ok, while I was answering in another thread (sorry if I got a little temperamental....) this came into my mind. UK people will know this story, of course, but for everyone else, this is the lowdown (read this on the plane to UK last week).
rich business man (50something forgot his name....) and his wife (54,SAHM and loyal supporter of his) get a divorce (children grown up), basically he says the marriage was 15 years ago but he stayed for the kids. NOW: surprise suprise another woman has taken his heart. so he has to leave.
when they started they were so poor they moved in with her parents and off he went to earn money, and so he did (in the last 15 years he made a few billion but turnover I guess). in court he offered a settlement of £20 mill, she refused, took him for the full works and got £48 mill awarded - now, that is 1/3 of his personal wealth - "poor" chap.
in the daily mail (not the classiest paper of all) they had two people battling it out whether it was fair or not to get the £48 mill. the courts are reassessing now by the way. it was a woman and a man and yes you can predict it - the woman said no it was NOT fair and the man said yes it was. ah ah, newspaper heaven and paradies.
the lady's argument was (famous editor of something, I don't think she has children) that she didn't need that much (£20 mill was enough), it was greedy, you couldn't put a price on her job, and my fav argument, if we take guys for such a ride than they will take us for one as well - she gave examples of friends that were earning the money (more than hubby at least) and after a divorce had to support the husband - because equal rights! so some had to sell their house etc.
the guy's argument was that his own wife gave up a brilliant career to raise their four children and keep his mind/back clear at that front to go off and be the super successful dude that he is (not sure what he did but well known enough to meet presidents, he said). that is worht more than anything bec his wife could have had a great career but chose to make it easier for him and super perfect for their kids. so in the divorce case, just to make the point to her husband the £48 mill fight was fully justified (apparently very quietly determined lady).
I find that both have valid arguments but the guy won me over - yes, if you want to teach someone a lesson (i.e. thanks for dumping me at this point of our lives that you are some successful man and another (I predict younger) lady comes along) best to NOT make it easy for them. but, I agree with the lady that if you want those rights as a woman, than they have to be granted for a 'house-husband' (as we call them here), if you know what I mean? so you may have to sell the house to settle the divorce and keep paying for your house-husband???? (not sure yet what to think but I am very equal minded...)
so, what do you think?
rich business man (50something forgot his name....) and his wife (54,SAHM and loyal supporter of his) get a divorce (children grown up), basically he says the marriage was 15 years ago but he stayed for the kids. NOW: surprise suprise another woman has taken his heart. so he has to leave.
when they started they were so poor they moved in with her parents and off he went to earn money, and so he did (in the last 15 years he made a few billion but turnover I guess). in court he offered a settlement of £20 mill, she refused, took him for the full works and got £48 mill awarded - now, that is 1/3 of his personal wealth - "poor" chap.
in the daily mail (not the classiest paper of all) they had two people battling it out whether it was fair or not to get the £48 mill. the courts are reassessing now by the way. it was a woman and a man and yes you can predict it - the woman said no it was NOT fair and the man said yes it was. ah ah, newspaper heaven and paradies.
the lady's argument was (famous editor of something, I don't think she has children) that she didn't need that much (£20 mill was enough), it was greedy, you couldn't put a price on her job, and my fav argument, if we take guys for such a ride than they will take us for one as well - she gave examples of friends that were earning the money (more than hubby at least) and after a divorce had to support the husband - because equal rights! so some had to sell their house etc.
the guy's argument was that his own wife gave up a brilliant career to raise their four children and keep his mind/back clear at that front to go off and be the super successful dude that he is (not sure what he did but well known enough to meet presidents, he said). that is worht more than anything bec his wife could have had a great career but chose to make it easier for him and super perfect for their kids. so in the divorce case, just to make the point to her husband the £48 mill fight was fully justified (apparently very quietly determined lady).
I find that both have valid arguments but the guy won me over - yes, if you want to teach someone a lesson (i.e. thanks for dumping me at this point of our lives that you are some successful man and another (I predict younger) lady comes along) best to NOT make it easy for them. but, I agree with the lady that if you want those rights as a woman, than they have to be granted for a 'house-husband' (as we call them here), if you know what I mean? so you may have to sell the house to settle the divorce and keep paying for your house-husband???? (not sure yet what to think but I am very equal minded...)
so, what do you think?
