Men in Britain are extremely bitter about women when it comes to divorce. They accuse them of seeking divorce for the money. But why is everyone forgetting that for decades women in the
Historically, the position of women in society has been marred by male notions of what the female role should entail. Women must be subservient; they must remain at home and look after the needs of their husbands and children. I was watching the film, ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ the other day, which had incited feminists to condemn it as ‘misogynist’. It’s the sort of subservience that men expected from women.
And today when reforms in the divorce laws are enabling women to speak up and empower themselves, and escape bad marriages that they could not possibly escape decades ago, men are up in arms.
Is it any surprise that the courts give special considerations to women where child custody and maintenance are concerned? Aren’t women supposed to look after their children more than men are expected to? Aren’t women entitled to some sustenance from their ex husbands who have been unfaithful to them? After all, the major cause for divorce in the
When it comes to the dividing of assets, it is natural that the parent with the child custody is awarded the marital home. The law always acts in the best interests of the children.
On the other hand, many women are taking advantage of the new leniency, and although today they enjoy almost equal rights as men on most counts (thanks to the wars that have been fought by their feminist sisters), they pretend to still be the helpless, abused victims that they truly used to be so long ago.
Or is it an unfair deal? It seems that in many divorce cases women have the edge over men. Women are laying claim to all the assets of their husbands, as well as their future earnings; plus, they are being financially supported by their husbands for the rest of their lives. Yes, many women are making money while the law shines down on them.
Unhappy corporate wives have deliberately lured their husbands to jobs in
And it’s not just the wives of rich husbands who are reaping the benefits. A Grant Thornton survey revealed that in 2005, the average "pot of wealth" which had to be shared between the spouses on divorce was worth £1million, and wives who were not working, got 53% of it.
The 50-50 attitude began with the White vs. White ruling in 2000 in which Pamela and Martin White, married 33 years were divorced. Mrs. White was offered £800,000 as settlement, but the judge increased the sum to £1.5m.
However, this trend could soon change. The European Commission wants to end ‘divorce tourism’ by next year because of a massive upheaval that
According to the new concept of "applicable law", many people born and married in other countries will not be able to divorce English-style, and judges will have to toughen their liberal pro-woman stance. It is apparent that they still view women as the ‘weaker sex’ in need of protection.
Yet many divorcees are indignant at being accused of wanting to "fine" their ex-husbands. A 43-year-old mother of two, who used to be a solicitor, recently fought a bitter battle in court. She says that she feels bitter because it was her husband who had an affair, and she gave up her career to give him an easier life. She adds that if she hadn’t fought for her rights, she would have been left with almost nothing. She thinks the law is only being fair.
In a case of a husband’s adultery leading to a divorce initiated by the wife, TV personality Chris Tarrant publicly apologized to his wife for having caused her hurt, and handed over half of his £10 million property portfolio, as well as £5 million as a one-off maintenance payment.
Change will happen, but clearly not without a bitter battle of the sexes.
