Why Divorcing Women Seek Revenge

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I can't understand why you bothered to post here. Misogyny is 2 blocks down on your left.

LC of CA 8:46PM July 11, 2008

Whe I was was experienceing my divorce, I was surprised to find out the entire process, while emotional for the invloved parties, is merely the finiacinal disolution of a contract. Like if the parties were no longer business partners. The state wants the parties to divide up the assets and the debts. That can be acheived by mediation as one person suggested, BUT lawyers better check to make sure the money part is fair and that the children are cared for.
In Brinkley's case, the division looks like this: Christie gets the kids, the houses, and whatever investments. Her husband gets a chunk of change, visitation with the childrem, and NO MORE SEX INFO COMING OUT IN COURT. In other words, he did not have enough bargaining chips to get more of the assets, and who knows about the debts.
Christie would not have been able to get most of the assets if her husband had led a cleaner life.
And yes, in most of the divorces I have knowledge of, both adults want to hurt each other by getting more money. I'm glad it worked to Christie's benefit. Most women don't fight hard enough for what is best for them.
And don't worry so much about the kids--they will be hurt and upset no matter who has the most money, and they may forgive their dad when they are older--look at Chelsea Clinton.

BT of NY 6:54PM July 11, 2008

I am actually offended that you feel that these women are " rather women seeking to protect their assets and children's financial future, which men so often want to take from them."
As a man, I could really care less about a women's assets, I am a self made hard working man who as worked for everything I ever attained. I don't believe in allomony in either direction. Get a job and move on. And if you can't afford to take care of your kids, you should not have sole custody anyway, you are unfit. But when it comes to kids, anything less then equal/shared custody is a crime, and every man should fight for it. 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!" Women don't have a monopoly on there offspring, and to assume they do is purely sexist.
I don't believe any marraige should end in divorce but when it does, act like adults, and the division should be fair. Brinkley so far has had a one way argument. We have yet to find out why her husband left her, maybe she is impossible to live with and was a horrible wife??? And with actions like this, she doesn't seem to be too balanced.

dudeasp of CT 3:53PM July 11, 2008

There were just three trials in Boston for husbands during one month in the same courthouse . Two killed their wives and one killed the ex's new boyfriend.All were found guilty
So I tend to think the male versions of revenge is far more deadly than the womens JUSTIFIED anger at being betrayed.

Mary of MA 3:41PM July 11, 2008

As a 49 year old female with 3 kids (2 with disabilities) I can relate to Christie Brinkley's frame of mind. Three years ago I found out that my husband had been having an affair while on the road (he had a job where he constantly traveled to a client).
The feeling you get when you've been cheated on is one of lowered self esteem. And I think it's different for women. Women tend to have a more traditional view of the meaning of sex - there is actual deep meaning in it. Men on the other hand are stuck in the physical - sex is needed because they need to feed a physical urge.
Christie Brinkley tried to settle before but Peter Cook wanted some custody of the children and some money - Christie apparently had suffered enough and needed to let it all out. It's probably therapeutic for her knowing she has ruined his reputation. And as for the kids, they are resilient. With alot of counseling, they will get over it.
I say to Christie "You go girl!"

Cathy K of MO 2:42PM July 11, 2008

I beleve that Ms. Brinkley did what she thought was in the best
interest of her children. Was the info that was brought out trial really anything new? Anything that hadn't been printed
in the press prior to trial? I doubt that any mother would want
her children influenced by a man of questionable moral character.

k.jensen of PA 2:15PM July 11, 2008

ent through a 17-year divorce litigation with a wife, out for revenge. It completely destroyed my business and income and now in my 70's I am no longer able to recover from poverty. My 'Ex' went through five attorneys seeking revenge after I refused to reconcile with her in the early stages of our separation, firing every attorney, who suggested to settle, costing me $3.7 Million Dollars in legal fees. Our children suffered who she used as pawns in the fight. She continuually pushed for about double of what I actually possessed putting on a convincing show for the Court with lies and lots of tears.
My divorce attorney tells me that it is not uncommon for many divorcing women to be so consumed with their desire for revenge that they blindly destroy their own financial welfare in the process.

Gus Weston of CO 1:53PM July 11, 2008

REVENGE OR JUST PATHOLOGIC NARCISSISM.....
The only winners are the Lawyers!

Jesus 11:22AM July 11, 2008

The first poster makes a good point about this article being gender biased. The author speaks of athletes in training having similar brain activation as those in the midst of "stick it to 'em". This is obviously not just a "woman's" thing.
As far as Christie Brinkley is concerned, both she and we would be better off if the details of her divorce were undisclosed.
Same with every other high-profile person and all the soap opera plots too. As society, we are far too nosy and it doesn't make us better people.

Daniel David of 9:56AM July 11, 2008

I'm offended that this article is gender biased. Often it is not women seeking revenge, but rather women seeking to protect
their assets and children's financial future, which men so often
want to take from them. I can't speak about the Christie Brinkley case, but I do believe the "average woman" must protect her financial future andh her children's if possible. It is well established that men still have higher salaries and have higher rates of pay, faster than women. Women who lose earning power in the work force because they have stayed at home with their children must consider this during a divorce because they will be at a financial disadvantage. Divorce/single women are a primary cause of children living in poverty. While mediation is the best option, it doesn't always work. So for women who have the resources to fight, the end result may be well worth the effort.

Lola White of NE 8:22AM July 11, 2008