Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

“To be honest, why should the woman get everything?”

April 4th, 2014 - 6:53 am

Law firm’s edgy ads make the point that men often get the shaft in family court:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) – A Virginia Beach attorney is using an over-the-top advertising campaign to highlight a serious problem – the bias some men experience in family court.
The Firm for Men’s new commercial shows a man cheering about his divorce and his new “hot girlfriend.” It’s one of many new advertisements the law firm just began using to get men’s attention. They also plan to post a billboard that reads: “Just because she gave birth doesn’t make her the better parent.”

“We feel it shows men in a positive light, and it shows that life isn’t over because of divorce,” said attorney Jason Swango. “The ads say ‘we’re here for you, but you can also have a good ending.’”

The Firm for Men only represents men in divorce, custody cases, or family court battles — battles Swango says men historically don’t win.

“Men absolutely have the deck set against them, absolutely,” Swango said. “That’s why we are trying to bring awareness.”

Swango believes women fare better in court, especially in cases involving children.

“To be honest, why should the woman get everything?” said Swango. “She shouldn’t. It wasn’t built that way when she got married. Why should it be built that way when they divorced?”

I was watching the Suze Orman show the other day and it seemed like every other call was a woman trying to get her husband’s pension, bank account or other cash with willing partner Suze trying to tell her how. This ad is not “over the top, ” it sounds pretty accurate to me.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Women get everything because they get the kids. Custody is control. That's why we need equal shared parenting. Then marriage will no longer be a gun to a man's head because both spouses will suffer the same fate upon a divorce.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Read up on Suze Orman. She's exactly what America worships - similar to Kim Kardashian - an overconfident idiot.

She has a degree in social work or the like and no real experience in finance. Nevertheless, she started telling people how to scrimp and save minor amounts and cut corners. Great. But then her acceptance and fame among ninnnies went to her head, and she started branching out into hard-core financial advice.

If you look at her documented history, you would be well advised to do the opposite of what she says. As just one example among many, she was telling people before the real estate crash of 2008 that the one thing you should absolutely invest in is real estate. Then comes the crash, and she was saying well after the crash that the one thing you should never invest in is real estate. And she was saying that at a time when shrewd people were starting to find bargains after the overly severe crash.

Well, no one could have seen the future, right? Yup, but she is consistently wrong - read the documentation of her critics. Wrong and overconfident. She says her jewels of wisdom in a voice that could be used for talking to retarded 8-years-olds. Her own fortune didn't come from any of her advice, by the way, but from the huge acceptance from women who don't know any better and who also eat up her anti-man thing.

Aside from being a man-hater in general, she takes the view that men are just there to pump for money. That is their whole worth in life, and the only reason to have any contact with them at all. She has no moral qualms about it, and that shines through brightly in her advice to women, taking full advantage of chivalry and White Knights and society's expectation that men damn well better be breadwinners but everything damn well better be "equal" for women.
(show less)
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with MinigoV, this ad is counterproductive. It creates the illusion that a man can be happily divorced, get a hot new gilrfriend, and win in family court. It doesn't work like that.

I have a friend who once "fell in love" with a hot young woman. I tried to warn him about her, but he married her. And then he did the most stupid thing a man can do, moved to California. Once there, she had two children, and then she had all that she needed. She started slapping him around, screaming at him, basically drove him out of his house, and divorced him. In court, she accused him of abusing her, molesting her daughters, being an alcoholic and a drug addict. None of it was true, but that doesn't matter. All she has to do is say it in open court, and it's a mandatory police investigation. $40,000 in legal fees later, the court awarded her with $3000/month in alimony and child support, and ordered him to take a drug test every month before supervised visits with his children. That's how it goes.

A couple of years ago, I had this guy come into the office wanting to buy a house. He had a woman and small children with him. So I filled out the paperwork, and gave it to them to sign. He said, "This is not my wife." Turned out he was in the middle of a divorce and this was his new hot girlfriend. You can't buy or sell a house without your wife's signature. "We're on very good terms," he said. Until the divorce is finalized, you cannot buy or sell a house without her signature, by law. He insisted, and I proceeded. At the time of closing, did she show up to sign the papers? No, of course not. So, I wasted all this time and effort for nothing. I couldn't close the deal, and I didn't get paid. That's how it goes.

This guy spent thousands of dollars for a wood fence on a house he couldn't buy. And there's no telling what the divorce settlement cost him. If I had been his wife's Realtor, I would have told her to sign the papers, move in, change the locks, and leave him and his girlfriend out in the cold. There would have been nothing he could have done about it. You can't evict your wife from her house.

So, the illusion is just that, an illusion. Divorce is expensive; it's very expensive. There is no such thing as a happy divorce. And that hot new girlfriend, how is he going to afford her without any money and no house?

So, while I agree with the sentiment that men get screwed in family court, and they do, this ad is misplaced. It's just a couple of lawyers desperately trying to make a buck by selling an illusion.

There can be no meaningful men's rights movement that doesn't focus on changing the law. And I'm not talking about allowing men to dump their wives and take on new hot girlfriends, that would be reprehensible. I'm talking about presumptive paternity.

You want to get married? Then you better understand what community property and community funds and sweat equity means in court. Because she is legally entitled to half of everything. I've never been married because I refuse to agree to presumptive paternity.

But, regardless, the man stands no chance in family court. I'll concede that fact. The court is going to rule in for the woman every time, that's just the way it is.

47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I understand the issue, but I think it's counterproductive to advertise by depicting a newly divorced man with a "hot girlfriend". That image is part of the reason why men have gotten the shaft in divorces and custody hearings. What family court judge will give custody to or provide more visitation time to a father who comes to court with the "hot girlfriend" draped on his arm.

If this law firm really is about men not getting shafted in divorce and family courts, the ad should show a divorced Dad romping with his children in the yard of his nice home.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Suze Orman thing is perfect. A divorced woman partnering with a lesbian financial consultant to wring every last bit of cash out of the man that the divorcee kicked to the curb.

Somebody should make a sitcom out of that.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I never married because I didn't understand the fiction that everyone has to pretend is happening, namely that a man working full-time at a hard job, a job that pays enough to support the woman, is exactly equal in terms of contribution to the woman who just sits at home and gets supported, watching Dr. Phil, reading novels and occasionally dusting.

I have seen men who say that she has the harder job. If that's the case, why are those same men whining that they only have to split the assets 50/50? They're getting a huge bargain, because the woman's job is much harder.

When I was younger, I thought I would resolve that dilemma by living with or marrying a women who was also a good earner. That may be a good strategy, but in my case, women who seemed to want to work didn't after we moved in together.

If you marry a housewife or low-earner type (that seems to be the type of women who I meet), then you are going to have to put up with the fiction. Many women who seem uninterested in money will absolutely go for the throat when a divorce is in the works. They will also take advantage in second marriages, for instance cleaning out a man with Alzheimer's disease or dementia, contrary to his will (hint: you just get the assets put into joint name, bypassing probate).

I have met women who never worked in their life, and they are probably richer by millions than anyone here. That's society. That's why MGTOW is becoming much more popular among men.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
A friend of mine was divorced from a parole officer. He knows the legal system inside out and where to get the best lawyers at a good price. She doesn't and often ended up in court with an inexperienced, pro bono lawyer. She feels the system is loaded against her. Legal systems come with biases, and one of those is that the side with the smarter lawyer often wins.

I once had a job directing a group home that included appearing in court on behalf of residents. Out of that, I developed the rather cynical attitude that the key to winning is being able to afford a lawyer that's smarter than the judge. I've seen pricey lawyers that wrapped a judge around their fingers. I seen other lawyers so stupid they made their client's case worse.

By specializing in the guy side, this one may help develop the skills to help their clients, but a lawyer still needs to be smart. If The Firm for Men is their just an advertising slogan and not their legal name, they may very well be smart. But if it's their name, it signals to the court something that may not make judge happy.

For a parallel, check out legal firms that for very large fees defend rich clients with chronic DUIs. They have ordinary law firm names. They don't call themselves The Firm for Drunks.

47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All