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 do agree with this. Your initial post didn't really reflect this nuance and open-mindedness, but that is the beauty and curse of stuff being written down. And in my own life I have both married a man with vastly more wealth than me (not megabucks, but he owned an ordinary house outright with some cash savings left over at 18), and had a disabled child who needed support, so curveballs of whatever type don't seem that rare to me. Equity over absolute equality, morally and emotionally right over what might be 'equal, meeting most people's needs most of the time, and above all, intent over perfection.

I'm really pleased it worked out that way for you. That's the way it should be and probably the dream many aspire to, and think they are signing up for!

I am also trying to instill in my boys that they need to protect their future relationships, marriages and children by careful planning and security for both themselves and their future partners.

Sure. But that's not always possible. In which case, women should be ensuring they're being treated financially equitably, and not being used or abused financially by their higher earning husbands.

I can't imagine wanting to marry someone I didn't trust to support me, and me being willing to support them, if the situation called for it. There's a reason the vows said 'in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better or worse.'

We prepared with life and income insurances to give the other partner some security.

In general, the division of labour at home is not equal and men often have no idea of the mental work that their wife is doing that they aren't, so I'm thinking some of those wives are reasonable in refusing to work more. It will just make things more complicated for them as they'll have to juggle more. The men who are used to the women juggling the children often don't rearrange their schedules around extra pick ups and drop offs, etc.

@OtterlyAstounding, and then women like you wonder why their partner decide to go somewhere else...where maybe they are given a choice to express themselves, and cry that they are left destitute....

Women shouldn't have more of a say on family dynamics than men.

In my working life something has gone really wrong for women where we seem to get the worst of both worlds.
when I started out (I’m 54) women were blatantly treated as contingently in the workplace. Many people openly said that families should have a woman at home. Delivery people expected someone to be in and “I work” was treated like a sort of personal choice that some women made. Whatever your job title or qualification you were paid less and people treated you like a support worker, foisting photocopying etc on you as it was assumed that was what you did at work.

in that context it was annoying that you couldn’t be taken seriously at work but at least there was a sort of logic that everyone expected your husband to take financial responsibility for the family.

now, no one thinks that women have any kind of right to be financially supported in a family and yet a lot of the same stuff still applies. We still get paid less. We still get less respect at work. We still get expected to pick up everything at home. When you have kids at school you are treated as if you are endlessly free to do things with / for your kid at weird times like 11.30 am and yet NO ONE thinks it’s ok for women not to earn AND PAY FOR EVERYTHING.

The women paying half the bills while earning a fraction of the kids fathers’ salary are just a very big example of this double think where women are constantly being extracted from both sides at once. Its maddening

I would think a couple would decide between them what works best for them - but given that only a woman can breastfeed, and also that the woman is the one who risked her life, and negatively impacted her body to grow the baby from scratch, I think her wishes ultimately have more weight, yes.

I'm genuinely confused as to what point you think you're trying to make here. This makes no sense.

Who's going where? Who can't express themselves? Who's left destitute?

And why is thinking that there should be transparency and equality in family finances a bad thing?

In general, the division of labour at home is not equal and men often have no idea of the mental work that their wife is doing that they aren't, so I'm thinking some of those wives are reasonable in refusing to work more
I tend to disagree with that. I think many women use this as an excuse to get their way, ie. Being at home more because that's what they want.

What gives a woman the right to refuse solely? Again, this shouldn't come out of the blue. It should be discussed and agree before marriage and children. My husband absolutely knew that he didn't want a sah wife. I knew I didn't want to be financially dependent on him. We discussed how the housework etc...would be divided as well as how we intented to manage our finances. We shared the same principles and it's never been an issue in our marriage.

Some men DO want to marry sah wives who take care of everything at home whilst they are the sole financial provider. They are happy for all his income to go into a joint account. The wife is happy to be fully dependent. That can work great too

It doesn't work when the husband or the wife want their cake and eat it, which is when the problem arises.

Actually, I think I do get more of a say, since I'm the one that has to do all the mental work and often pick up the slack his job creates. He could do the same job he does without kids, but he has kids so can only do it because of the hit I'm taking to my career. If I decided I wanted the same equality of opportunity, he'd have to really slow down and maybe go into a different field of work.

To make up for it, he pays into a private pension for me and gives me 50% of his income to manage the things I'm in charge of. It's all 'ours' though. The biggest account is only in my name though. I guess he trusts me.

Maybe his parents should take some responsibility for instilling in him the value that as long as he's providing, he's a good father and husband. Then maybe he'd be willing to support my own career development more. Couldn't possibly make things more difficult for himself at work by doing a school pick up!

You can discuss and agree whatever you want. Life may show you what you discussed and agreed isn't going to work out.

I would think a couple would decide between them what works best for them - but given that only a woman can breastfeed, and also that the woman is the one who risked her life, and negatively impacted her body to grow the baby from scratch, I think her wishes ultimately have more weight, yes
Well I totally disagree. Biology doesn't give the card of control. None of these mean that men, who have no control over biology, should consider their life long wishes not as important than women's.

It is exactly because of this attitude, the way women are using that card, that men look at protecting themselves.

Women don't have to breastfeed for two years.the risk of dying in pregnancy is extremely low thankfully. A woman's body doesn't have to be much impacted either. All these are excuses to get their way.

If you don't want any of these, don't fall pregnant and consider adoption.

We do not have joint finaces but have total transparency and the joint Mother of all spreadsheets that gets tweaked but we have always invested and used to do quite high risk stuff, not now as older and less time to recoup. We didn’t have time to nor want to have to consult.

When it comes to careers, we met as junior staff at a RG University and were earning almost the same. We relocated and worked at different Universities. It was my plan from 21 to retire early and volunteer for charity. DH ended up earning more because he ended up as head of dept. I was offered promotion but to everyone’s shock turned it down. I turned it down because I know I’m an intolerant bugger, I never wanted to be responsible for people.

Large purchases are discussed, we have each made one purchase that the other disapproves of over the many years we have been together. But that’s more an issue of where it goes. If he dies first I’m selling his full size very expensive rowing machine immediately. I hate the bloody thing as I have to step over it to get to a row of storage cupboards.

I have always had the luxury of being like my friend who has just left her husband last year. I could just walk out the door and set up house elsewhere while waiting for a divorce. That is the real peace of mind, knowing you are not inextricably entwined and trapped because you have enough money of your own, I also did retire very early and took my pension at 55. DH had no plan to retire early but seeing me and also the utter state of the sector he took redundancy 18 months ago.

Not only that, but you literally risked your life and affected your health and body long term to create the children that you have, suffering pain, exhaustion, and major bodily changes. Until a man can gestate and birth a baby, he really doesn't have as much say in things such as who should get the parental leave.

And only a prize prick would want to separate a mother from her baby in order to insert himself into the sahd role, if she wanted to stay at home with them.

The WHO recommends breastfeeding for at least two years. Men don't want the best for their children?

I almost died in childbirth. My husband took six weeks off work to look after me. I'll never fully recover from that birth.

Men have some control over biology. They can choose not to have children if putting their best interests first is so distasteful to them.

All these are excuses to get their way.

Holy misogyny, Batman!

Agreed. But I wouldn't have married a man who put the mighty dollar above what was best for his children anyway.

Actually, I think I do get more of a say, since I'm the one that has to do all the mental work and often pick up the slack his job creates. He could do the same job he does without kids, but he has kids so can only do it because of the hit I'm taking to my career. If I decided I wanted the same equality of opportunity, he'd have to really slow down and maybe go into a different field of work
Bouh you...more of the mental work...because the sole responsibility of ensuring the family has a roof over their heads and a decent or nice lifestyle comes with no mental work....

I've done both as a professional single mum and no help at all. The mental load of looking after the house and children is nothing compared to to the mental workload that comes with a career.

I'm always amazed how mothers have managed to convince themselves that they really gave it so much harder...to justify getting their way.

I guess I'm just disappointed that, in 2026, on a thread about encouraging women not to accept financial inequality, the focus seems to be all about encouraging women to get more access to money earned by their husbands rather than on earning their own.

Of course, women should not have to put up with financial abuse, but I will be encouraging my daughter to ensure that she is able to provide for herself.

Ooh, but those are just excuses to get your own way, don't you know??

Personally, both my DH and I were very happy with the choices we made together, having sensibly discussed them in advance. And it sounds like you and your DH are very happy with your choices too.

I always think that transparency, discussing the options ahead of time and coming to an accord, and having an equal say in finances from the beginning (however you organise them) are some of the most important aspects of a relationship.

Generally because if women are already financially independent, they're not going to be in a position to suffer from financial abuse. So they're not really the group at risk.

MRAs have managed to convince lower earning women/ SAHMS that asking for a joint account is being a gold digger.

Holy misogyny, Batman!
Famous last words I was waiting for...it didn't fail!

Good old mn! I shall leave those poor hard done by women who constantly moan about their husband not giving them full reign on the finances and call it financial abuse, but surprisingly I willing to leave the relationship to themselves.

Anyone still single and contemplating a committed relationship, do NOT put yourself in a vulnerable position from the start thinking that love will conquer all. Either ensure you remain financially independent or make absolutely certain your partner share the same values and principles and is 100% happy to support you for life (and share all the housework and childcare of course).

It's in the PP, she carried and birthed that baby. A mother and baby are bonded well before the birth. A mother has the breast to feed the baby. The baby is comforted by their mothers smell. We need to stop pretending mothers and fathers are the same. They are not. Many mothers wouldn't be able to bear separation from their baby in the newborn stages. Fathers can do it with ease. We're not setting up beds for fathers in maternity wards to stay in with the baby are we? They happily go home at the end of visiting hours.

Generally because if women are already financially independent, they're not going to be in a position to suffer from financial abuse. So they're not really the group at risk
So let's raise our children to make the right choices rather than preferred ones.

Raises our boys and girls with the exact same messages.