If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Women win millions in divorce case
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Im all for equal rights and all but what have these women done to deserve this money? It wouldnt be the same if the woman had the money would it...its very strange.
0
Comments
Women can get everything with a divorce now. I won't even bother getting married at this rate. True love doesn't need some church or social approval, does it?
that quote sums up what is wrong with this
excuse my langauge, but its' utter bollocks, yes due compensation to let them get back on their feet etc but not in the region of millions
It doesn't seem unreasonable really, both parties will still be very wealthy and in one of the cases the bloke was cheating so it serves him right really........
What she earned, what she boguht, yes is hers. Any more than that just isn't.
This really is taking it too far now - in the reigon of millions, and money for cheating, and a lifestlye expectancy not met, and all sorts - for fucks sake.
Can't the two people in a marriage that breaks up, just take what is theirs, and go?
And I agree with Teh_Gerbil...
Also it has nothing to with men vs women, there is no reason to be believe that the ruling would not have been the same if it were the rich woman and the poorer husband.....
If it was requested by her husband the I think it's fair she make a bit of cash to get back on her feet, but if she choose to do so, she choose to not make any money...
Tbh any divorce is per case anyway, variables ca change a lot depending on the situation, but unfortunatly laws are mainly aim to the women rights more than anything else...
In France it's worse, even if you wife cheat on you constantly and leave you for an other man she can still suck you dry (an not in a good way)... Even a woman cheating ad leaving for someone else can request her ex husband to pay a pension that can last forever even if no kids are involved...
Even if the raising of children isn't involved, there are many circumstances in which the main earner may expect that their partner (oftentimes the wife) will not work, or work reduced hours perhaps. Just because she goes along with that - yes, possibly in part by her own free will and choice - when they're happy and in love doesn't mean that once they fall out of love she should be totally skint on account of decisions made when "happily ever after" still seemed like it was going to be a reality. A lot of women would choose to stay home, raise kids, go to art classes and all that jazz if their partner could support them... without it having been requested by their partner. Why should that make a difference? It doesn't mean they shouldn't be entitled to a settlement, just because they weren't using their time in a way that people deem "worthy" like raising a child. Or because they were happy to do so and their financial situation afforded it. Though then I guess a lot of people would assume the woman had married into that money so she could live it on up, life of Reilly etc.
If it was a "house husband" who was claiming money after a split then I don't think many people who be denying him a healthy settlement. The resentment surrounding this kind of news smacks of people continuing to buy into the "moneygrabbing, gold digging bitch" cliche.
I don't believe in doling out million pound settlements here, there and everywhere. But in those cases I often wonder how much hard, back-breaking labour the rich party has done to "earn" their money anyway :chin:
getting that much because you become accustomed to that level of wealth is an utter joke, especally when we apparantly live in a capitalist country where wealth isn't a right but something you aqquire
Most of hte time today, women do this because they want to as opposed to any "sexual oppression" - if the Husband earns enough himself, why should she work? When she can spend time tossing around doing nothing at home.
IF there is substancial evidence the Husband made her do it against her will - ok, fair enough. Otherwise, no.
And also - how many families can afford to raise children these days with only one parent working? Not many.
I didn't say Childcare. I covered that elsewhere - who can afford to raise children not working these days? Most people struggle and have to use care. Those who don't are the lucky ones. Besides, once the child hits a certain age it is no longer justified as the sole reason. And without children, it isn't. There must be a choice involved - from pregnacy through brith to about 8 or so, yes, I'd say fine. After that... hardly.
And don't try to say the upbringing of a child was loss of earnings and the man's fault - if you didn't want a child, there were PLENTY of mesures to prevent it. It must have been a joint decision, as well as contraceptives there was the option of an abortion.
Housework is done easily by couples who both work. You don't HAVE to be a housewife to do all the housework, working couples manage.
Thats a general arguement though, not for these cases - I am a bit on the side of meh here - if you've got 13 million and are fucking around on your wife, I'm sure you can afford to lose 7.
pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Also, surely when you’re talking about the sums of money involved in these cases then no one is going to be left wanting. One chap had his fortune reduced from £17.5 million to 12.5 million, he’s hardly going to be strapped for cash now is he?
If it is quite obvious that the relationship was brief and no children are involved, then the settlement should reflect that.
I don’t think I quite see what The_Gerbil and others are getting so het up about.
We must have been writing the same thing at the same time! Great minds and all that
The kind of families in these situations are rich families, those that have the money to be able to afford for one parent not to work, and I dare you to say to any housewife that she is 'tossing around the house', its bloody hard work running a house, especially if children are around.
In a divorce, it is very unlikely that you will find substantial evidence that the husband made her do it, and vice versa. in most cases, it will be a joint decision for the woman to leave employment, and therefore as in the case with MacFarlane, she will have possibly given up a large sum of money that she could be reliant on now.
In the Miller case, I think personally 5m is a bit excessive, however you dont know the details of the case, nor do you know the financial status of either party. The wife may now be without a home, any income, transport. The court needs to take all of these things into consideration.
I agree with Briggi, I am almost positive we wouldnt be having this discussion if it was a househusband.
His wife, never had a career or real job where she earned money and she never sought one. She marrie dhim after he was a football player and had earned himself a fortune. And he was a heavy drinker for years while they married.
In court she claimed sole responsibilty for making him quit drinking and become a better player and ended up getting herself half of everything he had earned as a player from even before they were married or in a relationship and eanred half of everything he will earn after they divorce. WAY more then she needs, Way more then is neccessary as he earns lots. Also the argument can not be made she needs that kind of money for child maintenance since he wanted to have 50-50 custody with her and offered to pay for everything they would eve rneed or want independantly of her.
The truth is she took him for a ride because she was a woman and could. She didnt even make him quit drinking, i doubt it was a coincidence he quit shortly after Arsene Wenger made the Arsenal old boys cut back on the booze.
Now in most cases when the wife an dmother quits her career to raise children, i am all for them getting a fair share of the family wealth and enough to pay for the kids futures too. The man has to be responsible after all. But in the cases when the woman has never sought her own way in life and claims credit for making her husband better at his job purely out of gred to get more money, then i have to say courts should look more closely at divorce cases and arguments.
Precisley. EQUALITY. Not more rights for women. Not less. The same.
when a couple decide to get married, it is supposed to be forever, however, due to certain circumstances, a marriage can break down. The wife who agrees to leave her job does so with no intention of ever being without her husband's support. it is not stealing, as a man and wife should theoretically share everything in their marriage as 50/50, and therefore the money is also hers. For richer for poorer as the vow goes.
I meant, we wouldnt be having this discussion if it was a househusband that had been awarded a 5m settlement...therefore that is not EQUALITY!
Meaning what exactly?
Do you have any evidence that it wasn't because of her, Ray gave up drinking?
Well exactly.
Whether she took it upon herself to quit the job, was forced to quit the job, they reached a mutual agreement that she should leave her job. Irrelevant.
As for being "accustomed" to the wealth and standard of living, is anyone fucking surprised? Anyone going from rags to riches is going to fight tooth and nail to hang on to some of their wealth. Anyone here who said they'd walk away from their richer, more financially viable partner (who they'd forsaken their job to be with, whether fully voluntarily or through coercion, again irrelevant) is someone I would call a liar without a moment's hesitation. If the world was made of bread and honey then maybe people would walk away from a relationship with "yours" and "mine" being utterly clean cut, but that ain't the real world. Money makes it go round, after all
There wouldn't be this furore if it was a male claiming from a rich female ex-partner, I know that without a shadow of a doubt. I don't know why I'm as surprised as I am about what's been said so far.
:crazyeyes
Oh we would.
We don't comment when a woman in a divorce hearing takes it all and the man is left penniless and homeless. Somehow it is viewed as vengance for hte old days of sexual oppression of women I guess...
Women get MORE than 50/50 alot of the time these days in a divorce. If a househusband were divorcing a working woman, this question, the trials, would not even have happened. We think men will "get by" somehow.
TBH. I say - the woman gets what she owns, and what she earned. What is HERS, legally. If they wern't married and living together, it would work this way. Why does some sort of religous legal fesitval sudenly change all this?
If she needs financial support, the state is there for that. The husband paid into these state funds anyway with his taxes. Why must half hte contents of his bank account go to her?
People choose to get married, both partners make that choice. Women, as some of the responses (which frankly seem to contain a thread of agression against women) imply, do not choose the amount of financial support provided. The courts do that.
People choose to get married, people choose to give up a career, people choose to fuck the mistress and then run out on their husbands and wives - divorce is a settlement put in place to deal with someone breaking the basis of a marriage. People often wonder what marriage means and why it's still significant in our society - well look no further - you want to get married then you need to accept the responsibilities that go with that.
If people don't want to face those consequences then they've three choices; don't get married, get a damn good prenup or don't fuck up the marriage.
If people have a problem with the amount of money being allocated then their agression should be directed towards the courts and not towards women.
And don't forget that there are those businessmen who see it as an important part of their appearance to have an equally expensive wife - where the relationship is absolutely based on a promise of a high standard of living for the rest of their lives. Like it or not, if that is what someone has been led to expect from their arrangement, they sure as fuck are going to fight for it when they get thrown on the heap for a younger model.
And, please, in no way is the British judiciary a body fighting to avenge women for to the oppression of the past - you've only got to look at the situation of rape at the moment to realise they are hardly burning their bra-wigs whilst handing out reparations for witch-burning.
That'd be a logical choice.
With all the people out their being told - get a good prenup or don't bother - they still do it. Anyone who marries a partner who says "Don't bother with a prenuptual agreement, we don't need it" is asking for it.
As for don't fuck up the marriage - anyone who cheats on a past parter should be made to tell any future parters this. So they know, and if they still want to go ahead will take good precautions. I hate disloyalty more than anything.
As for anything about courts favouring women - whilst I doubt it is anything deliberate, results to tend to show this - there are women who makes careers out of this and get rich. Also some Solicitors tell women who are divorcing to go for it all and take the man for every penny he has. Because it is possible. The courts are a bunch of tits anyway, they make some idiotic rulings. I don't have the women - I just hate the idiocy of the rulings. Rape as you say is another good example. It often goes unpunished because of apparent "lack of evidence". Yet they'll lock up terrorists without thinking twice, little or no evidence is availible for them being terrorists.... what is going on?