This woman's divorce settlement sets back the cause of feminism.....

[mozhe]

.....£48 million for 28 years of marriage ! I wonder what she did for that...She stayed home and bought up 2 children,( now long grown..), gave some dinner parties, presumably shopped and enjoyed herself but as far as I can see she didn't actually participate in her DHs buisness dealings....so why has she got £48million ?

Answers on a postcard....

Also how can you possibly quantify what her contribution to his career was?

What if he'd never married; would he have made the same fortune without her love and encouragement, and her help so that he didn't have to worry about things on the home front?

Let's say that she died in 1980 (for argument's sake) and that he had to scale down his career to cope with childcare, because at that stage in his career he couldn't afford a nanny, so he had to leave work at 5.30pm every night in order to get the nursery on time to pick his kids up.

And suppose that he missed a critical call, or dozens of critical calls, because he was out of the office when they came through because his kids were sick, or had a school pantomime, or because he was on the phone to the tax credits office, or taking them to get their immunisations.

And suppose that one of those calls was the key one that led to a major deal, that led to other major deals, that resulted in £699m of his fortune.

What then? Does that mean she's entitled to £699m?

Exactly MissG.

See, that's what I don't get about Mozhe's stance on bringing up children and not working for 'the man.'

If I bring up my own children and recieve NO PAY for it that is BAD and it 'sets feminism back.'

However, if I swap my children for someone else's children from 7-7 and we PAY each other with MONEY for looking after each other's children then this is GOOD and Mohze will BE HAPPY.

Is that about the size of it?

You'll never know what she contributed. How can you?

The night before last my partner came home and told me about a meeting he'd had about a new strategic business unit he's thinking of developing. We talked it through and basically I explained to him exactly how he should go about assessing its viability... not for the first time.

OK, our work is in the same line (retail) - he's the operational person, I was in management consulting/executive education. But I know I do masses for him professionally and he relies on my feedback (he does for me too BTW). Being a CEO can be quite lonely, and he needs to have someone to give him honest feedback without fearing for her job.

I just find it all a bit odd tbh. That the fact that you have ever been married entitles you to a certain lifestyle in perpetuity, no matter if you grow apart, stop loving each other, don't actually treat each other as a member of a partnership.

Of course, that's the theory behind it - that when you get married two become one forever and if you go with that then yes she should get 50%. But I don't really believe that (I'm not married )

If you believe in the true contract and two become one idea of marriage then this makes sense. And as marriage has in history been an important way of protecting women and children when women could not leave a marriage or work for themselves.

But these days women have more freedom and marriage now performs a different function in society. As one in three marriages end in divorce and let's say another fraction are dysfunctional and don't operate in this (ideal) way, I'd say both women and men would be wise to think about their own futures and take steps to ensure that they would be protected if anything happened to their marriage.

There are ways to do this other than via the divorce settlement and that's why I think the OP is suggesting this can be seen as a bit of a damaging step for feminism. The idea that this or any woman's best bet for her future is to get protection via a man who no longer wants to be her husband is what is prompting the question. Yes I'm sure he's a jerk but that's not what's in dispute here.

I don't really have any answers - it just seems to be a bit of an archaic view of marriage. And as someone else has said, women lower down the income scale with young children who really could do with the protection don't get this level of support as a percentage of the husband's income and capital. It just seems to me it's more about lifestyle than rights.

But margoandjerry in this particular case, when there had been no steps taken to protect herself (what steps do you mean, btw?) surely the decision re the settlement is the only fair one?

I don't think that outsiders have much of a clue as to what goes on in other people's marriages, which is why divorce settlements are so contentious and it is very hard to know which party deserves compensation, if either, for marital breakdown.

But I certainly think that it will be a very sad day for feminism when women's alimony/compensation is assessed on the basis of the going rate for household chores/childcare/sexual services...

Xenia, Mozhe - did/do you not have any intellectual exchange or emotional support in your own marriages?

yes like I say I'm not sure this case is easy to resolve but I'm just saying I can see the OP's point.

Re steps to take I mean do what you do to ensure you could survive if heaven forbid your dh died. You get mortgage cover and life insurance for those eventualities and I think it's sensible to make sure if you ended up on your own through divorce you could fund yourself and your children even if it would be really really tough...

I would say that if you are a SAHM you need to make sure that you have assets in your name if at all possible and that you can still get into the job market when your children are old enough to allow for this.

I personally would not be a SAHM because of what happened to my mother but this is no criticism of anyone who is. It's just that I've seen the downside when one partner decides not to honour his responsibilities. Personally, I will bring up my daughter to look after her own financial wellbeing - I would hate her to be stuck in a marriage for financial reasons or to need a marriage to make her financially secure. This is a tough counsel, I realise, but that's just my view.

Oh and of course I'm not saying that this applies to any of the posters on this thread. I just want my daughter to make her own way first - and then find someone lovely to live with and give me grandchildren with (she's only 7 months btw - I may be getting ahead of myself a bit )

margoandjerry - yes, very wise, daughters need to grow up expecting to arrange for their own financial protection.

We are in the process of buying properties for our children - just little ones, but it will mean that they all have something to start out in independent life with.

oh god here we go again

can you not just give it a rest and be a normal member of this site .. just for once

"We are in the process of buying properties for our children - just little ones, but it will mean that they all have something to start out in independent life with."

is that a joke?

if you don't think bringing up children is a career I hope you are fucking good at your job.
Because your kids may well be costly on society methinks, the shite you spout.

'margoandjerry - yes, very wise, daughters need to grow up expecting to arrange for their own financial protection. '

And you're teaching them this by buying them properties.

Yawn.

Anna, you are a spraylord. Honestly, are you for real?

Why not go back to slagging off your partner's ex, and what a vile person and mother she is for working full time?

Yes mandj totally agree about teaching my dd to be financially savvy. And actually I don't think that I would want to be a SAHM either - but I recognise that has a lot to do with my own insecurities...

Wordsmith - no, not a joke. But I live in France, tax and inheritance law are completely different here to the UK, it's a very tax-efficient way of planning for the future. We will pay 10% tax rather than 50% tax by investing the money for our children rather than for ourselves. Frankly why would you give 40% to the tax man when you can give it to your children?

Oh expat at spraylord

She does make me larf too

expat - don't be so rude, it's completely unnecessary. This is another country, other legislation, other tax.

I'm off to lunch with a wee chuckle now

That's the sad thing, doggie. Now, Xenia, Xenia makes me laugh. Because she is funny.

Anna is just . . . spraff.

What's rude, Anna, about pointing out your hypocrisy in most thing?

Yes, FGS, we know you live in France - you mention it in nearly every post, along with how you speak French and have lots of money and your partner's ex is vile.

This board, however, is in Britain. And pertains to most things British.

Yes indeed - she just chunters spraff

What on earth is hypocritical about investing some money now so that when my daughter is 18 she can be independent, make her own decisions and pay her own way in life?

Better that than have her growing up whinging because her lifestyle doesn't meet her expectations...