Busted

Well, it's been quite the week for stories about how men go bust up after marriages break up. On The Star's front page today, a report by my colleague Sue Pigg on how the tanking economy and sagging house prices are affecting the division of assets during divorce.

Especially devastated have been men who separated last summer and are now finding themselves essentially forced, by law, to hand over a share of assets to their ex-wives wildly out of whack with their current value, leaving some men virtually bankrupt.

Just this week, family law lawyer Martha McCarthy finalized a settlement for a couple in which the husband, a high-paid executive, had opted last August to hang on to $1 million in stocks and options. This week he should have, under law, written a $500,000 cheque to his ex-wife – half their value as required under Ontario's Family Law Act – but, since they've now plummeted to just $300,000 she agreed to be "generous" and accept less.

Many ex-wives haven't.

"Those are the people who are most bitter. They gave away half of everything and, 15 minutes later, the half they kept was worth half, or even less. Their deals are done, inked, cheques written," says McCarthy.

Why some women try to wring blood from a stone is beyond me. While it's true that some men hide their assets or fiddle with the books, there's no question that most are honest Joes hoping to do the best by their kids.

Yeah, there's that whole ''Hell hath no fury'' thing, like when a man dumps his longtime faithful partner for the younger woman. For women who sacrificed careers -- and earnings which also lead to better pensions -- to stay at home and play wife, mother, hostess etc., it's especially frightening to find yourself cast adrift when you're middle-aged and haven't held a paying job since the first baby was born.

But there's justice and fairness, and revenge and retribution.

I was married twice. I never sought any alimony -- although I did get my share of the house. That despite how I myself stayed at home for several years. But I was lucky. I did not have children, I had a good education and a strong resume, and I did a lot of freelance work during this period. This is why I did not pursue more, although I could have.

I just didn't think it was the feminist thing to do under the circumstances.

But that's me.

As for these women who are apparently demanding unrealistic settlements, well, ladies, you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

Which is pretty obvious from some of the comments and emails I have received ever since my column on Wednesday about some of the feminist-hating men's rights groups out there.

UPPITY DATE: Sooey speaks on the subject:

I don't know why Canadians are surprised that courts favour mothers in custody battles (if indeed they even do - where are the statistics on this, please?) - when all our official Judeo/Christian institutions still insist that girls were born to be mothers at home, while boys were born to be people at work.

Sure real live people have moved on to understand that either sex can parent and provide for their children, but be careful who you marry, girls and boys, because chances are very good that you'll end up in court fighting a losing financial battle over finances with your beloved because you're supposed to be in roles defined by a Patriarchal system you thought was long gone with Bill Davis' Ontario.

Comments

[sooey]

There's a kind of insanity in wanting to ruin an ex that the sane among us just don't understand. I mean, if you like the adversarial relationship so much, why not just stay married?

And ruining your partner financially just means your kids will inherit less one day. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[...pat.]

And some of us earn more than our husbands, or have stay-at-home husbands. And it costs *us* when we split up.

[Antonia]

Darn that feminism, Pat.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia, it does matter how you and some of your feminist cohorts perceive the many issues discussed on your blog. But you have to admit there is a major ground swell occurring in the form of a men's rights movement. I mean, in the last week alone virtually every article in each major newspaper had custody/divorce issues being discussed. What was astonishing from my end of things was the number of men AND women out there that don't perceive things your way. In every article, the pro-male stance trumped the female perspective 10-1. It was amazing to read.

Now, the feminist analysis and response to this is one of shaming language (wife beater, bitter, etc.). But you can't deny there is REAL anger out there, not DV anger, but anger at the justice system and its slant towards women. MRA's out there no longer feel a need to defend such shaming language and instead wear it almost as a badge of honour. We are ANGRY, anger is a normal human response to an injustice.

In 1912, 74% of the women on the Titanic survived its sinking. Only 22% of the men survived. Do you know why? Was this not a time when women were oppressed?

Fast forward to 2009, cruise ship is sinking and only ONE spot is left on the last lifeboat. A 25 year old man and 25 year old woman stand on the deck and look at that last seat as the ship is sinking. Who gets the seat? What should a man do now?

[Aurelia]

I think you are talking about two very different groups here. The average Joe doesn't have much beyond a house and some RRSPs and his partner Jane will likely have a job close or sort of close in income to his. That divorce will result in a property settlement and perhaps some hardship for both as they buy new homes and struggle to support the kids.

But for the guy who didn't bother to cash in his options in time? Sorry...no sympathy. At his level it is ludicrous to think that he didn't know the market was crashing. There have been multiple stock shocks all year. In August the writing was all over the wall.

I've simply heard too many stories about guys at that income level doing everything on earth to hide their assets and cheat like crazy. As for alimony, at that level, again, an executive is required to make many many last second business trips and be away from the kids for extended periods of time. If they have kids, it is not possible for both of them to work that many hours, and still maintain a house. Nannies can't take kids to the doctor. They can't give legal consent for treatment in an emergency! And they can't replace parents.

I know many women in this position, and they cannot maintain a full time job at any comparable salary if their husbands work in this kind of career. With that kind of long term income disparity, yes, alimony is appropriate.

And to echo Pat, I know of several female Doctors and Execs married to lower income spouses who have had to make huge settlements and alimony to their husbands who raised the kids. But it's still nothing to them. I know someone making 600K/year who was just ordered to pay her husband interim support of only 48K per year. Not exactly painful, nor 50%. That barely covers his rent and debt payments.

Those child support guidelines max out at 150K in income, and above that, it's all negotiable and really, you can't compare the two groups. Middle and lower income people dealing with support and custody are in a completely different world than the headline stories that were in the news.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"It makes no sense whatsoever."

Sooey Sweetie, that applies to feminism as a whole.

We'll talk you out of it.

[...pat.]

I wouldn't have feminism work any other way, Antonia :-)

[Mjaybee]

We're tired of hypocritical feminism. "Feminists" fighting against joint custody legislation, defending false accusations of rape, and asking for set asides instead of equal treatment under the law.

Alimony is vastly more frequently awarded to women than men. Your recitation of your own personal situation is misleading, because it is by far the exception, not the rule.

More hypocritical feminism.

[johnnykap]

...pat, I was never sure if you were male or female until now, since your name is one of those ones that could go either way. I now know you are a woman.

I feel I know Antonia better than you do,...pat, so I want to point out to you that she was most likely being sarcastic when she stated "darn that feminism, Pat". (I'm assuming by Pat, she meant ...pat.)

Her whole pattern of behavior has been one of supporting feminism, ergo, I do not believe her statement should be taken at face value.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Hey Johnnie Cope,

You could have had a look at Pat Pet's website, as I have.

I know I don't really know that much about women (very interesting study, though), but that was ridiculous.

[...pat.]

Yes, JKap, I understood Antonia's comment.

[johnnykap]

Stygie, what's the androgynous ...pat's web address? I'm sure she could use the traffic and, being rich and American, I have access to the information superhighway at high speeds, so it wouldn't waste too much time.