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 the point is that the men clearly don't need to be "facilitated" in their careers as much as they actually are! They could take on a much more hands on role but they don't want to.

You could benefit financially from taking in a lodger.

Aren't there a lot of sectors where senior women are disproportionately likely to not have DC? Not all, obv, I don't think it's true of eg SLT in schools. But in others.

Yeah I agree. But not always of course- lots of men do contribute at home, especially those with spouses who are also working full time. NAMALT!

I don't think we really need the NAMALT do we? It really does go without saying however, we know for a fact that women (as a class, not on an individual level) do more childcare and more housework even when they do work full time. That means there is a significant number of men not pulling their weight at home.

I work in the public sector and choose to do so - I enjoy my work and have a degree. There is no private sector equivalent to my job.
My DH works in the private sector and probably earns 4x my full time equivalent wage. He could work in a public sector equivalent, but he has a job that he loves and earns considerably more in the private sector.
I work part time but he does the school runs on days I am working. If the children are ill and we are both working we will have a conversation about who is best suited to look after the children that day. Our children benefit from us being able to take them to after school clubs to pursue interests or have friends over to play after school. They like it that I am able to help out at school when I'm not working and I enjoy the time that I can spend with them.
Yes I do have a bigger, nicer home than I likely would if I were single, but if I were single I also wouldn't be with someone I love and enjoy spending time with. We are a partnership.
Would you prefer it if I left the job that I am good at and enjoy, to work full time in the private sector? I'm fairly sure public sector employees are a necessary part of society. Or perhaps I should live in the garden shed whilst my DH lives in the house because that's all I've earnt?
Hats off to single parents, I don't know how you do it, but I married my DH for love and stay with him and him with me because we love each other not because he's a high earner.

Maybe in some sectors.

I know a lot of very senior women, both personally and professionally. I can only think of a handful who don't have children. Most do have kids, and if those, all but one have been very hands-on, involved parents. One, somewhat less involved, with a SAHD partner, but still quite a lot more hands on than a lot of the male parents I know!

Hopefully married people are better off financially. They deserve it for doing all the work of keeping a marriage together.

I would rather be poor and single.

I did used to say when the kids were younger that it was hard work staying married.😂

In my line of work (academia) many older, senior staff don't have children. But I know many female colleagues of my generation who do - however it's common that they have their children in their late 30s onwards. I know two female professors in their 40s with three kids each but in both cases their husband has a lower profile job and does the bulk of childcare/domestic tasks.

Interesting. The one woman I mentioned who is less hands on as a parent than others is a very senior academic.

@Mumwantingtogetitright interesting, I don't know if that's a common pattern overall or not. I'm a 'mid career' researcher and don't envisage climbing any higher - I just don't have the drive (or capability) to combine the very long hours with family life.

Keep thinking I need to get one of these 100k jobs I keep reading about on Mumsnet though 😂

The senior academic I know is on a fair bit more than £100k! But to be fair, she is very senior!

Just came to add this www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10864003/LOUISE-PERRY-married-best-stay-married.html

My husband benefitted massively, actually. He couldn't keep a dollar in his pocket & had spent it all on payday. I came in with a house deposit & investments, and taught him to budget. I also earned more for first 20 years, until I was made redundant - which also put a very large payout into the mortgage and sold investments & halved said mortgage. I spent a lot of time pushing him to get off his butt and increase quals etc. to get a better job.

Although he now earns more & is generally a good, stable man, I do almost all of the housework and childcare & financial management. I'd probably have been better off alone, tbh.

@Mumwantingtogetitright wow, ok that is very senior! Not many in academia reach those dizzying heights!

Ugh, typical daily mail shite. What a load of drivel!

Yeah, she has done well.

Well, both benefit? It's two incomes, one home, obviously a couple will be better off than a single person, therefore allowing one of them to work fewer hours if that is what they want, and yes, that's usually the woman, but there's no reason it couldn't be the man.

But if you spend all your hours sitting in an office you don't have very much control over how you spend your life.

The women I know who married rich husbands have way more day to day freedom than myself as they can wake up and do whatever they want with their day.

I'm glad I'm not a man though, because as a woman I've much more choice than most men. I've got less chance of being a CEO, but I can still forge a decent career in all likelihood if I put in the work.

However, if I wanted to work part time and sack off the boring career stuff then this is also a possibility for many. However, the vast majority of men won't ever be in the position to give up full time work until they retire. 45 continuous years of work with just the odd week off here and there and not even a maternity leave to break up the drudgery.

I defo think it's more common for women to succeed in a traditionally male role than the reverse. There are defo more high flying boss women than there are men supported by rich wives.

There's a difference between what children enjoy , what they think they want and what is best for them. This is better understood in other cultures and in previous times in this country. It does no one any favours at all to follow the path of greatest comfort/ least resistance.

I am sure a 2 year old would like to watch Peppa Pig for 12 hours straight whilst eating chocolate. Childrwnneed challange and to do things they may not find easy to prepare for life.

Can you define comfort in this context? Do six month old babies all need to move out of their comfort zone, or just some of them? Does it inevitably lead to a bad outcome for the six month olds who are cared for by a parent/parents rather than strangers? Is there any research you can point me towards?

I’m not convinced by your argument at this point. I worked part time, so I’m not against childcare, but I don’t agree that it’s the ‘best’ thing for babies. For me it was a necessity, not a want or need on the part of my child.

I would agree with that but it's highly complex, constantly changing and women can suffer tremendously.

We're happily married and I'm mostly definitely the breadwinner by 10x but split everything 50/50 (income, assets etc). Aside from the lifestyle, my wife has IMO earnt the luxury of being able to decide how much/little she works. Currently she works PT but could completely retire if she wanted to and I wouldn't bat an eyelid. So she definitely has more positive choice than I do as most men would be considered bums for not working FT when fully capable of doing so.

If we split, there's no way either of us could have the same lifestyle but there'd be enough to ensure we wouldn't be homeless/destitute.

This is where it can be extremely damaging for women and many women I know. Most of my wife's social circle consists of high earning males and women who either don't work or work PT. Mostly they have low earning potential. Most of these guys are dicks who have had multiple affairs or do horrible things like holding all the money and giving out allowances. These women hate their husbands but stay married as they'd be left with very little. Especially when I know some of them hide money. In these cases they have more working options but with a massive caveat.

I think historic social norms have driven the wage gap and these kinds of unbalanced relationships but with more women earning higher salaries, it's changing for the better.

I think it must be your social circle OP. Do you know many women doctors, lawyers, dentists, business owners, etc? I know quite a few men who don't work or who work part time because they have trust funds or the woman is wealthier. My friend (in her thirties) had to pay off her ex boyfriend who owned something like 10% of their property when she bought it with 50% cash from selling another property and her salary as a doctor. Her ex ended up making a considerable profit as he just refused to sign until she gave him way more than he was entitled to, because it was going to cost more in legal fees to get rid of him. The wealthy men I know mainly have wives who do quite a lot of running of the business or manage the property portfolio or estate or something. It might be geographical. I mean I know some women who don't work too, but they're all in their seventies!

I think it must be your social circle OP. Do you know many women doctors, lawyers, dentists, business owners, etc?

Statistically speaking I would say it's your social circle that's the outlier.

If we accept that there is a wage gap and there is also a higher proportion of higher earning males than females or males in high level positions, then it generally stands to reason that there will be more couples in the OP's scenario than the other way round.