AIBU to think we should encourage our daughters to 'marry well'?

[windygallows]

I know 'marrying well' is something our mothers and grandmothers crowed about but it's not a phrase I've heard much these days and it feels quite an anti-feminist sentiment in a world where women can do well without men.

Yet I wonder if marrying well - marrying into money or marrying someone who is in a well-paid profession - is something we should be encouraging our daughters to do. Why? Because not every woman wants to have a career and if you want to be a SAHM then really that's easiest if your DH is well paid. Also women still experience a pay gap and are in lower-paid roles by comparison, so having a well paid DH really does make up that pay gap.

Plus - when I look around at my female friends and peers (I'm mid-40s) of the ones who have a comfortable lifestyle and are able to work part-time or be SAHM, for about 3/4 that lifestyle is attributed to having a well-paid or wealthy DH. The other 1/4 got there through their work/career, family money etc. This is purely a sample of my peers, by no means the norm.

I'm a staunch feminist so it's a bit hard to write this but I'm also a single parent and know what a slog it can be making everything work on my own salary. Marrying well doesn't mean a good marriage or relationship but it does make things easier. In the end shouldn't we be having an honest conversation with our daughters about this and encouraging them to think a bit more about 'marrying well'?

I think some people have ran away with the idea that middle class girls should abandon any ideas of obtaining a high income themselves by sniffing out the lawyers and the bankers early on.

I don't think that's quite what OP was getting at.

It's not exactly income - well, it partly is, but for my part, I'm not fussy (!) I could have happily married a teacher, a joiner, someone who worked in insurance, a mechanic.

However, much as I'm not a gold digger, I know what I wouldn't have wanted was someone with a chaotic work background. Someone in and out of work, someone scraping by on zero hour contracts at Tesco, someone working in a factory one month then on JSA then back to a warehouse job. The work itself is incidental but a sense of reliability and regular income says bigger things about a person.

Being candid, raising children is a two-person job because it's caring and providing. Some women people don't have two people so they are either in a position where they have to pay someone to do the caring while they do the providing, or they do the caring and are reliant on the state to do the providing. The first of those options can be (note I said 'can be') relentless and upsetting for her, especially if she IS a high earner who therefore gets no state help and so sees a huge drop in salary her work colleagues won't. The second option is not ideal for obvious reasons.

But it goes back to the 'not all is equal' as sometimes there IS a second person or people like grandparents or aunts or friends who can do the caring while the lone parent does the providing.

However, in very general terms, I think what is important to children is stability and a regular income (not necessarily a high one) is part of that. It allows families to plan for the future, to feel secure and therefore to focus on raising their children. Which is why I hate this plethora of 0 hour contracts but that's a whole other rant!

Who said you had to earn 60k? I know of one person who earns that amount but in the area I live (North East) the average is 20-30thousand a year in my age range they certainly wouldn't be classed as unsuccessful. I know many successful independent woman but who don't need to have a high earning partner they simply with them because they love them and one of them has a mortgage.

I think that's the point in many ways, Under. A £60,000 salary is a good salary. £30,000 would not be considered as good. Yet someone solely reliant on a £60,000 salary is in many ways like someone on £30,000. In MANY ways so don't all leap down my throat.

Two people each earning £30,000 wouldn't be considered rich. But they would share living costs (mortgage/rent, council tax yes I know 25% discount, paying for 1/2 a person who does not exist electricity, phone/internet) many holidays and trips and days out are packaged for two people, blah blah.

Yes your second person still needs to eat and clothe themselves but still, the single person earning £60,000 is going to be taxed more, still has to pay mortgage, electricity, internet, nursery costs, and so on.

Plus there's an "entertainment" cost to being single, I think.

OP you said: " I promise you unless your daughter is making over 60k pa she will struggle to buy a house on her own"

Well, as a man who earns little over one third of that but who owns my own flat, that statement seems to be bullshit to my mind. Unless of course estate agents charge single women far more to buy a house then men.

Clearly, I wouldn't be considered good enough for your daughters. Even though my flat has a conservatory and garden, I own my own car, have never inherited money, am highly educated, have a good interesting job that makes a difference to a lot of people (but working for a charity means salary is not huge), I treat people well, all that matters is my salary apparently.

Still, I'd rather be single than with a gold digger. I want to be with someone who loves me and is intelligent and independent.

Or should I only be looking for a woman who is a high earner so that she can keep me in the style to which you think your daughters should be accustomed.

"Marrying well" should be about finding a partner you love, who loves you, treats you well, supports you, has similar values. Astonished that a supposed active feminist can spout such sexist drivel.

OP just wondering are you Mrs Bennett?

Gwenhyfar Yes, we do have an ok income - though, since we live in the SE, to read some of these comments you'd think we'd be destitute! My point wasn't that we're poor, but that neither of us 'married up' (I guess especially me, as I earn more) but I suppose we both could have.

What if you were on a really low income? A care assistant and a cleaner? Don't you think life would be harder and you might wish you'd found a partner who earned more?

Yes, I think life would be harder - I'm not an idiot. Realistically, though, there are very few cleaners or care assistants who find a rich man to support them. Marrying rich is hardly a viable way to get out of poverty for most people.

What about our sons? I'm not sure I'd be happy if my DS married a woman who didn't necessarily love him as much as his bank balance, and saw him as some sort of meal ticket to finance her lifestyle. I want my sons to be involved in the upbringing of their children if they choose to have them. Often high earners are the ones working long hours, facilitated by a sahm, but not that involved in the day to day grind of bringing up children. Why would I want that for my sons? One of them is a good artist. He want to be an illustrator. So I doubt he'll be loaded. Why would I want him to be unhappy if women turned him down because he wasn't on a 6 figure salary, but once he got picked up by Pixar and began making millions to keep his mother they all started crawling out of the woodwork?

I encourage my sons to marry well because I want them to be able to afford to put me in Sunrise Senior Living when I'm old.

Actually there are good points about being independent. My only worry is, if DD has the Gynae problems I had, plus dreams of starting a family, she's not going to have the luxury of waiting till she's 40.

In an ideal world she could do everything she dreams within reason, but will she regret it when she's in her late 30's, no kids, the NHS will have long stopped funding IVF. So unless she gets an amazing job, plus her partner m/f gets an amazing job, fertility treatment will be out of reach.

At DD's age I had the idea of a dream job, by DS's age I was sure what I wanted to do. Whilst I wanted to be a high achiever, DS wants to be a footballer, which looks unlikely as by his age most young Wayne Rooneys are signed to a club.

Admittedly I've changed my stance from big dreams for their careers, to whatever they fancy as long as they're happy. Realistically though, you need a trade or a skilled job to get on the housing ladder, you won't achieve that nowadays working for a low wage, unless somehow you get a housing association property and then get the discount for having rented it a good 15/20 years.

Do any parents think how feasible it is that our children will be moved out Post Uni or at some point in their 20's into a bought property? They'd need a cushy deal where any board they pay is saved as a deposit for them.

Say DD decides ok I'll go travelling, then go to Uni, realistically, most that went into higher education post 16 and then the remote few that did Uni, didn't really study anything apart from nursing or a degree that led into teaching. DS needs a lot of coercing to do homework, he's way more sporty than academic. Unless there's a sudden drop of the penny that if he wants a career he needs to study harder, he'll be in a lowish paid job.

He's lucky to have two parents who went about their careers differently, so he could take on a YTS scheme, he'd be encouraged to do so. DD I can't really say what direction she'll go ultimately.

We got on the ladder when a first time 3 bed was £40k then a bigger house was say £60k which then jumped in value to an absurd amount. That's the only reason we have the luxury of the property we do now as we had a huge deposit from house prices going crazy.

Would you emphasise to DC's that training for an amazing job is the priority to earn as much as possible. Or would you be happier if they opted for a position that was Living Wage (as it will be by then) or just above, but something they were passionate about and happy with.

If you think about what life will be like when they're of age, DH's wage alone will mean they need subsidising for Uni. We don't know how Brexit is going to impact anything, but I can honestly imagine children living at home as long as they can as they'll have no life. It won't be like when we were young and we just hopped on the property ladder, then after 5 years stepped up a rung or two.

If you think of transport costs, food costs, living costs, managing a house is going to be a pipe dream for many as they'll need someone to share the costs of renting a place.

Ok slightly changing the subject but think it 10 years for DS 18 years for DD. How much higher will costs be. Even adults now are struggling, with food banks on the rise.

So yes you can dream of an independent child with the world at their feet. In reality, you'll have DC stood at the bottom of the housing ladder, not even able to reach the bottom rung on their tip toes.

I remember thinking this, very ashamedly, after I had my first child. I felt under pressure to stay at home, from society really. I earned a bit more than my husband. Looking back, I'm really glad I didn't have the option. Having to carry on working and knowing that I earn my own money, is better for me. It would have been much easier to stay home and depend on one income, but long term, easier isn't always better. Very few couples will be able to afford SAHP in future I think, and my children are used to the idea that we both work, and earn. For me, an easier life is not necessarily the more fulfilling life.

Margaret Cavendish. .cinderella? It's a fairy tale isn't it - no cleaners marrying princes round here.

If marrying a professional was someone's daughters aim, then becoming a professional would be the most likely way to achieve that with the added bonus of being a professional should it turn out the guy you wanted to marry cos he was lovely was your gym instructor, coffee maker etc.

Shatnerswig - I have sons and I really hope they grow up to do jobs like yours and no gold diggers go near them. I'll be encouraging them to find a girl with family money

Agree. Marrying well isn't really an option for women who are going to end up working in McDonald's. Assortive mating is already being seen as one of the reasons for lowering social mobility. Doctors marrying other doctors, not nurses, lawyers marrying other lawyers etc. The best way out of poverty for both men and women will always be education and ambition. A high earning man may shag his cleaner, he will rarely marry her.

The first priority is for women to able to support themselves and any children. My grandpa instilled this in my mum who instilled it in me. I wouldn't 'encourage them to 'marry well' i.e. have someone to take care of them but to marry someone who can also support themselves so you are not carrying someone else their whole lives

I will help and encourage all my kids, boys and girls, to be self sufficient. And equally I will encourage them to choose a partner who is good, kind, motivated, educated and able to be their support and back up when they need it (and for them to be exactly the same to their partner).

Looking back I never dated anyone who wasn't wealthy but it wasn't their money that was attractive. The wealth was a product of their personality that I was attracted to. Highly motivated, hard-working, extremely well read and travelled but ultimately I only dated people who were interested in family and from similar, not so wealthy backgrounds as me, and fascinated and interested in life and all it has to offer. I also came in contact with a lot of wealthy and successful people because of the career choices I made.

So I hope to offer my kids access to the same opportunities I had. But my hope is for them to support themselves through life AND have a peartner who can do the same while being the kindest, most compatible person for them.

I have friends who've "married well", by that I mean 6 figure salaries not the landed gentry. They have all the lovely trappings but as mothers of young children it's really really hard. All previously had good careers but had to step back as their husbands work long hours and it was too difficult for both parties to be career focused with child care. They often feel alone and unsupported with looking after the children, and their husbands lives haven't changed much making their contrast even harder.

The people I know who seem to be happiest and have young children are those who have a satisfying child friendly job, husbands who share their values and are supportive at home. AND it really helps to have family near by who can help with childcare, so they don't have to pay for nursery and can have some nights out with their partner.

Based on this non scientific sample my advice would be get your daughter to aim for a family friendly job, meet a lovely hard working man who doesn't know what wifework is and you give up work to look after the grandkids

As a nurse, I can confirm that Doctors have been marrying nurses since time began

"whether or not it's moral to advise your daughters that they can go work in a shop and then marry rich, it's certainly not wise - I just don't think there is a huge supply of high-earning men who want to marry women in minimum wage jobs. "

I'm not sure it would work like that. When a child is young of course you encourage them to reach for the sky, but if you have an adult daughter in a very low paid job it might make sense to encourage her to think of her future financial security when meeting men.

It wouldn't have to be the Lord of the Manor or anything like that, just someone who earns a decent wage rather than a very low one.

My tongue in cheek advice is to encourage all your DD's to find rich men but not too rich. Marrying a man and living in a massive house that has been his family seat for 700 years that floods every year and costs a fortune to maintain because it's listed and you can't even put up a visible satellite dish, also brings it's miseries. You can't sell it as it floods every winter & it belongs to The Family. The damp makes you ill and you have to live on drugs just to get through the day and the moles on the croquet lawn drive you crazy (until the winter when they drown) You are going to hand it to your DC but it's a poisoned chalice as they will have to pour every penny they earn trying to keep the rats, cats and bats out of the west wing and the locals from stealing the 14 tonnes of lead off the roof. Staff are too expensive so you have to do everything yourself and after a few years of this, you look ten years older than you are. You now can't see whatever you saw in your husband (once you saw past the pound note signs in your own eyes) and are locked into a historic feudal system. If you leave and divorce and tried to get some money there isn't any. It was all smoke and mirrors and the estate hasn't actually turned a profit since 1943 and that is because the army paid to have soldiers billeted there. You do have a family crest though even if you can't afford to run a car. On the crest there is a Latin inscription that translated says something noble but might as well say, "Fuck this shit". Just saying.
Not me by the way but a family member.

It is not possible for every woman to marry a high earning man. That would mean all men had well paid jobs. There are plenty of men that don't earn very much. If every woman aimed to marry well & be a SAHM, (which not everyone wants anyway) there would end up being lots of women with no job or a low paid job married to low earning men - the opposite of what he OP suggests.

The best encouragement you can give to boys & girls to is go for being able to be financially independent. I also wouldn't advise anyone to be a SAHM without a back-up plan & support/provision from their partner. Things can go wrong unexpectedly.

Being financially independent doesn't have to mean earning a fortune. In plenty of parts of the country £30,000 is considered a very good salary. 2 people, both earning £30, 000 (e.g. nurses or teachers) would be very well off.

Reactive - I was just going to say doctors marrying nurses. People obviously do meet people who earn more or less than themselves on a daily basis, it doesn't have to be a prince with a pauper.
Managers and secretaries is another one. With more women in executive and managerial roles now there are more male managers pairing up with female managers, but managers and secretaries can still get together just as lower paid office staff mix with IT people who earn good money.

As a nurse, I can confirm that Doctors have been marrying nurses since time began grin

But they do it a lot less often now because they much more often marry female doctors.

Thinking back to past centuries, marrying well would mean marrying into a good, wealthy family - this was the case for both male and females. It had little to do with love.

'Marrying well' today is what each individual makes of it.
Personally I would want my dcs to have their own good health, wealth & happiness, ie, to be independant.
I don't expect them to find these things in others because they lack it themselves.

@Riversleep good post

also @Monkeymarbles, agree 100%

As a nurse, I can confirm that Doctors have been marrying nurses since time began

Not so much any more now - use to be that not many women were doctors. Now most doctors get together eith their DP at med school and marry them! [blatant generalization]

I am from a medical family. Can't name a single on of my family or their friends that is in a Dr/Nurse relationship. It is all Dr/Dr or Dr/Other.

Do you think Margaret? You might be right, I don't know if there are any reliable figures to measure it by.

I trained in the nineties and loads of nurses married doctors, same in my parenting social circle.

It could well be different now, are lots more women going in to medicine than before?

All very interesting

I am from a medical family. Can't name a single on of my family or their friends that is in a Dr/Nurse relationship. It is all Dr/Dr or Dr/Other

I have just looked through my FB and there are ten nurse/Dr couples. All anecdotal but in my London teaching hospital in the nineties it was very common.