Dialogue: Property laws need to respect right to choose

By SHELLEY BRIDGEMAN*

There's something faintly paternalistic and patronising in the supposition of the Matrimonial Property Act that a wife - and let's not be coy, it is women this act is designed to benefit - cannot look after herself beyond marriage without a substantial handout from her former husband.

Presumably the 50:50 split concept is intended to give each party as good a chance as possible of coping financially once the marriage disintegrates.

For couples on and around the average household income this is, no doubt, the most equitable way of sharing the spoils of the marriage.

Probably both ex-husband and ex-wife will struggle somewhat after the split since there are no longer the economies of scale afforded by cohabiting. And the average income these days hardly provides for a luxurious lifestyle.

But most interesting are the couples who together enjoy the particularly high income of one of its members - usually the man.

In these cases, the debate tends to become emotional and the discussions are peppered on one hand with references to women relinquishing their brilliant careers (and, therefore, their economic power) and on the other hand, with references to gold-diggers.

While in theory the whole brilliantcareer hypothesis is quite compelling, in practice it is somewhat flawed.

Most women I know with high-paying jobs don't let little hiccups like marriage and babies get in the way of their lives. They continue with their careers and somehow fit it all in. It's an onerous task, and certain aspects may suffer, but you can be sure that they haven't sacrificed their economic power and won't need a paternalistic law to help them survive beyond the marriage.

So who are all these hard-done-by women who really sacrifice their careers?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that one of the main reasons that many women decide to have babies is because they're fed up and disillusioned with their unsatisfying, under-appreciated roles in the workforce. The prospect of staying home all day and being supported by their man is - far from a burden that they're somehow coerced into - exactly what they feel they want at the time. It's a choice they willingly and readily make.

And surely they're fortunate to have the right to choose. No one bats an eyelid when a woman takes time off to be supported by her partner, whether it's to raise children or simply to pursue some other venture.

But it is a luxury not afforded to men. Even while the number of house-husbands grows slowly, general opinion suggests that any bloke who voluntarily opts out of the workforce to be supported by his wife is a bit of a long-haired, sandal-wearing alternative-lifestyler.

The concept that men must constantly work, be the main breadwinner and support the family is an oppressive one. Women can at least be grateful they escape this particular constraint.

Possibly the greatest financial asset any of us has is our ability to generate an income. Time out of the workforce obviously erodes this power and women must acknowledge that they're trading their life as a viable employee when they opt to be a full-time mother.

In this age of high divorce rates, it seems naive to totally abdicate responsibility for one's own future fiscal well-being. Women who marry men with high incomes often enjoy a life far more salubrious than their own, frequently modest, income would ever have provided. Far from getting an exorbitant lump sum at the marriage's end, shouldn't these women have to pay back the fancy holidays, restaurants, jewels and so on they enjoyed at the expense of this man rather than actually being rewarded further?

Of course a woman who hasn't earned for years should not be on the poverty line when her marriage to a wealthy partner ends, but surely neither should she be laughing all the way to the bank simply because she was "lucky" enough to temporarily snare a financially secure man.

It is difficult not to wonder if this matrimonial property payback notion is a woman's way of being compensated for the rigours of childbirth. Perhaps the unspoken belief is that no sum of money could make up for the physical horrors endured in bringing forth a child and that a woman is, therefore, entitled to claw back whatever she can.

It's probably a valid rationale, but if this is the case, let's admit it and not blur the truth with cliched and often false excuses.

The bottom line is that each individual marriage spilt is just that - individual. So just as we can't claim that all women are gold-diggers, neither can we claim that they all sacrificed flourishing careers.

This diversity in circumstances surely suggests that the financial split of every marriage should be tailormade and take into account the idiosyncrasies of each relationship.

Hopefully, the proposed bill permitting wider discretion for the courts will result in more enlightened and meaningful property splits.

* Shelley Bridgeman is an Auckland freelance writer.