Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

[Chad]

jennypenny wrote:
Quote:
From what I know of US laws getting married or having kids in the states is, for a man, about as smart as standing on a hilltop during a bad thunderstorm: you might be alright but it's still a really, really bad idea.

@SilverElephant: Not gonna lie, I agree with you 100% regarding marriage in the U.S.

Why, because if you make it you bought it? Nevermind...you guys are so lucky I promised myself not to argue with anyone else on the forum this week


No, I don't have any problem with being legally required to support your own progeny. Alimony is very different from child support, though, and even child support is often rendered in a way that disproportionately calls for financial sacrifice on the father's part. Neither of which seems coherent in a world of "equality" for the sexes. I have only anecdotal evidence, but when things go wrong in a marriage, it seems like the man gets the shaft 9 times out of 10. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested in seeing it. We can call it a discussion instead of an argument if you prefer.

As far as the money thing, I've never dated a woman who makes as much income as me in my day job, nor come even close to encountering one with the same level of assets. Maybe that's just me, but we all know how rare it is to be financially independent in the first place...

More importantly, even if the woman had more income/assets, it's not at all clear to me that the courts wouldn't still come after the man for the lion's share of the financial burden. The better question seems to be, "what century do the (ironically named) family courts think this is?"

Just thought I would move this, so if the discussion gets bigger/longer we don't disrupt the kid question.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3895

[jennypenny]

As far as the money thing, I've never dated a woman who makes as much income as me in my day job, nor come even close to encountering one with the same level of assets. Maybe that's just me, but we all know how rare it is to be financially independent in the first place...

Have you asked yourself why that is? Is it that they aren't being paid as much as they should be? Is it that they aren't educated in finances? Is it that they were steered from a young age towards careers that earn less? Is it that some men, probably subconsciously, still seek out women who earn less to preserve some aspect of their manhood? (I'm not saying that's wrong BTW. It may be hardwired into men on some level to "provide" for their family.)

Look...If you want to wait until you're FI to get married and have kids, that's fine. But if you're FI at 40 and marry some twenty-something fresh out of grad school, you have to assume she won't be bringing any assets to the table and you'll be on the hook if it goes south. I don't think that's completely wrong. Part of the reason you'd be marrying a twenty-something is for her breeding prospects, otherwise you'd be looking for someone your own age, right?

-----------

I just read the thread title. "Women marrying down" Is that how men see it if they marry a women who has or earns less? As marrying down? Ugh. Is money the primary consideration here?

[jennypenny]

Bringing over SilverElephant's post in full so I can reply...

@Spartan_Warrior

Seems to me the middle ground is not getting married but having kids if you want them. Worst case, you can get nailed for child support but not alimony (this might change in the future, of course)

Why are you guys all assuming you've got more money than your wife when you split? What century do you think this is??

I believe that this is, statistically, the probable case. Kids from wealthy families aside, the societal pressure for a guy to live a life aimed towards supporting a family is infinitely higher than for women. The vast majority of women I know treat school, college and even their job as a kind of hobby to be pursued until the right guy comes along to pay her for being a stay-at-home-mommy.

Obviously this will not apply to all women, least of all on these forums; but the people on here are already selected in the "rather independent, intelligent and critical thinking" group. I'm talking about the general population, the trends of which affect us here.

I assure you the pressure on me to get a decent career so I can be a provider is very high, whereas all that's discussed for my sister is whether she'll find a nice, successful guy even though she's in medical school. Most people don't even realize it. But a guy getting a degree he likes then getting into a nice, quiet job he might enjoy for not too much pay (not the ideal path to ERE but certainly to satisfaction and early retirement if lived frugally) will be, at best, treated as an oddity and, at worst, alienated. Trust me on this, the mere mention of this has gotten me involved in intense discussions in a me-vs-all setting.

It's uncanny, really. When people discuss a woman's salary they mentally measure it against the assumed spending for one person, no stress. When a man's salary (or potential salary or job prospects) and discussed, it is measured against the assumed spending to pay a mortgage and pay for a whole family.

My solution has been to deal with women from similar financial backgrounds. Those who understand it, that is. To be fair, I guess a lot of men from a certain financial background don't understand it, either.

I understand this may come out as misogynistic. It isn't, all I want is understanding what I'm getting into. It's not that different from waking up from the consumer lifestyle and deciding it isn't for you.

Like Spartan_Warrior said, the courts are still heavily favoring women in divorces.

[Chad]

Have you asked yourself why that is? Is it that they aren't being paid as much as they should be? Is it that they aren't educated in finances? Is it that they were steered from a young age towards careers that earn less? Is it that men, probably subconsciously, still seek out women who earn less to preserve some aspect of their manhood? (I'm not saying that's wrong BTW. It may be hardwired into men on some level to "provide" for their family.)

In my experience, which considering I'm one person is rather a small sample size, they are getting paid in the correct salary range and in rather lucrative careers. They just don't want to date men who make less and I don't even make that much less than the very successful ones. Though, I probably have more assets.

They aren't financially educated, but neither are men. This is just a normal deficit for our population.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Have you asked yourself why that is?

I generally think it's because ERE practices represent about 1% of the population and most people, not just women, have no assets to their name... The difference in assets would probably be a consideration even if I were marrying another man.

[Chad]

Have you asked yourself why that is?

I generally think it's because ERE practices represent about 1% of the population and most people, not just women, have no assets to their name... The difference in assets would probably be a consideration even if I were marrying another man.

Absolutely.

[Spartan_Warrior]

(BTW--as far as I know, moderators on phpBB can actually split individual posts out of one topic and move them to another. Useful when things get off topic and need to be split off like this. Just for reference.)

[Spartan_Warrior]

Actually, the thought experiment of marrying another man is useful. Assuming I was divorcing a man who had low income/low assets, versus divorcing a woman who had the identical low income/low assets... which of my hypothetical ex-spouses do you think would be given the more preferential treatment by the divorce courts?

Or, suppose I have a stay-at-home wife who takes care of the kids while I work as the sole bread-winner. Typical divorce will award custody to the wife 9 times out of 10 and nail me for child support (and probably alimony).

Now, suppose I'm the stay-at-home dad and my wife is the bread-winner. Who is still most likely to get custody? How likely is there to be an alimony payment?

[workathome]

Pre-nuptial agreements are possible. If you're coming into a marriage with significantly more assets than your spouse it is a logical step.

[jennypenny]

Seems to me the middle ground is not getting married but having kids if you want them. Worst case, you can get nailed for child support but not alimony (this might change in the future, of course)

The fact that you see financially supporting your own children as "getting nailed for child support" shows why it's necessary for courts to favor women even though we should be past this issue.

I believe that this is, statistically, the probable case. Kids from wealthy families aside, the societal pressure for a guy to live a life aimed towards supporting a family is infinitely higher than for women.

In the US, over 60% of all women work. It would seem that more than half of all women feel an obligation to provide for their families as well.

The vast majority of women I know treat school, college and even their job as a kind of hobby to be pursued until the right guy comes along to pay her for being a stay-at-home-mommy.
...whereas all that's discussed for my sister is whether she'll find a nice, successful guy even though she's in medical school. Most people don't even realize it.

This was my point about how women were raised. If your family treats your sister that way, is it her fault that she grows up thinking that way? I would say not completely.

------------

If the issue for everyone is really that they can't find someone who's financially independent, or at least financially savvy, then they should separate the two issues. Throwing marriage and women under the bus when the issue is a financial one, not a gender-related one, is wrong and perpetuates the stereotype.

I'm curious if the gay men on the board have the same trouble finding someone ERE-compatible?

[jennypenny]

They just don't want to date men who make less

But aren't you guys saying that you don't want to date women who make less?

My point is that the problem is financial, not gender-related, and the issues should be separated.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Pre-nups are often ignored. And I refer to it as "getting nailed with child support" because, as I said, it's typically a disproportionate financial burden on the man. That is, the man is expected to be greater than 50% responsible for the child, and the child support reflects this. If it were fair, it wouldn't be getting nailed.

And no, I'm not saying I don't want to date women who make less than me at all. I just don't want to have to divorce a woman who makes less than me.

[Chad]

If the issue for everyone is really that they can't find someone who's financially independent, or at least financially savvy, then they should separate the two issues. Throwing marriage or all/most women under the bus when the issue is a financial one, not a gender-related one, is wrong and perpetuates the stereotype.

I agree that this is the ideal. Unfortunately, no matter how financially savvy/independent my wife would be I'm taking a much bigger financial risk getting married than her. This isn't necessarily women's fault, but it's still a factor for me.

[Ego]

I agree that this is the ideal. Unfortunately, no matter how financially savvy/independent my wife would be I'm taking a much bigger financial risk getting married than her. This isn't necessarily women's fault, but it's still a factor for me.

Why is that? Why are you ruling out the possibility that you may fall in love with someone who makes/has more than you?

[Chad]

They just don't want to date men who make less

But aren't you guys saying that you don't want to date women who make less?

My point is that the problem is financial, not gender-related, and the issues should be separated.

I will date women who make less. I do have a certain minimum salary/assets and financial savvy I keep in mind. More savvy can translate into a lower minimum salary. I don't want them to have to rely on me financially. Obviously, if something bad happened (job loss, sickness, etc.) I would want them to rely on me.

[jennypenny]

I refer to it as "getting nailed with child support" because, as I said, it's typically a disproportionate financial burden on the man. That is, the man is expected to be greater than 50% responsible for the child, and the child support reflects this. If it were fair, it wouldn't be getting nailed.

But aren't you one of the lefties on the board who always argues that people in our society with greater financial means should bear a larger financial burden when it comes to taxes and social services? So a man with significant financial means should be expected to contribute a larger percentage to society as a whole, but he should only be required to pay exactly half of the cost of supporting his own children?

[Ego]

That is, the man is expected to be greater than 50% responsible for the child, and the child support reflects this. If it were fair, it wouldn't be getting nailed.

"Expected". Who expects this?

If both you and your future wife expect to be a team, working together, then there is no problem. Find a woman who wants to be part of a team. They do exist.

[Chad]

I agree that this is the ideal. Unfortunately, no matter how financially savvy/independent my wife would be I'm taking a much bigger financial risk getting married than her. This isn't necessarily women's fault, but it's still a factor for me.

Why is that? Why are you ruling out the possibility that you may fall in love with someone who makes/has more than you?

I'm not ruling it out. I'm suggesting her salary, whether higher or lower, has little bearing on if the courts screw me or not. My assets are at greater risk than hers in a divorce. Obviously, if hers are $50 million then I'm probably not paying alimony, but the wealth makes that an outlier.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Ego: The divorce courts expect it.

@Jenny: Yes, the wealthy should pay higher taxes. No, a man should not have to pay more to raise a child because of his gender. They are two separate issues.

Re: financial vs. gender issue

To me it is a financial issue. To the divorce courts, it is a gender issue, because the decision will be influenced by gender--see my thought experiment on divorcing a man versus divorcing a woman. Whether that's right or wrong (e.g. whether it's appropriate to favor women financially due to their biological or social roles, etc) is irrelevant to me. Like Chad said, it's simply that I have a lot more at risk than my potential wife would--not by virtue of differences in finances, but by virtue of her being a woman.

[Chad]

That is, the man is expected to be greater than 50% responsible for the child, and the child support reflects this. If it were fair, it wouldn't be getting nailed.

"Expected". Who expects this?

If both you and your future wife expect to be a team, working together, then there is no problem. Find a woman who wants to be part of a team. They do exist.

Of course, these women exist. But, that doesn't help me if we end up getting divorced.