Tiger Woods & Alpha Males

[bloodyminded]

It's crazy, really. We are criticized for lacking morals, and we are criticized for having morals. And it seems to be that way for just about everything. We are seriously damned if we do and damned if we don't by some. By too many, actually. But to criticize us for being "puritanical" because we believe in marriage vows is probably one of the craziest criticisms that I've seen thrown at me/America.

I saw an episode of "Rescue Me" one time--not a show I watch, but not a bad one--and the character was talking about criticism of America. And he said he didn't disagree with all the criticism, but that it's simply unpleasant to be singled out all the time. And when the crimes or faults are common to humanity as a whole, it feels even worse.

"With the spotlight square in your face, every wart and blemish stands out." (well...that's a paraphrase.)

It's pretty unfair.

As for the Tiger Woods issue, frankly i haven't heard much in the way of sanctimonious puritanism...though I've heard several people make that accusation. How the hell has that happened? I see people disappointed in a man sold to us (as sports figures are) as virtuous, a "good guy."

The problem isn't even really that he cheated, in a way. It's the number of people he cheated with that has struck a nerve.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

....it's simply unpleasant to be singled out all the time. And when the crimes or faults are common to humanity as a whole, it feels even worse. ......

It's pretty unfair.

I think it says a lot more about the person/people singling out the U.S. than it does the U.S., but just having to be subjected to it all the time is annoying. Here's a sampling of replies in this very thread:

Tiger might have great hand eye cordination but that's about it for this billionare pin head who lets the little head in his pants rule him totally.

But, there is something about being an honest person. You wish to play the field stay single, no one gets hurt and everyone know the rules.

Cheats deserve no respect.

I declare men are hopelessly shameless. They up to no good.

I wonder who and where are the good men?

I hope the wife wins her case and gets half of everything he owns. As my spouse said "Tiger Woods is a disgrace to the male species". I think he's right.

Yeah...what kind of terrible world do we live in when a billionaire can't even cheat a million times on his wife without consequences? Shouldn't rich, promiscuous men be allowed to do whatever they wish without it affecting their lives in any negative ways whatsoever?

Those comments all came from Canadians, yet I'm the only one being accused of being a Puritan and the U.S. is the only country being criticized as puritan.

As for the Tiger Woods issue, frankly i haven't heard much in the way of sanctimonious puritanism...though I've heard several people make that accusation. How the hell has that happened? I see people disappointed in a man sold to us (as sports figures are) as virtuous, a "good guy."

Tiger presented himself that way, which is why he got the endorsements that he did. Companies want someone who is admired for their spokesperson, so because Tiger got rich off of the public's perception of him, some of that public is bound to feel disappointment.

The problem isn't even really that he cheated, in a way. It's the number of people he cheated with that has struck a nerve.

The interest in the story certainly has escalated because of the number of people, and that certainly had subjected him to more scrutiny and judgment. But I think there was an initial disappointment by his fans even before the whole story came out. Golf fans aren't like rock star fans, and I think they had a different kind of admiration for Tiger than other fan bases have.

[bloodyminded]

I think it says a lot more about the person/people singling out the U.S. than it does the U.S., but just having to be subjected to it all the time is annoying. Here's a sampling of replies in this very thread:

Those comments all came from Canadians, yet I'm the only one being accused of being a Puritan and the U.S. is the only country being criticized as puritan.

Ha! nice catch, AW.

Tiger presented himself that way, which is why he got the endorsements that he did. Companies want someone who is admired for their spokesperson, so because Tiger got rich off of the public's perception of him, some of that public is bound to feel disappointment.

The interest in the story certainly has escalated because of the number of people, and that certainly had subjected him to more scrutiny and judgment. But I think there was an initial disappointment by his fans even before the whole story came out. Golf fans aren't like rock star fans, and I think they had a different kind of admiration for Tiger than other fan bases have.

These are all really good points.

[August1991]

I think it says a lot more about the person/people singling out the U.S. than it does the U.S., but just having to be subjected to it all the time is annoying.

Perhaps I should have clarified it as "protestant puritanism", a notable American trait. The term "political correctness" has no easy translation.

[ToadBrother]

This is why I think divorce laws are in need of being scrapped. I'm not sure that this woman wasn't flat ass broke and needed Tiger to pay for her living needs. This isn't the 1800's anymore, women have jobs and are quite capable of making money. It works both ways, marriage has turned into a right to pillage a man's/woman's assets. It is redundant in this day and age.

You do understand how divorce worked in the 1800s, right? In the 1800s, divorce often meant ruin for women. The reason that divorce laws, particularly in getting a portion of the assets, is because it's generally seen that marriage is a partnership, and that both parties put something, perhaps not money, but some form of benefit into the union.

Now I honestly doubt under California law that all of Wood's assets and earnings are on the table. He will have to pay support commiserate with the support that he provided during the marriage, plus child support. But as far as marital assets (or as they are likely called down there, community property) go, those only include what was accrued during the marriage. Heck, even in a much less forgiving system like the UK, Paul McCartney, while forking over a lot of money, certainly didn't give a way the vast bulk of his assets to that whack-job he married.

The rule here is simple. Understand what marriage represents when you enter it. Understand that from the moment you both say "I do", you may both be on the hook for assets and liabilities.

And I do love how you just sort of intellectually sweep under the rug that, statistically, women are far more likely in a marriage to make up the lower earner. What you really want to say is that you want to bring back the old style of divorce/abandonment rules, but you have to make it look somehow that you're oh-so equitable. Some jackass is screwing around on his wife with waitresses and pretty much anything he could get his hands on, and you're first thought isn't "that poor women" but "what a gold digger."

Edited January 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[August1991]

The reason that divorce laws, particularly in getting a portion of the assets, is because it's generally seen that marriage is a partnership, and that both parties put something, perhaps not money, but some form of benefit into the union.

Uh, what did Tiger Woods' wife put into the partnership?

Toadbrother, I rather view marriage as a contingency contract: "For better or worse... "

Given the modern State, I would prefer that divorcing partners assume potential costs to support their ex-partners for life, rather than have anonymous citizens (like me) assume this cost.

If Donald wants to have sex with Ivana but Ivana insists on marriage first, let's make the contract plain. If after signing the contract, Ivana breaches and "cheats", having sex with the poolboy - then she should pay as an incentive for other women considering a marriage contract.

Edited January 3, 2010 by August1991

[kimmy]

Uh, what did Tiger Woods' wife put into the partnership?

If she had nothing to contribute, why would he marry her in the first place? What was in it for him?

How about 2 kids and (for a while) the image of being a family man?

It would have been possible for Tiger to have kids with any of the skanks he's been hanging out with, but I doubt golf sponsors would have been as excited about Tiger if he was raising an "NBA style" family.

If money is the only yardstick one chose to measure by, I think there's a fair argument to be made that the image of being a faithful husband and devoted father put dollars into Tiger's pocket.

-k

[Griz]

If she had nothing to contribute, why would he marry her in the first place? What was in it for him?

How about 2 kids and (for a while) the image of being a family man?

It would have been possible for Tiger to have kids with any of the skanks he's been hanging out with, but I doubt golf sponsors would have been as excited about Tiger if he was raising an "NBA style" family.

If money is the only yardstick one chose to measure by, I think there's a fair argument to be made that the image of being a faithful husband and devoted father put dollars into Tiger's pocket.

-k

Money is the basis of all sorts of crap in this world. It makes people genuinely phoney and they use people. RW'ers seem to the worse form of phoniness

[Guest American Woman]

Uh, what did Tiger Woods' wife put into the partnership?

Well, since she was one half of the partnership, to begin with, she put in 50% of the relationship as she was clearly half of it.

Secondly, Tiger's two children weren't hatched from an egg that he watched over, like a penguin. So I'd say she contributed a pretty meaningful part to their family, which I would say is at least as meaningful as money, to their relationship.

Thirdly, from all I've heard, or more to the point haven't heard otherwise, she contributed commitment to their relationship.

Methinks you place value on nothing but money, judging from your comments in this thread.