Widows Sue for Value of Husbands' Housework

	posted by Scott on Sunday August 05, @09:25AM from the inequality/double-standards dept.
	The Sydney Morning Herald printed this story about a group of widowed women who sued their deceased husbands' employer for a monetary value of the housework that the men would have done in retirement. The men had died prematurely due to asbestos exposure. One would think that if a group of men had sued because of their wives' premature death for the value of their "housework," society would see this as treating women as property and house servants. But when women exploit the deaths of their husbands, no commentary on the degrading nature of the lawsuit is mentioned.

	Source: The Sydney Morning Herald [Australian newspaper] Title: The value of men's housework Author: Unknown (AAP story) Date: August 2, 2001

<  Petition to End Paternity Fraud | Perceiving Boys as Weak  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Law (Score:1) by vir on Sunday August 05, @03:40PM EST (#1) (User #251 Info) This sounds more like a sign that the death benefits for the dock-workers widows were insufficient for them to live, so they created a reason to get a settlement. It is unfortunate that they chose "the work their men would do around the house," but it was probably necessary to get around a "pain and suffering" limitation. Note that there was no mention of how much the settlement was, and that it was out of court. When you settle out of court, there is no legal precedent. Personally, I wonder how long these women have been fighting the company, and how many different legal tactics they have had to try.

Re:Law (Score:2) by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Sunday August 05, @04:25PM EST (#2) (User #187 Info) I was struck with similar thoughts when reading this piece. Sometimes--in the U.S.--families, widows, or even widowers, will sue individuals or corporations in "wrongful death" lawsuits which seek not only punitive damages, but also the amount of money the deceased individual would have earned had they been allowed to work until retirement. It really doesn't seem that uncommon to me, and I'm not sure that it's anti-male on the part of the widows. I require more thought on this subject.

Re:Law (Score:1) by bledso on Sunday August 05, @05:49PM EST (#3) (User #215 Info) If women are being monetarily compensated for the loss of their husband's housework after death, why aren't men monetarily compensated for the loss of their wive's housework after divorce? Or, why don't they show up at his house to do housework after the divorce. Men are forced to give up "their half" of the assets and continue to make payments afterward. If a woman was primarily in charge of the housework, why isn't she required to continue it or pay her ex for the monetary difference?

Re:Law (Score:1) by vir on Monday August 06, @04:14AM EST (#4) (User #251 Info) I believe the difference here to be the fact of employment. Society believes in an obligation on the part of the employer to aid the spouse of a worker killed on or as a result of the job. This belief has created the concept of death benefits. Inside the family unit...law begins to fall apart, as the expectations and beliefs of society begin to become unclear. Perhaps it is personal cowardice, but I'd rather not tread into the ethics of divorce law on this thread.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]