Why Divorcing Women Seek Revenge

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I've been thinking a lot lately about Christie Brinkley's divorce. I think, in some ways, it is about time that we witnessed a divorce that isn't so easy. She lives in New York, which forces you to prove that you have grounds to file divorce based on the fault of your spouse. Four of the "grounds" are based on the "fault" of one of the parties cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment for one or more years, imprisonment for three or more years, and adultery. I honestly think that is how every state should be. Every other state just lets you divorce for "irreconcilable differences" and because it is quicker and easier, that is what everyone files under. It's so easy to get divorced for no reason that tons of people even get divorced for no reason. It's terrible. I guess I'm weird, but I long for the good old days where if someone displayed horrible judgement and a lack of morals to such an extent that they were willing to throw away their family, that they actually had to own up to it in a court of law with witnesses and everything and get judged accordingly. I think it's awesome that Christie was able to say things along the lines of, "He doesn't have good judgement. He doesn't have good morals. He shouldn't have legal decision making abilities with children or extended visitation of them. Clearly if he was willing to risk losing his family, his family didn't mean that much to him." Nowadays the cheating spouse gets to have their cake and eat it too. They get to screw around on their spouse, not care enough about their children to have any good judgement, force their wife to be the one to file, have no one find out about what they did, and then get a lot of the same parental rights as a good parent who wasn't displaying behaviors that showed his family meant so little to them that he was willing to risk everything. It just makes me angry. It's so disgusting. I am glad that he had to face consequences for his actions. I am glad the whole world knows what he did. If he really cared about what was best for his children, he wouldn't have done those things to begin with. It's a little pathetic that he is trying to use his kids and what is best for them to protect himself from bad publicity after clearly showing he DOESN'T care about what is best for them. If a father wants to care about what is best for his children, he has to do it ALL THE TIME. It's horrible that we're judging her for making this public when he knows what state he lives in and he knows he had children and he did that stuff anyway.
I really think it's time we stop making divorce as "cotton candy" as it has become. I do not believe she is vindictive. He made his choices, now he has to deal with the outcome. There is nothing vindictive about that.

me of CT 2:25PM July 15, 2008

please, you people are simply out of touch with reality (just like most women). who have these ideas in your head of what you are entitled to and at any cost try and acheive that. most, not all, woomen would benefit from conseling after a divorce, they are far weaker when it comes to dealing with emotions.
i just hope women can muster some sense of self-awareness when it comes time to divorce and realize thier roles in the situation.
but people, think of the children first....

bill clinton of PA 1:31PM July 14, 2008

I have an axe to grind...
Why let the any authority sanction one's love, association? If there is shared resource it should be named. If there is children, it should have been planed. And why have children any way? The world need more people?
Why promise to forever when the rate of divorce is +50%? We grow and change and so the heart and love can change. We do not need to be with each other forever. Very few can do that. Treasure the time and magic when one is happy. Depart when it end, when there is nothing more to say.

Isthatright of CA 1:02PM July 13, 2008

I think most of the comments here completely miss the point: "getting even, while it may yield short-term satisfaction, usually leads to more harm than benefit by triggering a tit-for-tat that escalates the situation."
Learn to forgive. You, your ex, and your kids will all be better for it.

Eric Hamilton of UT 5:33AM July 13, 2008

Dr Wayne Dyer suggests that the spouse with the assests (power) give more than what the other spouse needs/wants. Then lawyers don't make fortunes on our miseries, the children are protected, time/life is saved, peace is found sooner, healing is done sooner, peace on the planet is found sooner.

Michael of FL 8:04PM July 12, 2008

I completely agree.
I'm going through a divorce right now where it was my wife that cheated on me. I am taking on all the responsibilities of debt, mortgage, cars, etc., and allowing joint custody of the children. She is still complaining that I'm just "kicking her to the curb."
That mentality that women are owed something when a marriage disolves is ridiculous at best.
Get a job, get a life, leave it alone...for the kids if not for me.

Jon of TX 7:53PM July 12, 2008

Having been through a crazy divorce (short marriage, no children, no real estate) where my wife was earning more than me (both 6 figures, so neither of us were hurting financially), I can tell you that the legal process of divorce needs to be overhauled. In my opinion, the type of system that exists, at least in New York State, encourages both parties to seek revenge. The need to legally place blame in order to be granted a divorce, as well as the lack of a state-run mediation service, ends up with fights in lawyer offices.
What should have been a simple divorce for me and my ex turned into one year of fighting and both of us each spending $30,000 + on lawyers.
I believe that men and women can both be inclined to seek revenge. I don't know enough about the Brinkley-Cook case to comment about either of them.

Name Withheld By Request of NY 7:39PM July 12, 2008

As a divorce lawyer for many years, let me tell you that feelings of revenge are extremely common, particularly when children are involved. The wife, who usually has custody of the children, will often go to great lengths to interfere with the father's right of visitation. On more than one occasion a divorced wife has said to me, "Do I have to let him see MY children." Making it necessary to remind her that the father was involved in their creation and continues to have rights to the children.
The husband, on the other hand may do anything, such as risking going to jail or abscounding in order to avoid making payments of alimoney or child support.
"I don't care what they do to me, I'm not giving her a dime," is not infrequently heard in a lawyer's office.
Tragically, of course, the children are the ones who really suffer in these situations. Unfortunately, these situations may often go unreolved.
In recent years States have been much more aggressive in enforcing owed payments, hel[ing things, somewhat.
jaxshark
{the lawyer from Jacksonville)

JOEL KAUFFMAN of FL 7:22PM July 12, 2008

>> And this business about "dead-beat dads". I would ask how many women would like to pay thousands of dollars a year to your ex-spouse and not have any custody rights. Thats like "taxation without representation!"
I'd go one step further and call it modern day slavery.

me of WI 7:18PM July 12, 2008

Any man stupid enough to get married deserves having all of his assets stripped from him immediatly, even without a trial, and given no consideration whatsoever. At this point marriage for a man has a danger equivalent to diving with sharks, but in the case of the sharks there is a chance that evolution will take hold and disallow the man from further propagating. Divorce in its current form is helping amputate the gangrenous limb that marriage has become, if anything it should become more severe for men to accelerate this process.

Bink Dibble of IA 6:58PM July 12, 2008