Worst decision a woman could make

[Notbeingrobbed]

As a working mother with two children to support, my divorce has made me see that getting married was the worst financial decision I ever made.

I have been the higher earner so will lose a big chunk of the money that I have made throughout my life. I also have the kids to support (happy to).

My ex will get a big payout having benefitted from my income as well as his own for years.

Why would any modern woman marry? Oh, because we are all influenced by society (and hormones) to think it’s a good thing.

People say I am arguing like a man. But the law was surely designed to protect a stay-at-home mother with children from a husband who leaves. Not to protect a layabout-at-home father?

The more I ponder on this issue, the more I become convinced that merging finances is a fundamental characteristic of marriage that should be protected. For me, it comes down to the power dynamic between a couple and how this forms a foundation for building a family. I say this because without merged finances, the one who earns the most could start to use their financial clout to influence what should be joint decisions and worst case scenario this could very easily tip into financial abuse.

Most women marry men that are older than them and therefore the man will generally have had more time to build up their careers and consequently their salary. This potential inequality may be compounded if/when children come along and the woman runs the gauntlet of pregnancy, birth etc which is often when the gender pay gap really sets in. It's easy to see how women could get into a position where despite maintaining their career, they could earn less than their spouse.

One of the obvious issues is that if finances are seperate then the potentially already higher earning husband would not be compelled to financially support his wife during maternity leave. I see this on MN regularly where a new mother has saved so that she can still afford to contribute her half of the bills under the weird notion that she must be seen to contribute financially equally at all times, irrespective of the fact that she has carried and given birth to BOTH their baby and this is the reason why her financial position has been temporarily weakened. I can only imagine that whilst she was saving for her maternity leave her DH was free to spend all his disposable income (or squirrel it away), unburdened by such concerns. Horrifically unfair and compounding any financial inequality that may have already existed in a marriage.

Also with unmerged finances how would a family go on holiday or make large ticket purchases such as houses/cars if there was a large discrepancy in wealth between the spouses? Would the family be constrained to buying things where both partners could afford to contribute half the money so could that mean millilionaires potentially holidaying in Butlins? If not, then does the lower earning spouse rely on the benevolence of their partner in order to go on holiday somewhere they couldn't otherwise afford in which case does the higher earner get to dictate where they go on holiday? Similar principles could apply to houses, cats etc where the lower earner could find they have limited influence over major family decisions because they don't share the wealth. This is particularly difficult when it involves decisions relating to shared children.

I also think sharing finances is important when couples hit hard times such as bad health or when issues related to the children crop up. Sometimes children need more parental support than can be provided by two parents working FT, I'm thinking cases where teenage children have suffered mental health crisis or had serious, chronic health conditions that require a lot of appointments and monitoring. Without the principle that all money is "family money" then how do you decide who takes the financial hit and how would the other spouse fairly compensate for this?

I know all the issues above would exist if a couple were cohabiting instead of married too, but isn't this why we need the two separate legal entities so that we can actively choose which arrangement we want to adopt? I just don't envisage a situation where you could allow someone to ring fence all their financial assets at the point of divorce without incurring lots of the scenarios mentioned above during the course of the marriage.

I have a genuine question. I’ve asked this on another thread in case anyone picks up on that but I’m not being goady, I’m asking in earnest: yes, legally marriage merged finances. But as we see frequently on here, higher-earning or sole earning partners still restrict access to money even when the couple is married, either by not having a joint bank account or only handing over a paltry sum each week/month to the SAHP. Despite what the marriage paperwork says, they still do it. So how do you prevent that within a marriage? What’s the legal recourse to compel someone to share their money without divorcing them? If such a process exists I’m unaware of it.

Bumpity on an ideological level I really disagree with your positive points about merging finances. I don’t think financial disparity between partners is a problem, providing the outgoings are split proportionately so the higher earner is in real terms contributing more. But I don’t subscribe to the view that each partner should have identical amounts for personal spending just because they’re married or together. What it boils down to to me, if that if I was the lower earner, I personally would feel like I was sponging off the higher earner, and if I was the higher earner, I’d feel incredibly resentful of them spending my money. Both feel morally wrong to me, hence why I don’t want to marry for largely financial reasons

@bumpitybumper just to restate my case. I am the higher earned and female and work part time. I have shouldered the burden of all the protections you mention. I saved for my maternity leave, I funded my husband at times of sickness, I saved for cars and holidays and I paid the deposit on the main home. He, of course, earned too and made a lower contribution. Had I been ill, I wonder if he would have been as responsible in supporting me.

Now we have a sum to split on divorce - the “joint marital assets”. I’m not saying he didn’t contribute, just that he didn’t contribute as much. Why not split that according to contribution? I no longer wish to be married or leeched off. I have not had any “protection”. I do not understand your problem with sharing out the proceeds fairly.

@Johnnyfinland
Bumpity on an ideological level I really disagree with your positive points about merging finances. I don’t think financial disparity between partners is a problem, providing the outgoings are split proportionately so the higher earner is in real terms contributing more.
I fundamentally disagree with you and I think financial disparity creates a huge power imbalance and lots of ethical issues about how marriages should function. Marriage isn't the same as cohabiting and if you wish to set up the "proportionate contribution" model then don't get married.

What it boils down to to me, if that if I was the lower earner, I personally would feel like I was sponging off the higher earner, and if I was the higher earner, I’d feel incredibly resentful of them spending my money. Both feel morally wrong to me, hence why I don’t want to marry for largely financial reasons
Fair enough, don't get married then. I mean it really is as simple as that and as long as you're absolutely clear with your partner about your intention not to marry and your motive behind it then it is for them to decide if they wish to remain in the relationship or not. I would personally not start a family unless I was married so therefore would not remain in such a relationship but everyone has a free choice and must live with the consequences of their decisions.

@Notbeingrobbed
You did have the protection of marriage, even though you didn't need it. What if you had fallen ill and been unable to work? Unless your ex had divorced you then he would have become the breadwinner and financially supported you. Same if you had become unemployed.

I think the problem is that your kind of scenario is relatively rare in that you appear to have contributed more to the marriage in almost all respects. Most marriages are just not like this and purely focussing on what someone has contributed financially to a marriage ignores the division of unpaid work. This approach would hugely harm women at a population level as they are overwhemingly the ones that do most of the domestic and childcare work and sacrifice their careers for the benefit of the family. Your suggestion could potentially trap lots of people in unhappy marriages as they simply can't afford to leave despite the fact they have contributed so much (unpaid) work to the family?

I do have sympathy for your situation and can understand why you feel resentful.

I agree that proceeds of the marriage should be shared fairly and that doesn’t mean 50/50 (necessarily). Ofc the court can take account of periods of maternity leave of childcare (although as noted I don’t think it’s a good thing that women are always doing the childcare- it should be more equally shared). But ultimately I don’t think one party should get a huge windfall on divorce because the other party has a better job.

Eg in Xenia case, her dh worked full time, earned, but much less than her. Why should he get some of her earnings? Or spousal maintenance? He is perfectly capable of supporting himself. She was the rp for the kids. It makes no sense and it’s pretty outdated as a concept.

I think this is the case for many lower earning spouses of both sexes. Usually they would never have earned much anyway if they had worked their whole life. they were childcarers often they were not enjoying work in the first place or were not earning much. The contribution of a sahp is the same for the spouse of a mw employee and high earning bankers. I See no reason why they should get a huge cash sum just because their dh/daw earns more.

@bumpitybumper it’s a strange argument about the power balance. I’d say the power rested with him! He was able to take my money and spend it as he wished. He actively ignored me and the children to sit around and do as he wished. I was his “servant” - working to support him and the children, booking the holidays because otherwise we wouldn’t go, cooking a family meal while he sat back and played on his computer, arranging childcare for times we needed it, going to parents evenings because he “couldn’t get time off” etc etc. All these things were apparently my responsibility because he did not do them.

Yes, you could say if you don’t agree with marriage don’t marry. But that’s a bit late for me now. I can’t escape as I have married! As I said earlier, I do think I did not have perfect knowledge back then in my 20s about how unfair divorce would be.

Maybe he was the wrong man but as others have said, anyone can make that mistake. I wanted family life and I worked hard to have what I thought everyone else had - even if it meant I did more than my fair share.

@bumpitybumper you say my ideas could trap people in unhappy marriages. Don’t you see I was trapped? But I was sticking it out because I so believed being married was better for the children.

And I was trapped because I feared the financial consequences.

In the end I took a stand and it turned out the children were trapped too and unhappy. They appear happier now after separation. Particularly the one who is refusing to ever see her father again.

I'm sure it's already been said, I haven't time to read everything, but a large number of people believe it's better for children to have someone who is always able to be there for them. There are very few careers where you can make that happen and therefore one person has to call time on their career. Whether it's the man or the woman is fairly irrelevant but in practice it tends to be women who prefer to look after the children than work.
When my youngest dc started secondary school i got a part time job. Even then, when my dc are largely independent it's been really inconvenient at times, not being able to be there for them when there's a change of plan, when they're ill or have an appointment. Being rushed all the time. It would be far easier not to have the job.
But I do want it because I do want to be able to be independent once the dc have left home. The reality is I will never be able to achieve even close to the salary levels I would have had if I hadn't had children. And that is why in a divorce settlement , in general, the partner who had more flexibility to work standard hours needs to support the other partner through a larger lump sum and/or through spousal maintenance if the other partner hasn't yet got a job which can support them.
The two working parent model does not suit everyone. Don't get married. Don't have children if you're with someone that doesn't agree with you on how best to bring up the children and is not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices that come with having children, no matter how you decide their care.

I suppose at root the situation I have been in (and Xenia too) is no different from the classic example of the abusive husband who sits at home and sends his wife out to work in a factory then snatches away her wages and heads to the pub to spend it. Only with more middle class lifestyles in a more refined way. And the judge is the one helping him snatch the money.

That example of the old-style husband is cited as the reason why child benefit is paid direct to the mother and not the couple. Although in theory it is, I suppose, joint marital money!

Usually they would never have earned much anyway if they had worked their whole life. they were childcarers often they were not enjoying work in the first place or were not earning much.

That's a massive and probably incorrect generalisation. When I gave up work my dh and I were in similarly paid roles and on similar career trajectories.

The contribution of a sahp is the same for the spouse of a mw employee and high earning bankers. I See no reason why they should get a huge cash sum just because their dh/daw earns more.

Not strictly true either. The wife of a high earning partner often has to shoulder far more of the childcare and firework burden because the partner works long hours, spends time overseas, is expected to work at the drop of a hat. Also the wife will have built up a life based around certain levels of income. If it's the dh instigating the divorce or if the dh's behaviour has been unreasonable then it seems unfair to reduce the wife's circumstances enormously. A little yes, but not enormously.
Also works the other way around of course.

@notbeingrobbed The distribution does seem unfair in your case. You have a husband who wasn't playing fair in terms of distribution of labour within the marriage. I'm sure there's plenty of examples of sahps who live a very cushy life too. I don't know how well set up the legal system is to recognise these behaviours.

Johnny, in English law a spouse has a legal duty to support the other financially whilst they are married so that is the legal basis - if your spouse is leaving you without food etc you could bring a legal claim. However many spouses do not which is why when it was first brought in child benefit went only to the mother because so many mothers of richer men were not getting even enough money from them to feed the children as the woman had stopped work. It was a universal benefit and rightly so because even the millionaire men did not even give their wives enough to eat in all cases.

As to how you manage equality - we just discussed it all before we married, shared finances and accounts and it worked for us during marriage.

Unless the xhusband is getting more than 50 % of the assets then it is completely fair that he gets a chunk of the money available. I re read the op and it doesn't say what percentage he is getting. Just because he earns less doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his fair share of the pot. Of course if you have the kids, he has a job and he walks away with more than 50% then that isn't fair but otherwise it is fair and would still be fair if the sexes were reversed

@zsazsajuju
The contribution of a sahp is the same for the spouse of a mw employee and high earning bankers.
Says who? You need to stop presenting opinion as fact as it is objectively impossible to calculate the value of a SAHP as for many it isn't just a substitute for paid childcare. The value one places on the SAHP role will vary and although you obviously hold an extremely low opinion of SAHPs, your opinion is not definitive and phrasing it how you have is disingenuous.

@Notbeingrobbed
Unfortunately you married a feckless man and I can understand how you feel aggrieved about the situation, but ultimately you chose to marry him and crucially remain married to him for many years. I notice a lot of people on this thread emphasising the importance of women being independent and taking responsibility for their financial futures, but I think that philosophy should extend to women taking responsibility for all their life choices including who we choose to marry and how long we remain married to said person. We often don't have perfect knowledge when we make decisions but ultimately it is up to us as adults to educate ourselves as much as we can about the potential repercussions of our choices and be prepared to act when it's clear that a decision we made in good faith has turned bad.

I know that sounds harsh and honestly I don't mean it as an attack, but I don't think it's fair to blame the law around marriage and divorce settlements for the fact that you entered marriage without really understanding what it entailed, chose what ultimately turned out to be a poor spouse (not necessarily your fault, but not the law's fault either) and then didn't look to end the marriage as soon as you realised that you didn't want to continue accruing joint assets that would be split in the case of divorce.

I think what zsazsajuju means is that a SAHP has largely the same role - child rearing and taking care of household duties - whether their spouse is a millionaire of earning minimum wage

*or earning, I mean. Typo

@Johnnyfinland
Ah I see, apologies @zsazsajuju for misinterpreting your post.

I still think I disagree though with the point as I stand by the fact that the value of a SAHP is subjective and varies from family to family. You can't say that there is a "market value" as it's not a commodity you can buy or a role you can just hire anyone to do. .

Can't understand how this thread continues. OP is complaining about same thing as men have moaned about since divorce was invented. The SAHP who did not work gets a big share of something they never paid for.

Bumpitybumper,

You are claiming the wife of an investment banker with a cleaner (and sometimes even nanny)is somehow worth maybe 10x a SAHP who is married to a less well earning husband. I don’t buy it.

The reality is that they are doing (optimistically) 40k worth of work and being a kept person for the rest of their lifestyle.

@larrygrylls
If you get married and therefore agree to share financial assets and then also agree that your spouse will be a SAHP then you are by default agreeing that you assign your spouse carrying out that role a value that equates to half the assets of the marriage. If you don't think this way then either don't get married or don't agree to your spouse becoming a SAHP.

You imply that value is intrinsically linked to effort exoended and that roles can have a definitive value, I would argue neither of these assertions are correct. Consider the work of artists for example, you could have two artists where one spends months on a piece and the other spends an hour on their piece. Both could have the same level of training and similar qualifications, yet the artist that spent an hour on their work could sell their work for 100x more than the other artist because a rich buyer likes their work and therefore values it highly and has the budget to pay more. This may not seem fair but the value of art is subjective especially when it's one of a kind and unique, as is someone fulfilling the SAHP role. Ultimately it comes down to something is only worth as much as as someone is willing and can afford to pay. We all value things differently and it's obvious this applies to lots of areas of life so why do people find it so difficult to comprehend when it comes to SAHPs? You might not want to pay millions for a Tracy Emin piece of work but as long as someone is then your views on value are pretty irrelevant.

Bumpity

Your points are valid in relation to the current law. In England it provides a high degree of protection for the partner with less wealth and income. Many many people married to very partners come here to get divorced for that very reason. The divorce laws allow for a 50:50 split and takes account of lifestyle. Prenups are not considered binding. Conversely we have no laws protecting or providing security form families in cohabitation arrangements. Complicated by widespread misunderstanding on this issue. What is without doubt is that cohabitation arrangements break down much more frequently than marriage. The economic and emotional impact on children and society is great. By necessity it will be quantified and evaluated.

But the question really is do our current laws do what we want they do for the majority of people and in the public’s interest. The purpose of marriage and divorce law is to provide stable and secure homes for children. They should also protect adults from homelessness, reliance on welfare and poverty in so far as they can do.

Marriage cannot do this if it is unattractive and people stop getting married. It does not do this if people cohabite rather than marry and have children. Statistics show that the numbers of people who marry has fallen. The number of children in cohabitation arrangements is increasing. This applies far more to children in lower socioeconomic communities.

So yes reform is needed. The white paper focuses on no fault but there is recognition of the need for wider reform and campaigners are doing this.

I really don’t care about the impact of the families of investment bankers or billionaires. I don’t think we should continue to promote marriage based on idealised middle class values or family models. Which in any case are not sustainable and as many SAHP and wives find out, are not wealthy enough to sustain two comfortable middle class households come the divorce.

I get that you want to ensure that parenting is valued in society and that is not just seen as financial cost or productivity measure. However does the parenting of children in cohabitation arrangements not matter too? Does the parenting of children of divorced or single parents not matter?

@bumpitybumper that argument is ridiculous. The SAHM of an investment banker can never be worth half his assets. An au pair costs £100 a week and for school age children provides all the services of an investment banker’s SAHP, including live-in flexibility. That is the value of that work. A very wealthy family could have a cleaner too. Or if you don’t want to overwork them then get two! Much cheaper than a spouse.

Yes, obviously I am an idiot and next life around I won’t marry at all. Or I’ll devote myself to being blonde and thin and put all my energies into snaring an investment banker for his money.

So much for liberation, eh?

@MissedTheBoatAgain I’d disagree that my argument is entirely the same as a typical man’s because, as I’ve explained, I would argue I’ve done a great deal of parenting and homemaking as well as working. I had to sacrifice full-time work for my family.

Secondly, maybe those men have a point! Marriage appears to simply be a form of domestic Communism...and we all know how that usually ends.

Marriage appears to simply be a form of domestic Communism...and we all know how that usually ends

So why did you marry?