Our thanks to Mike P for this. What is the proportion of rich men handing over half their fortunes to their ex-wives, to the number of rich women handing over half their fortunes to their ex-husbands? It must be enormous, because of women’s hypergamy. Tellingly, in this case the woman made her fortune over the course of the marriage – she wouldn’t have married a man with so much less money than her (most demand for prenup contracts comes from well-off women). Money must never flow from women to men, regardless of the circumstances. That’s totally the wrong sort of equality.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Justice for Men & Boys 
She obviously saw that society automatically discriminates against men and was surprised she should have to give the husband anything at all. Never mind husbands give wives half of all their possessions. She has seen that gentlemen are always prepared (and trained) to automatically take a back seat to women, never to criticize women publicly, no matter how embarrassing their shortcomings. And that is why she is surprised she had to give anything at all. But can we blame her? It is the society that created this imbalance and it is the society that needs to change, men in particular. Too much leniency towards women resulted in the perverted society in which we now must live. If men do not like the double standards between the treatment of men and women, then each individual man must stop treating each individual woman in a preferential manner. It all starts on the street level. And if men are taught from childhood to always treat women with privilege, then the time is high to start questioning this type of upbringing.
LikeLike
The appeal court judge probably made the right decision in this case, and I’m inclined to agree that in modern divorce settlements the proceeds should not necessarily be shared equally.
Which is not to say that many such settlements in recent years haven’t unfairly favoured the wife; they have, outrageously so, thanks the the influence of feminist activists.
However, just as important, in my view, are what appear to be the obscenely large incomes of these two city traders. Many people might regard those in occupations such as this as parasites upon the general population.
LikeLike
Thanks P. I think only she was a city trader.
LikeLike
My apologies Mike. I have checked the article which says he was working as an IT consultant when they met (though my point still stands, but I should of course have said that it does not apply to all city traders).
LikeLike
“The appeal court judge probably made the right decision in this case,
and I’m inclined to agree that in modern divorce settlements the
proceeds should not necessarily be shared equally.”
I agree in that it should be about contribution to marriage including child caring( which affects many at home dads) and compensation for abuse( DV)
LikeLike
Whereas I agree that the judge was probably right to reduce the original order in this case, I would be interested to learn of cases where judges reduced what courts had awarded wives on appeal by the husbands. I suppose there must have been cases of this, but I can seem only to remember cases where the judge either upheld the original judgement, or increased it.
LikeLike
“Matrimonial law relies on a 1973 act and distributes wealth based on
case law involving a couple who married in 1961 and stayed together for
30 years,’ she told the Telegraph.”
too bad, perhaps she would like to direct that to the various women who have unfairly gouged their husbands of assets and children over the past 30 years !
good news though for me, as I will have a stronger case to get a fairer share of my marital assets back.( ex has a lot more than myself !)
given that she is a city trader, I don’t have much sympathy for her,
at least she won’t
starve,
lose her home,job etc
commit suicide from loss of finances and kids..
NOT be believed..
LikeLike
Hilarious, and yet her husband has already had his settlement reduced according to the article; would the odds be high of this happening if he was a woman? Still, there must be many divorced men out there who will read her comments and smile. Men off all incomes have been getting screwed over by their ex-wives in the divorce courts for fifty years now, without anyone listening to them; if it takes wealthy women feeling the pain to change things, that is an outcome that I for one can live with. More proof that the way to truly crush feminists and entrench male rights is to do exactly what we are always told to do, and really treat women the way we already do men; they can’t stand it and clamour for change far more effectively than us.
LikeLike
One of my small pleasures of late has come because of one of the few bits of equality to wobble women. The long overdue state retirement age equalisation. In my late fifties and in health and care there are in both many female contemporaries all eagerly discussing early retirements. Few are clued up and I do take some delight in pointing out there will be no bus pass, perks or pension at 60 as they presume from their older female relatives and colleagues (now of course there won’t be for me either but I’ve paid attention). I’m surprised at how few have paid attention to this long drawn out equalisation, but as they haven’t it is rather fun putting them right.
LikeLike
Yet again I see from the DM comments people presume Divorce settlements are connected to the reason for divorce. Many a divorcing man has found the most disgraceful behaviour of a wife is in fact rewarded by the Courts whose decisions on splitting assets are separate and don’t take in consideration of “fault”. Similarly child care and access. If is it that this ruling may bring English practice closer to others in considering the wealth during the marriage its to the good. The other thing I’d note is that the fact the couple kept their finances separate assisted the woman’s case. It suggests it is very much in the wealthier spouses interests not to have joint accounts etc. Interesting case indeed.
LikeLike