AIBU Mumsnetters are being disingenuous about the need for women to be financially independent

[Waferbiscuit]

MNers regularly stress the importance of being financially independent and any post about SAHMs usually has lots of cautions about being financially reliant on a partner. A recent post about marrying into money had virtually ever poster stating that telling our daughters to marry into money is a horrible idea and that the key thing we should be doing is teaching our daughters to be financially independent.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4234513-to-thin-k-women-still-teach-their-daughters?pg=2&&reverse=1

This is all good in principle, but it feels very disingenuous, almost like virtue signalling, because in reality only a minority of women are financially independent/support themselves financially.

Look at the stats (ONS 2019/2020):
• 29% of women of working age (16-64) are economically inactive! Only 71% are in some form of work. (Of course some of these will be students, but not all)
• Of women with dependent children, only 36% work full time, 37% work part time and the rest don’t work at all. For those working part-time unless you’re on a very high income you wouldn’t be making enough to support your family and will be contributing a lesser amount to the family.
• Anecdotally I’m in my 50s and I’ve seen so many women my age dropping out of the workforce or moving to very limited part-time. They can do this not because they’ve amassed huge savings over their career, but because they have a partner making a lot more money than them.

My question is why do we pretend to value financial independence for women when the majority of women are not. Most women don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, they rely on someone else’s income to maintain their lives, and the vast majority of women with children wouldn’t be able to raise their family on their income alone.

I sound like I’m being critical but I’m not – this is reality for women: the gender pay gap and time off having children means they make less than men, having children makes it harder to work FT, and we live in an economy where you need two incomes to survive.

So why can’t we just be honest and tell our daughters ‘Yes, it’s good to have a job and an income, but if you want a good lifestyle you need to have a partner working to support you. And if you have children you will probably not make enough money to support your family solo, you will end up being reliant on someone else, so please be aware of the risks.’ Why BS about being financially independent when only a small percentage of women are – or can be?

My POV on this is that I’ve been single most of my life and aside from 7 years with someone, I have had to live and raise children on my one salary. So I do fall into the financial independent category, but it’s been a slog and frankly a lot of women are having a much easier time than me by being financially dependent!

I have sons but if I had a daughter, I would tell her what my mum told us - "always earn your own coin and never rely on a man to keep you". This advice has stood me in great stead over the years. I appreciate that I've had the benefit of a good education and a well paid job and not everyone is as lucky. But....I would hate to have to rely on a man

I honestly really like my job and derive a lot of pleasure and self esteem from it
I don't do it mostly for the money. I could probably earn more if I was solely focused on that.
I cannot imagine not working. I don't know what I would find to do with myself.
I would go to the gym a lot and for spa days but I think it would all be very empty after a while.
Even if DH was really wealthy I would want to work or volunteer. I would want to do something that wasn't in service of my direct family I think.

Surely no-one actually aspires to just being some wealthy guys wife these days like a 70s Mills& Boon novel (or maybe Kate Middleton)

Surely no-one actually aspires to just being some wealthy guys wife these days like a 70s Mills& Boon novel (or maybe Kate Middleton)

No I don't think these days that is an aspiration. But maybe it happens along the way through circumstance? (Very very rare circumstances!) Like I'm sure Kate Middleton didn't aspire to many a rich prince...she has an education and was working before so I don't think the signs point to that being her intention.

I suppose there might be some women who will only marry someone rich, but I've not met anyone like that.

I’ve seen lots of posts/threads where women save for mat leave and continue to shoulder their share of the bills, while tightening their belt on anything for themselves and burning through their savings. Their partner gets a baby, a woman to look after the baby and housework and unchanged financial circumstances. I would bring back public stocks for such men who think family is all fun and still being able to go out like a single man and no financial impact , but the real mystery is these women who think their partner should never ever have to commit to their family.

@cosmo5

Can you imagine a scenario where a female PM (or politician) wouldn’t even admit to how many children she has? The press would have a field day and nobody would ever let it drop. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

Exactly. It's a national embarrassment and an insult to all of our daughters. And sons for that matter, Who is voting for this? That this is the best person to lead and set an example to the country?

@MissChanandlerBong90

It’s still good advice.

I think it would be disingenuous to deny that not working because you’re married to being married to an extremely wealthy, kind and loyal man in excellent, bulletproof health with a totally recession-proof source of income is likely to give a better quality of life than working full time till you drop. But I think very few people who would advise women to be financially independent would deny that.

Because, for starters, not every woman can marry a wealthy man. There aren’t enough of them out there. So ‘marry a rich man’ is pretty shit life advice from a purely statistical point of view.

And if you do marry a wealthy man - he could lose his job, he could develop a gambling addiction and go bankrupt, he could get cancer or have a heart attack, he could die in an accident, he could turn out to be abusive, or he could up sticks and leave you for a younger model. Among many other things. And if you have some degree of financial independence (not necessarily total, but some) you’ll be able to weather those storms much better than if you don’t.

And it may be a cliche, but those women you think have such nice lives - you don’t know what’s going on behind close doors. My mum was one such woman. You’d have thought her very happy with an excellent quality of life. My dad was actually a violent alcoholic who beat her and screwed anything going. And she felt she didn’t have any choice but to put up with it. Personally I’d rather work full time my entire life than endure what she did.

Absolutely.

@Waferbiscuit

How is it hard for you on 60k? Maybe that's your issue. Do you have other debts?

@Atalantea - since you asked 60k doesn't get you that far in the SE. After tax (and some pension contributions) it's 3k/month to cover mortgage, childcare/aftercare and everything else. It's the equivalent of a couple each making 24k pa full time. Check thesalarycalculator.co.uk if you don't believe me.

Well I live in the South East, and I manage with my family of 4 on my wage of 50k....

I wasnt doubting you got that, I was wondering how you are finding it so difficult to survive on that amount. I wasnt sure quite how you are struggling on it

@Sweak

Surely no-one actually aspires to just being some wealthy guys wife these days like a 70s Mills& Boon novel (or maybe Kate Middleton)

No I don't think these days that is an aspiration. But maybe it happens along the way through circumstance? (Very very rare circumstances!) Like I'm sure Kate Middleton didn't aspire to many a rich prince...she has an education and was working before so I don't think the signs point to that being her intention.

I suppose there might be some women who will only marry someone rich, but I've not met anyone like that.

Hahaa really? The applications to St Andrews the year Prince William went there were 80% from women, all (Kate Middleton included) hoping to marry the Prince. 😂 Pathetic, but true. She was just the one who happened to succeed in that endeavour, after some shaky times and making it clear she was prepared to be a doormat.

The thing is, in a marriage where a woman doesn’t work due to the children, you are not really having to “rely on a man.” It’s not like that. What you are relying on is the value of your joint assets.

Where the DH is a much higher earner, the woman’s lifestyle will inevitably follow that trajectory anyway, regardless of whether she works or not.

So she may be on an average salary which is all fine. But if the DH is a successful banker, for instance, it will be his salary that bought the house in Chelsea or wherever (and perhaps the other properties). It’s his salary that pays the school fees etc etc etc. Over time, the wife’s salary becomes negligible and this is why such women give up work because, even if the DH left them tomorrow, they couldn’t afford to live in that area or pay the school fees alone anyway, so what’s the difference? But fortunately, they are married and have built up a life which means shared assets and they understand this is what will see them through. Sometimes it makes sense to support a very high earner to go for it because this can change you children’s futures, beyond anything you could bring about yourself.

@Atalantea there is a lot of variation in living costs, e.g. housing and nursery etc, in different parts of the SE. Your experience does not negate someone else's experience. I earn considerably more than the numbers you are discussing and still struggle sometimes to support my two children alone.

@SilenceIsNotAvailable he's a populist. That's why people voted for him. That and people didn't like the alternative (JC). I don't think people care about his personal life, and whilst I don't think he's a good example of a man I am more interested in his abilities as a pm rather than his family issues.

However for me the problem is I think he's incompetent. He regularly lies to the nation yet I'm convinced he will win the next election. The opposition isn't good enough in my opinion.

@cosmo5

The thing is, in a marriage where a woman doesn’t work due to the children, you are not really having to “rely on a man.” It’s not like that. What you are relying on is the value of your joint assets.

Where the DH is a much higher earner, the woman’s lifestyle will inevitably follow that trajectory anyway, regardless of whether she works or not.

So she may be on an average salary which is all fine. But if the DH is a successful banker, for instance, it will be his salary that bought the house in Chelsea or wherever (and perhaps the other properties). It’s his salary that pays the school fees etc etc etc. Over time, the wife’s salary becomes negligible and this is why such women give up work because, even if the DH left them tomorrow, they couldn’t afford to live in that area or pay the school fees alone anyway, so what’s the difference? But fortunately, they are married and have built up a life which means shared assets and they understand this is what will see them through. Sometimes it makes sense to support a very high earner to go for it because this can change you children’s futures, beyond anything you could bring about yourself.

That's exactly why you don't get into that situation and seek an equal partnership where you both having similar earning potential. Far better for the children, far more secure, and generally far better for the longevity of the relationship.

Unfortunately, if you believe a spouse who hasn't worked in decades can leave a marriage and maintain even 50% of the lifestyle they had previously, you are very misinformed.

Where the DH is a much higher earner, the woman’s lifestyle will inevitably follow that trajectory anyway, regardless of whether she works or not

So why does it always seem that the man is the higher earner?

And even if he isn’t, it’s still very rare for the lower earning male partner to give up work or go pt. i’ve known higher earning women still go PT or give up work.

@cosmo5

The thing is, in a marriage where a woman doesn’t work due to the children, you are not really having to “rely on a man.” It’s not like that. What you are relying on is the value of your joint assets.

Where the DH is a much higher earner, the woman’s lifestyle will inevitably follow that trajectory anyway, regardless of whether she works or not.

So she may be on an average salary which is all fine. But if the DH is a successful banker, for instance, it will be his salary that bought the house in Chelsea or wherever (and perhaps the other properties). It’s his salary that pays the school fees etc etc etc. Over time, the wife’s salary becomes negligible and this is why such women give up work because, even if the DH left them tomorrow, they couldn’t afford to live in that area or pay the school fees alone anyway, so what’s the difference? But fortunately, they are married and have built up a life which means shared assets and they understand this is what will see them through. Sometimes it makes sense to support a very high earner to go for it because this can change you children’s futures, beyond anything you could bring about yourself.

Hmm but in reality, the rich banker has an army of lawyers who are great at protecting 'his' assets and the wife (and sometimes the kids) get left with not much.I've seen it happen at my DCs leafy prep school many, many times.

My own father did something similar to my mother after 30 years of marriage. Hid all the company assets (company was started with mother's savings) so she was left with very little as a settlement and ended up on benefits. Father meanwhile lived well, drove new BMWs every year and holidayed around the world with his girlfriend until she left him.

@cosmo5

The thing is, in a marriage where a woman doesn’t work due to the children, you are not really having to “rely on a man.” It’s not like that. What you are relying on is the value of your joint assets.

Where the DH is a much higher earner, the woman’s lifestyle will inevitably follow that trajectory anyway, regardless of whether she works or not.

So she may be on an average salary which is all fine. But if the DH is a successful banker, for instance, it will be his salary that bought the house in Chelsea or wherever (and perhaps the other properties). It’s his salary that pays the school fees etc etc etc. Over time, the wife’s salary becomes negligible and this is why such women give up work because, even if the DH left them tomorrow, they couldn’t afford to live in that area or pay the school fees alone anyway, so what’s the difference? But fortunately, they are married and have built up a life which means shared assets and they understand this is what will see them through. Sometimes it makes sense to support a very high earner to go for it because this can change you children’s futures, beyond anything you could bring about yourself.

I think if you are talking millions thats probably true as I presume it would also be tax efficient but for mere mortals like me I just cannot bring myself to take the risk.

Its ingrained in me to have my own salary.
It would be the element of control as in a man being able to manipulate me by threatening to withdraw money .
This has happened to women in my family btw so its something I have experienced.
My DH is a sweetheart but my mothering instinct is to provide as well as nurture.
Luckily DH is the same so we both were hands on and worked.

[quote Sweak]@SilenceIsNotAvailable he's a populist. That's why people voted for him. That and people didn't like the alternative (JC). I don't think people care about his personal life, and whilst I don't think he's a good example of a man I am more interested in his abilities as a pm rather than his family issues.

However for me the problem is I think he's incompetent. He regularly lies to the nation yet I'm convinced he will win the next election. The opposition isn't good enough in my opinion.[/quote]
He has no abilities as a PM and it was abundantly clear that would be the case to anybody who bothered to think about their votes.

It's not about his "personal life". It's an issue of moral values. A man who consistently cheats on people. Who has children with multiple women. Who won't disclose how many children there are - so also very unlikely he's providing for them properly if he won't even acknowledge the existence of some of them. A man who moved his mistress into 10 Downing Street and knocked her up while he was still married. A man who fucked off to Mustique with his floozie when the WHO declared a pandemic and couldn't be arsed to attend Cobra meetings to plan what to do about it. The list goes on and on. That's before we even get in to the corruption and financial aspects.

I support no political party and do appreciate that there are limited voting options atm. But that's why we should be campaigning to change the election system to PR! We have no hope in hell of gettint a decent Government until we do,

But Boris Johnson as PM? I mean, how low can you go? Who next? Raab 🤣 Gove 🤣 Patel 🤣?? People this incompetent and mad at the top of Government would have been inconceivable even 10 years ago. It is completely mad.

[quote SilenceIsNotAvailable]@Atalantea there is a lot of variation in living costs, e.g. housing and nursery etc, in different parts of the SE. Your experience does not negate someone else's experience. I earn considerably more than the numbers you are discussing and still struggle sometimes to support my two children alone. [/quote]
Of course there are variations in living costs, but £60kpa is (or should be) ample to live on, even in the SE.

This is basic universal allowance -
Standard allowance
Your circumstances Monthly standard allowance
Single and under 25 £344
Single and 25 or over £411.51
In a couple and you’re both under 25 £490.60 (for you both)
In a couple and either of you are 25 or over £596.58 (for you both)

South East England
[Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and West Sussex]

Second only to London in terms of economy and remuneration, in South East England the average salary is £39,251.

So if the OP and yourself (earning considerably more) cannot make ends meet, its not the fault of your wage

Allowance? Who is meant to provide this allowance? 😂

If this is some Government thing then it'll be based on the cheapest accommodation in the cheapest area and cheap sub-standard childcare etc - no trips, no holidays, minimal heating, very boring food etc - subsistence basically, in modern terms. Survival yes but not what most of us aspire to or try to provide for our children for their childhood.

@SilenceIsNotAvailable yes I get what you are saying about moral values. I do agree with all the criticisms you've made. I think he's awful, and I didn't vote for him. I voted labour but I wasn't really happy with Corbyn as the alternative either. I'm sure people who thought JC would be a disaster thought Boris couldn't be any worse. I think it's unfair to say those people didn't think about their vote. Many just decided Boris was a better bet but weren't happy with him either really!

Anyway, we are getting slightly off topic there.

So if the OP and yourself (earning considerably more) cannot make ends meet, its not the fault of your wage

Ummmmm no. I presume economics is not among your list of qualifications?

Many variations within the huge regions lumped together in your post where 30% plus of the entire UK population lives. 🙄😆

Some people rent, some people have some equity and have bought, nursery costs can vary enormously by area, as can food costs, transport to areas with jobs etc etc.

What a facile and ridiculous comment. I can't even find the words for how silly it is.

[quote Sweak]@SilenceIsNotAvailable yes I get what you are saying about moral values. I do agree with all the criticisms you've made. I think he's awful, and I didn't vote for him. I voted labour but I wasn't really happy with Corbyn as the alternative either. I'm sure people who thought JC would be a disaster thought Boris couldn't be any worse. I think it's unfair to say those people didn't think about their vote. Many just decided Boris was a better bet but weren't happy with him either really!

Anyway, we are getting slightly off topic there.[/quote]
Both of them are appalling, in different ways. That's why we need PR, so we have some choices for people to have policy influence who aren't disgraceful and utterly useless and might be capable of discussions to form effective, evidence-based policies that will actually improve things. But if nobody fights for it, it won't happen.

Agree - def got off topic! But interesting discussion - thank you.

‘Surely no-one actually aspires to just being some wealthy guys wife these days like a 70s Mills& Boon novel (or maybe Kate Middleton)’

DD is currently at university and quite a few of her friends do have this as their main aspiration. I was surprised, tbh.

Cosmo5 the situation you describe is still relying on a man though

In theory (if married) you can rely on half the value of the assets but in reality he still has all the power and you have all the responsibilities

He still has the capacity to earn mega bucks after you spilt whilst you have much less ability especially as he will not suddenly spark up an interest in child care. Spousal maintenance is apparently very limited these days. The court expects you to go back to work.

Whilst you are still married your lives are surely going to hugely diverge if he is working all the hours God sends flying around the world having his ego massaged and you are home clearing up the kitchen and it's in that situation that lots of them somehow wind up shagging their secretaries or colleagues on business trips.

I don't think many high earning terribly important men like that have a lot of respect for the role their wives have played. The attitude of society generally is that the guy has earned it and it's his and she should be so lucky if he gives her any of it.

It only makes sense to marry a guy like that if you do not have much interest in or prospect of making your own money. If that's the case then I guess it could be a smart move (cf Kate M) but if you give up your own career to support his then it makes you very vulnerable and I do think that's more trust than I could ever see myself giving to any man.

@cosmo5

The thing is, in a marriage where a woman doesn’t work due to the children, you are not really having to “rely on a man.” It’s not like that. What you are relying on is the value of your joint assets.

Where the DH is a much higher earner, the woman’s lifestyle will inevitably follow that trajectory anyway, regardless of whether she works or not.

So she may be on an average salary which is all fine. But if the DH is a successful banker, for instance, it will be his salary that bought the house in Chelsea or wherever (and perhaps the other properties). It’s his salary that pays the school fees etc etc etc. Over time, the wife’s salary becomes negligible and this is why such women give up work because, even if the DH left them tomorrow, they couldn’t afford to live in that area or pay the school fees alone anyway, so what’s the difference? But fortunately, they are married and have built up a life which means shared assets and they understand this is what will see them through. Sometimes it makes sense to support a very high earner to go for it because this can change you children’s futures, beyond anything you could bring about yourself.

Also maybe you've not got the memo, but women also work in banking these days.

@LibertyMole

‘Surely no-one actually aspires to just being some wealthy guys wife these days like a 70s Mills& Boon novel (or maybe Kate Middleton)’

DD is currently at university and quite a few of her friends do have this as their main aspiration. I was surprised, tbh.

That's so sad. My daughter would rather die than have any man be in control of her. In fact any attempt at it would probably result in his doom.