NationStates Jolt Archive

It's still uncomfortably common for many married women to be in the situation where they would really be without resources if they left their spouse, or he died. As in, limited to no work experience, and no personal assets outside of the marriage. Spousal support can only take you so far, and if you're just starting your life from scratch after a divorce, with no marketable skills and/or education...how is that actually going to turn out? Especially if you have kids?

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a homemaker. I fucking admire women that do it, and do it well. I couldn't handle it, honestly...work is a vacation compared to that. But I think it's absolutely essential that ALL women get a good education, and develop themselves outside of the home just in case.

There is nothing more horrible than feeling like you have to stay with someone because you would literally be unable to take care of yourself if you left. I've even felt that way, and I was raised to never expect someone else to take care of me. Yet if for some reason, for example, my mom wanted to leave my dad, she'd be hooped...she doesn't even have a bank account.

I am hoping women are smartening up...I'm hoping men are too, so they don't perpetuate the expectation that their daughters just 'marry well' rather than developing their own skills...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?

I think that's an old view. A lot of people either don't believe in it or don't honor it when it's implied. It's a lost cause. It doesn't mean that a harmonious life of the man working and woman staying home and never having studied is unheard of, it just seems to be growing more rare by the day.

Get a good life insurance policy, or if they use the husbands money and invest it into other assests that would also work

Or

They can just go marry a richer man :p

I do hope my sister and any daughters I have will marry well...I want them to have a good husband (yes, I know what you mean by marry well...and that definition is part of what I'm talking about here, among other things)

I will also demand that my daughters are highly educated and pretty independent, just as my sister is.

I think that's an old view. A lot of people either don't believe in it or don't honor it when it's implied. It's a lost cause. It doesn't mean that a harmonious life of the man working and woman staying home and never having studied is unheard of, it just seems to be growing more rare by the day.

I'm hoping that this will be a 'generational' thing, that will slowly pass out of our society.

I'm pretty sure that, particularly in the Western world, this argument has been said and done. I have a job and I'm getting an education, and I highly doubt I'd ever be simply a "housewife". I'm sure very few women - at least women in Australia who weren't raised by extremely religious, sexist, conservative pricks - think the same way I do.

AP, why does it matter if they want to or not?

And what is wrong with doing that if they want to do it?

I'm pretty sure that, particularly in the Western world, this argument has been said and done. I have a job and I'm getting an education, and I highly doubt I'd ever be simply a "housewife". I'm sure very few women - at least women in Australia who weren't raised by extremely religious, sexist, conservative pricks - think the same way I do.

I'd like to be as hopeful.

The thing is, I HAVE met women my age and younger who got pregnant early, then married, and never had time to pursue post-secondary school, or work for any significant time out of the home. It's more common in the rural areas, it seems, anecdotes only at the moment.

On the less extreme side of things, consider the following scenario. Law graduate. Two post-secondary degrees, but limited work experience (confined to summers, part time positions throughout the school year). She works five years, gets married, pregnant. Goes on mat leave for a year. Works for another year. Gets pregnant again, might as well have the kids close together. Mat leave again. Maybe she decides for a third, maybe she decides to stay home for a few years until the kids are old enough to go to school.

She is losing time in the field, she is losing her edge. If the profession becomes glutted with new graduates, she will lose her competitive, professional edge. She might not be all that employable after six years or so out of game.

Even THAT is problematic. Not sure in that case what can be done by the woman herself...that's more of a social issue.

But I'm not convinced that this is an 'institution' that is over and done with...partly because of the way that our social structures continue to make it more common for women to become dependent financially on their male partners.

I do hope my sister and any daughters I have will marry well...I want them to have a good husband (yes, I know what you mean by marry well...and that definition is part of what I'm talking about here, among other things)

I meant marry rich...is that what you mean? Or you mean a 'good' husband, as in qualitatively good, not 'rich' good?

AP, why does it matter if they want to or not?

And what is wrong with doing that if they want to do it?

1) It's not something that is 'commonly' possible anymore. A couple has to make a very serious, planned decision for a woman (or man) to stay home and raise the kids. It is no longer the default position, it is the financial exception.

2) It's a perfectly valid choice...but it leaves the woman (or man) vulnerable, and that needs to also be taken into account and dealt with.


Then again, #2 won't be as problematic if #1 is true on as wide a scale as it seems to be.

I meant marry rich...is that what you mean? Or you mean a 'good' husband, as in qualitatively good, not 'rich' good?

I put that in as part of "good"...well, not rich. I don't need bank statements to approve of their choices in men. But a man who, at the very least, can pull his financial weight.

Since most people here think it's 'just another job', why not become a prostitute, no qualifications needed.

Form a union why don't you, I'm sure the police will be happy to help regulate and keep you safe as well.

I wouldn't honestly mind having a husband who was the breadwinner while I stayed at home. Me being me, I'd still be doing things, but they'd just be things that didn't turn a profit - raising the kids, volunteer work, taking classes if we could afford it, etc. If I marry someone, it will be with the full intent of staying with them forever, so I wouldn't be likely to worry too very much about what would happen if they left.

<snip>
...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?
It would be impossible for me to do that because my family so slacked off in their raising of me that by the time I was 18, I had no idea how to open a bank account of my own, or what the various kinds of accounts were. I had no idea how to write a resume. No idea about health insurance. All that kind of basic modern life shit. And I really, really, really did not want to be dependent on those lazy, selfish bastards longer than I had to be. So I just went ahead and got that info for myself.

For example, I literally walked into my local bank and said to the representative, "Pretend I'm from Mars and have never been in a bank before. Please explain everything to me about how to use a bank. I want to open some accounts, but I really need to start literally from scratch." I learned shit about banks and money management in one afternoon that some of my friends never learned.

So, the reason it would be impossible for me to put myself in such a position of dependency NOW is two-fold:

1) I've been, essentially, trained since teenage to get myself OUT of such positions of dependency by acquiring my own knowledge and skills independently. (And I guess I can be grateful to the lazy selfish bastards who raised me for making me make myself self-sufficient.)

2) I clearly lack the personality to exist in such a state of dependency, or else I'd still be living with my family, with no skills, no money of my own, etc., like the lump they treated me as. Instead, I just looked around; saw other people doing what I did not know how to do; decided that if THEY can do it, it must be easy; figured out who to ask for instructions (i.e., ask a banker how to use a bank); and went and did it without telling anyone at home I was going to.

After such a start, I just don't see myself sitting around letting someone else do everything for me. Also, if I had had such a life, I don't see myself sitting around saying, "Woe is me, whatever shall I do?" when I get left in the lurch by whoever was supporting me. I spent most of my young adulthood "in the lurch."

EDIT: I'd love to be a homemaker because I hate having a job. Being a homemaker is job, too, but it's a job one presumably wants to do because (a) it benefits the person doing it, and (b) one loves the other people one is doing it for. I can't say that for other kinds of jobs. (Most of the time, the paycheck is so insulting below the market value of the work that it hardly counts as a benefit, and I sure as shit do not love the fucktards I usually end up working for.) However, if the homemaker gig were to fall through on me, I've already had my inability to adapt knocked out of me.

1) It's not something that is 'commonly' possible anymore. A couple has to make a very serious, planned decision for a woman (or man) to stay home and raise the kids. It is no longer the default position, it is the financial exception.

2) It's a perfectly valid choice...but it leaves the woman (or man) vulnerable, and that needs to also be taken into account and dealt with.


Then again, #2 won't be as problematic if #1 is true on as wide a scale as it seems to be.

Well yes it is, but I don't see why they couldn't and what would be so bad.

Now it can leave the spouse vulnerable and it does need to be dealt with, but they could always invest in various assets so if one or the other passes away income will still come in, they could get life insurance one does not need to work to always get it but rather get their money to work for them.

Since most people here think it's 'just another job', why not become a prostitute, no qualifications needed.

Form a union why don't you, I'm sure the police will be happy to help regulate and keep you safe as well.

Huh?

No really.

Wha?

In the electorate where I work there are many people who immigrated to Australia from Greece and Italy in the 1950s and 60s. Many of the women married people of their own background and remained as homemakers. As a result they didn't learn English or get to know and understand the dominant Australian culture. Their husbands acquired these social skills from their workplaces and the social contacts they made through their workplaces.

The men are now dying and there is a growing problem for elderly Greek and Italian women who are facing enormous challenges in a society that doesn't have much time for them.

I wouldn't honestly mind having a husband who was the breadwinner while I stayed at home. Me being me, I'd still be doing things, but they'd just be things that didn't turn a profit - raising the kids, volunteer work, taking classes if we could afford it, etc. If I marry someone, it will be with the full intent of staying with them forever, so I wouldn't be likely to worry too very much about what would happen if they left.

Well, I'm not so cynical as to believe that most women think they'll split up with their husband's at some point...so isn't this sort of the problem?

When I moved in with my ex 11 years ago, I certainly believed it was for life. I did everything in my power for that decade to ensure it would be. Shit happens, shit happened.

If I didn't have my education, I'd be FUCKED.

Well yes it is, but I don't see why they couldn't and what would be so bad.

Now it can leave the spouse vulnerable and it does need to be dealt with, but they could always invest in various assets so if one or the other passes away income will still come in, they could get life insurance one does not need to work to always get it but rather get their money to work for them.

I'm overjoyed that you think marriage will result in the kind of financial stability for the family that would allow a couple to automatically have the ability to invest in fuck all.

It's a lovely belief. Truly.

I'm overjoyed that you think marriage will result in the kind of financial stability for the family that would allow a couple to automatically have the ability to invest in fuck all.

It's a lovely belief. Truly.

:rolleyes:

Unless you can start a sweat shop, using your own children, then options are probably limited for a lot of women. It all depends on the skills you had before you stopped working and how much of your life the evil children have sucked out of you. I've known women who had to quit their jobs because they couldn't afford to work, what with the daycare costs.

Huh?

No really.

Wha?

I'd answer in more depth but it would be hijacking on a bugbear of mine.

More on topic, I think this is a cultural legacy that's being solved by the rising education rates anyway.

Related to, I think, another thread of yours, divorce is an industry, there's vested interest for everyone involved aside from the couple to make it drawn out and difficult as possible.

I'd reform divorce laws in order to initiate cultural change, where marriage is no longer seen as the institution it is. I'd also, then, have to think about enforcement of child maintenance in a serious way - neglecting a child is criminal.

Many people live in an Industrial Revolution mindset, many are mediaeval - some serious change needs to take place and I think it will for one reason.

There's a huge shortfall of Gen X'ers as a total of population in the West, this gives Gen Y'ers some power in the coming future and I think Gen Y'ers are radically different.

I'm being really scanty with underlying explanations to properly outline what I'm saying, such is my prerogative :)

:rolleyes:

Well, fucking face it.

Your capitalist utopia, where there are enough funds for a couple to 'invest in case of the dissolution of the marriage' does not exist. There are millions of couples who cannot easily make the decision to forgo an income, or prepare financially for a breakdown in the marriage. Your proposal, therefore, is unrealistic, and somewhat insulting.

Unless you can start a sweat shop, using your own children, then options are probably limited for a lot of women. It all depends on the skills you had before you stopped working and how much of your life the evil children have sucked out of you. I've known women who had to quit their jobs because they couldn't afford to work, what with the daycare costs.

Three kids.

That's the magic number here. Three kids, and unless you've got a really amazing job, your salary will equal child-care costs, and therefore make it pointless for you to work.

I'd answer in more depth but it would be hijacking on a bugbear of mine. I'm not sure it would be hijacking, if I'm following your train of thought.

I'm being really scanty with underlying explanations to properly outline what I'm saying, such is my prerogative :)
Brat.

I have considered...what if we took that 'legal magic' out of marriage, and also divorce? The thing is, marriage grants sweeping rights, and therefore, divorce is difficult. If we gave LESS rights with marriage, divorce would not be as drawn out.

Would that be a good thing though?

I'm of the opinion that my property rights don't need to be 'melded' with another person...I resist that. Not because I have a lot of property, or bring a lot of assets into a relationship. Most matrimonial property laws create either a (vested)division of property immediately (civil law usually) or upon dissolution of the marriage (common law) anyway. Still, settling that during divorce is a freaking nightmare.

A lot of the case law out there has developed with the idea of protecting the 'vulnerable' spouse. Ensuring that domestic work wasn't 'worthless' in terms of division of assets, etc. So the man didn't get it all.

But if things are becoming more equalised, do we need that protection? Can marriage change? Become less about rights and status? Is that at all desirable? I'm not sure. It just suprises me how little the average person understands about the significance of marriage beyond the very limited social aspect.

I'm not sure it would be hijacking, if I'm following your train of thought.

Yeah, I also don't really want to get into it to be honest.

It just suprises me how little the average person understands about the significance of marriage beyond the very limited social aspect.

I've stuck this line up top because... absolutely! It's a decision that has great consequences and I really wouldn't know how to change it, I have to come back to education again though and it will all take time, the way we approach education is archaic.

Brat.

Yes, yes I am.

I have considered...what if we took that 'legal magic' out of marriage, and also divorce? The thing is, marriage grants sweeping rights, and therefore, divorce is difficult. If we gave LESS rights with marriage, divorce would not be as drawn out.

Would that be a good thing though?

I think it would, the only issue comes when children are involved but then I'd prefer a more community approach to raising children. Absent parents aren't fully an issue, absent adults are. Looking back, fathers used to be a rare family feature and you can still see this in, say, China where the father might work in an entirely different city, seeing his family but once a year but the children are raised by an entire family and more. Traditionally short male life span through war/violence etc., also meant that the male wasn't always the dominant feature of family.

So the nuclear family, in my opinion, is not a great step for civilization but I think we're entering a collaborative age and I hope/feel/not sure it will happen quite quickly.

The nuclear family also leads to the enormous power of divorce over the welfare of a partner and/or children.

I'm of the opinion that my property rights don't need to be 'melded' with another person...I resist that. Not because I have a lot of property, or bring a lot of assets into a relationship. Most matrimonial property laws create either a (vested)division of property immediately (civil law usually) or upon dissolution of the marriage (common law) anyway. Still, settling that during divorce is a freaking nightmare.

Really tough, there's certainly benefits in terms of joint assets but the split becomes, as you say, horrendous. Your original point is pertinent to this, where a partner 'gives up' self-sustainability due to cultural mores, how do we solve it in the interim before reaching a point where it's happening less, or it's better understood before entering?

A lot of the case law out there has developed with the idea of protecting the 'vulnerable' spouse. Ensuring that domestic work wasn't 'worthless' in terms of division of assets, etc. So the man didn't get it all.

But if things are becoming more equalised, do we need that protection? Can marriage change? Become less about rights and status? Is that at all desirable? I'm not sure.

It will be what it is, I feel that the ruptures we're seeing is due to a cultural transition. Where communities are shifting and changing constantly, greater autonomy is required.

I think we'll look back on the Industrial Revolution as the precursor to very interesting times, great technological progress and yet some odd human consequences - not necessarily bad per se, just an aspect of huge transition.

I think we're growing out of it and that Gen X was the flux, where we simply live in a different world bound by old cultural ideals, Gen Y will be part of a world where ideals/culture are catching up.

So I expect marriage to be more fluid, women to be more equally educated and empowered, and a world that recognises and adapts to that.

Gen X is coming to power and there's relatively few of them, Gen Y will have a larger influence and youth is about change.

I say Yay, I'm sure many have quite understandable, possibly correct reservations about it all.

*all opinions here may not be fully thought through in expression and are merely those of the author, no substantiation will be offered

Well that begs the question of what the point to marriage would be at all, from a legal standpoint. The whole point is to do what it does, and if you remove a lot of that, what are you left with?

Huh?

No really.

Wha?It's about as endearing as he gets ... it's been a long haul to get him this far.

Well that begs the question of what the point to marriage would be at all, from a legal standpoint. The whole point is to do what it does, and if you remove a lot of that, what are you left with?

As unromantic as this sounds, what if it was more along the lines of a job contract.

When I take a job, I don't expect it to last my lifetime, if I don't enjoy it I can quit and find another, if I don't fulfill my obligations I can be fired.

I might get severance pay but the point is that my mindset is not tied to the job so long as I don't love the work, and if I do then all the better.

It's not a perfect analogy but it speaks to the change in society, we're not in a gold-watch retirement world anymore and business, because it's geared to succeeding (and discarding that which is not successful) adapts far quicker.

I keep coming back to education in the end, we have to start there, I'm not really explaining why but I might start another thread on it. Regardless, I think the shift will happen anyway.

It's about as endearing as he gets ... it's been a long haul to get him this far.

...and I'm going no further, enough of being hauled.

It's still uncomfortably common for many married women to be in the situation where they would really be without resources if they left their spouse, or he died. As in, limited to no work experience, and no personal assets outside of the marriage. Spousal support can only take you so far, and if you're just starting your life from scratch after a divorce, with no marketable skills and/or education...how is that actually going to turn out? Especially if you have kids?

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a homemaker. I fucking admire women that do it, and do it well. I couldn't handle it, honestly...work is a vacation compared to that. But I think it's absolutely essential that ALL women get a good education, and develop themselves outside of the home just in case.

There is nothing more horrible than feeling like you have to stay with someone because you would literally be unable to take care of yourself if you left. I've even felt that way, and I was raised to never expect someone else to take care of me. Yet if for some reason, for example, my mom wanted to leave my dad, she'd be hooped...she doesn't even have a bank account.

I am hoping women are smartening up...I'm hoping men are too, so they don't perpetuate the expectation that their daughters just 'marry well' rather than developing their own skills...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?

I married when I was 22. I had half a college education and no marketable skills. I became pregnant almost immediately and had two children in two years. I was in that position of dependency, and my husband must have truly thought he had me by the short hairs, because he became abusive and neglectful. After six years, I took my kids, dumped his ass and went on welfare while I finished my degree. My daughter and son both learned from my experience, neither of them is dependent on another for anything. My daughter is supporting herself better than any husband ever could; my son can cook, clean and do laundry for himself. As for me, I've never looked back and never remarried.

Ich hab ein frau. Ich lieb mein frau. Chairman Mao once said, "Women hold up half the world".
Mind you he was probably a sexist old Chinaman who had married four times.

My point? Women have to be strong and it's just as well they are.

Boy do I love women! (They smell nice too!)

Well, fucking face it.

Your capitalist utopia, where there are enough funds for a couple to 'invest in case of the dissolution of the marriage' does not exist. There are millions of couples who cannot easily make the decision to forgo an income, or prepare financially for a breakdown in the marriage. Your proposal, therefore, is unrealistic, and somewhat insulting.

I wasn't offering it as the only way but it is an alternative way, not everyone can do it but it is a way, and I thought we were discussing when one of the partners deceased. (Hence the life insurance recommendation)

As in, limited to no work experience, and no personal assets outside of the marriage. Spousal support can only take you so far, and if you're just starting your life from scratch after a divorce, with no marketable skills and/or education...how is that actually going to turn out? Especially if you have kids?
Oh, they turn out pretty badly.

But, fortunately, most women are working already, even if married. And as long as we live in a capitalist and at least somewhat egalitarian world (i.e. don't "multiculturalize" with muslims), corporations won't let it change, on the contrary, only promote enhancing the workforce by any means and eliminating the exceptions.

I wouldn't honestly mind having a husband who was the breadwinner while I stayed at home. Me being me, I'd still be doing things, but they'd just be things that didn't turn a profit - raising the kids, volunteer work, taking classes if we could afford it, etc. If I marry someone, it will be with the full intent of staying with them forever, so I wouldn't be likely to worry too very much about what would happen if they left.

I have a buddy who is much like this. His wife is an X-ray technician at his local hospital, which makes her one of the richest people in town. He takes care of the kids, cleans the house, makes dinner and spends what free time he has hunting and trapping and such. I never thought he'd be like that because they're both very Christian.

Also, I find it humorous that the ad on this page for me is for www.singlemuslim.com (http://www.singlemuslim.com).

I'd like to be as hopeful.

The thing is, I HAVE met women my age and younger who got pregnant early, then married, and never had time to pursue post-secondary school, or work for any significant time out of the home. It's more common in the rural areas, it seems, anecdotes only at the moment.

I'm not saying that it DOESN'T happen. I'm saying a lot of women are now of the belief that it doesn't HAVE to happen.

On the less extreme side of things, consider the following scenario. Law graduate. Two post-secondary degrees, but limited work experience (confined to summers, part time positions throughout the school year). She works five years, gets married, pregnant. Goes on mat leave for a year. Works for another year. Gets pregnant again, might as well have the kids close together. Mat leave again. Maybe she decides for a third, maybe she decides to stay home for a few years until the kids are old enough to go to school.

She is losing time in the field, she is losing her edge. If the profession becomes glutted with new graduates, she will lose her competitive, professional edge. She might not be all that employable after six years or so out of game.

Even THAT is problematic. Not sure in that case what can be done by the woman herself...that's more of a social issue.

There's nothing wrong with someone choosing to have an education and working, THEN having a baby. That woman knows she can be more in life. I know a girl who was pregnant in the 11th grade, and is now pregnant again at 20. She is engaged, she looks after her child, she works part-time and is also at university to become a -sorry I don't know the name of the job but you know, crime detective cop person who looks for DNA clues. She was in one of the worst situations imagineable, but she finished highschool, is at uni and works, and I'm sure she will always work, and if she doesn't and decides to stay home and look after kids, there's nothing wrong with that.

But I'm not convinced that this is an 'institution' that is over and done with...partly because of the way that our social structures continue to make it more common for women to become dependent financially on their male partners.
I believe that it is become more and more common for marriage (or relationships) to become an equal partnership financially.

Marriage is something that scares me incredibly. Why? First because I have never any expectations of getting married and secondly because, depending in any way, emotionally or financially from a man (after seeing what my mum went through after divorcing my dad), was something I promised myself I never would do.

I currently live with my fiancé (I'm a reincident bitch!). But I'm financially independent from him. His things are his things, my things are mine. We pitch in, half and half, for everything, but I don't depend, monetarily-wise from him.

Heh... I think any thought of marriage is a long way off for me... But I don't think it's that important for a relationship.

While I have higher educational qualifications than my wife (a PhD to a BA), both of us went to and completed university (in different countries), and she currently makes more money than I do.

When we first married (in our early to mid 30s), I was making more money than she did. But I encouraged her in her career, helped her look for job opportunities, and fully supported her in her search for better opportunities.

While we admittedly moved back to the UK from Australia because of my job, but she easily found a job of her own before we even arrived back in the country, and we adjusted where we were planning on living to make allowances for the fact that I work in Cambridge and she works in London - we have equally unfair commutes!

Were we to have children (which is complicated for medical reasons), I've already offered to leave my job and work at home as a freelance consultant (as one of the world's leading experts in my archaeological specialism, this would be fairly easy for me) and look after so that she can continue her career with as little interruption as possible.

I don't deny that there are sexist dinosaurs out there, but personally I don't see what the problem is. It makes me feel happy and fulfilled if she feels happy and fulfilled.

In the electorate where I work there are many people who immigrated to Australia from Greece and Italy in the 1950s and 60s. Many of the women married people of their own background and remained as homemakers. As a result they didn't learn English or get to know and understand the dominant Australian culture. Their husbands acquired these social skills from their workplaces and the social contacts they made through their workplaces.

The men are now dying and there is a growing problem for elderly Greek and Italian women who are facing enormous challenges in a society that doesn't have much time for them.

Before we left Australia, I lived around the corner from Erri (no, really - though we never met), and can second what he says above.

Fortunately, my in-laws, who are Russian rather than Greek or Italian, are better placed to adapt as the women from the previous generation of my wife's family always had work of their own - perhaps because they were raised under a communist system that at least paid lip-service to gender equality. That and my mother-in-law worked as an interpreter for the Hungarian government before defecting, already spoke Russian, Hungarian and Serbo-Croatian before doing so, and wasn't going to allow a measly little thing like another language get in her way. Defectors also tend not to be delicate little wallflowers (or 'God's little dandelions' in the Russian idiom).

Much as I support gender equality in my own marriage (see my previous post), I would never deny that previous generations were more likely to leave women in a difficult position if they were suddenly left without the financial support that a man was supposed to provide.

Even in the event that we can assume that a couple will stay together indefinitely, it's still unwise for only one partner to be capable of being financially independent.

If anything should happen to said partner, the other would find themselves in a heap of trouble, even with life insurance, as they would no longer have a steady income.

Death isn't even necessary for this situation, just anything suitably crippling.

So, even if you love your partner, especially if you love your partner, it is in everyone's best interests that you can be financially independent if the need arises.

Doesn't mean you have to be all the time though. You just need to be able to be.

The only reason I can see myself not working for a long period of time is if I'm horribly sick (i.e. cancer). But even then I wouldn't be doing much homemaking.

I can see taking some time off or working part time or from home for a bit if I have kids or hopefully I have a job where I can get away with taking hypothetical kids into the office.

But I've already fairly well educated, I've got a BSc and I'm working towards an MSc with future plans for a PhD and even if I didn't manage to find a job in my field I think I could probably get away with doing a lot of different things so I'd manage somehow.

Well, I'm not so cynical as to believe that most women think they'll split up with their husband's at some point...so isn't this sort of the problem?


Very probably - but when you're in love with someone, it's very hard to make yourself not only contemplate the possibility that you've made a terrible mistake, but actively plan for that possibility to boot. I suppose I'd rather take the gamble and enjoy the ride than spend my life worrying about what would happen if I were wrong.

That said, I'm a fairly smart, competent sort of person whose first request if she had a husband supporting her financially would be "So...can we afford for me to go get my MA? Or maybe an MA and an MFA? And then maybe a PhD afterwards? Please please please?" - so I'll probably be okay. :tongue:

I wouldn't honestly mind having a husband who was the breadwinner while I stayed at home. Me being me, I'd still be doing things, but they'd just be things that didn't turn a profit - raising the kids, volunteer work, taking classes if we could afford it, etc. If I marry someone, it will be with the full intent of staying with them forever, so I wouldn't be likely to worry too very much about what would happen if they left.

This is what I do. When I do turn a profit I just spend it on frivolities. If my husband dies, we have life insurance, if he gets sick we have disability insurance, if he leaves me or I leave him I have savings. 65% of our savings are in my name alone, the rest is in both of our names, all of it came from "his" paycheck*.

I am not forced to stay, I am not worried about if I had to leave either. I don't plan on leaving.



*his in quotations because any money coming in is our money.

Even in the event that we can assume that a couple will stay together indefinitely, it's still unwise for only one partner to be capable of being financially independent.

If anything should happen to said partner, the other would find themselves in a heap of trouble, even with life insurance, as they would no longer have a steady income.

Death isn't even necessary for this situation, just anything suitably crippling.

So, even if you love your partner, especially if you love your partner, it is in everyone's best interests that you can be financially independent if the need arises.

Doesn't mean you have to be all the time though. You just need to be able to be.
^^This. Every single financial professional I have ever spoken to (and remember, I have not relied on family or cultural traditions to teach me how to manage my life) has told me, without exception, that no married couple should hold all their assets in only one partner's name, or even hold them all jointly. Every professional has told me that all married couples should keep only big ticket items, like the house, in joint ownership, and only a small "operating budget" of cash in joint accounts. Everything else should be divvied up into separate ownership by each partner individually, regardless of where the assets/income come from. This is to protect the household and family from losing everything in the event of a severe financial set back such as death, debt or tax problems. A few professionals have even advised me that, under some circumstances, married couples should not even file all their taxes jointly, necessarily.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a homemaker. I fucking admire women that do it, and do it well. I couldn't handle it, honestly...work is a vacation compared to that. But I think it's absolutely essential that ALL women get a good education, and develop themselves outside of the home just in case.
it's a good idea. but after so many years away from the workforce, skills tend to be forgotten or made obsolete. leaving many (men and women) unsuitable for most jobs and leaving the rest to be low income/low skill work.

There is nothing more horrible than feeling like you have to stay with someone because you would literally be unable to take care of yourself if you left. I've even felt that way, and I was raised to never expect someone else to take care of me. Yet if for some reason, for example, my mom wanted to leave my dad, she'd be hooped...she doesn't even have a bank account.
there you have it. it's how you were raised. it's unfortunate for your mother, but doesn't she have a joint bank account with your father? she should be able to take out say... half or even 2/3rds and move it to a seperate system... but it's keeping the account that's gonna hurt.

I am hoping women are smartening up...I'm hoping men are too, so they don't perpetuate the expectation that their daughters just 'marry well' rather than developing their own skills...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency? they are. less and less women plan on marrying well and nothing else. and less and less men (I hope) are not expecting a Ward and June Cleaver type marriage.

Not in a million years.

Ich hab ein frau. Ich lieb mein frau. Chairman Mao once said, "Women hold up half the world".
Mind you he was probably a sexist old Chinaman who had married four times.


He only had one wife at a time. He did however have a harem of 13 yr olds.

Yes, I think I probably could quite easily get in that situation, because I'm a total idiot who at the first sign of affection completely loses all sense of logic. When it all goes wrong, it'd be like waking up from a massive hang-over, only on a far larger scale. "Oh...shiiiiit...what have I just done with my life?". Thank God I can't have kids, that at least will mean I won't end up trying to find work with no relevant experience and children-sized irritating drains on my resources :p

I Think Women have rights!:rolleyes:
I dont just say this because i am one but if a women's husband died she should still get the education she had before, that shouldn't be an option to take it away!:p:p:p:tongue:

It's still uncomfortably common for many married women to be in the situation where they would really be without resources if they left their spouse, or he died. As in, limited to no work experience, and no personal assets outside of the marriage. Spousal support can only take you so far, and if you're just starting your life from scratch after a divorce, with no marketable skills and/or education...how is that actually going to turn out? Especially if you have kids?

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a homemaker. I fucking admire women that do it, and do it well. I couldn't handle it, honestly...work is a vacation compared to that. But I think it's absolutely essential that ALL women get a good education, and develop themselves outside of the home just in case.

There is nothing more horrible than feeling like you have to stay with someone because you would literally be unable to take care of yourself if you left. I've even felt that way, and I was raised to never expect someone else to take care of me. Yet if for some reason, for example, my mom wanted to leave my dad, she'd be hooped...she doesn't even have a bank account.

I am hoping women are smartening up...I'm hoping men are too, so they don't perpetuate the expectation that their daughters just 'marry well' rather than developing their own skills...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?
i'd be surprised to meet a woman these days who had let herself get in that position. i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most women i know, if not all of them, are university-educated and work for a living themselves, so maybe my experience isn't typical. then again, i don't think there are many home-makers in this country - most women in the UK work and so could stand on their own two feet

i would certainly agree, however, that's not a good situation to be in, and personal development is always a good idea. hell, i wouldn't let myself get into that kind of situation, women or not.

While I hope that Hopelessly Dependent Spouse is becoming a less attractive career option for the young, I don't think that education is the key factor in that change. Basic career and financial planning concepts are simple enough to be taught to young teens, yet I've met many highly educated women whose approach to financial security is a vague notion that they should probably balance their checkbook once in a while. Education can expose people to ideas, but it can't make them become more independent if they don't want to be. I like to think that it's becoming less culturally acceptable to lack career skills and financial savvy, but if that's true I think that's a consequence of social changes such as the increasing gap between leaving home and getting married.

As I only just squeaked through high school and I'm about to become a stay-at-home mom, I'm hardly a good example of practicing what I preach. What planning we have done to mitigate our risks probably owes something to my time in the financial-services industry but certainly owes much more to the lessons our parents taught us. (Fixing my lack of job skills & education is a longer-term project.)

If woman get empowered then divorce laws making men having to give them half their income should be repelled.

If woman get empowered then divorce laws making men having to give them half their income should be repelled.

Have you ever heard of pre-nup capitulations?

Have you ever heard of pre-nup capitulations?

Yes I have. Steven Spielberg wife signed one of those and during the divorce she claimed to have signed when she was blinded by love and thus it was nullified.:eek:

Yes I have. Steven Spielberg wife signed one of those and during the divorce she claimed to have signed when she was blinded by love and thus it was nullified.:eek:

What in the world?! Nullified for that? That's lame.

Yes I have. Steven Spielberg wife signed one of those and during the divorce she claimed to have signed when she was blinded by love and thus it was nullified.:eek:

...which is really a cautionary tale about not writing important legal documents a) on napkins and b) without benefit of counsel, not a cautionary tale about California community-property laws.

It's still uncomfortably common for many married women to be in the situation where they would really be without resources if they left their spouse, or he died. As in, limited to no work experience, and no personal assets outside of the marriage. Spousal support can only take you so far, and if you're just starting your life from scratch after a divorce, with no marketable skills and/or education...how is that actually going to turn out? Especially if you have kids?

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a homemaker. I fucking admire women that do it, and do it well. I couldn't handle it, honestly...work is a vacation compared to that. But I think it's absolutely essential that ALL women get a good education, and develop themselves outside of the home just in case.

There is nothing more horrible than feeling like you have to stay with someone because you would literally be unable to take care of yourself if you left. I've even felt that way, and I was raised to never expect someone else to take care of me. Yet if for some reason, for example, my mom wanted to leave my dad, she'd be hooped...she doesn't even have a bank account.

I am hoping women are smartening up...I'm hoping men are too, so they don't perpetuate the expectation that their daughters just 'marry well' rather than developing their own skills...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?

I do not know that women need to "get a good education". I am not sure what that concept means. However, everyone needs to have at least a basic understanding of finances and how to become wealthy.

Not everyone needs to go to college or graduate school. A young wife of a successful businessman probably does not need to have a college degree for financial reasons. However, husbands need to make sure that their wives and children would be ok financially if they die or if the wife runs off with the poolboy.

There is no excuse for anyone, male or female, to be clueless about finances. My mom is clueless about finances. If my father were to predecease her, I am sure that I would have to take care of her finances. However, if something were to happen to me and my father, she would be screwed.

Others have commented here that life insurance is the solution. I think that is a somewhat sophomoric response. Wealthy people might not need life insurance. Also, life insurance beneficiaries and wealthy widows need to know how to handle the finances. Having a lot of money without a good financial mind is worse than being broke and dumb because both will end up broke eventually but at least the one who was always poor will not have to worry about going to jail for f***ing up with their taxes.

Well, I'm not so cynical as to believe that most women think they'll split up with their husband's at some point...so isn't this sort of the problem?

When I moved in with my ex 11 years ago, I certainly believed it was for life. I did everything in my power for that decade to ensure it would be. Shit happens, shit happened.

If I didn't have my education, I'd be FUCKED.
I would imagine, that a lot of it would depend on whether or not that the couple in question are committed to a long term relationship based on trust, love and understanding, or if they want an open relationship with less encumberances.

You kinda wrestled with some of the underlying circumstances awhile ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13148260&postcount=97

A lot depends on the choices we make and why we make them.

I would imagine, that a lot of it would depend on whether or not that the couple in question are committed to a long term relationship based on trust, love and understanding, or if they want an open relationship with less encumberances.

You kinda wrestled with some of the underlying circumstances awhile ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13148260&postcount=97

A lot depends on the choices we make and why we make them.

You are bizarre. It is disturbing to me that you either a) keep a cache of my quotes to pull out on demand or b) go searching for my posts to pull out on demand. It's almost Jocabian, but with a stalkerish twist.

I don't care what you're committed to...you can not predict with any certainty that your relationship will absolutely last, and it is foolish for either person in the relationship to become completely dependent upon the other.

There's a reason that I'm more focused on my education. I've had two failed relationships that I am so damn thankful didn't work out. If I am going to be a success, I would rather do so with the help and encouragement of my family, friends, and my own intellect because I don't need to be belittled by someone who claims to love me and then winds up being a huge douchebag. If I find someone and acquire the skills to keep a boyfriend or obtain a husband along the way, great. If not, I'm used to being alone and I'll make it through life.

but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?

No, and not only because it would be a bad position to be in if something happened to my spouse. I'd feel bad about not pulling my weight if I were dependent on him. It's bad enough that he currently brings in significantly more money than me. I just keep reminding myself that I'll make more than him when I'm done with my education...

=)

^^This. Every single financial professional I have ever spoken to (and remember, I have not relied on family or cultural traditions to teach me how to manage my life) has told me, without exception, that no married couple should hold all their assets in only one partner's name, or even hold them all jointly. Every professional has told me that all married couples should keep only big ticket items, like the house, in joint ownership, and only a small "operating budget" of cash in joint accounts. Everything else should be divvied up into separate ownership by each partner individually, regardless of where the assets/income come from. This is to protect the household and family from losing everything in the event of a severe financial set back such as death, debt or tax problems. A few professionals have even advised me that, under some circumstances, married couples should not even file all their taxes jointly, necessarily.

I don't see how joint assets are in more danger in the case of death. If you own everything jointly, inheritance law doesn't even really come into play - the assets all belong to the surviving partner.

As for debt or tax problems, it doesn't matter if you do keep certain things technically in one name. Even if the spouse's name is not on the paperwork, it is still considered to be jointly owned. So, even if my husband and I had cars in separate names or something like that, they could still repossess my car for his debt, or vice versa.

I don't see how joint assets are in more danger in the case of death. If you own everything jointly, inheritance law doesn't even really come into play - the assets all belong to the surviving partner.

EDIT: I was actually not thinking of death as creating inheritance problems but rather aggravating other financial problems.

As for debt or tax problems, it doesn't matter if you do keep certain things technically in one name. Even if the spouse's name is not on the paperwork, it is still considered to be jointly owned. So, even if my husband and I had cars in separate names or something like that, they could still repossess my car for his debt, or vice versa.
What about your bank accounts and individual income? Maybe I was told wrong, but as far as I know, your spouse's creditors cannot garnish your salary or take money out of your accounts to pay your spouse's debts.

What about your bank accounts?

Once you're married, all assets (and debts) are legally shared. Even if you have separate bank accounts, the assets still belong to both people. My husband couldn't declare bankruptcy if I had a separate account in my name with enough money to cover any debts he had. I would be required by law to pay those debts because the debts are just as much mine as they are his.

Edit: I'm not entirely certain on the garnishing wages thing, but I am pretty certain that debts are just as much shared as assets.

Once you're married, all assets (and debts) are legally shared. Even if you have separate bank accounts, the assets still belong to both people. My husband couldn't declare bankruptcy if I had a separate account in my name with enough money to cover any debts he had. I would be required by law to pay those debts because the debts are just as much mine as they are his.
I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the exact opposite information I have been given for years. Do you have any reference sources?

As far as I know, your husband cannot access your bank accounts to take out money if his name is not also on the account. Afaik, even the IRS cannot instruct your bank to open up your accounts to them to pay off debts owed by someone whose name is not on the accounts. Afaik, creditors cannot garnish your salary directly via your employer to pay off debts you do not owe.

I understand about your husband not being able to declare bankruptcy if you have money, on the grounds that the marriage is a partnership, but that is far cry from having your money literally taken by his creditors, the way his money can be, which is what I was talking about. But bankruptcy is the reason why some couples in serious financial trouble get divorced even if they intend to keep their relationship going.

However, if what you are saying is true in all kinds of financial cases, then it would seem to me to be the biggest possible argument AGAINST anyone ever getting married ever. Because it allows no recourse whatsoever. The ruin of one guarantees the ruin of both, and their children. Are we still living in the times when the wife and children got carted off to debtor's prison along with the husband? I have been told otherwise. If what you say is as bleak as you make it sound, then it would seem to me that only fools would get married if they wanted to raise children. Better to do so as an unmarried couple.

Afaik, even the IRS cannot instruct your bank to open up your accounts to them to pay off debts owed by someone whose name is not on the accounts.

If you file a joint return, then the IRS can go after any singly-owned assets as well as any jointly-owned assets to pay off a joint tax liability. The exception is if you can make a case for Innocent Spouse relief, where you claim that your spouse alone incurred a tax liability that you weren't aware of when you filed the joint return.

Of course, you can avoid having to make the case of being an Innocent Spouse in the first place by filing separate tax returns, but then you're usually incurring a heck of a lot more tax liability. Better to have an honest spouse, obviously.

I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the exact opposite information I have been given for years. Do you have any reference sources?

Not really. A lot of it is just my general understanding of the law.

There was a thread quite a while back here about a woman who was in dire financial trouble because she married a man who owed the IRS a great deal of money, btu I couldn't tell you exactly when that thread was.

As far as I know, your husband cannot access your bank accounts to take out money if his name is not also on the account.

From what I understand, this is in debate. Some banks have denied spouses access to accounts, while others have allowed it under the argument that those assets do legally belong to the spouse as well.

Afaik, even the IRS cannot instruct your bank to open up your accounts to them to pay off debts owed by someone whose name is not on the accounts. Afaik, creditors cannot garnish your salary directly via your employer to pay off debts you do not owe.

I don't know about garnishing your salary or forcibly opening your accounts, but I believe the IRS can go after you for debts owed by your spouse - even if they were incurred before you got married.

I understand about your husband not being able to declare bankruptcy if you have money, on the grounds that the marriage is a partnership, but that is far cry from having your money literally taken by his creditors, the way his money can be, which is what I was talking about. But bankruptcy is the reason why some couples in serious financial trouble get divorced even if they intend to keep their relationship going.

Maybe they couldn't garnish my wages. So, instead, they would take me to court to get the money. Either way, they'd end up seeing the debt paid.


However, if what you are saying is true in all kinds of financial cases, then it would seem to me to be the biggest possible argument AGAINST anyone ever getting married ever. Because it allows no recourse whatsoever.

It also makes fraud much more difficult. Without such laws, someone could simply transfer his assets to his spouse and then claim that he couldn't pay his debts.

The ruin of one guarantees the ruin of both, and their children. Are we still living in the times when the wife and children got carted off to debtor's prison along with the husband? I have been told otherwise. If what you say is as bleak as you make it sound, then it would seem to me that only fools would get married if they wanted to raise children. Better to do so as an unmarried couple.

I've found that it's actually easier to share assets. We were essentially doing that anyways before we got married, but there were fewer legal protections in place for us.

But this is likely something that comes down to trust. I trust my husband not to get us into financial difficulties without my knowledge. He trusts me to do the same (so much, in fact, that he's basically put our finances completely in my hands). If we didn't have that trust, I'd say that we shouldn't be married.

Dem is conflating joint ownership and ownership in common. Ownership in common means you have an identifiable, separate share in the assets. If one of you dies, the surviving spouse does NOT automatically get the deceased spouse's assets/property. Those assets/property go to the deceased spouse's estate, and may go to the surviving spouse, if there is a will etc.

Joint ownership means there is no such division, both spouses have equal, unrestricted access to the property/assets. When one spouse dies, the property goes to the surviving spouse.

Whether you have ownership in common or joint ownership depends on the legislation in your jurisdiction, and the laws governing certain kinds of property, etc.

Statute will not generally make separate bank accounts, for example, into joint bank accounts. Assets CAN be divided upon dissolution of a marriage according to matrimonial property legislation, but that's still not the same as saying both of you own all the assets jointly.

Dem is conflating joint ownership and ownership in common. Ownership in common means you have an identifiable, separate share in the assets. If one of you dies, the surviving spouse does NOT automatically get the deceased spouse's assets/property. Those assets/property go to the deceased spouse's estate, and may go to the surviving spouse, if there is a will etc.

Joint ownership means there is no such division, both spouses have equal, unrestricted access to the property/assets. When one spouse dies, the property goes to the surviving spouse.

Whether you have ownership in common or joint ownership depends on the legislation in your jurisdiction, and the laws governing certain kinds of property, etc.

Statute will not generally make separate bank accounts, for example, into joint bank accounts. Assets CAN be divided upon dissolution of a marriage according to matrimonial property legislation, but that's still not the same as saying both of you own all the assets jointly.
Okay, now I understand.

I have lived in Massachusetts and New York, where I have been advised on managing my own accounts by banks I do business with, and where I have worked for many years for attorneys in varying practices including wills/estate planning, tax law, and real estate where the attorney assisted couples in setting up ownership structures for real property and sometimes assisted with division of real property in the case of divorce.

In every case, I have drafted documents for various forms of ownership in common, as opposed to joint ownership, which the attorneys universally advised their clients to go for. Structures of such a type exist for setting up cash accounts, real property and other kinds of assets.

Depending on a given household's situation, they may do better holding everything jointly or some/most/or all things in common but not jointly, and these needs will likely need to be adjusted during their lifetimes together. But in general, as soon as a couple stops being "poor" I have seen them advised to start separating their financial interests.

Depending on a given household's situation, they may do better holding everything jointly or some/most/or all things in common but not jointly, and these needs will likely need to be adjusted during their lifetimes together. But in general, as soon as a couple stops being "poor" I have seen them advised to start separating their financial interests.

You generally want to hold your home jointly, so if A dies, the entire interest in the house goes automatically to B. Having half the interest in the spousal home go to A's estate instead can cause huge problems.

I would never have a joint account with anyone. A joint account means unrestricted access to all the funds...A or B can drain that account completely, and have full legal right to do so. A joint account makes sense for paying joint expenses, but I'd still opt for separate accounts.

In Quebec, there is community of property, as is the case in most civil law jurisidictions. This means that as property is accrued by either spouse, the other spouse acquires an immediate, vested interest (50%) in that property.

In most common-law jurisdictions, there is division of property, so each spouse acquires property separately. However, upon dissolution of the marriage, most statutes grant an interest to both spouses in assets acquired during cohabitation. It might seem like the same thing, but it isn't.

Dem is conflating joint ownership and ownership in common.

Very possible. I'm not even sure I've ever heard the second term.

I'm still fairly certain that debts are held to be joint as well as assets, though.

Ownership in common means you have an identifiable, separate share in the assets. If one of you dies, the surviving spouse does NOT automatically get the deceased spouse's assets/property. Those assets/property go to the deceased spouse's estate, and may go to the surviving spouse, if there is a will etc.

What if there is no clear separation in assets?

Joint ownership means there is no such division, both spouses have equal, unrestricted access to the property/assets. When one spouse dies, the property goes to the surviving spouse.

If two people share just about everything anyways, wouldn't this then be the way to go?

Otherwise, you might lose something that was, for all intents and purposes, already yours.

I would never have a joint account with anyone. A joint account means unrestricted access to all the funds...A or B can drain that account completely, and have full legal right to do so. A joint account makes sense for paying joint expenses, but I'd still opt for separate accounts.

I can't think of any major expense my husband and I have that aren't joint expenses. Nor does either of us have any problem with money we earned going towards relatively small things that only one of us wants.

Even before we were married, we were constantly shifting money from one account to the other to pay for things. In the end, it just made sense to combine it all - it's what we were doing anyways, but with much less convenience.

And, again, I'd say this comes down to trust. Yes, either my husband or I could legally run off with most of the money in our joint accounts (although I don't think they could be closed without both of us agreeing). But we both trust each other not to do that.

You generally want to hold your home jointly, so if A dies, the entire interest in the house goes automatically to B. Having half the interest in the spousal home go to A's estate instead can cause huge problems.
Yes, though in Massachusetts, there are various ways to word deeds and various kinds of real estate trusts that couples set up, so that the trust becomes the owner of the property, the variations mixed and matched, essentially, in different situations depending on the partners' state resident status, US citizenship status, whether the family is one-income or two-income, how many properties they own jointly or separately, etc. It can get pretty complicated.

I would never have a joint account with anyone. A joint account means unrestricted access to all the funds...A or B can drain that account completely, and have full legal right to do so. A joint account makes sense for paying joint expenses, but I'd still opt for separate accounts.
That's what I meant earlier when I mentioned having only a joint "operating" account. Bank reps have told me that what couples should do, for instance, is each have a separate account into which their individual income gets deposited, then each transfer an amount regularly into the joint household account, but not to keep most of their money in the joint account.

In Quebec, there is community of property, as is the case in most civil law jurisidictions. This means that as property is accrued by either spouse, the other spouse acquires an immediate, vested interest (50%) in that property.

In most common-law jurisdictions, there is division of property, so each spouse acquires property separately. However, upon dissolution of the marriage, most statutes grant an interest to both spouses in assets acquired during cohabitation. It might seem like the same thing, but it isn't.
In Massachusetts, the statutory spousal share is one third of the estate. That means that even if a person dies intestate and/or their estate is claimed/contested by other heirs, the spouse at the time of death cannot be denied at least one third of the deceased spouse's estate, no matter what the circumstances (excepting I suppose spouse-murder ;)).

That's what I meant earlier when I mentioned having only a joint "operating" account. Bank reps have told me that what couples should do, for instance, is each have a separate account into which their individual income gets deposited, then each transfer an amount regularly into the joint household account, but not to keep most of their money in the joint account.

Bleh, that's so annoyingly inconvenient, though.

Especially when:

(a) The vast majority of our funds would go into the joint account, given that we spend the vast majority of our funds on bills, food, etc.

(b) We earn a great deal more interest by having the joint account (more money all together = more interest)

(c) Hubby doesn't save right, and thus wouldn't save even as much as we're managing now if he had his own account.

Bleh, that's so annoyingly inconvenient, though.

Especially when:

(a) The vast majority of our funds would go into the joint account, given that we spend the vast majority of our funds on bills, food, etc.

(b) We earn a great deal more interest by having the joint account (more money all together = more interest)

(c) Hubby doesn't save right, and thus wouldn't save even as much as we're managing now if he had his own account.
Well, the OP seemed to me to be talking about households where one partner (the husband) earns enough to establish affluence for the whole household, so that the other partner (the wife) could become entirely finanicially dependent on the husband.

I have heard about such wealthy couples in which the earner wishes to settle an amount upon the homemaker, and pays out to her an amount of money regularly, which, being essentially a gift of money, should be put into a separate account only for her (or if the amount to be given per year is more that $10,000, a trust might be created for the homemaker spouse).

Likewise, in a two-earner household that is relatively affluent, each earner should deposit their incomes into separate accounts and have an amount transferred into a joint account regularly, which their bank(s) can do automatically.

However, in a household where the majority of BOTH incomes (almost all of each) is going to be spent on joint expenses every single month (which describes a hell of a lot of households), there is not much point in not putting all of both paychecks into the joint "operating" account.

But when you and your husband reach that great day when you start to actually get ahead of your bills, you should think about separating your savings and other non-expense bank accounts.

in MA there's something called tenancy by the entirety, in which spouses jointly own the property together, in equal shares, with right of survivorship. It means that if one spouse dies, the other takes in fee simple absolute, automatically, free of any encumbrances or liens.

There is nothing wrong with being a housewife. Just as long as youre not forced into it.

And its ok to be a house wife that can hold an intellegent conversation.

I am hoping women are smartening up...I'm hoping men are too, so they don't perpetuate the expectation that their daughters just 'marry well' rather than developing their own skills...but I need to know...women of NSG, would you put yourself into this sort of position of dependency?

No.
No, I would never, ever, EVER do that. And I would make sure that any daughters I might have in the future will have all the skills and knowledge I can give them, to avoid them ending up in such a situation.

My mom was in exactly that situation about a decade ago : She had a university education, but never finished her degree. She had no work experience. She had no bank account. And I do believe that this was one of the reasons why she stayed with my father despite being abused and mistreated (the other reason was that some idiots kept telling her she had to stay with him for the children's sake, cause "children need a father". Like a whole in the head, we did!)
She once told me when she first went to a job centre after deciding that she had to leave my father, the consultant there took a look at her CV and told her to go home and make up with her husband (her exact words!).

Personally, I find a situation like that extremely frightening and humiliating, I would never want to live through this myself.

I'm hoping that this will be a 'generational' thing, that will slowly pass out of our society.

I think it might be. A lot of the girls I went to high school with were very motivated to get degrees in various fields and such, usually moreso than the boys. And I'm not sure if it's true everywhere, but there are more women than men at my university (not by a huge amount, but females are in the majority, slightly).

So it seems likely that this type of dependence situation will start fading away, which is good. However, I think it will persist in more poverty stricken populations who can't afford to send their kids to universities, which is unfortunate.

There is nothing wrong with being a housewife. Just as long as youre not forced into it.

And its ok to be a house wife that can hold an intellegent conversation.

Just like there's nothing wrong with being a househusband.

Just like there's nothing wrong with being a househusband.
Hey, if one partner is earning enough that they can afford for the other partner to devote full or part time just to managing the household, that works out GREAT -- seriously, it really does, for both of them and their kids. But, of course, that's way different than one partner not being able to get into the work force. In the 21st century, I just see no reason why -- or even how -- a person of either sex can get old enough to marry without gaining at least some marketable work skills.

EDIT: And as I guess I was implying in my other posts, though they got sidetracked, I don't think it's a good idea for either partner to remain ENTIRELY financially dependent on the other. Even if one is going to choose to live/work solely as a homemaker, one should still try to amass one's own little "fortune," as it were, of cash in the bank or investments or something like that, which is yours and yours alone. And one should know how to type, how to use a computer, how to handle cash, how to compose a letter, etc, so one can at least get an entry level job in office or retail if need be, at the very least. There's just no excuse for anyone being utterly useless.