Woman Sues Ex For Housework She Did

[jarm]

Did anyone else hear about this? I can't find a link on the GMA website.

The woman went on strike at home years ago, the strike ended when her husband brought her flowers and took her on vacation. Now they are getting a divorce and she's suing him for all the laundry, cleaning, etc. that she did.

Thoughts on this?

[eli1126]

It was on Today this morning, but I didn't watch it..curious to see what people think.

Beth

[jbenny75]

I think it was on the Today show as well. I say good for her. Have you ever read the stats on what the pay would be for a SAHW? I think I read it would be a like $150,000 a year job.

[BTB]

I think I read it would be a like $150,000 a year job.

I'm a SAHM right now, and while it's a lot of work, those calculations are totally bogus. The full annual salary of each occupation is figured into the total (I've seen estimates over $200,000) but that's for someone doing that occupation full-time. I may do all those things over the course of a day, but not all at once, so it's a gross overestimation to figure I'm a 40-hr/week cook, 40-hr/week child caregiver, 40-hr/week chauffeur, 40-hr/week housekeeper, etc. etc.

I think the lawsuit is bogus too. (guess I'm in a retro, Bill and Ted phase?) During the course of a marriage, both parties put a lot into it, the household, and the family. You can't expect to be reimbursed at the end - unless, of course, she wants to compensate him for all the food she ate that was purchased with money he earned? Even if you could do that, aren't the courts busy enough without having to babysit these lovers' quarrels?

[camberne]

(guess I'm in a retro, Bill and Ted phase?) EXCELLENT!! ;)

We've joked about charging each other for sex. Put a dollar value on each *ahem* action. He'd be in so much debt, it isn't even fair to consider. ;)

I don't know how I feel about it seriously though. I'm working at home now, and even when I wasn't, I do ALL the housework. And I mean ALL of it. I do the laundry, the dishes, the shopping, the cleaning, the garbage, etc. It's frustrating. My husband works long, hard hours and I can certainly understand him not doing most of it, but SOME of it would be nice. I mean, if he wants me to do his share, I wouldn't mind being compensated for it!

[jarm]

I agree that she probably shouldn't be entitled to all of the money she's asking for. Some of the laundry I'm sure included her clothes.

[dionysia]

I agree with BTB. It's a bogus (DUUUDE!!) lawsuit.

Di

[wendalah]

Stupid.
I hate this sort of story. It makes women look bad...and dumb. Yeah, sue him for all the housework you did. He can sue you right back for rent money.

I am just of the mind that women are never going to be taken seriously, and equally, if they keep pulling this kind of nonsense. If a guy did this he'd be laughed right out of court.

[Larissa]

I think this is only valid when the arguement is that since he earned the money he should get all the money when leaving the marriage. It isn't fair when yes, he earns all the money, but he wouldn't have that much time to commit to his job unless she was doing all the housework and raising the children. Is she asking for 50/50 as they leave the marriage and she was only granted 10-20% so she's trying to find a way to make it known that she actually did a lot of the household...just as much as he did?

[KrissyCat7]

I think it's rather amusing. :) She is actually charging him for sex, does that make her a hooker? :confused:

[jarm]

She's charging him for sex?? I must've missed that! Wow!

If the situations were reversed and let's say he was suing her because he stayed at home and did all the work, would you look at this differently?

[thedoorchick]

Stupid.
I hate this sort of story. It makes women look bad...and dumb. Yeah, sue him for all the housework you did. He can sue you right back for rent money.

I am just of the mind that women are never going to be taken seriously, and equally, if they keep pulling this kind of nonsense. If a guy did this he'd be laughed right out of court.

Exactly!

[lml41981]

I dated a guy in college whose mother was a SAHM/SAHW. She had taught before becoming a SAHM. The main reason she was a SAHM was because her husband wanted her home. He was a very controlling man - physically and emotionally abusive and a cheater to boot. When she finally got the gumption to kick him out, she realized she had no marketable skills because she had been a SAHM for 21 years. Fortunately, they were in an alimony state, otherwise she'd be flat on her ass. Being that she took sole care of the home and the kids (he wouldn't even pick them up from school if she was sick), I do think she was entitled to something...especially considering it wasn't primarily her decision to stay at home. She contributed a lot to the marriage and the family and deserved to get some kind of financial support.

Being that I don't know all the factors in the story this thread is based upon, I can't really judge. Maybe they don't live in an alimony state and she has no marketable skills due to being home for too long. I don't agree with suing as a tit for tat thing, but I do think she *might* deserve some kind of financial support to reflect the sacrifice and contribution she made - at least until she gets a job and can support herself.

[dionysia]

If the situations were reversed and let's say he was suing her because he stayed at home and did all the work, would you look at this differently?No.

Di

[dionysia]

For the most part, I think that alimony laws are outdated.

The exceptions are cases like the one LML described, in which I think alimony is appropriate but only until the other spouse is re-established and working.

For example, my friend's wife left him after 11 years of marriage. But when they eventually got divorced, he had to pay her alimony, because in CT if you have been married more than 10 years, alimony comes in to play. Despite the fact that she did not seek alimony, nor need it. (She has always been gainfully employed.) Of course she didn't look that gift horse in the mouth and my friend was practically bankrupted. (They didn't have any kids, fwiw.)

Di

[tenofcups]

I've been trying to find more on this story, but so far I've just heard bits and pieces that make me think the whole thing is ridiculous. What I heard on the news last night: They were married for 5 years, she's asking for $500,000 but "would settle" for $30,000. The news story I heard referred to her as a "stay at home WIFE," and didn't mention any kids. But it was a lame story and clearly didn't have a lot of information in it so just because they didn't mention kids doesn't mean they don't have any kids.

Without knowing how much she had when they got married, how much he made, what their assets are worth, how and why she wasn't working, etc., it's pretty much impossible to have any idea of if what she's asking for is "fair" or not.

I obviously have no objection to an equitable distribution of assets. But I have a serious objection to the way this particular suit is being framed and the whole "a housewife should be worth $x amount of dollars." We ALL pay bills, clean, cook, take care of our homes to various degrees, etc. whether we work or not--and none of us get paid for that.

[villanelle75]

My reasons for rolling my eyes about this have everythign to do with the presentation. If she were just askign for money based on her contributions to the household and the years she spent keeping their house and presumabely supporting him, I think that woudl be totally appropriate. But to essentially give him a bill for services rendered is disgusting.

[wendalah]

I don't ever buy that a woman is a SAHM/W just because her "controlling abusive husband" wants her to be one. Sorry. Don't buy it. If a woman wants to work outside of the home she will find a way. If it took her 21 years to kick the creep out of her life while her fruit rotted on the vine--that was her choice. She could have told him a long time ago that she was planning on keeping her career if it were that important to her--and if he said no, she should have gotten a clue right then.

I'm tired of women as victims when we don't have to be.

and, ETA:

"If she were just askign for money based on her contributions to the household and the years she spent keeping their house and presumabely supporting him, I think that woudl be totally appropriate."

Why does she deserve money? Didn't he pay her by paying her rent and supporting her?

[lml41981]

I don't ever buy that a woman is a SAHM/W just because her "controlling abusive husband" wants her to be one. Sorry. Don't buy it. If a woman wants to work outside of the home she will find a way. If it took her 21 years to kick the creep out of her life while her fruit rotted on the vine--that was her choice. She could have told him a long time ago that she was planning on keeping her career if it were that important to her--and if he said no, she should have gotten a clue right then.

I'm tired of women as victims when we don't have to be.
No woman should have to be a victim, but the fact remains that some are. I'm sorry you think it is bogus that some women are victims of abusive husbands and that it sometimes takes them awhile to get the guts to leave. Not every woman is strong enough to leave right away; some need time to build up the nerve. As long as they leave alive, I don't care how long it takes them. Obviously I'd rather they leave sooner than later, but the important thing is that they leave.

I'd rather not punish a woman by leaving her destitute simply because she was the victim of an abusive husband. I think that is letting the abuser win one final victory...and I'd rather the abuser have to lose something in the process - in this case, the money it would take to support her.

Di - I agree that alimony laws are antiquated. I've heard of women who move on and live in marriage with someone else, but refuse to make it legal because they make too much in alimony. That is bs, IMO.

[lawyerlee]

For the most part, I think that alimony laws are outdated.

The exceptions are cases like the one LML described, in which I think alimony is appropriate but only until the other spouse is re-established and working.

I agree completely. An able-bodied person will just have to adapt to the chance in circumstances. I think it is just and fair to make sure that person gets on his or her feet and receives a fair amount of the marital assets, but beyond that, each spouse should provide for him or herself.

Maybe working outside the home isn't the life this woman envisioned for herself, but I've got a newsflash for her: Lots of people end of doing jobs they don't care for because life has taken unexpected turns.

[thedoorchick]

I agree completely. An able-bodied person will just have to adapt to the chance in circumstances. I think it is just and fair to make sure that person gets on his or her feet and receives a fair amount of the marital assets, but beyond that, each spouse should provide for him or herself.

Maybe working outside the home isn't the life this woman envisioned for herself, but I've got a newsflash for her: Lots of people end of doing jobs they don't care for because life has taken unexpected turns.

Yep. For similar reasons, I think large life insurance policies aren't really appropriate. Funeral expenses, some help to adapt and adjust, sure. But not a lifetime of leisure. Of course, that is another thread.

[dionysia]

Yep. For similar reasons, I think large life insurance policies aren't really appropriate. Funeral expenses, some help to adapt and adjust, sure. But not a lifetime of leisure. Of course, that is another thread.Yeah, it is, BUT! :p

DH's life insurance policy is pretty high: right now it takes into account his funeral expenses, our mortgage, and our cars. When we have babies, it will take into account some of the kids' college tuition. Basically we looked at my earning potential, his earning potential, our debts (and future debts) and then got a policy that fit. USAA had a nifty tool to help us. :)

/OT

Di

[wendalah]

To clarify: I DO think child support is necessary and fair. And I realize I sounded harsh, but I do feel that women have a role in their own fates. Abusive relationships are terrible, but the sooner women as a whole realize they don't have to take shit like this, and that they don't need a man to take care of them, the better.

[dionysia]

And I realize I sounded harsh, but I do feel that women have a role in their own fates. Abusive relationships are terrible, but the sooner women as a whole realize they don't have to take shit like this, and that they don't need a man to take care of them, the better.Ah, if only dismantling the patriarchy were that easy...

*wayne's world music*

Di

[wendalah]

Well, Di, being against able-bodied alimony is a start!

ETA: AND not condoning dumb-ass lawsuits like this one either which send out a public message that finances are somehow weirdly, sexually segregated. You stay at home and Dad brings home the bacon, he's paying you.

[wendalah]

BTW, I'm in a bad mood today. And I am rough on women in general, I admit it ;).

[lawyerlee]

AND not condoning dumb-ass lawsuits like this one either which send out a public message that finances are somehow weirdly, sexually segregated. You stay at home and Dad brings home the bacon, he's paying you.
Exactly!!! :mad: That's total bullshit. :mad:

[villanelle75]

Why does she deserve money? Didn't he pay her by paying her rent and supporting her?

I'll answer this as best I can by using my situation as an example. DH is iin the Navy and for many reasons, that makes it not only desireable for me to have a job that doesn't require crazy hours, but also makes it hard for me to advance in a career because of the frequent moves we'l be making. We plan on me going to grad schoo, but the logistics have made it nearly impossible thus far. So I have a simple, low paying job at a non-profit. He makes about twice what I do, and if I were to have to get a better paying job to support myself, it would be tough because I wouldnt' have the history or experience needed. Since we decided that those were sacrifices that I would make to make our life work, I can't see how it's unfair to think that shoudl we divorce, it would be fair and reasonabel for him to help me out a small bit for a short time, since had I not made that sacrifice for us, I'd be much better situated to support myself.

I don't agree with the notion that "he paid her" by paying because to me the issue is one of whether or not the spouse can support themsleves after the marriage, and if they can't is it because they contiruted to the marriage in other ways that negatively affected their earning potential? It's not about who gae what to the marriage and the relationship;it's about how the ways they gave affect their situation when the marriage disolves. His contributions of money and work don't make him less able to care for himself post marriage. Her contribution of giving up work and being a homemaker DO affect her ability to care for herself, and IMO, that's why it would be reasonable for her to get a small supplement whiel sh'es getting her bearing in the job market.

[bookworm]

ETA: AND not condoning dumb-ass lawsuits like this one either which send out a public message that finances are somehow weirdly, sexually segregated. You stay at home and Dad brings home the bacon, he's paying you.


This is actually why I cringe whenever a woman says "feminism is about choice." It's not; it's about power. And if you willingly give up your power (like it or not, we measure power in large part by earning money) for the good of your marriage, and that breaks up, what kind of support can you/should you expect?

I know no one does this planning for the worst, but until as many men as women put themselves in that position (sacrificing career for marriages and families), we're not going to solve the power dilemma, because we haven't changed how power is measured.


And thus goes my first controversial post on CC...... :)

[lml41981]

This is actually why I cringe whenever a woman says "feminism is about choice." It's not; it's about power. And if you willingly give up your power (like it or not, we measure power in large part by earning money) for the good of your marriage, and that breaks up, what kind of support can you/should you expect?
That's what feminism means to you. To me feminism is about having the power to choose. I agree that power is largely measured by how much money one has, but to willingly give it up for what she sees as the benefit of the family doesn't mean she doesn't deserve financial stability should the marriage crumble. The man got career advancement as a result of his wife's sacrifice (had she not stayed home, is it not possible that he would have to take on more of a brunt of child raising, which could interfere with his career?), she ought to get something out of it, too. At least until she regains some earning ability.

[bookworm]

The man got career advancement as a result of his wife's sacrifice (had she not stayed home, is it not possible that he would have to take on more of a brunt of child raising, which could interfere with his career?), she ought to get something out of it, too. At least until she regains some earning ability.

lml, I don't necessarily disagree with you---I just don't believe we (women) can redefine the power structure while so many of us choose to stay outside it.

ETA: I would love to be wrong about this. Anyone have suggestions?

[lml41981]

lml, I don't necessarily disagree with you---I just don't believe we (women) can redefine the power structure while so many of us choose to stay outside it.

ETA: I would love to be wrong about this. Anyone have suggestions?
The only ideas I have are unfair to non-parents. Better maternity and paternity leaves so mothers or fathers can spend more of the crucial development time with the baby instead of sending the child to daycare at 6-8 weeks. More flexible work schedules so those who do choose to return to work don't necessarily have to choose between work and family. Equal pay for women and men who have the same job descriptions and qualifications (not unfair to non-parents, but a suggestion).

eta: Unless the woman suing her husband for housework also had kids, I realize this doesn't really apply to *her,* but it does apply to my ex's mother, IMO.

[BTB]

Clearly, the answer is for men to grow breasts. Then they could nurse babies, and then a a six-week maternity leave would not be nearly so paltry, and we could have more SAHDs.

I'm sure when you're talking toddlers and older, being a SAHD is equivalent to being a SAHM in terms of what you can do for your kids. For babies, though, biology has a lot to do with it.

Since men have glandular tissue too, a coupla hormone injections per week ought to get their milk production upped nicely.

What's funniest is how only half-joking I am. :p

[shopaholic]

She's charging him for sex?? I must've missed that! Wow!

If the situations were reversed and let's say he was suing her because he stayed at home and did all the work, would you look at this differently?
I heard that she re-thought that and said it wasn't that good so why charge. :rolleyes:

[greenbunny]

Edited because it isn't worth the headache.