To be amazed how much women benefit financially from marriage

[Singleparent78]

I've been single most of my adult life, worked FT and built up a good career but despite this... I'm always struck how much better off women who are married are than me.

It's not just about the merging together of two salaries, but about how much easier financial life is when you have the benefit of a man's higher average income, giving many women a lifestyle they could never afford on their own salaries.

Consider:

• the many women I work with on low salaries or working part-time who are living much nicer lifestyles than I as they have a man significantly supplementing them.

• the married women I know at 45+ who have moved to part-time or stopped working as they have accrued significant savings with their dh but, critically, their dh is now a high earner who can pay for both of them.

• the girls from school who didn't go onto further education, got married soon out of school and haven't worked at all or a bit of p-time - they mostly live in nice houses and cars, have enjoyed nice holidays etc. There hasn't been much 'penalty' for not being independent or not having a career.

All in all these women, by way of marriage, seem to have an easier go than solo me slogging it out for 30 years working FT and trying my best to be independent.... like the teachers at school told us girls to be!

I understand: all the constraints on women to generate their own income esp the gender pay gap and the impact of childrearing; that the above scenarios don't apply to all couples; that I'm assuming a heterosexual set up; that women contribute within marriages in other way than bringing in income; and that assets in a marriage are shared as is any income that comes into a marriage. I know people might think I'm being anti-women for challenging women's choices or women's rights or just plain bitter...

Still, AIBU to wonder:.......Is it not depressing that the best or most common way for women to be financially comfortable or create wealth is still through marriage and the merging of assets with a man?

I think your post is interesting, but I’m still not 100% sure what you’re trying to get across? Is it that some women are gold diggers? Is it that there’s a gender pay gap? Is it that women always benefit financially from marriage, but have to do the vast bulk of childcare and dreary but essential tasks around the home in return? Is it that marriage is good for women, but bad for men? Is it that women find combing high flying careers and childcare hard so they become SAHMs? Can you clarify for me your exact meaning because I can’t pin it down 🤔

Many married women don't benefit from their husband's higher income at all. Many make more money than their husbands. Many keep separate finances. Many are given an "allowance". Many have to sell what little they have to raise enough funds to get them out of their miserable marriages.

It's not marriage that gives people better lives. It's partnership.

That’s a really good post @BadNomad I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Partnership, true partnership, will usually make life better and easier for both parties.

Yes, I agree OP. For any couple, after a few years of 50% living costs (compared to a single person), the savings mount up. I've seen this in my circle regardless of whether either partner is a high earner.

Where the husband is a high earner, the effect is amplified. Usually though, the husband couldn't have done it without his wife running the house and children, leaving him free to put in the hours.

It is depressing that - where a woman chooses her husband well - it is an easier way to a lovely lifestyle than trying to climb the career ladder herself. But then no one knows what compromises have been made behind closed doors.

I don't disagree @BadNomad but I wasn't talking about what makes a good marriage, rather what gives women financial security. If you earn 20k pa and you marry someone who earns 50k pa I'm fairly confident that your financial situation will improve.

I'll give it a go;
I went to an all girls convent school (1987-1990) the emphasis was on kindness and caring. Social responsibility was encouraged. Triple science wasn't offered neither was any form of bussiness, economics or politics, I think they weren't considered feminine.
Huge focus on drama, dance and english.

I am naturally pretty good at STEM, but seriously considered acting as a career, I am a medic, but could easily become a teacher or nurse. Looking at DS who is very like me I now know I could have done a pure science degree and gone into either pharmaceuticals or finance where I would be making twice what I do now for much less stress.

This totally...

We have shared finances & financial goals. It has made a considerable difference pooling my time resources with DHs job/income.

And it will improve in a way that is probably greater than what you might be able to achieve by working alone e.g. by trying to get a 5% raise at work (on 20k) or a promotion. I'm trying to say that, for most (not everyone), coupling often gives more of a financial boost than anything one can achieve through independent career progression.

that's your experience @CHiSOCG but the flip side is the shitty working class town where I grew up in and where most women did not pursue FE and left school at 17. Most women in my town knew that marriage was the best route to some semblance of financial security and that being a SAHM was a hell of a lot easier than taking the low pay and low skill jobs available.

But given that most people marry partners from a similar socio economic class, it would seem very unlikely that these women could all find men with a job which paid well enough to maintain children and a stay at home wife. High earning men don't generally go for women who left school at 17,

Not to mention that should the marriage end in divorce, as nearly half do, then a woman with little education or work experience could find herself and her children in a very difficult situation, with no "semblance of financial security" at all.

I don’t think you intend to answer my question so I’m assuming this is a post slagging off women for being gold diggers? I’m sure that some are, but I’m equally sure that most marry for love, or what we believe to be love, rather than money and on that basis YABU 🤷🏻‍♀️

Sorry I attended until 1992 and I easily could have become a nurse or teacher (clearly not an English teacher).

How do you know their husbands are supplementing their income? or are you just assuming, I was the high earner in ours, and brought property and savings into the relationship, I then got an inheritance which bought our forever home with no mortgage, I then quit the rat race and went to work in my husbands family business part time.

So no my DH has never subsidised my life, still have my own money and savings and will have a pension at 60, which will provide the majority of our income unless I ask him to use his savings to match my income (which I would'nt because we are a partnership)

So I cannot understand the concept of your post every couple is different they manage their finances life choices to suit what works for them, so your attitude comes across a a little condescending and harps back to housewives decades ago.

You know you can be an independent woman and still be married right?

Fair enough to have an opinion.

Can you suggest any examples of how being married and sharing the costs of living, without any DC who require parenting, would benefit a woman rather than mutually benefit a couple?

Unless the woman has already decided to aim less high in her career, perhaps in anticipation of having DC or indulging in a role which does not pay very well but might be interesting, I just can't see how being married negatively impacts a woman's ability to amass wealth.

In fact I think if you compare a woman who earns will herself versus someone who relies on a share of a partner/husband's wealth is running a risk, because there are bits of things that could go wrong. He could become incapacitated, could die early or could divorce and keep a higher than 50% of his assets.

Not accepting that parenthood immediately or in the future is not the major driver of a woman's ability to build up assets is to me a flawed premise which is likely to impact the quality of any conclusions reached.

There will always be edge cases, some women will bring assets to a marriage, some will find a partner whose wealth will always outrank hers. In the absence of children, the majority of "women who are not parents" can get on and earn for ourselves I encourage us all to do so.

Once children are added to the mix, it all gets s lot more complicated.

Worth considering to that the higher up the economic scale, the more likely people are to be married and stay married. Women also statistically marry up, wealthier and better educated men. So at the top of the married socioeconomic scale you get some seriously accumulating wealth. Higher up the socioeconomic ladder women are more likely to work as well. Two potentially earning adults are better able to weather financial shocks, make good long term choices because they HAVE good long term choices, leading to more wealth.

ive absolutely been a beneficiary of all of this and it’s quite frightening even from this side to see how the wealth accumulates. When I think about our DD (likely sole inheritor of 9 adults with 7 figure assets) it gets even more gross.

I stopped reading at 'married women benefit from the husband's higher income' YABU. This is the kind of attitude, the assumption that the man always earns more, that holds women back. I'm the higher earner in our household by some margin and much happier than way than being beholden to some man for the lifestyle I want.

Is anyone else just skimming past the ludicrous 'nesting' posts on here (quote within a quote within a quote within a quote within a quote within a quote within a quote et al........???) Very irritating and bloody annoying to look at. Scrolling down multiple posts within multiple posts. One part of the massive 'mumsnet update' that is very annoying! The one at 17.58 is a prime example. Ditto the one at 17.51. CBA to read them.

Personally I don't think it'll benefit me at all. Been with mine 6 years, I'm on disability and he's unemployed without be benefits meaning zero income of any kind. I'd be absolutely stupid to marry him, not like he wants to anyway as he's dead set against it. If things went wrong I feel he'd take everything I've got, which isn't a lot but it's more than what's in his possession. Same with living together which will also not be happening.

There are lots of women who give up work to have a business of their own e.g. jewellery making, pottery etc but who really rely on their husbands income to finance this. I do always think they are kidding themselves however i feel bad for saying that as a feminist.

I think everything in life is skewed to the patriarchy and also to wealthy people so if you have a male partner you do benefit financially but suffer personally from being the 'lesser partner'.

Ooooh, ANOTHER woman who earns oooodles more money than her husband. They're coming in thick and fast on this thread!!!

most women i imagine, will defend themselves again the observations of the OP, because naturally, this is one element of the patriarchy that benefits them whilst still keeping them in their place. So we have a lot of voices on social media championing women's rights and safety, at the same time as seeking the security of high earning males. And then this is passed on to the daughters, who watch and learn.....rinse and repeat.

Not sure why you’re getting such a hard time, OP. Yes you’re making a generalisation, but that’s point of your post isn’t it?

I’m one of the women you describe - didn’t get married FOR financial reasons, but I certainly benefit from marriage financially and so do all my friends. Couldn’t have bought the 3-bed house I’m in without my husband going halves on the deposit, for example. Couldn’t live the same lifestyle on maternity leave and beyond without my husband earning decent money. Couldn’t have bought the car without him going halves on it, etc.

Personally I don’t know any women with husbands and kids who are the higher earners in their families, but I seem to be the minority in this thread!

@Robinni

it was one of my main motivators having a family really, didn’t fancy that end

While there is no question that having DC can mean that you can be better cared for and less lonely towards the end of your life, I think there is a potential risk that your DC are not around when you might need them. People emigrate, fall out, lead busy lives, have DC / DGC with extra needs who themselves require looking after.

It's not possible to predict the outcome.

Another way is to ensure you have comfortable financial resources to ensure reliable care in a comfortable setting. Not having DC is one way to ensure you keep more of your resources for yourself, incase they are needed. Fewer nappies requiring your attention is an additional plus.

Horses for courses.

How old were your children when you put them in wraparound care?

@PurpleButterflyWings No, not just you. I’m ignoring those nested posts too. Life’s too short to reread everything a hundred times 😧