Rich bitch

Oh cry me a river.

Manhattan women whose investment banker boyfriends and husbands no longer make seven figure salaries are pooling their tears and their problems, reports the New York Times.

Once it was seen as a blessing in certain circles to have a wealthy, powerful partner who would leave you alone with the credit card while he was busy brokering deals. Now, many Wall Street wives, girlfriends and, increasingly, exes, are living the curse of cutbacks in nanny hours and reservations at Masa or Megu. And that credit card? Canceled.

Raoul Felder, the Manhattan divorce lawyer, said that cases involving financiers always stack up as the economy starts to slip, because layoffs and shrinking bonuses place stress on relationships - and, he said, because "there aren't funds or time for mistresses any more."

(One such mistress wrote on the blog that when she pouted about not having been taken on a trip lately, her married man explained that with money so tight, his wife had taken to checking up on his accounts.)

These Choo-less Recession Widows even have a blog, Dating a Banker Anonymous, where:

... women can come together – free from the scrutiny of feminists– and share their tearful tales of how the mortgage meltdown has affected their relationships. DABA Girls was started by two best friends whose relationships tanked with the economy. Not knowing what else to do, we did what frustrated but articulate girls have done since the beginning of time - we started a blog. So if your monthly Bergdorf’s allowance has been halved and bottle service has all but disappeared from your life, lighten your heart with laughter and email your stories to dabagirls@gmail.com. Warning all stories sent will be infused with our own special brand of DABA Girl humor.

To be honest, I am not entirely sure the whole thing isn't a very clever put-on.

But either way, it beggars belief how much coverage the ''suffering'' rich people are getting in the media compared with those working poor who have lost their jobs, their homes and had to give up their pets to shelters (or worse, abandoned them) because they could not even afford the price of cat food.

On a related matter, here's a look at how many well-off couples, who have lived the 1950s stay-at-home wife lifestyle, are experiencing economic shockwaves.

In a bloated front-page profile in the New York Times Style section on Sunday, a headline informs us that a laid-off dad from Darien, Connecticut is "A Bit Lost."  Scott Berry, the dad in question, lost his job as a technology analyst for a boutique investment firm in Manhattan in December 2007 and has actively been looking for a new position ever since.  Meanwhile, Scott’s wife Tracey, who has gone back to work after a brief stint at home, balks at the prospect of buying her kids clothes at Walmart. 

"How can you complain about my spending when you don’t have an adequate income?" Tracey asks Scott during their arguments.  "How can you complain about me not earning an adequate income, when you can’t control your spending?" asks Scott.  Less sympathetic is the anonymous wife from Tribeca who tells us that in her family it was his job to provide a nice lifestyle while hers was to run the household and the children’s lives.  When he loses his Wall Street bonus and his income drops from $800,000 to $150,000 a year, she’s bitter and crushed. "Let me just say this," she tells the reporter. "I’m still doing my job."

Give me a break.

What happened to for better or worse, for richer or poorer ... ?

UP YOURS DATE: OMG, Now those poor little rich girls may have a book deal.

What will the book be about? How to stay beautiful without your boyfriend’s black Amex? Where to shop when you have to spend your own money?

Can the movie be far behind?

FURTHER UP YOURS DATE (30/1/09): I thought something smelled fishy.

Spoiled, awful, hateful gold-diggers feeling sorry for themselves...there's an eagerness to buy into this tale, to believe that people are like this -- that women are like this -- that's disappointing. Because yes, it might be a tale of spiteful gold-diggers, but it might also be a far more interesting tale of women who know exactly what buttons to press, and what stereotypes to feed, in order to get themselves a lot of attention.

He's got your whole world in his hands

Further to this, this and this:

Back in Montreal in the 1960s and 1970s, it used to be said that there were only three divorce lawyers in town: my sister, and her buds Sid Cutler and Ben Greenberg.  Needless to say, if I had had need of a lawyer, I would have used my sister then.

More than the price was right.

In 1983, she became a judge in the Superior Court. Ben, who had been appointed to the bench shortly before, and his wife threw a lavish party to celebrate my sister's appointment in their home. I was happily married then but, being a pragmatic person and a bit of a joker, I thought, hmmm, maybe I better nail down the last great divorce lawyer in town.

So I sought out Sid, in my husband's presence, and said, ''Here's a dollar. You're on retainer.''

We all laughed.

But I still remember Sid's words to me at the time. They went something -- and I am most definitely paraphrasing -- like this:

What makes a good divorce lawyer is not how far he's prepared to go to win, not how much he fights, not how much he stomps the other guy. The best divorce lawyer he said, as he spread out his arms and looked left and right, recognizes that the warring parties are here and here, far apart.

His job is not to get to the other side the other guy to your side but to ensure both people meet here, in the middle.

Any other guy, who allows a client to declare all-out war, will end up with more of the loot than either client/spouse.

That's great legal advice. And it's free.

You're welcome.

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.

Note from the management

The comments have exploded on some of my recent posts relating to men's rights groups, divorce and  custody, child support and paternity issues. Many of them remain unpublished -- not by me but by the Star's Kommentariat Bureau, aka The Goderators -- who assume responsibility and control of these matters.

If it were up to me, I would post them all, including the obscene and hateful ones. I think being called a ''feminazi whore'' and worse by those who purport to seek fairness and justice kind of reinforces my point that some guys have anger issues.

Note that the Star's comments policy bars flaming, profanity, slander and hate speech. Make it dirty but keep it clean, folks, if you get my drift.

Also, I would like to make a point about many of the comments that blame feminists for child support payments and custody. There used to be a time when women, before feminism gave them the opportunity to have decent careers outside the home, also got alimony automatically, along with sole custody and child support.

Remember that?

I do.

Feminism screwed women out of alimony. It gave us ''manimony.'' It also helped joint custody happen.

Just saying.

Hostages to fortune

Right now, if you go to the Star's website, you will see that the most-read and most-emailed story of the day is Precious Yutangco's report on how a Toronto man must continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.

In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."

Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated.

In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support.

But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test.

When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past.

He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation.

But according to van Rensburg, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition.

"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said.

"In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."

In the end, van Rensburg ruled in favour of Anciolina.

Needless to say, the comments section has gone nuts, with readers sharply divided over this issue. Some say that it isn't fair that a man has to finance another guy's kids. Others feel that the deceptive mother should be punished and that the real sperminator should be sued to recover all the husband's costs. Many are railing against a system which still favours mothers' custodial rights over fathers' -- and some are acknowledging the complexity of the situation.

Here's an example:

So you are saying that a necessary condition for having to pay child support is that the parent be a biological parent? What if someone marries a pregnant widow and then after 10 years gets divorced... by your arguement they should then not have to pay support. WHat of adpotive parents? Can they just walk away? For all intents and purposes, he was their father until 2002, 10 years - nobody (apparently) knew any different. Can a single medical test wipe that out 10 years of history? Notwithstanding the arguements over payments and custody, I agree with the judge.

Interesting that this story should happen on the very day that my inbox was inundated with email, most of it angry, some of it sorrowful, a lot of it profane, about yesterday's column on men's rights groups. I heard from many divorced dads who told me sad stories about false accusations of abuse and rape, vindictive ex-wives who filled their kids with hate against their fathers, and their frustration with the courts.

At the same time I got an earful from others who confirmed what many believe about some of these men's rights groups and forums, that they are filled with mysogyny and hate and claims that I pulled statistics out of a hat. I'd post some those emails here but, really, why pollute the air any further?

What strikes me most about this controversial support decision -- one which I would hate to have to make -- is that it basically is about everything that has sparked the war between the sexes. Once man figured out that his ''seed'' got planted in the womb and made babies, society became all about controlling that womb in order to ensure paternity. Which might explain why, as many men's rights activists contend, there's research (albeit contradictory) that children are in danger of being abused and/or killed by their mothers' new partners. This, they argue, is often the reason for genetic fathers to maintain custody.

But I digress.

The thing is, there are no easy answers, no pat solutions, no Amicable Divorce for Dummies books. Bad things happen, to both men and women, and especially to children. They are the hostages to fortune. IAll too often, they are wielded like weapons, brainwashed like prisoners of war, and tortured like the Bush/Cheney ''detainees'' at Gitmo.

The angry email continues to pour in today about yesterday's column. And, as sympathetic as I am to many of these correspondents, all of whom to which I try to reply, nobody seems to have an answer to this conundrum.

But there is hope, as you can see tonight at 9 on CBC-TV when How to Divorce and Not Wreck the Kids  airs. As my colleague Stuart Laidlaw writes today,

How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids follows three couples as they struggle to end their marriages without hurting their children.

One couple, Roland and Carolye, don't have a lot of money, so use a do-it-yourself divorce kit and convert their 13-year marriage into something of a friendship.

Mike and Melissa, who have a bit more money, hire a mediator for $2,500 to see them through some of the bitterness as their five-year marriage ends. Things get a bit bumpy when Mike decides he wants shared custody of their twins.

With the most money of the three couples, Sally and Lionel hire specially trained collaborative lawyers, costing $20,000 – and soon put the professionals' skills to the test as they fight over equity in the family home and Sally's claim to a share of Lionel's booming business.

CBC Radio's The Current also covered the doc this morning. You can listen to it here.

Meantime, I have been hearing from regular reader Kevin Morrison on behalf of Collaborative Practice, which is featured in the doc. As he explains in an email:

The collaborative practice process is a unique out-of-court alternative and is a rapidly growing choice for separating families. Rather than waiting months for court dates the collaborative approach brings together specially trained lawyers, family and financial experts to hammer out an agreement that is equitable, compassionate and balanced for all parties involved. The collaborative approach eliminates the need for expensive and time consuming litigation and allows parents to agree on child support arrangements that work for all parties involved.

 The collaborative approach is entirely consensual and differs from mediation where a neutral party guides the participants to a settlement. Any agreement that is reached in a consensual way is always more likely to be adhered to rather that an agreement that is reached in court by an adversarial process. The goal of collaborative approach is to create a win / win scenario for everyone.

I plan to explore all this further in a future column.

Finally, I just head from men's counselor Dale Curd, who co-hosts CFRB's Guy Talk on Sunday nights. While he agrees that ''men's rights groups thrive on anger,'' he adds:

While the majority of separated, and/or divorced men are relatively decent guys, they are paying for thousands of years of patriarchy, (which women and men have bought hook, line and sinker - read Bell Hooks "Men, Masculinity and The Will To Change"), and the behaviour of a small, yet violent and vocal group of males who are at best wounded adolescents in bigger bodies.  In my practice and in the Groups and Anger workshops I run I see and hear men who  rage and gripe about how vicious and vindictive their former partners behave - and my singluar response to them is "what did you do or say over the course of the relationship to piss this woman off so much, that she's now chosen to empower herself in this way?" Most men don't like this question - it makes them squirm and for many they feel backed into a corner and sometimes come out fighting, many simply flee rather than take a hard look at themselves, their behaviour and most importantly their responsibility to choose differently.  For the courageous few who stay - they suddenly get to look at the roots causes of their anger and begin the journey of growing up.

So on one level Antonia I applaud you, and yet, there's a point here that's been missed.  And that point is that women have an opportunity to do this differently.  I'm saddened by the number of women I meet who seek to the play the man's game better than men - whether that be in the boardroom or the bedroom.  I have to believe that after being repressed, suppressed and now expressing women would be bringing something fresher into the world - a new way of playing the game.  Men and angry men certainly are not the issue - the issue is the whole structure and in that regard Feminism has been a big disappointment in changing the plight of the species.

Two things to that. (1) Blame the lawyers. (2) Don't put it all on feminism since, as Curd himself acknowledges, the patriarchy -- a word that's root is father -- is at fault. But I totally appreciate Curd's point. I may even accept his invite to go on his show. (Operators are standing by ...)

So back to the story which prompted this post: the Cornelio support decision.

If we are to smash the patriarchy, it seems to me that we have to overcome this notion that fatherhood -- which, before DNA testing, was always presumptive and therefore, ultimately, the cause of a dysfunctional gender balance -- is all about who deposited whose sperm where.

I can think of no other way around this. Can you?

This is why I agree with the judge when she says (boldface mine):

Even if this matter were approached on the basis of fairness to the respondent, I would conclude that his child support obligations toward the twins continues notwithstanding that he is not their biological father.  By his own admission, Mr. Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with “Tony” and he developed suspicions that she had known Tony during the marriage and that he might be the father of all three of their children.  Notwithstanding these suspicions, Mr. Cornelio sought joint custody of all three children and entered into a consent order that provided for his ongoing and important involvement in their lives and for the provision of child support.  It was not until access was interrupted and Ms. Cornelio commenced these proceedings seeking increased child support that the respondent began pursuing this issue.  As Mendes da Costa U.F.C.J. noted in Spring, a support obligation to a child created by one’s conduct during the marriage cannot be cast aside after separation.  I can only conclude that this motion by Mr. Cornelio is a response to the current conflict with the applicant and his unfortunate alienation from the children, which may well be temporary.

Let's hope.

UPPITY DATE: Here's April Reign on the decision.