to wonder if the "Women take you for all you can get" thing is taking a deeper hold than ever?

[PyongyangKipperbang]

Two threads on MN in the last 24 hours about men out and out lying about bonuses or income. I have noticed a marked increase in this in recent months.

OK so there have always been men who will do this. Sadly financial abuse, selfishness and "whats mine is mine, whats yours is ours" has always happened but I cant help thinking that in recent years it has got worse. More men refusing to give the mother of their kids any sort of financial protection with marriage, shared home ownership or finances, etc yet slagging off a woman if she then in turn does the same.

My main hobby is playing poker, which is male dominated and there is one guy who I had quite a big row with when he said that his partner (refused to get married so he wouldnt "get taken to the cleaners") wouldnt share her significant inheritance with him and bought her own property with it because he wouldnt put her on the deeds of the home they live in (and that she has contributed to). Wouldnt see the double standard at all. He said that women have always done this so he was protecting himself, I said that its only because he wont give her anything that she has had to use her money to secure her future.

Has the "Andrew Tate" effect gone far further than is immediately obvious?

I suspect it's simply that for most marriages, the husband is the higher earner, often because even when the wife earns similar amounts, it's the wife's career and earning potential that takes a hit when kids come along. Marriages rarely break up amicably, and there is often resentment on both sides - the higher earner at having to lose assets/income and the lower earning/SAHP who is now upset that the "agreement" of "you stay home and care for the kids/home, and I'll make sure that you are looked after financially" is broken.

Here on MN, a higher earning woman is urged by about half the posts "don't get married, he will be entitled to take your hard earned cash/a share of your house", yet it's viewed as a dreadful thing when a man does that.

If there were equal amounts of high earning women or the positions were reversed, I bet there would be a female equivalent of AT, sadly, because we are humans with all the failings and imperfections that result.

I’ve also seen a few threads recently around older women and the men that are looking for a “nurse with a purse”. I suppose that’s the later in life equivalent. These women seem to be resisting marriage anyway because it’s not in their best interests financially. It’s just that the tables have turned.

I’m always surprised by the number of posters who bang on about how women should educate themselves that common law marriage doesn’t exist. When the men they are trying to marry who are resisting seem to know their rights perfectly well. Surely both had access to the same education. People hear what they want to hear, whether that’s Andrew Tate or the ticking of their biological clock.

"More men refusing to give the mother of their kids any sort of financial protection with marriage, shared home ownership or finances, etc yet slagging off a woman if she then in turn does the same."

So exactly the same advice women on here with greater assets are given before cohabiting, buying a shares property or marrying

Tate does have a lot to do with it - I heard a stat that over half of young people didn't realise you can be raped within a marriage. I realised that it was actually Eastenders in the late 90s (?) that really bought it to the fore. I haven't watched that for years but those shows don't appear to be tackling societal topics any more, or maybe everyone's viewing is so fragmented with the internet it has little impact.

However I think this idea women take stems from child maintenance. It was a complete shock to me how few fathers do actually pay for maintenance for their children once things go sour. Gingerbread when I had DC showed that over two thirds of parents left with children (98% mums) had zero maintenance. Those figures have changed, but as someone who was pushed out by what became the CSM - they said I couldn't get my maintenance unless I did face to face mediation with my ex who was aggressive - I don't believe the figures have changed much, merely they've cut out a lot of women who weren't willing to endanger themselves for a pittance. Men magically go self employed when they don't want to pay for their kids and earnings drop considerably. Bosses allow them to hide money and far too many people pay cash in hand without considering they're taking food out of a child's mouth. It's always been there in a large section of society, but if you're lucky enough not to have had a relationship breakdown with kids and maintenance woes, it's been quite well hidden.

Who ends up with the kids and sacrificing their career though? I've not ever met a man who has been considerably put out by looking after his kids that he can't continue to work. There's a reason women will still need financial input from a man if they separate.

Yes, I agree OP. But I don't think it's new, men have always been sneery about women being gold diggers.

What I am seeing lately is more male outrage that women won't date them because they seem aghast that women dare to have preferences - eg how dare she want a tall man, how dare she want a man who is financially secure etc

Its unbelievable considering that men have never apologised for their own preferences eg I want a younger woman, I want a woman with blonde hair and large breasts, I want a slim woman who looks after herself, I want a woman who is into kinky stuff etc

Why is it ok for them to have preferences but women arent? There seems to be a growing anger amongst men that now women are earning more they don't need to settle for second best like maybe they did in the 70s or 80s.

The irony is depressing. They're angry that women are now earning more and can be more selective but they are also angry and worried women will take their money. We cant win. Sometimes I feel like men just really hate us.

Women need self protection of their assets more than men, especially if children are involved. In the majority of cases, whatever the woman’s position financially/asset wise, she will be the primary carer of the children post separation. As for ‘taking men to the cleaners’, when children are involved then the man’s income is no longer fully his own - he chose to have children and therefore has to consider what they need before his own wants. The idea that the mother of his children is ‘taking him to the cleaners’ is a false fallacy. The reality is a woman has to secure a future for their children, there seems to be this excuse when parents separate that it must be somehow the woman’s fault and therefore fully her responsibility to provide for children despite having lost earning and career opportunities to support the family unit.

Interesting username by the way.

i think sadly patriarchal society has settled into something of a nadir where (some) men expect all the benefits of a housewife but without taking any financial responsibility for that. Women are positioned as ‘bad’ in this narrative whether they actually benefit financially or not.

It’s pretty pervasive and does shape how all of us consider things. Especially when considering divorce settlements.

Indeed, after divorce there is an increasingly prevalent phenomenon where men basically seek out women to provide nanny/housekeeping services and provide financially - by providing them (and their children) with a house and paying a disproportionate share of the household expenses (and possibly all expenses for any shared children). This pattern often features an ex who was a SAHM and a divorce settlement that reflected this. Somehow the new partner is convinced that she must prove herself better than that by being both financial provider and doing the household duties too.

As he gets older the nanny/housekeeper with a purse starts to become the nurse with a purse. Yet somehow, everyone seems to focus on the dreadful motivations of the woman here (she’s just after his children’s inheritance, you know) rather than the man and his massive sense of entitlement without responsibility.

I think the issue is when partners don't agree on working patterns. Say they agree that the woman will stay home until youngest start primary and will then go back full time but then decides to only work a few hours or not at all or a 3rd baby comes about etc... and the man becomes 100% financially responsible against his wishes and what eas originally agreed.

Some women do look for men to look after them fully financially and really don't want to work, ever if possible but that comes in the open later in a relationship.

Of course it's a minority, but it does frighten some men, understandably.

I sort of agree, what’s good for the goose and all that. However friends of ours divorced. The wife was the higher earner. Dh took her the the cleaners. My dh made a point about this being equality and was quite insistent about it. Until I asked him to consider which party had the kids. Obviously they were with the dw because the dh was busy with ow. He also refused to pay maintenance (he decided he didn’t need to work and could live off his hefty payout) so the wife was left struggling to support them alone and continue to pay school fees etc. Imo this is not fair or equal and not what would have happened the other way round.

I remember a man (of all people (said he was anyway)) talking about this on here. He said in a relationship/marriage it starts out all 50/50, then they have a baby. Women takes time out of work/cuts hours (understandably) and they struggles to keep up the 50/50. And as far as he was concerned, shouldn't be expected to.

I agree being rigid on 50/50 isn’t a great approach and you ideally want flexibility and generosity in a relationship but the below to me is just ridiculous

“If a man expects a woman to buy her own fucking drink but is still, let's face it, hopeful for her to put out at some point soon, then he's the one gaining.”

It seems to buy into the idea that sex is being traded for some material gain within relationships. Why is only he gaining if they eventually have a physical relationship? Surely that’s something you should both be enjoying.

I feel like who buys first drink isn’t the point but not being prepared to take turns is a bit much. I’d be unimpressed as well if someone got themselves a lime & soda and then asked me to get a double G&T (edited for a really weird predictive text correction)

Another factor in all of this is people marrying later. They're not starting out together as young dreamers with nothing anymore. They're marrying later when one (or other) might have significant assets that might even have been inherited, so potentially, a lot to lose financially.

Unbelievable!! Where do these people come from?

I got rid of one potential cocklodger, but you seem to have hit the motherlode of horrors. I don't even date people who don't own their own home now because of these horrors.

Meh. Let them whine about it.

Zero sympathy for some old rich bloke who marries a much younger woman and then she takes him for everything he's got.

There has to be some decent compensation for sleeping with ole saggy balls.

Older men especially are utterly delusional about their own attractiveness to younger women and it blows my mind. Do they really think they are such a prize?- most of them look like the crypt keeper.

If they really want someone who is also financially independent who won't take them to the cleaners then they should marry someone nearer their own age who has had the time/ability/career to build up their own finances. But they never do that do they? Funny that.

I'll always remember a work colleague who referred to her dad's wife as "that other woman who stole our inheritance" when he died. Everyone in the office was listening intently and siding with her over this bitch who ruined her life.

I asked how long her dad and her stepmother had been together. 26 years. This "evil woman" had spent a quarter of a century with her husband, had single-handedly nursed him (my colleague admitted that her and her siblings did nothing as they'd all moved away-fair enough), and had been by his side as a devoted wife until the very end.

When he died, her stepchildren (who were all in their 50s/60s so not dependents) started circling around her and were awful to her because their dad had chosen to make his wife the sole beneficiary of his estate. So they had been expecting this woman to lose her husband, her home (main asset) and her lifestyle all in one go, and painted her out to be a gold-digger who brought nothing into the marriage and took everything when her husband died.

26 years of love and devotion and a woman still gets called a gold-digger.

Well he could have left something to his children!

Unfortunately far more relationships and marriages break down these days. I guess men have noticed this and are more wary. It's sad.

But why should he? My money is mine and it's my decision who I leave it to.

And even if he should have done, why were they blaming her? Why not blame their dad? Oh I forgot-women are responsible for men's actions

This is my experience too with a couple of exceptions. When I hear about men paying for everything I'm left wondering where all these incredibly generous men are because it's certainly not been my experience.

I always used to pay for first dates only to find that the man had either not offered or insisted because they were happy to take advantage of my generosity and would have continued to do so if I'd let them. I'm not interesting in dating or relationships now but it really did make me wonder if the "gold digger" was a bit if a myth.

Ditto men justifying not doing daily domestic chores because they do the "manly' DIY and garden maintenance. I own more power tools than most of the men I've had relationships with and have only met one man who could put a shelf up without a support team.

I was brought up to always be self-sufficient and never, ever make myself financially dependent on anyone else (be it a partner, family/friends or the State).

It doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman - make your own money and look after yourself. Women need to learn to be more selfish.

Even marriage won’t save you - after divorce, women have no access to an ex-husband’s salary (which they helped him achieve by abandoning their career to raise his children) and are left to fend for themselves once kids are adults and CMS stops with hugely reduced earning potential. You see it time and time again. I honestly don’t know why women do this to themselves. Baffling.

I've said YABU because women are also choosing this. Nobody is forcing women to have children with men they aren't married to. And finances are a conversation to have before you live together to see if your outlooks and ideals align. I get that things change and shift, but rarely to a huge extent.

I think its a bit double standards too as if a woman posts in here saying she has assets, is the bigger earner, has a large inheritance etc she is pretty expressly warned not to marry. So I think it goes both ways.

However, if you choose to keep the assets you've acquired safe from claim of a partner you are also choosing to have no claim to theirs.

Is this an Andrew Tate thing as I thought he was someone who argued that you do pay for stuff as in somehow that gives him a say over the women. Or do you men, general disrespect.

Most marriages that fail do so because the husband is an absolute feckless moron at best and an abusive twat at worst, and women realise they don’t have to put up with that anymore. Men don’t like the fact that women are wising up to this shite so are desperately trying to regain some power/control with all this whinging and moaning about how hard done by they are.

The simple solution is for men to be better and take responsibility for the children they helped create. The other solution is for men to stop projecting their sperm into women to create kids they don’t really want, or are ambivalent towards, and then whining when the woman expects them to contribute to parenting them. If a man doesn’t actively really want kids they shouldn’t just go along with it. They should leave the relationship.

I think its a bit double standards too as if a woman posts in here saying she has assets, is the bigger earner, has a large inheritance etc she is pretty expressly warned not to marry. So I think it goes both ways.

This advice is given because, in the long term,women are nearly always worse of in the event of a divorce when their are children involved. The data shows they rarely recover financially but men do.

After divorce women are still usually the main carer for children, it's much harder to juggle childcare and advancing a career to increase earnings. You can't work late or travel for work for example and it's very difficult to work full time, run a household, care for children and study to gain additional qualifications. It's much easier for men with an EOW arrangement to do those things. I've seen this three times with men I've been in relationships with and they still have the cheek to call the mothers of their children lazy and complain about the little they do do wrt to raising their children.