Give a moment of empathetic silence for Britney Spears, who has reportedly been ordered to pay more child support to her ex-husband. The sum comes to around $110,000 per month. Those who eagerly keep track of Spears news will know that she and ex-husband, Kevin Federline, married in 2004, and split up shortly afterwards in 2006. They have two sons, Jayden James, 11, and Sean Preston, 12.
Apparently Spears and Federline have been involved in legal dispute over the amount of child support Spears should be paying, and have finally reached a settlement of $110,000. Plus Spears will be covering legal fees on top of the amount. So, likely a great deal more than the amount officially stated. But, according to the popstar’s legal team, she is none too happy about the arrangement. While Federline, on the other hand, is clearly over the moon. Though his lawyer, Mark Vincent Kaplan, didn’t use those exact words, the sentiment was clear…
The question most are asking now is; why do we care, why is it significant, and so what?
What’s The Big Deal?
Some, likely in an effort to drum up as much publicity generating controversy as possible, have declared Federline as a gold digging swine. Or at least similar terms along those lines. But upon closer examination, the situation is more or less standard for a child support agreement. The deal originally struck in 2008 was for $20,000. That amount has stayed consistent up until 2018. The new amount has been based around Spear’s income, and predicted income for the future. So, the amount is reasonable based on what she earns on a monthly basis.
Federline is looking after the two children, both of which are likely receiving the best possible education and care, as per agreement between the parents. In terms of work, he has confessed that he no longer dances, and gets an income only from DJ-ing and occasional record producing jobs. As far as child support cases go, this does not seem particularly out of the ordinary. If the truth be told, the only real reason the situation is making news at all is because of the reverse gender aspect.
Which is to say; were the situation reversed likely no one would be batting an eyelid.
Enjoy outstanding online casino games like Agent Jane Blonde and many more at Redflush Casino Online.
Frown On Her Face
As already said, Britney has been quoted as saying that she is not happy with the outcome of the agreement. Apparently the deal was settled on only due to the fact that the case would have gone on for much longer, racking up a great deal more in legal fees. So a settlement now is technically saving money in the future. Lawyers aren’t cheap, after all.
Though, once again the question must be asked; is the settlement fair?
An Eddie Murphy stand up show comes to mind. Called RAW, performed in 1987, in one part of the show Murphy does a routine most commonly referred to as “half.” He talks at length about how male celebrities are fully expected to give up half of their net worth upon divorce, and how barely an eyebrow is ever raised about the agreement.
Murphy asks the question as to how this is possibly fair? The question is asked for the sake of comedy, but it is still a very poignant question. Why is the situation barely even questioned when it is the man having to pay up?
All Controversy Is Good Controversy
In my opinion, this is yet another case of “all controversy is good controversy.” Anything that can be framed to drum up a bit of murmuring is gold in this social media fuelled day and age, and if hinting at a gender based issue, all the better.
At least Britney should be happy that “half” was not demanded from her. So in that regard, she really is coming out on top, and if her future earnings are anything to go by, she’ll still be quite comfortable. After all, the singer knows how to Work B**ch!