Women (it could be "men" but that is so rare even in 2009) who work get less of a divorce settlement than women who do not. It is odd to think, isn't it, seen like this? But it seems to be true.
Take the case of McFarlane as an example. If she had been working she would have got much less, it seems clear. Admittedly, some of the reason she stopped work was seemingly because they both wanted her to, or at least agreed she could, stop.
So, being brutal about it if a divorce might be in your mind:
Men: get her to work!
Women: don't work whatever you do!
Surely there should be some real acknowledgement that a woman has earned income as well as (no doubt) taking the lion's share of the care of the children. Upon divorce, a woman should be given a better divorce settlement than if she had chosen not to financially contribute during the marriage, surely?