Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Controversial marriage question

385 replies

wedding12341 · 04/08/2023 09:45

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?

OP posts:
G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:25

Then they get half your stuff. Also I can see how some couples get trapped where the dh or dw doesn’t want to return to work and the working spouse isn’t happy about it but it’s not enough to divorce. Then you end up supporting someone when you don’t want to.

They get half the stuff acquired during the marriage, i.e the time they were pulling their weight and they spouse was happy to stay married with them and create marital assets.
If someone says their partner is no longer doing their fair share but they don't want to take any drastic action then that's their choice of course.

DivineLillith · 04/08/2023 15:26

@Hubblebubble No one regardless of gender should marry in those circumstances.

Caprisunny · 04/08/2023 15:27

C1N1C · 04/08/2023 15:08

@Caprisunny Interesting last point there. But isn't that in effect, a dowry? I honestly might not know what I'm on about, but I've always had the impression that was the purpose?

But to turn it around... don't women get the most important 'asset', the children? Custody is invariably largely theirs, they get greater (xernity leave) to spend with kids, and they have the sole right as to their birth in the first place. It is often swung that women suffer because they've given up so much by being SAHM, but I'd actually argue they get the better end of the stick. It's even worse for men marrying into stepdad positions... they could lose half of everything, they bond with a child and then have zero rights if the relationship ends. Women only have a career to lose, men have a whole life...

How is it a dowry?

Marriage is joining yourselves legally and financially. If you want kids and want your partner to take majority care and take a hit to their finances…..why would you not ensure they also have some security? Why would you think it’s ok they take all the financial risk?

Why do women usually ‘get the children’. Because they have, usually, been the ones doing the majority of the care. And usually because the Dads are happy to accept eow. Because they can continue to work and have less responsibility that way. Women don’t just get the children…:cause vagina.

If men don’t want their wives to get majority residency of the kids, they can (during the relationship) again do 50:50 care. They could also be very clear they don’t want their partner to work PT or be a sahp, before children happen. But they don’t want to. And they could and have the career.

I am a single parent with little input from the kids Dad and built my career. So Dads with a partner can definitely make sure they take on their fair share of responsibilities.

Again, the question is why are men having kids, sitting back while their female partner does most of the care and take on most responsibility if they really want to be an equal parent?

What do you mean ‘only a career’? It’s clear you don’t know what you are talking about, because it’s a jumble. Step mothers could also potentially loose our on their step kids. How is it worse for men?

How do men have a whole life to lose and women only have a career? That doesn’t even make sense.

How is it only a career? It’s someones financial future. If it’s only a career and doesn’t mean much, you would have thought more men would be happy to give it up.

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:28

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:25

Then they get half your stuff. Also I can see how some couples get trapped where the dh or dw doesn’t want to return to work and the working spouse isn’t happy about it but it’s not enough to divorce. Then you end up supporting someone when you don’t want to.

They get half the stuff acquired during the marriage, i.e the time they were pulling their weight and they spouse was happy to stay married with them and create marital assets.
If someone says their partner is no longer doing their fair share but they don't want to take any drastic action then that's their choice of course.

They get half the stuff acquired during the marriage, i.e the time they were pulling their weight and they spouse was happy to stay married with them and create marital assets.

This is untrue. Please don't talk nonsense.

Brefugee · 04/08/2023 15:29

C1N1C · 04/08/2023 15:08

@Caprisunny Interesting last point there. But isn't that in effect, a dowry? I honestly might not know what I'm on about, but I've always had the impression that was the purpose?

But to turn it around... don't women get the most important 'asset', the children? Custody is invariably largely theirs, they get greater (xernity leave) to spend with kids, and they have the sole right as to their birth in the first place. It is often swung that women suffer because they've given up so much by being SAHM, but I'd actually argue they get the better end of the stick. It's even worse for men marrying into stepdad positions... they could lose half of everything, they bond with a child and then have zero rights if the relationship ends. Women only have a career to lose, men have a whole life...

they get the kids and all the expense and faff and stress of that. And the best you can hope for is that your divorce will leave you with somewhere to live, at least and that your ex at least pays CM.

Without marriage? good luck with that

for pp who asked if a woman would support a SAHD - sure. I did for 18 months. it was great.

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:30

Custody is invariably largely theirs
If fathers apply for custody, those applications are overwhelmingly successful.

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:30

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:30

Custody is invariably largely theirs
If fathers apply for custody, those applications are overwhelmingly successful.

As the Spartans said to the Greeks.

Brefugee · 04/08/2023 15:32

also ending up with custody of your kids, means jack shit when it comes to claiming your non-existent pension. But yay, you got to juggle DCs sickness, school holidays and all the gubbins.

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:33

As the Spartans said to the Greeks.
Or in this case as the University of Warwick study said.

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:37

What % of men actually bother going to court for a child arrangements order?

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:40

what does it matter what %? If they want to have custody, they go, they win. If they don't bother then that's because they don't want to. Not because 'custody is invariably women's'.

Caprisunny · 04/08/2023 15:40

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:37

What % of men actually bother going to court for a child arrangements order?

Before or after there’s a new girlfriend? 😂

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:42

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:40

what does it matter what %? If they want to have custody, they go, they win. If they don't bother then that's because they don't want to. Not because 'custody is invariably women's'.

Because most men don't bother. That's why it matters.

I can't believe I'm having to explain that tbh.

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:42

Caprisunny · 04/08/2023 15:40

Before or after there’s a new girlfriend? 😂

Show quote history

Now that's a study I'd love to see.

G5000 · 04/08/2023 15:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

greydressinggownofdoom · 04/08/2023 15:55

Evil women?

What like the ones that end up getting very little post divorce, who haven't built their careers coz they had a husband who wanted them at home, who then went and had an affair and the kids didn't suit his new life so he never bothered his arse going for any sort of formal arrangement but just wanted to be able to turn up and take the kids whenever suited him? Those sort of women?

Coyoacan · 04/08/2023 15:58

I thought the days when mothers automatically got "custody" of the kids were long over. That used to be one of the benefits of being a woman.

But children usually do stilll end up being the responsability of the mother, which is one good argument for not the woman not marrying if she has more assets or a higher income.

There is equality and then there is fairness. We are not equal. Men don't get pregnant and cannot breastfeed. It makes a hell of a difference. Men, in general, find it quite easy to walk away from their children, whereas it is very unusual and highly criticised for a mother to do so.

TedMullins · 04/08/2023 16:01

C1N1C · 04/08/2023 14:21

@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?

it may be true that women don’t tend to marry men who earn less in general but personally I like being the higher earner the the security it gives me. No one can financially screw me over and I know I could afford the same lifestyle alone. I also think if a woman wants to be a SAHM she should, if the tables were turned, be hypothetically prepared to support a SAHD.

Ohmygiddyauntie · 04/08/2023 16:05

Caprisunny · 04/08/2023 14:54

I am not encouraging people not to marry.

I am encouraging people to understand what it means legally and financially. Then make a choice.

I encourage people who have kids, give up their career (or take a step back from it) without marriage to really look at the risk. Then make their own decision.

If men also don’t want to marry on the back of the advice, good for them. They shouldn’t marry. But simply don’t expect your female partner to give up work, or go part time or damage their careers. These men need to be prepared to fully be 50:50 when it comes to the kids. Staying off for Sick days, using AL for school holidays m, obtaining a job with flexible working to do pick ups/drop offs. And also 50% of the house work.
Also do not hint that you do want to be married. Be clear. You don’t want marriage and be clear before moving in and having kids.

As I said before you can’t compare the situation for men and women as exactly the same. Because women usually take more of a career hit. That’s why women are often encouraged to get married, on Mn at least.

It appears you seem to think women should be prepared to take the financial hit but also not expect to be married? And to be happy about it.

You asked why it was ok to encourage women who have assets and/or wealth to not marry but to say men who don’t are immature or time wasters. It’s been explained to again and again why. But here it’s clear, because when it comes to raising children women are expected to take a financial hit. if you expect your partner to take a financial hit raise your joint children, you should give them some security.

The question you should be asking is why so many men are happy to have kids and see their partners take a financial hit, but don’t want to ensure the woman they love has some security.

Show quote history

It's unlikely that the average salary of £36000 will make anyone wealthy. One common problem in families is the struggle between pursuing a career and raising children, which can create conflicts of interest. Combining incomes equitably can provide more security for both parties. However, the concept of financial security is not always reliable, as demonstrated by the significant income loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it's wise to plan for financial stability, it's unrealistic to expect a smooth journey throughout a lengthy marriage.

whumpthereitis · 04/08/2023 16:18

Plenty of women give up work not because their partner wants them to, but because they want to. Even if a partner wants them to though, that doesn’t mean they have to acquiesce.

If it’s important for someone to have the protections offered by marriage - it’s their responsibility to not make decisions that put them at a disadvantage.

AlltheFs · 04/08/2023 16:20

I’m the main earner by a considerable margin and provided all the equity for our home.

If only people that contributed equally financially could get married there would be very few weddings.

onlylovecanhurtlikethis · 04/08/2023 16:21

I'm the much higher earner. I was very careful to protect a lot of assets which has stood me in good stead having recently got divorced. I wouldn't advise against marriage but very much be practical and hope for the best plan for the worst

That being said I would never recommend marrying a man (or anyone for that matter) who doesn't have similar ambitions (or if you are my ex - have no ambitions and happy for someone else to take the stress of being the main earner)

LolaSmiles · 04/08/2023 16:22

Marriage is a legal arrangement and one that both people should make an informed decision about either way.

There are pros and cons of marriage for everyone. I'd advise everyone to look at their circumstances, their plans as individuals and couples, and make the decisions that works for their relationship.

The problem is that often people drift into situations that are strongly disadvantage them (eg giving up employment for long periods of time, losing pension contributions living in unmarried partner's house, paying towards properties they're not on the deeds for, throwing money into properties they have no claim on etc).

rhino12345 · 04/08/2023 16:29

Of all my close female friends (off the top of my head, 10) only one is married. The other 9, plus myself, are either the higher earner, or have substantially more assets than their male partner. They won't be getting married as they'd be at a financial disadvantage to do so.

Chickenkeev · 04/08/2023 16:40

onlylovecanhurtlikethis · 04/08/2023 16:21

I'm the much higher earner. I was very careful to protect a lot of assets which has stood me in good stead having recently got divorced. I wouldn't advise against marriage but very much be practical and hope for the best plan for the worst

That being said I would never recommend marrying a man (or anyone for that matter) who doesn't have similar ambitions (or if you are my ex - have no ambitions and happy for someone else to take the stress of being the main earner)

I get the point of what you're saying, but sometimes it's not an option for someone to all of a sudden be on a great salary. Qualifications/ age etc all come in to it. I'm definitely all for people protecting their well earned assets but it's not neccessarily wrong to marry someone who doesn't earn as well as you do. I have a particular interest as i said above, H was the lower earner. But he's paid me back a million times over. Again, this is not always the case, but a relationship should be scrutinised in lots of other terms other than just finances. I really think people should analyse behaviour rather than finances specifically. And included in 'behaviour', what are they like with money?

Swipe left for the next trending thread