This idea that women need to get married for financial protection is bizarre

[NewFem]

I’ve encountered this view so many times here and it doesn’t make any amount of sense to me. Can someone please explain this to me how it applies to modern life?

Girls go to school and receive the exact same quality of education that boys do.
Girls, I read outperform boys in SATs, GCSEs and at A-level.
Girls attend university at higher rates than boys do, across most ethnicities in the UK.
Girls outnumber boys in highly paid professions like medicine.
Girls also study science, technology, engineering and maths subjects at university in increasing numbers.

Women are perfectly capable of being educated, having a high salary and making a living for themselves. I know plenty of women who are homeowners by themselves and manage to buy a house individually with no help. So why is there still this idea that we need men for financial security. It doesn’t make sense.

When it comes to children and childbirth, most women don’t give up their careers so protection doesn’t apply to them either. I looked this up, in 2019, 75.1% of mothers in the UK were in work. In 2020, 71.8% of mothers in the UK were in work.

In 2019, only 28.5% of mothers with children below 14 years old reduced their working hours to accommodate childcare. This means most women (71.5%) did not reduce or limit their working hours. So it isn’t true for the majority of mothers that most women give up working after they’ve had children or that a man’s career remains unaffected and a woman’s career declines because of childcare. Therefore we need marriage to have protection.

At least this is my opinion based on data and my own life experiences. Open to hear other points of view though

It’s not all women. It’s women who have children and whose working lives are disrupted because of that. If you:

Take maternity leave
Reduce your hours
Go part time
Give up work

In order to do childcare, you have almost certainly lost earnings and possibly reduced your pension, missed out on promotions etc.

If you’re unmarried and you break up, your partner is not required to financially compensate you for the financial losses you have taken to enable him to continue to work full time and have a child. S/he will potentially have to pay child support, but nothing to compensate you for your sacrifice.

If you earn more than your partner, if they’re the one to reduce or give up work, if you don’t have kids etc - marriage is unlikely to put you in a more financially secure position. But if you’ve in any way reduced your working pattern to accommodate kids, the only way to secure your right to compensation for that is by getting married.

It might provide protection for some people especially if the woman becomes a SAHM. But I always wonder at the advice on here to get married if you’re having kids and how it applies to a couple who are both low earners and don’t own a house? Even if they married and she became a SAHM there’d be no assets to split in a divorce so really it only provides protection if the man is a high earner and the woman isn’t. In practice though, it doesn’t prevent financial abuse - a man could still prevent his wife accessing money on a day to day basis, and it would only benefit her if they split up which she probably wouldn’t be able to afford to do in that situation because she wouldn’t receive the proceeds until after the divorce. So it seems like there are various situations in which it wouldn’t make much difference?

@NewFem The Office for National Statistics
I think you need to learn how to read statistics, because your theory is nonsensical, farcical and does not translate to reality. Marriage gives women many legal and financial protections. Not to mention medical/next of kin rights. If it didn't, marriage wouldn't exist, and gay people wouldn't have fought so hard for the right to marry. I agree with a previous poster, you sound very young and naive.

HA! i imagine many will stone you OP for bringing this up. Many that DID marry for financial protection of course!

never did it, am free, in love, life is good:)

But but but what about the mortgage lol.......??????????

It is also about mitigating risk. Even if you don’t plan to disrupt your career beyond a perfunctory maternity leave, sometimes life happens and one of the parents has to make a career sacrifice. It isn’t always the woman. I’ve seen the father be the parent who stays home as well.

For people at the lowest end of the economic scale, there may be fewer obvious incentives to wed. but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It is worth considering that even a moderate wage worker is often earning a pension. A wife is entitled to a share of that. There are also things like life insurance, and survivors benefits that will only pay out to a spouse. People also often start their lives at they lower end of the wage scale and work their way up over time. The decision shouldn’t be made just for the current circumstance, but for the predicted lifetime situation.

pregnantthenscrewed.com/fact-and-stats/

@TedMullins

It might provide protection for some people especially if the woman becomes a SAHM. But I always wonder at the advice on here to get married if you’re having kids and how it applies to a couple who are both low earners and don’t own a house? Even if they married and she became a SAHM there’d be no assets to split in a divorce so really it only provides protection if the man is a high earner and the woman isn’t. In practice though, it doesn’t prevent financial abuse - a man could still prevent his wife accessing money on a day to day basis, and it would only benefit her if they split up which she probably wouldn’t be able to afford to do in that situation because she wouldn’t receive the proceeds until after the divorce. So it seems like there are various situations in which it wouldn’t make much difference?

Thanks for reminding me. I have also wondered what happens if you’re both low earners with no house or mortgage and no assets to split in divorce (which describes many couples).

Or if your husband is the lower earner and he moved in to live in your house after marriage. Plus you came into the marriage with your own savings that you inherited from your parents (also describes many women I know).

Or if your husband is the lower earner and he moved in to live in your house after marriage. Plus you came into the marriage with your own savings that you inherited from your parents (also describes many women I know).

I'm guessing the OP is young, childless, firmly at least middle class.

Many women you know have inherited wealth before marrying? Seems very unlikely given average ages for marriage and death.

The birth of a child with special needs/complex medical needs often fucks up women's career plans.
The reality is that most often it is the woman who gives up her career to care for said child---not least because it very often starts to become obvious that the man simply does not have the patience to spend hour after day dealing with a child with all these complex needs. The woman ends up dealing with the situation simply to ensure her child gets cared for well. It's really a very difficult situation. Women are vulnerable not only because of our bodies, but because at some level we seem to "care" more.

I think most women should either get married or commit to being a single mother by choice IF they have good extended family/community backup to help them out with childrearing. Relying on a man who refuses to commit to you, is bad news.

@NewFem - 1) as people have said - some women either give up work or reduce their hours for childcare. You haven’t given the statistics for men as a comparator, but almost certainly the figure for men is lower.

2. women are more likely to suffer side effects of pregnancy than men: hyperemesis,physical birth trauma, PND. This may necessitate leave either during, pre- or post- Mat leave. This can affect performance at work and reduce promotion opportunities. Also, some work situations (eg shift work or inadequate breast pumping facilities) mean that couples may opt for women taking more shared parental leave than men - which may have work/salary/promotion implications.

3. women have a stricter biological clock than men so have less time to establish themselves in their career before pregnancy. This can have financial implications.

Some things you can try and mitigate - eg shared parental leave, saving before trying for baby. But some people don’t meet their partner until later and some people are not in well paying flexible jobs, so you can’t always compensate adequately for the biological differences.

Well it obviously depends doesn't it?

Or if your husband is the lower earner and he moved in to live in your house after marriage. Plus you came into the marriage with your own savings that you inherited from your parents (also describes many women I know).

When women are the higher earners (and intend to remain so) or have significant assets and are still doing the lion's share of the childcare, the advice on MN leans heavily towards NOT marrying.

@BourbonScreams

Well it obviously depends doesn't it?

Yes, one would think that's the logical conclusion, but perhaps not...

Your figures don't add up OP.

24.9 % of women not working, plus 28.5% of the remainder on reduced hours, means 46.3% of women were affected in 2019.

Or have I misunderstood your figures?

Your figures aren’t right.

And many women work part-time, there’s no way their pension will match their partner’s who works full time.

And many unmarried women still allow the family home to be in partner’s name. Madness.

Who knows many women who’ve inherited wealth from their parents before marrying? We are talking about inherited in its usual sense aren’t we? If your parents are dead before you’ve married the huge majority of cases must be the parents have had tragic illnesses or accidents, or the woman is too old to have children which rules them out of this discussion which was about mothers.
I’m happily not in receipt of an inheritance because at closing on 40 I have two living parents.

@timeisnotaline

So 75.1% of mothers work (less now post COVID) and of those 28.5% of them reduced hours for parenting? So that leaves us with 47% of mothers either don’t work at all or have reduced their hours. That sounds like a lot of women to me who have reduced financial independence due to a caring role for their dc.

No. I don’t think you can lump together women who don’t work at all with women who work reduced or part time hours. That doesn’t make sense to me.

In 2019 in the UK:

• 75.1% of mothers were working.
• 28.5% of those 75.1% of working mothers reduced their working hours due to childcare.

• Therefore, 24.9% of mothers didn’t work at all. However, we don’t know the reasons why these women weren’t working at all. It was not stated anywhere that these mothers weren’t working due to childcare responsibilities. Just that for whatever reason, 75.1% of women who happen to be mothers were working and 24.9% of women that happen to be mothers didn’t work.

You need to research Gender pay gap and the stats on percentage of men who don't pay CMS.

Look for the costs of childcare and then work out what percentage that is covered by CMS.

@Marynotsocontrary

Your figures don't add up OP.

24.9 % of women not working, plus 28.5% of the remainder on reduced hours, means 46.3% of women were affected in 2019.

Or have I misunderstood your figures?

The ONS didn’t give a reason why the 24.9% of mothers who don’t work, aren’t working. They even acknowledged that these women could be inactive in work for many other reasons, childcare may be one of them but we don’t know.

So, 75.1% of mothers work and of that 75.1%, 28.5% of them work reduced hours due to childcare reasons. The other 24.9% of mothers don’t work but we don’t know why - it may or may not be due to childcare.

24.9% of mothers didn’t work at all. However, we don’t know the reasons why these women weren’t working at all. It was not stated anywhere that these mothers weren’t working due to childcare responsibilities. Just that for whatever reason, 75.1% of women who happen to be mothers were working and 24.9% of women that happen to be mothers didn’t work.

You need to do your research OP, don't just make assumptions.
For a start, look at women who aren't mothers and see what percentage work.

By the time my son is aged 14 I'd hope I'd be back to full time hours! While we'll be paying childcare and while he is little my plan is to work reduced hours until he's in school.

I'd imagine a lot of those mums who are in full time work now took some years of reduced hours/staying home, maternity leave, and the reduced pensions, reduced opportunities to progress/take a new job etc. The stats you've quoted don't tell us what you think they do. I've already turned down a promotion because it would require overnight travel, though I'd have taken it before we were trying to conceive.

@NewFem - but what are the figures for fathers as a comparison?

And what are the salaries? Not all jobs are equal.

My ‘part-time’ Shift work job involved often finishing late and certain weeks would have longer hours than my DH ‘full-time’ job. Some women may pick ‘full-time’ but school-hours compatible jobs with lower salary than men.

@timeisnotaline

Who knows many women who’ve inherited wealth from their parents before marrying? We are talking about inherited in its usual sense aren’t we? If your parents are dead before you’ve married the huge majority of cases must be the parents have had tragic illnesses or accidents, or the woman is too old to have children which rules them out of this discussion which was about mothers. I’m happily not in receipt of an inheritance because at closing on 40 I have two living parents.

Oh right, I didn’t mean inherited, I guess I used the wrong word. I meant they were given money from their parents while their parents were still alive - like women given money by their parents to help them get on the property ladder. Like parents who pay their deposit for a house.

@Marynotsocontrary

24.9% of mothers didn’t work at all. However, we don’t know the reasons why these women weren’t working at all. It was not stated anywhere that these mothers weren’t working due to childcare responsibilities. Just that for whatever reason, 75.1% of women who happen to be mothers were working and 24.9% of women that happen to be mothers didn’t work.

You need to do your research OP, don't just make assumptions.
For a start, look at women who aren't mothers and see what percentage work.

The statistics I just read said that there were more mothers with dependent children in work than women without dependent children

“When looking at women and men without dependent children, there were 70.6% of women without dependent children in work in 2019” - there were 75.1% of women with dependent children in work in 2019

OP, you are rather naïve to say the least. For a start 25% of new mothers are discriminated against by their employers. No legal aid available so only those with legal insurance can afford legal advice.

Pre-children I earned about £85k as an international hi-tech marketing manager. Travelling at least once a week to Europe, US or SA. Own house, business degree, savings etc. 20 year career, no issues.

Moved to a UK-based job when had ds (same company). £55k.
Returned to work after maternity leave and was 'made redundant' first morning. They'd given my job to sales director's wife.
Then I spent a year with no income fighting unfair dismissal. Sold house, moved in with DP. DP becomes abusive at this point. Apparently going from being career woman with nice home, car, income and exciting hobbies to being unemployed single mum () made me less worthy of being treated well.

Won court case eventually, found another job, returned to work on £52k but now paying £750 pcm for childminder. DP refused to contribute because he wants me to stay at home & 'keep house'. After another year, buy me and DS a home. Leave partner to get away from the abuse. He does 0 childcare.

Thankfully I did not marry ex. Although my disposable income has dropped significantly, I still earn well above average and can provide for ds. I am one of the lucky ones.

There are millions of women working in teaching, nursing etc who cannot afford a home & nursery on one wage. And if you are reliant for your and your childrens' home, on another person, it is often better to make that partnership formal.