Gotta say, this is quite a strange script.
I've looked at quite a few since joining this site and this by far is the most well-written. That said, I don't quite get it. I'm on page 32 and I'm still not sure what the story is.It seems like you have an idea for a 'world,' but not necessarily a movie. After the first 20 pages I'm thinking; Where are we going with this? Women go to work and Men stay at home. Okay. I got that. But then what?
When a very out-of-the-blue murder occurs, I thought that was, finally, our inciting incident. But no, everyone just kinda blows that off like it's no big deal and things go back to normal almost immediately. What gives?
The thing is, with a script like this, people are going to look for a message in every scene. Obviously you're making a point by giving us a role-reversal world. Take "White Man's Burden" for instance. They flip it so whites are the majority in America. Clearly, that movie had some political point to make about racial relations in America today. So, in the case of Househusbands, I can't help but look for the point or commentary being made. Are you saying that if women are in charge, will murder is less bad for some reason? Or that men will become super stupid?
That's another dangerous element of this script. All the men are portrayed a muscular meatheads. They've all basically become sex toys for their women masters. So doesn't that kind of imply todays women are just dumb sex objects? I'm sure that isn't your point but that's how it comes across. Now you might say these women are super powerfull captains of industry so they have these 'trophy wives.' That could work but I think you need to juxtapose these husbands then with some regular, middle class husbands so we can see the difference, and not just assume every male in today's society is a buff airhead.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the implication here seems to be that if women are put in charge, they'll all become super sexist. Problem is, this feels like sexual role reversal from the 1950s. Men may have casually harrassed women back then, but in today's super legitious society, men have to walk on eggshells in the workplace. So it's a bit confusing when these coporate women are calling their scantily clad male secretaries "Sugar Parts." That really wouldn't be acceptable in today's coporate world, reguardless if the boss was male or female.
And, I'm probably over-thinking it now but, testosterone is what makes men so aggressive. I don't quite buy women would start sexually harrassing men just because they're in charge of the workplace.
I really am impressed by the writing itself but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree with this premise. It's a rather heavy handed concept, which isn't necesarly a bad thing, but the message itself isn't clear to me. I hope someone else chimes in because it's possible I'm just missing the point.
You definetly seem to have a talent for writing though. I hope we see something else from you in the future.