I don't currently think this is a convincing argument that the person should be mocked. Where did the assumption about the loyal husband come from? (It seems

I don't currently think this is a convincing argument that the person should be mocked. Where did the assumption about the loyal husband come from? (It seems to be presuming the cause and fault of the divorce, and rest is arguably built atop that.) By "half his money", was "half the family's money" meant? (This could just be a way of phrasing, but it can also sound like prejudice towards the matter.)