The news that a judge has ordered 90 per cent of a couple’s assets to the wife, who had given up her career and significant earning potential to raise the couple’s children, has given the sacrifices made by her and all homemakers the credit they deserve.
Sacrifices? What sacrifices? Being a stay at home parent is an enormous luxury, and one that fully 84% of women surveyed by Forbes wishes they could afford. Women caring for their children full time, in a comfortable home, filled with every labor saving device known to mankind, answering to no one about how they spend their time are making sacrifices? Bullshit.
The judge felt becoming a stay-at-home mum had left Jane Morris with a ‘low earning capacity’ and ‘rusty skills’, having spent her time raising three children during their 25-year marriage, leaving a successful career in recruitment to do so.
It does not take 25 years to raise three children. Once children are in school fulltime, there is no reason to have mommy at home for six hours in an empty house, other than pure luxury. If Jane gave up a promising career, she did so to enjoy hot yoga classes, lattes with her galpals, reading a good book uninterrupted at noon and doing whatever the hell she wanted all day long.
I should know. All three of mine are in school fulltime.
It is complete garbage to pretend this woman made some sort of heroic sacrifice to raise children. She made a decision to be financially dependent on a man, come what may. That’s on her.
London has earned itself the title of divorce capital of the world – and for good reason. In stark contrast to other nations and legal jurisdictions, where the primary carer of children (not always but usually the woman) can be left with little to nothing, our world acclaimed legal system starts from a 50-50 basis.
That’s because 50-50 is actually fair, sane and reasonable.
This means that in principle, the assets built up during marriage will be divided equally between the man and the woman. However, if the need of one person is seen to be greater – for example, if the primary carer needs more than 50 per cent in order to put a roof over children’s heads, keep them in their schools or generally look after their best interests – then the courts will order that they receive more.
That money is not going to support the woman, it’s for the children, and one presumes that once school fees and sports activities are off the menu, mommy no longer has a claim to that money, and will be expected to provide for herself, using the 50% of assets she received. That’s perfectly reasonable and fair, although I note that while the UK is quick to divide assets equally, custody of the children lags a bit.
Gee, I wonder why?
This week’s monumental decision in favour of Jane Morris is a recognition from the courts that her lack of ability to earn going forward and her responsibilities at home mean that she should receive more of the family’s assets. As the court sees it, the husband can and will build his finances back up again.
Her lack of ability was self-imposed. It is a choice she made, and she is responsible for the consequences of her choices, just as I am. If the marriage is 25 years old, and Jane and her husband married when they were 25 (although they were likely older), then he is 50 or even older. Exactly when is he supposed to rebuild all this wealth? He is to work until he is 75 or 80 to have any hope of a retirement, while Jane waltzes off into the sunset right now, having contributed nothing to the creation of that wealth?
Okay, that’s not true. Married men with stay at home wives earn an 11% premium over men with working wives. 11% is a far cry from 90%.
Raising children while pursuing a professional career or other paid employment is not only possible in the UK but is filled with huge potential; I am surrounded by dedicated career women with loving families and wonderful children.
Yes it is and Jane chose not to do that.
But for some, the choice is made to make a life in the home full-time – and the work, time and effort that goes into this should not be overlooked. Neither should it result in them receiving less of a financial award than a working mother or any other primary carer during a divorce. Particularly when sacrifices have been made in reaching that joint decision.
Garbage. Refusing to participate in the paid labor force carries an enormous risk, and every person over the age of five knows this. For most men, not participating is not a choice at all, while women can choose. That choice is not free. Why should it be? Adult women who choose to be financially dependent on another adult are taking a risk, and it’s profoundly infantilizing to suggest that women should not be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.
If her husband is responsible for her financial decisions, should he vote for her, too?
Well yes. Actually he should. That’s another story.
Although a double page splash on a spouse’s reckless spending is a reasonably regular phenomenon, maintenance payments are often made with the care of children in mind.
Because they’re children. Lumping women in with children, and making men responsible for all of them is precisely what inspired the tagline for this blog: the radical notion that women are adults. According to some judges and feminist commentators in the UK, women are not adults. They’re children. Wee, helpless children the big strong men need to take care of, even if the men are left eating dirt and living in their cars.
This case is the very epitome of the disposable male. He means nothing. He can be stripped of all his work, all his wealth, all his assets and then tossed on the street to survive or die trying. That feminists feel women are entitled to treat men like this is all you need to know about feminism.
This case also shows that the courts will continue to raise the flag on the shirking of financial responsibilities. More and more prison sentences – often suspended in the first instance – are being handed out to those won’t pay maintenance to their former partners (who are, again, not always but usually women).
Shirking of financial responsibilities. Why are men financially responsible for women? Are women adults or are they not? Are women equal or are they not?
The heat is being turned up on those who try to short-change their spouses and I can only see the temperature rising on this.
The spouse being short-changed is the man, who has gotten out of bed every morning for 25 years, and trundled off to work, where he put up with asshole customers and petty, vindictive co-workers and daily stress and pressures, for eight or more hours every day, to keep his family fed and warm and safe, while his wife put her feet up in the middle of the afternoon and watched a rom-com.
Yeah, yeah, being a housewife is work. About 4 hours of it in a day. Working parents share the load, with each doing about 2 hours a day. I do all 4 hours. Wow. The stress. The pressure. Being a housewife is the sweetest gig on the planet. Let no one tell you any different.
And now he is left with a fraction of what he contributed while she absconds with the lion’s share, having done almost none of the work of accumulating those assets.
This case is a celebration of parenthood. All mothers, and indeed fathers, who are the primary carers of their children will have their contributions to the family fully recognised by the family court in the division of their finances.
No it’s not. It’s a bald-faced admission of how much feminists hate men, and how rapacious, greedy and gluttonous women will be, if allowed.
This is not just a victory for one woman and her legal team, but a victory for parents everywhere.
This is a crushing defeat. No sane man should ever agree to having a stay at home wife and mother, even though that is the best way to build wealth, create stable loving families and communities. How can men ever trust women? How can they love women? Who would love someone with the power to destroy you so utterly?
This is tragic.
Nice work, feminists.
Now please die.
Lots of love,