Beverley Charman wins £48million in divorce settlement, too bad she didn't deserve it
There has been quite a reaction to John Charman, chief executive officer of Axis Capital Holdings Ltd., being forced to pay his ex-wife a £48million divorce settlement. Apparently, because of this case and the fact that its Beverly Charman was just awarded the biggest divorce pay off in UK history, the government is looking into changing up the ridiculous divorce laws in Britain. Is it fair that a woman who does not earn any of her own money be awarded millions and millions of her ex husband's money?
Some of The Metro's readers have had some incredibly insightful responses to this question. On Wednesday, Dave Degen from Herfordshire wrote in saying, "It seems the power and rights of the mother knows no bounds in British law," He also goes on to say that, "Feminists cheering from the galleries would maintain that it is always fair to split the assets down the middle, even when the woman hasn't contributed a penny."
In response to Dave, in today's paper, Zoe Bremer from Derbyshire wrote in, saying that while she agrees with Dave, "I see no reason a feminist should support asset-splitting, which helps any woman who chooses not to earn her own living to steal her husband's property." Does this statement make anyone else want to do a little happy dance? Zoe, I completely agree with you. However, one can still argue that a woman, especially if she's a mother, should receive some sort of compensation for the efforts she put into the household, other than having a job. That being said, I find women like Heather Mills, and Beverley Charman to be extremely greedy, and incredibly irritating.
People confuse feminists with man-haters. I don't hate men. I don't believe that true feminists hate men, either. This is about what is fair. I don't think a woman who hasn't contributed a single penny to her marriage is deserving of a huge pay off, and certainly not millions. What should she get? I'm not sure, I think that depends on the circumstances around the marriage, and its financial state. That, and what's the going rate for raising children? Is there anyway to put a reasonable price tag on that? This is not to say that a divorced woman and her children should be thrown out on the streets with no money, but throwing up the "But I'm a MOTHER!" card to get £48million is pretty pathetic.
Hopefully, the divorce laws in the UK will get sorted out, and they will be able to handle settlements more fairly from now on. As Dave Degen put it: "Small wonder that Britain has the sick tag of 'divorce capital of the world'."
Cate Sevilla is the Assistant Editor of Dollymix, and regular contributor to Shiny blogs. Despite being married, she actually pays for own things and even has a job.
Hmm. I think a woman who chooses to raise her children and support her husband so he can achieve great financial success does probably deserve half. And vice versa if the partner at home is a man.
However, someone like Heather Mills, who marries an established man and contributed nothing to his success, while continuing to earn her own money during the marriage... doesn't deserve much at all. So as you say, every case is different.
Perhaps pre-nups all round are the answer. (Or not getting married and never having kids... ;D)
ps: "Small wonder that Britain has the sick tag of 'divorce capital of the world'."
- Dave Degan, I don't see what that has to do with anything... wouldn't settlements like this *discourage* divorce? :)
Posted by: DIANE SHIPLEY | May 31, 2007 3:36 PM