Controversial marriage question

I'm the higher earner, always have been. We have been together 25 years and have DC together. I haven't wanted to marry. Apart from anything else I think it's a bit overated!

When we got married we didn't really know what assets we would have, no idea how our future would go. He was earning slightly more at the time and brought some savings, but since then I've paid off half the mortgage with an inheritance. However his parents are very wealthy, and he is set to inherit a substantial amount one day. We've built a business together, so we do have a written agreement of assets in case of dispute. I don't actually like the idea of marriage now, so I wouldn't enter into it if I were my current self.

Are the same posters stating both of the above?
No there not and I don't think I've seen a thread where a woman earning more than a man makes him a cocklodger either.

Usually the posts about being a cocklodger are where a man who doesn't work, or does the bare minimum, moves in with (or expects to) a woman who has a decent job, her own house and then expects her to bankroll him. Alternatively cocklodger suggestions also on threads where a woman is the main earner and the man seem to be out of work more than in work, is forever doing 'businesses' that don't bring in money, wants to quit his job again because he's yet again had an issue with colleague. Or they're threads where a couple are together, have children, the woman is working full time, then does everything around the house, and does everything with the children, meanwhile her partner does next to nothing around the house, contributes very little financially and seems to think that the woman is there to pay all his bills, cook all his meals, clean the house, raise the children and have sex with him.

That's not true. I'd say the same if my partner earned more than me - especially since this is a relationship for both of us where we were married before and want to protect our own assets for our own kids.

Are the same posters stating both of the above?

Personally I’m of the opinion that everyone should consider whether they’re financially compatible with their partner, and I would encourage anyone, male or female, to protect any assets they don’t potentially want to lose.

This is MN land, where -

(1) woman earns less than her partner = finances should be shared equally

(2) woman earns more than her partner = he's a cocklodger and she should protect her assets

Massive oversimplified there.

More like:

This is Mumsnet land where -

1. Women recognise in the majority of situations women take a financial and physical hit when they have children and therefore it is right that in those situations the family unit's money is fairly allocated
2. That when one part of the family unit (male or female) is spending more time at home with the children and doing more domestic load, their contribution to the household should be recognised, often in the fair sharing of family assets.
3. Women recognise that many women end up in highly precarious situations where they end up financially precarious situations, eg their male partner expects them to stay home/go part time whilst living in his house and she's not on the deeds etc.
4. That marriage is a legal change that can affect things such as inheritance, which is why it's important if people are moving into second marriages they consider the impact on their children and any inheritance they wish to pass to their children

This whole if sexes were reversed stuff isn't the gotcha people think it is.

This is MN land, where -

(1) woman earns less than her partner = finances should be shared equally

(2) woman earns more than her partner = he's a cocklodger and she should protect her assets

Probably because ‘we’re’ told that caring about money, even though money means financial security, makes a woman a terrible, shallow gold digger of a person. It’s virtuous to not care about it, regardless of the consequences of that.

There’s also a prevailing narrative, even in this thread, that you can have love OR money, never both.

It baffles me why some women marry men who have nothing. Second marriages children grown up two women I know still get married. Just why? One is very minted and the other now has a big mortgage that started in her fifties as he had no equity. I think these women are very naive. Just my opinion. They were both homeowners and did not need financial help. In both cases the men were renting.

So as in my situation I provided the bulk of financial support. Took on the bulk of the mental load. STBEH unilaterally decided to stop at home. He did take the kids to.and from school and provided after school care. Now having left for a younger model he takes half the savings and half my pension. Younger women building a career beware. This will happen more as time goes on.

Quite. I mean in the case of a partner supporting the other partner’s career by caring for the children and running the household, that person has played a role in earning the money (indirectly). I don’t understand someone who hasn’t had that kind of partnership, yet expects to be subsidized or get a payout when they divorce. Not cool!

Not only does it happen, the law explicitly facilitates it to happen.

And I can see why, because the law assumes that men earn the money and women get left high and dry when the man fucks off with another woman. Which is fine when that's the case and in most situations it is the case. But it's a very blunt instrument when the boot is on the other foot. And increasingly women are the ones bringing money into the marriage, whether via earnings or inheritance or whatever it might be.

When the woman is earning the money AND looking after the kids and home its absurd for her also to be expected to subsidise an able bodied, solvent man with no responsibilities because he happens to have married her.

PS I think it’s totally immoral for someone to try to take money or assets from an ex that they have had no part in earning. However, sadly, it does happen and people can behave very badly and in unexpected ways. I don’t think any of us should ever think we are immune to being treated badly because you never know what’s going to happen. That’s why it’s our responsibility to protect ourselves.

In California, assets owned before marriage remain with that individual in the event of a divorce. Only what’s earned or bought during the marriage becomes community property and gets divided 50/50. I think that’s much fairer!

My DH and I both had nothing when we got together and earned equally. 20 years in, he earns 5.5x more, but I enable him to travel for work and work whenever he needs to by setting up my work schedule around the children. I have brought money into the marriage via an inheritance and a big gift from a family member, plus we’ve made most of our money from doing up and selling property together. So it’s all been pretty even and if we got divorced everything would be split 50/50 and that would be fair.

If I then got together with someone else, I would never re-marry without protecting what I was bringing in because I and my children would have a lot to lose! I’m glad that more women are thinking like this because a lot of men don’t and their kids end up with nothing, especially if they marry someone younger who will likely outlive them.

I think there’s a big difference between marrying young and penniless to marrying older and being more financially established with DC to think of.

@Drfosters

i think the rule should be assets you own before a marriage are always yours and never should be considered marital property and the law should recognise that.

I totally agree with this. It's absurd that decades of work should be thrown away to someone else because you marry them.

Therefore now getting married because you are the higher earner seems quite selfish really to the other party unless they do nothing to contribute to the family unit in which case why on earth would you want to be with them anyway?!

I presume you mean not getting married?

I totally agree with this if all things are equal. But the whole point of this discussion is that women typically are the ones who sacrifice their earning power and therefore their financial security to raise children. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that men be asked to give up half their assets if they've been able to work unhindered while their wife has been at home looking after the children and home. That seems eminently fair.

If lots of men gave up work for several years to raise their children I'd be very happy with the idea that a breadwinning woman should share half her assets with the man in the event of a divorce. But they almost never do. So why should they be entitled to reap half of the marital benefits?

People often post on these threads that it shouldn't be one rule for a man and another for a woman. But the point is that we're not on a level playing field for men and women. There is no natural parity here. It's much much harder for women with children to make money than it is for men with children to make money.

A woman who has worked hard to amass some money and build financial security and also raised children will almost certainly have done so with very limited support from her husband and against very difficult odds in the workplace. Why on earth should a bloke who has been working frictionlessly to suit himself for decades get to grab half of his wife's hard-won assets in the event of a divorce? It's phenomenally unfair.

if you are seriously asking yourself these questions and are putting threads on like you have done then your not ready for marriage because your relationship has all the hallmarks of a failing relationship

A little ironic coming from someone who has been married 4 times, no? Maybe bit more careful consideration there would not have been a bad thing after all..

@Drfosters I agree it’s sad, but I didn’t get married imagining that the man I was deeply in love with would treat me and his children so awfully. I shared everything I owned with him and married, I thought, for life. He was ok for a few years and then decided family life was not for him and left me to it. So common I’m afraid and if I’m asked by anyone I’ll advise … marriage is definitely a financial transaction. It can be useful in some circumstances and when considering it, weigh it all up and decide whether to say yes based on your personal circumstances. Love is a different thing and commitment support and working together towards a shared aim doesn’t require a ring or a certificate.

Threads like this are quite sad really. I just can’t imagine going through life with one foot out the door. i think the rule should be assets you own before a marriage are always yours and never should be considered marital property and the law should recognise that.

income earned during the marriage is always 50:50 unless it came be proved otherwise. I earn far less than my husband (worked reduced hours while the children we’re small) but I do 90% of housework/home admin (on top of my lower paying job) and so 100% of the children organising (childcare sorting, homework etc). It works for us, I love doing the home stuff but it means my husband takes none of the home mental load to work and can concentrate on his job 100%. I work but have a less stressful job but it’s me that had a to do list of admin that I currently need to get done during my lunch hour such as uniform buying, passports to renew, home insurance quotes.l etc. This set up might not work for others and the roles may be reversed etc but my point being that pure monetary income is not representative of contributions to the family ‘income’. Therefore now getting married because you are the higher earner seems quite selfish really to the other party unless they do nothing to contribute to the family unit in which case why on earth would you want to be with them anyway?!

@Jinglehop

I’d never recommend signing a contract that effectively promises half your assets to the father if the marriage fails unless he has similar or greater assets to bring. It’s well known that women often bear the brunt of caring responsibilities and are financially disadvantaged as a result so why go into a financial contract that disadvantages you further.

This. In a nutshell.

Men are still breadwinners at a significantly large proportion that the penny still hasn't really dropped for most women about what a financial con marriage can be. Over time, as our daughters earn more, it surely will.

My fervent hope is that by the time my daughter is of marriageable age, it will be so irrelevant to her that she won't even consider it.

Yes I’d advise against it. I’m divorced and brought all of the assets into the marriage. I am solely responsible for raising and supporting our children while he pays £100 per month and does nothing.

I didn’t ever imagine he would be so uncaring to his own children, even while we were splitting up. Being sole carer has affected my earning potential and career significantly - and affected what is possible to provide for our children.

It’s shockingly common for men to shirk their financial and caring responsibilities after divorce (less common for women) The child maintenance service calculations don’t come close to sharing costs of child rearing equally. It is structured in favour of absent parents - overwhelmingly men - and does not use its powers even when needed.

I’d never recommend signing a contract that effectively promises half your assets to the father if the marriage fails unless he has similar or greater assets to bring. It’s well known that women often bear the brunt of caring responsibilities and are financially disadvantaged as a result so why go into a financial contract that disadvantages you further.

Well yes absolutely, I would cheerfully admit I'm not "ready for marriage": I never want to marry again under any circumstances.

If being "ready for marriage" has to mean blindly walking into a theoretically lifelong financial contract and having to be prepared to sign half my assets away if it doesn't work then I don't ever want to be ready for it. I find the idea that because I've been in love with someone for a period of my life they could be entitled to walk off with half of my money in the future utterly Byzantine. If that hurts someone's feelings, so be it. No man's feelings will ever be more important to me than my child's security.

I think that's the whole point of the thread, no? Women are waking up to how dangerous marriage can be for them financially. Because we've always been expected to want it, regardless of whether it suits us or not. And a lot of us realise now that it doesn't.

I have read this thread with a lot of interest I have married 4 times in my life and I can honestly say I have never ever thought about what i might gain or lose if th marriage was to fail or about what the other party was bringing to the table. if you are seriously asking yourself these questions and are putting threads on like you have done then your not ready for marriage because your relationship has all the hallmarks of a failing relationship . I seriously wonder if your partner knew you were putting things on the internet like you have what they would think? because as a man I can honestly tell you I would be incredibly hirt so much so that I would be walking away from you. Sorry if the truth hurts but seriously if your asking yourself these questions then your relationship is doomed .

I'm sure they would and I have sympathy for any man in such a situation. The difference here is that his actions are having a directly detrimental impact on the child as he's effectively forcing his ex to work all hours, sell the family home whilst doing no childcare or paying any maintenance.

I would still advise a man with far more assets than his partner to consider protecting them. In either case though I would judge harshly either party who is acting in a way that disadvantages their own child.

I understand your concern about mitigating liability, just in case. Both DP and I agree that our house or bank balance does not affect how we feel about each other. Having a nice house does not necessarily improve intimacy as it is just an object. It seems that individuals prioritize various aspects of relationships differently, and some choices may appear imprudent to others.

I've observed that in many marriages, partners tend to drift apart and neglect their relationship. While there may not be a perfect formula for success, I believe that ensuring alignment of values is crucial. Both my partner and I have learned this lesson firsthand via our failed marriages.

@Ohmygiddyauntie

Both Dp and I place greater importance on the emotional rewards of relationships rather than just focusing on financial aspects and spreadsheets.
The focus is on adding value rather than simply tallying it up.

Of course. And in a perfect relationship when all those factors come together, enhanced, combined financial strength underpins the broader idea of emotional "value". Which is a win/win.

I suppose I just think that in an awful lot of marriages this doesn't quite work, the alignment between the emotional needs of the couple often drifts apart over time and its unwise to build the entire financial edifice around the (highly optimistic) idea that you will both remain completely emotionally aligned for decades. Most people don't and many come to regret the fact that they are legally yoked together with someone who is increasingly insignificant to them just because they fancied one another 20 years ago and had kids together.

Marriage is a very blunt financial instrument in the event that the emotional side fails to hang together. Better to have some financial optionality and for separation not to have to be the financial "nuclear option".