“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.

I'm loving this thread! I'm not married to my OH (see my above posts), and usually hear on MN "You MUST marry to become financially protected!"
I always feel there is this assumption that the woman in the relationship is the less financially well-off and that marriage is the "Golden Ticket" to avoiding any possible hardship whatsoever. I think for quite a number of women that creates a very dangerous power imbalance should things go wrong.

I think it fair that if one partner made a significant sacrifice for the sake of the relationship, they be compensated in case of a split up. One partner giving up work to do childcare is a significant sacrifice, but so is one partner giving up a good job to move to the other partner's location, for instance.

But if neither partner made any sacrifices I don't see any reason why one should get the other's assers.

That said my view is probably more cynical than most. I am a single parent by choice and not at all interested in getting married to anyone.

@rainkeepsfallingdown

The advice I would give is that if you want to get married, get married in your early/mid-20s.

I'm too old now. I'm at a point in my life/career where I've done well for myself, and I'm not going to meet a decent man who is in the same financial position as me. I have made huge sacrifices to get where I am, and I'm not prepared to hand over half of that to some man. Marriage is therefore off the cards.

Marriage was a romantic concept when I was younger, now it's just a legal contract that wipes out half the wealth I accumulated from making huge sacrifices. I feel thoroughly resentful at the thought of anyone who wasn't there at the time benefiting from those sacrifices I made in my life before him, especially if it's a man who turns out to be an absolute prince and cheats and/or inflicts any other harm.

You should aim to get married when you're both in a similar position with similar goals, and that really only happens when you're still young.

Getting married benefits the lower earner. In many cases, that's the woman (especially if she is or plans to be a mother as that can reduce earning potential), but it's not always. In the case of a financially independent woman with good earning power, marriage doesn't benefit her or her family.

I agree with everything you say here, I really wish I'd been able to marry someone of a similar financial position at the time (i.e. either both poor students or young graduates) and potential in my early/mid 20's, and grow our life together, sharing everything.

As I wasn't lucky enough to meet someone I thought would be a good match to settle down with until my early 30's, the income disparity was already established. Men of a similar financial status to me at the time I met my DP had been long off the market, so it was slim pickings!

If I'd met someone at a young age, and grown to where I am now, with their full support, and having their career taking a back seat at times, I'd have been happy to have compensated him for that upon divorce.

The issue I think is that due to living in a patriarchal society, with the expectation that Mum/woman does everything, a lot of men refuse to do the "wifework", even if their DW is earning substantially more than they are, then she ends up doing the two jobs PP have referred to here.

@Nottherealslimshady

Sexist isn't it? So men only exist to support us? If he's financially stable and she's not she should marry him so she's entitled to his money. But if she's financially stable she should protect her money from him?

There is an element of encouraging balance in a sexist world. It is much more often the women who stay home with children or even if they do keep working who sacrifice career advancement, both directly in leaving early for pick up etc and indirectly in having only so much time as they do more parenting, more cooking, more housework and more mental labour, leaving less for career focus.

On average also, men are more entitled. More inclined to think I earned it therefore it’s mine. While women think I earned it therefore it’s ours and the dc can get new coats. And, once split up whether working or not women do the bulk of the care. So it’s not as simple as saying the logic should apply equally in reverse to women as higher earners.

I discourage female friends from dropping out of work altogether with children. It’s quite a mental barrier to get back in after a few years. Even if you’ve only done one day a week youve kept your hand in, you have a routine and a professional persona and it’s just a step up rather than a huge change.

I agree with what everyone has said.

I’ve found myself stuck in a pretty shit situation where I can’t financially escape from it. I’ve fucked up my entire life and I’m deeply unhappy and trapped because I’ve depended upon my husband. My situation is extreme and there are unusual circumstances at round it. But I know I’ll never have control of finances, I will always be in debt and that I’m a complete failure.

Don’t get married, unless you are completely independent and financially secure. It’s just not worth it.

Sexist isn't it? So men only exist to support us

Sadly many still subscribe to that theory of men being the provider of everything. Plenty choose a partner based on their job and earning potential rather than work for it themselves.

I’ve told mine to marry an equal, don’t ever give up financial independence and don’t settle for a partner that doesn’t share responsibility for everything like a true partnership and likewise do the same.

Marriage used to be a financial transaction where men could subsume women and their assets into their own estate. The arrangement where marriage is now considered an equal partnership is a vast improvement on that. The problems come when considering goodwill: it is fair to agree to share equally when there is goodwill on both sides, and reassures either party if bad luck or mutually agreed choices result in one or the other losing their health or earning capacity. Unfortunately, marriages tend to break down because of a loss of goodwill. Lose that spirit of friendly, helpful co-operation and you end up with an argument over who did or didn’t pull their weight. You get that in relationships outside marriage too, of course, you just have less protection from a revision of history where your contribution to the relationship is retrospectively devalued.

2020parrot

"when I got married it was for love, not financial security. I brought all of the financial assets to the marriage. I was happy to share everything. Fast forward 8 years and he had become abusive, resentful of my professional status and refused to work. When we divorced I realised how much of a financial transaction marriage is."

I could have written this word for word (nearly).

These people saying you shouldn't do a risk assessment: the problem with this analysis is that your perspective on this can change hugely.

When I got married I genuinely wouldn't have minded if you'd asked me if I was happy to transfer half of the value (which I created) in the marriage to him. Fast forward nine years and with a child which I was left to support single-handedly and my perspective on this was radically different.

You can argue that I picked the wrong man -- true, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Had I had a bit of education around the fact that marriage is a financial transaction I still may have made this poor decision. But in the absence of any education about it I took the view that I should be guided by my heart. And nobody disabused me of this notion.

I think if we were honest with people primarily women about the reality that marriage is a transaction, much earlier on in their lives, and removed all the romantic nonsense, we would probably see far more practical approaches and a much better outcome for women.

@SnackRussell

I agree with what everyone has said.

I’ve found myself stuck in a pretty shit situation where I can’t financially escape from it. I’ve fucked up my entire life and I’m deeply unhappy and trapped because I’ve depended upon my husband. My situation is extreme and there are unusual circumstances at round it. But I know I’ll never have control of finances, I will always be in debt and that I’m a complete failure.

Don’t get married, unless you are completely independent and financially secure. It’s just not worth it.

Snackrussell, if your debt can be shown to have benefited your husband (eg. spending on the household/children) it would be considered joint debt in a divorce and settlements would take that into account. Obviously I don't know your situation, but if you're being financially abused, it is considered domestic abuse, and you may be able to access support to leave.

@tyrannosaurustrip

The stat about half of all marriages failing is slightly misleading though. Much more second and subsequent marriages fail than first marriages, I think something like 60 or 70% of first marriages don't end in divorce, the stats are skewed because more than 60+% of second, third, fourth marriages end in divorce.

I'm sorry but I think we really need to appreciate and admire the optimism of someone on their 4th marriage. I'd have given up after the second one went south. But to dust yourself off and keep trying that's admirable (or madness one of the two).

Works both ways.

The advice I would give is that if you want to get married, get married in your early/mid-20s.

I agree with this, it's what we did and everyone we know who did the same has benefited from building assets together from an equal standpoint. If DH and I split up now, I wouldn't ever get married again (I might have a partner but wouldn't marry them). The calculus is different when you are older and have more assets and potentially have already had kids, no question.

I don't have daughters, so I'm raising my sons to notice and expect to do family work (aka wife work) and the household mental load and not to ever allow their partner to become financially dependent on them - for their partner's sake as much as anything. This is not just about being sexist - my kids' godfather married his partner, and over the next couple of years his husband slowly stopped looking for new jobs (was freelance) and clearly had the expectation that he would be supported financially to do various artistic pursuits with a vague idea that someday he would make money from them. When they finally got divorced he really struggled to find work again.

And that childcare costs are not a woman's sole responsibility! How many times have I read on here a woman saying "well we've agreed I'll give up work because my wage won't cover childcare". That is a short-term decision that snowballs massively - it may seem like just a few years out of the workforce but a woman's long-term earning potential, pension, and even confidence can really take a hit.

Nonsense.

How about advising against getting married to someone who contributes nothing. I’m financially independent but my husband contributes equally to our lifestyle. I’m at no more risk of losing things than he is.

MintyMabel

But what about your home? Are you prepared to lose half of your equity in it in the event of a split? Because you could if you're married, regardless of who put the capital in and supported the mortgage.

My point about the risk assessment is that if you are contemplating this prior to accepting a proposal of marriage, then you probably shouldn't get married as you can't predict with great certainty the risks you will be exposed to. Yes, you could discuss them all- failing health of one of you, affairs, bankruptcy, recessions and the impact on the area of work your partner is in, the earning potential of both individuals etc. But if you lay out the scenarios in this way the outcome is never going to be favourable to marriage as one person will seemingly always lose out- It is a very cynical approach to marriage. When you get married it is a public declaration of your commitment and devotion to each other, to focus on the contractual elements of a marriage is missing the point as these are really the negative, restrictive elements of marriage. The positive aspects- declaration of love and care for each other, through thick and thin, have to be present for it to work as it isn't just a contract and will certainly be doomed if that's the thought process of either one of you.

In addition, you can enter in to a civil partnership with someone if your concern is about a 'contract'.

@choli

You don't carry out a risk assessment and try to understand how these may be mitigated. I think that is exactly what you should do, with eyes wide open about the person with whom you are considering marriage.

Agreed. This is exactly what you are supposed to do.

If you are religious, even when you are marrying for love, there are certain denominations who give pre-marriage lessons and and counselling for the people intending to marry.

It's not necessarily that marriage is the problem but the perception of who owns what, who did or didn't do their share during the marriage and how that should be reflected on divorce when assets are split. The higher earner will usually see themselves as entitled to the asset whereas the lower earner will usually see themselves as entitled to a share because of their contribution in other non-financial ways. The divorce laws in England and Wales are based on 'need'. If the higher earner keeps the assets the lower earner may have to look to the state to house and provide an income for them and potentially dependent children which doesn't seem 'fair' either.

I totally agree. Companies that merge do due diligence on each other. We don't do this before entering a marriage. We should.

As the higher earned I wouldn't begrudge a fair settlement on divorce recognising our equal contribution to the relationship and our role in bringing up the children. What I did begrudge was the idea my ex could claim against equity in my home and my pension despite the fact he was no longer seeing or supporting his children. My youngest was under 2 when the marriage broke down. I might have made a different decision on marriage and also the timing of our divorce if I'd been better educated on these things.

I think unfortunately the facts about marriage and how they affect anyone entering into it are not well publicised. I had a deed of trust, little did I realise that went out of the window on marriage. Also people saying about how their children's money is protected, as far as i can work out, it only takes a judge to set a precedent in how the law is interpreted which may happen years after any documentation you draw up and carefully thought out plans are irrelevant.

@TheNortherner - In other words, you have to be very wealthy to be able to protect your assets, as it may require regular legal reviews to check it is watertight!

I agree. I out-earn my DH by at least 5x, I’ve had two children (so took a hit to my career) and still have all of the mental load. Why should he get half my money if we split? I hope we don’t split but just the idea of it makes me resentful!

At least when it’s the man who is the breadwinner, the wife has contributed the children, gone through pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, child-rearing, done the mental load, etc!

If we did split, I would never marry again. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from it if you are a high-earning woman.

Is that only for men or what. Do most men lose out in divorce? I'd say many wives do also. Hellooo. But let us generalise.

Anyway, I agree with others, when that bit older and financially secure in your own right, it is a little bit more difficult to contemplate (from either side) that say, a divorce might mean losing a lot of assets, pensions etc.

I am in a relationship with a man who has the same as me more or less. I will not marry him now, too late, and too difficult to disentangle at this stage. But so far so good. We both feel the same.