pay is the price you pay. That includes…Kobe Bryant.
The Penn State sexual scandal rages on as more victims come out of the woodwork, as we all knew they would.
This week Mike McQueary testified as prosecutors attempted to establish a prima facie case against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.
This story bothers me in so many ways, but what I want to talk about today is the persecution of everyone around Gerry, the protection of McQueary, and the witch hunt for Penn State officials.
I use the word witch hunt, not because I think that officials are 100% blameless, but because it appears that people like Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are being chased harder than the alleged pedophile who started all of this clusterfuck.
McQueary testified this week as the state wanted to prove that these two men were just as evil as Sandusky.
I am not convinced that they are. I have suspicions about their complicity, but I don’t think it is as evil as child rape. Hey that’s just me though.
When the two were first accused of cover up, it was mentioned that the ‘punishment’ for Sandusky after McQueary gave his report of what happened, was to take his keys away and inform them that he could no longer bring children onto campus.
Knowing what we suspect we know now (I have to say suspect because Sandusky has not been convicted of any crime) – that punishment seems light. Yet, when you watch the McQueary testimony evolve and change over the weeks, it should make you wonder IF what he said to Paterno and others is what he’s said all along.
I am not convinced and I am not understanding how a man who walked away from a child rape gets so much protection and acceptance.
This man’s testimony has changed from the first grand jury report released to his testimony this week, and we are supposed to believe that he walked into Joe Paterno’s kitchen a decade ago and said I saw Gerry ass fucking a little boy?
I don’t buy it. I don’t know why anyone else does either.
It is not logical that so many OTHER people acted in such a cavalier manner when told about the rape of a ten year old boy, yet McQueary is the stand up guy who we should all pay attention to?
If he reported a rape that he walked away from, why is HIS credibility not in question?
If he says what his *new* testimony says he did, was see Gerry in the shower, and suspected that something sexual may be happening….he still walked away from it…and his credibility should STILL be in question.
How many of you in that situation McQueary described this week….seeing in a mirror Gerry and a 10 year old kid bent over and naked in a shower, after hearing what sounding like the rhythmic slapping of skin on skin as if two people were having sex….how many of you would walk away after seeing even that?
How many of you would leave that child in that situation?
Yet McQueary did, and we are expected to accept that his moral character is what we should judge Penn State officials on? I have issue with that.
What is much more logical?
McQueary told Paterno and others …. I saw Gerry in the shower with a kid.
It is that kind of statement that gets the reaction of Joe Paterno who simply tells his boss.
It is that kind of statement that prompts school officials to ban Gerry from campus and take away his keys.
Yet McQueary insists that he said:
“McQueary said he had stopped by a campus football locker room to drop off a pair of sneakers in the spring of 2002 when he happened upon Sandusky and the boy in a shower.
He said Sandusky was behind the boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years old, with his hands wrapped around the boy’s waist. He said the boy was facing a wall, with his hands on it.
McQueary said he has never described what he saw as anal rape or anal intercourse and couldn’t see Sandusky’s genitals, but that “it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on.”
It’s not logical and its not adding up for me….then again neither does child rape.