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...?

My objection was to the fact that there was no acknowledgement in your OP that the best way of reducing the risk is to be financially independent in the first place.

Yes, of course, once people have chosen to put themselves in the position of being financially dependent on a man, there are things that they can do to mitigate that risk, and they would be wise to do them. But the least risky option is to avoid getting into that situation in the first place, and surely that's what we should be emphasising?

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
And I'm accused of misogyny!

How will women cope when medecine finally allows men to carry babies...all this argument down the pan...it will be a tough wake up call for many!

Agree. But there will always be women who have taken hits to their career after taking time off to raise kids.
I think we are all agreed that it would be best for women to have financial independence.

I'm not talking about children. Obviously, all children should be encouraged to pursue their dreams and great jobs, regardless of sex.

But not everyone will be in a high paid career - many people will just work minimum wage (or close to) jobs, and may in fact earn less than their partner, regardless of sex. Women are in a more precarious position than men if they earn less and have children.

I think that where women are in situations where their partner earns vastly more, and yet they are expected to pay for half of everything, or for all of the children's expenses, etc, it's financially abusive and very sad.

I'm not sure whether you agree with that or not, because you just seem to be very bitter and angry over the thought that some men might support their wives in being at home when their children are young.

It is if you do it properly.

I've worked. So much easier in so many ways. I get breaks, I get paid, I get awards, I get recognition, social connections, people hold you in higher esteem, I can focus on one thing and not have to be all over the place.

To be honest though, other than the financial load being entirely on you, I find it can be easier when my DH is away in some ways. The evenings are my own, one less person needs attention, less mess, my own routine doesn't have to take account of another person. So yes, I can imagine it's easier on your own in many ways.

Fair enough. I suppose I thought that should be taken as a given! Everyone should be able to support themselves as single people, of course.

But given the world we live in, not everyone has a high flying career, and women's working lives are impacted if they have children. So it's important that women make sure they aren't being used or abused financially by men.

Are you a single man by any chance? Feeling bitter about that? Possibly a father who is pissed off that they have to pay CM for their child?
Your comments on this post show a real lack of understanding of basic biology and motherhood.

I really don't think that is going to happen. Artificial wombs I can see, not men having babies as easily as women. I don't think this is a great development but it will make women less vulnerable in some ways.

I prefer to keep my earnings and savings discretely from my partner but we’re not married and I earn a lot more

Or, at the least, have something they can go to for that independence if they need to. There are other ways to do that than being in an office though.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. No one on this thread is moaning about their husbands. This honestly makes no sense.

But it does reek of more misogyny.

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

If you want to be home and breastfeed for two years, fine. Doesn't mean you can't work! Employers have a legal requirement to allow women to express milk, they are protected (and rightly so). Of course, there is the option to save, together) enough for the mother to not work or reduce her working hours for two years.

The above are in no way reasons why fathers should the sole financial provider.

This thread really show the mindset how some women really see themselves superiors just because biology made them the one bearing children. Unbelievable!

I agree, there does seem to be a strong tone of envy in the posts. Maybe over perceived lack of choices.

I was starting to wonder if they were a man, but they have stated they are a single mother.

I'm often left speechless at some of the arrangements described by women who post on MN. As others have described: women who pay half of all the outgoings, but earn a quarter of what their husband does. Women who have to ask for money to buy things for the children, who end up broke every month etc.
But the thing that really slays me is the men who offload every aspect of their children's care to their female partner - who never wonder how much clothes and shoes cost, who never ask their partner "do you need more money for anything?".

And they do that because we let them.

With their latest post, I'd saying they're lying about being a single mother. The last one convinces me even more it's a man pissed off about having to pay child maintenance.

No-one said the father should be the sole provider, but if that's what the couple have agreed or think works for them, then that's their choice.

Expressing and giving milk via a bottle is no substitute for that child getting milk from the mother while being snuggled up and nurtured by her. Nursing is about more than nutrition.

Quite possible.

It's the baby's need, the baby has been inside the Mother for 9 months, there's a connection and the fourth trimester is very real. That's without breastfeeding and the need to recover from birth/seep deprivation. During the pregnancy your son can't do 50%, but he might have to do 100% housework at times, or 70% bills. Some men get fixated on their version of 50%, when partnership, caring, love, kindness and needs led living, is much more important.

It's difficult to be fully independent because that means not pooling resources for a bigger mortgage. A lot of people are stuck because they couldn't afford the house they live in, alone and buy the other person out. What's being suggested is not marrying outside your income potential and that's more than a bit transactional. I see the effects of that in my GC school (mostly middle class). The parents aren't happy and I've never encountered so many bitter children.

Are you a single man by any chance? Feeling bitter about that? Possibly a father who is pissed off that they have to pay CM for their child?
Your comments on this post show a real lack of understanding of basic biology and motherhood
You are so far from the mark....

I was a single FT working mum of two. Got no child maintenance. I was raised to be an independent woman. By both my mum and dad. Mum worked FT all her life. My dad was very active at home. They shared all responsibilities equally. My dad was brilliant at home...and that was in the 70s!

I never once considered not working FT for my independence. It's the best decision I've ever made. Thank you mum and dad! I managed it like many many single FT working mums....who held both financial and home responsibilities!

I raised my kids with the exact same values. Be self independent, your wishes don't trump those of anyone else. You don't want the responsibilities and risks of being a parent. Don't have children. If you are going to be a parent, be a good one. Be there for them in every aspects.

My husband was raised by a single mum. His dad died when he was 2. She always worked FT, not in a career, but any jobs to support her family. She managed. She raised her two children, boy and girl to be independent. They both are.

So no, I have no sympathy for women who cry how they gave more of a right over their children and the right to be financially supported.

Call it misogyny if it makes anyone feel better. I call TRUE equality.

@JLou08, the usual attack ...can't possibly be honest when they write something I don't agree with but can't argue against...says more about you than me.

I am not lying one bit. My views are quite commonly shared, at least in the real world. Thankfully!

You sound like the father's wants are the only one that matters and trump the woman's.

I remember what it was like to have a mother working full time after she'd previously been a SAHM. It's one reason I've not worked full time during my children's childhoods.

Why are you so angry and against a family dynamic where the mother decides she wants to take her eligible maternity leave, and the husband financially supports the family during that time (and if he's not a total prick, is absolutely fine with it).

Or against a family dynamic where both husband and wife decide together that she will spend x amount of years home with the children while he supports the family, while still treating her as a financial equal who has equal say in the finances?

If those couples are happy, why are you so het up?

I think this is a really complex area. A lot of women in this situation have 'equality' drummed into them and always insist on paying half when dating. That's absolutely fine and I would too. And mumsnet would agree this is the way to go if you start living with a partner - it's never a great idea to subsidise people when you start moving in.

But sometimes the pattern is then set. 50 50 on everything, separate finances etc...which is all fine until children. And then two things happen:

• there is no discussion of how finances will work before pregnancy. You then get ridiculous situations where the man assumed the woman would fund her own maternity leave and still pay their share of expenses. People need to be discussing this before children, now will finances be shared if they decide as a family that one of them will be taking a financial hit for kids eg if maternity leave isn't shared, if one of them needs to go part time, how will nursery be paid, who takes time off for kids sickness etc etc
• there is now an illogical assumption in society that finances should be shared equally (otherwise you're a gold digger) but childcare and house chores are still split something like 70pc in womens favour. Which is unsustainable and as they don't want to let their kids down, women start putting as much focus on work

I say this on a lot of threads but think women would benefit in the long run if we starred as we meant to go on and didnt put up with partners who didnt insist on sharing all the chores, didnt have babies with people without discussing shared finances first and if paternity leave was shared between men and women

It's the baby's need, the baby has been inside the Mother for 9 months, there's a connection and the fourth trimester is very real
I guess children adopted at birth are doomed then!

In any case, I never said women shouldn't be at home for 12 months with their baby. Just that it doesn't justify becoming fully financially dependent on your partner for the rest of your life!