“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.

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

I am glad you said this as I've also thought about this, but suspected most MNers would call me the coldhearted MIL from hell. But I wouldn't want to give ds deposit money if it got swallowed up in a split (different if there were grandchildren).

Marriage is sensible for couples where one partner becomes a stay at home parent and therefore becomes financially dependent. Whichever way round it is, it's the right thing to do to protect the non-working parent.

If you both continue working throughout, then it's debatable.

andtheHossyourodeinon

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

Well aren't you the clever one. Well done for finding the one with the domestic work hallmark. If only I'd lifted mine up and looked at his hallmark...

I think it depends on the kind of person your partner is. My partner is not money driven whatsoever, I don't think for a second he would try to take from me.. he's not like that. I do get what you're saying though because I know women that have ended up divorcing men like this, but that character has been there from the beginning, you just have to be honest with yourself about who your partner is and if they are that way inclined then you need to protect yourself.

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.

This is why I think it’s important that couples live together for a decent amount of time before getting married, so that each party knows if their partner is a lazy toerag who won’t do their share. That is a very good reason not to get married, regardless of financial considerations.

It's definitely the case that of you work and do all the traditional "wife work" you come off badly. SAHP need the protection of marriage, but I'd agree from my experience that working, support my exH financially and doing the parenting/homemaker roles is not really given any compensation in a British divorce.

The children live with me 12 days out of every 14 now because I was always the primary parent. He thinks that's unfair, so I doubt he considers getting half of our money/assets was much of a win.

Should that advice also be given to men to then. Ffs.

@StephenBelafonte

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

But people make different career-related decisions as they grow older. Some put in the extra hours, targeting promotions and so on, while others are more content with a steady job (not saying that's a negative and that everyone has to be driven to climb the career ladder...the point is someone who is your financial equal at the start of the marriage won't always remain as such years later).

Nobody should be getting married if they don't want to split their finances. That's what getting married is. Anybody can be surprised by an untrustworthy spouse, and many are.

It doesn't matter what sex or gender anyone is.

@Scbchl

Should that advice also be given to men to then. Ffs.

Yes it should! RTFT

It’s less about financial independence and more about financial equality.

Marriage is an equalizer.

You tend to come out of it more equal than you went in.

Marriage is always riskier for the person who brought in the most assets, or who built the most assets while married.

@andtheHossyourodeinon
Pride comes before a fall.

@RaeBeam I really hope you are right. It's not nice finding out that you really don't know your husband at all.

I am glad you said this as I've also thought about this, but suspected most MNers would call me the coldhearted MIL from hell. But I wouldn't want to give ds deposit money if it got swallowed up in a split (different if there were grandchildren).

I’ve thought about the potential grandchildren issue too, but there is only so much you can try to predict and plan for, some things would just have to be considered at the time. And assuming that both of the grandchildren’s parents were decent people acting in their children’s best interests, then both of them will need to pay for an adequate home for them.

All the advice about only marrying your financial equal is so mercenary and depressing. Being on an equal financial footing won’t bring you much comfort (or a long and happy marriage) if you haven’t actually married someone you love and are suited to. Those should still be the first and most important considerations.

YANBU, but only if you also agree with "Don’t get married if you’re a financially independent MAN"

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
Oy as already stated you pick the wrong man. Too many couples go ahead and have children without settling I to a routine and division of responsibity and discussing how these would evolve after having 1 and then more children. It really really doesn't have to be this way.

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
I think you're right that there is no male equivalent of all the hype around dresses, table settings etc, BUT is that an indication that overall men's desire to be married is lower than that of women?

Marriage is a financial contract and anyone who doesn't understand the contract shouldn't be getting married imo.

It shouldn't be a surprise if you decide to divorce and terminate that contract that there might be financial repercussions for the 'wealthier' partner. Equally those that choose to completely rely on the other person and give up their job should also realise that they may have to start again after a divorce in terms of job hunting which may not be that easy.

Wickerbaskets

"Being on an equal financial footing won’t bring you much comfort (or a long and happy marriage) if you haven’t actually married someone you love and are suited to. Those should still be the first and most important considerations."

But marrying someone you love and are suited to at 30 and remaining suited to and in love with them for the next 40 years are two different matters.

If you're not thinking about how the marriage and having children will impact your life and your finances at all you're walking into something absolutely blind.

Marriage is protection, nothing more or less. Marrying someone and thinking love will conquer all is just delusional.

No different that a financially independent man!

'Nobody should be getting married if they don't want to split their finances.'
It's easy to think it's not going to happen to you, but believe me it can happen to anyone. My ex husband was lovely when I married him, but 15 years later was drinking himself into the an early grave. During our divorce he was very insistent I should sell the family home and give him half. I fought very hard to stop that happening.

@Lucidas

The amount of friends I have whose DH think they do nothing all day because they happen to earn less is a disgrace. Your friend is in the middle of a divorce, her view will be biased. Whilst you should support her, it doesn't mean blindly repeating what she says as fact.
An equal split in finances is the best and fairest way when couples separate and it allows the partner earning less, who are mostly Women who take time from their careers to bring up children and the home, to feel more secure in a split.

In all honesty, it sounds like a case of sour grapes and self-centred perceptions. I’m 95% certain he would interpret the marriage and divorce differently. As her friend, no doubt you agree with her - doesn’t mean he’s the total layabout she claims, and even if he is, she chose him as her partner and the father of their children and waited until she has done to divorce him, when she could have cut them both free earlier if he were that appalling. I’ve heard plenty of men reinterpret history and claim their dws were idle and lived off their dhs’ hard work, and it sounds just as ugly and self-justifying coming from the mouths of women.

I put YABU as can equally apply to women. Why are men called cocklodgers and there's not a female equivalent? I'm a woman with a DH who has always earned less than me and worked less hours doing the majority of childcare. Once no childcare required he didn't change his hours and has now taken early retirement with further reduction in earnings. Is he a cocklodger? Is he fuck. We're a partnership.

@dworky

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

Not if he’s the higher earner, it isn’t.

In my case getting married was stupid financially. Although our house is in both names, I basically paid for it. If we split up I’d end up losing half my money. Good thing we rub along pretty well ...