21 September 2016

Everything you need to know about the Brangelina divorce









[this space intentionally left blank]








 

18 comments:

  1. Well done, Sir ~

    VERY well done!

    I heartily concur!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Spot On. It's not any of my business.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not only everything I need to know, but also sums up how much I care...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where is the thumbs up button? Wait...this isn't FaceySpace?

    ReplyDelete
  6. didn't they break up, like, years ago? or have they been breaking up for years?

    I-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is so obviously not the place to ask.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. Brangelina? not a country I've heard of.
    cheers another phil

    ReplyDelete
  8. I disagree. As I commented on a London Times article:

    For all their celebrity, the Brangelina breakup is already following a narrative that is painfully common in divorces at all social levels - the advantage is to be had by the one, most commonly the woman (I'm not being sexist, it is a statistical fact), who throws the first punch, and she should make it as hard a punch as possible without making herself look the aggressor. This will inevitably be an attempt to undermine the character of the man. The most effective way to do this is via insinuation if not explicit accusation of domestic violence by him towards his wife and his children. "Anger management problems" is merely one euphemism by which such accusations are made. In a society in which the mother is reflexively considered the better parent, this has tremendous power and it can be pushed all the way to complete alienation and destruction of the father, regardless of how he tries to defend himself. For example, most courts when faced with a conflict-laden divorce (and what divorce is not?) will attempt to "protect" the children by reducing contact between them and the non-custodial parent; it is therefore in the custodial parent's interests of control to generate as much passive-aggressive conflict as possible. This is, at root, domestic violence by proxy and it is pernicious. Make no mistake, Jolie is out to develop control over Pitt as she removes him from her and their children's lives.


    For anyone looking for a way to reduce the potential for damage (i.e. not the lawyers who make their money out of it) a rebuttal presumption of joint custody might help. No matter what, this topic is in dire need of discussion and to complain about the news coverage of this specific instance is to bury one's head in the sand and allow the pain to continue in other, less public lives.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pain? The only pain involved here is the public mewling about how "the love is over" and other petty nonsense, as well as the news sites having a heyday with over reacting headlines about it, despite the pleas from the two parties involved for respect of privacy. Personally, I will be glad when all the fuss dies down, and I no longer have to scroll past article after article on my news, Twitter, and Tumblr feeds about this non-event. These two will soon find someone else to be with, and will likely forget about it before their fans do.

      Delete
    2. @Rod Sulik: The problem is, when this one is done, you can be sure that there will be another non-event to take its place. It prevents people from actually having to pay attention to real events around them. Sadly, both the media and the public are complicit in this arrangement.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous speaks truth. There is a sub-context ignoring all the high-powered celebrity fueled aspects of it.

      The courts make it easy for women to game the system. Nothing against good moms vs. bad dads, but there is almost no recourse when it is a bad mom vs. a good dad if she plays her cards right.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...