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.
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.