Women's Lib: You Can't Have it Both Ways, Ladies

With the women's lib movement of the 1960's, women preached equality with men...and rightfully so. While much progress has been made, women still face inequality in a variety of aspects. 

Ladies have it easier during the dating phase: it is a common perception even today that the man pays for every aspect of the date. Women's lib doesn't apply here and I'm ok with that. 

But as the relationship grows more serious, inevitably, questions about financial responsibility need to be discussed. 

I'm a staunch proponent of equality for women in every regard. As such, I find that hypocrisies still exist in some. 

Take a gal I know who entered into financial discussion with her long term BF as the relationship turned serious. 

She had a home already and he was a divorcee who had sold his home but was living in a nice high rise building and enjoying that lifestyle. She insisted that he move in with her, but on the condition that he pay all the household expenses including the mortgage. However, she would not put his name on the deed, she insisted on a pre nup and would also retain the tax benefits. She also wanted him to pay the property taxes. 

He turned to me for advice. 

I counseled him that this was a bad proposition. In the event of a breakup, he walks with nothing. 

They make roughly the same amount of money, around $300,000 total for the two. 

I do not understand the logic of a woman who laments about inequality of pay for female executives but insists on a free ride based on 60 year old values that suggest that the man is the provider. 

I find that way of thinking Neanderthal it's conception and fiscally irresponsible.  

My thoughts are that a couple should be in an equitable partnership. Unless the man agrees going in that the woman gets a free ride (which I think is absurd), there should be no reason to enter into such an arrangement. 

Financial discussions are usually reserved for a time when the relationship grows serious, but discussions about philosophies on finances should be held very, very early on. This way, both partners can evaluate compatibility in this area before either "invests" in the relationship. 

In my opinion, a woman who suggests that a man needs to be the sole provider when both parties are on equal footing financially is hypocritical and unjust. 

All sorts of equitable solutions can be provided and the reverse is true: a woman should not be the sole provider for any man. 

Both parties would be well advised to develop a sensible strategy but to also protect themselves with an exit strategy should the unthinkable occur.  

So how did it turn out for the unnamed couple? The GF agreed to pay 40% towards household expenses. Each of them are saving money and when they get married, they've agreed to split the house down payment 50/50 and to continue splitting the household expenses equitably.  

In today's world where more than 50% of marriages fail, both parties are better served by developing an agreement early on to prevent the harboring of resentment as they enter into a sacred union. 

And I got another qualifying question for sniffing out Hamsters early on.