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?

Sorry, just one more.

That last exchange from @larrygrylls and @Bumpitybumper. Bumpity says that as the actual 'sacrifice' is difficult to quantify, the companesation to the SAHP should be based on the wealth of your ex partner. I say because it's difficult to quantify it shouldn't be done through divorce. It should not be the case that your partner is effectively insuring your career- you don't have to actually do it, but if you split up you will be treated as if you had a succession of promotions, etc- that's madness.

I think I've cracked it. Maternity and paternity should be generous and equal, excellent childcare should be the default after this, if you give up your job to look after the children yourself, you get a specific agreement in place as to what your terms of 'employment' are, or you do it at your own risk.

@BumpityBumper If you had stayed in your job and progressed like your husband then think how much better a standard of living your children would have had? So maybe your decision, even if a joint decision, has left them disadvantaged? Maybe you should be penalised for depriving them, not compensated? I hope you can see at least that the argument works both ways round? If I had given up work we would have got by on a much lower salary, life would have been harder for all of us. Instead I was working to benefit us all and the pot is bigger. I’m just concerned about who gets how much.

The argument about the power dynamic can also be reversed. It could be that the higher earner sticks with it because they realise the extreme cost of divorce! Just as much as a non-earner sticking with it because of worrying about a drop in living standards.

I’ve sat back a bit and seen this argument develop. There are people suggesting I “opened my legs” to a “feckless” man or should only have married up etc.

What utterly sexist tosh. You are the ones seeing marriage as a business transaction, not me! I married a man I found interesting and, yes, loved. Actually he was a graduate with very similar potential to me but didn’t strive so hard. In any case, I wasn’t marrying for money!

On the other hand, the feeling he will now profit out of me is galling because apparently I am being fined for wanting a loving relationship and for working hard for my family. He is laughing at this being supposed equality!

As for marrying “down”...men have been doing it throughout history. That’s one reasons why law is the way it is. Gold diggers marry for money - I don’t think that’s an admirable role model though.

I like the idea that a teacher is somehow in an elite compared to a postman! I think you’ll find the pay is not so different.

I am “fortunate”, as has been said, that I can support my children on divorce through my job. But this isn’t luck - it’s down to a hell of a lot of hard work!

@unclemontyscrumpets
You believe:
Women are intrinsically and biologically inclined towards child rearing- this is inevitable
This means they will generally be at a financial disadvantage
This in turn means they should be protected
A good way to do this is through divorce law

Not quite. I believe that the process of carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth, potentially breastfeeding and all of the hormones that coarse through a woman's body throughout this time will generally mean (especially initially) that women will be more bonded to their babies than men. This won't be uniformly true of course, but I just think it borders on denying biology if we start to pretend that the process has exactly the same effects on men as it does on women. For a start, a man can walk away from a baby before it's even been born whilst without opting for a termination the woman doesn't have that option. I do think the end result is that often women end up being the primary carer for children, especially when they're young and therefore are most likely to take a career hit whether it be to work PT or be a SAHP. I know this doesn't always happen and sometimes women end up in this role through necessity (partner not stepping up) rather than desire but it is still the norm and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Women will be the ones that have the physical and mental health conditions associated with pregnancy and birth. Hypermesis, PND, adhesions from csections, prolapses... The list really is endless and all these conditions can lead to time out of the workforce and have a detrimental effect on a woman's career. Pretending the process of having children is just a surmountable blip for a woman to get over is just really misleading and downplays the havoc children can wreak on women's health and lives.

I think underestimating the impact of having children on women is very damaging to women and putting all differences down to socialisation doesn't do anyone a favour. Not viewing men as exactly the same as women is absolutely not the same as saying you think women are lesser. I don't really appreciate making me out as someone that is antiwomen or subscribes to silly things such as lady brain. I'm talking about very real biology, not some weird misogynistic theory peddled by MRAs.

i can't buy another of your arguments either, I'm afraid. You say that the value of being a SAHP is subjective, and have conceded (I think) that that makes it hard to quantify. I would argue that it's impossible to quantify- as when do you make the call on what the intentions of the parties are? Is it on the day they get married? What if they start their marriage on an equal footing, and one becomes incredibly wealthy over the course of it- does the value of the SAHP increase in value at exactly the same time the other partner's salary does?
I agree that it's impossible to provide a definitive value for a SAHP that's why I don't agree with all of these "value for money" arguments put forward by other posters. That's also why I think the principle that you split marital assets relatively equally is important as it basically assumes that everyone was aware of this principle upon marriage and agreed to set up that would mean that they would be ok with their spouses walking away with such a settlement upon divorce. If you sign a contract (which ultimately marriage is) where the terms and conditions are pretty clear and you know that your spouse would be entitled to a large proportion of the shared assets at the time of divorce then it's really up to you to end the contract once you're unhappy with how things are goingbrather than let those assets grow. You can't really stay in the contract for decades and then moan about the repercussions.

@unclemontyscrumpets
Bumpity says that as the actual 'sacrifice' is difficult to quantify, the companesation to the SAHP should be based on the wealth of your ex partner. I say because it's difficult to quantify it shouldn't be done through divorce. It should not be the case that your partner is effectively insuring your career- you don't have to actually do it, but if you split up you will be treated as if you had a succession of promotions, etc- that's madness.
What I'm saying is there is no definitive way you can work out the value of a sacrifice, I thought we were in agreement about that?

I was just pointing out to Larry that there were lots of potential ways you could calculate such a value and i agree that some bordered on ridiculous but that was my point. There isn't a definitive, sensible way that everyone would subscribe to.

I think I've cracked it. Maternity and paternity should be generous and equal, excellent childcare should be the default after this, if you give up your job to look after the children yourself, you get a specific agreement in place as to what your terms of 'employment' are, or you do it at your own risk.
Yes I could get on board with this.

@Bumpitybumper I did mention recovery after birth specifically, and my 'generous' maternity would specifically include time for this- I don't think we should pop out a small, get up and continue ploughing the fields.

Fair enough on the health issues you've mentioned, but that doesn't happen to every (or even the majority?) of women, and again I don't think divorce law would be a sensible place to remedy this. Similarly, others have mentioned health issues on this thread- again again I don't think we should have to depend on our spouses (or ex spouses) to insure us against illness of injury.

"The argument about the power dynamic can also be reversed. It could be that the higher earner sticks with it because they realise the extreme cost of divorce! Just as much as a non-earner sticking with it because of worrying about a drop in living standards."

Yes, interesting point - would be interesting to know how many higher earner spouses do now 'stick it out' when they'd prefer to leave if they weren't concerned about the financial consequences.

I think one problem is that in each case fairness depends on the facts - in some cases the lower earner really has sacrificed their own high earning potential to enable the higher earner - so many threads on mn where the dm has given up work or gone part-time etc because the df has to travel, work late etc and it's just not possible for both to work in their previous jobs. (Though, as an aside, he doesn't have to do that job - could always look for something more compatible with both parents working. ) In others, maybe less so.

So no 'general rule' will result in absolute fairness in every case. I thought the courts did look at each case individually, iyswim - though as I understand it 'fault' is not taken into account in financial settlements (I am not an expert though!).

Is there any evidence at all that women have poorer health than men due to childbirth? Any statistics? I think once antibiotics came in and obstetricians started washing their hands then the No1 risk was eliminated - the risk of death in or immediately after childbirth. Yes, it can be a mucky, painful business but that is down to Mother Nature.

What about men? They die younger on average, may get specifically male diseases such as prostate cancer and my simply wear themselves out supporting their SAHPs.

I don’t seriously think the divorce law can take this into account!!

I do wonder where all the SAHPs get the idea that it’s desirable or acceptable to maybe earn nothing and give it all up for their DP. Have you looked at house prices recently?

My mother was advised by her father to always be able to earn her own living. He had seen war widows left utterly destitute because they had no trade of any sort and he believed a woman should have a way of supporting herself.

His 1940s advice is as sound today as it was then. Stepford never existed.

"I don't think we should have to depend on our spouses (or ex spouses) to insure us against illness of injury."

No, I think the point was more that you cannot predict how much your future spouse will earn. If they become unable to work and you divorce, you're then the higher earner, with all that implies in terms of the financial divorce settlement. Conclusion, was - you can't, currently, 'protect yourself' by marring a future high earner (which was a poster's Option 1). The only way to protect yourself in that sense is Option 3 - don't marry.

(But in which case be prepared to pay the iht on the dp's share of joint assets at any time - which may mean having to sell your house. Presumably more life insurance is the answer to that, though becomes more expensive as you get into your 60s and 70s etc)

@everincreasingfrequency IHT only kicks in over £325,000. So it’s only worth marrying if your pot exceeds £650,000 plus there is the nil band rate for the main family home -another £100k each. I said I was the higher earner but not the super-rich. I’m not in London so our pot is nowhere near £850,000!

@Notbeingrobbed
Is there any evidence at all that women have poorer health than men due to childbirth? Any statistics?
For a start it was recently reported that 3/10 new mothers suffer from PND although as it's considered to be under reported it's impossible to know the true extent. Prolapses are incredibly common, especially for women who have had instrumental deliveries. I personally know a woman who has been given a terminal diagnosis as a result of adhesions forming after a C-section plus at least three friends that have been referred for surgery to repair the damage obtained from vaginal births.

What about men? They die younger on average, may get specifically male diseases such as prostate cancer and my simply wear themselves out supporting their SAHPs
Some classic "whataboutery" there... The life expectancy gap is less likely to affect someone's career prospects and earnings than conditions brought upon by having children which normally happen just when a woman is building her career.

not pretend that they are somehow worth a fortune merely for marrying someone rich

Women have become worth a fortune after divorce from Russian Oligarchs and the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Bernie Ecclestone, etc.

When a 27 year old 6'2" tall model marries a man who is twice her age and some 10" shorter, but is a Billionaire don't anyone on MN dare suggest the woman's decision had nothing to do with money.

Works both ways. Some men have been happy to become Toy Boys to older women due to the wealth the older woman has.

Still get the impression there are some on this thread that think if the Wife was the Major earner ex husband should not get anything, but if other way around the ex wife should get it all?

Women fought for equal treatment for decades, but seem to think that equality should not be applied if it is to their disadvantage?

"plus there is the nil band rate for the main family home -another £100k each."

I think that extra band is only applicable to bequests to direct descendants - so not cohabitee to cohabitee (though I am not an expert, again. I might be wrong) But yes I agree iht becomes more of an issue where property prices are high. And is possibly not central to the issues in the thread, I accept (though may be relevant when considering pros and cons of marriage generally)! Which are very interesting, and no easy answers.

PND isn’t a permanent condition. Women have maternity leave and often getting back to work can be good for mental health. Other examples are anecdotal.

Bumpity,

If you both had equal assets and equal potential earnings, then a 50/50 split on divorce would be fair as, were you not to have agreed to stay at home, you would probably be in an equal financial position.

I am talking about cases where the income/asset disparity on marriage is huge.

Actually Rupert Murdoch remains rich - so he must have had some excellent financial planning to make sure none of his three ex-wives walked away with half his fortune. Possibly he didn’t divorce in Britain, also a lot of his wealth is in the business and family trusts.

@larrygrylls I don’t agree potential is the same as actual earnings. I could have a high potential but choose not to work. In which case my actual earnings are low. Or I might make a major mistake at work and lose my job - my potential is then invalid. I don’t see how the law can support the idea that one spouse is forcing the other to be disadvantaged when that spouse is actually bringing home the bacon!

@Notbeingrobbed
I do wonder where all the SAHPs get the idea that it’s desirable or acceptable to maybe earn nothing and give it all up for their DP. Have you looked at house prices recently?
Do you think you're intellectually superior to all SAHPs as your tone certainly implies this? Who says being a SAHP isn't acceptable or desirable anyway?

When making the decision to be a SAHM I considered not only house prices, but my DH's future earning potential, projected increases in outgoings, the impact a break would have on my career, earnings and pension and many other things. I also considered what I would do if our marriage was to end in divorce and made sure that we could provide our children a good standard of living in all reasonably foreseeable scenarios. Also important to consider life insurance and other insurance you can take out to provide added security.

Your grandfather may well have offered your mother sage advice, however everyone's circumstances and aspirations are different so it's unlikely that one piece of advice could be equally applicable to everyone.

Actually Rupert Murdoch remains rich - so he must have had some excellent financial planning to make sure none of his three ex-wives walked away with half his fortune

Two of his divorces were over a Billion. Maybe due to success of his business he was soon able to recoup the settlement costs before the next divorce came along?

I will let others decide for themselves why Jerry Hall married him?

I think maybe the days of working being optional are over or should be over. When you think about it it’s amazing that any adult let’s someone else work for them for the rest of their lives. Having said that, being there for your small children especially as a SAHP is a positive thing for them in many ways so it’s difficult. But I do think many girls, certainly in my generation (mid 30’s), were still bred to have little or no aspirations and kind of assumed some man would let them lead whatever life they expected in the future. That way of thinking has to stop. Women need to come out of education with a plan for how they will live till they die that doesn’t assume a partner will do the earning. If as a couple you decide on a few years out of the workforce for minding children then fine but there needs to be bigger picture thinking by women before deciding to do that. For our own sakes.

@Notbeingrobbed
PND isn’t a permanent condition.
I never said it was, I just said that a woman in the midst of it is unlikely to be able to concentrate on her career in the same way she could if she wasn't suffering from the condition. Even a year or two of poor performance at work can scupper a career.

Women have maternity leave and often getting back to work can be good for mental health. Other examples are anecdotal.
Other examples are anecdotal as I'm not going to spend hours trawling the internet for statistics to support that lots of women suffer health complications from having children. Why don't you Google the prevelance of prolapses or adhesions post csections and then come back to me about how everything is just tickety boo once you come back from maternity leave..

Not being,

If one party agrees to sacrifice a potentially big career to stay at home and both parties are happy with the arrangement, they should not be disadvantaged by it if they subsequently split up.

I am not sure why you think they should be?

What is clearly unfair is where someone marries someone else and has always had much lower potential earnings but feels they should share the higher earner’s success if they split up.

@bumpitybumper I never suggested I was intellectually superior. Other posters here are suggesting I am some numbskull who married a “feckless” man and deserve my comeuppance for not viewing marriage as a business transaction!

If all women give up work permanently to raise children then what are we teaching our daughters? I’m surprised another poster said women in their mid-30s were taught not to have aspirations - I thought it was more true of women in their mid-50s or 60s upwards.

In Lean In Sheryl Sandberg argues both women and men should take a step back at times to support the other but, more importantly, they should lean in and step up even when it seems difficult because that will be better for the entire family in the long term, in fact all of humanity.

I feel I kept my side of the bargain, I juggled and stepped back at times then returned. If I had not done that my earning potential would have maybe been more. Or maybe not because that isn’t quantifiable.

Do you really think Jerry Hall was down to her last few coppers and so just had to marry Rupert Murdoch!? I don’t think so. That view of marriage sees it as akin to prostitution!

Notbeingrobbed, I said about women in 30s as that’s my age and the group I know best. But it was definitely worse among women now 50’s and 60’s. I know as a child I kind of thought I’d ‘get to be’ a SAHM (like my mum) but actually I left at 20 for Asia and got too much of a taste of earning, career and power to feel the appeal of SAHM now (just my personality it turns out, not a comment on others wishing to be one). But looking back the overall sentiment among very middle class families in a fairly prestigious school (ie big on futures) was that it mattered what the guys did as they’d really need to earn. Girls should get a college education but the approach was much softer like it was more for fun. Among all the girls I went to school with a huge portion of them are very low earners or SAHM. A lot of the boys are quite high earners, diplomats, bankers etc.

The underlying chauvinistic social structure was definitely there. So although we’ve come far in the last 50 yrs, there is still a lot of work to be done in supporting girls to have broad aspirations and achieve them. (And demand that they don’t bear the burden of Home life to the advantage of everyone other than themselves).

There are interesting implications though if the general rule is that if you come with lower potential earnings you are expected to revert back to that on divorce, however high the dspouse's earnings.

It does mean that the idea of jointly working towards saving for 'the family's' financial well being doesn't really work. The lower earner would have more of an incentive to spend now while s/he has access to the income, in anticipation of the day that the marriage ends.

Whether there are longer term emotional or psychological consequences of not feeling that it's 'all for one one for all' financially, I don't know. But it would be a different view of the marriage I think.