“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.

@Waxonwaxoff0

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.

There is no better or liberating feeling in my opinion than being with someone because you want to be, not because you need to be.

dontdisturbmenow

I actually don't think sexism comes into the financial decision as to whether to get married. I've said this before and been shot down but marriage is nothing more than an insurance policy to protect the non-working spouse.

It happens that in the vast majority of cases this is the woman. A woman who takes time out of work to raise children is significantly financially disadvantaged and an honourable man who has children with her should make a commitment to support her for that time and for her to accrue benefit from the labour of raising the children (wifework if you want to call it that). Marriage is the best solution for the woman in this scenario because it guarantees some financial protection in case the man isn't honourable (or in case he comes to some harm).

If the roles are reversed and the man is at home looking after children and the woman is the breadwinner the exact same rules should apply.

But the reality is in the vast majority of cases it is the woman who is at home.

I was observing as were others that on a pure cost-benefit analysis if you are a financially self-sufficient woman there is less and less reason to get married these days. But because we're all socialised to think its the pinnacle of feminine achievement we tend to overlook this and convince ourselves its a good idea.

The sexism part comes in because very often a woman who is working outside the home is also doing vast amounts of unpaid work in the home as well (childcare and domestic labour) because a very small amount of men actually do equal domestic labour.

When we get to a point where paid work outside the home and domestic work inside the home are genuinely equally shared between most men and most women, come and talk to me about sexism. We're a way off that now.

@madcatladyforever

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.

Lucky escape, glad karma bit the cheating fucker hard on the arse

@MsVestibule

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?

This

Yep. I will never marry again. I have a good salary, pension and plenty of assets. I will chose who I want to share them with and have no interest in the courts telling me what I must do with my money. I luckily escaped lightly in my divorce but I would never risk that again. My daughter has had it drilled into her from day 1 that financial independence is so important.

If a man refused to marry his long term partner and the other parent to his children to ensure his earnings were protected in the event of a split, he would rightly be considered an arsehole. I very rarely pull the ‘what about men?’ card, but imo if you’re making a life with someone and most particularly if you are having children, you owe it to the person you make that life with to share what you have with them and ensure they will still have some financial protection if the relationship goes wrong. That is true where women are the higher earners as well as situations where men are.

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?

@Xiaoxiong can you share the questions here? I'm intrigued!

MN is very hypocritical on this subject. Women who earn more than men should not get married to keep their financial independence. Yet women who earn less than men should definitely get married, especially if they have children, to protect them financially. If a woman started a thread about a man not wanting to marry her because he wanted to protect his money everyone would tell her to run a mile.

@ScotchBunnet

If a man refused to marry his long term partner and the other parent to his children to ensure his earnings were protected in the event of a split, he would rightly be considered an arsehole. I very rarely pull the ‘what about men?’ card, but imo if you’re making a life with someone and most particularly if you are having children, you owe it to the person you make that life with to share what you have with them and ensure they will still have some financial protection if the relationship goes wrong. That is true where women are the higher earners as well as situations where men are.

That's totally fair comment in a situation where a man is doing an equal share of the domestic work.

I have a friend in a very highly paid job whose DH is more or less a professional househusband. She is absolutely committed to him having an equal share of everything in her will etc.

But he does everything on the home front. All childcare, domestic work, mental load.

These men, in my experience, are a tiny minority. In a depressing majority of cases, when a woman out-earns a man the man doesn't pick up the domestic slack and the woman ends up effectively doing two full-time jobs.

When I see this really changing on a population basis I'll be convinced that women who don't want to give their assets away post divorce are arseholes...

@AgentProvocateur

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

Exactly what I was thinking !.

@AgentProvocateur

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

or equal ?

Happy to be called a hypocrite but I would never advise another woman to give up work, go part time or on the mummy track. I believe that everyone should be financially independent and neither should use marriage as a meal ticket.

I think the issue is, marriage doesn't protect you on its own.

It is one protective force but you have to ensure the relationship itself is equal as the division of assets at the end won't make you whole if the relationship has been a drain. I feel lucky to have a very equal relationship, at various points I've been the higher earner at others my husband has, at all points we've done an equal share of housework/mental load/parenting. If either of us were to die or we were to split, our marriage would help us divide our assets. It is likely that, on balance, he will be the higher earner for the rest of our relationship. It is likely I will inherit a reasonably large sum at some point that would more than even that out. If we split and he ends up with, say, a greater share of my inheritance than he would have got it we weren't married I wouldn't begrudge that because we've been a solid team for over ten years. If things change, if a child requires full-time care, if someone gets ill, marriage is protective, but the relationship needs to evolve so people feel equal within it, its not just about the division of assets.

Marriage protects both parties if either party changes their mind about being a team, but it doesn't force either party to act like it during the marriage, and divorce doesn't make amends for a shitty relationship. I know of a number of cases of happy equal relationships with two high earning couples where a disabled child or an unexpected chronic illness has almost ruined the woman and marriage was the one thing that meant she got some financial recompense. In almost all the cases I know where women have been screwed over in a divorce it has been years coming and the result of turning a blind eye to a progressively more piss-taking husband. Not saying its the women's fault, but we need to be clearer that sometimes its better to walk away in that situation earlier rather than later.

And yes. If my son was financially much better off than his partner I would advise him not to marry. Or if he did then be resigned to giving up half or more of his assets if they fall into the half of marriages that fail.

It's essential for everyone to be financially independent. Decades ago as a woman you could expect to marry, look after the home and your children and have you husband do his part by looking after you all until one of you died. Now to expect that to happen is either very optimistic or foolish. Women in particular need to have the options that financial independent brings.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst is my mantra for dcs

My DD will always be the higher earner in her relationship, I do hope they live together instead of getting married.

@MarjorytheTrashHeap

MN is very hypocritical on this subject. Women who earn more than men should not get married to keep their financial independence. Yet women who earn less than men should definitely get married, especially if they have children, to protect them financially. If a woman started a thread about a man not wanting to marry her because he wanted to protect his money everyone would tell her to run a mile.

Why is this hypocritical? MN is a site predominantly for women. The majority of posts on this subject are women seeking advice on how to protect themselves financially.

It seems reasonable to give financial advice appropriate to the woman's case: if she's the lower earning (or non earner) she's better off married. If she's the higher earner, she's better off unmarried. I would give exactly the same advice to a man who was the financially weaker partner asking if he should get married.

Advice is generally tailored at the person with the problem: the goal of the respondent is to give relevant advice, not to redress some notional imbalance that afflicts the poor men under seige from these horrible feminists.

I agree op

@StoneColdBitch sure! I mean, it's not an exhaustive list. But I feel like they gave us a really good jumping off point to discuss things like wifework, the mental load, money, etc and I'm glad we talked about those things before we got married and had kids and potentially discovered we had very different views on important things.

1. Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?
2. Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?
3. Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the mental load relating to chores and other family obligations?
4. Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?
5. Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?
6. Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?
7. Will there be a television in the bedroom?
8. Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
9. Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?
10. Do we like and respect each other’s friends?
11. Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?
12. What does my family do that annoys you?
13. Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?
14. If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
15. Does each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?

Marriage is designed for men

Hilarious. How so?

The only financial reason to get married is if you're going to give up work and live off your other half. Why would the other half want to go along with that.

when a woman out-earns a man the man doesn't pick up the domestic slack and the woman ends up effectively doing two full-time jobs.

You’re assuming the higher earner is the harder worker which is completely unfair. Just because one person earns more doesn’t mean they do longer hours and deserve to do less housework or childcare.

ancientgran

"Why would the other half want to go along with that"

Because they think they're getting a nanny, cook and housekeeper for life. A lot of them still are quite prepared to make this bargain, to be fair.

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.