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 also forgot to say (I agree with the two above posts) that feminists do not ensure at the work place if we have a career we are not paid or treated the same and still underrepresented by the gouvernement particularly concerning equal pay and child care costs.

"no need for pupil premium"

Theres that middle class feminism again.

duffle what you meant to say was:

A child if loved and brought up well will contribute to our society.As a father no one can love there child more.This love the child will have from a stay at home dad every day will make the child confident and happy. Of course men should have a career but when they have a baby as a dad they should be appreciated in our society and as a partner/husband looking after her woman 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 woman is a good man.Please if you want to really be a true definition of feminist believe in the worth of a man being a dad and putting the needs of raising his child into a wonderful member of our society before his career and money.

Only of course that would be a load of sexist claptrap...as was your original post.

Rainbows and unicorn,clearly you're head is in the sky if you truly think that firstly,a dad is a mum! Sooo anti women highlighting my first point secondly where have you been in the world? I went to college and ini travelled and worked all over the world and so many young people I meant who had amazing financially stable parents dropped out and became junkies and went back to the bank of mummy or daddy.Others inherited a shot load of money without understanding it's worth so inevitably they had everything but were extremely depressed and miserable because they had no fulfilment or joy in their lives as they never were able to understand the true meaning a working hard to be able to appreciate money.Look at you're window there's a whole world out there stop judging people and reality.Think outside you're box and get some real lif experience then come back with facts and you'll see you'll be singing a different tune.Wait until you have a 16/18 year old like I have or met young people that age to see what they're experiencing.This is so dangerous you're way of thinking it's one of the reasons why men who rape women don't get convicted in court because you don't believe things like that happen.zjustbbecausr it's never happened to you living in the clouds in you're perfect world in the sky doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people.

To the previous post exactly highlights you're sexism in the believe that a women is not a feminist or entitled to choose to stay at home after being pregnant and carrying a child and giving birth and breastfeeding for at least a year! A man can not do that! You clearly don't understand the difference in the appreciation of being a women and being able to have the miracle to do that.That was my point exactly that women should be valued for there sex as a worn!you num nut!

duffie you are incoherent in your sexist rantings.

I gave birth and breast fed for a year. My DH is a SAHD who loves my daughter more than anyone else in the world, including me. It is sexist in the extreme to insist that mothers provide a different level of love to fathers.

It is further sexism to insist that women should put their children before their careers while making no such demand on men.

I never said dads couldn't what I said was about mums as O'Neill be our daughters after marrying being pregnant should be valued if they wish to stay at home and raise there children.If they wish to work what I said was they should be paid equally and offered affordable chilcare.Im saying that yes women are a sex we are females and should be valued as so.And my love by saying men should also be held accountable for putting there children before there careers you are being sexist towards a women's right to do so to raise her children and furthermore you are being anti feminist in questioning He feminist as a mother to do so.Boom you are degrading a women for being a SAHM.Riddle me this:formulate a way for a man to be pregnant and give birth and breastfeed you are being anti feminists st in denying women of bearing children and being wonderful mothers.Whats wrong Ewing you? Hav some pride in yourself as a mother!!

The thing is, duffle, that it takes significant effort to decode your twaddle - and so far it hasn't been worth the effort.

Women should be no more or less denigrated for being a SAHM than men are for being a SAHD.

Giving birth and breastfeeding are roles for women, however the magical woman pass doesn't extend beyond 2 weeks to a month (according to most shared parental leave policies). After that point you decide which, if either, parent is going to be SAH, and that parent will become the closest bond to the child, regardless of their gender.

Women aren't better than men at raising or bonding to babies. Men don't love them less than women.

My DH has the closest bond to my DD, because he has been her primary carer from 2 weeks in. This doesn't make me less of a woman any more than it makes him more of a man.

OMH, did you actually just say it was sexist to say men should put their kids before their careers, because it would rob a woman of the chance, and women should have first dibs?

fucking hell - I really just wasted another 10 minutes of my life.

the magical woman pass doesn't extend beyond 2 weeks to a month

Haha. Tell that to my womb still bleeding after 3 months, or my boobs that don't respond to a pump so the only way to ensure my babies got breastmilk was to be with them, not at work.

Plus theres the fourth trimester theory. Damn those babies trying to hold back their mothers careers!

"The magical woman pass doesn't extend beyond 2 weeks to a month"

My god, that is the most utterly depressing and anti-feminist statement I've ever read on MN

Plenty of feminists are SAHM and vice versa. The two aren't mutually exclusive and I'm not sure why anyone would think they are.

Beyond the breastfeeding stage, men are equally capable of looking after children and to insist otherwise is sexist. Not all women are maternal either.

" think 'marrying well' is as much of a high risk strategy as anything else. I have a friend who married a guy from a very wealthy background - rich parents, due to inherit land, cash, the works. After 15 years and 4 children he ditched her for OW, and she wound up suddenly on her own, trying to live on part time TA wages, and really struggling. "

Yes, but she would probably have struggled even more if she'd married a poor man who left her for another woman.

I'm not sure Gwen - maybe in that position the friend would have worked full time rather than taking a school hours friendly job, so would now be in a better earning position. Still, we can't know.

Not sure if pp have made the point on this thread (I have read the whole thread! but have also been on others) that it may well be the sahp who gets residence of dc on a split.

It is something to bear in mind - if you decide to adopt the 'high earner role' in the 'high earner/sahp combo' you may end up reluctantly living apart from your dc if you split up.

"I'm not sure Gwen - maybe in that position the friend would have worked full time rather than taking a school hours friendly job, so would now be in a better earning position. "

How would she have paid for childcare if she was on a low income.
If she had a low paid job she would have been spending all she earned and would have had no savings left over to cope with the added costs of the divorce.

Yes, but she would probably have struggled even more if she'd married a poor man who left her for another woman.

Well going by that a poor man who marries a poor woman who leaves him for another man would be worse off than a poor man who marries a high earning woman who does the same. Or a poor man who marries a poor man. Or a poor woman who marries a poor woman. Should everyone just strive to marry someone wealthy?

The premise of this thread is ridiculous, outdated, sexist and most of all insulting and belittling to all girls. It's quite disheartening to think of how many, it seems, would look at for example my brothers and I and assume they'll be more successful in their careers, that they'd be the ones who'll excell in the workplace and I should just find a boy who'll do that too.

The day that men can breastfeed and carry babies, is the day that a man being a provider is not important.

In the meantime, I would advise young women to ensure that their partner is capable of ensuring their family is looked after.

It's hard enough being woman with all the responsibility that brings as it is : Single or married.

In the meantime, I would advise young women to ensure that their partner is capable of ensuring their family is looked after.

Never mind that on this thread alone there have been plenty of women who out earn their husbands and whose husbands are SAHPs. How about not advising young women who probably aren't even thinking about issues like marriage or having children (I certainly never have other than feeling I probably won't ever do either, but we'll see) that it's more important they find a (presumably male even though they may be gay) partner with high earning potential than succeeding in whatever it is they wish to do. How completely limiting to start teaching daughters this. I'm truly astounded anyone still thinks like this.

"How would she have paid for childcare if she was on a low income."

I think the idea is that with a low earning dh the dfriend might have gone into a higher paying sector than TAing. Some pp have said on this thread that having a higher earning dh gives them the scope to work part-time, eg school hours only, and do less well paid work. The theory being that if you have a higher earning dh you don't aim as high as you would if you needed the money more ("for the sky!" as some pp suggest).

Still, the dfriend's position is hypothetical, so we will never know what she would have done if she had been married to someone poorer.

Not saying don't have a career - saying the man must be able to support and provide.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

"I think the idea is that with a low earning dh the dfriend might have gone into a higher paying sector than TAing."

Not everyone can though. That's what I keep saying and it keeps being ignored.

"Should everyone just strive to marry someone wealthy? "

Why not? At least for those not able to earn much money themselves.

I'm not sure that encouraging our DDs to "marry well" would have much effect in the modern world. They will either have the possibility of "marrying well" - higher if either very beautiful or in a career/uni/social millieu full of eligible (read "wealthy") bachelors - or they will not. They will either find the possibility of a wealthy lifestyle a significant inducement to romance, or they will find other factors more important. You can make the financial realities of the world clear - options in life often depend on money - but they may or may not take that on board, and it may or may not have beneficial effects for them to do so. Pressing them towards that end might be very counterproductive, for lots of reasons. Including the likely natural rebellion against anyone, or any type of person, that DM promotes as highly suitable.