The "Don't ask me, I'm just a girl" defence.

Diemos

Is anyone else annoyed by the argument put forward from a number of wives when a couple has accrued serious debt.

I first noticed this argument put forward by Patricia Quinn, I've seen it a number of times since then but it has cropped up again today here.

"his wife was a housewife who had no involvement in his financial affairs"


Is this defence actually being seriously considered?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

https://youtu.be/XjJQBjWYDTs

tomwaterford

They've an appropriate surname in this case anyway:morans

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Baaed on decisions in court, no it is not seriously considered.

everlast75

Didn't work for Ivan Yates' missus...

kneemos

Could be a bit of hic,hic,hup,how's your mother.
Say nothin now when they're lookin.

the evasion_kid

they dont do accountability too well thats for sure....

The_Valeyard

Slow down! The sidewalks for regular walkin', not your fancy walkin'

SEPT 23 1989

This pair are taking the piss obviously but unless a wife is involved directly in her husbands business doing the books and Co signing for loans etc how would she know what's going on only apart from what he tells her?

Junkyard Tom

Karen: They don't want me. Henry'll be in the protection program.

Cop: They can't get to him. They can only get to him by getting to you or your kids. If he goes into the program you're in danger.

Karen: I don't know anything.

Cop: Don't give me the babe-in-the-woods routine. I've listened to those wiretaps and I've heard you talk about cocaine.
Conversation after conversation you talked to Henry on the phone.

Pawwed Rig

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This pair are taking the piss obviously but unless a wife is involved directly in her husbands business doing the books and Co signing for loans etc how would she know what's going on only apart from what he tells her?

Because they are adults and adults do not sign contracts without knowing what is in them where money is involved. I find their attitude incredibly sexist. They are essentially infantising themselves and women in general by using this defence. Essentially it is a claim for diminished resposibility. Doesn't sound like any women I know.
That said I would imagine they are following the advice of their lawyer.

B.A._Baracus

Someone was going to post it, why can't it be me :mad: :pac:

SEPT 23 1989

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because they are adults and adults do not sign contracts without knowing what is in them where money is involved. I find their attitude incredibly sexist. They are essentially infantising themselves and women in general by using this defence. Essentially it is a claim for diminished resposibility. Doesn't sound like any women I know.
That said I would imagine they are following the advice of their lawyer.

I agree in this case and many others like this post crash but some women can be completely in the dark about their husbands business affairs

The I'm just a girl or whatever phase you want use can keep a roof over her children's heads

Liamario

Well don't ask me, I'm just a man.

IvyTheTerrible

I think it can work both ways. My mum manages the finances in their house (it's not a control thing, she's just better with numbers than my dad.). If she was involved in some big fraud, I'd definitely believe my father if he denied knowing anything about it.

PARlance

Diemos wrote: »

Is anyone else annoyed by the argument put forward from a number of wives when a couple has accrued serious debt.

I first noticed this argument put forward by Patricia Quinn, I've seen it a number of times since then but it has cropped up again today here.

"his wife was a housewife who had no involvement in his financial affairs"


Is this defence actually being seriously considered?

1. They may not know, it happens.
2. If they do know, then claiming ignorance can save them a lot of money.

The movement of funds trumps the woman's movement for them.
I would think that possible wasting/stealing of the banks/taxpayers money would be a better place to focus any anger.

biko

No doubt

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I think it can work both ways. My mum manages the finances in their house (it's not a control thing, she's just better with numbers than my dad.). If she was involved in some big fraud, I'd definitely believe my father if he denied knowing anything about it.

Same here, my mam worked in the bank for years so she's in charge of all that. If (god forbid) she dropped dead in the morning, I don't think my dad would even be totally clear on where all the money is, what's insured, what the craic is with the mortgage, let alone if she'd been committing any financial crimes

Pawwed Rig

Ben Hot Bookcase wrote: »

Same here, my mam worked in the bank for years so she's in charge of all that. If (god forbid) she dropped dead in the morning, I don't think my dad would even be totally clear on where all the money is, what's insured, what the craic is with the mortgage, let alone if she'd been committing any financial crimes

Yes but has your Dad blindly signed multi million euro contracts that he is going to claim 'diminished resposibility' on? No because he isn't an idiot.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes but has your Dad blindly signed multi million euro contracts that he is going to claim 'diminished resposibility' on? No because he isn't an idiot.

Oh I dunno, I mean one time he asked me for a 'ballmark figure' and insisted for several minutes in the face of massive opposition that the expression was, in fact 'ballmark figure' because that made sense and 'ballpark figure' didn't. A man like that is capable of anything, really.

pickarooney

You know, like Steve Ballmark of IBM.

AnonoBoy

tomwaterford wrote: »

They've an appropriate surname in this case anyway:morans

YEAH!

Buona Fortuna

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because they are adults and adults do not sign contracts without knowing what is in them where money is involved. I find their attitude incredibly sexist. They are essentially infantising themselves and women in general by using this defence. Essentially it is a claim for diminished resposibility. Doesn't sound like any women I know.
That said I would imagine they are following the advice of their lawyer.

It's not always the case, I'm afraid. This case apart, I have a relative who had no idea what her husband made or how the finances were handled. He liked it that way and she didn't rock the boat. She only had any control over family money after his death, a steep learning curve for her, in her 50's.

They were the traditional single income family, she raised the kids and took care of the house etc., he worked and gave her an allowance. She didn't seem to resent it, and he seemed to like the provider role and not having to worry about the more menial aspects of life that she took care of.

It is completely alien to me how it worked, but they were a happy couple.

He could have been the head of an international drug cartel for all she knew.

tritium

Candie wrote: »

It's not always the case, I'm afraid. This case apart, I have a relative who had no idea what her husband made or how the finances were handled. He liked it that way and she didn't rock the boat. She only had any control over family money after his death, a steep learning curve for her, in her 50's.

They were the traditional single income family, she raised the kids and took care of the house etc., he worked and gave her an allowance. She didn't seem to resent it, and he seemed to like the provider role and not having to worry about the more menial aspects of life that she took care of.

It is completely alien to me how it worked, but they were a happy couple.

He could have been the head of an international drug cartel for all she knew.

That would be the kind of case where you could believe this defence....

As opposed to recent stories where the wife was a listed director of several companies, attended meetings, and went guarantor for large loans, but then tried to use the housewife defence when their business success turned out to be more an ability to follow the money than any business genius.

Strangely during the boom many of these folks were happy to appear in newspaper interviews as the 'power behind the throne' and business equals to their husbands (which to be fair was probably true, albeit in many cases it was equality of delusion), yet when the ship started to sink they expected the lifeboats to be there for their poor little fragile selves

RobertKK

Kanye West has $55 million of debt, his excuse is he is just an idiot.

blinding

RobertKK wrote: »

Kanye West has $55 million of debt, his excuse is he is just an idiot.

When the bankers ran up massive debts they told us it was because they were very smart :eek:

Kanye is smarter than he thinks :eek:

UrbanSprawl

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

https://youtu.be/XjJQBjWYDTs

Fully expected that to be this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHzOOQfhPFg

Diemos

Diemos wrote: »

Is anyone else annoyed by the argument put forward from a number of wives when a couple has accrued serious debt.

I first noticed this argument put forward by Patricia Quinn, I've seen it a number of times since then but it has cropped up again today here.

"his wife was a housewife who had no involvement in his financial affairs"


Is this defence actually being seriously considered?

Patricia Quinn was a housewife who dealt with the household. A typical country woman who had no input/ interest in business. She trusted her husband.

I also know a man, a used to work with, in a management role. He had no input in household details and left everything to his wife. The were married many years, he signed things when she asked.
She run up thousands of Euros of debt on credit cards & remortgaged the house. Then she fecked him out & moved another fella in.
He hadn't a clue.
It happens

Diemos

bubblypop wrote: »

Patricia Quinn was a housewife who dealt with the household. A typical country woman who had no input/ interest in business. She trusted her husband.

I also know a man, a used to work with, in a management role. He had no input in household details and left everything to his wife. The were married many years, he signed things when she asked.
She run up thousands of Euros of debt on credit cards & remortgaged the house. Then she fecked him out & moved another fella in.
He hadn't a clue.
It happens

Pull the other one. How many housewives do you know who are on the boards of companies or who sign off on multi million euro debts?

As for the second story, she sounds like a nasty piece of work but he sounds willfully ignorant. He paid a heavy price for that attitude.

meeeeh

I don't care what spouses know and don't know but once you start signing documents you should know. I know why the defence is used and can't blame them for that but I still don't think it's a valid defence.

everlast75

I think it's that the level of debt should be commensurate with the need to be involved.

When any partner, male or female, is asked to sign documents relating to huge loans, or remortgaging the house, they have a duty to investigate - even if they were not money minded. If it's a couple of grand in credit cards, completely different thing (unless she walked around in mink furs or if it was the bloke, sporting gold braces).

More so recently, as there have been a number of high profile cases where partners claimed blissful ignorance. The lesson is "know what you are signing in front of you"

AnonoBoy

tritium wrote: »

Strangely during the boom many of these folks were happy to appear in newspaper interviews as the 'power behind the throne' and business equals to their husbands (which to be fair was probably true, albeit in many cases it was equality of delusion), yet when the ship started to sink they expected the lifeboats to be there for their poor little fragile selves

Nobody believes that bullsh*t though. We know they're all just scamming the system hoping to keep the money out of the hands of their debtors.

It's total lies.

The_Valeyard

tritium wrote: »

Strangely during the boom many of these folks were happy to appear in newspaper interviews as the 'power behind the throne' and business equals to their husbands (which to be fair was probably true, albeit in many cases it was equality of delusion), yet when the ship started to sink they expected the lifeboats to be there for their poor little fragile selves

Could that be used against them in court I wonder?