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?

@Giveover80 no it's not the same in a relationship where there will or could be children. Women usually 'lose' a lot more in this instance - a year's maternity and then it's nearly always the woman who goes part time when the child is born. That harms her career growth and earnings potential in the long run. Men's careers are not harmed by having children, in-fact research shows it often benefits.

But I should add, in a scenario where there won't be children, for example if they are past childbearing age, my opinion would be the same - a rich man would also be very stupid to marry someone with a lot less.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/

• But if she was much wealthier than partner

Then taking maternity leave unlikely to change that*

Yes but I'm talking about the other scenario (wealthy man and not wealthy woman). She would be taking time out of work, going part time, harming career growth etc while he stays rich. Then if the relationship goes tits up in a few years, he swans off with all his wealth still intact while she nurtured the family and her earning potential is harmed as a result.

It’s not that clear cut is it? A man is usually high earning because it is still the societal norm for him to hold a career with no breaks. Having children (and this includes pregnancy) has little real term implications on how he is seen a function member of an economic society. He is unlikely to be turned over for promotions and in interviews. Women of child baring age (even if they choose not to have children) will be prejudiced because there is always the assumption they will ‘eventually want to settle down’, a prospective employer will always look for the most financially secure option in hiring.

Marriage for women in many circumstances is security for their own lives, and for any children produced from the relationship. It is not comparable the other way around because circumstances and reality dictates that legally men are far less likely to face a great loss of income or will struggle to have one in comparison to women of child baring/having age. Children who in most cases will have the mother as their primary caregiver and will need greater assets to reflect this.

When society truly moves away from ‘father brings in the money, mother does the caring’ idealisms then we can ask ‘is divorce fair on men’ more.

• let me take a punt

you have ZERO experience of divorcing in this country in the above scenario you outline*

Eh?

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.

I have a friend who had two children with a very wealthy man. They never married. She wanted to, he said there is no need, he will look after her. They don't need marriage. After kids She didn't work, she stayed at home to look after the kids - he said it's best this way due to childcare costs. She was in her mid-20s and her previous salary would only have just about covered childcare costs.

So she stopped work when the first child was born. When child started primary school, they had their second child. When the second child started primary, she had been out of work for 10 years.

A couple of years later, he decided the relationship wasn't what he wanted anymore. Actually, he had found another woman.

The house was in his name, she had to move out with the kids and find somewhere to rent. He paid child maintenance of course until the youngest was 18, but she found it hard to find work after the gap and only having a few years experience under her belt pre-kids. She could only get hired for minimum wage jobs.

If they had been married she would have been entitled to a share of the house.

If they had been married she would have been entitled to a share of the house.

If she hadn't given up her job she'd have been financially independent.

Thanks all for the input - been an interesting insight with no clear persuasion either way I'd say.

I'm sure if it were a man rather than a woman perspective there would be more of a general consensus but appreciate it may not be considers as apples and apples for comparison.

Overall I think the legal protection for marriage is a good reason for it - inheritance tax also.

All her money would have been on childcare costs, he refused to pay towards it as he thought it was pointless for her to work.

And anyway, do you not think she was entitled to a share of what was effectively the family home, seeing as she nurtured and took 10+ years out of her life for THEIR children, while he just carried on his life as usual?

All her money would have been on childcare costs, he refused to pay towards it as he thought it was pointless for her to work.

Maybe it would. But the issue here is that this is misogynist if not abusive from the outset.

Not so much - 'should she have married' but more 'should she have reproduced with this particular specimen?'

And if she hadn't given up her work then she'd have had ongoing financial security.

And anyway, do you not think she was entitled to a share of what was effectively the family home, seeing as she nurtured and took 10+ years out of her life for THEIR children, while he just carried on his life as usual?

What on Earth made you think I didn't think she was entitled to this?

When I married I was in a far better financial position to my now husband. I owned a property, I earned more money, I had significant savings where he had none. I was definitely bring more financial input to the "all that I have, I share with you" aspect of our marriage!

I didn't hesitate to get married. Our joint plan for the future was together, and that meant all assets becoming joint.

Having said that, the assets remained in my name and under my control - they're really only joint in name (ie if we were to separate or if I was to die).

Since my marriage, things have worked out most as we thought they would. I retained my fairly high-earning career, but also became "default parent" because I wanted to be at every nativity play, take maximum leave, take days off when they're ill etc. this has enabled my husband to focus on his career and he has gone from earning 3/5ths of my salary to earning 2x my salary.

So I guess because my marriage is still strong, marriage was the right thing for me despite me holding all the money on the way in. Our marriage has benefited (and continues to benefit) from my initial assets, but we also benefit from my husbands higher salary.

Whether or not I'd recommend someone else in my position to marry depends on the intended partner. What is his attitude to work? What is his financial potential and will he put the work in to reach it? What is his attitude to "her" money? Are day-to-day spending habits aligned between them (and if not, who is the spender?!)? How old are they (if I was in the better financial position and beyond the "building a family" years then I think I'd want to keep separate finances because there's no reason not to!)?

Marriage is a bit of a leap of faith.

in a very comfortable position thanks to child and spousal maintenance. a secent ex though

So your ex pays voluntarily way more than he would be legally required? That's of course very decent of him. But you know spousal maintenance is very rare nowadays, there are billions in child maintenance owed in the UK and half of single-parent families live below the poverty line. So still a risky business to give up your career and keep fingers crossed that your dh will also be a decent ex.

With respect, you don't know everybody's situation. Nor do you know everything about divorce.

I know at least three couples who have officially separated and live apart but are still married, so divorce isn't 'inevitable'. One woman I know just upped an left a few years back and she and her (still) husband have never had an actual conversation. That's what I'm talking about.

I don't agree with 'victim blaming' but, as we know, there are always two sides to every story.

She’s responsible for her own choices. She chose to have children with a man she wasn’t married to, and she chose to make herself financially dependent on him.

DiL has always been the higher earner and for much of their marriage DS has been a SAHF. She didn’t need someone who could earn a lot of money. she could do that herself. What she needed was someone who was warm, loving and caring and that was my son. She put down the deposit for their first home and he insisted on having a legal document drawn up that said if they split up she should get her money back. He has twice given up a career to look after the family. They have a very strong marriage and I find it so sad that people have put money before marriage. DH and I met when we were very young and had nothing so everything we have accrued through work has been shared.

Why does it make you sad?

Marriage is a legal and financial agreement. Some people don’t want it.

What is it about marriage that you hold so dear, that you think it people should risk their financial futures on it. Why do feel people should prioritise marriage?

Your son signed an agreement she gets her deposit back. In reality that will mean very little if they have a long marriage. He would still get half the equity. Which would outweigh her deposit.

and let’s not pretend that situation is the norm. It’s not the norm for men to be a sahd and actually take on the vast majority care for the kids, including all the things like doctors and dentists and after school activities. It’s great your son has, but it’s not the norm yet.

Financial stress is one of the main causes of marital breakdown, however warm and loving a marriage may otherwise be. It’s disingenuous to pretend that money doesn’t matter when it absolutely does.

Personally I didn’t date men that weren’t on an equal financial footing to me. That isn’t to say that I put money over kindness, love, companionship et al, as I looked for those things as well. It isn’t the case that love and financial security are binary. If other people want to date/marry someone that isn’t on the same footing as them then that’s totally up to them, but choosing not to is an equally valid choice.

frankly? that should have been a clue for her to a) get back to work asap and b) not have a 2nd child with him, especially with such a huge gap.

And this is why we tell women, constantly repeatedly and as if we are banging our heads against a brick wall until our brains bleed out: marry the father of your children, and secure your future independence/finances as much as you can.