To be horrified at the number of women financially vulnerable

[Mammalamb]

Every time I’ve been on mn recently, there is yet another thread about a woman being financially abused : used by her “d” p.

do we need some sort of financial literacy or something for young women? Do we need some more help around self esteem for women to stop them putting up with this shit?

personally, I think if you’re going to be having kids or living together, then get married. Appreciate not everyone wants marriage. But if you don’t, make sure you are financially protected

I can see all sorts of issues with having an Australian system, probably because I have worked as a a homeless officer and having to unpick what happened ,when,where and by whom is often more difficult. Sign a rental agreement and one party just leaves? Then what? Have a child together but never live in the same home? Have a sexual relationship, but one party doesn't want to take it further? Don't have joint finances in that both have own accounts ? ( We never had a joint account despite being married) . Separate and get back together? How does that work? The fact is that marriage has a record, you could look up when my late husband and I were married and see the marriage ended by his death . Just as other marriages might end by divorce, there is no argument when the marriage started and ended. And how do the parties indicate that there is no longer a de facto relationship ? Marriage is ,first and foremost, a legal contract. If people don't believe that , I'm not going to argue ,but it does provide a record of what the situation actually is.

With respect, I think you've misunderstood this. No one is saying that a woman is to be blamed because an unscrupulous man seeks to take advantage of her.

What some of us are saying is that there are a few relatively simple shifts in mindset and the way girls are educated which, combined with more progressive government policy towards childcare, would go a fair way to protect women against this kind of abuse.

There will always be unscrupulous men who target women for their money or target them to become an unpaid domestic helpmeet. And as long as women fall in love with men that will continue to be a risk. And it isn't something which only happens to women of a particular demographic.

But what you can do is radically shift the way women emerge from these situations by giving them some financial education.

My ex husband essentially tried to financially abuse me. After we were married he decided he couldn't be bothered to work as hard and progressively did less and less while expecting me to both pay and do more and more (in terms of domestic work, childcare, life admin). I went through some unpleasant years when the penny dropped, my marriage imploded and eventually I kicked him out. But I was lucky that I was working FT and that we had not combined finances because I never lost income and it was relatively straightforward for me to extricate myself and to continue supporting myself after he moved out. If I'd given up a well-paid job to look after children I would have been royally shafted.

The key difference is work. I have always worked and I never had the expectation that someone else would pay my way. Having a job didn't stop me from being targeted by an unscrupulous man, it just meant that I was free to take myself out of a toxic situation and carry on.

That's the critical difference. You can't guarantee a man won't try to abuse your love or goodwill. But you can make sure that if that happens, you have the means to support yourself.

Can I ask how people are defining financial independence? I work full time, earn a decent (above average) wage, have about 7k in savings in my name only, and I’d still be utterly fucked if DH disappeared and contributed nothing. I wouldn’t be able to pay the rent and bills and feed both children in the area we live in. If it happened the other way round, DH would just about manage, but it would be very tight. I thought most families relied on 2 incomes to make ends meet these days?

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen it can be proved without the contractual agreements eg rental agreement, mortgage contract. Here's the wording of the Act: A de facto relationship is defined in Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 19755_. The law requires that you and your former partner, who may be of the same or opposite sex, had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. However, your relationship is not a de facto relationship if you were legally married to one another or if you are related by family.
Again even without the contracts it's pretty easy to prove as banks, work places, phone contracts etc have addresses on file. I actually didn't realise that it's been recognised since 1975 though! The emotion and sexual promise is implied through the living together, it's about recognising a genuine relationship and ensuring that there's security and equality in it and if the couple break up. It does make you consider carefully who you want to live with.

You wouldn't be "utterly fucked" though. You'd be in a traumatic and difficult situation, you would probably have to move to a smaller, cheaper place and work harder and it would be an upsetting upheaval. Not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but manageable because you have a job and the means of getting another, better paid job. And savings and (hopefully) a pension.

You would be "utterly fucked" if you'd not worked for 20 years and had nothing on your CV and didn't manage your own bank account.

Nothing will prevent the dissolution of a relationship being an awful event. But working is the difference between it being an awful event and one that trips you into abject poverty.

And you need to stop generalising.

@loislovesstewie we have the same things happening to people and they are covered in the guidelines that were posted above. I've just learnt myself that it's been recognised since 1975 so it's not a new thing that we're just muddling through. You don't need to do all those things- if you live together for 2 years in a sexual relationship you are in a defacto relationship.

You leave it by doing a settlement just as you would a marriage as it is a legally recognised relationship, you could just do it through a cheap family relationship centre (about $40 and get a certificate) if that is what you agree or it could be a six figure court case. Your relationship would be noted on tax returns and for Centrelink if you had any payment or child care subsidies. Again it really isn't difficult to work, it's just a different way of thinking about relationships.

I don't think they are, on the whole. Extremely wealthy men probably are, because they will have heard colleagues and friends moaning about being taken to the cleaners if they get divorced. Most people aren't wealthy, though. It's just that if you drift along without getting married/entering into a CP and then split up, it's usually beneficial to the higher earner, and that's generally the father, not the mother.

Lots of people don't want to think about the worst happening. This is why so many don't make wills, even though that leaves their affairs in a mess when they die and risks disinheriting some of their loved ones.

Nobody wants to contemplate their partner dying young, but unfortunately it does occasionally happen. It's a sensible precaution to take the time to think through how each partner would be placed if they did find themselves widowed, and then to look at anything they can do to avoid the worst consequences.

Clearly I'm against it as it just adds another layer , in the same way that the well-meaning civil partnerships did. Instead of reforming civil marriage so that people could have a quick 10-minute civil ceremony or,if they want it something longer and more personal, we started civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Then others complained because opposite sex couples could not have a civil partnership, so we have that too now.Sometimes well-meaning people don't get things right. For interest what happens if one party wants out, but the other doesn't?

Oh and @loislovesstewie and @Allthegoodnamesarechosen if you do not live together you could still get married. Marriage certainly isn't obsolete. You just have to pay a bit more for the divorce but and the wedding bit!

You could still prove residence at the same address, through things such as driver's licences. Reciepts for things like building works. It's not perfect, but it makes the utter exploration in the other thread much harder to get away with.

I wish someone had told me at 21 that giving up my job to be a SAHM and being financially reliant on DH would be the fucking misery that it was.

But I feel more strongly that men need to be taught from an early age that financially supporting the woman who gives birth to their DC is a moral obligation. And that society needs to start shunning those who don't do so. Men get away with far too much shitty behaviour IMO.

Did anyone else see the couple who were planning to have children, and the woman presented a massive binder of things to decide/commitments to make especially around finances? He was scandalised, I was cheering her on for thinking this through!

The only reason I could tell my cheating ex to take a hike, is that I, by the skin of my teeth, maintained my career - albeit freelance, sometimes part time etc. but I kept working, kept bringing in money, and stayed employable because of it.

It was bloody hard work, because he was a lazy, self-absorbed git who left everything to me - from childcare to home maintenance (so his career soared), but I did it, and I'm grateful every day that I did.

We need to steer our daughters away from disney endings, towards practical steps to protecting themselves - and keeping your job, being employable, is the number one way to do that.

Marriage doesn't offer sufficient protection. There is no way round being financially independent, be that with an inheritance, a job, money from property... Get married if you want to, but don't assume it will keep you safe if you split up.

@uffu, well you don't have to pay a fortune to get married. A quick register office ceremony and 2 witnesses is about as cheap as chips. ( about 46 quid for the registrar)

But what I don't understand about that is why wouldn't you just get married if you want the full protections? Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract that covers those eventualities. Getting that contract isn't expensive or onerous.

My partner and I live together and are not married. This is a decision we have made fully aware of the facts. There are various circumstances that mean marriage is not right for us at this time. So we have crated our own "marriage-lite" by picking and putting in place the legal protections that are important and relevant to us right now - wills, deed of trust, names on the deeds of the mortgage, nominations for DiS benefits and pension pay outs). That all cost us a couple of days of time and about £500 in legal fees.

This works for us as we are both healthy adults able to work full time and do not have children together.

We have created a situation that works for us.

What I think would be good is:

• greater information about the lack of protections unmarried couples have and what steps you might want to take to protect yourself in a relationship. Perhaps tailored to different circumstances - eg buying property, illness, having children, claiming benefits.

• better access to advice and standard legal products that people can use to protect themselves - wills, deeds of trust etc..

• better understanding that marriage/civil partnership, when it comes down to it is a legal contract and what that means. If you want a party/religious ceremony/public declaration of love - you can do that any time and in any way you wish. But marriage is a legal contract that gives you both rights and responsibilities Nothing more, nothing less.

@loislovesstewie exactly the same as what happens if one person wants out of a relationship (married or not) anywhere else in the world. I think that's a simplistic and a bit myopic way of looking at it. Defacto means that an Australian can live with a Brit in London in a relationship for 2 years then that Brit can move to Australia on a defacto visa and work etc over here. It doesn't just cover break ups etc but visas and ultimately citizenship. It is far from another 'level'.

I agree there have been a lot of very sad threads recently where the woman has been completely screwed over.

I think there is a discrepancy in society though, we tell kids that men and women need to get jobs to be financially independent, and relationships should be equal so both contributing to bills etc. I think most couples now believe this is the best model for a relationship. Which is all completely fair. Until kids come along.

This model does not work when kids are involved, unless both parties sacrifice their earning potential to the same extent (both pay proportionately for childcare, both try and reduce their hours at work or change jobs to more flexible roles etc).

Covid and home schooling etc showed that the majority of people believe that women should still be responsible for childcare. But it's not possible for women to take on their partners share of childcare as well as their own, while still contributing as much proportionately as they did pre-kids.

Women put up with it though as no one advised them to have these discussions pre children, they don't want to be labelled a money grabbing gold digger, and so many men (and women going by these threads) think this is the natural order of things and shouldn't be challenged.

So although I agree, I think it needs to be part of a wider discussion about what a partnership is, different ways of contributing, and the hidden costs of having children and how that should be shared.

I also think if you're going to get married you need to sign something to say you've discussed things like will you have kids and how finances should be shared (although that doesnt help those that choose not to)

@loislovesstewie why would I want to when I have full legal protection as a defacto partner without paying? I'm not hypothesising, I'm in Australia and in a defacto relationship. Why would I want a $100 marriage?

@uffu, I'm talking about the dividing up of assets etc? I'm actually trying to be practical about it, believe it or not. Which is why we got married; to be practical. It wasn't to give me the opportunity to wear a fancy dress ( I didn't ) . It was for purely practical reasons . So, no name on deeds of house but married = rights. Married and have kids together, those kids have rights . Married and one party dies the survivor has rights. As I said , my DH died recently and life was easier just because we were married, I didn't have to prove being next of kin for example.I think we shall have to agree to differ, but I base lots of my opinions on my experience of working in the public sector.

Financial independence these days is not so easy with lowish wages and high housing costs. I know every woman on MN is a high flying exec earning big bucks with an equally important DH. Where are the hairdressers, nursery nurses, delivery drivers..

The point of it I think is that it precisely does impose the (financial) obligations of marriage on people who in the UK might drift into the vulnerable positions the OP is bemoaning. It has pros and cons of course, as any system, but in fact I feel it has helped make people more congnisant of their decisions re living together.

So why do you care about needing to get married to get rights?

Living together as a couple in the UK does create some obligations, as anyone who has tried to claim income based benefits would attest to.

I think there has to be a review of the situation in the UK as it is a mess any many people have little understanding of their rights and responsibilities (or lack of).

However, like some others I am wary of creating defacto rights and obligations just by virtue of living together.

I don't think we can rely on schools. There has to be proper, all fronts public information campaigning - TV, radio, papers, internet ads.
Surprised TBH MN isn't leading a campaign to get this done.

Posters in countries where some sort of rights kick in after et living together for a certain number of years - how well is that working? What's your take?