A new social system requires a new set of laws

In January last year, Moroccan full-back Ashraf Hakimi curled a brilliant free-kick past Malawian goalkeeper Charles Thom to boot Malawi out of the 2022 African Cup of Nations at the Ahmadou Ahidjo Stadium in Cameroon.

It was a wonder strike that made headlines across the world as the North African team underlined their credentials as potential contenders for the continental trophy. Many will not remember that goal.

But a large section of the public knows Hakimi from the news that he allegedly registered all his assets in his mother’s name to protect his interests in the event of a divorce. If the reports from the tabloids are anything to go by, his wife was demanding half of his wealth.

Some sections of the public, mostly the men-folk, consider the decision to register 80 percent of his assets, worth an estimated $24 million, in his mother’s name as a “stroke of genius” that ultimately kept him out of bankruptcy.

Another section, predominantly women, believes he was being “unfair” to his wife and should be vilified for hiding his wealth from her. Apparently, he showed a lack of trust and if he was that suspicious, he should not have married Tunisian actress Hiba Hibouk.

Both opinions settle around two significant questions: How much of a man’s assets should a woman be entitled to in the event of a divorce? Is it OK for a married couple to own assets independently of each other?

Most laws prescribe that a wife is entitled to half of all marital or jointly held property in the event of a divorce. This is how it has been for decades, but there is a generation of men that is rising to question this dynamic. And with good reason.

Marriage has become a social dynamic that puts men at a significant financial disadvantage in the event of a divorce. Men stand to lose a lot of their financial assets in divorce settlements and alimony. Most of these losses emanate from the interpretation of the law in various jurisdictions.

Most legal systems do not allow spouses to own property independent of each other. Several do not allow for prenuptial agreements. However, almost all legal systems dictate that a man should be responsible for the wife even in the event of a divorce.

It is important to note that most of these laws were made in the olden days when men were considered superior to women. In their perceived superior role, men were supposed to provide for their wives, who were mostly confined to their households and/or menial work.

Fortunately, societies have evolved into more inclusive social orders that recognise and promote equality between men and women.

The traditional system, the so-called patriarchal system, where the man was the head of the household and provider, is giving way to one that encourages women’s empowerment and independence.

There have been initiatives—quotas that promote 50:50 participation in leadership roles and prescribe that men and women get equal pay for doing similar jobs—to ensure that men and women are on equal footing.

Unfortunately, these initiatives do not extend to marriage. In this modern woke world, marriage is still considered an institution where a man is supposed to contribute more financially. And those contributions do not end with the dissolution of the marriage.

Divorces usually leave men worse off. Somehow, society is changing into a social system where women can do the same jobs as men and get equal pay for doing so, but still demand to be cared for by a man.

This is the dynamic that the Hakimi “acolytes” are standing up against. They are asking why they should remain providers to a group of independent and empowered women.

Hakimi’s actions resonate with a section of men who are becoming increasingly apprehensive about losing the wealth that they spent a lifetime accumulating just because a marriage ended.

There have been revisions that guarantee women a portion, in most cases half or more of it, when a marriage ends, regardless of their financial contributions. This was created to ensure that women get a fair contribution for their work as homemakers.

Why not include similar provisions to allow men to own property independently and let it remain so even when they are married? Without that, there will be more Hakimi-esque schemes. A new social system requires a new set of laws.