Thursday, July 1, 2010

In Defense of Tiger Woods

You know, it's hard to have sympathy for a man who's been linked to seventeen women other than his wife, with three or four of those women being either confirmed porn stars or prostitutes. Actually, I don't have sympathy for Tiger Woods. I have outrage towards a system of divorce law which decrees that a woman who possesses no particular gift or aptitude beyond her looks and a uterus should be entitled to half or more of a man's earnings which directly come from his own innate abilities and the hard work which he has put into developing those abilities to fulfillment. That may seem chauvinist. It may even seem callous. But let's face reality here: Elin Woods was a swimsuit model before she met Tiger Woods, and not even an established one. She had to work as an au pair for Jesper Parnevik to make ends meet. What did she bring to the relationship? Not a lot. Women argue that they bring certain intangible qualities to marriage, and as a man, I'm all for those qualities. My relationship with my wife has improved my life immensely. I'm better as a man, but I'm not millions of dollars better. And that's all I'm saying about Elin Woods: Tiger Woods was on his way to becoming the world's first billion dollar athlete before she came into his life, and he was destined to do become that athlete regardless of her presence in his life. What argument can you make that Elin Woods improved his life to a point where she should be entitled to the $750 million she's reportedly demanding in the media? Not a lot. Let me say it again: she was a swimsuit model and au pair. If anyone benefited or increased in stature from the relationship, it was Elin Nordegren, who went from being a relatively unknown household servant and part-time model to someone with access to hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's also say what's what: Tiger Woods is a cad, albeit a once in a generation athlete sort of cad. What's more, I don't buy for a minute that Elin Nordegren didn't know what Tiger Woods was when she met him. Women know. My wife knew. She knew that I was the sort of guy who got around, and I didn't bother to pretend otherwise. She knew because I was obvious. One doesn't stay out late every night of the week pursuing the sunrise. You do it because there are plenty of women who will, even if they aren't the type of women you'd marry. What's more, my wife knew what I was after the first date. Let's just say that I didn't back off of my usual persistence of the usual goal, and while I was a rogue, I wasn't crude about it. I was charming in my own way. There's an art to seduction, and any man who wants what every man inevitably wants finds his way to that art and its mastery if he wishes to be a successful hunter. What a man realizes is just how aware women are of the tricks and the trade. Far from being naive, women are acutely aware of us and the trade that so many of us ply or attempt to ply. They can pick us out a mile away. There is no such thing as a stupid woman. Every woman I've ever met is quite aware of us, and quite gifted at their own wiles. It is for this reason that I have a problem with the idea of the woman as a victim. I have yet to meet a woman who was a victim. You see, a victim is someone who cannot fend off their attacker or flee the danger. They have no recourse whatsoever. I have known women who were smaller than their abuser, or who had relationships with men who gave our sex a bad name due to their constant philandering and lying. And yet, to a woman, each of these women persisted in their quixotic pursuit of happiness where there was none to be found. Some did it for the money or the potential promise of money later on. Their lovers were individuals who had means. Other women did it because they possessed a ridiculous need to handle a challenge. Either way, they were cognizant of their partner's proclivities and tendencies, and they persisted regardless. They could have got out, and in fact, they were aware that they should have gotten out before things became too serious. They chose not to. That's the problem I have: a man makes a choice, and he pays through the nose for it in a divorce. A woman makes a choice with implications and consequences that are entirely foreseeable due to her foreknowledge, and she's exempted from the consequences that follows and rewarded with large sums of money when a man does what he does, what she knew he would likely do. She took the risk, the foreseeable risk, and instead of bearing the consequence, she gets a reward. She didn't even make a stupid decision, because she wasn't stupid or ignorant. She knew. She knew what he was, and she chose her course knowing full well what was entirely likely to happen. And that's Elin Nordegren. She wasn't a naive girl from the country; she was a Swedish politician's daughter. Her father was a Washington bureau chief, and she was a woman who had resided in multiple countries and cultures by her twenties. She was a swimsuit model, and, given the perils of navigating those rocky and horny shoals presented by randy photographers, she was bound to have encountered a few Lotharios in her time. What's more, she's a striking woman. Even without the modeling background, Elin Nordegren had likely encountered a fair number of cads before she ran into Eldrick "Tiger" Woods. She knew what he was: an all-star multi-millionaire athlete with the world at his feet. She was with him for the better part of three years before they became engaged. Are we to believe that a man with a penchant for dalliances with porn stars, strippers, and prostitutes turned his switch off for three years? Of course not. Nordegren married her pervert and laughed all the way to the bank, and he continued racking up trophies and tournament wins. She got the benefits of being the wife of the world's most famous golfer, including access to a $20 million yacht and a bottomless bank account. One presumes that she was aware of his proclivities and perhaps lamented them, but it was only after published reports began touching on his extracurricular activities that Elin pursued him out to the driveway, golf club in hand, as he attempted to flee the scene. Which brings us to the current day: Tiger has been thoroughly pilloried in the media, and Elin came across as the hapless wife who simply did not know what her husband was up to. Really. Seventeen documented mistresses, and she didn't know? Please. She knew. She positioned herself to profit from it, and with the published reports indicating a $750 million divorce settlement in the works, she's going to be set for life for essentially deciding to enter into matrimony with a degenerate pervert. Call me what you will, but I don't think we ought to be degrading the institution of marriage further by incentivizing a woman's decision to look past the peccadilloes of her groom in order to gain the material advantages which come from matrimony. I just don't think that marriage based on fraud (his AND hers) ought to be the sort of thing one can net a gain from. In point of fact, there are a lot of things about divorce I take issue with. For starters, I think the ease of divorce essentially incentivizes a woman's decision to take a risky plunge with a Lothario or a brute. If it doesn't work out, she can always ride off into the sunset with half the property, alimony, and child support for her trouble. Why not just make community property contingent upon the property held by both parties at the beginning of the marriage? You want to see insincere marriages decline? This reform alone will cause a precipitous drop. And let's address child support, which in this country has been extended to obscene levels. A man who isn't the father of a child may be required to provide financial support for that child if the woman puts his name on the birth certificate, even with the full knowledge that he isn't the father. The courts have determined that depriving an individual of his property (money is property) in order to support a child he didn't make is just, because it's in the child's best interest. For that matter, let's take a hard look at the way in which women use child support. I've witnessed close personal friends who met their child support obligations on time, only to have their ex-wives or baby mommas send the kids over for visitation with tattered clothes. I think we should set up trusts for child support, and the mothers ought to be required to present receipts for expenditures related to childcare to receive disbursement from the trust. No more shoe shopping with the child support check. And what's more, the total on the receipt shouldn't be the total reimbursed to the woman: she should get half that amount. After all, she's responsible for half the expenses as an equal partner in the conception of the child. This works out quite well, actually. In point of fact, you might actually wind up with higher child support obligations if you work it the way that I've proposed. Half the medical bills, food bills, education and childcare bills, and the rent or mortgage associated with the particular child in question. And while we're on it, the deadbeat dads should have their assets seized and liquidated. I have no sympathy for them at all. I didn't require a prenuptial agreement with my wife. For starters, I sat her down and explained the way matters would be handled: there will never be a divorce, under any circumstances, ever. I will never cheat, I will never abuse her, and those are really the only two legitimate grounds for divorce that I can see. She agreed. In the event that she ever does, for any reason, lose her mind and manage to survive the proceedings long enough to have a divorce finalized by the state, I will give all of my assets away. She won't get a dime. I'll liquidate it all and live on the street just to spite her. What's a court going to do? Throw me in jail? Three squares a day, shelter, free medical care, and climate control, and all the while, I'm not making any money that she can collect. Outstanding. While we're married, my wife is entitled to everything. Whatever I can afford, I have no problem saying yes to. In point of fact, I'm happy to say yes. It's a measure of manhood from where I stand to be able to provide my wife with a good living and the accoutrements thereof. It's deeply satisfying to see her happy. However, I feel that way about my wife. Screw every other woman, including her if she ever ceases to be my wife. My wife is a good woman. She's a better woman than Elin Nordegren. She didn't marry me thinking I'd eventually cheat and she'd make a bundle off of my infidelity. She married me because she loved me. She knew everything about me, and decided I was a decent guy. I am. As bad as I was as a single man, and I was awful, I knew that marriage was something where my prior behavior patterns wouldn't work. What was entirely reasonable for me as a single man who always specified his non-commital attitude up front so as not to mislead women as to his intentions was very unreasonable for me as a husband. Before I got married, I lived with my wife for two and half years. We established an understanding in that time that I wasn't up to the same behaviors I'd engaged in as a single guy. With that established, we got married. She has everything I have, and I have everything she has. That's marriage. When you get divorced, you don't get to ride off into the sunset with money you didn't earn because you decided to end things based on your spouse's bad behavior, especially when that behavior was something you knew about or should have known about before marriage. Actually, you do get to ride off into the sunset with money you didn't earn, and that knowledge is probably why Elin Nordegren became Elin Woods. That's why every woman who tolerates abuse and disrespect up to infidelity before marriage still decides to go into marriage: there's a potential gain to be had if things don't go the way they want them to go. In fact, the gain is potentially lucrative in certain cases. Because our society depicts women as mythical creatures, weaker and less capable than men, they get to play the perpetual victim. The truth of the matter is that men are the hapless ones: women manipulate and coax them into one situation after another. While we get the blame for fighting the wars and waging the aggressions of history, I ask you this: why did we do such things? I'd be willing to wager that on some level, a woman was involved. We're still accountable for our actions. The one thing a woman doesn't know how to handle is a man with the word no in his vocabulary. It's too damn bad many men lack the fortitude to say no. Tiger Woods got his wife and the patina of respectability which comes with being an apparent family man and an adherent of convention. His wife will get $750 million after the better part of a decade ensconced in luxury and privilege, along with substantial child support. Both used marriage as a cover, but due to the mythic view of femininity that we hold as truth, one will elude culpability for her cynical entry into a farce. She'll even profit from it. What a wonderful way to uphold an already corroded institution.

Posted via email from momus1978's posterous