I AM L.I.P, as a free resource, is for anyone and everyone who needs help and guidance when entering the family court as a litigant in person. Our fundamental belief has always been that the advice on offer should be open to all. 

We also have, as a rule, endeavoured not to make certain areas of the divorce process that we cover on the website a gendered issue. That is not to say gender does not play a part in various topics – we are not blind to the issues where gender is an influencing factor. 

For the purpose of this article, we will be veering down that path. The path of gender in the family court. We were compelled to write this piece after looking over the research done on the case studies gathered for our L.I.P Podcast ‘Memoirs of a McKenzie Friend,’ We noticed that when it came to the marriage setup of a long-term heterosexual marriage, where the woman has been the homemaker and primary caregiver to any children, and the man is the direct income earner, society seemed to view the material assets as belonging to him.

So we found ourselves asking a question.

If the couple in this setup decide to divorce, would he be giving her a share of his money? And how does this feed into the stereotype of the bitter, scorned gold-digging ex-wife?

So the first thing to look at is: How are the division of marital finances dealt with in this type of divorce where there has been a long-term marriage and both contributed to the family development?

We are not including child maintenance in this discussion. That is a separate part of the financials. The focus will solely remain on the division of marital assets between spouses. 

Ideally, the couple should be able to come to an agreement between themselves. 

However, where that is not possible, the court will split their assets according to need. In doing so, several factors will be considered, such as how contribution is valued, future needs and earning potential, to name a few. 

Now that all seems right and straightforward.

So, when high-profile separations are covered in newspapers, the take and language used is very telling.

• “She got a share”
• “She was given a share”
• “He settled with her”
• “She got a settlement”
• “She got the/his house” 
• “She was awarded”
• “She took him to the cleaners”
• “He has to give her”
• “She got a payout”

The assets, that are legally hers, are seen and spoken about as if they are solely her partner’s – and this is not just in newspapers and headlines, but how we as people speak about the division of assets too. 

Firstly, how can you be awarded your own property? 

Secondly, you are never not entitled to your own property. 

If we turned the language around, do the following statements sound natural?

• “He got a share”
• “He was given a share”
• “She settled with him”
• “He got a settlement”
• “He got the/her house”
• “He was awarded”
• “He took her to the cleaners”
• “She has to give him”
• “He got a payout”

Does it sound weird? I have to say yes. I’m not used to hearing this as a rule. 

Without a doubt, the language we use around the division of marital assets is gendered. 

What we need to hear more of is ‘their.’

The court divided their assets. 

All the gender-based terminology and assumptions dismiss the fact that marital assets are not only joint but legally and equally hers.

But another question to ask here is, why is the language around marital assets division centred around gender assumptions? 

Our podcast’s case studies research found that society does not think women are entitled to their own legally owned assets when they have not been directly responsible for their accumulation despite having been a necessary contributor to the environment that allowed them to be accumulated. 

If this is how people see it, then how does that translate to the Family Court, since people are also judges, magistrates, solicitors and barristers?

Tara, one of the ladies we spoke to, said, “In court, it felt as if they thought they were doing me a favour. I’ll never forget the judge patronisingly, ‘don’t worry; we’ll sort your settlement out.’ when putting my case forward for my current and future needs. My settlement? I thought. I was not a loan; This wasn’t compensation for services rendered. I was an equal member of our marriage. In the end, the judge was fair with how the marital assets were split, but I don’t think I will ever be okay with language aimed at me because the same language was not used towards him. I got given a percentage, whereas he kept a percentage

Tara’s experience is by no means unique but does go to show the attitude toward a woman’s money. Furthermore, once they are divorced and her money becomes known as the settlement that she ‘was given’ and any future share of income is now known as spousal maintenance, the landscape changes. 

According to Tara, how a female divorcee spends her own money becomes open to scrutiny. it tells society how decent she is – whether it makes her a good woman or not.

To many people, spousal maintenance conjures up the image of the lazy, spoilt wife who got something for nothing. And then, when she spends it, she’s blowing his cash; she’s a gold digger who wastes the maintenance money she gets from him. After all, how dare she even treat herself to a simple manicure with the money he gives her?

Tara said, “Overnight, I went from a dedicated mum to a hoochie mama in one quick signature of a decree absolute. That change is so instantaneous. Before my divorce, the way I spent money that I saw as mine was not scrutinised. But after, a whole lot of moral judgments came cascading through. Even though the division of the marital assets differed from child maintenance, I was spending the money he gave me for the kids. There were subtle and not-so-subtle accusations that I was not doing right by them. 

This is the attitude female divorcees, who were homemakers, face post-divorce. Where does this come from? Is it because before divorce, she is seen as spending his money with his knowledge and permission? 

Do the same standards apply to him? If he spent money on himself, would it automatically be seen as taking food from the kid’s mouths? 

The money is either his or what he gives for the kids – but what about her needs? Is she meant to be invisible? Even thinking about her financial future is a moral statement of her character. So must she step into the background, wanting nothing in order to show decency. 

“My money post-divorce was either his or what he gave me for the kids as if anything for me was not a factor. Not doing right by myself somehow made me worthy and moral. Not thinking about my financial future or retirement and instead being financially self-sacrificial somehow made me a good person.”

“I once got a comment from a fellow school gate mum when I got my hair cut. “You go girl, spend his money”.”

I remember once seeing a scene on tv. It was set in a bar. And a woman was throwing a divorce party. Here is a selection of the dialogue. 

• “I took him to the cleaners.”
• “Well, it’s his money I’m spending”
• “After all the years of cooking and cleaning…”

Are these just the words of an assumption-making scriptwriter? No! 

The most crucial aspect we found in the podcast research was how women see and talk about their own assets. They rarely used the language of ownership.

It was –

• “What I was given”
• “What he gives me”
• “I get…”
• “I got…”

All with underlying energy that she was being given money that was his. 

These women are not children being given pocket money.

Women who claim ownership of their assets throughout the divorce process are seriously judged. Claiming what is right is still seen as greedy. A woman securing her own financial future is still frowned upon. 

Is it time to make a concentrated effort to change the terminology? or do we need to change how we talk about the marital assets division?