“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 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
Do you really think that's how men see it? That they marry just to offer protection to partner, a partner who could leave them betraying them behind their back?

Some women do marry for this reason, men marry because they love their partner and believe in creating a unit.

This whole 'women stay at home and are therefore vulnerable' is so outdated. Women nowadays have a choice. They can opt to be in a vulnerable position, or they can opt to become self sufficient. They don't have to have kids with men who insist they should be SAHM.

“Don't marry a dickhead is probably better advice. “

I’ve known at least two women whose husbands packed in their jobs after marriage. No negotiation.

One of those couples had lived together seven years.

I think perhaps a better message is to make sure that you are personally able to leave if you need to.
Far too many women (and it is mostly women) feel they can’t leave when a relationship goes wrong because they have given up their career to raise children and have no way to support themselves.
When my marriage turned to shit and the ‘sometimes too much drinking’ became ‘abusive drunk’ I was in a position to leave without worrying how I’d cope and when the tosser quit his job to avoid child support I could still pay the bills.
Not on ‘100k’ or even half that but kept my career even after having a child and have never regretted it.

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

It depends what they’ve got for their money. Some higher earners cannot/do not contribute much to child care and house stuff. If they’ve had a housekeeper, cook, cleaner, nanny, personal secretary etc for a number of years then I’d say they got their money’s worth of services.

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

There is no way I would have had my children if I didn’t have the legal protection of marriage. But there is no way I would have got married if I didn’t want children. It’s the only reason to IMO.

Are women told to get married for ‘protection’? In this day and age??!! I’m in my 5th decade and even when I was young I didn’t ever hear this. Thank goodness!!
Perhaps the advice should be (for all financially independent people, male or female) only to marry with another financially independent person. And if/when one of you decides to temporarily step down from the career ladder for childcare reasons, ensure you both have an agreed approach to finances and an end game plan. Easy to say, I know!

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
This is not my experience at all. Many of my friends are on the sane par earning to their husband or more. The men more than pull their weight with the kids and house.

Because it’s my money @PlanDeRaccordement. that I’ve spent the last 20 years building up. Why the hell should I be expected to give that away to another adult unless it’s of my choosing? Why would anyone expect to be given a chunk of cash just because they coupled up with someone richer? Joint assets yeah sure. But why should I give a % of the money that I have worked really hard to earn before I even met him?

Do you really think that's how men see it? That they marry just to offer protection to partner, a partner who could leave them betraying them behind their back?

It’s certainly the way my H sees it. We were happily unmarried before children but when I was going to stay home he wanted to make sure I was protected. We had a very quick and easy reg office wedding. We discussed divorce on the morning of our wedding as in how would this practically work and protect us both and ensure all the unpaid work I am putting in will be compensated.

If you are financially independent, you've nothing to worry about, married or not.

I shall be telling my daughter not to marry. If she wants a shiny ring, then I will give her one and if anyone moves in with her to have a cohabitation agreement and separate accounts.
My children nearly lost their family home because of their amoral father who then had the audacity to take me to court...which is a joke system. My earnings have been static for 10 years...why is that...oh because i have always cared for my children and he does less than minimum. I have them 70% of the time and have curbed my work accordingly, was I compensated in court for that?, was I hell. He got 48%. We were only able to stay in the home that was bought by selling my previous home (Not his) because the judge raided my pension, even though ex had decided to opt out of his company's pension and he had rental properties generating an income that he lies to the irs about how much they earn even though it has been shown in black and white. He was also awarded half of the money my family had loaned me in order to get on the property ladder in the first place. Bitter? Very. Please take note.

Ps if marriage were a contract with penalties for breaking it, it might be worth it, but when you actively get rewarded for abusing your other half, it's a pile of crap.

@AgentProvocateur

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

I was going to say this. Someone is going to come off worse, why is it "ok" if a man loses lots of money in a divorce but not a woman?

It’s certainly the way my H sees it. We were happily unmarried before children but when I was going to stay home he wanted to make sure I was protected
I bet he would look back differently if you were to leave him to settle with another man you cheated with, and you went after half the property and his pension! Would he still be truly happy that he protected your future with your new man?

Not saying that you would, but sadly it happens all too often.

@WishingHopingThinkingPraying

If you are financially independent, you've nothing to worry about, married or not.

I just don't think this is true. You can be financially independent, but if you have built up savings, received an inheritance or other gift, that will be counted as 'joint assets' in a divorce. Why can't there be an easy way to protect certain assets during the lifetime of the marriage so that, in the event of a divorce, they are kept separate.

Marriage is never of benefit to the higher earning/owning partner.

We will be advising our dc (irrelevant whether they are male or female) not to marry unless they are sure they are marrying someone who is in a very similar financial position to them, and who expects to work and contribute more than just childcare for their own kids.

We will also ensure that any help we give towards a house deposit will be protected, as I’d expect their partner to do as well. It’s no different to taking out insurance.

You're right, that's a more universal piece of advice.

@Porcupineinwaiting

Marriage is designed for men

Hilarious. How so?

It really was. Before the Married Womens Property Act, when a woman married her husband owned everything she owned - "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine".

I think when couples split the focus should be on maintaining the children. I don't really see why a man should have to maintain his ex-wife, or the other way round. I suspect if this were a presumption, more women would insist on working at least part-time.

I know people say the wife gives up work to look after the kids and support the man's highflying career, but that is a choice she makes, in full knowledge that she is putting herself at his mercy. He should of course support his kids generously (which may well mean paying the mortgage and part of the bills for the house his ex-wife lives in) but I don't see any reason why he should pay for his ex-wife's clothes and hobbies.

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

Again, thats the man you chose to marry. I made a better choice, so that's not at all true for me,

I shall be telling my daughter not to marry. If she wants a shiny ring, then I will give her one and if anyone moves in with her to have a cohabitation agreement and separate accounts

I imagine your daughter will be telling you to keep your beak out and your baubles to yourself!

I'm not sure what she means. Does she mean don't have relationships or children at all ? Because your post implies it's just the marriage she has an issue with ... and that's poor advice. As soon as you choose to have a long-term relationship or/and DCs together, imo you're better to get married for the legal safeguards.

It isn’t getting married that makes women vulnerable, it’s having children. If you keep working after having kids, it’s highly likely you’ll find yourself working twice as hard as you’ll end up with the bulk of the domestic and childcare load. If you give up work, you’re making yourself financially dependent on your husband and probably hobbling your earning potential permanently. If you have kids and don’t marry, you’re even more vulnerable unless you have enough money of your own to buy in support.
Having children, especially for women, is the biggest factor in making yourself financially vulnerable and limiting your options. You’re also creating a permanent tie to the other person that divorce doesn’t get you out of. We should be brutally honest about that. Most people will choose to do it anyway, but it doesn’t help anyone not to know what they’re getting into.

Marriage was only ever about money, land, inheritance rights. Sex was included (for the heirs - rich or poor), but it was never exclusive, not really.

Now no-one believes it when they say "til death do us part" - as soon as it isn't working there is a way out, (rightly of course) - so what is the point?

I would like to see finances linked with procreation so men pay (and cannot escape) if they have children - but so do women. Too many women expect the men or the state to pay. Too many men absolve themselves of all responsibility.

finance isn't the only reason to get married. But even if it was I would always reccomend both partners have independent sources of income (even if just a part time job for one) as splitting up and being left unemployable due to so many years outside the workforce just seems mad.

Also remember financially that things like tax breaks and inheritance tax only applies to spouses not live in partners.

Further more powers to make medical decision for a partner is not given as easily as if they were married. if you were to have children and something were to go wrong during the labour for example your partner may not be able to make medical decisions for you. Same with finances if something were to happen to your partner you would need to wait for probate to be granted before you can use their finances (which can take up to a year!). if you're a spouse you can without waiting.

And then there's a the love reason too....

Surely you just make sure that you marry your financial equal?

dontdisturbmenow

"Do you really think that's how men see it? That they marry just to offer protection to partner, a partner who could leave them betraying them behind their back?"

I think men, like women, marry for a complex interplay of reasons, some of them practical, some of them emotional.

In a lot of cases men and women get married because its the "done thing" and they feel that relationships inevitably lead there (and maybe their friends are all doing it and their girlfriend them is nagging them). In many cases they get married because they want their children to be part of a "family unit". Some men love their wives and want the whole world to know.

For some men there's a more mercenary calculation involved: that they want a "wife" in the sense of having a woman financially and domestically tied to them who will essentially keep house for them.

But it has to be said that men in general are overwhelmingly less interested in marriage than women. It's not generally men who work themselves up into a frenzy choosing bridesmaids dresses and table settings and falling out with their mates about who is going to be best man.

It can't be a coincidence that men who generally lose out financially are less keen on the whole shabang. They may well calculate that the upside of being with a woman they love or having a housekeeper, depending on how they look at it is worth the loss of financial agency. But again on pure financial terms its not a great deal for the breadwinner. I have to say I don't blame anyone for being incredibly wary of getting married.

Just marry a financially independent other half, and have a nice life together? Works for plenty of people.