My friend needs your help, wife threatening to take everything!!

Feisty_Fairy

melancholly wrote: »

just had a thought - maybe lots of bra burning feminists (me included btw ) may have come to this thread with a slightly defensive mindset because the thread is titled '... wife threatening to take everything' rather than taking the half of everything that the law entitles her to?

You are perhaps right, an error on my part, but i cant seem to edit it, anyone know how?

melancholly

Feisty_Fairy wrote: »

You are perhaps right, an error on my part, but i cant seem to edit it, anyone know how?

actually no....:o that'll teach me to make silly suggestions lol

Feisty_Fairy

melancholly wrote: »

actually no....:o that'll teach me to make silly suggestions lol

lol:rotfl: :rotfl:

fay144

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I couldn't agree more, only in this case it appears she has been more of a sleeping partner, sat at home watching TV. In my opinion a partnership should involve equal responsibilites. By the sound of it this lady has spent a long time doing next to nothing, with the childcare responsibilities out of the way she has been milking this relationship, now she is bleating about what she 'deserves'. She could have gone out and got a job, it sounds like she had little else to do, but she chose to sit around doing nothing.

Sadly as you say the law will side with this idle lady and she will most likely walk away with an awful lot more than she really deserves.

At the risk of repeating myself, the fact remains that her husband spent years in this situation and did nothing (as far as we know) to discourage it.

Every month of those 40 years where he didn't turn to his wife and say "right, where's your half of the mortgage this month" was a month where he gave her that money. It's spent long ago, and there's no arguing over it now.

Clive_Woody

fay144 wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, the fact remains that her husband spent years in this situation and did nothing (as far as we know) to discourage it.

Every month of those 40 years where he didn't turn to his wife and say "right, where's your half of the mortgage this month" was a month where he gave her that money. It's spent long ago, and there's no arguing over it now.

As I said before, but will happily repeat once again, why should the onus be on her husband to tell her to get a job. Are you suggesting she is incapable of making a decsion herself and needs to be told what to do? I am sure the bra burners would love that suggestion.

She chose not to contribute financially when she had the opportunity to do so, why then does she deserve an equal share?

teacup_2

Woody are you made of wood ???????????, like pinnochio? , come on have you not been reading ..........
But you are entitled to your view:beer:

No offence intended from bra burner

fay144

Clive_Woody wrote: »

As I said before, but will happily repeat once again, why should the onus be on her husband to tell her to get a job. Are you suggesting she is incapable of making a decsion herself and needs to be told what to do? I am sure the bra burners would love that suggestion.

She chose not to contribute financially when she had the opportunity to do so, why then does she deserve an equal share?

For people of that generation, many women *were* told exactly what to do by their husbands. As someone already said, a lot of women 40 years ago were forced to leave their jobs when they had children, and being a housewife was considered the norm.

In fact some men of that age would hate the thought of their wives working, and considered it a point of pride that they didn't have to. Lots of women were brought up to expect to live like that. (not all, obviously)

Her husband was the one who was unhappy with the situation, so the onus was on him to at least make her aware of that. If he looked at the bills every month, and decide to pay them without asking his wife for her share of the money (equally, if his wife asked him for the money, and he handed over the lot) - then he made his decision to approve of her unemployment then.

He paid his wife's share of the mortgage, bills, etc every month for 40 years. Yes, if he felt that she didn't deserve it, then he has been an idiot. But the money has been spent, and it's too late to ask for it back now.

margaretclare

As fay144 says, a lot of things were different 40 years ago. It was almost like a different world and it's very difficult trying to explain the zeitgeist of those times to modern thinking. I recently got involved in an argument about why so many women are still retiring with no pension provision of their own - reason: the thinking of the time was that she had no need to, it would all come out of her husband's NI contributions. Never has it been so explicitly stated by anyone as in the words of Beveridge, the architect of the welfare state. He didn't think any married woman should be out there earning her own living: in his words 'she has other duties' and he spelled out these duties: 'replenish the population'.

This was the 1940s, but it took a heck of a long time for those assumptions and that general thinking to change. The idea of a husband asking for half the mortgage contribution in a month, knowing his wife had no earnings, would have been completely unthinkable.

Her share of the mortgage and bills was that she kept the house, made a home for him to come home to, eat and sleep, have clean clothes etc. So she doesn't do a lot of cooking nowadays. Maybe she's fed up of it after all these years. I know of men who, when widowed, simply looked out for a woman who was willing to marry them and take over the cooking and cleaning etc in return for a share of his home. I used to go out for a drink with guys who were quite explicit about this. There was no eye contact, no flowers and chocolates, no romance, just 'I've been widowed for 5 years and I've had to learn to cook - in 35 years of marriage I never so much as made a cup of tea' and they would look at me hopefully. Usually I was halfway out the door before they'd finished speaking.

Margaret

Clive_Woody

fay144 wrote: »

For people of that generation, many women *were* told exactly what to do by their husbands. As someone already said, a lot of women 40 years ago were forced to leave their jobs when they had children, and being a housewife was considered the norm.

In fact some men of that age would hate the thought of their wives working, and considered it a point of pride that they didn't have to. Lots of women were brought up to expect to live like that. (not all, obviously)

Her husband was the one who was unhappy with the situation, so the onus was on him to at least make her aware of that. If he looked at the bills every month, and decide to pay them without asking his wife for her share of the money (equally, if his wife asked him for the money, and he handed over the lot) - then he made his decision to approve of her unemployment then.

He paid his wife's share of the mortgage, bills, etc every month for 40 years. Yes, if he felt that she didn't deserve it, then he has been an idiot. But the money has been spent, and it's too late to ask for it back now.

Unless this lady is somehow trapped in the 1920s you may have noticed it is now 2007 (40 years ago is 1967 - I think by then women were allowed to vote and were a little more liberated than some here would seem to be suggesting). Assuming her son became self sufficient when he was 20, that would make it around 1987. I believe the feminist movement had had most of their demands met by then so to pretend this woman was unaware of modern ways of thinking is simply providing her with a convienient excuse for her decision not to bother getting a job.

As far as I am aware this Gent is not asking for any money back, it is his wife demanding more of his money despite doing a runner and also asking for a share of the property she chose not to contribute towards financially.

If this lady chose to sit around doing nothing in preference to going out and getting a job, then I fail to see why her husband should be held responsible now she has decided she wants out and finds herself lacking financially. The onus was on her to plan for her future, she chose an idle life and now goes into money grabbing mode when she decides she wants a change.

Sadly the law will no doubt support this womans greed and decision not to bother working.

liney

Actually in the 60's announcing you were pregnant was hand in hand with 'So when will you be leaving then?'

Assuming she gave up work at 20 she wouldbe 40 plus during the 80's and lets not pretend that ageism doesnt exist when starting out in a career.

All of this is irrelavent; they were both happy with the arrangment at the time, and if he wasn't then he should have said. If she was happy to keep house, then why should she suggest she goes out and gets a job if her husband is happy for her to stay at home? You say 'she chose not to contribute financially' but she saved him from paying for a cleaner, cook, childminder etc etc so yes she did contribute financially, not by putting the money in the pot, but by preventing it from being spent in the first place.

Some men should employ a cleaner rather than have a wife: They would probably value her more anyway.