"For better or worse" said the wedding vows.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12062245/Drug-addicted-millionaire-tells-ex-wife-marriage-is-for-better-or-worse.html

I thought this was a shining example of how the law seems to shaft men at both extremes.

We see cases where a famous rich guy that works for millions divorces and his wife who doesn't work gets millions of dollars despite having actually contributed nothing to the wealth acquisition because they are a 'unit'. I believe this is fair enough in most cases, especially if one person stops work to raise kids. Perhaps less so in high profile cases where one person would have earned a lot of money regardless of being married.

But the opposite case? Apparently that's fine to no longer split the settlement equally. If you replace this text:

"After assessing how much of their joint fortune Mr Rapp had spent on his addictions, the judge awarded her a larger share of their £13.6 million assets."

with

After assessing how much of their joint fortune Mrs Rapp had spent on her pottery hobby and overwhelming desire to spend a fortune on fancy restaurants, the judge awarded him a larger share of their £13.6 million assets.

You'd have no chance - they'll never assess the fact a higher earning male worked 40 hours a week for 14 years of a marriage while their partner did not. But switch genders, and it's suddenly fine to do this.

Ridiculous IMO.