Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Mills and the Feminsts

Agog makes good points about the SRL side.

Media made comment about the character of Mills - as did judge.

BUT - How much is she entitled to?

OR - How much profit out of the marriage should she have?

After all - being fully supported etc, etc.

Is there an idea that she should PAY SOME MONEY BACK?

Or is she such a victim (the leg, the charities, the horses, the children (what about the poor children)) that show she does not have to support herself and gain HUGE amounts of money.

Oh well  (A LIST!):

1) He has lots of money.

2) He's a man and deserved it.

3) That' the way the law is.

4) She is a bad women - I would never do that to you.

5) She is ENTITLED to something because…?

6) It doesn't happen here because the law is different.

7) The judge made errors in law.

8) She will suffer because of the media (BRING ON the 2 MILLIONS).

9) It's not relevant to US.

10) It's all about THE CHILDREN (and the nannies and the horses).

11) He shouldn't have married her in the first place (stupid man).

12) Some women lose money as well you know (as if that makes it OK ) GO GIRLS YOU!

13) Stop being an angry man.

14) What's the problem - you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

15) Men made the law - men are stupid.

16) It's a male judge - men are stupid and deserve what they get (Ha,Ha).

Does this judgement for Heather Mills encourage other women to marry a rich men and milk them for support - essentially reducing women to golddiggers and whores?


[Moderator modified to remove smartarse nonsense and an "ALL" statement about women that bordered on sexism (negatively stereotyping a birth group).]

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
The above post has been to moved this area because it is off original topic.

The poster has been informed and now warned on multiple occasions not to hijack topics or the general thread of posts or to continue sexism style postings (sections of his original post had been edited out because of this reason).

The original topic sought to deal with Mills poor performance as an SRL and some others posters have either continued this theme or added some humour to her performance, it was never 'about' her Court performance being in any way connected with feminism.

To start a post and then immediately deviate into a thread of whether the feminists think the award was justified is too say the least highly disingenuous and a blatant attempt to move the topic in an entirely different direction.

To ask feminists for their views on the settlement appears very immature. No doubt there are very aligned feminists that read the site but to 'hope' they would start engaging in responses which would only provoke more hard rhetoric is at best engaging in Mills 'lack of reality' Of course a slanging war would not be permitted on this site.

The post starts off with another challenge to moderators (which has been deleted).

At the same time the poster also made another post and inserted the comments 'insane moderator' and this post had that comment removed. This is not the first time this poster has inserted this type of comment in a general post.

So to this poster

Stay on topic
Do not attempt to hijack threads
Stop making off hand 'challenge' comments about the moderators
Discontinue your sexism on this site

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets