Heather Mills should talk to Chris Rock
March 18, 2008
£24.3 million! For what? FOR WHAT? I’ve long thought that the courts of this country treat men unfairly in a divorce. It used to be the case that they would treat women unfairly but the pendulum has well and truly swung. The obscene payouts we have been seeing over the past few years in favour of former wives can in no way represent a fair and reasonable settlement upon divorce. Worse, there is no doubt that the amounts involved are large enough to perhaps even encourage divorce. If I was a super-rich husband right now, I’d be pretty nervous. You’ve perhaps played the “would you do [this or that] for a million quid?” game. I’ve surmised from my completely unscientific research into this area that there isn’t an awful lot a woman (or a man of course) wouldn’t do for a million quid – for perhaps even a lot less. The mind boggles at the thought of what a person might do for a multiple of this sum.
Mills was married to McCartney for four years. She in no way contributed to his wealth. She is financially independent (albeit mostly as a result of the wealth that McCartney transferred to her in the form of property). And McCartney will always be made responsible for the maintenance of the child. So what on Earth does the £24.3 million represent?! Why is she being awarded such a large settlement? She is basically getting an award for simply having been married to him. And at a rate of £17,000 a day at that! Ridiculous. In this day and age, where one may choose to get married and then choose to get divorced, subject to ensuring that the female (because it almost invariably is the female) is compensated for loss of opportunity (“I used to be a P.A. but I left my job to look after the kids”) and the maintenance of children is dealt with, no one should complain about the fact each choice has consequences. You choose to marry someone wealthy, you have the advantages that such wealth brings. You choose to leave someone wealthy, you should be prepared to leave the wealth too. Anything else makes a mockery of marriage. The most galling thing is when they say “It’s not about the money”. It’s always about the money.
I shall leave you with the thoughts of a not-so-well-known authority on the subject, Chris Rock: ‘When it’s time to get a divorce, women got it made. You go to court, start talkin’ that sh*t. “I’m used to this, I’m used to that, I’m accustomed to this.” What the f*ck is accustomed? What’s that got to do with shit? You go to a restaurant, you accustomed to eatin’. You leave, you ain’t eatin’ no more. They don’t owe you a steak. What about what the man’s used to? It might not be money, but during the course of a relationship, a man grows accustomed to a few things. I would love to see a man go to court and say, “Your honor, check this out. I’m accustomed to f***in’ her four times a week. Now I feel I should be able to f**k her at least twice a week. I mean she can have the alimony, but I want some p***y payments.”’
Sounds ridiculous? Perhaps even sexist? No more ridiculous and sexist than the decisions coming out of the courts at the moment.
