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'?

Are any Dads considering considering advising their sons to marry - to suit their desired future lifestyle choices I wonder?

Given some of the views on this thread we would need to dust off old the "watch out, she's only after your money" chestnut.

The problem here is that you just do not know what you want, how you will want to live once you have children. I thought I'd be jet setting across the world to continue my performing work after my first son but I completely changed my mind. I now have three sons and am lucky that my husband was as flexible and open-minded as me- he changed his career so that we can be together as a family as much as possible.

Marrying well for me meant marrying someone kind and intelligent who puts our family and our marriage first. I see plenty of other wealthier families who barely seem to know each other.

Karanka yes, that's the other side of women being encouraged to "marry well", isn't it? Watch out for gold diggers. Yuck.

Given some of the views on this thread we would need to dust off old the "watch out, she's only after your money" chestnut.

Which would be equally ridiculous and damaging as encouraging daughters to marry wealthy men.

I wouldn't worry anyway; contrary to some of the depressing views aired on this thread (but only some, many have disagreed) I don't know any girls who'd even think about things like this. All have rightly ambitious career plans of their own, myself included.

IAmAmy, I don't think it's the same at all. Advising boys to be careful that future partners want them for them and not their money is nothing like advising girls to marry rich men so they don't have to worry about actually working themselves.

It's sensible regardless of being male or female. I want mine to be successful for them not to support some lazy partner who wants the nice life without doing anything to finance it.

I kind of agree. I married a man from a working class background but who has a good well paying job we can both afford to live off. Of course that isn't why I married him but I think it has been helpful in keeping us both together, nobody enjoys financial hardship.

I shudder when I look back at pervious boyfriends and imagine what my life might have been like with them as exciting as they were when I was in my teens or early 20's.

I think I'd encourage women to be pragmatic to some extent when choosing a partner.

Opps the above post sounds like I don't work, I do but I don't have to.

Lots of girls without ambition and women who are low-skilled could be the product of low aspiration. Plenty of girls leave school thinking all they want to do is get married and have babies because they aren't aware of other options/think they're not the sort of person that will have a decent job or career. If we are feminists we should be fighting to change that, not perpetuate it.

Tiger does your husband have to work?

Advising boys to be careful that future partners want them for them and not their money is nothing like advising girls to marry rich men so they don't have to worry about actually working themselves.

It's not "the same" but both are damaging. One could foster in boys a suspicion of girls/women as well as an entirely inaccurate picture of them as being out to "bag" wealthy men. Barely any are like this. Why not advise daughters to make sure men don't want them for their money? Women in their 20s now out earn men of the same age group. We should be teaching girls and boys to find people they'll be happy with (if they want partners) and should they have children working out the arrangement which works better for them. There's no reason a father's career should take precedence over a mother's.

Also, I don't see work as a worry. I'm very much looking forward to the day I (hopefully) have a fulfilling career, earning my own money so I can enjoy doing everything I want to in life, as all my friends are.

More might be like that if people start advising their girls to marry a man with prospects, as suggested on this thread.

So basically, we should encourage our daughters to prostitute themselves? Having been through a horrific marriage, I've always encouraged my daughters to be totally self sufficient and to fulfil their potential. Hopefully, if they do decide to marry, they'll then find a partner who's good enough for them. They weren't brought up thinking that they need a man in order to feel fulfilled or worthy - they're quite capable of doing that for themselves.

Completely agree. I want my daughter (and son) to work hard, aim for self sufficiency and marry someone who they love and feel will make a good partner. At that point they will presumably pool their financial and other resources but to hunt for a man who means you don't have to support yourself is totally against my principles.

They weren't brought up thinking that they need a man in order to feel fulfilled or worthy - they're quite capable of doing that for themselves.

I completely agree with this.

Earning money and having your own capital and income is one thing, self-sufficiency is quite another.

"One could foster in boys a suspicion of girls/women as well as an entirely inaccurate picture of them as being out to "bag" wealthy men. Barely any are like this. Why not advise daughters to make sure men don't want them for their money? "

I do sometimes wonder whether the rich/very rich worry about this - for both sexes. I wonder if/how dparents advise their dc in this position. The Heiress etc. I suppose there is quite a bit of assortative mating in those circles as well, which does reduce the risk.

The flip side of this is I find it sickening that men are to be viewed as cash machines. How can any relationship be happy and equal if one is dependent entirely on the other and the other one is nothing but a cash point? Where does love, respect, trust and commitment feature?

I only want my 3 sons to marry women (or men) who will always work full time even after babies and to make that clear to the women or men before they get too involved. If a woman wants an expensive engagement ring or expensive wedding then that's a warning sign and you steer clear.

I think many have distorted the OP's POV as I don't believe she is arguing her daughter's should marry for money alone, and I think people would be right to be horrified if that is what she is saying.

Rather, a "good marriage" will be one where there is respect and shared values, and so on. In practice though, the shared values talked about result in the same thing. Girls who go off to university will marry men (typically) who have gone off to university - ok, they'll "share values", but in practice, they're likely to come from similar socio-economic backgrounds, similar levels of education.

Bob as financially self sufficient as the average working adult. I assume you're going to talk about he nhs etc yes I agree but in general terms, paying bills and rent and buying what uou need from your salary is what I had in mind.

I want to question feminists ideology that actually takes away the miracle given to women to bare a child give birth and raise a child.A child if loved and brought up well will contribute to our society.As a mother no one can love there child more.This love the child will have from a stay at home mum every day will make the child confident and happy.A recent psychologist study's results showed that teens who had SAHM for the first 5 years of there life were more happy asnd confident then those who didn't.Feminists refoke these findings.Ofcourse women should have a career but when they have a baby as a mum they should be appreciated in our society and as a partner/wife looking after her man and not frowned upon because they're not earning money this ties in with my anti capitalist views were all we see in each other is a price tag.Whats happened to behind every good man is a good women.Please if you want to really be a true definition of feminist believe in the worth of a women being a mum and putting the needs of raising her child into a wonderful member of our society before her career and money.I have unfortunately had to work with no choice against all of my innate desires to be the first one to hear my child's first word or see her first step etc..Where by another women who could never love my kids like me had the wonderful experience of raising them.Its only now in my 40's Ive been able to build up my own business thinking outside the box so now with my 5 thchild im able to be there at the school gates or swimming gala and it's the best thing I ever had to enjoy in my life.so why do we as women argue that being a mother is not being a feminist .I question that .That is hugely degrading to women.We as women are saying being a SAHM is worthless no wonder men expect us to work and have careers while having kids we are sending them that message.They must be extremely confused we're saying one minute we're financially stable and don't need them the next we do want men.I think it a lot of ways the suffragettes and feminist put a heavier burden on us as they didn't establish the worth of a excellent SAHM and wife with the acceptance of them having a career if they choose to.What they said is we want to be the same as a man.Denying us the pleasure of raising our kids ,being a good partner or wife or a single mum and to be respect for that.

"Why not advise daughters to make sure men don't want them for their money"

Many years ago i tried this. Went out of my way to make sure the bloke knew i wasnt a materialistic person. He then took advantage of that by being as tight as they come.

And i dont mean tight by not taking me out I mean tight by refusing to buy things like toilet roll when i was staying the weekend over there and telling me to take Imodium so i wouldnt need the loo as often as once or twice a day.

Having a go at me because i couldnt make it over there one weekend and he had splashed out on a packet of pasta and some diet coke.

I could go on There were many more incidents.

I would not make the mistake again of falling over myself to prove that im not materialistic . Because the flip side of the coin is that you could end up attracting a financially abusive man. And i think telling someone to take Imodium unnecessarily risking their health so you can save two quid on bog roll is pretty bloody abusive.

Oh and re. my post above We both worked for the same company at the time.

But the blokes in the warehouse got paid for overtime. The women in the shops didnt.

We had to do these things called mega events where after 5.30pm us women that worked in the shop were unpaid if these events overran but the blokes in the warehouse got double time ALL DAY and after 5.30pm for these events which always took place on a Saturday.

Duffle. I doubt there's any evident to equate having a SAHP equals a contributing member to society when the child is older. They tend to follow the path of the role model. If it were the case, there would be no need for pupil premium for a start. Neither does a child having a parent at home equate to love, what a daft notion. So the working dad doesn't love his child is basically what you are saying there.

Janet, a large wedding is a good indicator of what the bride expects. I've also told my son similar and my daughter as well, to both make sure their future partners pull their weight and share the burden equally whilst they do the same.

I'd not tolerate a partner who felt it was ok to leave the financial burden to me alone so don't see why men should be seen by default as the money provider. It's sexist and selfish.

I couldnt stand the idea of a big wedding. When i married DH he and his best man did ALL the organising but it was a registry office do with a meal in the hotel two doors down afterwards. I could not stand the headache and the stress of organising something like that. I just cant/couldnt be bothered. IF i were to marry again it would be a Gretna Green job or registry office with just a couple of witnesses. Its the marriage thats important not the wedding. I cant be doing with seating plans and wedding favours Cant be arsed.