If you were fortunate enough to marry a similarly earning woman then congratulations. Unfortunately - those are exceptional for this industry. At least where I am - it is rare to find a woman making $400K+/yr like I am. Even rarer that she’ll continue working after marriage - as many of the women I know who have made it that far end up giving up the gig and leave the husband to climb the rest of the career ladder to make up for the lost income.
Ultimately - your argument isn’t good. Your argument is “you should get married because getting divorced is so painful!” Why not just avoid divorce altogether?
I’ve seen enough loveless marriages. I put my fucking partner through college at an elite institution. I’m out well over $100K on that - and I didn’t even marry the woman. You don’t need to be married to support someone or to be giving.
Your marriage could end at any point. You just live naively thinking it won’t - but it can and it certainly could. There’s nothing stopping your wife from walking out the door and then filing for divorce. All that is different is that she needs to fill out a few forms or get you to pay for a lawyer - and the upside for her is immense. Hugely immense. Your earning for decades and half of your savings.
Oh, I'm quite aware that it could end (whether due to death or divorce). I choose not to spend my time dwelling on the possibility, because that would be like living in hopelessness. There are a lot of bad things that might happen to us in the future, and some are even likely, but living in constant dread for the future is joylessness.
If I was to marry - I'd have to marry someone with the same level of income, spending/saving habits, and so forth for the marriage to be "equal" in the eyes of the law. As it stands - I don't consider that as much of a factor for my relationships because I'm an extremely giving person. However, my willingness to give everything to someone ends when the relationship does. If I choose to not interact with this person anymore then why should I be in their debt until the end of time?
It's not worth it. It creates a perverse power incentive for people in the marriage as well. Again - maybe you're not in that situation but I was making $400K+ and they were making $0 for years. They had no intention of ever working because they knew I could pay for everything. It went from gratefulness in our first year to entitlement by the end of our relationship and had spread like a plague ruining everything. I cannot fathom how much they would feel entitled to if we had been legally married - even if they contributed literally nothing. And I'm dead serious - they didn't do housework or child raising or anything either - they did nothing and yet there are no absolutely no enforceable protections for people like myself... BESIDES not marrying - which is what I advocate for.
I advocate for love, support, giving, and so much but it needs to be on your terms. It cannot be on the terms of some archaic governmental, cultural, and religious institution.
If we can fix the system, then no 'hopelessness' may anymore be involved. That's what we need to push for. As of now, the system for broken marriages is hopelessly bad.
My advice to all would be that even when in a good marriage, to the extent you can, don't make choices that would make the end of it hopeless for you.
There’s also plenty of empirical evidence for marriage’s positive impacts on kids not to mention the general principle that two are stronger than one. It’s an institution that’s thousands of years old and stretches across every society and religion for good reason.
Sadly not all marriages are successful (not unlike a startup). But this doesn’t mean they’re not worth pursuing.
I am not against marriage in itself, however, what it means all taken together is in need of adjustment. And that will happen sooner or later. The positive impacts on children can continue as the system is refined. The only question is how many suffer during the transition phase.
Women, marriage, love are different things. We should not let these be confused together. A push back against marriage is not same as that against love, and nor against women in general.
As a thought experiment, imagine pushing the divorce laws even further in the existing direction. Imagine a law saying: "if a wife kills her husband, this is not considered a crime, and she automatically gets all his property". Wouldn't this make men even more emotionally vulnerable? Wouldn't this make marriage a more exciting adventure? How much more attention would we pay to choosing the right partner! Definitely seems like a move in the right direction. (just kidding)
Hopefully it is not poor taste, but I do disagree with your advice. Yes, marriage comes with a great deal of risk, because it is codifying your love. Love itself is risk, though. As C.S. Lewis said:
> To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.
Yes, marriage opens yourself up to a great deal of potential financial damage. It also opens yourself up to a secure romance and friendship, where you can build a future based on commitment to one another. I far prefer to give my wife not just my love and companionship, but also my commitment, my future, and yes, my money. She does the same for me, and it is far more secure and stable than just a dating relationship which could end at any time for any reason. Divorce is way harder to go through than a simple breakup, for either party. Just the sheer effort of a divorce gives you stability, regardless of social, legal, and cultural implications.