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'm in that minority. I was royally screwed over in the worst way.

I would strongly advise against merging assets no matter how long you are together. Anything my children inherit will be ring fenced for them alone.

We married because we wanted to order our affairs in the event that something happened to one of us. My mother died unexpectedly and at a young age. This brought it home to me how very difficult it would be for us both if one of us were to fall ill. I'd be at the behest of the abusive father I'd been estranged from for the entirety of my adult life. DH's family are not remotely interested in him and are extremely grasping and mercenary, as he sadly discovered when my FiL died. If something happened to him, there's always the possibility they would try to get their paws on his assets, despite the possible effect on our child. (My own father is also now dead).

It's impossible to imagine that, if you're facing the hardest situation of your entire life, such a scenario could be made even more painful. But it could. On both sides we would have been left in an even worse position should the unthinkable happen. We wouldn't even be able to register each other's deaths.

I'm entirely financially independent and never hankered after marriage. Until the death of my mother the above hadn't really occurred to me, or if it had, I hadn't thought about it particularly seriously.

It's a serious legal covenant: it's not all about hearts and flowers.

I think people know their own priorities. Others' situations will vary, and their own concerns might be entirely different from mine. The important thing is to make an informed choice.

I’ve always earned more than DH, sometimes a little more, sometimes 10x more, currently 3x more. I married him because we were planning to have children & I wanted him to have the security I knew I would want in his position (as the lower earner, he took a step back in his career to be there for the kids).

I we were to divorce, I’d happily give him half - we built this together, and I couldn’t have had the career I have without his support.

I will never remarry, however, because what I’ve built is for me, DH and our kids - no way would I risk someone else getting their hands on it.

I’ve told DH that if I pre-decease him then I’m happy for him to move on, but I’d like him not to marry so no one can take what we’ve built for ourselves & the kids. Happy for him to share his wealth & be good to a new partner, but not to lose half his assets on divorce.

I am not divorced, and I am the higher earner, and I still think you sound pretty ridicuous claiming that in the event of divorce your husband will honour your verbal agreement. There would be no divorce lawyers if it were that simple.

People cannot be assumed to behave themselves when partnerships end. This applies whether you're married or not.

I actually agree with your comment, and to the other one (yes I did read the rest of the thread), but in here, it is the minority. As I stated, men typically DO earn more (for whatever reason, I'm not getting into that)... and yet the overwhelming majority of posts outside of this one will call him a waste of space, a time waster, not serious etc etc if he doesn't want to go married.

A man not wanting to marry is often seen as immature, unreliable, not wanting to commit... but a woman not wanting to is seen as strong, independent, powerful... no? As was stated, both should be able to protect their assets.

My DH became a higher earner than me after the birth of DC (we earned roughly the same before that) but absolutely benefits from being married, and he would be the first to admit that. Essentially, being married means we can make decisions that are beneficial for the family unit, rather than me feeling like I have to look out for myself as an individual even if that negatively impacts him or my DC.

For example, if we weren't married I would have gone back to work after 4 months maternity leave (working with Americans that was all I could take really). He would have had to do 50% of the childcare and 50% of the night wakes and household chores and cooking. Instead, I basically do everything except for when he plays with the toddler after dinner. He works long hours and earns enough that he doesn't 'miss' my salary, so that trade off of me not working and him getting a better quality of life was absolutely worth it to him.

From a values perspective, both DH and I preferred the thought of DC being cared for by their DM (or DF) rather than at nursery for the first 2 years. If I was working that wouldn't have been possible but if we weren't married I would have wanted to go back to work to protect myself... So we're both living a life aligned with our values, thanks to being married. I think that counts as a benefit to DH.

Also, he wanted to move to a low tax European country. The amount he saves in tax is the equivalent to a decent UK salary. So, we save the equivalent of one decent salary in tax AND I don't have to work AND my DC is better off (not just because I'm home with DC, but also because it's a lovely place and DC will be bilingual and also living by the coast has fixed their eczema). No way would I have moved to a country where I don't speak the language if I wasn't married because I can't get work here.

Also, we've moved country twice on my DH's request (once to the USA and once to Europe) and in both cases it was 100% easier to get the visa as a married couple. Actually, I definitely wouldn't have been able to live in the USA without being married to him and therefore he wouldn't have moved there and that would have dented his earnings a lot too.

So I do think that higher earners can benefit from marriage, in theory, even if the woman is the higher earner. However, from what I read on MN when the woman is the higher earner and the dad is at home it's usually because he's a grifter and he doesn't do anything around the house and normally demands that the kids are in nursery too... and then the woman gets screwed in the divorce.. so it's a very individual decision I suppose.

I very rarely see someone being told their partner is a time waster or immature if they are clear from the beginning that they don’t want to get married.

i don’t want to get married. I earn almost 4 times what he does. He knows marriage has never been an option. I would be wasting his time and being immature if I wasn’t clear.

The other thing is that men often are quite happy for the women to take the majority of the responsibility for the house and children, impacting her own career whilst not offering and financial protection but keeping the women hanging on with ‘I will propose’ or ‘yeah I do want to get married’.

If me and dp were having kids, absolutely no way would I expect him to take a hit to his own earnings without providing him with financial protection. It would be an awful thing to do to let him take that hit without making it clear that I was never marrying him.

Like it or not, in the vast majority of cases there is a difference between men and women when you look at this situation.

That said, I have a girl and a boy and both have been told the same when it comes to marriage. They have both had the exact same advice.

I'm one of these women. I'm both the higher earner and come from money (as in my inheritance tax bill will be several million). I am also happily married with kids. I guess every situation is different, but I never hesitated, we don't have a prenup, and I assume if we get divorced our assets will be divided in half. Hope I chose a good one (so far all signs point to yes)!

The other thing is that men often are quite happy for the women to take the majority of the responsibility for the house and children, impacting her own career whilst not offering and financial protection

This. Marriage is advocated when a woman comes here to post that she is or is about to become a SAHM/work very part time, so she can facilitate DHs career and he can earn the money. Quite logical to point out that in such cases, being unmarried, she is not taking the load for house and kids in exchange of 'family' money, but all money he earns is solely his.

Don’t put up with men who don’t do their share of the domestic chores then. No one forces anyone to scale back their career after children or marry feckless tossers who can’t pick their pants off the floor.

No. Tbh, I really love being married and the sort of commitment it means that we have to each other and the life we have built.

This is true.

I'm also interested in the claim upthread that "divorce = 'bitter'".

How do they know?

Some women end up a sight happier after divorce than before, my sensible mum being a prime example. Nor was she remotedly interested in finding a new partner.

Would the same observations be made about a male? Or is it still assumed in some quarters that the sole measure of a woman's worth is her ability to get and keep a man?

There are other advantages/ implications than just money though. E.g. inheritance, automatically being next of kin in medical situations, etc. These things can be resolved in other ways too, but can be complicated and people don't. Divorce is not the only eventuality in a marriage!

@Caprisunny @G5000

So I don't spread out the post :)
True, but do you think this would be the case if the woman earned three times what the man does? I've observed (don't quote me!) That when men earn more, the woman stays at home (if they can afford to as this makes sense!), if they earn equal, then it's a coin flip of childcare or the woman staying at home (maybe due to them getting more maternity leave and having bonded more?)... but it's very rare that women earn more because statistically, women do not marry men that earn less... or if they do, the man doesn't earn pennies, he at least earns a respectable amount (say 60k to the woman's 100k).

If as you're saying, you're encouraging people not to marry (or perhaps have a prenup), if they are financially superior, then surely that is encouraging most men (who generally earn more) not to get married?
@G5000 what you said is true, but conversely, how many women would support a stay at home dad?

No one forces anyone to scale back their career after children or marry feckless tossers who can’t pick their pants off the floor.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. My point was that if a couple, both parners together, decide that for their family it is best that one earns all/most of the money and the other deals with majority of domestic tasks, then without marriage, those words about joint money and assets mean squat all in case of divorce.
So when we decided that DH will be SAHD when DC1 was small, it also would have bee silly of him to do that without marriage.

I'd say even with marriage you are still in quite a vulnerable financial position.

yes but you made out that nobody had said it, when in fact it seems to me (I haven't counted, so sue me) to actually be the opinion of the majority of posters.

I'm getting divorced and it was the worst decision I made financially- I'll be worse off than before. I earned a lot more and had far more equity in the house.

There is no legal definition of next of kin in medical situation - there is the concept of Nearest Relative under the Mental Health Act - but your next of kin can be anyone - it doesn't necessarily have to be your husband. It may be assumed that it is, but it's not a legal right they are given by virtue of the fact that you are married to them.

It does confer inheritance rights, but the next of kin situation is not the same.

@Brefugee fair point :)

crossed psots C1N1C. Yes, I was happy to support SAHD, I would think many women would really if both partners felt that's the best option for their family.

but it's very rare that women earn more because statistically - ah that's interesting as women in their 20s now earn more than men. The gap appears when children come along. There are plenty of women who earn more or same but still decide to take the main carer role. Why, is another discussion.

but as we know from the relationships board, this often only manifests itself once the woman has made herself vulnerable by having children and stopping paid outside work.

And it is multiplied exponentially (as is the hurt) when the long term "saving for a huge wedding/house deposit" turns round after 5, 10, 15 years and says "yeah, not marrying you ever" or just keeps saying "yeah, still saving" and the woman goes along with it.

I hate blunt instruments but they are sometimes needed: Marry me or we're over (and mean it) if you're planning a family, preferably before you fall pregnant.

It might not be legally, but my understanding is that hospitals will generally recognise spouses/ civil partners as next of kin, but not necessary cohabiting partners.

Next of kin is also really important in what happens on death - not just for inheritance. They can be sorted in a will but many people don't.