When 50/50 divorce settlements came into effect, women cheered and celebrated, but now that women are becoming the primary breadwinners in so many families, the whole equality thing is starting to taste a little sour.
Julie Arnold is more than a little pissed that her husband of four years just walked away with a house and half of (mostly) her $10M fortune. They have no children, and he was banging the help. The fact that they maintained separate bank accounts, and she deposited ‘her’ money into ‘her’ account made no difference.
Julie learned the hard way that she doesn’t have money, and he doesn’t have money, they have money, and that money gets split 50/50.
These are the rules women made. Not men.
It’s hard to feel sorry for women getting bit in the ass by rules their rapacious, voracious, greedy feminist sisters made, but equality, like so many things, can be a real bitch when reality updates. Don’t you love it when mentally unstable, irrational, usually childless feminists make rules we all get to live by? Feminism truly is a cancer, and now that women are getting hit with metastatic tumors, maybe we’ll rethink this deadly, disabling, disfiguring disease. Feminism has ruined so much. Now it’s ruining women.
For once, let’s be grateful for gynocentrism. Now that feminism is hurting women, we’ll collectively tear it down. When it was only men and children who suffered? Meh. Who cares, amirite? Sadly, there is little pleasure in contemplating the millions and millions of suffering men and children, even as the edifice of the Bluestockings begins to crumble.
I want to tell you today about a woman getting slammed by ridiculous and grossly unfair divorce laws. I’ll call her Lucy. Lucy is now 50 years old – she was 25 when she married. She met her husband Albert when they were both teaching at a high school. She had a fulltime job, and he was teaching supply, but with a very promising future. When they married, she had visions of two teachers, earning two salaries, with summers off to spend with their children, and two nice pensions at the end of a long and fulfilling career.
Albert gave every indication he felt exactly same way.
Albert was thrilled when their daughter was born 9 months, almost to the day, after their wedding, and since Lucy had a fulltime job, and Albert was only supply teaching, it made sense that he should stay home and raise the baby. Albert was one of the very first stay-at-home dads! And sadly, he was a bit of a cliché.
Albert subscribed to the ‘taking care of a kid is fulltime work’ model of domestic labor. He refused to get up and make Lucy breakfast, and during the entire course of their long marriage, never made lunch for her once. Not once. He prepared maybe one evening meal per week. It was edible, but he never bothered to learn to cook properly. He washed clothes for himself and the child, but refused to wash Lucy’s clothes. She had to do her own laundry on the weekends. Albert cleaned sporadically, but never in Lucy’s office. That was her problem.
And once the baby turned six, and went to school fulltime, Albert refused to go back to work fulltime. He wanted to nurture his artistic career. He started a visual arts degree and tried to learn pottery and then lost interest. He wanted to be a librarian and went back to school to learn how to sort books. But that didn’t interest him after all, and he decided he would teach special ed. He finished that program, but that wasn’t very interesting either.
Lucy paid for everything. She worked two, sometimes three jobs, always terrified that she would lose access to her child if she filed for divorce. She learned the menus for every fast food joint in town. Albert would not even buy frozen pizza or lasagna. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars were spent every month buying restaurant food.
Finally, Albert got a job teaching at the local college. He complained bitterly, spent most of the money he earned on himself, refused to teach more than one semester in a year. When college wide cutbacks meant he would earn slightly less an hour and have to host an additional hour of office hours to help students, he quit outright. He then worked for a relative for a while, coming and going as he pleased, until that job ended. Then he went to work a minimum wage job, because it was interesting to him. He typically spent more on takeout food than he earned in a shift, meaning it cost money for Albert to work. Lucy put up with all of it, until….
….she was done.
Turning 50, facing a retirement with a lazy, complaining, bitter and utterly useless husband who had taken more than he had ever given, she filed for divorce.
Albert lost his shit, of course. He was used to having Lucy at his beck and call, paying his bills and indulging his sour moods and ungrateful antics. Once, when Lucy made him an omelette, he complained that the omelette had a crack in it.
I am not kidding.
This man lay in bed virtually every morning of his married life while his wife got up, got ready for a full day of work (usually at more than one job), and then he had the utter gall to complain that the breakfast his wife made him was …. cracked.
Lucy’s marriage is now winding up, and she may have to pay this thankless, lazy, indolent, spoiled, petulant man half of everything she has spent a lifetime acquiring. Hopefully, the courts will be merciful to her and not punish her for taking so long to rid herself of a lifetime of ugly, sullen weight, but I’m not optimistic, are you?
Will Lucy be held to the same rules as a man would be?
Is that fair?
Is that equality?
Is that justice?
If Lucy earns your sympathy, and you find yourself thinking it’s egregiously unfair to punish her further after 25 years of punishment in the form of a lazy, useless spouse, then how can you justify men being forced to pay useless wives?
Is this the equality you are looking for?
Are you sure?
Lots of love,