Holy hell Andrae, that's quite a leap you just took there, I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you landed.
You know you come across about as inflammatory as possible, which I suspect is largely intentional, however it really does cause your thoughts and message to get somewhat, to completely overlooked. I actually agree with you that no woman deserves compensation solely on the basis of having brought a child or children into the world. DB is correct, women carry the child, which a man cannot do, and childbirth isn't easy for all women, however it is what the female body was designed to do. I personally don't feel entitled to any form of compensation for having my children, their presence in my life is the ultimate reward. I think sadly in divorces when custody issues arise, to often the children become dollar signs, and that's generally everyone's fault except the children.
I think if one parent cannot support the child(ren) on their own, then child support is clearly appropriate, and the court formula for child support is actually very fair IMO. It deals strictly with the numbers, they plug in income, number of nights with each parent, and health insurance costs and then it spits out a number for each parent. If one parent doesn't want to pay as much in child support, they can simply increase the number of nights that they have the children, and the child support drops. So for all the men who bitch and moan about how much child support they pay, spend more time with your kids, if your Ex doesn't like that, then fight her on it. At least that's how it is in Oklahoma, and the court doesn't deviate without cause. I had to jump through major hoops to refuse child support from my Ex in the divorce, which I find ridiculous, but the courts have a very firm mindset that both parents share expense and custody, which I agree is ultimately in the best interest of the child(ren) in most cases.
I agree that family value is priceless and shouldn't be a commodity, however generally when dealing with morals or values that are by their very nature without price, society will seek to assign a monetary value to them. It's one of those, 'money could never commensate you adequately for X, because it's priceless, so we'll assign a preset value to ensure people don't get cheated', thought processes. It would be nice if that wasn't necessary, but sadly there are people who would let their children do without basic needs just to get back at their Ex, and that's men and women. Some folks are just hateful and without parental instincts. I really don't see a better solution as too many of these types of issues are very case-by-case, and the courts seek to find one standard that can be fairly applied to all to ensure no one gets overlooked or screwed over.
Back to the topic of Tiger and Elin, I'm not sure why any of this is back up for debate anyway? He offered her the settlement, she accepted. It's not like she drug him through a long protracted court battle and won, he offered up front. I suspect that was simply a business decision on his part, and perhaps somewhat mitigated by guilt (I'm not saying he has reason to feel guilty, but I would, so I see it as a possibility). The quicker they settled matters, the less media attention it would receive. That's both better for him in terms of privacy, as well as business. Regardless, he gave what he wanted to give, she took it, I don't see how that makes her a gold-digging bitch, anymore than it makes him a stupid pushover who got backed into a corner by his own dick.
Sorry, but I'm too lazy to look for the HP thread at the moment. Bookie already knows my thoughts anyway.