When Michael Jordan finally split from wife Juanita Vanoy in 2006 -- the couple had filed for divorce once before in 2002 but reconciled soon after -- it cost him $168 million, the largest celebrity divorce settlement in history, according to Forbes.
Casper said...
Clarification.... It's the system that enables a scorned woman the opportunity to dig deep into the breadwinner's pockets. The system doesn't promote marriage with such laws. Secondly, I wonder what the law is when a couple is 10million in debt and getting a divorce. Does the woman have to contribute half to pay the creditors? by court order that is? When children are involved then trust should be setup for them as I have seen many ex wives pushing 6 figure whips and Gucci bags off the monthly payments intended for the kids.
Casper said...
Clarification.... It's the system that enables a scorned woman the opportunity to dig deep into the breadwinner's pockets. The system doesn't promote marriage with such laws. Secondly, I wonder what the law is when a couple is 10million in debt and getting a divorce. Does the woman have to contribute half to pay the creditors? by court order that is? When children are involved then trust should be setup for them as I have seen many ex wives pushing 6 figure whips and Gucci bags off the monthly payments intended for the kids.
53 comments:
Come on, Juanita had been around for more than 20 years and endured the public humiliation of his infidelity for most of that time. She was with him well before he was Michael Jordan with six championship rings. Let's not lump her in with some of these other women we've heard about. I'm not in Chicago, but I didnt read anywhere about Juanita defaming him or dishing dirt with all the salacious details. She could have done that, but she didnt. Leave her alone. He aint hurtin.
All could have been avoided if he had chosen to honor his marriage. You really thin Juanita was trying to leave Jordan?!
"Come on, Juanita had been around for more than 20 years and endured the public humiliation of his infidelity for most of that time. She was with him well before he was Michael Jordan with six championship rings. "
OK.
Good point.
Give her $10.2 Million.
What's the rationale for the other $156.8M?
If a man voted for Bush, he has no right to complain about his regime.
Similarly, if a man marries a woman, he has no right to complain about the divorce settlement. Guys know what they are in for. They are just so nutless these days that they can't say no to a woman. You get hitched now, you deserve what you get.
This:
"All could have been avoided if he had chosen to honor his marriage."
I wonder how much of the $168 million the lawyers got.
Fair enough to Robyn's point that Jordan should have honored his marriage, but one must wonder whether Mrs. Jordan was also honoring the marriage. It's a 2-way street. A woman can't be a bitch at home, not put out, nag the hell out of a man, then act surprised when he strays.
But with the way the law is structured, for $168 million, I'd bet there are women encouraging their husbands to be unfaithful. That's one hell of a payday.
Come on yall.
A little more discernment please.
You are mistaking Juanita Jordan for Ana Nicole Smith and on her behalf, I'm offended.
Must I list the differences. I hope not.
And, DV, I'm suprised. As well as you claim to know women, you think Juanita dont love MJ's cheatin' ass -- to this very day. Come on. This isnt a woman looking for a pay day, "being a bitch and a nag" as a means to an end. I dont know Juanita, but I know black women. This is a wife who finally had to accept the reality of her husband's (repeated) adulterous decision making.
Yall really are making sideways suggestions about this woman for no good reason at all.
And aint nobody said shit about MJ's stankin ass.
No one's making sideways suggestions about her personally. We're talking about a system that places a monetary value on infidelity.
This is similar to the crass monetization of the workers comp system. They have tables that value how much you get if you lose a thumb, a leg, an arm or whatever else.
In family law, they might as well have tables that say how much you get if there is adultery, how many times it has to happen to get bonus awards, etc. It's crass.
Indeed, even calling it "family" law is a misnomer since it is singularly designed to destroy families, pit men against women, encourage the most dysfunctional, childish behavior and make divorce a lottery payday for women. It's sick.
Just so that I'm clear, is this commentary on "the system" or Juanita Jordan?
"Fair enough to Robyn's point that Jordan should have honored his marriage, but one must wonder whether Mrs. Jordan was also honoring the marriage. It's a 2-way street. A woman can't be a bitch at home, not put out, nag the hell out of a man, then act surprised when he strays."
It is indeed a comment on the system Robyn.
Apparently, the only relevant question is whether he was faithful, with absolutely no question about her role in the marriage.
That, in and of itself, lets you know how the system is designed to function. It doesn't matter what she was or wasn't doing to keep up her end of the bargain. And no one even dares ask the question.
ALL women go straight for the pocket book when it divorce time. ALL OF THEM. I have a friend whose wife walked out on him to live with a white boy and she dug in HIS pockets as she left.
Jordan's wife is 7 years older than him and she got pregnant by him when he was leaving college just so she could get a meal ticket.
Jordan is the greatest basketball player in history - it's his divine right to have fun while on the road...
@ the state of....
"Jordan is the greatest basketball player in history - it's his divine right to have fun while on the road..."
You can't be serious!! I'm aghast ;)
I wrote about this a little bit over at my blog.
http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/2008/06/golden-vagina.html
State Of
When do women earn the right to sleep around on their husbands? What do they have to accomplish in life?
Clarification.... It's the system that enables a scorned woman the opportunity to dig deep into the breadwinner's pockets. The system doesn't promote marriage with such laws. Secondly, I wonder what the law is when a couple is 10million in debt and getting a divorce. Does the woman have to contribute half to pay the creditors? by court order that is? When children are involved then trust should be setup for them as I have seen many ex wives pushing 6 figure whips and Gucci bags off the monthly payments intended for the kids.
Big Man,
Stop thinking like a feminist. Women never earn that right. They don't want that right.
Don’t’ get it twisted…Juanita was originally a groupie just like all of the other hungry heifers trying not to work and looking for a ballers’ bone. The difference at the time...they (i.e. coaches, agent, etc...) thought it was good for Mike’s 'image' to marry her. Hence why they married suddenly in Las Vegas because she was ALREADY pregnant. Now maybe over time they tried to make it as a loving family (or she realized this nucca is going to the top for real…= more babies!), but best to believe, their relationship started out just like all the other ball players...she was just a little bit wiser on how to play the game...hence $168 million and no jump shot! I am not hatin’ at all. Hey, she got “game” and he got “got”. Hoe…housewife…author (a tell-all book…only a matter of time).
"This is a wife who finally had to accept the reality of her husband's (repeated) adulterous decision making."
Finally? She knew what she was in for when she chose to marry a 6'6" Black pro-baller.
If she wanted a faithful man, she should have married some non-name IT hacker.
"when a couple is 10million in debt and getting a divorce. Does the woman have to contribute half to pay the creditors?"
Of course not! Feminism only gave women the same rights as men...NOT the same responsibilities!
Anyhow, seeing how the system is totally skewed against men - MJ should NOT have knocked her up and NOT have caved in and married her. Because when you say I DO, you are not saying I DO to the woman - but the feminist-rigged LEGAL SYSTEM. And agreeing to have them run YOUR show.
And now he's paying the PRICE for his WEAKNESS.
Men are the biggest cowards in this country when it comes to women. They have no problem fighting Arabs for oil or 7-footers on court...but pit them against a 5'3" homo sapien with a crack between her legs and all of a sudden they melt like jello.
"She knew what she was in for when she chose to marry a 6'6" Black pro-baller."
Black pro-baller or just a pro-baller?
Moreover, you need to get some therapy. I doubt she is aware that she hurt you so badly. We all arent her.
^ Young black men have substantially higher numbers of sexual partners
Race IS a statistically-significant factor here.
And what does MJ losing the shirt off his back have to do with me and your drive-by pop psych?
You can label me all you want (lol), but the fact remains that even hoop god MJ is not immune to getting pwned by a woman in this country. Facts are the facts. And had he listened to my advice, he wouldn't be in the jam he's in now. With totally no leverage and at the utter mercy of all those man-hating feminist legislators.
Fact is, society has railroaded men into being the fall guy for any legal relationship gone belly-up. Women just want to hide that fact and men are too insecure to admit it (lest they get "shamed" as bitter guys who got "hurt" by someone *yawn*). The typical response from a woman threatened by someone calling out the BS feminist-rigged system and waking men out of it.
Is race a significant factor here or his millions that resulted from his status of a pro-ball player. Its hilarious when folks attempt to prop up racist banter with "statistics."
Drive by pop psychology?! How about an ability to read. How about even Helen Keller could detect your disdain for women. You spew it with every comment and then rebuff those who pick up on it. GTFOOH!
And as for your advice, MJ did follow it if I'm not mistaken. He showed no regard for marriage and had probably hundreds of causal sexual encounters. Isnt that what you propose?
Now the man is out 168 million, likely emotionally stunted and subject to the wraths of no less than 3 crazy broads that "he had the balls not to marry." Who you think is more ruthless and out for dough Juanita or this broad?
http://mjordanmistress.blogspot.com/
"Is race a significant factor here or his millions that resulted from his status of a pro-ball player"
Both.
"disdain for women"
There are plenty I love. But, many in this country do deserve to be disdained. Go listen to any rapper on ho'z...clearly I am not alone on this, either.
"your advice, MJ did follow it if I'm not mistaken. He showed no regard for marriage and had probably hundreds of causal sexual encounters. Isnt that what you propose?"
Nope. If you're going to be a player, then don't get married. If you live in the US gynocracy and are dating a Feminist-American woman - then don't get married either.
"3 crazy broads that "he had the balls not to marry.""
Well, he sure as hell isn't paying $168 mil to each of those.
Look, you're grasping at straws here. Men are waking up. You girls better start sweetening the deal for marriage, cuz we ain't buying into that bullshit no mo.
FACT IS, MARRIAGE BECAME OUTDATED WHEN WOMEN STOPPED SAVING THEIR V-CARD FOR THEIR WEDDING NIGHT TO THEIR FUTURE HUBBY. That was one of the PRE-REQ's of marriage. And if THAT'S outdated...then so is MARRIAGE! You can't gut the entire contract and then still expect the pretty ceremony and pay-off.
Marriage is now as outdated as non-premarital sex and virgin brides.
Well, he sure as hell isn't paying $168 mil to each of those.
Nope just 10 million to his lawyers each time one gets out of pocket, gets pregnant, or hell, sues him. In time, he'll be out just about the same amount.
You listen to Tom Lykus dont you B?
Who's the woman he was cheating with?
Here's how I see it:
I believe the original intent of divorce settlements focused on protecting women financially. Long ago, a woman could (and often did) put her blood and sweat into a home but could be destitute if the man (provider) left..
And in general, I see that as a way to assign monetary value to "sweat equity" and intrinsic value. Face it. If a woman gives up her career to raise the family, tend to the home, or to help her husband build a business/brand, compensation is in order.
But women now have excellent opportunities to build successful careers. And divorce proceedings seem to underplay the woman's earning potential and overplay the monetary value of revenge.
Instead of divorce settlements that ensure a woman can start over after receiving fair value for her part in the marriage (e.g. building a business, etc), it seems the final price tag is meant to relay, "You don't know who you're messing with, honey."
As a woman, I can admit that the system is largely skewed to favor the "jilted" wife. But that isn't entirely a legal problem. The circumstance also says a lot about the two people who are divorcing - aka the two supposedly mature adults who can't negotiate a fair split.
Hawa dropped some since.
And to the other cats, I'm not thinking like a feminist, I'm thinking like a Christian man. I don't think God thinks it's ok to violate the sacred trust that is marriage. If you do, you will suffer consequences in this life or the next. Mike is paying the price now. The idea that his wife should have been ok with him banging random broads is ludicrous. And the idea that marriage is outdated because women are no longer virgins is stupid as well. Back in the day, both men and women were expected to remain virgins until marriage, trifling cats just changed up the rules because they were too hard. Now women have done the same, and cats are bitching. That's a lame move.
damn
I know a chick who had sex with MJ on numerous occasions and she is HOTTER THAN HOT. I mean, this chick could stop traffic in a pair of sweats and a tee shirt. How could he resist that in every city for 20 years??
The same way he would resist gambling and alcoholism.
Oops, guess not.
I'm thinking like a Christian man. I don't think God thinks it's ok to violate the sacred trust that is marriage.
And the idea that marriage is outdated because women are no longer virgins is stupid as well
Uh, if you're a "Christian" man, then you would know that premarital sex IS ADULTERY and a VIOLATION of the sacred trust that is marriage. There's NO COMPROMISE there - that's straight outta the Bible.
And no, no one said that was easy. But neither is marriage. And if you can't pass the test of abstaining until marriage, then you won't be able to pass the marriage test either. That test is not stupid - just look at the divorce stats these days.
Point is, if you marry a non-virgin woman, you are upping your chance of divorce (75% of which are filed by women now, btw).
And if you marry a big Black pro-ball player, well...you know damn well what goes with that territory...
BTW, looks like MJ had the pink fever. Don't think he ever touched a woman darker than a band-aid. :D
State of:
Jordan is the greatest basketball player in history - it's his divine right to have fun while on the road...
That is male chauvinism at its highest. It is Juanita who 'got herself?' pregnant and I guess by doing so...trapped him into marriage and then at the same time it is his divine right to have sex with other women? GTFOH!!
Your statements reinforce why this family law system WORKS and I applaud the situation. It has been proven that women who are single or divorce are in poverty at rates SIGNIFICANTLY higher than married women. Especially when there is a child(ren) involved, why should a woman (and the kids) have to go live in a one bedroom apartment because her man decided to dog her out? I am for a lot of the 'family values' that both you and DV purport in your blogs...but this is random ridiculousness and your statements reinforce the need for feminism!! Women AND Men deserve to be honored equally it is not a one way street where the man can do whatever and the woman just has to grin and bear it or live a lifestyle bordering poverty because of her husbands indiscretions. While obviously not all cases involve adultery, the reality is that a man(statistically) with a wife earns more money and is more successful than a man who is unmarried. Therefore, the fact that he is married and benefited as a result of that means that he should break bread on those benefits to the woman who helped him get there.
Props to Big Man for being a man of integrity and conviction. Wish there were more of you out there instead of the ones that peg their fidelity as directly proportional to their options.
“Funny, seems like men always get free passes in these conversations but women don’t. " Lulu
Pass?
Free?
Who?
Jordan got some nookie and it cost him $168 M.
For cats who aren't millionaires and get caught, they've got to pay the price of a scorned woman on their hands. Lord knows that shit is a drag.
Nah. Aint nothing free about it.
Understanding the impulse and endorsing it are two different things.
The ridiculous notion that a woman should leave her man because of sexual indiscretion is some relatively modern PC bullshit that has been drummed into women's heads via Soap Opera's and Oprah.
Abandoning your marriage because your man stepped out, makes as much sense as abandoning your home because it was burgularized.
Change the locks. Curse him out. Move on.
Besides, if women were really all that concerned about monogamy, they would be lining up to get with men, no other women wanted.
But nah. They're standing in line at the club, half naked, 10 deep trying to pull ballers.
Before I got married, I carefully considered the propensity of any woman I dealt with for hoishness.
If I thought for a minute that her legs would be flying open the moment I turned my head - I knew she couldn't be my woman.
Big Man,
I don't get your logic: God commands us to stay faithful in our marriage, but it's OK to have sex before marriage? That makes no sense. Buffet "Christians" like yourself make me laugh.
Soteria,
What I'm saying is Juanita Jordan was planning to get money all along. And MJ is a Type A male, a big dog, the head lion, the Chief...whatever you want to call him. Men like this like to have sex with lots of women, whether feminists want to make it illegal or not.
Ghenghis Kahn (sp) had hundreds of kids. Nowadays, you're luck to find a black woman sane enough to give you two.
byrdeye said...
"And if you marry a big Black pro-ball player, well...you know damn well what goes with that territory..."
What? A big black penis?
Ya'll are sexists...plain and simple. It's ok for a man to step out because he is 'A Head Lion', but a woman who does such is a ho. Both you and DV said that you would not be down if your woman stepped out on you and not very quick to salvage the marriage...but a woman who thinks likewise is a 'scorned feminist'...
Women being hurt, emotionally scarred, and resentful about their husbands indiscretions is not a product of the 60s women's lib movement as you would have us believe. Women have always felt that way...they had just been conditioned by society to grin and bear it.
It seems what pisses you guys off is the fact that woman have now said - that is not cool, that is not what I signed up for, and if you don't want to "love, honor, respect, and foresake all others" then I don't want it. What this movement has done has dared to hold men accountable to their vows before their wives, families, and God.
Denmark Vesey said...
Nah Soteria.
You've got it twisted.
No one is condemning feminism because it 'holds men accountable to their vows...".
Feminism is condemned because it has been successful in selling the myth that men and women are perpetual antagonists, and in a state of permanent competition.
Feminism has become a wedge between men and women. A technique wielded by the elite to divide and conquer.
Instead of a man and his woman vs. the world - the contemporary paradigm is a scorned women and the court vs. her man.
You cannot MAKE a man faithful with the threat of taking his money.
The entire notion is oxymoronic.
"It seems what pisses you guys off is the fact that woman have now said - that is not cool, that is not what I signed up for ..."
No.
Not what I am saying.
I am saying sex and faith are two different things.
If your husband promises not to drink and a year later get's drunk, was he "unfaithful" or weak?
If your husband promises not to have sex with another woman and a year later screws some bimbo, was he "unfaithful" or weak?
Why would Juanita get nothing for the first scenario and $168M for the second?
The fact is Soteria, is that it is MUCH easier for a woman to be monogamous than it is for a man.
It is her nature. It is not his.
Ok, DV lets take out the payday aspect of it. Correct me if I am wrong but did you say at some point that if YOUR woman slept with someone behind your back, you'd step? Big J...did you make a similar statement?
Yes Soteria.
In a heartbeat.
Which is WHY I MADE IT MY BUSINESS to choose a woman not prone to "step out".
Now if I had married Superhead, and she INEVITABLY gave somebody some punany, I'd look like a fool crying in court talking about I wanted half her assets.
When Juanita Jordan married the highest profile athlete in the history of sports, she ... had an idea ... of his propensities.
Nah Soteria.
Quit frontin'.
If monogoamy was all that important to women, they would be chasing Nerds not Ballers.
So your assertion is that a woman who steps out is the equivalent of Superhead(a woman who slept with countless men) but a man who steps out is just a baller and it is to be expected?
So are you then asserting that the only men that don't have liberty sleep around on their women are those that are not ballers?
Additionally, if a woman finds herself with a man who at one point steps out is it because he had that propensity or was it a temporary moment of weakness...I'm confused?
LOL Soteria. I used to have exactly the same reaction to these guys. Exactly the same. "You guys are sexist, hypocrite, etc."
It took several in-person conversations for the light bulb to go on and to finally understand what they were saying.
And just as DV would have no business crying about infidelity if he married Superhead, women have no business crying and playing hurt (and getting paid for it) when they marry men who were, 10 minutes before the wedding, still running around.
Buyer beware.
If your man is a gambler, marriage in and of itself isn't going to change it. If your man is an alcoholic, marriage ain't going to change it. And if your man is a ho, marriage ain't going to change that either.
The same women who think it's hunky dory for men to go to strip clubs act like hurt puppies when hubby's watching porn at home. It doesn't add up.
A woman who marries a weak man and leaves because he is weak is like a man who marries a woman who can't cook, but then leaves and takes half because she can't cook. It makes no damn sense.
Oh ya...btw DV, slant feminism however you want to slant it...your statement above is the exact reason that a 'feminist'... I dont even like using the word...because its not feminism...it is affirming the dignity and feelings...and humanness of a woman. And demanding to be respected in the same manner that a man expects to be respected. Your claims that women should not care about fidelity and that men should is rooted in a belief in the 'less than' nature of women.
The woman's role is to be wife and mother to her man, while he fulfills random sexual desires with other women, and she is supposed to be cool with it because she got a 'baller' and not a nerd...am I understanding this philosophy correctly?
I feel you II except for one point...what if the man wasn't sleeping around before he got married...and likewise what if the wife wasn't sleeping around before she got married. One or the other got weak...made a mistake for which they are sorry...DV, Big J are ya'll leaving your wives for 1 simple error in judgement? Or even better yet, why is it an error in her judgement but not in his?
Not exactly Soteria.
I am suggesting that we have a pretty good idea with whom we are hooking up. BEFORE we hook up with them.
Just like you don't turn a ho into a housewife, you don't turn a baller into a minister.
And I am calling you out and all the Juanita's out there with your hands on your hips and your lips poked out in perpetual outrage at men.
If sobriety was the most important thing to you, you wouldn't marry a crack head.
If monogamy was the most important thing to you in a man, you wouldn't marry an Alpha male high profile, super rich ball player.
So, Sista Soteria, what women SAY is one thing. What they DO is another.
Based upon the men you all seem to want, all this talk about "monogamy" is just talk.
Or even better yet, why is it an error in her judgement but not in his?
Because women don't have penises that get hard at sights or smells that get them going and blue balls if the pressure isn't relieved. Period. It really is that basic.
For a woman to make an "error in judgment", a lot more had to happen (we'll call it foreplay). For men, it really is biological.
That doesn't make it okay by any means. But we can acknowledge the difference in biological urges.
"DV, Big J are ya'll leaving your wives for 1 simple error in judgement? Or even better yet, why is it an error in her judgement but not in his?"
Yup. Why? Because it's faaarrr worse. Why?
1) If a woman cheats...
A man is always in danger of paternity fraud and cuckolding a bastard baby.
But a woman never has to worry about maternity fraud, as she always knows she's the mama.
2) Women are more naturally susceptible to STDs.
So, that's why a woman cheating or slutting around has traditionally been far worse than a man doing the same. It's based on actual biological factors.
Ya'll are a trip with that...
Society has conditioned men that they are not responsible and have no self control. That is a dangerous 'meme'. EVERYONE has the ABILITY to exercise self control, it is just a matter of whether one CHOOSES to exercise it. Just because the tool is hard does not mean it has to go someplace!! People get a grip...if I can deal with cramps ya'll can deal with blue balls every so often! It's just a fact of life...
She said get a grip on the tool and deal with it....,
Soteria,
You miss the point. Just because one understands a phenomenon doesn't mean they condone it.
Just because I understand why people smoke doesn't mean I endorse smoking.
Once you are able to make that distinction, you won't be so reactionary to things.
That doesn't make it okay by any means. But we can acknowledge the difference in biological urges.
Not really. You've reduced these males to the equivalent of a poorly trained little dogs that cannot control their animal urges to hump a visitor's leg - and HAVE to get up in that strange just because it's there and they can.
Considering the data, perhaps that's not an unrealistic assessment of male self and impulse control.
Soteria,
If my wife slept with another man, I'd assume she has some big beef with me that she cannot get over or that she had no respect for me. I don't know what I'd do, honestly, but there would be an ass-whoopin' involved....you can take that to the bank.
No CNu. Not at all.
It's no different than a dog that needs to pee. A good trainer teaches them where to pee; how to hold it, etc.
Unfortunately, without fathers and good women training them, few dogs are learning not to pee all over the place. :-)
Do y'all lack reading comprehension?
Where did I say that fornication was ok?
It's a sin no matter who does it. What I pointed out is that y'all are on here castigating women for not being virgins while at the same time saying it's ok for a big black buck with money to fuck around.
Make up your damn minds. That's hypocritcal at its core, and I avoid being a hypocrite. Number two rule in the Bible is love your neighor as you love yourself. Which means treat folks how you want to be treated. That's what I'm talking about. go back and read what I wrote again.
And the idea that men can't be faithful is bullshit. Or the idea that we should get a pass is bullshit.
DV, you talk a lot about God on here, but I don't definitely don't see the Biblical basis for that mindset. Point out to me in the Bible where it says God thinks infidelity is not as big a deal when men do it?
Last time I checked, God said sin was sin.
Plus the shit is just cruel.
Point out to me in the Bible where it says God thinks infidelity is not as big a deal when men do it?"
OK Big Man.
After you show me in the bible where it says the price of infidelity was half a man's assets and MONEY can be used to right a wrong.
Understand where I'm coming from?
Having sex with a woman outside your marriage - and $168M are two different things.
Post a Comment