Matriarchal cultural terrorism strikes a German national

[Jedi Knight]

A German man must pay his ex-wife's (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20030911/od_nm/odd_germany_pension_dc) husband 1/2 of his retirement pension simply because his ex-wife died. So even after her death the man is terrorized by his dead ex-wife via the matriarchal terror apparatus of the socialist state.

When people get a divorce they do so to get away from each other. When one of them dies after a divorce, all ties are permanently broken. But in the new matriarchal system, when the divorced chick gets remarried, her previous husband has to support the chick's new husband after she dies?

Anyone see something wrong with that or is it a new form of acceptable matriarchal activity?

JK

[Dancing David]

Shhhh Jedi:

How dare you expose the matriarchal system in all it's duplicity. The fact that Stalin, Lenin, Allende and FDR were women is a Closely Kept Secret known only to those who have passed the third degree in the Matriarchal Masons.

I ask that you immedeatly cease and desist or I shall to report your sucess in the Cause. Exposing The Secrets of the Matriarchal Illuminati shall surely lead to end of Western Civilization as We Know It.

Sincerely

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Anyone see something wrong with that or is it a new form of acceptable matriarchal activity?

JK



The woman has a property right in the pension. That property right does not evaporate with her death. Her new husband, being her heir, inherited that right. It would be the same if she has a child, etc. This has nothing to do with gender.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suddenly




The woman has a property right in the pension. That property right does not evaporate with her death. Her new husband, being her heir, inherited that right. It would be the same if she has a child, etc. This has nothing to do with gender.

If that is so, then certainly there are examples. Care to share?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Suddenly




The woman has a property right in the pension.

Since when is a pension a property right? Please provide evidence.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The woman has a property right in the pension. That property right does not evaporate with her death. Her new husband, being her heir, inherited that right. It would be the same if she has a child, etc. This has nothing to do with gender.

She had a property right while she was alive. It is called 'alimony'. When she died that was the end of the contract. Any legitimate court in western civilization would recognize that. Her ex-husband has no legal connection whatsoever to her new husband. Her new husband should not be able to steal (extortion via the matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorism in the judiciary) the pension of her former husband.

Also, gender has everything to do with it. Men are being terrorized by the state all throughout the west, much worse than any terrorist group like Al Qaeda could ever dream of doing. I was merely presenting yet another example of this terrorism against men. There will be many more so you can count on me to bring them out when they occur.

JK

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed


If that is so, then certainly there are examples. Care to share?

Examples of what? That when you die your property goes to your heirs? That is what is in the article. If her heir was her children, or for that matter if it was Elvis Gerbac, they (or he) would get the payments.

The article says German law gives a property right in a spouse's pension (actually, part of the pension). Once you own something you can pass it to your heirs. That was the decision by the court. Not exactly a radical notion.

You could switch the gender of every person in the situation described, and the result would be the same.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The woman has a property right in the pension. That property right does not evaporate with her death. Her new husband, being her heir, inherited that right. It would be the same if she has a child, etc. This has nothing to do with gender.

Sorry guy. When people divorce they do not have a perpetual right to the divorcee's property. Those issues are settled in the divorce contract. Alimony stops when the chick dies.

So just when the guy was finally free of that chick when she died, unbeknowngst to him, the hell was just beginning. Such is the nature of matriarchal terror, a condition in the nation-state even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Examples of what? That when you die your property goes to your heirs?

Alimony stops when the chick dies. That is how it has always worked. It doesn't go to some stranger afterwards. That is insane and a perversion.

JK

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Since when is a pension a property right? Please provide evidence.

How about the fact the German court treated it as property? That was the ruling. If you want to not call it property and call it "something that you have a right to and that can be inherited" be my guest. Fine with me.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Suddenly
How about the fact the German court treated it as property?

That is where the perversion comes in. It wasn't her property. She can get alimony after the divorce if she is entitled to it, but it is not property she can will away. The buck stops when she dies.

But in the new socialist terror-state of Germany (and the rest of the EU), men need to look out because the dragon has been unleashed.

JK

[American]

Mom cheats on dad, divorces him and spends a good portion of child support on booze and her abusive new boyfriend.

What else is new?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sorry guy. When people divorce they do not have a perpetual right to the divorcee's property. Those issues are settled in the divorce contract. Alimony stops when the chick dies.

Alimony may stop. A property settlement does not. There are differences. If a wife is awarded the house in the divorce settlement, that property right does not evaporate upon death. This is what the German court ruled. She was given a portion of the pension as a property right. She owned it. She was not given those payments as alimony. She was given them because they were hers, period.


So just when the guy was finally free of that chick when she died, unbeknowngst to him, the hell was just beginning. Such is the nature of matriarchal terror, a condition in the nation-state even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.



JK

That or it is an intended consequence of a divorce law. I'd suspect they may go back and add a provision that gives the spouse a property right only for that spouses life.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Alimony stops when the chick dies. That is how it has always worked. It doesn't go to some stranger afterwards. That is insane and a perversion.

JK

This wasn't alimony. This was part of a property settlement. No different than if she was awarded a car in the divorce.

[Cleopatra]

I have a suggestion.

As long as Jedi Knight doesn't post an apology to those who offended during his last exodus, none shall respond to his posts.

This is what I intend to do.

[Tony]

That guy should leave Germany.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Anyone see something wrong with that or is it a new form of acceptable matriarchal activity?


I won't try to speak to the issue of whether it's wrong or not. But consider this: what you're complaining about is one MAN getting what you think is unfair money from another man. Seems to me that matriarchy isn't really the problem here. Of course, who would ever suspect JK of scapegoating? :confused:

[shemp]

I am so glad you are back. I was beginning to feel nostalgic for terms like "matriarchal cultural terrorism."

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shemp
I am so glad you are back.
oops....maybe not :roll:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Examples of what? That when you die your property goes to your heirs? That is what is in the article. If her heir was her children, or for that matter if it was Elvis Gerbac, they (or he) would get the payments.

The article says German law gives a property right in a spouse's pension (actually, part of the pension). Once you own something you can pass it to your heirs. That was the decision by the court. Not exactly a radical notion.

You could switch the gender of every person in the situation described, and the result would be the same.

I have to really ponder that. My experience tells me that if the genders were switched, the award would not have been given.

[shemp]

Originally posted by The Fool

oops....maybe not :roll:

I hereby rescind my remarks. How unfortunate! :clap:

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I have to really ponder that. My experience tells me that if the genders were switched, the award would not have been given.

You have experience with German property law?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

I have to really ponder that. My experience tells me that if the genders were switched, the award would not have been given.

Well, let's think about that for a moment. As Suddenly mentioned, without any experience in German property laws, it's really just wild speculation. But what would it mean if they didn't give the award with reversed geneders? That would mean that they would NOT give the award to a woman. Again, what I'm seeing here isn't a case of matriarchy gone wild. If you look at who's winning in the case (originally a man) as well as who's losing in a case (also originally a man), it really seems to me like gener isn't the central issue here. Course, JK must have just overlooked that little bit, because he'd NEVER try to make a mountain out of a molehill, would he? ;)

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The woman has a property right in the pension. That property right does not evaporate with her death. Her new husband, being her heir, inherited that right. It would be the same if she has a child, etc. This has nothing to do with gender.

So if the second husband remarries and then dies the first guy has to pay the new wife?

While I'd say that having to pay the pension in the first place is wrong, the line of inheritance should reasonably go to the children (if at all, mostly I think it should stop at the ex-wife) rather than the new husband.

These are rather tricky situations to solve equitably and most times they end of severely favoring one party over the other.

[Chaos]

As this disagreement is (more or less) about the German divorce and property laws, and I am a German, maybe I can shed some Light on this matter.

Alimony is granted "as long as the recipient needs it" - death should usually be the end of that.

If, however, she was granted part of the pension as property, the same way as she would have been granted a car or house or whatever, it belongs to her, and her heirs will inherit it. The pension will end when the initial recipient (i.e. the divorced husband) dies.

That should settle that matter, shouldn´t it?


By the way, I have lived in Germany for all of my 26 years, and I (as a man) have never had the impression that males are in any way, fairly or unfairly, repressed here, nor do I feel I live in a matriarchal (or any other) terror regime. To the contrary, I think women are at a disadvantage here in several ways.

[hammegk]

This entire thread confused me in that a man's pension (in community property states) IS an asset that is 50% the wife's.

At least in the US, any divorce settlement should have compensated her for the value of that asset at time of divorce, or the lawyers involved made a boo-boo.