We are not ignoring that, as couples make those sacrifices and give support to each other, approximately equally. If she chose to give up some number of years of working to have two children then she has to live with the consequences. She at least made a good choice of a stable man earning a good income to be the provider during those years in which she was not working. Presumably she supported his desire for children (and her own) and he supported that mutual desire by providing income and obscene levels of luxury and comfort during those years of early childhood while she unable to work in any sort of full time executive role. That is the biological arrangement, not just in humans. It is mutually beneficial, I think you are choosing to ignore the mutual part.
I don't know why you're assuming she took any more time off work than he did to have or raise children. In fact, the Wikipedia page I linked does not mention any mutual children from this marriage, while it does mention the husband's three children with his previous wife. You've assumed that this woman took a substantial amount of time off work to have and raise children that it does not appear even exist.
Further, say she did have children -- Why does being the mother of a young child automatically make a woman "unable to work in any sort of full time executive role"? You clearly do not believe fathers of young children cannot "work in any sort of full time executive role." That assumption is incredibly sexist, not to mention discriminatory against mothers in particular.
Hence the argument that gender-based pay inequality continues to exist in the US. How many men (and women for that matter) in hiring/firing/promoting positions do you think share your grossly inaccurate assumptions?
Why is the
mutual part not considered for both parties? What makes you automatically value his contribution to their marital finances more than hers? For all you know, he's a bumbling idiot and she had to chase him around to stop him from buying 600k Lamborghini's every weekend. But you do not assume this; instead you assume that she, the woman, must automatically be at fault and be of less value to the partnership than the man.
Timmmy, I don't expect you to understand this, but being told to 'calm down' or 'relax' about these sorts of things is yet another form of devaluing a woman's opinion; it capitalizes on the historic assumption that women are irrational and prone to hysterics. I'm not (and I don't think others here are either) offended by GuitarStv's comment about how maids don't allow penile insertion; that's the only statement in this thread that I can absolutely identify as a joke.
I AM offended by the misogynistic assumption that the wife brought less to the relationship (and resulting business partnership) than the man did. Perhaps this is hitting a little close to home for me. I recently visited with my husband's conservative Midwestern family over the holidays; he's a disabled veteran and might never work again. Frankly, I'll be happy if he ends up functional enough to be a SAHD. I was told, verbatim, that "it's not natural nor biblical for a man not to support his family." That notion is incredibly offensive to him as a person, and me as a woman -- we always knew I would make at least double his annual income. And I always made it clear that there was absolutely no way that I needed a "stable man earning a good income to be the provider," or that I had any intention of taking extended time off of work to be a SAHM. These assumptions about the role/capabilities of a woman are alive and well in our society today, and they do have significant impact on many people, male and female. There is plenty to be offended about.
Back on topic:
This couple did not have a pre-nup, and were married for a significant amount of time.
This article estimates that nearly 17.6 billion dollars could be considered marital assets:
The document, a trial exhibit marked "confidential business information," is a 122-page report compiled by Button, a PhD economist. Haralson released the report after determining it isn’t subject to the protective order he has placed in the case.
Button's report contends that up to $15 billion of the growth in Continental's market capitalization during the period he studied is "active" marital capital, or subject to division between the spouses. Button crunched data from the years between the couple’s 1988 wedding and February 2014.
Since then, Continental's value has grown by nearly $4 billion more, adding to the wealth the court may divide, Button said in court last week. About $2.6 billion of that appreciation would accrue to Harold through his 68 percent stake in Continental.
All told, Button's analysis suggests that the marital capital subject to division could add up to some $17.6 billion.
That
takes their pre-marriage assets into consideration -- takes into account his position as CEO before the marriage and any company capital or personal assets acquired by either party before the marriage would, I assume, also be reassigned to their original owners according to state laws.
So again, why is the wife not entitled to half of the assets acquired during the marriage, as the state law suggests?