Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

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

229 replies

mozhe · 24/05/2007 23:53

.....£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....

OP posts:
Twiglett · 25/05/2007 12:39

feminism to me is about having choices so neither definition you've given is correct IMHO

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 12:43

margoandjerry

I think there is another view of marriage, which is that there is a huge component of a marital relationship which is nothing to do with:

  • paid work outside the home
  • housework
  • childcare

and is about the intellectual and emotional growth of both parties and of the children. Many feminists believe that women are major contributors to that intellectual and emotional growth (more so than men) and that that is what is being rewarded when large divorce settlements are made.

When women work outside the home they aren't as available for the intellectual and emotional guidance of their husbands and children.

thedogsbollox · 25/05/2007 12:45

I agree with Twigs, feminism to me was about all women having the ability to choose how to live their lives.

I don't see this payout as having anything at all to do with feminism. I think it is the settlement of a contract between two people, on a basis that the courts determined was fair to both parties.

I can't see why feminism should be impacted by this decision at all.

margoandjerry · 25/05/2007 12:51

I wasn't attempting a definition of feminism - just saying that feminism can be seen as having two perspectives on this case.

And although this is true:

"Many feminists believe that women are major contributors to that intellectual and emotional growth (more so than men)"

I really don't believe that this is true:

"and that that is what is being rewarded when large divorce settlements are made."

I think that really would be revolutionary as it would mean that bringing up children was suddenly, in absolute terms, given a value equivalent to the largest amount you could ever earn in the normal economy. Now it may be that it should be valued like this but it just isn't, on a day to day basis.

I think this is much more about preserving her lifestyle and her meeting her @reasonable expectations@ and from having a look at the court reports, I think that's what the judges were basing their decisions on.

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 13:02

margoandjerry

I think that large divorce settlements reflect the idea that, due to a wife's intellectual and emotional input in her family life, the husband was able to progress in such a manner in his career - she was an integral part of . Why should both parties then not enjoy the financial rewards of his success? Even when the marriage breaks down.

Obviously these things are very difficult to assess.

Surely family life ought to be about shared intellectual and emotional journeys, not just setting up a hotel so that each member can do his or her own thing in the world?

harpsichordcarrier · 25/05/2007 13:12

I genuinely pity people who view marriage in these stark financial terms.
marriage is about love and sharing everything.
I very much pity this man, what a pathetic and pitiable person he is. to be married to someone for 28 years and begrudges them £40m of a £130m fortune. He is obviously very damaged that he values money for which he can have no use over love, dignity, pride, humanity &c.

AttilaTheMeerkat · 25/05/2007 13:20

These people married when there was no money at all in the pot.

She's been a part of his success and they were also married for 28 years.

The people who gain the most from this are the lawyers. All this arguing over how much she should receive is unedifying particularly for their now grown up children to witness. They've also had to see this dragged through the courts (not just to say the press) for the past three years. What this has cost them emotionally is incalculable.

Caroline1852 · 25/05/2007 13:27

I find it truly amazing that some people are willing to share body fluids and willingly get married but view their money as their money. What is the point? Is there any wonder they ended up in a divorce court. This chap who the courts said got off lightly is a complete cynic : as Oscar Wilde said "a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing". I feel so cross with all of you who are attempting to "price" her contribution to that marriage. He is not giving her "his" money, she is merely taking what is rightfully hers.

ChocolateBar · 25/05/2007 13:37

Agree with Caroline - this is not about how much of "his" money she should be "given". It is about how THEIR money should be split between them.

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 13:39

Caroline - that's a very English view of marriage (the one I was brought up to think was the norm). Unfortunately all this caring-sharing stuff doesn't seem to be part of marriage here in France where you can get married "sous la séparation des biens" (everyone does these days it seems) and keep your worldly goods apart.

margoandjerry · 25/05/2007 13:42

very French. very cinq a sept!

NKF · 25/05/2007 13:44

Isn't it just a case that the figures are so staggeringly high in this case that we overlook the basic principle that assets owned by married people get split between them when they divorce. There are probably divorces where each partner gets the same/similar proportion of the wealth every day of the week but we don't notice them because the sums are less startling.

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 13:45

margoandjerry - yup, the 5 à 7 is the natural sequel to a "suitable" bourgeois marriage - the caring-sharing-emotional-intellectual stuff happens outside marriage...

ChocolateBar · 25/05/2007 13:47

Exactly, NKF. I wonder what the people who think she has received too much think that the law ought to say - do they think that there should be a cap on the amount that a SAHM can receive as a divorce settlement payment? Now THAT would be a step back for feminism...

akaJamiesMum · 25/05/2007 13:52

mozhe - come on - you REALLY enjoy these threads don't you. Be honest now....you're doing this deliberately.

Haven't read all the posts - just your original one which I just KNEW would be from you.

Love from Jamies Mum (heaven forbid - a part time worker at times)

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 13:56

ChocolateBar - I completely agree with you on the step back for feminism...

Original poster
mozhe · 25/05/2007 13:59

The 'french' model of marriage is better imo...

OP posts:
margoandjerry · 25/05/2007 14:00

Anna, what's the French view on Cecilia Sarkozy? Wronged woman or saucy minx with her own fish to fry?

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 14:01

Oh, have you got a French lover Mozhe?

Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 14:05

In Neuilly they are OK with Cécilia as long as she doesn't hurt poor little Nicolas...

The election was hilarious - Ségolène and François Hollande pretending still to be a couple when they are both shacked up with other people and Cécilia chucked Nicolas out of their home just before so he was homeless and had to beg beds off his friends before moving into the Elysée.

But people generally view the "famille recomposée" as less hypocritical than the Mitterand or Chirac lots-of-mistresses model.

Original poster
mozhe · 25/05/2007 14:19

I am 5 months pregnant Anna !! So no....not at the moment

OP posts:
Anna8888 · 25/05/2007 14:24

I don't think that pregnancy is particularly viewed as a hindrance to adultery in these parts

Stigaloid · 25/05/2007 14:26

£48 million was only 36% of the overall wealth of the family. As a full time contributor to the marriage and family the wife should be entitled to an equal split of the family wealth when her husband left. To only received 36% means the guy got off lightly. A marriage is a partnership and if one partner sacrifices work life to raise a family then they are still entitled to their fair share of the family wealth that is generated during that marriage.

eemie · 25/05/2007 14:53

Why does anyone try to discuss anything with this OP?

Piffle · 25/05/2007 16:33

Yes I'd certainly view it as less acceptable for a wife to receive such a large chunk of dosh if the husband had been seriously wealthy at the time of their marrying (like HMM and Sir Beatle Paul), but they met when neither had many means. So a pre nup would have been useless especially as 28 years ago such things were not done.
As I believe it was his choice to move to Bermuda and separate as well. I think who chooses to end the marriage and how and why should make a difference too.

I think her not getting a decent cut would put back feminism more tbh, a woman chooses to curtail her education or career plans perhaps in order to raise the family and support the man she loves. That contribution not being valued would be more backsetting IMHO