To think a lot of women only preach independence until a high-earning man comes along?

[BluntOliveViewer]

Feminism until financial comfort is on the table.

No. I don’t think this.

Do they?
I didn't... I continued to build and progress in my career.

Yeah, I couldn't wait to get married and stop paying for my own stuff.

It's a dream come true.

I never did. Never wanted to be solely reliant on anyone.

No.

Oh, hello incel.

No, I prefer to be the higher earner myself. Can recommend.

"A lot"? Please supply your evidence for this suggestion from ye olden days.

Nah.

Married - shared partnership and assets financial and non financial assets

Always earning enough to support myself and two kids should he feck off

You can still be independent within a marriage /partnership

This is so true. I know of someone who has forgiven infidelity by her husband a few times because he is the high earner and she needs the money for her and the dc.

Not for me but I know only one person who fell into this trap and ended up in a messy divorce.

Financial independence or a healthy relationship with both partners having a shared financial outlook that puts both of their interests first is always best.

Absolutely and that’s great to hear. There are definitely women who stay consistent in their independence. I was speaking more to the pattern I’ve observed where some shift their stance once a certain type of man enters the picture. It’s not universal, just common enough to notice.

I think there are a lot of women who never saw financial independence as a goal and always expected to be supported while they raise DC.

I think the one who "preach" financial independence probably do stick with it, but what that looks like can change.

E.g. DH and I earned roughly the same before DC were born and then I worked very part time for a while. During that time I kept my hand in at work and did extra qualifications, so I knew I'd be able to support myself later if I needed to, even though I wasn't for that period.

Which was actually a jolly good job, as he died young leaving me to support us all.

Well.... it's real life isn't it. Lovely fellow comes along, spoils you rotten, then find out he's a big earner with all the comforts. Yes sometimes we are forced to eat our words. But realistically there's not many of them out there are there? So a bit hypothetical.

It’s not from “ye olden days” though - just a pattern I’ve noticed in modern dating conversations and social media takes. Some women absolutely live by independence no matter what and hats off to them. But I’ve also seen plenty shift their stance once financial comfort enters the picture. It’s not a universal truth - just a recurrent theme worth discussing.

Exactly, real life can be full of contradictions. It’s not always hypocrisy, just a shift in priorities when reality knocks. I agree it’s a bit hypothetical since high-earning, generous men aren’t exactly growing on trees but that rarity is what makes the switch in attitude so interesting when it does happen.

I don't think there's any contradiction really. Being independent allows you to hold out for a really good offer, as opposed to settling because you can't afford to live alone.

Popcorn out, feet up...

I'm very independent and have been since I was tiny. I've created financial comfort for myself - it's entered the picture through my hard work, not via a man.
It sounds like the women you know or chose to follow aren't genuine about appreciating their independence.

But "financial independence" only works in the early part of your life when you are well and fit and single. It is sort of made up when you think about marriage and children and raising a family. When people start to do this, they become financially INTER-dependent, and so the balance of work in the partnership is renegotiated, so financially remunerated and unpaid work both play a part in the overall balance.

If the "high earning man comes along" at the time the man and woman both think of starting a family, then one person entirely, or both partially, must shift their energies in the partnership to cover child care and home making as well as paid work.

Yes, we do often see women doing 90% or more of the unpaid work while the man carries on with 90% or more of his energy into the paid work.

You don't see this as often the other way round, because women more often take time out of work full or part time to take care of children. The reasons are of course physical - but also personal, emotional, societal. Systemic injustice plays a part, where some men don't want to drop back in their career, or have women out earning them, so they refuse to play a equal part in childcare which traps women at home through exhaustion and an ethical responsibility to the children. They are not socially judged or shamed for this. Another systemic injustice is the pay gap which means there are simply fewer massively highly paid women around to be a great catch for the lucky guy who just wants to be a lovely home maker.

I think you're looking at this from the outside with some naivety and simply seeing in your view a load of women stopping working or aspiring to stopping working. You don't see what's under the hood.

Another interesting part of human nature is that when something happens to you which drains some of your power and autonomy, there's a big desire to save face and try and look OK. So you might get women whose actual life is a bit of a gilded cage financially-, or men who are missing out on emotional richness with their family because they have thr burden of work all the time.
To make themselves feel better maybe they show off, present their life as aspirational and say they have it good?

Nope. I haven't seen this at all.

What I have seen, quite a few times, is that a woman with a career and a job and independence marries a man who earns more than her. And then they have children. And very quickly, it becomes clear that becuase he earns more, and because he's a man and has been socialised this way, the expectation is that he will work and she will do everything else. And then, before you know it, she's working part time, or has taken a sideways or downward career shift, or become a SAHM when that wasn't her original plan.

And sometimes, a woman thinks she wants x and then when she's faced with the reality, she realises she doesn't. I thought I wanted to be the major career person and run companies. And once I had children, I realised I didn't. I'm still the main breadwinner, I still have a great career, but what I wanted and was willing to give shifted. Now, 15 years later, I realise that actually, given half the chance, at this point in my life, if i twas doable, I'd happily stop working completely. If you'd told me 20 years ago that I'd wish I could stop working in a career and a job I love by the time I was 50, I wouldn't have believed you.

Speak for yourself !

I remain single and financially independent, having turned down three men who all earned significantly more than me. I am perfectly capable of providing me and my ds with a decent life.

I have no desire to be a housekeeper, kept woman or arm candy (bit old for that now 😁).

If I ever find a man who values me as an equal partner, then I might be tempted. Until then, not a chance, thanks. I value my freedom, career and independence too highly. I'd rather choke than need a man as a meal ticket.

I think financial security is more important than financial independence.

On a practical level, it is downright difficult to try and maintain two full on careers while you have young DC, and what's the point of a good "family" income and still making life more difficult than you need to?

It is vital to make sure you maintain access to money though, which I do think happens in the vast majority of marriages. E.g. whenever we paid a lump sum to DH's pension we opened an ISA in my name with the same amount, even though he'd earned the money.

Ultimately, the quality of everyone's life was improved by me taking some time out when DC were young, and although we could have done it the other way round, I don't think I'd have enjoyed leaving DH at home with DC while I worked.

I actually agree with much of what you’ve said, especially with the idea that real financial independence often shifts into interdependence once things like marriage, children, and caregiving comes into play. It’s not black and white, and there’s definitely systemic context around why these roles play out the way they do.

My original point wasn’t to ignore that complexity - it was more about how some women publicly champion independence until a high-earning partner appears and then suddenly a more traditional dynamic is embraced, even romanticised. It’s not always a trap or a necessity. Sometimes it’s a choice - one that contradicts the values they previously claimed to hold.

So yes, there’s nuance. But it’s still worth asking are all those ‘independence first’ declarations rooted in principle or just placeholder positions until something more materially comfortable comes along?