“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.

It is VERY unusual to be both the primary carer and higher earner. It suggests that the other party is really not pulling their weight (or maybe they are ill or disabled).
Being primary carer usually affects career prospects even if you continue to work full time. Even doing 50/50 caring can affect women's careers (women who leave to pick the kids up are 'not committed enough' to work while men who do so are seen as 'superhero family men' at work).

In the majority of cases marriage protects the primary child carer. So is probably a good choice in the majority of cases.

I might be old but I think I know more equal relationships/marriages than younger people seem to know. Have we gone backwards?

@AnneLovesGilbert

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.

It's irrelevant really who of the man or woman is working hardest.

The fact is that in the vast majority of cases the woman regardless of whether she works outside the home or not does the lion's share of the domestic labour on top of whatever paid work she may be doing. You only have to flick through this board once a month to see that this is the case.

It is VERY unusual to be both the primary carer and higher earner. It suggests that the other party is really not pulling their weight (or maybe they are ill or disabled). My husband was the higher earner until he had an accident and became disabled, I found myself with two older kids a toddler and newborn baby (10 days old) and became his carer, primary carer for the children and building up my career so we had enough money. 30 years later the kids are grown up, I work part time but am still his carer.

@museumum

It is VERY unusual to be both the primary carer and higher earner. It suggests that the other party is really not pulling their weight (or maybe they are ill or disabled). Being primary carer usually affects career prospects even if you continue to work full time. Even doing 50/50 caring can affect women's careers (women who leave to pick the kids up are 'not committed enough' to work while men who do so are seen as 'superhero family men' at work).

In the majority of cases marriage protects the primary child carer. So is probably a good choice in the majority of cases.

You may think it’s very unusual but I suspect that the many higher earning women also pick up a disproportionate amount of childcare and general woman’s work. Having childcare responsibilities does not automatically mean that a woman should earn peanuts - as many single mums prove. There are childcare options available.

Works both ways doesn't it - every woman on MN is advised to marry for financial security so why shouldn't it apply to the man????

I'm the main earner - earn more than 3x DH.
I protected assets in certain ways - house has a tenancy in common mortgage, my larger contribution to the deposit is clearly stated. Any inheritance from my family is in trust for children. Pensions couldn't do much about BUT when I met DH he didn't have a work place pension at all so made him sign up for them at every job.

Fully expect that if we were to divorce I'm likely to "lose". I truly believe marriage/divorce shouldn't put the lower earning partner in a better position than if they had never met. So why shouldn't DH have more money purely by virtue of the fact he married me and that works the same for women. BUT MN is very much a take him for everything you can get sort of arena

It works both ways tbh........I know far more women who have popped a couple of kids out and taken the absolute piss regarding refusing to work. Then gone onto divorce and cashed in on 50% of assets and pensions.......my ex sil was one of them. My brother used to beg her to get a job because he was working himself into the ground. There was no reason she couldn't, her parents lived on the same road and offered free childcare and made it clear they'd provide free childcare if she got a job. Plus my brother's shifts were ideal for working around her getting a job.

Their DD was 11 when they divorced. She hadn't worked a day in all those years and didn't work until the benefits and maintenance dried up.

She's ok tho, I mean she owns a house outright she bought with her share of the equity from the house and will tap into his pension one day........she isn't in the minority either.

Marriage is a mugs game if one half of the partnership is at a financial advantage.

This advice is so very selfish and narcissistic. The whole point of marriage isn’t to financially benefit you at a partner’s cost. It’s to become a team, partners. If you don’t want to marry, fair enough. But marriage doesn’t have to mean you are guaranteed to gain money for it to be worthwhile.

Marriage is a mugs game if one half of the partnership is at a financial advantage.

Totally. Why put yourself through it if you don't need to protection?

Entirely depends on the circumstance.

Most single women are financially independent aren't they? Unless they're in the odd situation of being supported by their parents, or they're living on benefits. So, you mean "don't get married unless you need someone to support you"?

@PlanDeRaccordement

This advice is so very selfish and narcissistic. The whole point of marriage isn’t to financially benefit you at a partner’s cost. It’s to become a team, partners. If you don’t want to marry, fair enough. But marriage doesn’t have to mean you are guaranteed to gain money for it to be worthwhile.

That's all good and well when the "team" is working as a team. When it stops pulling together, the weaker partner in the team deserves protection.

I think the broader point is that most women take is as read that they are always better off married. But that advice is coloured by the historical perspective and its less likely to be true these days.

Individuals have their reasons for getting married other than financial ones. But on a pure cost/benefit analysis it increasingly doesn't make sense for women if they have their own money. It's just something to consider.

YANBU. My divorce cost me £20k to ensure he didn't push for more of my house (owned prior to marriage with a substantial amount of equity built before marriage).

Why is it selfish and narcissistic to want to protect myself and my children? In a relationship I’m very generous with my money, assets etc. My partner benefits hugely from a much better standard of living than he could otherwise achieve. If we split up why would I be expected to give my hard earned money away?

@contrmary

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

Huh?

I’m a higher earning female (100k plus) and am primary carer, returned to work when mine were babies and picked up all appointments, childcare juggling, etc
Not saying it’s possible in all circumstances but I don’t buy into the general mn narrative that once you gave children you cannot work or are significantly disadvantaged- that’s generally down to choice, which is fine I’m itself

I've never been married and never would, partly because of exactly this, but I don't think it has anything to do with sex really.

Marriage is a mad idea for whichever partner has the better financial standing.I'm continually amazed by how many otherwise sensible people keep doing it.

Marriage is essentially a financial contract and way too many people sleepwalk into it without properly understanding what they're signing. I've already advised both DS and DD to think very very carefully before they think about marriage.

It’s certainly good advice for the wealthier party

I always said, when I was dating aeons ago, that marriage had to be off the table for me because I didn’t want money mixed up with another person’s.

My parents knew a good few couples who got married in their 70s after a lifetime- inheritance tax. Makes sense to me.

. In almost all the cases I know where women have been screwed over in a divorce

I think for every one woman screwed over in divorce you'll find at least 10 men. My brother was one. He was effectively stripped of his assets and ended up living on a converted shipping container. Took him years to recover financially. In the meantime, his ex-wife moved to Australia and he hasn’t seen his kids since. I don’t know of many men who have, with the backing of the court, taken their kids to the other side of the world. He’s such a gentle soul too

@occa

I've never been married and never would, partly because of exactly this, but I don't think it has anything to do with sex really.

Marriage is a mad idea for whichever partner has the better financial standing.I'm continually amazed by how many otherwise sensible people keep doing it.

Marriage is essentially a financial contract and way too many people sleepwalk into it without properly understanding what they're signing. I've already advised both DS and DD to think very very carefully before they think about marriage.

X post

Beautifully put. I think of it as going to the casino and putting half your assets on the table.

I think the less you have, the more it can matter.

Don't marry a man who doesn't pull his weight is the message I get....

It's not just about money, it's about supporting each other. When we got married I was by far the higher wage earner, had a house etc. My DH had no property and earned much less. Now 12 years in he is the main wage earner by a fair chunk. I supported him, he supports me. It's how it should be. Circumstances change. Marriage is the legal commitment to support each other through what life throws at you.

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

Don't marry a dickhead is probably better advice.

Dn't ever be financially dependent on a man is bollocks though, isn't it? Have your own savings...what, so on maternity leave you can pay for your half of everything with your savings so he can enjoy all of his wages for himself? Ha, fuck that!

If you're going to get married, do it with a non-dickhead, someone who you can rely on and who can rely on you. I've been married over 30 years and we've both needed to be "dependent" on the other all the way through.

@Holyrivolli

Why is it selfish and narcissistic to want to protect myself and my children? In a relationship I’m very generous with my money, assets etc. My partner benefits hugely from a much better standard of living than he could otherwise achieve. If we split up why would I be expected to give my hard earned money away?

If you are equal partners, you deserve to split up as equals with equal assets. Anything else is just greed on the part of one party.

IMO the message is 'dont get into a partnership that isnt going to be mutually beneficial'