We are, of course, amazed that our readers occasionally disagree with our brilliant and witty essays. In fact, sometimes quite a few readers think that The Outrage editors are wrong, misanthropic, idiotic, selfish, deluded, or all of the above.

Mother Outrage always told us that even the dull and the ignorant should have their say, so we've allowed space below for those dissenting opinions (and for shameless flattery).

Read the 2nd set of comments about this Outrage!

Really, who cares? The issue with divorce settlements doesn't exist with filthy rich old people- they're both gonna die in a few short years way before either of their money runs out. Before all these broke male whiners go on bitching about what money-greedy sluts women are, they need to realize that in a society where it has only become acceptable for women to have a job in the last few decades, we have come a helluva long way a lot faster than our male counterparts. Divorce sucks, and without bitching, men and women both need to realize that legally, when they get married, what's one half's is the other's. That continues for the initial period after the marriage breaks up. You don't like it, don't get married or sign a prenup. Just don't BS yourself into thinking that marriages are carved in stone. If you do, you're so stupid you deserve to lose half your estate.

She's doing exactly what the LAWYER told her to do. It's the lawyers who are the prostitutes here. More money for her = more money for the lawyer. The truth and fairness never enter the picture.

if you think its tough in the states,what abt switzerland where as painful experience has shown,a wife can take any number of lovers and when the husband as always,finds out cos the wife is too stupid to hide it,and he decides to leave the home,the wife is entitled to half of everything in divorce and the law takes no account of infidelity.soemething is seriously wrong here.and know i dont think she deserves anything cos she was obviously just looking for a way to get rid of hom and get the money.

Here is the thing of it,Mrs. Redstone has no real proof of infidelity,when I go out on the town with a friend,there is a chance off hands being held,it is just simple human-to-human contact,secondly there are two prior instances where she tried to divorce Mr. Redstone,leading one to believe she really did love him or what ever ammo she had ready for the divorce was even flimsier then this piece of evidence and if she is going to ask for a divorce over hands being held,I doubt she loves the guy.Now,did she earn that money?some would say yes because she raised the children but if he was a college graduate at the time of thier marriage(a very good likely-hood being a head of bussiness) and they waited more then a few years to have children(assuming there are any) then there is a good chance that she had atleast some comfort and luxury provided to her and possibly even a nanny or a cleaning lady of some sort since it is doubtfull that he made ALL of this money in 52 years.Not a good case for asking for $3,000,000,000.Then there is the case of wether or not she deserves money for possible earnings,simply put,HELL NO!!!!She agreed to raise the kids and keep the home,she could have left him and pursued her own life if she wanted to,the most she can ask for is the pay that a nanny or maid-person would have earned over the time they where married and I really doubt it reaches 3 billion dollars.

I have a few words for you, Anna Nichole Smith. This "woman" is illitrate, did not graduate past the eighth grade and would be living in a trailer in Alabama with a degenerate jail bird if her boobs did not get her in bed with J Howard Marshall. Then this stupid divorce court gives her half a BILLION DOLLARS. If this does not prove that the laws are stacked in favor of the women, I do not know what does! This trailer trash gets in front of a jury and says that it is expensive to be her and that she is entitled to this money. This woman is entitled to a kick in the pants and a job at the local drive thru saying "may I take your order!" Fortunately the law of "A fool and their money are soon parted" will come in to effect, and Anna will be broke in no time. Same holds true for Tyson, but that is another rant.

If Mrs. Redstone is half as useless as Anna Nicole, which I doubt ANYONE could be, she still is not entitled to 3 BILLION DOLLARS. Give her 100 Million and a good investment banker and she will be fine. Take the rest of that 2.9 Billion and give it to a charity or some hungry families that really need it.

For men, I think the example above of the useless piece of flesh, Anna, demonstrates that an IRON CLAD PRENUP is the answer. Don't let that woman con you with the old "I want to be married before we have sex" crap. Or the "we are living in sin" crap. Translated that means, "I don't want to give you anything until I know I can get mine". Tell her if she will not sign a prenup, then she can get, and don't let the door hit her on the way out!!

And for all you women that are saying, "We are entitled to something too" Get a CLUE. Get your own job and your own brain and don't be a leech! There are plenty of women that I know that would be insulted by the thought of getting their money from a divorce judge. They are business women who are just as selective of their men as men SHOULD be of women. If they were divorced tomorrow with NOTHING, they would be making six figures within months. Unfortunately, too many AMERICAN women, yes it seems to be an AMERICAN problem (would explain the explosion of mail order brides), feel that they are entitled to everything and that all they need is silicone, and to spread their legs, and easy street here I come. The rest of the world looks at you as what you are, WHORES. Money for services rendered, period....

fu#@ them dont marry them

boy did my mom shure rip my dad off well I dont have to tell you who gets my respect now

Who gives a f**k about a billionaires money? Neither will be hurting no matter what. Hopefully some day one of them will starve to death.

Use the average yearly PERSONAL income of the INDIVIDUAL that wants the divorce and figure out exactly What That Person earned. That is the Fair Share.

Another one of my favorite gold digging useless sluts, is Ivana Trump. She was on life styles giving a lecture on how to be a financial success in life. She kept repeating what you have to do to be a success. And since when did she become an expert on success?; since she married a billionare?

Give her 1/2. After 52 years shes got it coming. Anyway neither could ever spend all that money and they'll both be dead before it's ever settled.

I really feel sorry for this guy. I'm sure this woman didn't do near enough in their marriage to earn even close to that about.

It's all about greed. She probably never really cared for him, just for his money. Then he, like an idiot mind you, gave her a way to get his money and rid of him.

Brilliant move on his part.. not!

And with 6 billion dollars, hell, you'd think he'd be able to kill her himself and then buy his way out of it!

I really don't think the issue is one of a prenup. What i Think needs to be considered when it comes to divorce is what role the woman played. Let's take the billionaire case. That woman obviously did nothing. I garantee that with that type of money she had no cooking or cleaning to do and since there is no mention of children I am assuming that they didn't have any. I think therefore since she did nothing, she gets nothing. On the other hand, if the woman is upkeeping the house and raising kids then she is entitled to something, what depends on how much of that housework she is doing and how much she suckers her man into doing. If he is doing most of the housework then she should get very little like 10%, if she does all of the housework, cooking, cleaning, groceries, laundry, child rearing, then yes a 50% split of what was accumulated during the relationship only should go to her. And I hardly think the billionaire made all of that money while he was married. How much did he go into the relationship with?

It seems to me that the gay men got it right about what marriage and women could do when a relationship ends. Thanks to Congress, gays are forbidden by law to marry, thus they cannot divorce. Just split and go on your way.

There have only been very very few public cases of gay couples sueing for support after a relationship ends. 99.9% of marriages end with some type of support or division of property going to the women.

Men make more money than women so having a double male income makes for a higher quality lifestyle. Most gay men that are in relationships accept that there is cheating going on. Who says that the person you cheat with cannot be a woman.

A gay male relationship gives you a person that will do all those things in bed that a woman will not do. So just close your eyes, put your hands behind your head and you'll feel like you own half of Texas while they perform. You'll never know the difference.

No property settlements. Period.

I agree wholeheartedly - the law is sooo stupid. Whether you are broke or a billionaire, everyone should consider a prenup because marriage settlements are not eqitable, but blatantly punitive! It's ridiculous.

Anybody that thinks that divorce settlements are 50/50 is an idiot! It is equable distribution. Equable distribution is anything that the judge decides.The man generally losses about 75% of everything he has ever earned. I personally know many of my co-workers and many other men, who have lost almost everything in the real world.

My favorite gold digging slut is Jackie Onassis. This useless bitch left a $200 million dollar fortune when she died; while almost never having worked a day in her life, while having lived in the lap of luxury. She had a part-time, low paying, three day a week job for the doubleday company. She also worked briefly as a photographer. Will somebody please explain how she could possibly believe that what was between her legs was worth $200 million? She ripped off every man she was ever with. When it came time for her divorce from A. Onassis, she was offered $5 million for her short term marriage. She refused and demanded $20 million! She got it! After Onassis she started a relationship with the diamond king Templeton. Again living in absolute luxury and never having paid a bill in her life. That`s how.

I mostly agre that these gold digging bitches are getting too much when the man looses about 75% of everything he has worked for. He never gets custody of the kids and on top of this he alone has to support them. They are OUR kids, not MY or YOUR kids, meaning that the woman is always excused from any financial support.

i have been in many relationships with what i like to call black widows...mrs.r is one of them just look at the proof, 1)she tried twice before but backed out,that can mean two things a- she still loved him or the more probable b- he talked her out of it or disproved whatever evidence she might have had 2)the fact that she wont settle with the comfort of having a nice life (no no she wants all this money that she knows she wont be able to spend before her death and that she also knows that she did not earn a single dime)tells me that she has been wanting this money for some time.

this is greed people plain and simple and i cheer mr.r for screwing up her scam for so many years

I have 1 word gentlemen: Pre-nup.

NO!!!!

i do not know whether women think that anyone who isn't telling their story is a misogynist.i don't really care. most of u out there have heard the saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned",well whoever coined it musta had a crystal ball which showed him the future. women have gotten bolder in their clamour for what most of them didn't work for. this woman was most probably mr.r's wife in name only.she didn't marry him when he was threadbare so those crap stories about work ,children and the like are balderdash. the truth is she feels very bad about his affair( which i by no means support).if she wins all that money ,it will be because the judge will be blind to the truth. WARNING TO ALL MEN!!!...... do not close your eyes to the character of the woman that you are marrying especially if udon't intend to die poor. mrs.r would have showed what she wuz capable of early on.however no responsible man would keep a mistress, let alone in public glare. summary : its a terrible thing to work so hard and lose it all to a sponge but the truth is mr.r's reward is being partly received on earth.i will never write in again to express my op. on stuff like this.people get a life.

I believe that when two people enter into a marriage that they become one... No one states whether or not she was a dutiful wife or how she supported her spouse from the inside of their relationship. If the Mr. broke the vows then indeed she after devoting her entire life to this man and you have to admit 52 years of marriage means something had to be given. How much? I would say depends upon the whole two sides of the story.If the law states this is how it will be if it ends, and you enter into marriage then so be it.

With $6 billion you'd think he could afford to have her killed.

Try spelling what you have to say properly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Redstone, hmm? Something Jewish about the name...It seems like one lizard is bleeding the other lizard. I don't think that the female lizard is entitled to 3,ooo,ooo,ooo spon's. The figure should be one that is sufficient to provide for a comfortable lifestyle, but not a luxurious one. In this case, the male of the species hunted the dosh with his cohorts, so at least he is in possession of it, and should keep the vast part of it. I just hope that the money will be used to do good things in the US when his estate is tax after his terribly unfortunate demise (but I don't think so.)

She deserves it. They have been married over 50 yrs. In the divorce they both win. She gets half the money and he gets half--in addition to a younger woman.

Oh for God's sake stop whinning, the woman is a genieus. She is about to leave a marriage with a billionaire who she no longer even likes and she's about to possibly make $3 billion. If I could do that I would, and you know what else I'd laugh my ass off afterwards. Oh, and by the way did any of you think about the fact that her husband will still be worth $3 billion, what in the name of God could he want that $3 billion won't cover, I mean really my heart bleeds for him.

this story just goes to show that a woman will always look out for what's best for them.if i sat and had no career and just raised the kids for my wife and i,and than she turned around and told me she wanted a divorce,i would ask for a fair amount of money.if she made 6 billion dollars and i was used to that life style and i knew i didnt put 1 dime into the that 6 billion dollars.i would ask for only a fraction of this wealth,because i would know i didnt do anything to earn that 6 billion,but women think that everything is there's.men just be lucky enough to have money and dont divorce.the money maker of the household should be entitled for at least 80%,it is only fair.people who divorce with the one partner who didnt work should be happy to get anything from the person who made the money,but half of it-no way!

I suppose it never occurred to anyone in outrage that Mr Rnever wanted nor even allowed his wife of 52 years to work outside the home so she most likely never learned a trade or had a carreer of her own. And even if she did, it would be too late to pursue it now. She most probably had his children, stayed home and took care of them while he played Mr Important. Yes, she most certainly is entittled to the lifestyle she has become accustomed to and has likely suffered years of agony for.Get over it!

My three comments are:

1) The women in the above marriage arrangements most likely gave up the right to a career, and along with it, the right to earn their own money (with the exception of example #3) in order to support their husband as he made his way up the corporate ladder.

2) When a woman is able to earn as much as a man and is not subject to discrimination which prevents her from reaching the top in the workplace as easily as a man, I will agree with you that things should change.

3) When women and men share equally in maintaining the household, and performing household chores (including entertaining), I will agree with you that things should change.

your mas a man your dads a woman you have no friends and were born in a cad.

willie smells

suck it

I was married and divorced and got half. Half of all the debt. It goes both ways.

Women have ALL the power in our marital/sexual political culture, but women's groups and media continue to portray women as victims. How can "anyone" be rewarded for what they "might" have done. "They" choose to stay home with the kids, and then if things fall apart, feel they should be financially rewarded for an infinite number of potential alternate choices. Nobody...but nobody, can predict what "might" have happened if they had chosen to do "something else". I've always wanted to stay home, but my wife won't let me! Maybe she owes me for all of those "lost" moments with my children!

Huzzah to the Outragers!

Point the First: I am REAL SURE Phyllis worked her ass off raising those kids. The most she would have done, if she even did anything, would be to sign the check to pay the nanny.

Point the Second: Half. To quote Eddie Murphy, if you had $5, and it was all you had in the whole world, and someone made you give up $2.50, you'd be darn mad. Furthermore, Mr. Murphy states (in a surprisingly concise and knowledgeable manner) that there is very little that a woman could do to deserve an outrageous sum like $3 billion. Please reference "Raw."

Thank you. That is all.

Mrs Redstone is out of her mind. Perhaps she should get out of her bed and get in bed with her husband. This might eleivate her situtation.

This is to MOT(talon6@mailcity.com)

I can see your point and have heard that argument many times before. However, you nor I fit the accepted definition of prositute just because we stay home (if you do) and attempt to carve out a happy life for our families. A prostitute sleeps with many different men and even a "kept woman" doesn't get the man's name nor does she have any recourse in the event of abuse, infidelity, whatever. I can only speak for myself when I say that what I do is an occupation and that my kids are the most important things in our lives. I do not feel that forgoeing a career on the outside to take care of my children properly, etc. is a huge sacrifice. I merely am saying that since I have done what I feel is the "right thing" by my children and my husband, if my hubby decides to trade me in or to simply "fool around" with another version, I need recourse since I will not be able to get the job or have the income I COULD have had I worked 40 or more hours per week, let a nanny raise my kids, and been too tired for hot monkey love with him. The "half" miss Phyllis is asking for seems like an outrageous amount to us b/c I doubt any of us have 6 billion in assets. But if we have 50,000 in assets and have to split it upon divorce it is fair. Everything is relative. I work hard with what I do....as hard or harder than I worked when I have a booming career on the outside (pre-kids). Besides, I have a feeling she is asking for a whole Hell of a lot more than she really expects to get. It's like when you go to sell a car. You may ask 6,000 but only expect to REALLY get 4,000. Know what I mean? We really can't judge her motives because we are not close friends of hers or his and do not really know the whole story even though the press wants us to think that they tell us EVERYTHING.

IN the case of the divorce of Mrs. Phyliss Redstone of Viacom fame, as they'd been married for 52 years it would be fair to assume that mr. Redstone was not a rich man at the time of their marriage and as in most of these cases. Mrs. redstone stayed home to raise the family while Mr. Redstone proceeded to earn THEIR fortune. In this particular case, Mrs. Redstone is indeed entitled to half of his wealth. After 52 years of marriage, she's earned it as much as he has. As for other divorce cases, each instance must be judged on it's own merits.

To Samantha (skz@stolt.com);

To say that this is a working partnership, and if one end of the duo breaks the contract, you 'demand payment' for services rendered... it leaves me confused. The Japanese called 'entertainers for pay' the geisha. Americans call them prostitutes. You have boiled the entire marriage agreement into a business arrangement. "I will cook, clean, raise kids, and make hot monkey love as well as give up my career goals, my ambition to find a more suitable mate as well as my name. In return you will provide me with satisfaction, a sense of belonging, a source of income, and a name that I am only part of by accident. If you break your end of the bargain, I will get half of the things that you have worked so hard in your life for- all in an apparent attempt to keep me happy."

Puh-leeze. And if the the Mrs isn't happy, she can still file for divorce, claiming 'irreconcilable differences' and still get half.

What all does the Mrs have of her own? Does the Mr get half of that? Dollars to donuts that he doesn't!

Just my two cents.

Prostituting myself in Cleveland

This is for the statement made by PAKWPF@aol.com You stated that if a business folds one partner has to buy out the other or something along those lines, and that is correct, HOWEVER normaly don't both partners contribute to the business? Did Mrs. Greed contribute the other 30 Billion dollars that she is looking to purchase? Heck no, she did nothing I am sure maybe give him moral support here and there. So no in my opinion she does not deserve all that money, I think she deserves something, but HALF?? Come now get real

I am not surprised by the ignorance of this mans point of view. The one main point he is missing is that marriage is a partnership. If any business was to fold, wouldn't one partner have to buy out another? It is my understanding that depending on the value of the company, is what the buy out would cost. Whether it is a man or a woman divorcing, especially with many years involved, the person being divorced is entitled to half the worth of the person divorcing them. Yes I am from Massachusetts, and no I'm not divorced, in fact quite the opposite, very happily married. The point that you are missing is MOST of the time the person who didn't so called contribute financially, in fact did. If you are a stay at home contributer, whether you have money or not, you enable the other person to do the things to be done to make a living. It is a fact that successful people have someone behind them helping them get there. So before you blow your steam, please look at all the sides of the story.

No, I do not think Phyllis is asking for too much money. Marriage is a contract...a legal contract. One of the stipulations (among other things) is fidelity. To be unfaithful to one's spouse means to break the contract. When two business entities break a contract, the offended business usually sues the other and wins a large sum in damages. The same thing happens when an individual enters into a contract with a business and the business breaks promises...the individual can usually gain a large sum of money in punitive damages. I believe in marriage and after 52 years (or whatever it is) of marriage, she has probably hosted countless "events" of entertainment for his clients and business associates, cared for and managed the household and raised their children (if any). I am young and have only been married a few years, but I believe in my marriage contract and covenant (yes, even the part about obeying your husband --- don't shoot me ladies). I care for our household, put makeup on and look pretty before he gets home, take care of our kids, keep my body in tiptop shape, cook every night for him, give him a backrub complete with oil upon request, and I make love to him almost anytime he wants to (barring monthly feminine unmentionables). In return, he supports me, remembers our anniversary, my birthday, mother's day, and other things. He treats me with respect and dignity, listens to my opinion but gives the final word (which I in turn respect) on large family decisions. If I caught him cheating, I would want half of his earnings because I have put off my professional career, let my skills fall to the wayside in order to make his life and my life and our kids' life wonderful. I am performing a job here and if the contract is broken, I demand payment.

First of all a masogonyst is a woman hater.Book by DR Susan Forward, men who hate woman and the woman who love them. it is not anti male. 2nd U don't seem to give woman any credit for their management abilities.Wife , mother ,nurse ,homemaking. grocery shoping . banking etc Is that all part of the male ego or what? There are so many masoginyst thing that men think are macho it really isn't. u should really look into itAnd didn't you ever hear the expression behind every successfull man there is usually a good woman.

I agree with you completely. I wish you would email this to that poor man's lawyers. Be sure to make note that with out his money, she probably would not have been able to afford the private dic. she got to spy on him.

Alimony, yes she deserves, but 3 million??? I dun get it, if the love between 2 people are gone, why do the richer has to give up half his worth to get rid of the other??? Why don't you try giving half the company to every employee you fire?? Make sense??

Mrs. Redstone should leave with all her personal savings and earnings from the marriage.She did have a job, didn't she?

SIMPLE AND CHEP; MAID, CALL GIRL ACCOUNTANT AND LAWER. ALL PAID FOR SERVICES AND CAN BE TERMINATED ANY TIME.

What makes Mrs. Redstone deserve billions more then any other wife who's husband cheated on her? Sure, she could've been an amazingly valuable wife, sticking with Mr. Redstone and aiding him in every way all though life, but with this being the third time she's filed for divorce, I'm guessing she's just a trophy wife with delusions of grandure. Should she get a fair sum? Yes. Should she get 3 billion? Hell no.

I think that at least, the couple's money should be divided equally, if not more to the parent who gets custody of the children.

what the hell is a 74 yr old woman going to do with $3 billion?? She'll most likely croak when her heart gives out IF she recieves that amount.

She should just accept her husband as he is and stay in for the $6 billion...unless she's written out of his will.

In any case, neither of them need that much money. They should both be wise and give it to the neey families of this country...

As someone who nearly escaped the horrors of paying alimony to my ex-husband (an able bodied man, whom I financially supported until he completed his master's degree), I can easily and readily understand the rage that a lot of men feel about the division of assets at the termination of the marriage relationship.

Things would be so much easier in this country, if only we were to go back to the practice of arranged marriages. You didn't marry for love or fulfillment or any of those ridiculous things. Sure, women were chattel in such arrangements, but gee, you know it was so much simpler then. You had other wives to hang with and go to the river to bat clothes on a rock, while the mutual husband was out hunting for weeks on end. What could be a better existence than that?

I have been told by my east Indian acquaintances that many arranged marriages were (and are) successful. (Well, I do think the penalty of stoning in the event of adultery or divorce is a mighty fine incentive to stay together under most circumstances.)

But now people want to be happy and fulfilled and entertained! All of the time! Under any circumstances! This is not the proper mindset, ladies and gentlemen for marriage.

Marriage is chain-gang style hard work now-a-days, if only because of all of this damn negotiation and discussion of feelings, and re-routing of traditional sex roles.

Yuck. My ex-husband divorced me because he said I was too conservative, too "male identified", and I had started to read the Bible and hang around with evangelical Christians.

I was relieved to be divorced by my ex because he was such a darn wuss about everything. It was such a pain in the asp when he would start to cry to get his way and yell at me about how I didn't suppport him in his expression of feelings. Especially when his feelings were about getting a part-time job to supplement the family income.

Shudder!

As to Mrs. Redstone who is asking for $3 Bil. That's the lawyer's talking. Is the divorce occurring in a community property state? If so, 50/50 is the way it goes with all of the martial assets whether the spouse supposedly earned them or not. I do not believe that this was a big feminazi thing to have community property as much as I think it was a victory for divorce lawyers.

Do I think it is unfair for Mr. Redstone to fork over half of his dough? Sure I do. On the other hand, at that level of wealth, what difference does it make if it's 1 billion or 3? If Mr. Redstone is so unhappy in his marriage that he cavorts openly with his mistress, he should know that he is risking his fortune when engaging in this behavior. If this lady has him in such a spell, then maybe his freedom from the evil Mrs. Redstone, would be worth every penny.

On the other hand, should 1 or 2 affairs in the course of a marriage of 52 years really make that much of a difference to Mrs. Redstone?

I think Mrs. Redstone should simply retaliate, sell a few paintings from the ranch, rent a cottage in New Mexico take up painting and have a nice young 50 year old boy-toy to take care of her needs. And continue to contest the divorce in perpetuity.

If I had to do my divorce all over again, I would have contested every single dot and tittle, instead of signing off on the decree so quickly just to get everything over with.

One of the joys for the respondent (who is the one being divorced from, in my divorce it was me almost always the male in the marriage) of divorce is to make the petitioner (who is usually the woman who initiates the divorce) suffer.

The other option is to be very nice to Mr. Redstone, have him behave badly for awhile, then wait until he comes back, only to have him "knocked off" mafia-style, or die "mysteriously and suddenly" and hopefully collect the whole of his estate.

By the time Mrs. Redstone would be caught for murder, she would be too old to suffer too long in prison, and would probably be dead before all of her appeals would be exhausted.

Even so, I think that would be a far more honorable way to get even with a cheating spouse.

Think about it.

American's are stupid. Haven't you people figured that out yet. Why would anyone try to justify having 6 Billion let alone getting half off their cheating spouse. No one that rich earned all that money anyway! Commies Will Rule the World

Heidi (tarabarat@yahoo.com) Time: 9/29/99 (13:8:4) has class ... something that appears lacking in the Redstones.

I'm not sure how much it's worth spending 52 years with Mr. Redstone, but I'm confident it's a lot! Lawyers ask for 50/50 splits, usually fair for most couples. It does seem she could eke out a life on only 1 billion or so. Sigh....Don't you wish you were rich enough to have this particular problem?

Let's get real here. For three billion dollars I'd hold hands and cavort thorough Paris with the guy. And I'm a guy, and not even a gay guy. I'd let him do me on a Mardi Gras float on Fat Tuesday with neon arrows pointing at us that said "look!" Okay, some of you out there can call me a whore, a money grubber, and some of you may even call me BAD names. My point is, we're all whores when it comes to three BILLION dollars (not you? sorry. She just happens to have been married to her long term customer and wants her payup. So would I. So would you. She doesn't deserve it, but, who does?

i don't see why any 72 yr old needs $3 billion. find something useful to do with the money, like give some to me

ok... i just read the comment directly below my first one, and it referred to amelia, so i scrolled on down to read amelia's response. now i have to rage. you stupid evil self-serving whore! how could you say that she is entitled to demand 3 billion dollars from a man who has worked those 50-odd years to earn it. granted, not everyone comes out 6billion ahead after working that long, but the man did his job, and did it well. now SHE files divorce papers, and SHE demands the cold cash from the guy, when all she's got against him is a picture of him holding hands with some chick? how many things are wrong with this picture? lets see... first, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for him to be holding the hand of this woman. its a sign of affection between friends and acquaintances in a whole bunch of different cultures, one that is embraced by many americans as well. second, he isn't dropping her, as far as we knew, he was planning on sticking out his last years with her, providing the lifestyle she has come to depend so readily on, all out of his sheer will to stay married, if nothing else. if she wants out, then get out, but you get the cash with the man, otherwise, deal with it. third, whats with assuming that all men are out to use and abuse women and then find the next pretty thing once the wife has gotten old and grey? maybe it is something we see a lot in our culture's public media, but the statistics dont support such notions. and to assume such a reason as this is to simplify a marriage relationship to a 'what do i get out of it?' mentality, which is simply not fair to do, especially to some other bloke who you don't even know, and especially because maybe thats what happened to you. third of all, if she gets 3 bil., then how the heck do justify your claim that she should get ALIMONY and INSURANCE PLANS as well? is the 3 bil. not enough to cover that? perhaps we need to think about what marriage means, and what divorce means in that context, instead of presuming to know worth a crap what people should 'get' out of a divorce. they are 'getting' the freedom from the marriage contract, and the freedom to marry again legally, and the freedom to no longer have to depend on the jerk, should he turn out to be the bum you preume he is. get over your bitter self, and move on...

its crap that she should get so much money, and even crappier that she should even presume to ask. it seems that by asking for that much, we can tell that all she really wants out of this divorce is the cash, not the separation. i agree with whomever wrote the outrage bit originally. if he provided so well for her in marriage, why on earth should he be required to give her half of his net worth (cold flat one-time payment) plus be denied of her company in marriage, which he apparently doesnt think is so bad? perhaps he should have filed a prenup, or something. but moeny issues and marriage dont usually jive well together, so what can a guy do? smack the bitch and give her a 100 million. she'll take it, and he still has 59 times that amount left over (do the math, it works out.)

Yes she is asking way too much. First of all I would like to point out that Mr. Viacom doesn't have 6 billion dollars. He has assets that are worth 6 billion (which includeds his stock in Viacom) but he doesn't have 6 billion to divey up. The same is said for Bill Gates. He is worth a hundred billion dollard, yet if his wife were to break up with him and ask for half of those asest she would be asking for 50 billon dollars. that amount of money doesn't exist. she would be geiven half of his stock in Microsoft. this significantly large chunk of microsoft allows her a place on the board of the company thus putting her in direct contace with the very man that she wishes to get away from, Bill gates, the head of Microsoft. If mrs. Gates decided that she wanted to sell her shares it would crush the economy and probably end with some kind of apocalyps or another. The sme ideas apply with This Viacom deal but on a bit of a larger scale. -james

This Post is for: Amelia (akeyorkie@webtv.net Your ex-husband was a jerk and probbaly mistreated you... but to thnk that all men are only out to use, abuse, and lose the women they marry only serves to prove how pathetically you've adapted to a bad decision when you were younger that cost you 25 years. If it was so terrible, why didn't you leave earlier?

I'm married and I worship my wife. And, if I was ever mean in any way to her for more than maybe a week she would move out. Six months later, (if I hadn't woken up), I'm sure divorce papers would be filed and in 25 years I would be a bad chapter. You on the other hand wasted, (as you refer to it), your youth ansd beauty. Stop crying whining and whimpering. You're another frigging feminist that while crying out for equality, demands the lions share of everything excluding responsibility then cres some more when you're actually treated as an equal and not with kid gloves.

What if the roles were reversed and Mrs. Redstone had the money and Mr. Redstone sued for that amount? What would you say then? I would bet money that you would be cheering her on in saying Go to hell and hoping he rots in hell for having the gall to be the one to file the divorce paperwork.

You disgust me.

You leave the marriage with what you entered into it with, plus with what you helped earn. In other words, Mrs Redstone should leave with what she came with, plus any, (if any) money she helped Mr Redstone earn. If she didn't help, she doesn't get. This is what I did, and I felt GREAT. No obligations, no hurt feelings, no guilt........

Consider the person (man or woman) who immerses themselves in work as a refuge from a bad homelife. They may be successful and then become a ripe financial target. Although it takes two to solve the problem, if only one wants to do so, it is very difficult to reach an amicable solution. In this case we know little about why over 52 years each has become angry with the other and, the lawyers willing, we never will.

To the dumbass, Steve (notgiven@hotmail.com), did you happen to read the article long enough to notice who FILED the divorce papers (3 times)??? Of course not. You dimwit.

I beleive that marriage is a joining of two people forever. Unlike SOME morons who beleive that marriage is about money or convenience or just a way to convince someone it's ok to sleep with you. When someone breaks their wedding vows, they should hand everything they own, along with thier own life over to their spouse. I think Mr. Redstone should hand his wife his nuts on a platter. Pull your heads out of your asses.

NO way should she get that much! How ridiculous! I hope he keeps the money, but loses the house to her and 57 of her closest cats!

Just a quick point on divorce law: besides the idea of allowing the spouse to live as they were accustomed to during the marriage, there is also the belief that both husband and wife contribute equally to each other's success, whether via encouragement, assisting in work, and so on. Which is another reason money is split, because the "non-earning" spouse helped earn it.

As a further point: if Redstone was cheating on her, we would want her to get some sort of compensation, whether as punishment for him or comfort for her.

I'm sure you've heard this by now, but the argument of equitable sharing of worth in case of a divorce comes with the idea that the non-working partner actually has contributed.

Take, for example, my own mother, who prepared economical meals; made, mended and altered us kids' clothing, and often helped my father with paperwork, etc., relieving him of the need for extra secretarial help. If they divorced, I would argue any day that she had contributed positively to that worth, and was entitled to her half.

Of course, if my father had not had a wife (but spontaneously generated two children -- hey, coulda happened, we were both adopted), but had hired the services of a cook, maid, seamstress and secretary, I dare suggest he would have been spending a lot more than half his income (he was a school principal).

If a woman marries a rich guy and does nothing but suck up the designer clothes while a maid cleans a house and a nanny raises the kids -- I dunno. I mean, on the one hand, she does have an expectation of being taken care of... on the other hand she might be divorcing him because she could get more dough that way than when he is controlling the checkbook!

Anybody can be cynical. I guess I'm saying you guys took a cheap, easy shot on this one. You're going to have to work harder to make me mad!

Maybe I'm insane...ok, probably, but I don't think that Mrs. Redstone was forced to work twelve hours per day washing the floors and sweeping the chimney; I know that most billionaires can't afford to hire very many people to help out around the house, but I am assuming that the Redstone's got by with what they had. One of the major arguments in favor of a woman plundering a man's bank account after a divorce is that a woman is often obligated to stay home working and is not able to pursue a carreer of her own; I highly doubt this was the case with the Redstones. My advice to Mrs. Redstone is that she should have gotten a job if she expected to live well after the divorce; my advice to Mr. Redstone is that he should get out his Webster's and find the term "PRE-NUPTUAL AGREEMENT"

Well I think in Mrs. Redstone's case it would depend on who made the money, what kind of investments,and how much she was involved in Mr. Restone's business. If he had some money and made more as time went along and she was just living high on the hog well it would be a different deal. Give her a nice house, a car and about 10 million and if she can't get by on that well too bad. Ha!