Comments on: Was the Observer right to claim divorce makes men significantly richer?

By: erick

erick — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:36:27 +0000

i can only say such a selfish and feminist idea you think maraige is like a business and woman is a main shareholder!!

By: Financial Dispute Resolution – look out for these stumbling blocks

Financial Dispute Resolution – look out for these stumbling blocks — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:49:04 +0000

[...] he may try to obtain a clean break rather than an agreement to pay maintenance, even when a clean break would be a highly unlikely outcome in [...]

By: Martin Lascelles

Martin Lascelles — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:19:23 +0000

Yes, But!
I can understand that on average men’s incomes rise and women’s fall after divorce. This is hardly surprising since on average men’s incomes are higher than women’s and coming from a situation where incomes and expenses are pooled into separate finances is bound to have this result.

But income is not the whole story when measuring who is “richer”. In most cases where there are savings, and equity in the family home, guess to whom the courts award the lion’s share?

This is to compensate for the discrepancy in earning power, and in my experience judges strive to be scrupulously fair, and especially where children are involved, err if anything on the side of whoever they perceive to be the weaker side.

I really sympathise with any woman who got shafted by the system, but there are probably just as many men rightfully feeling hard done by.

What is really unfair is that it seems as if the party who is prepared to be selfish, ruthless, uncaring and manipulative usually come out of divorce better off than the one who has tried to be fair and responsible. And I’m also going to point the finger at some lawyers who are quite happy to take money from the dishonourable party and help them work the system to get more than their share, often at the expense of the children as well.

By: Portia Barrett

Portia Barrett — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:51:57 +0000

Marriage was a Patriarchal creation anyway, to get control and possession of women and children.

Virgins were in fact free women who were not dependant on men, but the Church of Rome changed all that and lied.

They knew the property passed along the female line then- like the Seneca Indians- so they get rid of the women from power and demonise them as mothers, which is clear today.

Many women think they are more equal today, but that is an illusion.

Many women work, raise children, keep house etc, and are being drained of energy deliberately, and often suffer burn out by 30.

This is what Patriarchal Feminism is doing, but we are failing to see the real agenda.

Good men are also being demonised in the same way, while the lazy predators get away with so much.

Most Women are not as interested in material money as men are.

Most of us want to live in peace and harmony, but once lawyers get involved they pit the husband and wife against each other on the chess board- so it is the lawyers playing and the spouses mere pawns- for the money to roll in for the legal profession and their clique.

Very sad of course, and the whole institution will fall soon like dominos.

Lady Justice has had enough.

By: Portia Barrett

Portia Barrett — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:40:37 +0000

YES.

The judges know women are survivors and men find it much harder, so often unconsciously, they award the greater portion to the man.

I had paid the mortgage and all bills, brought my business into the marriage and got 0p, while he got 4 million.

My children and I have been homeless for 14 years while my X sits on 2 houses- one empty- so if anyone feels this is just, then please let me know.