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 completely agree about child maintenance and abuse. But nobody should be pressured to marry against their will.

It was a small point in regard to some of the posts ie being kicked out of home after years with nothing. I thought it was a general chat and not confined to the UK. I find it interesting to hear about other countries.

I am well past child bearing age.

You want your children to have all the protections of marriage without going through the ceremony of marriage. However, what about people who've made a conscious decision to live together and not marry? Very common with people who've already been divorced or widowed or ended a long-term relationship and who have assets that they want to hand on to the children of the earlier relationship, not to a new partner and his/her family.

Much clearer to have a simple system where everybody knows the legal and financial difference it makes to be married and everyone makes a conscious choice for themselves, looking at their own circumstances and their family's, whether to marry or not.

Well considering on mumsnet I have been told Im awful for not 'combining finances' and for having my own home instead of living together both of which are seemingly deemed nessacary to be in a 'proper' relationship is depressing.

'Well he not REALLY your DP if you don't even live together'
'well, I like MY DP so its not 'my' house its 'our' house'
'Why would you have kids with a man and not combine everything, your being taken advantage of' (only if I was expecting to freeload off him).

Heard all this shit on here... My house is mine, My money is mine and I am happily secure while I have watched other friends/family combine and lose EVERYTHING.

I dont need DH money at all to survive and if we split we both can easily keep all our own seperate stuff (pretty much zero need for a judge to decide anything as we have clearly kept everything seperate).

It in no way means we don't love each other or arent a 'real' couple or Im being taken advantage of (we split bill equally so he pays gas and water from his account and I pay electric and phone/internet from mine etc... but I could go back to affording it without him if needed as I have saving unlike fincially irrsponsible DH) like people try to insist here.

I'm just wise enough to be financially independent of him and his debt and have control over my own money and house (2 things I need to provide for myself and kid should anything ever happen).

Unlike several of my friends who went 'all in' and lost EVERYTHING (some even lost custody of their kids because they where homeless post split) I'm not going to become homeless and broke if we split.

People like to think the more the combine the more legitimate and 'in love' they are annd until that mindset changes women will be marched naively to the financial slaughter again and again.

The only women I've ever met who could carry on their careers had so much back up, family help, maybe a partner who didn't have to work in the school holidays ( teacher etc) or parents who practically brought up the grandkids for them. I know that this isn't always the case , but they certainly had a lot of help
The ones who have nobody often end up staying home as it's so hard or just too expensive whilst they are babies

Nice victim blaming. Yes let's train the women to manipulate more effectively in a system designed for and by men.

Perhaps a universal basic income, childcare and carer's allowance, and plentiful social housing might help more than savvy finance tips.

@BadLad the thing is with the Australian system it's not an opt in or out scenario. There's no grey area where you maybe have rights like the fabled common law in England. After 2 years you just do, or if you have a child in that relationship.

As for cocklodgers, yes people do need to be careful though over here what you come into a relationship is your own. It's what is accrued when you are together that makes up the asset division. Obviously this can be house price increase, savings etc. It's also, like England, divided into short, medium and long relationships for the purpose of financial settlement. Again, it's not difficult to understand. Friend's kids in high school know about this and the implications it's known and understood.

There is no such thing as common law marriage in the UK. Just a lot of mis understanding.

Every woman in my workplace uses childcare. I live in London so most people are not originally from London. We aren't particularly higher paid though its possible their spouses are.

I'm amazed by the number of women on here that are the lower earner in their relationship and so it's "not worth" the woman working when they have children.

I earn more than my husband; I don't discuss finances with friends but going by job titles, they must earn equal to or more than their partners.

I am from a very working class background and my parents prioritised education. My mum worked fulltime so it never occurred to me that I wouldn't also work fulltime.

We don't have any family help with the children day to day. We have always had to pay for childcare and there were a few years where it was more than our mortgage. Throughout all that we've never had a conversation about one of us giving up work.

I like the Oz system. In NZ though aren't divorce laws really tough. Only know as a colleagues friend was persuaded to emigrate there and when they arrived her DH divorced her after a very short time, as it was hugely advantageous to do so there. Also, as their kids were then PR there she couldn't leave with them and come home. He was a brit too. Had actually researched it. The tosser.

I don’t think you should have to go through any sort of ceremony to get those rights. An appointment with a solicitor should be enough, sign a form that gives you those rights, in a solicitors office if you want to. Don’t if you don’t want to. And get married if you want to.

I didn't have a fantastic job, I had no family help and my DH had a perfectly ordinary job where he worked 9-5, not a teacher etc. It can be done but it is hard work.

Fine, but the post of yours that I originally quoted started with this:

One major difference in UK is that marriage/cohabitation laws need updating.

That’s what I’ve had in mind. I don’t want the UK laws changed to be the same as the law in Australia. I’m all for making people better aware of the current laws or stricter enforcement of child maintenance.**

@Ginmonkeyagain that's precisely why I put fabled. It's also why it would be simpler to have legislation that protects both parties after a certain amount of time. People would be free to marry, or not, purely based on their beliefs rather that for any sort of legal protection.

Well, there’s no grey area like that in England either. Common law wife doesn’t exist. The solution is to make people aware that it doesn’t exist. After you get married or into a civil partnership, you just do have rights. And you still have the option to live together with a partner long term without those rights being imposed on you.

Goodness me! Ok, you disagree. That's what a conversation is, an exchange of opinions and ideas.

Well, exactly. People always say on here that if you're the higher earner and a woman, not to get married, but surely that works both ways - why would higher earning men want to get married? It sounds extreme but I think working towards the abolition of marriage would be a better thing to aim for, and replace it with education for everyone to look after their own financial wellbeing, free childcare, and campaigns around men cutting their working hours and taking on as much parenting as women are expected to do.

Also, I'm not sure how marriage is a protection if there are no assets involved. What if you don't own a house or have savings? And surely being married wouldn't stop an abuser withholding money day-to-day.

I just find it incredible how many people don't know what marriage legally entails, or don't prioritise their financial independence as much as they are able. I don't think any of this was expressly taught to me but I never considered that I wouldn't be funding my own life. There are a lot of different elements involved though from education to society to culture to class to patriarchy. Things would all have to work in conjunction for any meaningful change.

@BadLad I think the idea of imposed is interesting. It's a different way of looking at relationships and what they mean.

I agree with our Australian law, living with someone for 2 years demonstrates commitment and a moral responsibility to each other. If you don't want that with that person by 2 years then it's time to have a conversation and move on or out. I don't see why marriage should be at the top of the relationship hierarchy for rights, laws should be secular. There's civil partnerships now which is better but as you said people are still confused and it is the most vulnerable that are suffering. I don't think keeping marriage/civil partnerships as the gold standard and the only way to achieve rights helps this.

Not sure I like the co-habitarion 3 year rule in New Zealand (if it is as simplistic as 3 years and you get "rights". What about relationships where 1 party sells their own place (may give the proceeds to e.g. their grown up children) moves in with new partner then after 3 years wants a share of their partners place as well......

If I may selectively quote you

If you don't want that with that person by 2 years then it's time to have a conversation and move on or out.

This is where we disagree. I don’t for the life of me see why you should have to move out just because the state has set some arbitrary limit on how long your relationship can remain the way you want it. I’m much happier with our UK laws which let people decide for themselves how long they want to live together without commitment.

I’m not necessarily arguing for marriage in its current form as the only way. Call it something else, cut all connections from religion, make it free to do, whatever. As long as it’s something that people actively choose to do, not passively drift into to use a PP’s phrase.

I think it may risk confusion if people here of rules elsewhere. Also how exactly is the 2 year or 3 year rule proven 🤔 what is acceptable evidence. I think weddings are getting ridiculous. The emphasis of it being a simple contract offering protection should be key.

I'm a single mother with no financial help from my ex and absolutely no family backup whatsoever (parents both deceased, siblings live hundreds of miles away). Whatever childcare I've had I've always had to pay for.

It absolutely is possible if you want to make it work. But you have to be prepared to pay for childcare. A lot of people don't want to do this because of the cost (which is high) but you have to realise that running at a short-term loss will pay dividends in the end because you protect your long-term earnings. You have to look at the big picture. It's not all about what's easier today.

People always say on here that if you're the higher earner and a woman, not to get married, but surely that works both ways - why would higher earning men want to get married? It sounds extreme but I think working towards the abolition of marriage would be a better thing to aim for, and replace it with education for everyone to look after their own financial wellbeing, free childcare, and campaigns around men cutting their working hours and taking on as much parenting as women are expected to do.

Absolutely. Higher earning men don't want to get married (in my experience men very rarely want to get married at all, its almost always women who drive this).

And as more women become financially independent they won't want to get married either.

Marriage is an anachronism. It's worth using tactically to protect yourself from periods of low income but its absolutely not a solution for your long term financial wellbeing. For either sex.