Controversial marriage question

[wedding12341]

Thinking about another thread on here where someone has moved in and had children with their fiancé who has now changed his mind about getting married. Someone on the thread said it is just a small minority of women that are disadvantaged by marriage.

Eg - the woman brings more assets / money to the marriage than the man.

Based on the above

If you were one of these women in the minority (or your friend / daughter was) - Would you advise them not to get married?

I understand that you may have some doubts, but there are longitudinal studies that support my statements. These studies show that two-thirds of individuals are affected by age 12, and 9 out of 10 are affected by the age of 20.
It's often argued that cohabitation can be just as beneficial for children as marriage, but there are many who believe that marriage provides the best environment for raising kids. This viewpoint is widely accepted as common knowledge.
Dp and I have both been through a divorce. We are able to minimize the negative impact by focusing on our family and utilizing our wealth. In the past, divorce was seen as a way to gain freedom during the '60s-'70s, but the long-term effects on society were not fully understood at the time.

You need to dig a little deeper.

Sorry to hear that. I'm under no illusion that people change, circumstances change. But, as it stands, we're nearly 30 years strong. He's my best friend.

I don't tend to give advice out so probably would say nothing. However, I (f) am the higher earner (always have been) and have more assets. We are not married. We've been together nearly 30 years and have children in their twenties.

I dont want my DDs to marry a man with less money than them. Neither do I want them to have children without being married. Or marry a lazy man.They're hard workers and save money well. Women should marry their equal

They know why - we are close so we chat about these things.
I know too many horror stories - women who were 'wife without the ring' then dumped after DCs and years together. & I had friends during the dating/marrying years who married for love/it's not about how much money he has/we split everything.. then they're on your phone after 10pm at night crying about their man who's tightfisted, or always broke etc. Far too many women out there lie to themselves for the sake of a man, and also to impress other women. Whilst their quality of life has gone to shit.

DP has more money than me. I have my own money so dont particularly need his. But it's nice that it's there, and he isn't a mean man. Im not mean with him either. We have a nice life together. I was married previously, still friends with ExH after divorce but lack of money killed our marriage stone dead. He didnt maximise his earning potential. I shouldn't have married him, all it did was make me broke and I had to work very hard to recoup. I relax now.

Life isnt a fairytale book.

I wouldn't say it's condescending at all. It's not true for all - but it totally is true for some. I know many couples who've cut ties in the first instance rather than have a difficult conversation.

Jesus Fucking Christ. What a way to bring up your children.

Some incredibly talented, very hard working people work in lower paid careers. Academics for example get paid fuck all. Is that not good enough for you?

What if for example you have a male MP vs a female investment banker. Is that not ok either?

Lots of very happy relationships exist where the man earns less than the woman. Does not mean they aren’t doing something worthwhile and working very hard.

🙄🙄🙄

So it’s not condescending because you know some people who did chose divorce (despite it being a long and difficult process) over having a converstaion. Which is funny because divorce involved lots of conversations.

Good job I repeatedly said ‘vast majority’ and similar all the way along. So I stand by what I said. The vast majority of people do not divorce on a whim. Divorce rates aren’t high, because people just fancy a change.

Its absolutely condescending to make blanket statements about how your marriage (of around 2/3 years) will last so you didn’t need to protect your assets, simply because those who do divorce just haven’t tried hard enough.

Just like when the same poster tried to explain to another poster that she must have been partially responsible for her husband cheating. Condescending and twatish

I would say that you're focussing on the wrong things though. Want them not to marry an arsehole. Money isn't a gaurantee of anything. Make them learn about behaviour and treatment of them. Teach them not to be dependent on any man. If you do those things, your daughters can walk away if whatever reason they need to. Sometimes (not saying you in particular) people get very hung up on men being evil when they're generally not. But a woman (or a man) should always, always! have the means to support themselves independently.

Like, as an example, my da was loaded. He beat up my mum so we had multiple police calls/visits. He wouldn't feed us. My H is poor. He does everything for me and our daughter. Money really is not everything at all. There is so much more to it.

Exactly. My dad comes from a very frugal background, and my mum was from much a wealthier family and also had a great job when they married (although my dad was always highly intelligent and hard-working).

Throughout their marriage, my dad made a lot of money and then lost it all and went bankrupt; then started afresh and got back on his feet. My mum and her family always stood by him throughout, but honestly I have never met a more amazing man, husband and father than him. He is the type of man who would do (and has done) absolutely ANYTHING for my mum and his kids/grandkids. I have never met a better man. I feel so lucky that he is my dad and my mum is incredibly lucky to have him and after 45 years of marriage and all the financial ups and downs, they are still best friends.

Don't just focus on money.

I have recently advised a friend with a baby with a guy not to get married, as she has a house and a business and he has debts and no job. If they get married it would count as the family home and he could have some rights to it despite paying nothing towards it.

Nb he's not a stay at home dad
Doign childcare. She does most of that too. He's someone who is trying to start a start up and bringing in no money for months.

That is so lovely to read! It is the absolute opposite to my experience. But i know, if dad was still alive, he wouldn't have been anything like yours. It's so great to read about a good man, who stands up. Your dad sounds like him!

But I suppose it's I'll share everything with you while your my husband. Not if you run off with a younger woman one day and
Expect me to buy you both a home
To live in...

I agree

I guess if you met a man with similar assets and situation that you did want to build a life with into old age, you might want to buy one bigger or better house together and you'd want to avoid inheritance tax if one of you dies

@wedding12341 re the comment about the financially richer man being mean for not marrying the woman..: that is because what generally happens is that the woman has dropped a career to support her dp in every way with running the house hold and child care. It's not often the case that men do this for women- have all their laundry done holier cleaned dinner cooked etc. the men are usually working a bit but just not earning much and the higher earning woman is paying for childcare and doing lots of the childcare in spare time. So it's not mean to not marry a man in your scenario as 1. He is still usually following his career and 2. The woman's success and money has usually not only been made possible due to free domestic labour from her dp

This reply can't be to me.

-I clearly said 'some not all' - so not sure why you'll still referring to the 'vast majority'.
-I didn't specifically say people 'chose divorce' over having a difficult conversation. I said 'cut ties', by which I meant 'left the marital home' without any warning.
-I've been married 18 years (together for 28). Not sure where 2/3 has come from.

We split everything 50-50 whether it's mine or his because we love each other. It's not about money, it about building a life and partnership together.

My marriage ended, and I owned a flat when we got married, but I didn't care that everything was divided 50/50 when we separated. I was also the higher earner for much of our relationship. I never looked at it as a "what we each brought" scenario - we were a team, it didn't work out, that's life. Actually, it doesn't matter whether you are married or not where I live so it would have been a 50/50 split anyway. Considering the financial implications when embarking on a life-sharing partnership somehow seems distasteful to me.

Entirely fair point.

With that in mind would you agree to not entering into a marriage as the better off partner ?

Yes the reply was to you.

The comment you said wasn’t condescending was condescending. That comment was made by someone who has been married 2/3 years. Because that’s the comment we are talking about.

If you aren’t talking about divorce then I don’t get your point at all. Because I was specifically referencing a comment about divorce. And if they live in the martial home and leave to cut ties, the inevitable step is divorce.

It’s condescending to say ‘I just know I won’t get divorced. Me and my husband will work on our marriage. People just give up to easily and we won’t’. That poster might have well finished off with ‘we are just built different’

That same poster then went on to tell someone how they were partially to blame for their husband cheating. They were condescending and quite cruel.

If a woman has substantially more than the person she is marrying then yes, I would think she is stupid to get married.