“Don’t get married if you’re a financially independent woman”.

[Lucidas]

Is this the advice we should be giving to young women? I have a female friend who is convinced of this - going through a divorce at the moment and she is aggrieved at having to lose a big chunk of her earnings - held down a full time job as a mother, still covered the majority of child rearing, is the higher earner and with a layabout husband.

Women are often told to get married for ‘protection’ but surely it’s no protection to get married to a lower earner, someone with fewer assets, or one of the many cocklodger specimens we come across on MN.

The response could be to say that she simply married the wrong person, but it’s not always apparent how people will change down the line.

Sounds like money is the only thing that matters to her, so in her case I think it's good advice.

The same could be said to financially independent men. The higher earner usually comes off worst in a divorce.

I think it's more a case of every woman should make her own financial arrangements. Never rely on a man - it's a stupid and dangerous position to put yourself in. (Full disclosure here I am a militant feminist.)

Some women actively seek to be financially supported and have no interest in or intention of providing for themselves and taking financial responsibility for their futures. Each to their own, I suppose, but I couldn't live like that. If you don't want to be in control of your own life, then fine, but there can be horrible consequences.

I don't think I could ever recommend that any woman gets married or indeed has children unless she is prepared to sacrifice virtually all her life choices.

To be honest, it works both ways.

I think there is very little financial education from anyone for both men and women before marriage.

If someone is providing a larger deposit or receives an inheritance during the marriage, there should be a socially acceptable way to ring fence that money. Obviously it won't matter as long as the marriage is in place, but it seems fair that if the marriage breaks down, those gifts, inheritance or prior investments should be able to be taken into account.

The old fashioned 'what's mine is ours' is ok for salaries, price inflation on the house, joint savings etc, but there should be a non embarrassing, straight forward way to protect monies which are clearly meant for one party.

I guess the statement should really be 'don't get married if you're a financially independent person'. There is normally one person financially stronger in a relationship though, so does that mean nobody should get married?

By the way - I am married to a really great bloke, but we don't even have a joint bank account. Completely separate finances and we take equal responsibility. I also have kids, which is why I know what a devastating effect they have on a woman's life and finances.

The women that benefit from marriage are those that give up work to have children. That's why the general advice on here is to make sure you're married before you start having children.

I think the main reason to get married is if you have or are about to have kids together, because that's when a woman's earning power and career prospects take a hit. I've seen time and again women coming on MN saying "my partner and I have been together 15 years, we have kids, own a house together, I gave up my career to look after the kids so have no pension, I support his job, what rights do I have" and the answer is basically nothing, no recognition of the rest of the woman's contribution to the marriage through childcare and support of her husband's career (except in very special circumstances).

I out-earned DH at the start of our careers 3:1, and then supported him for a few years while he did unpaid training (mine was paid). When we had kids, he supported me for a few years through mat leaves and the baby years, and then I left my job and set up a new business while he continued to support us all. We now earn the same as each other. If we had had completely separate finances and hadn't got married I suppose we might be in the same position as we are now, but we have been extremely lucky - what if one of our kids needed round the clock care from one of us and we had to be a single-income family, what if we had split up before I went back to work, what if one of us got sick, who knows. Marriage is there to protect the financially weaker spouse in the hard times, not the easy ones.

I will say that I lived with DH for 5 years before we got married to get hard evidence that he pulled his weight 50:50 and wasn't a cocklodger. We talked a lot, very explicitly, about things like money, chores, childcare, splitting our parental leaves when we had kids (he stayed at home with DS1 when he turned 6 months when I went back to work full-time). I think we had a list of questions we worked through from a newspaper that was like "100 questions engaged couples need to thrash out before they get married" or something like that. It was really useful!

I'd definitely give that advice.

I bought my first house in 1982, met my ex in 1997 and married him a year later.

Ten years on, he'd become abusive and controlling and I wanted him gone. Not only could I not get shot of him for years (it was before the law changed re coercive control), but it ended up costing me nearly £100k to buy him out.

Mind you, I've just lost out again by not being married. DP died 3 weeks ago and hadn't made a will, so his half of the money put aside for renovating the house now goes to his son, along with the rest of his savings (which may well not be much, I have no idea).

Have heard this a lot said by older women

Marriage isn’t just about money.

Did she not get to know the guy before they got married?

Split finances
Joint account for the house and childcare
Married for 4 years
Son of 2.5.
50-50 parental leave (so 6 months each)
I’m the main earner in the house.

My advice is be financially independent, don’t rely on anyone and have your own savings.

I totally agree OP, I married for "love", he went off with someone else after 20 years. Luckily for me he was so madly in love with her he didn't take much, left me my house and pension and signed the clean break order.
When they broke up a couple of months later he was furious and came after me for more money - didn't get anywhere at all, it was all signed and sealed so then started saying he wanted to come back because he missed me. Big fat no there.
I escaped by the skin of my teeth, he could have had half of it all. I'll never ever get married again.

The only financial reason to get married is if you're going to give up work and live off your other half. Otherwise you're just signing up to give your money away if you split up.

Ah I've actually just found the list in my email from 2006(!!) (thanks gmail unlimited storage!). It was only 15 questions but each one was a whole evening sitting around chewing it over with now-DH and I think it was hugely helpful.

I'd advise anyone contemplating having children to work through those questions, then if you can get through all the questions while remaining civil and constructive, then get married. Even if you don't give up work to take care of your kids, pregnancy and birth can fuck you up physically as well. Women need to be protected before taking that risk IMO.

Your friend is in the same boat as anyone who’s the higher earner when a marriage breaks down.

Was he a layabout with no ambition or drive when she decided to marry him and have children with him? Or was he gainfully employed and a decent earner who suddenly changed?

I think to be brutally honest in financial terms marriage is always a bad idea for the highest earning partner.

For millennia the highest earner has almost always been the man and therefore women have been socialised to think they "want" it even when its not in their best interests.

Now as increasingly women are starting to out-earn men and as men have generally not moved as fast into the typically "feminine" areas of domestic work and mental load, the penny is dropping that for a high-earning woman marriage is really quite a bad deal. Why do you think that for many generations men have been so reticent about it?

I found this to my cost when I divorced my husband and despite the fact that he was abusive to me for years and despite the fact that he pays no maintenance I still have to give him a large chunk of equity.

I would never consider getting married again to be honest: I can't see how it could ever be in my interests. If I married someone poorer than me I'd face having to do this all again. If I married someone wealthier I would be expected by default to take a back seat economically.

Marriage again would be a massive lose lose for me.

My advice is be financially independent, don’t rely on anyone and have your own savings.

This. With bells on.

If there's one single thing I want to pass onto my daughter its that. Never ever get to a position of financial dependence on a man.

So men should agree to marry to protect their partner financially when these more but women should protect themselves and refuse marriage when they earn more.

That's not a sexist attitude at all!

@AnneLovesGilbert

Your friend is in the same boat as anyone who’s the higher earner when a marriage breaks down.

Was he a layabout with no ambition or drive when she decided to marry him and have children with him? Or was he gainfully employed and a decent earner who suddenly changed?

He worked and wasn’t a SAHP, but did less and less around the house after the kids arrived, and certainly minimally in terms of activities, etc. Contributed less both in earnings and in parenting.

Interesting thoughts. I guess one problem is that the default is for the woman to still do the ‘wife work’ and carry the mental load irrespective of whether both parents work or not.

I'm in a weird situation where I'm not the higher earner, but I have more capital and assets (all of it) and my partner would effectively be stuffed financially if we split up. I would be fine as I didn't allow my career to take a hit from having children. Who runs the world......

Don't get married if you're a woman. Marriage is designed for men.

I guess one problem is that the default is for the woman to still do the ‘wife work’ and carry the mental load irrespective of whether both parents work or not.

It’s also a matter of choice. Let’s not infantilise women. And if he was so useless after their first was born one wonders why she had another child with him if that’s what happened.

@dworky

Don't get married if you're a woman. Marriage is designed for men.

Tell that to the exes of the women on here who are so often told to get every penny they can, make sure they’re the primary carer and make him pay for leaving.

I'm a single parent and I'll never marry again. I've worked hard to buy a house on my own, I want everything to go to DS and not some man.