Low-Income Women: Get Married

Marriage is a double edge sword. Take its bad side seriously.
Paying for spousal and child supports for a very long time are our responsiblities, but there are many people who abuse and take advantage of the current laws.

California family law will go after the father and punish you to death. It does not matter how much I save—there is nothing but pain, pain, and pain that it does not hurt anymore. Be cautious and extra careful.

Absolutely ridiculous. No wonder people don’t view marriage as sacred anymore. Now people are encouraging it as a way to have more money? I’m a single low-income mom, and no matter how much I miss my ex-husband’s $70k salary, I will not be remarrying to avoid the responsibility of taking care of myself and children. Not to mention risk marrying for the wrong reasons and finding out I married a compulsive liar who would one day abandon a wife and two children on Christmas Day for his mistress, leaving them homeless and penniless. No thanks.

I’m inclined to agree with Ms. Cancian. We need more family-friendly policies that help working parents (whether they are mothers or fathers) better balance their home and work lives.

Marriage is sacred. If I marry,the condition is: the woman is the one I really want to live with. If I do not meet the one, I’m glad to be single. Marriage promotion consists of both inside and outside factors. The inside is to earn money, to be wealthy. The outside is a valid economic environment.

I think responsibility and good decision making skills needs to be preached to people. I know some things inevitably happen, but when people are having 3, 4, 5 kids and one person is left to take on all of that responsibility, it explains why the youth of today are dropping out, going to jail, and ending up in poverty at higher rates. What ever happened to stability and accountability? Without it how can you grow to reach your full potential? Very sad.

Wonder why people here are thinking this is a new concept. Good lord…

Are we recommending Divorce Theft as a legitimate strategy now? (And so soon after the WSJ Alimony special).

I can definitely understand the reasoning behind getting married to a man richer than yourself if you’re poor. At least in California, after 10 years it’s alimony for life, baby. For those of us men who take life seriously and save money, just don’t marry.

What if the man is not rich?

With all the policies set up to help working single mothers, why should they get married? If they have the full support of the government and the nonresident fathers, why even have marriage in the first place?

Also, why even bother with men? They are just good for sending money and impregnating women, so why bother with things like stability and role models and teaching proper conduct?

It looks like the questions that everyone is dancing around is 1) Why are there so many single mothers these days? 2)Are they actually encouraging single motherhood with these policies? 3)What man is seriously going to take on the debt and support of a single mother and her kids during this ‘he-cession’? 4)What is the difference between this and prostitution?

Yes, John Cleese married such a low income woman. She was a struggling shrink. Age appropriate too. It really worked out well for him (not).

With the divorce-theft laws that we have in place, no man with IQ above room temprature should marry a woman who earns less than he does.

Only marry equal-earning or richer women; otherwise the Family Courts will see to it that you are paying alimony until the day you die.

My mother always said that the hardest money you ever earn is the money you marry for. Best advice is not to have children. Children are the biggest cause of poverty. If you end up pregnant, give your children up for adoption. Let some other sucker pay for your mistake.

Don’t marry.

The spirit could exert such spiritual enjoyment like love, happiness, success, and silence,etc., which definitely
encourage people to develop their career.

Funny how a woman who marries for financial reasons will bristle at being called a prostitute. At least the prostitute is more honest about why she’s keeping you company.

The irony is rich, isn’t it?

Marriage is not a great way for women to gain financially.

It’s the divorce where women can truly win financially.

Gentlemen—would you take a cruise on a ship that had a 50% chance of sinking and the only lifeboats are women and children?

That’s marriage.

Marriage is a life long commitment, not a quick ticket to financial success or financial ruin.

If money is the only criteria for marriage, people should be advised to not marry.

If social balance, justice, tranquility, and future sustenance of healthy populance is the goal, there is no other proven system than marriage.

Somebody did all of that for you to be here. Have you done your part?

I find I must control my apoplexy and attempt a few comments here. The irony of BusinessWeek endorsing a front page debate over whether low-income women should get married as a way out of poverty gloriously reiterates the bottom line of marriage. It is a financial contract. It is a contract with negotiations, most of which never sealed by the written word. As a consequence, women are not legally equal partners in a marriage. Yet Haskins promotes the idea of marriage for money. Why assume low-income women and especially minority women (where Haskins states the problem is RAMPANT) should succumb to this implied prostitution any more than another class?

Haskins says:

“I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.”

Nowhere does he suggest an attorney to work out the legal agreement. Thus, he conveniently hides the bottom line under what are otherwise noble social sentiments.

Why does not the title say “Low Income Men: get married”? Has BusinessWeek has set up a game of “Let’s You and Him fight.” Why? Why over classicism, racism and sexism?

Haskins provides the answer. He yet again has conveniently loaded all the responsibility, social ills, and societal faults of the above noted offspring onto the women. Last I heard men were still 50% responsible for these children.

We are in a recession. More than 10% of us are unemployed nationally. 70% of us lost financial ground in the last 10 years. We will not see improvement on a personal level anytime soon. Suggesting low-income women can somehow fix themselves by marriage is a very tired old bone to toss out.

No matter what arguments are advanced here, BusinessWeek, you have lost this debate.

Marriage will not definitely solve the problem of poverty. I am a student and about to graduate. Right now, I am afraid of getting married because it entails a lot of responsibility and tons of family-related expenses.