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'm surprised the civil partnership hasn't gained more traction. Is it a good compromise between marriage and nothing?

I agree that I would not want the state putting an arbitary limit on when I develop financial responibility towards each other.

My partner and I rented for two years first, our only financial responsibility to each other was to ensure our share of the rent was paid on time.

Ince we biyght a property together we sorted out wills, deeds of trust and death in service benfits. We have taken the decision to ramp up the rights and responsibilities in our relationship at our own pace.

In terms of "a secular alternative" to marriage. In the UK there is that option. The basic civil ceremony is very matter of fact and stripped down. There is no mention of religion, indeed it is forbidden.

The legal bit is no more special or ceremonial that other legal contracts, adding readings, special dresses, guests, food etc... is entirely a personal choice.

My circle are all high earners. They absolutely want to get married. There is a kudos attached to it. But I am talking MC, professionals earning over 100k by 30. All their wives also were HE until.children.

Thepeopleversuswork Me too - to all of it. Single parent, no support, family a long way away. I worked full time beyond maternity leave and always paid for childcare, but I also happened to have a career that could pay enough to scrape by for those difficult pre-school years. So many would not have that advantage. I feel very lucky.

I do think it's a shame in some ways, though. I didn't have children in order to leave them for the majority of week days with underpaid childcare workers. I feel like I missed out on a lot. I would have liked the opportunity to work part time at least to spend those precious years with them. Ideally, fathers should do this as a matter of course too. I absolutely understand why people choose to risk staying at home. It can feel like a massive slog juggling everything for very little short term financial gain (although it pays off long term)

I think there needs to be a complete rethink about childcare and early years funding. It is crazy that childcare can eat up so much of a salary when it is in the Government's interest to keep people in the work force.

It is also the number 1 cause of pay disparity and pension disparity between men and women.

Those years are so important and we need to properly pay and value those who care for our children. That also would pay dividends for the country later on.

It maddens me that this still mainly falls to women when there must be ways around it. If only it was in men's best interests to solve this problem, we could have done it years ago.

@lifeissweet

I would have liked the opportunity to work part time at least to spend those precious years with them. Ideally, fathers should do this as a matter of course too. I absolutely understand why people choose to risk staying at home. It can feel like a massive slog juggling everything for very little short term financial gain (although it pays off long term)

I understand that too and I would have liked that. But it's too risky for the time spent with young children in early years to be financed purely by one other human being upon whom you are dependent, contingent on how much that person likes/loves/respects you. It's just too risky.

I think this is important enough that the state should pay for this.

But I'm uncomfortable with your second statement around this idea that "we need to properly pay and value those who care for our children". We need to pay them properly, absolutely. We would all benefit from people providing childcare being paid a living wage. But what does "value" them actually mean?

I hear this phrase used all the time on Mumsnet: why does society not "value" the SAHM. The reality is that its no-one's job to "value" someone's decision not to work. It's a neutral judgement into which questions of morality or value shouldn't enter. Some women take time off to look after children, some don't and that's usually a financial calculation. Implying that there's an inherent "value" in doing so is problematic because it tends to imply that we shouldn't "value" those who go out to work. And as many can't stop work, this leads to moral judgement on women with children who choose to work. Which takes us right back to circa 1950. I've been on the receiving end of enough judgement from people who disapprove of the fact that I work FT and have a child as it is, I don't need society to be more explicitly judgemental thank you.

I have no problem with women who can afford to do so choosing to remain at home (although I think they are unwise to depend indefinitely on a man's goodwill to do so). But I don't like the idea that society should ascribe more "value" to women who stay at home than to those who work. I think that's a bit of a slippery backwards slope.

I was actually talking about the professional childcare workers when I was talking about value - by which I meant better training and better pay.

Well I totally agree with you about the need to pay professional childcare workers properly.

You do see the argument about "valuing" the SAHM quite a lot on here, though, and I'm not comfortable with that line of thinking. IT feels a bit like a jibe at working mothers.

Wow what a nasty comment and actually fairly ignorant itself. The reasons people get into abusive situations are varied and complex. They often result from some combination of low self esteem, past trauma, poor modelling of healthy relationships growing up and often the misfortune of happening upon a skilled manipulator. To attribute this all to ignorance and stupidty is massively naive and sounds like you just want to claim some kind of false superiority. (I've never been in an abusive situation myself - I'm married and financially independent so I'm not being defensive at all by the way).

Although the "value" of a SAHM is an arguement in favour of marriage isn't it? In a divorce isn't the non financial contribution a partner has made taken in to account in the settlement eg if a spouse has given up work to care for children or has taken a hit to their earnings to facilitate their spouse's career (eg a trailing spouse)?

I think there's another important education piece on earnings, and financial independence from employers. Because being trapped with a shitty employer is rubbish too.

I saw a woman in a documentary the other day talk about having worked in a role for 20 years because she loved the shop, and her team. But it paid her nowhere near enough to buy a house, have a decent pension etc. She hadn't up skilled in all that time and was struggling to get a new job after the company folded.

You can't be that complacent about your earnings and life plan!

Yeah I get that and I certainly think that the contribution a non working spouse has made to the family should be taken into consideration in the event of a separation. Which is what marriage does.

But people talk as if this is a gold-plated guarantee of financial security. Unless you are divorcing someone fairly wealthy it really isn't. It can mean you walk away with half of next to nothing. Even if there are a lot of assets, dividing them up can take years and be an incredibly painful process with a lot of bitterness and wrangling involved. And many women find they are ultimately left with assets which they can't afford to maintain through their own non-existent earnings so have to sell them anyway.

It's better than being left with nothing but its not great and not a reason to stop working in perpetuity in my view. You're much better off just maintaining your income in the first place.

I don't read it that way. Somebody has to be with a child every minute of every day until that child is old enough to go out/be left at home alone, and it's during that time that the child learns an enormous amount - language, social skills, fine and gross motor skills, all kinds of general knowledge, basics of literacy and numeracy, toilet training, all kinds of things. As a society we don't value* the work of keeping children safe and giving them this early foundation, even though the consequences of not doing it, and not doing it well, are disastrous for all of us, not just the child. Depressingly, I'm sure people who have said it will only be properly valued when men do it, not just women, are right.

*Not just financially - SAHPs and child care workers come pretty low on the social pecking order too.

Personally I think the UK law needs updating or modifying in some way: in many EU countries there are different marital structures, one of which being "separation of assets". This means that anything owned by one party pre-marriage remains their asset in the case of a separation, and anything bought/gained during the marriage is split equally, informed by the presence or absence of children and the lifestyle that a couple jointly shared.

It is also entirely normal in some countries for couples, even married couples, to go to a Notary and sign an agreement about inheritance or any individual-specific sum of money to keep it out of a joint pot.

I am not sure that solicitor's letters, for example, have the same sway in the UK. I do have freinds who have safeguarded specific sums, i.e. "I put ten grand into reonvations and my "half" will therefore be half + ten grand in the event of a sale/separation", but that's a very piecemeal approach to protecting one's investments.

I don't know if it would be possible or even useful, but maybe banks should start asking some questions when agreeing mortgages. Who is contributing what deposit? Is there an agreement beteen parties in place? Will you be joint tenants or tenants in common? Do you know the difference?

I realise this may be entirely useless if couples are in a romantic fog of "we're buying our joint home!" or for anyone who is a victim of financial abuse.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

As a society we don't value* the work of keeping children safe and giving them this early foundation, even though the consequences of not doing it, and not doing it well, are disastrous for all of us, not just the child. Depressingly, I'm sure people who have said it will only be properly valued when men do it, not just women, are right.

I agree with you that this work is important. And I do think ultimately, as you suggest in your post, that the only real long-term solution to this is for men and women to share childcare equally and to structure their work so they can both share the load of earning money and child-rearing. That happens in some marriages/partnerships already and its growing. But its far from routine.

It's a risk benefit analysis isn't it: at the moment for most people the only practical solutions are:

• Woman stops work altogether for a period of time and depends on her husband financially
• Man stops work altogether for a period of time and depends on his wife financially
• Both partners work and pay a professional childcarer to do this

None of these approaches is ideal but for me #3 is the least worst way. I would like for the state to properly subsidise full time childcare for at least a year after giving birth. That's unlikely to happen any time soon.

Professional, trained childcarers often provide as good an early-years education as a parent. Millions of children spend their early years in this setting and go on to thrive. While its depressing and sad for the parents not to be with their small child, there is no evidence whatsoever that this does any long-term damage to children. Until parents routinely split the job of looking after children or proper subsidised childcare is made available universally this is in my view the best option. Because for one person in a couple to become financially dependent for an indefinite period is so risky and damaging that any marginal value to the child in remaining with a parent is eliminated by the long-term risk to the individual who is not working of not being financially independent.

Creating a mythology of "value" around someone sacrificing their economic wellbeing to care for their children is not a road I want to go down. Yes people who don't work and care for their children should be respected and taken care of if their partners abandon them. But the idea that this should be something for parents to aspire to is not in my view healthy for individuals or society.

@holrosea we did something like that when we bought our flat. We got our solicitor to draw up a deed of trust as my partner put in 60% of the purchase price in cash and I paid the remainder with a mortgage and paid the conyancing fees and stamp duty. The agreement was essentially that our initial unequal contributions would be taken into account when agreeing how to apportion the proceedes of the sale if we split.

We will rewrite this soon as the contributions even up as as I pay off more of the mortgage.

IANAL but I think in the UK marriage trumps any pre nups or pre marital agreements, but it might be taken in to account any financial settlement negotiations as a statement of intention.

Lots of families have set ups where both partners are working part time, or one full time and one not at all, or one freelance or whatever. And it works for them because they have pooled their money and it's seen as family income not "mine" and "yours". Whether the two people involved are married or not.

It works for them because they're together in a committed relationship.

It's when it falls apart that the lack of legal protection comes out to rear it's ugly head.

This thread isn't about financial abuse. It's been said again and again.

That's a good thing. If men decide marriage isn't for then based on those things then women know loud and clear that he isn't for them and shouldn't end up having children with him.

Civil partnership is ALMOST ENTIRELY IDENTICAL to marriage in its implications. Iirc the only difference is that you can't sunder it for sexual infidelity (because it started out life as same sex only and nobody wanted to Go There with defining what might or might not count..!)

@Fenella123 which is why I said that the whole thing was a huge cock up. It was a sop to same-sex couples who wanted equality in marriage but gave no thought to how it could be ended really.Also, the stupid gov't didn't stop to think that heterosexual couples would then want civil partnerships, and they hadn't legislated for that.It's why trying to do the right thing often ends up causing more and worse problems.

But it's not just about having an escape fund. It's stuff like:

• don't spend money on a property you have no legal interest in
• being savvy to the 'you're a SAHP so you're can't go in the mortgage or deeds' nonsense, -don't take out loans/credit cards/car finance on behalf of another person unless you are willing to be stuck paying that off if they end the relationship
• childcare is the responsibility of both parents not just mum
• don't give up work and be a SAHP if you aren't married and can't then support yourself if he kicks you out
• don't agree to pay 50% of the costs if you earn 20% of the income
• have a will
• know what accounts you have as a family and where all the money goes. Don't be one of these complacent 'he deals with the money' types.
• If you are living in a house which your partner owns, know what happens if he drops dead tomorrow - can you be kicked out so someone else gets their inheritance
• If you are buying together but not getting married, and you are providing the deposit, buy as joint tenants and have a declaration of trust to protect your investment
• Take the rose tinted love struck glasses off and agree all this shit when you actually still like each other and can be reasonable, it's much harder to do it when you have fallen out!

I would like to hear Australians complaining about the defacto laws - so far they all seem to be broadly positive. Which suggests maybe we should consider it here in the UK - but not before having a good dig to find out what can and does go wrong...

That would be interesting, yes.

I wonder what happens if there are friends who buy together or house share? I mena I shared a flat with the same two friends for 6 years in my twenties. We all had our names on the tenancy and the utility bills. In these situations do you have to explicitly say you are not in a committed relationship to opt out of the protections? If not, what is to stop one partner simply declaring it was a house share to avoid any responsibility when the relationship breaks down?

In my 30s I did a secondment to Melbourne. My peers were all in the early childhood years. Two couples were unmarried but happy enough as they had de facto. It was the first time I had heard of it and they were all pretty positive. Another kiwi couple ( one with british passport) were surprised that they had to marry to get a spousal visa and thought it archaic. However, their wedding, was bloody fun and they are still married and happy 20 years on.

Spousal visa for the UK