Morning:
8°c
I'm on Team Myerson. Not Julie Myerson, the novelist who spilled the beans on her cannabis-toking son. I mean Brian Myerson, the City tycoon who's trying to overturn his divorce settlement after mislaying a fortune in the crash.
His ex-wife Ingrid is now hoping to trouser a cool £11.2 mill, the amount agreed by her hubby in court, pre-meltdown. Could the credit crunch put paid to her plans?
Here's hoping. Her's is a typical case of some being more equal than others. Of course ordinary women need the law's protection in divorce fights, and far too many men scarper the family home without handing over adequate funds for their children. Parents should be made to provide for their offspring, through the courts if necessary.
But with divorcees like Ingrid Myerson and Slavica Ecclestone - just granted a decree nisi from super-rich F1 boss Bernie - we're not talking simple survival funds. The sums involved in these splits amount to ludicrous awards to women who didn't actually earn the money. I'll buy the argument they contribute through wifely duties and home-making skills (if hiring a housekeeper counts). But only up to a point. They don't deserve an equal portion of their ex-husbands' massive wealth.
Perhaps I'd feel differently if I was married but I doubt it. Though I live with my long-term boyfriend I'm wholly responsible for my own finances, always have been. We don't have a joint account and we divvie up expenses as we go. Even if we were hitched, I can't envisage a situation where either of us expected the other to hand over money as compensation for our relationship failing. It makes perfect sense to me that you pay your own way in life. That's what I call equality.
Expecting the better-off partner in a couple to cough up to fund the other's lifestyle is a retrogressive notion that feminists - like me - should reject. Women have come a long way since I was a girl. We're highly educated and extremely capable. Even in a recession most of us can earn our own living.
I'm not privvy to the details of Ingrid or Slavica's claims, but this I know: relationships aren't business transactions. Husbands don't owe us a living. So grow up and get a job, girlfriends.
Reader views (9)
So,Charlotte, who looks after the children in this two job marriage? Paid help? Or the children's mother? which is best? it's a no-brainer right? In which case, women who look after the children, as her part of the marriage should be kicked out penniless when the time comes for not having had a "job" - I thought child care was a job? or is only paid occupation worthy of respect? All the embittered, selfish men who comment here fail completely to understand a woman's contribution to a marriage. Which is why they are divorced.
- Sandy, London UK, 23/03/2009 11:43
Report abuse
It just goes to show, you can't be too careful.
- Tk Maxx, London, 16/03/2009 16:39
Report abuse
Charlotte is proud and right to be, who wants to be seen to be a moocher ? If you're young enough to be able to get a job following a divorce, why shouldn't you be expected to.
Divorce settlements should be based on what the children need, and if there aren't any, then both parties should walk away with what they currently own.
The Heather Mills case is the straw that broke the camel's back, thank god.
- Madmax, London, 16/03/2009 07:51
Report abuse
Reckon these refreshing comments will be savaged by some comfy shoe wearing, incense burning lovie who has ripped her ex a new backside in the courts. By all means make parents responsible and force them to pay , they always should, but if we're saying that women are going to look at this from a sensible point of view..whatever next...peace in the Middle East?
- Burkey, Australia, 16/03/2009 07:21
Report abuse
They should simply have a 'DIVORCE PARTY' Check out www.divorceevents.com
- Bobby, Kent, 14/03/2009 13:05
Report abuse
Izzy - Would your willingness to always share likewise equally extend to significant debt in the event of either divorce or during marriage? I bet I can guess your answer!
- Gordon, Slough, 14/03/2009 10:21
Report abuse
How refreshing.
- Bloke, London, 13/03/2009 12:42
Report abuse
My husband and I are nowhere near as wealthy as the Myersons or Ecclestones, but I have a lot of sympathy for these women. If the marriage was long term and the couple started with very little, I can assure you that in order for one partner to have amassed a huge pile of money over a long career, the other will have had to make a lot of personal and emotional sacrifices. Fortunes are not made from working 9-5, and the strain this puts on a relationship often means that it's just not possible for both partners to have equally high-flying careers, especially if there are children. The wife (for often it is she) has made these sacrifices in good faith for the couple's mutual benefit; why should she not share equally if the marriage breaks up?
My husband is a high earner, with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails for both of us. I have always worked and now I run my own small business, but there is a huge disparity in our incomes which has grown with time, and it's very probable that had we not married my personal earnings would have been higher. In the unlikely event we divorced, I would be incensed to be awarded only a tiny share of what we have amassed together.
- Izzy, London, UK, 13/03/2009 12:10
Report abuse
Well said Charlotte.
- Susan, London, 13/03/2009 11:15
Report abuse
