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 also think women need to wake up to this behaviour younger - men have told me in the past (20's) they would "provide" for me and the usual sales patter. I don't think women these days are warned about this as a tactic for men to financially control them. I think because we don't now expect a man to be so chivalrous as to pay for the bill and the expectation is 50/50 a lot of young women think they have a catch when a man professes to offer her the world because he "loves her so much" or whatever. Women are quite trusting in my experience, as can be evidenced on how many are shocked when they find other women despite long absences of sex/late nights/money missing etc, and I think men do take advantage of that doe-eyed belief in them then quite enjoy pulling the rug and moving on to the next, often younger, woman and starting the process again.

Well of course she’s warned not to marry because it will be her that ends up taking the financial hit and impact on her life/health of having kids and raising them so she needs something to fall back on and counter that hit. She also needs the reassurance that she will be able to survive after a split because it’ll inevitably be her that ends up caring for the kids rather than the man.

Men don’t have to worry about that because they usually just carry on as usual with no impact on their earnings, health or lifestyle.

It is madness that you are not able to see the difference.

@Meadowfinch Also, I don't know a single father who have been left holding the baby, full time. I know plenty of mums who have.

Would you prefer to see more children living full time with single men in the name of equality? I would not. In the median case, men are not as nurturing to young children (of course many are fantastic).

Men are just as bad.

My best friend lost well over £500K to a man. He cheated on his girlfriend to be with her (I did warn her…). They dated for two years. Then her father died and left her a little over £2Mil. He proposed within a month. Married six months later. He filed for divorce within a year. She managed to preserve most of her assets but still lost a fair chunk.

I’ve ended relationships over comments about finances that I couldn’t unhear. ‘It’s great you have your own house’ ‘You’re so financially stable etc.’ Just walking red flag comments. Comments that implied that I could set them up for life…

Women definitely have a rep, but men are just as bad.

Ultimately, I think everyone needs to be very careful these day and assume the worst. Which is very sad.

I would prefer those children to have not been brought into a world where their father was likely not arsed about having them in the first place but was too spineless and hypnotised by their need to stick their dick in something to stand their ground, and a mother who was so desperate to procreate they settled for the first ambivalent, spineless moron that came along.

I think the cost of living also has a lot to do with it.

Not just recent increases, but house prices have been rising well above incomes for the best part of 25 years - there was a blip at the GFC and now they are going lower, but still there is a huge affordability crisis in housing.

Divorce often means people who were just about affording a single house together now need to find two to house themselves separately. This can be financially devastating and they may never recover their previous living standards, especially if the split becomes unequal (either temporarily or permanently) due to provision being made for children.

Because houses are that much more expensive and becoming more unobtainable, people are therefore becoming a lot more wary of being willing to share any existing housing provision they might have when entering a relationship.

It really depends on how much contempt there is at the end of the marriage and how secure the parties are.
It can be done amicably, but not often.

I don't know how old you are but you sound quite young, you say 'women these days' don't expect certain behaviours but I don't see progressive attitudes towards women as opposed to the 00s if anything things have regressed. The difference in the 00s dating or 90s was that you didn't explicitly discuss these things, there wasn't a neurosis around it like there is now which is why there are so many Male commentators earning a living from these discussions. Equally, there wasn't this rather crude quid pro quo notion of buying dinner for sex. I met my DH in a very quiet bar when I was out with a friend who had just broken up with someone, he was with friends but offered to buy me a drink, neither of us thought, I owed him sex. As I said a few posts back, I stayed with my friend longer than I intended as DH persuaded me to went out and about to exhibitions, the beach, a club, then dinners every night which I had no expectation of him paying for at all it wasn't the 1950s back in the mid 00s, there was no sex required in return and in fact it was about a month until that happened. It wasn't contractual.

Women haven't properly caught up to men doing this yet I think - just witness the shock on the relationships board, when a woman discovers that despite having given 10-15 years of her life to a relationship, probably working whilst doing the majority of the house and kids, her ex can walk away, and even if he never sees them, all he'll have to pay to maintain them is 12% of his salary per month, and even if married, likely no spousal maintenance, and 50/50 on the house.

As to this 'men being left in poverty by divorce' - the stats show it's entirely the other way. Single parent families are massively over-represented below the poverty line.

Quite a depressing thread overall, I must say.

I can see why fewer people are having children. Just seems like a colossal risk, especially to women.

Being tied to an ex you probably despise, losing money/assets you’ve worked hard for, the possibility that the children are difficult/unpleasant, the health risks involved, etc.

@Goldenbear "neurosis" is the right word. I think a lot of it is driven by social media (maybe we are equally guilty) but the discussing/strategising/turning everything into a high stakes game that goes on is probably driven by male content generators though there are female equivalents. I think the seeing everything as a hierarchy/as a good/bad deal is probably more male. E.g. the idea that "a man is X worse of with a wife and children than without" goes back to a very old line of thinking that sort of lumps the kids in as the mums responsibility (and if the man supports him he is doing his duty by the woman) but its combined with modern thinking in a really unpleasant way. Everything is a game/deal, everything is zero-sum, its all about what you can get out of the other person combined to what they can get out of you. Completely unhealthy way to think about relationships.

You can’t scream for equality

Sounds like a totally normal, non-misogynist phrasing.

I'm with you on this

That's kind of my point and no, I'm not young!
In the 90's/00's women largely did do 50/50 but having dinner bought and a few drinks showed his interest. As you say, not contractual. We were aware however that we had a shot to work and have kids, a relatively new choice. We wanted to do both and progress. Men seemed to be OK with this at the time although 20 years down the road many men are now cross they don't have more financial control as a result.

My point was it seems these days younger women have forgotten this progress and because they aren't expecting to be "treated" and usually go dutch, when a man does spend money on her she thinks he is a catch. It has become so rare that young women really do get swept off their feet and dive head-first into lovebombing/abusive relationships because these men know exactly what they are doing. Men have always used money as a sales patter and I think there is a distinct uptick in tricking women into believing they are in love with them because they buy them gifts etc, then men dump them and complain they were "only after one thing" so that they can move onto the next. The turnaround is quicker than it was in the 90's/00's where men married women and then did this. It's about emotional avoidance of blame in the hope they can get through lots of women without looking like a using arse because they "paid their way".

This is exactly right and you have articulated the point I was trying to make but more succinctly! And actually I referenced the expectations of women not being akin to the 1950s but my Dad once jokingly recalled how my Grandad had sat him down and effectively told him to 'grow up and be responsible' as my Mum was pregnant with my eldest brother in the mid 70s and my Dad was a restless adventurer, he regularly worked abroad, he was active in politics but bordering on obsessive and my Grandad was reminding him to be a responsible man now as he had a baby on the way. I actually think my Grandad's comments, despite being born in 1919 are more progressive than some men in 2024!

It's because there are a very real consequences for men when marriage ends. The argument is that we end up as primary carers and therefore "get" the house, maintenance, half the pension ect.

Where as the men end up in a bedsit, broke.

That's the stereotype.

If you were trying to sell marriage/long term relationships? it would be a difficult sale. The perception of the "ex- wife taking all the money" is largely backed up by the reality for a lot of men. I don't think we can say it's all their fault. Most divorces are instigated by women, and social media is full of the "hard done by" Husband who has lost "everything". But it's only a stereotype because there is a truth in there. And some posters saying "men are vile" and "we are better off without them" are just confirming the "toxic female" narrative.

I dont know ehat the answer is but it's not healthy to continuedown this route.
.

I totally agree with this. I really tried to go 50/50 when I first started dating my now ex and he wouldn't let me. As a result I felt a sense of obligation to him and that continued all the way up to me marrying him.

When I divorced him I now see men who won't let me go 50/50 as a red flag, especially if they won't take turns with paying. I see it as a form of control.

Do you not think there are 'real consequences' for women? My Mum and Dad got divorced and yes it was late 90s but my Mum was the one struggling to pay for my eldest brother through uni and keep her own career going with no help from my Dad in any practical day to day sense. He had obviously built up an amazing career and just had more. He left as he had had an affair and they both had a very exciting and expensive life as the other woman had a very well paid job. I didn't see many real life consequences for my Dad that were that bad at all!

You also have to understand men are angry with other men (although they may not realise it) and blame women instead. So when a guy gets on TikTok and shows all of his conquests driving his fancy cars and having holidays and luxury and then complains she was only with him for all of the trappings, the men who simply can't provide that feel they are being hard done by by the woman rather than the man. Then the narrative becomes: It was her fault, she was a money grabber. I'll never get a woman because I don't have money. That is why I am single.
Men are falling for this in increasing numbers too.

I really don’t know OP, I know quite a lot of women, particularly SAHMs who are experiencing what it is clearly financial abuse but they won’t see it as that. Many are even proud and smug their partners take care of the finances so they do not need to worry about that.

The fact that they are clueless about the family finances, don’t know how many savings they have and often feel they have to use their “pocket money” to subsidise their maternity leaves, etc makes me think that we got feminism wrong, we now have a full time job at work and a full time job at home. While the man is still primarily working one job and just helping a bit with the kids and the housechores while the woman keeps the mental overload for everything home related, pretty much like a 1950s wife (yeah, most of us have partners who can cook and change a nappy… as long as we ensure the pantry is adequately equipped and there are nappies in the house).

That's a post rationalisation though because you had a bad experience with your ex who happened to pay for more things than you.

I think it can be controlling behaviour but doesn't that also depend on you reaction. I think overall DH paid for more things than me when we were younger but he is generous no controlling, he buys me quite lovely jewellery but he also sketches me birthday cards as he is good at drawing sue to being an Architect, he does this stuff for romantic reasons I suppose. Like me he does have flaws though so he's not perfect but he's way more responsible than my Dad ever was and I do thing it's because he strongly feels he needs to support his family and it is as simple as that, no ulterior motive.

Rather depends on who invites surely? I'd be quite happy to buy coffee first then have one bought back but wouldn't be bothered. Definitely 50:50 on dinner if possible.

Yes, I do think the Loner watching this content is probably doing a good job of persuading himself of that whereas actually, he probably needs to just get out of the house more.

Would your average man or woman be happy with the opposite situation, though? Say:
A woman marrying a shorter man, less assertive man, who she out-earns, someone who she can 'look after'... she has a baby and gets back to work quite quickly (like in America, although this is changing) because it makes sense - she is the majority breadwinner. The man is left to take care of the baby at home, do the housework, shop, cook, clean... or whatever situation the women mentioned above end up being in?
I know the stars have to align perfectly for that to occur (easy pregnancy, no complications, job still available etc)... but still...

Then, in the unfortunate event of a divorce, he gets the kids, she pays him to look after them, gives him a 'significant' sum from her accrued assets, he gets to live in the house with the kids...

I think sometimes people forget that the 'wealth' is not the money, it's the kids.

I realise the above might not be the 'exact' opposite, or always how it is, but it's the concept I'm questioning.

But men often felt trapped by marriage. It was the end of any adventuring dreams, if you did the decent thing by your girlfriend. Even if many men did also want a wife and companion. The 1960s film “A Kind of Loving” explores this theme. (Thora Hurd is brilliant in it). At the same time women had to try and be married by age 25 to have any chance of a home of their own (and a family if they wanted one which they usually did).

Modern mores are it seems much more complicated to me. I could write more but it would end up a thesis.