'IT'S as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one," was one of the many pieces of advice handed out by my grandmother -- to no avail. What girl growing up post-1970 was going to fall for such outdated anti-feminist twaddle?

After all, there was a whole world of liberation, free love, equal opportunities and choice out there. Rich men were no longer needed for a woman to have all they needed -- the world was their oyster and they could do it all themselves (or something along those lines).

Recently I found myself repeating my grandmother's maxim (half joking, whole in earnest) to my daughter.

Not that I think she's planning a quickie wedding anytime soon (she's not yet nine), but just to make sure she doesn't pick up on the pseudo-feminist mantra about being able to have everything -- career, lover, children, well- run home and manicured toenails. Because, as many smart women are beginning to realise, the only way she will be able to achieve all these things is if she marries a rich man. Yes, it kills me to say it but, sadly, I believe it's true.

Baroness Deech, however, disagrees. A lawyer and chairwoman of the Bar Standards Board in the UK, Deech lashed out last week at women who "marry men as an alternative to a career". Arguing against divorce settlements that give a wife half of her husband's assets, Deech said that divorce laws as they stand signal that "getting married to a well-off

'If being in love is a reason to marry, then being out of love is a reason for divorce...'

man is an alternative career to one on the workforce".

But why shouldn't it be? They are some who argue that money and the marrying of it is essential for women because, given our patriarchal work culture, women rarely earn as much as their male counterparts -- and that's before the children arrive. Once a woman has a family, her career can be effectively sidelined in favour of her partner's. And that's the problem. The old feminist ideal of being able to "have it all" never took motherhood into consideration. Even when it did, it assumed that many mothers would cheerfully leave their little tots at home with Nanny or in a well-run creche while they carried on with their wonderfully fulfilling careers.

Two things wrong with that scenario. First, the refusal of government to acknowledge that private childcare (really all we have) is beyond the capacity of many women to pay on current incomes. Second, emotionally many mothers cannot -- and should not have to -- justify leaving little Oisin or Saoirse for most of the day while they pursue their own interests.

Another great myth we all bought into was the idea that men would somehow get "feminised" and take an equal share of what was traditionally called "women's work". Yes, there are many men out there who now know how to empty a dishwasher and read a bedtime story, but in the main it's still the women who do the lion's share of the housework and child caring.

Last year two American professionals, Elizabeth Ford and Daniela Drake MD, published the controversial book Smart Girls Marry Money.

Says Drake: "We were both working moms and we met in the schoolyard when our kids were two-and-a-half, as we were rushing to our work as a doctor and TV producer. We noticed that the people who got to spend the most time with their young kids were the moms who hadn't necessarily taken their careers seriously and married someone with money."

Ford says: "Our culture accepts that men value women because they're beautiful, because they're young, because they're hot. So why can't it go both ways? No one ever says that a man is a beauty-digger because he wants a beautiful girl."

Ford makes a good point here. There seems to be a double standard at work when it comes to old, plain, rich men marrying young, beautiful women. "So, what was it that first attracted you to the multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?" goes the old joke, but the fact that a rich man wants to marry a young, beautiful woman is so socially acceptable it fails to elicit comment.

Women who -- quite blatantly -- marry for money are often excoriated in the media for their greed and mercenary attitude to romance. But surely there's a business deal going on here between two adults who both have different things to offer each other? One has wealth and security; the other has youth and beauty.

When it comes to setting up a new generation, these combined assets can be unbeatable -- regardless of whether the union lasts or not. In many cases the deal is to produce a child -- the ultimate demonstration that a rich old man can still perform.

OK, so we may not agree that nasty, evil Heather Mills should have walked off with £24m of Sir Paul's hard-earned cash after a few years of marriage, but she gave him a beautiful new little daughter -- essentially, proof of his sexual prowess and an elixir of youth for his old age.

And the reason that the Mills/McCarthy case received such public scrutiny is because it was so unusual. In most divorce cases (according to the UK Institute for Social and Economic Research), women end up with less money that they had pre-split -- with a third receiving no maintenance at all for the children of the union.

Singer Lily Allen has said that her present priority is to maintain her success long enough to meet her dream wealthy partner: "I just hope I can stay famous enough for a little bit so someone rich will marry me. That's all I really care about these days." Allen is clearly showing that she's an old-fashioned girl at heart.

Marrying for love is a relatively new introduction; traditionally the union of man and woman was more an economic and business merger than a romantic union. Many far-sighted 19th Century social commentators prophesied that if parents allowed their children to marry for love, the rate of divorce would rise to at least 50 per cent. They argued, quite rationally, that if being in love was a reason to marry; then being out of love was a reason for divorce.

But now many high-minded puritans call marrying a man for financial reasons a form of legalised prostitution. So what? In theory there's nothing morally wrong with prostitution (in practise, though, there often is). If a woman freely chooses -- if she has the choice to earn money doing other work -- to accept money from a man in exchange for sex, well then, what's the problem? One party has something they will willingly sell while the other has the means to buy. Both benefit from the exchange.

Similarly with the union of beauty and wealth in marriage. And when the rich, old man decides he wants to trade in his young, beautiful wife for an even younger, prettier model, it's only fair that she be well compensated. He's still rich, but she's no longer beautiful. Look on it as her bonus for a hard job well done. Because, when you marry for money, you earn every cent.

Sunday Independent