ESC

Jennifer Hudson Thinks It’s Really Unfair She Has to Support Her Child

Now that Jennifer Hudson has split with her former partner David Otunga, the two are locked in a heated custody battle and Hudson is insisting she shouldn’t have to pay child support just because Otunga has primary custody and she makes more money than the WWE commentator.

What’s really funny is that Hudson’s court filing, obtained by The Blast, reads kind of like an MRA diatribe against child support. I’m going to prove that to you, actually. Here’s what Hudson’s filing says.

Hudson takes particular issue with the idea of her paying for Otunga’s housing costs. She says Otunga is perfectly able to pay for a home, if he actually tried to get a job, saying, “Nothing entitles David to live in a home identical to Jennifer’s.”

The “Dreamgirls” star says she has no duty to support Otunga and “denies that the child support should extend to housing subsidies for David when the parties were never married.”

She goes on to say, “Having a child with a celebrity should not be the basis to treat David like someone who has given birth to a child and who has no means of supporting the child. Jennifer is the one who gave birth to the minor child, who had the minor child with her as she traveled prior to the difficulties the parties experienced in their relationship.”

She did all the work, it’s her money, why should she give it to him. Here’s a quote from a 2017 article on Return of Kings, a notable MRA blog that is dripping with misogyny and that I’m pretty sure the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled a hate group. I honestly have no idea how it’s even still on the internet.

The legal justification for alimony is “to support her in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed”. However, this outdated understanding is pretty out of touch with modern times! Further, many divorced men have to drastically downgrade their living conditions, sometimes even getting thrown out of the home he bought—what about his lifestyle?

The other outdated argument for alimony is that the ex-wife is basically owed back wages for all that homemaking. Even in the 1800s, it was baloney; the husband was putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads all that time, now wasn’t he?

I’m very much not a fan of this, but it’s not too far off from Hudson’s filing, only skeevier.

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
pauljh74Wolfgang Sprung Jr. Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Wolfgang Sprung Jr.
Guest
Wolfgang Sprung Jr.

But if it was the other way around like it usually is, a woman will see it as perfectly fair. Welcome the world of equality ladies. You demanded it, now live up to the responsibility. Equal rights come with equal lefts. KO.

pauljh74
Guest
pauljh74

What groups that aren’t left wing doesn’t the SPLC label a hate group? Considering the SPLC finances groups directly affiliated with Antifa, it is no surprise. They’re very “liberal” with who they label as hate groups if you don’t agree with them.
This is just another example of women believing in “equality” only when it benefits them.

Latest
Load more