AIBU to think many women put themselves in a bad financial position?

[Sunflowers095]

So there's a lot of talk about the gender pay gap and also how women have been more affected by the pandemic and had to take on more caring responsibilities. While I understand there are single parents etc. in most situations what I don't understand is:

• why don't women go for higher paying careers or marry lower earning men, therefore being the main breadwinner
• why don't women choose partners who will take on 50% of caring responsibilities, chores, etc. rather than have kids with someone who doesn't contribute and just put up with it?

Another thing I see often is women deciding to be SAHM, come back part time, extend maternity leave. Nothing wrong with this choice but in the context of a career surely it's not the best way to support that goal? Especially when many SAHM say that they decided to stay at home because their wage would barely cover childcare. That's not the point! Long term it increases the earning potential if a woman stays in work.

While I agree that a lot of inequality still exists I feel like many people make conscious choices that make their financial situation worse. Women I know who decided to take shared parental leave, go back to work full time, make their partner take on equal responsibility etc have all had great careers. Am I missing something in this conversation?

I'm not trying to be judgemental in any way towards non career driven women or women who want to be homemakers as I think it's great people have a choice and being a SAHM is an important job! I just mean purely from a financial/career perspective here.

Men do have children too! They just don’t make the sacrifices in terms of time and earning potential. Often they are keen to have them. I’d say my ex was keener than me initially, but now he has vanished with no contact with his kids whereas I wouldn’t be without them. The real problem is men don’t pull their weight, do they?

@Camomila

I had hyperemesis too and missed about 6 months out of the 9, with the remaining time not being productive (mostly spent in the ladies loos!). My then workplace (90% male) were spectacularly unsupportive; my manager accused me of fabricating the illness, I was marked down on performance review and then when I came back from my 3 months maternity leave, my contract was terminated.

I can assure the OP that I did not choose any of that bullshit; structural discrimination was the cause.

However, I do take your point, OP. I think some women (just like some men) are lazy and jump at the chance to quit working. One of my friends openly admits this!

I went to a seminar recently on financial planning for women and the speaker’s first slide said ‘a husband is not a pension plan’. This is so, so true.

We all need to plan to be reliant on ourselves alone (disabilities aside). You never know what the future holds and having your financial security and very existence dependent on someone else is risky business. Some people accept this risk (but they also need to be prepared to accept the consequences if it’s borne out too).

@FloconDeNeige totally agree about everyone being able to support themselves. Sadly the divorce courts don’t see it that way. The less work outside the home, the more a woman receives in a settlement. So it encourages the old dependence on the male. I was penalised because I DID work and raise my kids - my husband then took more than half of the pot which I had earned much more of because he was the lower earner! The courts encourage that.

@GrumpyHoonMain A fair point - I was looking at this through my own white lens, and you're entirely right to point that out. My apologies.

I think some of it is the logistics of having a young baby too. Mothers legally need to take the first 2 weeks after birth off, and then if they are breastfeeding it's not easy to return to work and manage that - although I know breastfeeding isn't an obligation at all.

I can also imagine most women don't feel 'back to normal' and ready to get back to work 2 weeks after giving birth - it's a massive thing and you need time to recover physically and mentally. So by the time you've factored all that in, the woman has probably already done a lot of the time, got into a routine and the dad has likely gone back to work,

However, I do take your point, OP. I think some women (just like some men) are lazy and jump at the chance to quit working. One of my friends openly admits this!

Definitely...I reckon most people, male or female, would love the chance to give up work (or full-time work at least) for a few years while being supported by someone else.

It’s not really the first two weeks - it’s the next 18 years! Kids need looking after and it is extremely hard to work and arrange childcare so both of us make some compromises. I started out thinking I could do it all. But I can’t.

In my household I didn't give up my financial independence. I have done what is right for our family.
DP works full time, I work 3 days. I plan to go back full time when the baby is in school full time.
I do more childcare and housework but that is because I am home more. DP does what he can when he is here.
I think the majority of women do the same.

Most SAH women I know would be better off in the event of divorce directly BECAUSE of their decision to SAH. By better off, I mean greater financial stability than if they had been working all those years.

Those of you who say there is structural sexism are absolutely correct. We are talking about millennia in which the infrastructure of society has been geared towards men. It takes a long time to unpick this.

FWIW I think one of the most significant factors is in that women are not properly educated about what marriage means and entails. Marriage is the ultimate life goal for many women but it comes with a miasma of romantic nonsense which obscures what it actually involved in a lifelong financial partnership, which is what it really is.

It's still shocking to me how many women go into marriage for vague reasons connected with romance, wanting to have children and thinking this is what you ought to do. Without being properly taught about what's involved, how the financial side of it works.

@FloconDeNeige I'm really sorry to hear that, from my friends' experience it seems I have been very lucky - 2 employers, 2 pregnancies...both supportive, and both let me go back 3 days a week. Most friends have had at least one awkward boss/flexible working request denied etc.

@supersonicginandtonic

In my household I didn't give up my financial independence. I have done what is right for our family. DP works full time, I work 3 days. I plan to go back full time when the baby is in school full time. I do more childcare and housework but that is because I am home more. DP does what he can when he is here. I think the majority of women do the same.

I do wonder about this planning to go back FT once the baby is in school. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, it's a thing you hear a lot. But for many parents (mothers?), when you are faced with the reality of a 4 year old who really isn't all that big, you feel they need you MORE in that time slot 3-6pm and in the holidays, once they are in school. And that doesn't diminish anything like as quickly as you'd think when you have a babe in arms. My youngest is now in secondary, and it's a bit more complicated for us because of him autism but both children still need a lot of parental input outside of 8.30-3pm. Whereas when they were little, you could put them in nursery and basically just pick them up and do bedtime.

I wish someone had told me how much harder it is to juggle work with a school aged child, compared to nursery. Just popping back to FT work when they start school turns out to be unrealistic for many families.

I'll say what I said in my last post on a similar thread regarding these 'high earning men and women'.
personally find it the other way around.

"In my profession every woman i know is full time or at least no less than 4 days.

They're not entitled to any state support as they earn too much, yet aren't inheritantly rich enough to just quit working and husbands have good jobs but aren't millionaires either.
So in order to to live nice lives have to work.

Yet all the women in administration, cleaning, assistants etc, work part time or quit after maternity leave.

This is because they can claim tax credits whilst their partner works as they earn low enough to do so.

Yet if me and DP have kids due to my earnings even working 3 days wouldn't entitle us to anything government wise so in order to live comfortably id also have also work no less than 4 days. If I quit altogether we still wouldn't be entitled to anything, we'd just be skint .

All my professional friends the same.

Maybe because we're middle earners? So women have no choice if they're home owners with financial commitments.

Either sell your house, spend every penny of savings and equity in order to claim tax credits and work part time, or remain full-time to pay your mortgage"

So basically a lot of women aren't financially screwed as they never had much to begin with any. Most people also marry within their own class. So 2 working class people will likely get top ups. So makes no difference if their partner leaves as they'll just get more top ups.

2 high earners it won't make too much difference as they have a lot of money anyway. I'm guessing if you and your husband are both barristers and the woman goes part time or becomes a SAHM then if her husband leaves, she's unlikely to be destitute to working in the local co-op forever more.

If your in the middle then unless your willing to live on a shoe string and have more month than money, then you both HAVE to work as you won't be entitled to anything.

I work 16 hours a week (2 days) and I’d say it hasn’t affected my career.
I am starting a part time masters degree next year which will also progress into a senior role and will continue to work part time, although it will increase to 3 days a week.

My husband is a high earner which fortunately means I can work less hours but if the worst should happen and we did end up divorcing I would just work more. I suppose if I wasn’t with my husband, I would be more senior but that would be from necessity and not desire.

@Sunflowers095

So there's a lot of talk about the gender pay gap and also how women have been more affected by the pandemic and had to take on more caring responsibilities. While I understand there are single parents etc. in most situations what I don't understand is:

• why don't women go for higher paying careers or marry lower earning men, therefore being the main breadwinner
• why don't women choose partners who will take on 50% of caring responsibilities, chores, etc. rather than have kids with someone who doesn't contribute and just put up with it?

Another thing I see often is women deciding to be SAHM, come back part time, extend maternity leave. Nothing wrong with this choice but in the context of a career surely it's not the best way to support that goal? Especially when many SAHM say that they decided to stay at home because their wage would barely cover childcare. That's not the point! Long term it increases the earning potential if a woman stays in work.

While I agree that a lot of inequality still exists I feel like many people make conscious choices that make their financial situation worse. Women I know who decided to take shared parental leave, go back to work full time, make their partner take on equal responsibility etc have all had great careers. Am I missing something in this conversation?

I'm not trying to be judgemental in any way towards non career driven women or women who want to be homemakers as I think it's great people have a choice and being a SAHM is an important job! I just mean purely from a financial/career perspective here.

I have the same profession as my dh but by the time my children were diagnosed with disabilities which meant that one parent had to give up work to full time care I already earned considerably less than dh due to the time I'd had off for maternity etc. From a financial point of view I had to give up MY career.

I hate that I am in a financially precarious position. Hate hate hate it, but lack of services to support our family paid or otherwise left me with no choice. This is due to my SEX not gender role.

You are being too simplistic.

I worked from 20 to 35 flat out in the City and contributed to a pension as soon as I could and bought a flat aged 22 and was stretched to my limits for 2/3 years with friends telling me I was stupid and should pack it in and travel the world instead if working 7.30 to 7.30

My DH did similar, but now, in his mid 40s, he really regrets not travelling the world and having adventures when he was younger.

Life is for living and being present. Not constantly hedging and planning for a worst case scenario.

That doesn’t mean being reckless, but at the same time, if you prefer to be at home with your children rather than in an office for 10 hours a day, that’s fine.

@ RUOKHon

Completely agree! Life is short, what is with all this stigmatising women who want to work less?

I know a high earning man who saves money every year and then takes 6 months of every couple of years.He also works part time (freelance), he does the bulk of the childcare. There’s nothing wrong with working less if you can afford it at the time.

I think in general women are less ambitious than men. None of my friends are that bothered about promotions, pensions, benefits etc. Most out family life as their number one priority. I don’t think the same can be said about many men.

It does always amaze me how little interest they take in their future financial situation though. Some have no idea at all what they have in pensions or how making decisions now may affect their future. I think financial education should be introduced in schools.

Not sure what the problem is marrying a lower earning man? DH earns less than me: but it’s never been an issue. His job is a bit less pressured than mine and allows him to be off all school holidays: so suits our lives perfectly

We decided that one of is going to stay at home as our joint income would be almost halved paying for nursery and as one of my parents died suddenly in their mid 30s therefore I can't remember a lot of having them in my life, it's more important to me to give him my time than to have a career whilst he s younger. I do acknowledge that as we got a mortgage and married when I was 22 we re in the position, we ll have enough paid off if not fully paid off our mortgage by 55 to get equity release so I m not so worried there's nothing in my pension yet at 25.

@RUOKHon

I worked from 20 to 35 flat out in the City and contributed to a pension as soon as I could and bought a flat aged 22 and was stretched to my limits for 2/3 years with friends telling me I was stupid and should pack it in and travel the world instead if working 7.30 to 7.30

My DH did similar, but now, in his mid 40s, he really regrets not travelling the world and having adventures when he was younger.

Life is for living and being present. Not constantly hedging and planning for a worst case scenario.

That doesn’t mean being reckless, but at the same time, if you prefer to be at home with your children rather than in an office for 10 hours a day, that’s fine.

I did both. It’s not an either / or situation. You can travel and earn the big bucks in your 20s and it’s actually what a lot of wealthy people do.

My DH did similar, but now, in his mid 40s, he really regrets not travelling the world and having adventures when he was younger
Why can't he consider it now or later? Early retirement, still very fit to do it all, more more money and time to spend.

I always wanted to work, I wasn't the mummy type who relished in baby classes etc although I loved my kids I had to work to help pay half the bills. I earned as much as my DP at the time. Luckily when we split up I wasn't disadvantaged because I had a job, pension and paid half I to the house therefore everything was split. I also wonder why women rely on the man to be the breadwinner. Even now my DP earns more than me whilst I change career, I still have my own money. I will advise my daughters to do the same.

Why can't he consider it now or later? Early retirement, still very fit to do it all, more more money and time to spend

I don’t think he could really pull off full moon parties, backpackers hostels, experimenting with drugs and no-strings shagging around in his late forties. Although I’m sure he’d love to try! It wouldn’t really be the same.