My feed
Premium
Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Surely not even a feminist can justify this

14 replies
OP posts:
Report
Rosebud05 · 08/02/2011 19:48

I haven't read the, em, indepth article in The Sun, but do you suppose there might be a bit more to it that that esteemed publication would have us believe?

Report
DepartmentOfCountingTheMoon · 08/02/2011 19:57

On the face of it there was a very bad decision made by the original judge. Although there may have been more to it than what appears in the Daily "Making up shite for fun and profit since 1896" Mail.

Either way, what's this story got to do with feminism?

Report
onimolap · 08/02/2011 20:02

I don't know there's anything yet to justify, as a date for the final hearing has yet to be set.

Mr Mansfield's lawyer is reported as saying:

"There have only been three cases involving similar situations in legal history, and nothing exactly like this before.

"It is much more difficult for a disabled person to go through a divorce than an able-bodied person, specially when, as in this case, there are young children involved.

"Which comes first - your injuries or the children?"

If he had been awarded the money in the first place as an amount calculated to give him an adequate quality of life for his projected life-span, then I think it should not be taken from him [frivolous comparison, but one wouldn't expect an able-bodied person to impair his health to release funds (eg sell a kidney?)].

But if there was compensation above that, then I don't see why it shouldn't be put into the general asset pot for division according to current need.

A case to watch?

Report
vesuvia · 08/02/2011 20:04

im22, what's with the "not even a feminist" wording in your thread title?

Report
im22 · 08/02/2011 20:14

"what's with the "not even a feminist" wording in your thread title" and "Either way, what's this story got to do with feminism?"

I suppose it's because the article relates to alimony/spousal support and a women's right to it despite all circumstances, but judging by your non-plussed attitudes towards my assumption that this is a feminist opinion I must be mistaken. (Damn, I'm yet another victim of the patriarchy Sad )

OP posts:
Report
im22 · 08/02/2011 20:23

Firstly "But if there was compensation above that, then I don't see why it shouldn't be put into the general asset pot for division." I would point out that the accident was ten years before they met, he did not receive this money during the marriage, he came into it with the money therefore it shouldn't be put into asset pot (because that is the law)

Secondly, "for division according to current need." In what possible way can she "need" 285000 in proportion to the 215000 needs of a one legged disabled person???

OP posts:
Report
zikes · 08/02/2011 20:33

According to the Sun Hmm, his accident was in '92. They were together for 10 years between '98 and '08, and have two children.

Presumably they shared assets during the marriage and each contributed in various ways to the household. She now presumably has to run a separate home and, I assume, raise the children?

It's pretty normal for assets to be divided. I don't know, I don't think we should leap to the conclusion she's ripping him off or whatever. [shrug] Just don't know enough to say either way.

Report
onimolap · 08/02/2011 21:14

Im22: I see what you mean, but if he has money as a lump sum now, then it might be considered an asset of the marriage (just as a home owned by one spouse premaritally can be). The courts now presumably have to decide if any remaining lump sum is provision for future medical care (which IMHO should not be taken from him), or is more generalised damages (or whatever the proper term might be) which might be considered a divisible asset. Presumably, much will depend on the circumstances under which he received the sum.

Report
dittany · 08/02/2011 21:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Unrulysun · 08/02/2011 22:11

OP that's a fine level of outrage you've got going on there.

I know feminists will justify practically anything. Stalin's pogroms, the killing fields of Cambodia, George Osborne holding a position of fiscal responsibility...but surely not even a feminist could justify this insanity? Dear God surely not even them?

:)

Report
HerBeX · 08/02/2011 22:15

LOL at this thread.

Do you search the world to find examples of the monstrous regiment of women doing down the menz OP? How tiring that must be.

This is not a feminist issue. Presumably if the money had been the woman's 10 years before, it would presumably have been put itno the asset pot for the saem reasons this man's money was.

A basic principle of marriage, is that if you marry someone, you are legally agreeing that half your assets, belong to them from now on. The only thing that changes that, is a pre-nup. And obviously the laws on asset division are different in each country.

Report
Prolesworth · 08/02/2011 22:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sakura · 09/02/2011 01:30

Grin UnrulySun and HerBex

Report
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.