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?

Nice try at making me seem selfish, I guess? Maybe you missed where this poster said parents using childcare is the same as buying a puppy and hiring a dog walker which renders the dog "pointless". If that doesn't suggest that the "point" of having children is for the parents or "owners" then I don't know what does.

forestfae 'I'm not being judgemental ' yet.....

The only thing I criticised individually was I said I didn’t understand why someone would put a baby in nursery full time out of choice when it’s not a financial necessity.

Oh, and if you work full time aren't raising your kids and I don't understand why you had them.

Textbook judgemental and incredibly offensive.

Yeah, it's an interesting dynamic. I speculate that marrying a rich man and living the easy life is a high risk/high reward choice.

You could end up screwed but you could also end up with a great quality of life and have loads of free time. Men don't tend. to encounter this risk but that's partly because they don't have the option to.

I am not arguing that it's "better". I am merely saying that the evidence seems to confirm that it is not worse.

And yes, obviously any study worth the paper that its printed on would obviously need to control for multiple other factors. That's why not all studies have equal value, and I emphasised the importance of reliable, peer-reviewed research.

Oh I see dashboard, apologises.

Im Just quite aware that people can have this selfish attitude and not ever think,what's best for the child.

There are so many variables and sometimes...what's best for the child is to be paid care.
But it concerns me that putting babies into care is becoming the norm, and that's because as forest says maybe it's just because they want Nice things.

If mental health, costs...and everything else weren't an issue why would someone have a baby and put them into a nursery allndsy and everyday so mum can have a high end kitchen?

I'm specifically thinking of a particular lady at NCT. We had to go around in a group and she said she has to work , and the lady sort of looked sorry for her , probably thinking in most people "I have to work" meaning we literally can't pay the bills!

When I said I was having some time out the nvt lady said I was very lucky.

Maybe I'm projecting here but it was rather galling! I was not lusting after a new tap or a new kitchen or expensive hair cuts!

We had to massively sacrifice lots of things and changed our way of life.

I'm working now and those couple of years went in an absolute blip.
Two years is a long time in the life of a baby to toddler.
But for the parent two year's ish is absolutely nothing.

Did it jump out at you because you failed to read the rest of @DashboardConfessional's post properly? Or is your gross misrepresentation of what she wrote deliberately?

You're right, of course. When we have dc, it's not about what they bring to our lives but it's about what we can give to them. Which is why many working parents choose to have dc despite not having all hours in the day to enjoy their company... because they feel that they have can give the child a good and happy life. Same as most SAHP, I imagine.

Sorry, x post. I see that you have acknowledged your error. It's quite telling, though, that you jumped to that conclusion so easily.

@francesfrankenfurter well your in luck as it is rarely funded due to various loopholes created to take choice away for parents. There are 'options' as you say but most of them are the same and not suitable for some children (nd) there is obviously Sen schools but again they are often unsuitable or oversubscribed. There's behavioural units but they are only suitable for children with behaviour issues. You may believe the working class get a choice in where they send their children. That's not the case the la decides the fate of your child's education and hopefully your in the same page.

Im Just quite aware that people can have this selfish attitude and not ever think,what's best for the child.

There are so many variables and sometimes...what's best for the child is to be paid care.

But it concerns me that putting babies into care is becoming the norm, and that's because as forest says maybe it's just because they want Nice things.

I don't know a single parent - wohp or sahp - who doesn't constantly think about what's best for their child. Of course, abusive and neglectful parents do exist, but they are a small minority and not limited to either the wohp or sahp camps.

I also don't know anyone with children who works simply so that they can have "nice things". I don't think there would necessarily be anything wrong with that if they did, but it really isn't a common thought process. I do know parents who work bloody hard so that they can give their children "nice things" and more importantly, good opportunities. I know parents who work because they feel that it provides a particular type of role model for their kids. I know parents who work because they feel they it's important for their mental health. And I know parents who work because they love what they do and they feel that it's worth doing. I honestly don't know anyone who goes to work simply for the sake of a shiny new kitchen, though I can see why it might be easier to present it in those terms than to explain the real reasons why. But even so, if they want a new kitchen, why shouldn't they work for it? As long as their child is happy and well cared for, then what's the problem with that?

A few years ago I would say pre-2000 it was typically a case of mum went to work after the children started school and his money paid the bills, her money paid for the luxuries however I think we can all agree that dynamic is well and truly gone and now it’s a case of the both work to pay the bills.

@RainCoffeeBook fuck me you have no idea. next you will be saying we all have the same 24 hours 🙄

In my life I have -

Worked 80 hour weeks over 7 days but no children

Ran a business with 2 young children whilst studying for a degree but I had a gardener and cleaner

Worked in social services with 3 children

Been a sahm to a disabled child whilst caring for my elderly parents and support my grandfather through end of life.

They were all challenging in different ways. When people talk about sahp and wp it's a generalisation. Nobody knows how hard it is for other people unless you have the full picture. Children, job role, mental health, financial status, disability, caring responsibilities , support network can all make a difference in how easy or hard your life is. It's so sad to read all this judgment. Women should be building each other up not attacking and judging one another.

But for the parent two year's ish is absolutely nothing.

My career wouldn't have survived a two year absence.

If mental health, costs...and everything else weren't an issue why would someone have a baby and put them into a nursery allndsy and everyday so mum can have a high end kitchen?

So mum can have a high end kitchen?! Jeez this place gets worse!

If mental health, costs...and everything else weren't an issue why would someone have a baby and put them into a nursery allndsy and everyday so mum can have a high end kitchen?

That last line is so very, very telling. The kitchen seen as a entirely the woman's domain, to the point a kitchen in a family home is only for 'mum'. How depressingly sexist.

As is the whole 'women work for luxuries' narrative .....

To be fair @wellhelloitsme and @brookstar despite earning six figures in the 80s.and again now at over 60, I am a trained cordon bleu cook and the kitchen is mine, all mine and I chuffing well love it; I designed it and it cost slightly more than DH's wanky sports car. He paid.for both. I enjoy driving his wanky car and he likes what comes out of my kitchen. He is not allowed to bugger about in my kitchen because he gets in the way.

So true.

Mind you, I'm surprised that some of these posters even acknowledge that WOHMs might have an interest in kitchens, and that they don't assume that we get someone else to feed our children instead! Don't we apparently outsource all that kind of thing?!

One thing that always occurs to me reading these type of threads is how representative of the mumsnet demographic they are - not meant condescendingly.

There's often a kind of assumption that a woman will have to sacrifice a career if she relies on a man, and would've otherwise likely been independently successful. However, this is only really the case if you were a career minded person in the first place.

ForestFae you strike me as incredibly naive how old are your DCs ? I am gurssing late preschool/ early school age ?
Come back to me when they are 12+

The eldest is 7. Why am I naive, because I home ed? Because my husband and I strongly believe in nurture based parenting with principles of attachment parenting? That’s a weird attitude. It’s fine if you disagree with me or raise your kids differently, but I don’t think I’m naive because my views on child rearing and education aren’t currently mainstream.

I'm amazed how much men benefit logistically from marriage....

Is this a reverse?

I work with lots of families who choose this type of lifestyle. It is incredibly difficult to deliver any semblance of a secondary curriculum in your
cirumstances. Re- intergration in to mainstream school doesn't really work after yr4 or so. There is very robust evidence that adolescents need to spend time away from their family and with their peer group. Very difficult if the rest of the peer group is at school. Then there's your children's work ethic and self efficacy again very difficult to nuture in the permissive attachment parenting set up you have.

In pre industrial times adults (particularly male ones) would have hunted. Adolescent males have an awful lot of testoterone which achools are expert in managing and channeling- but of course you have thought about that. Basically word searchs and picking berries is lovely with 4-11 year olds. Much harder to make it work later on.

This is missing the point .....