Kramer vs. Kramer

In 1979, Dustin Hoffman and the impeccable Meryl Streep starred in this classic movie. Because Netflix can do it better than I, here is their short summary: "Ted (Hoffman) is a career-driven yuppie until he finds out his wife (Streep) is leaving him and their 6-year-old son. Ted soon finds that he loves being a full-time parent, but then his wife reappears to reclaim the boy."

I watched this a few years ago. Despite my feminist leanings, this is one area where I think some women have an unfair advantage over men. By and large, I think women are given far to much latitude in staking a claim at their children (and/or money) when they may not be the best ones to raise them.

This movie depicts a classic example of how the everyday man who is unfairly treated by the very court that is sworn to be impartial, when there is no impartiality within the jurisprudence in this area of the law.

I don't understand how some women...see Britney Spears...are entitled to child support payments from the men they willing have sex with, have a baby with...when she makes a bazillion dollars per year. I think men in this case are unfairly targeted and screwed out of their money, and I'm almost thinking we should have some type of cap per child that monetary payments could be set at (perhaps there already is, and I'm unaware of this). K-Fed is clearly no darling gentleman, but I think he should be largely absolved of any payments to Britney (unless you make him put money in a college fund that is untouchable by the kid or Brit) and should be granted vast rights when considering custody. Brit is bat shit crazy, yo.

The jurisprudence from my legal class memory talks about payments are meant to provide a possibility for the woman to maintain her current standard of living. I'm sorry but if a wife named Sally, who resides in a $3 million mansion in S. California, divorces her husband after screwing the pool boy, she should not be entitled to payments to equate her living situation in such a fashion.

She doesn't NEED to live in a $3 million mansion, thus, the man whom she is divorcing shouldn't be financially screwed when he didn't do anything wrong but fall in love with this twit, have a spawn, and then get cheated on. Especially when he's the one who likely bought said mansion in the first place...it's his farking house.

These types of judgments that are occurring in the law are, I believe, one of the reasons there are so many single men just looking to "play the field." We men may be blockheads, but we also have seen our friends, or acquaintances get royally screwed by the courts when they are not allowed to see their children, and are hit in the financial pocket.

I'm not saying some women don't deserve their money when it's clear a man has cheated on his family; He deserves the proverbial sink to be thrown at his dome. But, there is a clear inequity within the current law structure that I think women benefit from.

However, let me also say that I DO NOT discount the idea that most men would rather not have the kids, and I do not discount that it's a TREMENDOUSLY hard job to raise a kid properly. Hell, I've written many a posts on how the average American family is failing our educational system and our students.

In any case, this is a fantastic movie that will make you empathize greatly with the Hoffman character and see what happens to him when his wife just suddenly disappears, and then reappears demanding her children and some money to boot.