In college, it’s not uncommon to hear girls say the only reason they’re here is to find a rich husband, or if school doesn’t work out, they’ll just marry a rich man. Marrying for money isn’t a new revelation; it historically predates marrying for love.
In the 18th century, during the colonial period of the U.S. and across much of the world, marriage was seen as a transactional exchange, controlled by the parents of both the bride and the groom. Women, or young girls, were considered “assets” and married off to help build wealth and status. When the 19th century rolled around, marriage values shifted and women’s rights grew, emphasizing romantic love rather than transactional marriage.
However, somewhere along the way, women started going backward in terms of marriage. Social media has popularized the idea of marrying wealthy and becoming a stay-at-home wife, selling a lifestyle centered on being a spoiled and ultra-feminine partner. Now, women shamelessly talk about obtaining an “M.R.S. degree,” an outdated stereotype from the 50s where women focus on finding a husband in college rather than their degree.
I understand the appeal of marrying a rich man, such as the security, comfort and life free from work stress that may come along with it – but it shouldn’t be a primary goal to satisfy. Education and independence should come before finding love, and personality and attraction should come before net worth. The phenomenon of marrying rich and abandoning ambitions for a “tradwife” lifestyle is setting women back and risks undoing years of progress.
The tradwife trend became popular in 2020 and is defined as “a married woman who embraces traditional gender roles and values.” Although there is nothing inherently wrong with being a tradwife, the viewpoints are “fundamentally conservative,” as it implies women should “retreat not only into the home, but also into history.”
Tradwives are inherently submissive, believing they serve their husbands and their place is in the home. This also implies women don’t belong in the workforce, reinforcing the saying that women should be “barefoot and pregnant.” Tradwives believe women are “better” when they stay home, have kids and don’t involve themselves outside the home.
Stay-at-home wives or mothers are typically dependent on their husbands for money, which creates extreme financial vulnerability and loss of autonomy and independence.
On the Reddit thread “r/askwomen,” one user asked: “For women that married the ‘rich one’ out of security, what has it been like?” Women told stories of being spoiled by their husbands’ riches, but money quickly became a method of control.
One user, YouMustDoEverything, said she left her husband due to his “controlling and mean” attitude about money, admitting she likely stayed too long out of fear of losing “income and stability.” When financial security is tied entirely to another person, leaving can feel nearly impossible.
If the relationship falls apart and you’re forced to start over, reentering the workforce is challenging. For stay-at-home mothers, 93% have faced challenges when reentering the workforce, and 60% say their time spent at home is considered a gap by employers, even if it’s a difficult job requiring many different skills.
This may seem obvious, but it still needs to be said. A few months ago, stay-at-home mom Cortney, who has over 100k TikTok followers on her fitness account, posted an emotional TikTok sharing her struggles after her wealthy husband filed for divorce.
After Cortney’s husband cut off her credit cards and stopped paying bills, she realized she was left with nothing– no money of her own and minimal skills outside managing the home. Cortney quickly discovered she wasn’t alone, and in her follow-up video, said, “I thought these stories were rare. They're not. Different women. Different states. Same words: ‘I have no money. I'm trapped.’”
When men hold the financial power in a relationship, the imbalance can become dangerous if things fall apart. Wealthy men typically become affluent abusers instead of physical abusers, meaning they “hide their actions from outsiders, often choosing coercive control tactics without overt physical violence.”
Coercive control is “a range of behaviours that allow someone to gain or keep control of a partner, ex-partner or family member,” which can include threatening suicide, controlling finances and isolation.
The legislature hasn’t caught up to coercive control, believing it’s “less damaging” than physical abuse. In some states, coercive control has only been defined as domestic violence as recently as 2025. Women in these financial or emotional abuse situations aren’t safe at home and rarely find safety in the law, putting them and their children at extreme risk.
A traditional lifestyle and marriage can sound appealing, but please be realistic. A life built entirely on someone else’s successes is never truly secure. If things fall apart, the only person you have is yourself — your skills, drive and goals. Don’t make living in somebody else’s shadow your only life goal.
Abby Shriver is a freshman studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note the opinions expressed in this column do not represent those of The Post. Want to talk to Abby about their column? Email/message them at as064024@ohio.edu / @abbyshriver_
