The good news is that the divorce rate has continually fallen, especially amongst graduate couples. When there is a divorce, it is clear that there is no equality between the sexes. Women with successful husbands could receive ‘joint-lives’ orders. They are labelled the ‘meal ticket’ divorce. No innuendo there! The bad news is now when marriages end Mr Justice Pitchford says divorcees with children over the age of seven should expect to work for a living. How sexist, short-sighted and specious. It plays to the spurious notion of a ‘meal ticket’ divorce. Women who sacrifice their independence and health to raise a family are short-changed. Twice. Once by ex-husbands reneging their obligations and then by judges. Divorce, it’s a man’s world.
Couples start families based on the natural division that women give birth. The mores of modern society dictates that men earn more making it expedient for women to stay home. The aim is to prosper together.
Meal Ticket Divorce
A ‘meal ticket’ implies that women receive something they are not entitled to. However, divorce settlements conveniently ignore the significant sacrifices that a woman makes when she agrees to become a mother.
A working woman is an independent woman. Giving up a career for motherhood is also giving up dreams as well as independence.
Pregnancy takes a toll on health. Besides taking two years for the body to recover; sometimes there’s permanent damage like loss of teeth.
The expression ‘meal ticket’ divorce diminishes the value of being a homemaker. It says that paid work is real work and domestic chores are not. Every aspect of domestic work is chargeable except when the wife is doing it. Then like magic, this £1.019 trillion industry has no economic or legal value.
When women have made these life altering sacrifices, it’s the duty of ex-husbands to ensure that their ex-wives lives’ changes as little as possible.
Sexist, Short-Sighted and Specious
Divorcees with children over the age of seven should work for a living, seems attractive. However, like the term ‘meal ticket’ it distorts the reality and ignores the infringement of women’s rights.
Mr Justice Pitchford must be aware his decision disproportionally affects women. Even with the existence of househusbands, women are usually the carers.
It also means women (and children) will have a poorer quality of life than ex-husbands. The primary carer must be available during school, after school and six months of holiday. Part-time work gives this flexibility. However, it’s usually low pay with poor conditions.
Returning to full-time work after an absence of a couple of years means starting again! The rapid changes in technology, and business practice requires retraining. A forty-hour week means sacrificing child rearing to paid third parties.
Divorce It’s A Man’s World
Women kept their part of the family agreement. Now the courts say they must work. Sometimes after decades of caring for the family. This view places earning money as more important than creating a home. That seems morally perverse and short-sighted. It undermines the arrangement that the couple intended to prosper together and is a backwards legal step.
The Custody Act 1839 allowed mothers access to their children under seven. In the debate, it was said that ‘common sense, justice, and humanity’ dictated that ‘fair protection should be afforded by the stronger sex.’ Over 100 years later, those words hold true. The courts should compel ex-husbands, (the financially stronger sex), to honour their agreements and ensure that women’s lifestyles are comparable for life. After all, women took life changing decisions in the belief that their husbands would honour the arrangement.
Connect with me on Twitter
Follow my blog on Bloglovin