The Struggle for Relationship Property
Recognising Intangible Investments and Challenging Patriarchal Norms & Understandings When A Relationship Fails
Amidst the intricacies of family court dynamics lies the contentious issue of relationship property.
When two lives, intertwined in love, partnership, and mutual responsibilities, separate, the division of relationship property stands as one of the most vexed processes in the legal world.
It’s not just about the assets either; it’s about respect, recognition, and, too often, it becomes a silent battlefield for power.
On the surface, relationship property law might appear to be a realm of objective fairness. There are laws, formulas, and precedents, all intricately woven together in the name of equity.
But peel back these layers, and one often discovers that the foundational principles are riddled with gendered imbalances, inherited patriarchal norms, and biases that lean heavily against the woman, especially in the Western world.
It starts simply. The house, the car, the bank accounts — these tangible assets make up the core of what’s divided. But, how do you quantify years of intangible investments?
The sacrifices made to raise children, the career opportunities lost, the hours poured into maintaining a home, the emotional labor, and the forfeited personal aspirations?
The law, for all its black-and-white parameters, struggles to encapsulate the vast expanse of grey.
Women, more often than not, find themselves at a disadvantage in this arena. While societal norms have evolved, women still predominantly bear the brunt of domestic responsibilities.
The choice to step back from careers to cater to family needs often leaves women economically vulnerable post-separation. When relationship property is divided, this economic vulnerability is magnified.
Far too frequently, women find themselves grappling with systems that favour financial contributions over domestic ones.
A higher earning spouse, generally the man, might argue his greater contribution to the financial pool, sidelining the non-monetary investments of his partner.
This reductionist approach, which sees value only in dollar signs, strips away the intrinsic worth of years of caregiving and homemaking.
Let’s consider a scenario: Sarah and John, both budding professionals, decide to start a family.
Sarah, aware of the impending responsibilities, scales back her career to care for their children. John, with reduced domestic obligations, accelerates in his professional sphere.
Over the years, their joint assets grow, primarily due to John’s soaring income. However, when they decide to part ways, the division of relationship property becomes a battleground.
John cites his monetary contributions, while Sarah’s years of sacrifice (as caregiver, primary domestic labourer, mental load carrier etc.) as well as emotional investment are dismissed as financially irrelevant.
The stereotype of the gold-digging woman seeking to “take her ex to the cleaners” often clouds genuine pleas for a fair share.
The narrative that women manipulate the system to drain men’s resources is perpetuated by patriarchal voices that fail to understand the very essence of equity.
It’s important to note here that not every relationship exhibits these patterns. There are numerous instances where roles are reversed or evenly distributed.
However, the overwhelming trend in social science research is that women still carry the majority share of the domestic, caregiving, and mental loads in their households, while generally also working, and still often walk away from relationship property settlements with far less than what they’re owed in terms of true, holistic contributions.
Legal systems need to evolve beyond just financial metrics and look deeper into the intricacies of relational contributions.
Assets aren’t just bought; they’re maintained, nurtured, and sustained.
A home isn’t merely bricks and mortar; it’s the sum of years of shared memories, care, and mutual investment.
Lawyers and judges need to recognise the unconscious biases that often mar the process.
The age-old patriarchal belief systems that devalue domestic work need urgent dismantling.
There’s also a dire need for awareness and education. Women need to be empowered to understand their rights, to ensure they’re not shortchanged in the division process.
This is especially pivotal in societies where women are traditionally expected to be passive recipients of legal decisions rather than informed participants.
Reforming the way relationship property is perceived and divided isn’t just about assets — it’s about acknowledging the myriad ways in which partners contribute to a relationship.
It’s about ensuring that when two lives diverge, the resulting division is a true reflection of shared years, not just shared assets.
In the end, this is a call for justice, in its purest, most holistic form.
The struggle for relationship property isn’t just legal — it’s deeply personal, emotional, and a reflection of our society’s values.
Rewriting this narrative — championing true equity over outdated norms — is long overdue.
