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 just have!

Why didn’t your husband go part time?

Feel like there's a bit of cross posting now.

He didn't want to. No one else at his work (very male dominated) was PT and he didn't even know if they'd allow it. This was coming up to 15 years ago.

So you didn’t want to for your career, fair enough.

And he didn’t want to for his career, fair enough.

But neither of those answers are ‘because it was in the best interests of our six month old’, which is the reason you took issue with my post.

But neither of those answers are ‘because it was in the best interests of our six month old’, which is the reason you took issue with my post

Could you clarify what you think the best interests of a 6 month old are?

I would say as much time at home with either parent as is financially possible.

The idea that, irl, men are being asked and questioned about their working patterns once they had a child is laughable.
It just doesn't happen.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have said otherwise. They’re not. But they’re also much, much more able to wash their hands of any kind of involvement either in raising their own children, or in waking away completely.

That's not true. I had a couple of issues with your post.

Do you think I'd do something detrimental to my children? Their long term well-being was implicit in every decision I've made since being pregnant. I was able to go back to work FT because I was able to find quality childcare within which my children flourished, and I don't believe for a second that it harmed them in any way. We made a decision on the long term cost/benefits to our family.

I think for a lot of people, it's probably self evident that having parents who are happy and fulfilled, rather than trapped in a situation that isn't of their choosing, is in the best interests of the child, as long as suitable arrangements are made for their care.

I know from my own experience that it can be quite damaging for children to be cared for by parents who are unhappy with their lives and trapped by their choices.

But they’re also much, much more able to wash their hands of any kind of involvement either in raising their own children, or in waking away completely.

Exactly. Which makes it a very precarious and challenging situation for women.
Women should probably ensure they are financially stable but when they have children with a man who doesn't pull his weight it can be challenging to progress your career. It's shit.

@Pumperthepumper

But neither of those answers are ‘because it was in the best interests of our six month old’, which is the reason you took issue with my post

Aside from posting with a bit of a bizarre situation one as if you're cross examining a witness on the stand, this is a shitty thing to say.

Having happy, healthy parents is in the best interests of a child. Not everyone wants to be a SAHP even temporarily and it's a perfectly valid choice.

Her children were well cared for and flourished. She was able to maintain her career and therefore have the ability to provide long term for her child without being dependent on anyone else which made her feel secure, happy, healthy and secure. All in the interests of her baby. Ditto her husband.

This was meant to say "a bit of a bizarre tone", not situation one!

No, I don’t.

Do you think a good solution would be for every six month old to be in full time, wraparound childcare in order for both parents’ careers to flourish?

@wellhelloitsme this whole conversation came about because that was the OP’s solution to women not being depended on their husbands. My point is, there’s always a compromise somewhere. For some parents it’s their careers. For others it’s their childcare options.

Do you think a good solution would be for every six month old to be in full time, wraparound childcare in order for both parents’ careers to flourish?

It should be a choice for the parents. And people should be trying to make them feel like shit for making that choice.

What exactly are you trying to get the poster to say?

And yet, the OP’s doing exactly that to women (only women, not men) who choose to stay at home.

I agree, it's a disingenuous attempt to force a 'gotcha' answer through questions posed as if it's a cross examination of a witness.

I was in the very fortunate position of not feeling that I had to compromise on either. I do appreciate that not everyone has the luxury of the choices that were open to me.

Do you think a good solution would be for every six month old to be in full time, wraparound childcare in order for both parents’ careers to flourish?

A solution to what problem?

Within this thread I've argued against the OP for judging women who decide to be SAHMs. I've also argued against the idea that working mums (with children in childcare) are doing it at the expense of their children.

What I want is for women to be able to make choices that suit them, without shitty judgemental comments,

What I want is for women to be able to make choices that suit them, without shitty judgemental comments.

Well said.

And yet, the OP’s doing exactly that to women (only women, not men) who choose to stay at home.

@Pumperthepumper you do realise I'm not the OP?

And yet, the OP’s doing exactly that to women (only women, not men) who choose to stay at home.

The OP.... not the poster you've decided to cross examine unnecessarily.

Genuine question, why do you think women's foremost obligation to other women is to 'support their choices'? do you think men feel they have that same obligation to other men - to support their decisions?

Just because we are the same sex doesn't mean we are going to agree with your choices. Many of the choices women make are ill judged and bad because they are human and not everyone makes good choices. Or we make choices that others disagree with.

Genuine question, why do you think women's foremost obligation to other women is to 'support their choices'? do you think men feel they have that same obligation to other men - to support their decisions?

No, the patriarchy does that.

I've not seen anyone say that women's foremost obligation to support other women is to support their choices, so I'm not sure who you are asking this question.

Personally I feel like it's not my job to question and make judgement of other womens decisions. Especially when I know nothing about their personal circumstances. I tend to presume, and this is based on interactions with thousands and thousands of parents in a professional capacity throughout my career, that the vast majority of women are doing everything they can to make sure their children get the best they can offer.

Genuine question, why do you think women's foremost obligation to other women is to 'support their choices'? do you think men feel they have that same obligation to other men - to support their decisions?

I don't care what men do but as a feminist I'm not in the business of making women feel shit for making choices that they feel are right for them and their families.

Just because we are the same sex doesn't mean we are going to agree with your choices. Many of the choices women make are ill judged and bad because they are human and not everyone makes good choices. Or we make choices that others disagree with.

You don't have to agree with my choices and nobody is suggesting you should make the same choices I've made. That's not what I'm saying. However, I won't make other women feel guilty or crap about the decisions they've made about their career and childcare options.

Why would you want to go out of your way to make other women feel bad about themselves?