Economic realities: an argument for the self-made dowry

"My wife should not HAVE to work," said the nice young man who brought me Godiva chocolates about 30 years ago. 

He had a super job, for then, and my mother pondered the situation speculatively. He was slightly older than the rest of our gang and had a very good head for business. Presumably he was tentatively attracted to my contrasting frivolous nature. I was so frivolous, however, that I didn't give him any encouragement, and eventually he courted and married someone else and had many children and is no doubt a pillar of the community. 

What remained with me was that interesting phrase "My wife should not HAVE to work," which seemed  a nice balance between the "married women must work to feel fulfilled" message of the secular world and the "married women should not work" position of social conservatives of that era. It also echoed my family life, as my mother (while, of course, doing housework and volunteer work) did not HAVE to do paid work. Her mother had also not HAD to do paid work. Thus, for two generations, "husband works, wife works--if she likes--for pin money" was the norm for the married women of that side of the family. 

Flashforward to today when all the married women of my family (except my mother) do paid work. In fact, all three of us have what you could call careers. And these careers take the place of a little something traditionalists all forget about when they talk about women not working: our paycheques' Indian cousin, the DOWRY. 

I was thinking about Jane Austen today, and her rootedness in her own reality, and how dismayed she must be (if permitted to know) that her fans daydream about her reality instead of being rooted in their own. Worse, her fans forget the crippling challenges of women of Austen's class and era, which involved attracting men not only with their youth, beauty (same thing), and charms but with money.

By the way, at a dinner party the other night, a young lady suggested that before feminism life was better and easier for women. The quick response to that would be "Which women?" However, what first came to mind was the cafe in which my mother worked as a university student/waitress in the 1960s and in which I worked as a university student/sandwich maker in the 1990s. (Same place, different business.) In the 1960s, my mother was routinely pinched or patted on her bottom, something today we would call sexual harassment or assault. In the 1990s, I never experienced anything like that at work. 

But to return to the 19th century, women who expected to live a certain kind of life were expected to help fund it with inherited money. If there was no inherited money, they were considered very fortunate if they married well regardless. Meanwhile, the well-dowered woman was not allowed control of that money; the business was managed between her male relations and her husband. The idea was that women had no head for business. (Presumably most of the women of that class didn't, having been told that they didn't and not having the opportunity to learn the art.) 

I agree that wives should not HAVE to work. How lovely if all of our husbands made a family wage, enough to pay for all the household needs and the children's education and to have a tidy sum invested to pay for old age, especially the wages of the single women and married men taking care of us in hospitals or the old folks home. However, thanks to the economic realities of our day, and the fact that our parents (or St. Nicholas) have not magicked up dowries, many--if not most--wives do actually have to work. 

There is a way around this, of course. The path has been cleared by the Financial Independence/Early Retirement movement. As it has appeared for the last 30 years or so that young women are practical go-getters, now the majority at colleges and universities, and young men spend much longer focussing on their hobbies, dreaming dreams, and delaying marriage, all that remains is to encourage single women to save as much of their wages as they possibly can before they do marry. By the time Scooter has given up his dreams of rock and roll godhood, established his career and is looking for a wife, his college pal Suzie, upon whom he has had a secret crush for 5 years, will have had time to amass, let's say, £150,000 since she first began working a part-time job at 15. (Yes, that's a lot, but I need a round figure.)

Invested at 6%, if Suzie never takes out more than 4% a year, that sum will be able to contribute £500 a month to the household finances without Suzie ever going out to work again. Naturally, she has never said anything about this to Scooter, and when he rockets back into her life with hearts and flowers, she continues to keep a maidenly silence until marriage is in the air. 

"My wife shouldn't HAVE to work," Scooter, if a trad, will then say. 

"She won't have to work," Suzie will reply---and (unless Scooter loses his job/dies without life insurance) it will be true.  

P.S. Not being a Gordon, I think married women should work if we want to, not just if we have to, as long as it does not interfere with our family life, especially if we have children. Same goes for men, by the way.

UPDATE: It occurred to me that the idea of earning £150,000 before getting married could be one more mental burden on Gen Z women. If it's helpful, you could think of your university diploma, your trade papers, or your professional qualification as a dowry. Or you could, if in deeply in love with a trad Scooter, explain carefully and kindly why you will probably have to work before the babies come and after they have grown up.

UPDATE 2: It also occurs to me that amassing a goodly sum before marriage is something young men could potentially do, too.     

UPDATE 3: If anyone has time to figure out how a 25 year old can realistically have amassed a life savings of £150,000 (or $150,000), that would be a fun addition to the conversation.

UPDATE 4: I have figured out a reasonably credible scenario. Stay tuned!