Can a married woman be independent?

[Smartish]

AIBU or is DH?

DH was saying how he likes to look after me financially. He feels good knowing he gives me money to buy clothes and things I like. The thing is, I work FT, earning pretty much an equal salary. All of our money goes into a joint account and we each take an equal amount for our own discretionary spends. I buy all of my things from this money. I pointed this out and said I’m independent (I meant it to mean that financially, I am self sufficient and pay my way). He’s taken it to mean that I consider myself single, that I don’t need him etc…

So, AIBU? Once married, are women no longer independent?

It’s not weird to share finances. Joint account and equal spending money is how most married couples do it.

A married person is not independent by definition.

But this doesn’t mean your DH isn’t a sexist idiot in saying what he says about finances.

I think people are jumping on this a bit, and using it to proclaim how ‘modern’ and ‘ self reliant’ they themselves are….not terribly helpful to the OP

Ive been with the same man, single and married , since Methuselah was a boy. Sometimes I earned more than him, sometimes he earned more than me. We have a joint account, and single accounts, but now it’s all so enmeshed that it’s hard to say whose is whose.

however, DP still likes to ‘give me a present’ even if he pays for it on the joint cc ( which I think I am the main signatory for). I do the same, I say in Tesco oh get some Bombay Sapphire instead of Gordon’s , I ll treat you…. Of course it goes through the till with everything else.

Perhaps OP’ chap just wants to feel that he is giving her something, contributing to her welfare, because he loves her ; gracious acceptance could be a strategy.

Pythagoras said that in true love ‘ there is no yours or mine between us’.

He could mean it in a sexist way as you seem to describe.

Otherwise he could mean it in a team-work sense. I think when you are married you choose to be interdependent - you choose to share and share alike. I like to know I can provide for my husband and I’m sure he likes to know he can provide for me. I don’t think it’s unreasonable from that perspective and I think I would feel a little stung if my husband said he was totally independent from me because that goes against how we have connected the practical and emotional aspects of our marriage (ie. we both contribute and it’s all simultaneously “ours” and “each other’s”).

It's a very old-fashioned view point, but one some men do really like it that way I suppose. Doesn't really mesh with now-times though...

Entering into the marriage contract automatically means that you are not independent but in certain key legal and financial matters are part of a contracted partnership.

No one who is married, man or woman, married to man or woman, is legally and financially independent: that’s the whole point.

And each partner has a duty to support the other.

Lovely of him to be pleased that he is in a financial partnership with you, enjoying sharing his and your incomes to make each other happy.

Very paternalistic of him to assume that he ‘looks after you’ financially when clearly it is a joint and mutual support that you are able to provide for each other.

DH and I have separate finances. We both have a salary paid into our own bank account then transfer an equal amount into a joint account to pay bills. It works because we earn about the same. If dh died I could manage financially on my own. The mortgage is finally paid off. I'd be better off because a mortgage on a btl would be paid off and I'd receive death in service and half his pension for life from one pension and two thirds of his other pension for life. Emotionally I'd be a mess and so sad. Emotionally we have a very strong connection and get on really well. DH is my best friend as well as my lover. I'd miss his support of me and encouraging me to stretch myself. I'd miss just chatting together and laughing together and all the stuff we do together.
If I want to buy something or buy something extravagant or give a generous gift to my sister or niece I just do it I don't ask DH. I might tell him but I might not.

He just doesn't understand what being independent means. The opposite is dependent. You aren't dependent on him because you contribute equally, in this case financially, but it could be in kind. You can still be independent when you get married, you don't became dependent on the other person, you just stop being single.

If your earnings are pretty even, then he is deluded.

If you want to continue the relationship, every time he mentions 'looking after' you, smile , say thank you and I'm pleased to do the same for you' and notice how he reacts.

When someone shows you who he is, believe them.

I'd be judging him. W*nker.

I think you are talking about obligations rather than independence. It's not the same. You have an obligation to the person that you have married. Independence means that you are not controlled by another, nobody has authority over you. In a good marriage, that is absolutely true.

I don’t know whether it’s an ego thing?

When I’ve earned more than DH and I’ve for example bought a handbag, I’ve always instinctively said that DH bought it for me. He feels good and I am happy that I have the bag.
In reality, we’ve both contributed probably equally to the bag but I suppose without his half I wouldn’t have the bag.
DH also does the same whether he earns more or less, if he says he needs a new sweater for example, I’ll buy it from joint money (he hates shopping)and he will say that I bought it for him.

I am not sure why we are like this but it works for us (and has done for many years), I think it’s perhaps just a nod of appreciation that we both contribute to each other having nice things. Perhaps for him it’s an ego thing, you know, treated the missus to this and that 🤷‍♀️🤪

Tell him you too enjoy looking after him financially and giving him money to buy clothes etc. See how that goes?

Either he ups the game significantly to earn 2x the salary so you can sit at home (if you like) and have a socialite lifestyle, or he accepts the reality (and behaves accordingly)

By your description you are financially self sufficient. And your DP is clearly deluded.

Financially independent would imply you had capital and didn’t have to work.

DH is feeling it a bit at the moment. He was the bigger earner for over 20 years and covered a lot of things. I still always earned and it increased but so did his.

This past year, he took a new job in the same area but public sector side rather than private sector so dropped 40%, while I got promoted to that same level. So we now earn identical amounts.

But I am used to budgeting and watching my pennies whereas he has always saved but had plenty to not worry and teen dd is draining him dry.

So I did get raised eyebrows when he saw my relatively new satchel for work papers I had treated myself to. ...after years of liking and longing, current work backpack is over 8 years old, and I needed something to carry in my hand occasionally and to drop over suitcase handles when travelling. And I had saved for it so while it was a bit of a "splurge" purchase when I saw the perfect thing, I don't feel guilty about it as he's had every bit of tech and gadget he wanted over the years. (It probably doesn't help that I am contemplating a new Apple Mac as dd took my old one for school, again something I had saved for a long time to afford, and it's trashed from being hauled in and out for a couple of years but I may be going abroad for a couple of years myself and will need a decent laptop for that).

Neither of you are as independent as you would be if you were both single. If you disagreed on the financial split we’re you to divorce, a court would order how it should be split.

I presume neither of you would make a massive purchase (house, car etc) without consulting the other? Or take off for a months round the world trip?

this doesn’t mean that neither of you have a degree of independence, but you are married, so no, the independence thing is t quite the same as for single people.

This sounds like classic modern man struggling to understand what his purpose is. Some men can’t or won’t grasp that women don’t need them anymore.

Well done for being financially independent OP. Make sure it stays that way.

He sounds needy, creepy and irritating.

There is a lot more to marriage than how finances are split. One PP said they didn’t need their husband financially, practically or emotionally - am I alone in finding that a little bit sad?

A marriage should be about partnership - mutual support, emotionally and practically, as well as financially. You cook the tea and I’ll put the washing on. Tell me about your shitty day, and I’ll tell you about mine. What do we want to do with the house, and how are going to afford it?

There is such a thing as being too dependent on another person, to the extent that you can barely function without them - you do see this with couples who have been so enmeshed with each other that when one dies, the other struggles with everyday things and is intensely lonely. That’s not healthy. But you can go too far the other way, IMO - essentially living separate lives with no overlap apart from sharing a bed.

In healthy relationships, each can have their own opinions and activities while still being a unit which works as a team.

I don't think it's sad, personally.

I don't need my DH either - financially, practically or emotionally. By that, I mean that could cope perfectly well without him, as indeed I had to recently when he had to be overseas for a very extended period.

I choose to be with him though, because our relationship enriches my life in many different ways.

The fact that I don't need him doesn't mean that he adds no value or that we lead separate lives. It just means that he is a positive addition to my life rather than a necessity for me to function.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves
I feel like some of this semantics. The vast vast majority of married people would function in the event of the marriage ending. There may well be some struggle and readjustment at first but eventually every single person I know (man and woman) has gone on to be ok in the end. They may have had to downsize their material assets, change their working patterns, lean on family and friends for emotional support or turned to the state for assistance but they are all ultimately able to cope and function to a large extent. So by this definition, very few people 'need' their partner or spouse to survive.

For most married people though, it makes sense to merge resources (financial, emotional, time, skills etc) to enable a better quality of life for the unit. For example, use both incomes for a mortgage application, share childcare costs and responsibilities, split domestic chores etc. This means that the joint lifestyle you develop is only possible within the marriage and it would be very hard for one person to achieve the same standard of living on their own. So the husband and wife may well 'need' each other to maintain the current lifestyle but equally it doesn't mean that they couldn't be independent if required and create a new, potentially less nice lifestyle that they themselves could resource alone.

Well done for being financially independent OP. Make sure it stays that way

There's a thread running through this post, and this site, that's a sort of massive pride in being totally independent, and the accompanying implication that there is something wrong with women who are not, for whatever reason.

It's a pretty shitty attitude. There's nothing intrinsically better about one or the other.

I'd disagree there. Financial independence is intrinsically better.

Completely relying on someone else financially is risky, not to mention how problematic it is that it is almost always the women who is financially vulnerable.

Not in every situation.

Say you have a child with significant care needs that means one parent has to stay home. They might be financially dependent, trying to retain financial independence would be the worse option. Both my dh and I have been that parent at different times.
We've both also been the partner who was unemployed, economically inactive for personal reasons, and been on parental leave. Both of us have relied on the other to be the one earning money, while earning none

In a fair, equal, mutually interdependent, relationship...financial dependence is just not an issue. There are instances where complete financial independence is actually very bad for one party...you often see here women trying to pay their full half of the mortgage from savings while on maternity leave, to maintain their independence at huge cost to them. That's not intrinsically better than sharing every cent you earn with the person you love and co-parent with.

In the majority of situations.

There will always be some exceptions but even then, still problematic because it is almost always the woman financially relying on the man.

I took 3 months of maternity leave and during that time still paid my fair share which was my choice. It was absolutely the better option to me but then I wouldn’t agree that sharing all of my money is the better option either because other than joint expenses such as mortgage, nursery fees etc we have separate finances and I would never agree to completely joint finances.

I’m fairly independent. Financially I couldn’t afford my house without DH’s salary but we have separate accounts and pay a set amount into a joint account for bills. Socially we usually go out together, I wouldn’t go on holiday or make Christmas plans without his input but we’re not attached at the hip.

Your DH sounds a bit insecure