To wonder why women accept financial inequality?

[OtterlyAstounding]

I see so many posts on here from intelligent women, working full or part time, who have (or had) no idea what their husband of a decade or more earns, had no clue he was a high earner, and who don't have access to his bank account while he does have access to hers.

Women who earn a quarter of what their husband does who pay half the expenses, or pay for everything for their shared children, or run out of money and watch their husband treat himself while she struggles. And not only that, but many of them seem to think that's reasonable and not completely fucked up.

Women should make sure they know their partner's income before they move in together – entirely reasonable, to plan budgeting. If or when joint accounts come up, then he should provide access to his accounts first/at the same time. She should always have a personal savings account (just as he can). And if a couple has children, then he should be paying for at least half of everything (although personally I think expenses should be divided equitably, not equally).

Why in this day and age, is financial control/abuse still so common amongst educated, employed women, and also so passively accepted as normal?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about relationships where the husband is also abusive in other ways, although I do understand the different types of abuse frequently intersect. I'm more thinking of relationships where he's a selfish twat who doesn't pay for things/share his money, but isn't otherwise abusive. Although perhaps financial abuse is always a sign of other abuse...?

'I think perhaps there needs to be more messaging to young women about being mindful and well-informed about finances when they first go into a committed relationship, to avoid that kind of thing happening.'

Absolutely agree. Unfortunately there are many who simply don't have the insight and believe the fairy tale and think that being married is enough. It's not.

There will also be a lot of repeat patterns from those whose mothers who also lacked the insight in time to instill it in their daughters.

I don't think it's mean at all. There are countless threads on here from women who have had 2 or more children, even though they ended up doing everything, or the relationship soured, or both, after the first was born. It seems they just can't override their broody instincts, regardless of the effect this may have on their children down the line.

We just share everything but that goes for all resources - time, energy, assets, cars, skills money. As PP said we have only had children with one another so there's not the complications. We have also been married since early 20s so have "built the empire" together if that makes sense. It is in both our interests to keep things going in this way.

Of course I am aware that we could split up but equally anyone could be made redundant or become disabled or make a mistake that costs a career. I will cross that bridge if I come to it.

I said there are many factors and the ones you've listed may be contributors but they're not exhaustive nor applicable to every situation.

My husband and I had a joint bank account but whenever I wanted to spend money on something for me he would question it and harp on and on about it until there was no joy in whatever it was that I wanted. It wasn’t financial abuse but some men are like this but 1,000 times worse.

Every single post on here where a woman is a SAHP regardless of her circumstances, the kids ages or if any of the children have disabilities there are posts calling her lazy.

Not to mention the BS spouted by the Manosphere.

I am not the slightest bit surprised that it happens and think it is getting worse.

One of the reasons women 'carry on' in these sorts of relationships is because the losses outweigh the gains.Children bring value to her life and makes up for him. Also there aren't tons of decent men floating around to choose from.

I would even go as far as, it can often be the most sensible choice, given the situation you are already in.

I think if you can't imagine why women do this, you are seriously lacking in imagination.

Definitely! Even if you let your DH do the actual sorting out of the finances, or if he's the sole earner, it's important to stay involved/informed and have the ability to have an equal say, with access to bank accounts etc. And to make sure that your pension is being added to, in the event that you divorce.

Young women need to know how to financially protect themselves. And as other posters have mentioned, that doesn't mean paying for everything themselves and proving their independence, either. That route leads to a useless cocklodger who expects you to pay for everything.

I don’t understand this… surely your OH has some parenting instincts too?? Did he want children? How did you not have a conversation before they were born about the financial impact…. Presumably when you decided to have kids, one question was can we afford them??!
Of course he doesn’t question it- he’s well aware that you’re picking up the tab and that works fine for him. I’m surprised you haven’t questioned it though, what’s stopping you? Unless you earn significantly more than him, won’t there be an issue if you split up/come to pension time and he’s way more because he hasn’t needed to contribute to his children and he doesn’t sound like the sharing kind of guy??

So you do know why it happens then, so why pretend you don't.

I think perhaps an issue with this is that people can come into marriage with very different histories, at different life stages and bringing very different assets to the table. I agree that each person paying an equal proportion of their income is usually the fairest thing but I don't think it always is.

For example, should existing financial obligations be taken into account? If I married someone who was supporting children from a previous relationship, I wouldn't consider the money he contributed towards them as part of his 'assets' - I'd consider it money that is committed elsewhere quite rightly. I would then expect the proportions of contributions to be calculated once that money was taken out of the equation. I also might think similarly if I married someone who was supporting elderly parents or vulnerable siblings. Perhaps I should see it differently and see myself as taking on equal responsibility for these dependents when I marry him, but I'm not quite sure that is fair either. It can be complicated. There is a lot that falls into the 'it depends' category!

In my own marriage we contribute almost the same despite my DH earning a fair bit more than me. DH does splash out for treats for us both but formally our contributions are equal. One reason I have agreed to this is that when we got together, we moved into a house that he had already paid off the mortgage on, so he was bringing a big asset to our relationship that was saving me a huge amount of money each month so I didn't think it was fair for him to keep contributing more than me each month on top of that. Another reason is that he is closer to retirement age than me, therefore has fewer years of good earning potential, and I like the idea of him feeling he has plenty spare to treat himself whilst he has the chance. Finally, he has two adult kids and chooses to give them quite a lot of financial help so I don't want him having to reduce that as a result of our own marriage. Maybe this all makes me a mug but I don't think so. (And I admit that I would probably feel very differently if my own wage was too low for me to afford anything nice for myself after the 50:50 split, which luckily it isn't, or if my DH were frittering his spare money away on rubbish! The other person's character and habits matter too.)

I was young (19) and naive when I met my exh. We were just casual bf and gf, then came the engagement, kids, marriage and the years just kind of went by. We never pooled our money, he always earned much more than me and had much more money at the end of every month. I had an idea of what his salary was but didn’t know how much his pension was worth until we divorced after 20 years together. He had more hidden assets too but it wasn’t worth the legal fees to try and find them.

Had we met when I was 10 years older, I think and hope I would have been a bit more aware of the pitfalls and felt more like it was joint family money. I was just young and lacked experience/knowledge.

Not all men have parenting instincts as strong as the mother.

When it comes to this and all sorts of inequality in relationships, I think that for some people, being in a relationship is better than none, and so they accept or live with the bad bits.

Can you piss off? I don't know what your problem is with me and I don't care! I didn't come this far in life just to take crap from an internet weirdo! Have a good day!

I can kind of understand what pp is saying?

Like, I can understand intellectually that there are reasons for women with good careers (so they could be financially independent) to stay in abusive situations for years or even decades....but at the same time, it's hard to fully grok it (in the old Heinlein sense of the word, not Musk, lol).

I get it but I don't get it at the same time. Having been in a very abusive relationship as a teenager and left him after a little over a year, I can understand how one gets mired in an abusive relationship. But when I see accomplished adult women who could stand on their own two feet accept terribly abusive or controlling treatment, I have to admit, part of me does wonder why on earth they don't leave when they can.

I don't know know the answer to this either and I haven't rtft, but I bet someone has, or will, suggest better financial education in schools.

Which isn't a bad idea, but in my experience, teachers (who are majority female) are the worst! Don't understand tax, don't understand pensions, haven't read the pay policy, don't read their contract, don't even attempt to negotiate on pay when they are offered a job, don't know any employment law. I have been really shocked over the years!

My dad brought me and my sister up to take money seriously.

I was a sahm for a few years and I suppose logistically your brain says ‘well he earns and I don’t’ or when pt ‘well he earns more/ it’s his money’ which technically is true. They earn more, they do ft, so your brain says that you need to adjust to spend what is in your corner (difficult when it’s low/ nothing lol!) but he always said ‘we’re a team/ it’s our money etc’ but even from women I know who are the principal breadwinner they mean ‘you spend the minimum amount that I would guess has to be spent’ which generally isn’t close to what needs to be spent.

I remember arguing drunkenly one night on a night out with a friend where she was saying her pt husband would drop into shops and buy eg new colours for painting for their daughter or a new football for her or they’d bought a box of ice creams on the way home or that he was always seeing new classes he thought she’d love. My friend (and another friend who had no kids) were saying all these little extras needed to stop. I said but those little extras are life with kids and I remember she said something (can’t remember what it is lol) and realising that the primary earner does not mean ‘we’re a team’ they mean ‘can you try and keep things in a very specific order and while I’m off being great accruing money you try not to ruin it by spending it‘. In their head it’s their money. I like to think I wouldn’t have felt the same if I got up and went to work daily and my oh stayed home but maybe you do get bitter, I don’t know.

Im glad I’m back working

I am always amazed at the women who say they don’t know their husband/partners salary. Do these couples never talk? How do you plan for a mortgage, large purchases, holidays?
Very odd

I understand that having completely unaligned attitudes towards money management is one of the high factors in likelihood of divorce. If you and your partner are not in agreement as to how you do finances from the start, it will not end well and it will usually be the woman who is disadvantaged.
The biggest shocker for me is always the women using their savings to get through maternity leave and having to buy everything for the baby. I do sometimes wonder if these are relationships where the DH had not really wanted kids and the woman has placated them by saying they will pay and do all the care. I actually had a close friend who did this as had fallen in love with a man who did not want kids at all. They had an unplanned pregnancy in the end and he went on to be a great dad, but I know she had initially told him she would do all the work involved.
The other factor that affects how men look at finance is if they have been previously married and consider the divorce settlement had disadvantaged them. They feel they cannot afford that a second time round so are more controlling maybe.
For transparency, my DH and I have always earned roughly the same which has always gone into a joint account and we spend what we like, discussing anything expensive together first. However, I do often reflect that if we had different attitudes to money it could be very stressful.

A lot of men are scared of intelligent, independent women who are self-financing, because we have options. One of the options is that we don't have to put up with any old crap they dish out. The other option is that we can afford to leave them, if they don't treat us right.

They'd rather have Mandy from Tescos (apols to Tescos' employees) who is grateful for their meagre emotional input and who doesn't rock the boat, or ask for anything for themselves.

As a professional well-paid women (I earned more than my husband) I divorced my idle, entitled (D)H and made my own way.

I moved in with my husband when we were 21. We have a joint account we both pay into and our own private accounts inaccessible to our partner. .

Its all very well saying know how much someone earns when you move in, but across 24 years things change small decisions at a time.

I had no idea how much he earned til I got a letter saying I might be claiming child benefit fraudulently.

Things like part time working evolve over time as well. People dont set out to earn less, they get made redundant or struggle to cope full time so cut back or just find childcare hard to sort and an inflexible partner.

I think it's much more important that women remain financially independent rather than finding out how much they can get from their husband and make demands.

I encourage my daughter (although I don't need too, she is fiercely independent), to only marry a man who is prepared to take on 50% of the child and house care whilst both continue to be financially responsible.

My 23yo son has already told me that he will only marry a woman who is ambitious professionally and will want to work. He is 100% determined that he will contribute as much for the house and children.

I wonder that too! I asked my DH what he earned fairly soon after we got together, just out of sheer curiosity. But you can't plan for anything properly if you don't know what you're each bringing to the table, surely.

As for being a sahm, as a pp said - when I was, I always had the attitude that my 'job' was looking after the kids/house during the hours that my DH was at work, and in exchange for that, half his money was mine, and hard earned too! Although to be fair, as we pooled our money from the start (with him being the higher earner) it's always been 'our' money equally.

That's really great and I'm so happy for you that due to your exemplary parenting your children won't have disabled children, become disabled themselves, or be a victim of abuse.