Melville Cooke
RECENT EVENTS of the lactose intolerant kind have once again raised the sometimes smelly question of what exactly a woman should get from her ex-husband upon a divorce. In fact, the issue goes beyond marriage, but still seems very difficult to swallow without a swig of beer, or some essential seasons.
The issue is, strictly speaking, not what a woman should get from her husband, but how the assets of a splitting couple should be split. The fact that we almost invariably see it as what the woman should receive, speaks to an entrenched historical imbalance in earning power. The 'see' is becoming more level with the 'saw' through education, but still real wealth is still seen as a male preserve.
Except in extreme cases of trickery, I support the notion that a couple's assets should be split equally when the relationship goes belly up. In the long term, that applies to whether they are married or not. In other words, save for a situation of the extreme where a senile man gives in to the only basic instinct he has left and weds a lass who has the assets to wean him away from his money, I believe the woman should get half.
BEYOND THE STANDARD
The reason goes beyond the standard "she an' him buil' togedda, so she fe get de money instead a some new gal whe jus' come an no know struggling days". It has to do more with shelf life and, simply.
Women simply do not wear well. The gym is fine to lift the glutes, face-lifts are great to lift cheeks of the more normally visible kind, make-up smoothes out the dents of collision with life and clothes can cleverly conceal or enhance. But there is no stopping that infernal biological clock, which limits a woman's reproductive capabilities. Men fire live bullets as long as the nozzle is not hanging down.
This, among other factors, makes it simply easier for a man to start over, to have a fulfilling relationship after he and a woman break up. Splitting assets evenly will not make up for the time a woman has spent with a man while the hatchables dribble away, but I am sure there is less bitterness in loneliness with something from the lost relationship than without.
There is no compensation for leeching away somebody's most productive years, in one way or the other, but the cash is a good start.
There is, of course, the matter of what contribution the woman has made to the assets that she is supposed to be entitled to half of. Certainly, in many cases, she did not help make the hops or process the soy, but there is no value which can be put on the encouragement that a person gives their partner as he or she either pursue his or her dream or consolidate the actualisation of those objectives. Sharing a dream, a goal, a vision is very much a contribution; giving encouragement when things look very bleak is invaluable and is worth something.
There is, of course, the argument that some women do not make even that contribution, that the relationship was simply terrible for the man. In that case, he deserves to be punished for being damned stupid. Any man who stays with a harpy or keeps a woman around for decorative and pin cushion value deserves to lose more than half.
SUPPORT
There is also the notion that a woman marries a wealthy man and, a short time after, acts up and gets half of what she did not work for. Fair enough, but there is the matter of punishment again. Show me the man who has achieved without the support of a woman and I will show you a man who has achieved with the support of a man. We don't 'mel' with the latter, but in the former case if the woman who went through the rough times is jilted over, then the man deserves to be punished for his terrible treatment by being taken half way to the cleaners by the person he hooks up with when he has 'made it'.
And although I have spoken from the perspective of fairness towards women, I also believe that it applies the other way around. Equality of the sexes should not be a convenient one-way street.
Melville Cooke is a freelance writer.
