Before, divorce and relationships were never widely talked about in public –  each was considered a private matter – but now it is becoming a hot topic to talk about in the media.

Egypt is and always has been a patriarchal society where men have more rights than woman. The country is ruled by Islamic law, which is based on the Islam religion Shari’a.

This law dictates practices for both marriage and divorce. Rights are unequal for men and women.

Under the Islamic Shari’a, men can divorce their wives at any time, any place and for any reason by saying, “I divorce you” three times consecutively. Women can only get a divorce through legal court action.

But times, they are a-changing…

In 2000, Egypt amended their laws allowing woman to initiate “no fault” divorces called Khula. Even though this seems to be a breakthrough, women who seek Khula must surrender all claims to alimony and their dowries.

As barriers break down and talking about divorce in public becomes more popular, more women are filing for divorce and more are seeking counseling for their marriages.

The number of divorces in Egypt is constantly increasing. According to CNN, the divorce rate in 2008 jumped 8.4 percent, and now nearly 40 percent of marriages in the country end in divorce. This is the highest rate for any Arab country, and it’s one of the few that publicly discusses the topic of divorce.

One woman – Mahasen Saber – regularly discusses the topic on her radio show called Divorce Radio. She uses her program to help break stigmas and talk openly about divorce and relationship issues.

Saber stated, “The main perception of a woman who is divorced in Egypt, or in any Arab country, is that she is evil or something is not right… that she has done something wrong. I started Divorce Radio to change that view.”

Women’s rights have changed and continue to change over the years in Egypt. Women are gaining momentum with access to education and opportunities for employment. They now have the opportunity for economic independence.

With this increase in divorce, it’s only natural for people to speak out about the topic. Women are the most affected and the main group discussing it, as it’s changing the way they think and live their lives.

It appears at this point in time that Jon and Kate Gosselin are the “it divorce couple.” But they are not the first celebs to battle out their divorce in public.

Let’s flash back to the long list of A- and B-list celebrities hashing out their divorce in the public eye.

For starters  – Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards – they went back and forth like a tennis match in their long divorce battle. The biggest scene occurred when Sheen battled Richards’ voice mail spewing out profane language and engaging in name calling. Soon after the incident, Richards released the voice message to the public.  Oops.

Next there is Christie Brinkley and her ex Peter Cook – they had a long divorce trial entailing Cook’s affair with his 18-year-old assistant and his sex scandals via webcam.

According to the New York Daily News, the two recently went back to court. They each accused one another of violating the terms of their divorce settlement. Cook stated Brinkley was in contempt of court for “custodial interference” and Brinkley claimed that Cook went on television shows to speak about their divorce, which was a big no-no.

Moving on with the history lesson – many celebs fought over child custody – both parents wanting full guardianship over their children.

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline made it through their divorce with minor complications. Their big battle involved child custody.

In January of 2008, Spears refused to bring the kids over to Federline’s at the designated meeting time. Instead she took the children back to her house and kept them there for two hours. The police eventually entered the home and forcefully removed Britney from the premises.

Spears was taken to the hospital for further observation. The couple initially had joint custody but Federline filed for a 70/30 custody order in which he would retain the children for most of the time.

In another custody battle – Kim Basinger and ex Alec Baldwin fought an intense six year battle over their young daughter Ireland. With the court’s approval, Baldwin called his daughter one day only to receive her voicemail.
This allegedly set him off and he left a message that ultimately cost him his visitation rights for a period of time. He said, “You are a rude, thoughtless little pig. You have humiliated me for the last time.”

Baldwin claims the Basinger released the voicemail to media, but she denied the allegations.

Jon and Kate appear to be on the same track as their predecessors; with the back and forth, he said/she-said arguments. Only time will tell how it all works out in the end.

Dr. Marc Chamberlain, a Seattle oncologist, noticed a trend among his patients – that men dealing with brain cancer received a lot of support from their wives, while women with the same disease were more frequently going it alone, having faced a divorce or separation following their diagnosis.

Chamberlain, along with Dr. Michael J. Glantz of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute, began a study of 515 patients who were diagnosed with either brain tumors or multiple sclerosis between 2001 and 2006.

According to the New York Times, women in the study were more likely to face separation or divorce than men who were diagnosed with the same conditions.

According to a report published in the journal Cancer, only about 12 percent of the patients ended up dealing with separation or divorce – which is comparable to the divorce rate of the overall population.

The noticable difference in divorce is shown when the study is broken down by sex. Three percent of men reported divorce or separation after diagnosis, while 21 percent of women with the same diagnosis reported separation or divorce.

According to the report in Cancer, it is not known whether the separations reported were caused primarily by the diagnosis of illness, or if the couples who reported divorce were previously having marital problems.

In couples that are happy pre-diagnosis, it appears that men are more likely to leave their sick wives than women are to leave their sick husbands.

Visit the New York Times for more information.

In a CNN article, Sears calls out the faults of the modern institution of marriage, saying that with the inception of no-fault divorce 40 years ago in California, marriage ideals began to unravel.

Ward said that in her years on the bench, she saw countless couples who were dealing with issues that she believe stemmed from an growing irreverence for marriage in the U.S.

In her experience, people who choose to be single parents or who have suffered a bad divorce have a harder time relating to their children.

Her main point is this: “Many Americans are failing their children because they have already failed themselves,” meaning that many of the parents she saw in her courtroom were unprepared for parenthood.

Ward suggests six things that could help revitalize the American institution of marriage:

1. Stop glorifying single parenthood – it’s all over the media with single or unmarried celebrity parents, but that doesn’t mean it will work for everyone. It’s not easy – despite appearances.
2. To all single mothers by choice - consider the emotional deprivation of your child who will grow up without a father.
3. Teach Generation Y about parenting – Having a baby doesn’t mean it’s someone to love you unconditionally. Think about how you treated your parents growing up. Not always the most pleasant thing, right?
4. Give more props to men – Husbands and fathers that do their jobs well are not commended enough. Raising children with two people is wonderful, make sure the men know how needed they are.
5. Fewer broken homes now could mean more productive people later – There are kids who come out of single-parent homes and are incredibly successful, but the statistics speak otherwise. Most don’t have the same educational success and social skills as kids who grow up living with married parents.
6. Revisit no-fault divorce laws in state legislatures – Some of these laws allow one party to opt out of a marriage too easily. Working through problems can often make a relationship stronger. Don’t give couples such an easy option of just giving up.

See Judge Sears’ article: Stay married if you want kids

Which is exactly what pop music star Usher decided to do back in June when he filed for divorce with his wife, Tameka Foster Raymond due to irreconcilable differences in the marriage.

According to the Associated Press, the couple’s divorce is now finalized per the Superior Court in Fulton County, Ga.

Usher, 31, and Tameka Raymond have two children from the marriage.

Usher’s divorce lawyer, Ivory Brown, could not comment on the case. No details about child custody or support have yet been released, but Usher was seeking joint custody according to his filing papers.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, increasing efforts from lawmakers and lobbyists in several states are placing new pressures on these old alimony laws.

With the cultural changes in gender roles in the workplace and the nature of marriage, lawmakers are challenging the idea that a spouse should provide financial support for an indeterminate period of time.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Oklahoma, there are efforts by lawmakers underway to update alimony laws to meet the demands of modern society.

Update efforts support new time limits on alimony payments, bans on alimony when spouses are of similar professional standing, or eliminating or reducing alimony if a spouse commits a crime or becomes involved in a romantic relationship. Similar campaigns from activists and lobbyists are taking place in states like Florida, Ohio, Arizona and North Carolina.

In Massachusetts, several pieces of legislation are working their way through the system. One, a bill called “Reform Massachusetts Alimony Laws Now!,” would limit alimony payments to a reasonable time and require that a spouse at least attempt to become self-sufficient. This bill essentially establishes alimony as a temporary payment.

Another Massachusetts bill would, according to the Wall Street Journal, “end the currently common practice of using the assets of a second spouse to determine the ability of a person to pay alimony.”  Also, alimony payments would end with the retirement of the payer.

Alimony laws were originally meant to safeguard spouses who didn’t work outside of the home during a marriage, particularly those who’ve sacrificed careers in order to raise families. A number of states allow alimony payments for life.

Proponents of alimony law amendments argue that times have changed, and that alimony law should change with them. Opponents argue that times haven’t changed enough, as women still average only 75% as much in salary in the workplace as men do.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the core of the debate over updated alimony laws stems around the question of whether alimony should be viewed as a transitional exchange, meant only to allow time for another spouse to establish financial independence, or whether alimony is a guarantee that a spouse has earned by sacrificing a career for the sake of the family.

As the economic recession continues, there has been an increase in alimony payers requesting modifications of their alimony agreements due to financial pressures. And with powerful individuals impacted by divorce and alimony, the movement toward more protections for the payer seems to be gathering momentum.

In a case out of Florida, an appeals court ruled that a judge was no longer obligated to pay his ex-wife over $3,000 per month in alimony, because she had, for more than 20 years, been living with another man.  A group in the state has enlisted a lobbyist to work for legislation that would limit the years a spouse is required to pay alimony.

The Ohio bar association is gathering legislative sponsors for a bill that would attempt achieve the same goal. In Pennsylvania, the Senate is looking at a bill that would cut alimony payments for spouses who live in a romantic relationship with someone else.

Divorces and alimony settlements can be complicated, and can vary from one to the next. The true cost of marriage might never be resolved. But there is a movement underway to change the view of alimony.

According to a CBS report, Frank McCourt owns the L.A. Dodgers, while Jamie is the CEO for the ball club – at least until she was fired last week after an alleged affair with her bodyguard.

The McCourts have been married for 30 years – and there are several assets, including four homes across the U.S., at stake. Based on other news reports, there does not appear to be a way to end this union in a friendly fashion.

Although Jamie allegedly committed adultery against her husband, she is still seeking to own the baseball team and all four houses, as well as collect a monthly alimony of nearly $500,000.

Jamie McCourt’s divorce lawyer stated that the couple lived a lavish lifestyle while they were together, and she should be entitled to continue such a lifestyle.

Frank McCourt says the Dodgers are not for sale. No other details are currently available about the McCourts’ potential divorce.

However, according to a report from Rediff Business News, the recession that is causing the world to tighten its belt may also be causing feuding couples to wait it out and not file for that divorce just yet.

Employment rates have fallen, salaries have gotten cut and it’s having an effect on more than just our pocketbooks. It seems that since money isn’t flowing as freely as it was a few years ago, couples are thinking twice before putting lots of dollars into a divorce.

Divorce lawyers have reported a decrease in the number of divorce cases they see each month. Though it may be unpleasant for separated or estranged couples to remain connected via a marriage license, it seems like a financially responsible thing to do.

Kate claims Jon took $230, 000 from the account and Jon claims Kate took a total of $60,000. They recently went to court for the matter, but the hearing lasted only an hour long.

A second hearing has been scheduled for October 26^thas it appears there was no conclusion.

With all these disagreements and divorce battles being so public- Jon and Kate might be causing more harm than good to all the parties involved. This happens in many celebrity divorce cases.

A divorce attorney who handles celebrity divorce and child custody cases – Randall Kessler – said it’s hard for celebrities to keep quiet during the proceedings because they are used to the spot light and most press usually helps their celebrity status.

But in divorce cases it has the opposite effect.

Every word spoken out can be used against them and it is all recorded proof. Kessler continues to state that “they [celebrities] are so used to be being in charge of their own destiny and being able to decide what’s best for them that it is very hard for them to listen to attorneys, accountants, or anyone that is trying to advise them.”

Are Jon and Kate listening to any advice given to them?

Initially after tabloids released the story that Jon cheated on Kate, she stuck by him. But the public have seen the progression from what appeared to be an amiable friendship to a bitter divorce battle.

Every week some new fight breaks out between the estranged couple. Many wonder how this can affect their children.

Child Psychologist Joanne Pedro- Carroll stated, “Given how public the divorce is and the children’s young ages, [this] makes them very vulnerable.”

Both Kate and Jon claim they have the children’s best interests at heart. The public will have to wait to see the next battle and how this divorce will end.

Savoie and his ex-wife Noriko Savoie were married 14 years when they decided to file for divorce in January 2009 due to adulterous circumstances. He remarried the next month.

The couple lived in Japan, but moved to the United States before their divorce. Both parents are citizens of the United States and Japan. His ex-wife was initially awarded child custody providing she resided in the U.S. with the children. He had visitation rights.

About a month after the divorce, Christopher had received an e-mail from Noriko stating, “It’s very difficult to watch [the] kids becoming American and losing Japanese identity. I am at the edge of the cliff. I cannot hold it anymore if you keep bothering me.”

Christopher suspected she’d take the children and pleaded with Judge James G. Martin III to give him custody in fear he would not see his children again. The judge advised Noriko if she moved the children to Japan she would lose her alimony and education funds awarded to her in the divorce.

The judge did however allow her to travel with the children to Japan because he did not believe she was a flight risk. After the trip – she returned back home with the children.

Christopher later learned that Noriko took the children to Japan when they were supposed to start school. He then filed a suit against his ex for full child custody and won, but this did not mean it would be enforced in Japan, where the mother usually retains full custody of the children.

He then made the trip to Japan to get his children back. He took his two children – 8-year-old Isaac and 6-year-old Rebecca on Sept 28 as his ex-wife walked them to school in the rural town of Yanagawa.

He traveled with his kids to the nearest U.S. consulate in Fukuoka in attempt to obtain passports for the children. He was allegedly screaming at the guards to let him in when the Japanese police arrived and arrested him.

Now there are a few issues standing in Christopher’s way of getting back his children. Japan did not agree to a 1980’s Hague Convention law which handles international child abduction.

Also Japanese law focuses on sole custody divorces so one parent has custody of the children, which is usually the mother.

According to the US State Department, in many cases, “foreign parents have little luck in regaining custody.”

Also in Japan the couple is still considered married since they never actually got divorced in the country according to police officials.

Authorities have put the charges of child kidnapping on hold for the time being.