Tracey Wright’s case is the kind that forces you to work out what type of feminist you areThe wording of the judgment is brutal. An appeal court judge has effectively told the ex-wife of a wealthy veterinary surgeon to “get a job, love”
(my abbreviation). It is imperative, said the judge, “that the wife go
out to work and support herself”. Tracey Wright, a 51-year-old former
legal secretary, riding instructor and mother of two, has lost her
appeal against a family court ruling to reduce the maintenance she
receives in future from her former husband. The case is seen as a
landmark ruling for ex-partners of wealthy spouses. The gravy train has
come off the rails.
Just as well. This is a case that really forces you to work out what
kind of feminist you are. There’s a school of thought that would argue
the wife’s interests should be protected because “she’s a woman and she
has rights”. That is one kind of feminism, looking after “women’s
interests”. But it can be read the opposite way. Treating a person as a
special-case victim (in a situation where no crime has been committed),
is the opposite of feminism. This isn’t even about individual cases,
which basically deal with the apportioning of cash and assets between
two individuals who have become too angry and disillusioned to decide on
these things between themselves. No, it’s about a point of principle.
And this is where this case has wider ramifications.
The only time this theme gets discussed in public is when it concerns
the settlement of a wealthy couple. Tracey Wright came away from her
divorce with a £450,000 mortgage-free house, stabling for her horse and
children’s ponies (I know) and £75,000 a year in maintenance and school
fees. The husband’s responsibility to his children (both over the age of
10) remains unchanged. Instead, the ruling concerns the £33,200 per
annum for the ex-wife’s personal upkeep, which the he is seeking to
reduce. Let’s pause on that word “upkeep”. Dictionary definition:
“Financial or material support of a person or animal.” The wife is not a
horse that needs stabling. Nor is she a person in Austen’s England.
This case provides an opportunity to say what’s obvious: it’s wrong
to expect someone else to support you for life when the terms of the
relationship change. I would go further and say that it’s not a great
idea (or a feminist one) to enter into a relationship on those terms in
the first place. Behind closed doors, however, these trade-offs happen
on a smaller scale all the time. The personal is political and there is
nothing more personal than the conscious or unconscious financial and
professional bargaining that goes on within a marriage. These
transactions are intimate and private, usually hidden to the outside
world and sometimes even to ourselves.
Over the years, with many parents (men and women – newsflash, men are
parents too), I’ve had conversations about contraception, vasectomy,
adultery, sexually transmitted diseases and whether it’s a good idea to
re-enact scenes from Fifty Shades of Grey.
(Verdict: please do what you want but I don’t want to know about it.)
But I would not advise trying to discuss the particulars of housekeeping
money, who pays the childcare bills or what you might do financially if
the other person walks away. That is a taboo. It shouldn’t be.
In her book The Feminine Mistake, the US writer Leslie Bennetts makes
a persuasive case for the folly of giving up your earning potential
long-term. She argues that anyone is foolish to risk what she calls
“economic abandonment” and advises avoiding the “get a job, love”
situation by never losing sight of your professional self in the first
place, even if you do take career breaks for the sake of family. Or do
what most normal families do and resign yourself to the fact that you
won’t work because you want a full-time parent at home – but you will
just have a hell of a lot less money.
It’s one thing for parents to make trade-offs – personal, political,
financial – as a short-term option. It’s quite another to expect those
trade-offs to last for life, even when a relationship fails. I can
envisage – but not advocate – a situation where a woman devotes herself
to her husband’s career and the family, sacrificing her own earning
power. Or vice versa, when a man sacrifices himself for his wife. Equal
opportunities tomfoolery, please. But to do this, like many decisions in
life, is a huge gamble. And you can’t expect a court of law to
guarantee your winnings. Instead, go to a jobs website and put “riding
instructor” in the search box.
