By the time he founded the business she was a frigid bitch.
Key words:
by the time. She was a very underdeveloped character in the film so we are left to speculate, but even by your estimation, she likely didn't start out that way and it seems as though he was a physically and emotionally distant husband who was also erratic in his various "get rich quick" schemes. She stood by him when he was nothing and held down the fort at home while he went dream chasing, he finally latched onto a good one that succeeded and
then dropped her. Would he have gotten the chance to wander the country and meet the McDonald's brothers if she wasn't tending to things back home? Maybe... maybe not. I'm not necessarily saying she was entitled to 50% of the business he was growing, but "not even 1%"?
Why should he give her half of what he was GOING to make?
Just addressed that.
Maybe not half (but perhaps? Depends on what arguments can be made and what the judge decides), but
some ongoing percentage that can be negotiated in court. Because he started the business while they were still married, and this wasn't like an 18-month Hollywood marriage...this was almost 40 years according to Wikipedia. That's quite an
investment of time.
She had no kids... why should he have to pay alimony? She can go get a job and go back to work, no?
I think they did have kids but they were grown. I used to think like you actually, I was perplexed about why ex spouses get half or some percentage of what their partners made, but I've since acquired a better understanding of how marriage is a partnership. As I discussed above, the thinking is that he wouldn't have been able to go out on the road chasing rainbows if she hadn't been holding down the fort at home, and it just seems only fair that since she stood by him when he was nothing for decades that once he made good, and she was there for the beginning of that good-making, he should share with her.
Something... he vindictively said he'd rather die than give her even 1% of a billion dollar empire. If that's not greed I don't know what is. I'm pretty sure that's how it was supposed to come across, because he d*cked over the McDonald's brothers too. Not just his ex-wife. I doubt you were supposed to come away from that scene thinking he was being reasonable...
reply
share
RoadSideAssistance
7 years ago
Mmm some fair points.
Although I don't understand why he needed her to 'hold the fort down'. Why? In fact he bought the house for her lol. Looking back at his bio he did have a daughter but looks like when he was 20 or so (1924 she was born) so she would've been like 30 by the time he was traveling and on her own. She probably was gone mid-late 40s and this story went down in the 50s.
reply
share
Jupiter555555
7 years ago
Yes, the offspring was an adult by the time of the story, but again dividing up the assets after marriage is cumulative. He didn't become a salesman or entrepreneur over night. He got to that point because of several years on the road, and he had several years on the road gaining experience and business contacts because of the partnership with his wife that allowed him to. "Holding down the fort" at home can mean a lot of things from running the water so the pipes don't rust to feeding the dog. I get it, it's not worth a lot but it is worth something. He wouldn't have been there meeting the brothers, etc if he didn't have her.
There's also compensation for risk and inconvenience. He almost lost THEIR house, she had to endure all that when he was unsuccessful, so when he made good on a venture he entered into while their business merger (you may know it as marriage,) was still valid, she has some stake in it. That's the way partnerships work, and marriage is a partnership.
reply
share