Resnik v. Coulson: Was Top Divorce Lawyer Raoul Felder Sexist against husband’s pregnant girlfriend

In Brooklyn Supreme Court, an interesting divorce is unfolding between Anne Resnik, the daughter and heir of a former Philip Morris executive, and a guy named Crocker Coulson. So according to the Post the couple in contention had a “no paramour” clause in their prenup and it appears and she went to court – Brooklyn Supreme – to say that first of all, the paramour clause should remain (that way her husband’s new girlfriend would not have access to their kids) and second of all, that the paramour had “gotten pregnant on purpose.” Judge Sunshine in Brooklyn Supreme denied the motion to keep the paramour clause so that got tossed and the kids can see the girlfriend. But he also took issue with some other arguments in the case including the allegations that the husband had patronized a Brooklyn brothel. First of all, who knew Brooklyn had brothels? What is this the new Amsterdam?

 

But second of all, isn’t this a little bit sexist? To accuse a woman of getting pregnant on purpose? Who says that it is so easy to get pregnant “on purpose”? If you talk to a lot of women I bet they don’t necessarily think they have the power to get pregnant on purpose.

 

Raoul Felder’s argument, arguably, was sexist in this instance.

Similar Posts:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.