In a divorce, there usually is a splitting of finances, property and assets. It is rarely a neat, equal 50/50 split, due to the different amounts that each person contributes to the marriage. In a perfect world, this system would take into account all the factors, but unfortunately, in a court where both judge and jury have their own biases and assumptions, this is sometimes not the case.
I am, of course, referring to cases where the ex-husband was a working father, while the ex-wife was a stay at home mother. I would argue that in a divorce, there should not be a 50/50 split, rather, the majority of the assets, if split fairly, should go to the male, because he is the one who earned most of it. In this scenario, the ex-wife, while probably being ideally supportive, has contributed very little in terms of earning money, and therefore should not receive even half the financial assets. Yet in the current system, a woman may assert to a court that she has been living at a certain standard of living, and should be given the means to continue living at that standard. Is this wrong?
Most definitely. No matter how supportive someone is, or how much they complain about staying home with the kids and doing housework, I guarantee you that the person who is working at a job away from home is having it tougher. They’re making money, working hard to support their family. When it’s a woman who’s working, the stay-at-home man is made fun of and ridiculed. If it’s the other way around, then the working man is seen as a person who is never there for his family. As unfortunate as this is, those are the gender roles and stereotypes constructed by society.
This is my suggestion – get rid of this idea that women need to maintain their quality of life after a divorce. What about the quality of life for the men? Surely a split where each person gets what they actually deserve is fairer than taking the default route of rewarding the woman playing the victim in a divorce.