Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide, which can point you to expert advice and support.
ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
"Men do better out of marriage than women."(81 Posts)
This is a view I've seen expressed on here a few times, and I was wondering - is it a common view held by many people on here/IRL? Because, unless you are married to a twat who takes you for granted - which is obviously a problem - then I don't see how men do better out of marriage than women, nowadays.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
"I get to only work part-time"
Some of us recoil at the idea of being financially dependent on a man and wouldn't class that as a benefit.....
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I don't think it's marriage itself that's the problem, I think if you are going to have kids with a bloke and are the lower earner marriage gives you more protection.
Women settle too easily for doing more than half the work in a relationship married or not, that's the problem. They drift into doing most of the cooking, housework, arranging the social diary, remembering stuff, buying and sending stuff, phoning people.
The only people who can change this pattern are the women by refusing to do it and setting clearer ground rules before living with a bloke.
I think alot of this is because stuff women read often gives a woman's aim as finding and keeping a man. Stuff men read is more about having sex with the woman you fancy.
I am happier married than I would be single. My husband pulls his weight though and never swears at me though. Alot of women seem to tolerate awful blokes for far too long.
"My brother's wife's sister is already pregnant. Shouldn't we be trying? Is it too late?" Much angst and hand wringing. From my husband. Who was 29 at the time.
Men are keen on marrying and starting a family. They are just not keen on advertising the fact.
At the moment in society men are encouraged to be "players", women to find a man. Just look at rom-coms (and other films), women's magazines etc. In fact there was a survey done recently which showed that in the majority of cases where a woman was mentioned in newspapers she was described as a wife or a mother. These messages are pervasive, and work.
Left to there own devices there would probably be an equal number of men and women wanting commitment and/or children.
I agree that there are plenty of men out there who really want marriage and children. But I don't see many men whose lives are affected by those children quite as much as the women's lives are. My dad and grandad wanted kids far more than my mum and grandma - but they were not in any way offering to be the ones who stayed at home with the children and let their careers and financial independence go to pot.
Most people would want children if they just got to deal with the fun side of it.
I'm not saying men never want marriage and children. I'm just saying that, in general, they are seldom in the position of having to convince their wives to go along with their dream of having a family. A much more common scenario is that the woman is "ready" (or pressured by biological constraints) years before the man is. So it's more likely to be the woman having to do the convincing. That's why it's more often the woman's life that takes the hit of parenting (work, finances, greater share of the housework and what have you), because they are willing to sacrifice more or simply aren't in the position to be too demanding.
If every woman insisted they are only willing to start a family if the man promises to do 50% of everything, I suspect a HELL of a lot of blokes would turn around and say fine, they can live without kids after all. Not all, by any means, but a lot of them.
These things are ultimately decided between the couple. Biology has little to do with it, society's expectations and romcoms and whatnot even less. It depends on what's important in each individual's life, what you want out of it and what you are willing to sacrifice.
PanickingIdiot - your opinion of men does not marry up to the men in my family. My husband, brothers and father have not/would not shy away from parenthood simply because they do/would do 50%/their share.
I'm glad I think higher of men.
DH has always wanted kids, and I never really did in the past. I met him at a time in my life when I was coming round to the idea. I'm certainly happier now I'm married and have a child than I was when I was younger and single, but I don't think it all comes from being married. A lot of my happiness has come from being older and wiser and from having started to get somewhere in my career. But DH has also provided a lot of support too (both practical and emotional).
I see that a lot of female friends who refuse to settle for an unequal division have ended up with proactive husbands who are more than happy to do their share. Whereas those who take on all the childcare and household duties are with men who sit back and let them.
It's not my "opinion" on men. And I didn't say it was true in 100% of the cases.
It wasn't me who stated that in 80% of couples the division of housework and childcare is heavily biased towards the woman. It can only be because 80% of women agree to this, or at least they don't think they have a choice. There must be a reason for that, and the simplest explanation is that they want a family badly enough to put up with it. Why do you think there aren't more men who would put up with more? I don't buy it that it's biology or society. It's an individual choice.
I see that a lot of female friends who refuse to settle for an unequal division have ended up with proactive husbands who are more than happy to do their share.
Yeah, I see that, too.
Although it also has to be said that a lot of these friends are as yet childless. It remains to be seen what they'll "settle" for when they are approaching 40 and begin to see their childlessness as missing out.
I see that a lot of female friends who refuse to settle for an unequal division have ended up with proactive husbands who are more than happy to do their share. Whereas those who take on all the childcare and household duties are with men who sit back and let them. That's definitely true in some cases wandering - but I've also seen friends in relationships where they have tried and tried to get their partners to do even the most basic things like the washing up, and failed because they are lazy bastards who even huff and puff if they are asked to put the kettle on. Luckily they dumped the men, but it's not uncommon.
And those are men in their 20s and 30s, not 'older, more traditional' men.
Yeah, i only have a few examples of couples I know well enough to base this on, and I'm sure there are loads of women who put up with lazy bastards who huff and puff over the simplest things (you only have to look on MN to see this!). But I think it's interesting that the most equal couples I know have always been equal, in terms of both career and household tasks, and in my experience these have been the men more likely to take paternity leave. Plus, as the woman's career has always been equal to the man's, these women don't find themselves financially dependent on their husband and have the confidence to demand more. Actually, thinking about it, some of the most unequal couples i know are where the salary balance is really skewed towards the husband.
Just my experience of couples i know though, so not entirely representative
I've also seen friends in relationships where they have tried and tried to get their partners to do even the most basic things like the washing up, and failed because they are lazy bastards who even huff and puff if they are asked to put the kettle on.
Posts from women in this situation are a dime a dozen on here. And yet they marry them and have multiple children, thinking the blokes would man up one day. Why is that, then, if not because the desire to procreate is stronger than the willingness to haggle and negotiate over what seems like a trivial matter at first glance?
The thing that worries me about 'passing on tricksy tasks' to your husband is how are you going to feel if suddenly (through death, divorce or otherwise) you have to take the bins out, sort the electricity account, drive on the motorway yada yada... I think you need to retain independence and the knowledge that you can operate as an individual - being afraid of doing these things by yourself seems to be one of the reasons women stay in unhappy marriages. It perpetuates the myth that a woman needs a man.
I'm 50 and have never married and never wanted to. I have a teenage son who I've brought up on my own in a relaxed happy environment. I've had many comments over the years where people have thought me "odd" or "lonely" and I'm neither.
My reasons are very similar to SGB. I was not put on this earth to "serve"
I don't think I would ever bother to get married again should the current one go tits up.
DH's mental health certainly is much better since we got married. But I think I can track that back to him making the decision to become the SAHD and leave the earning to me. I do all the cleaning
though I have very low standards about half the cooking and most of the earning. He does the childcare, shopping, bill paying and is the keeper of the social diary. I like to think DD has a good model to base her adult relationships on i.e. a fair and equal distribution of household duties and parents who cook, nurture and take responsibility regardless of their gender.
I was married young and we were both building careers so didn't have children. Divorced quite young I have been single for around 25 years. Had one child in that time and managed to work and give DC a good life. This is the key, I think. If women can raise a child alone with reasonable financial security, it can be a great life, with a wonderful mother/child relationship. I cannot compare it to being in a two parent family so cannot say that it's preferable.
I like men, have had 'friendships' with quite a few and did live with someone a for a couple of years and although I loved some aspects of the relationship I didn't enjoy losing my independence, space and hated the drudgery of domesticity.
I would live with someone again but it would be a man who has experienced living alone, financially set up, as I am and the relationship would be equal with no dependents, now.
I think there are two tricks to this. One, don't marry or reproduce with a man who isn't ALREADY doing his fair share (or more in DH's case). Then, value yourself and your choices. I had a lovely BF in my early 30s who was great except that he wanted kids, wanted to have me stay at home with them and earned half what I did. In my mind this made him an idiot. I wasn't going to have children with someone who was unwilling to compromise.
I think for both men and women some time living alone before moving in together is useful so each is aware of what needs doing in a house and they don't take each other for granted.
If my current relationship ended I don't think I'd marry again as not wanting more kids, and I don't think I'd want to live with someone again, would maybe rather just live near someone but have my own space. Of course this may change if I found winter evenings too lonely and I suspect we'd near enough live in each others houses anyway.
Hmm, this debate is comparing being married with being single, not being married with living together unmarried. If you are talking about who gets the better deal out of being married rather than living together, it's usually woman (because woman generally need the legal protection if things go wrong) however, compared to being single, then men do get more out of being married, even if they don't see it. Statistics prove it, from living longer, being healthier, having better careers etc having a woman to share their home and life with, not just a girlfriend who lives elsewhere, does make a significant improvement to men's lives.
Some of the statistics about woman's health should be taken with a pinch of salt though, as woman who have never married have traditionally been less likely to have DCs, and a lot of woman's health problems do track back to childbirth - it does knacker our bodies. The generation who are currently 'old' and suffering the long term effects of procration are still a generation where having DCs out of wedlock (even if that marriage subsquently ended) was not the norm/as acceptable as it is in the generation who are having DCs now (or even in the one before). It'll be interesting to see what happens to the health stats for 'never married' woman in 30 years time. (which will probably include a bigger percentage of mothers than now).
(niceupthedance - I also leave anything I find tricky to DH, but then it doesn't mean I can't do them, just that I chose not to when I've got someone else who can do it for me and will do so - I don't believe that being in an equal relationship means you have to take it in turns to do each task, just do half of all the jobs each, I am as capable of putting out the bins in the icey weather as DH is, as long as he's here to do it, Ill leave it to him...)
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
There's still a lot of propaganda to the effect that women are more 'naturally' inclined to
be servants 'care' more about housework than men. Along with the relentless insistence that a woman without a man is a freak and a failure, it's not that surprising that a lot of women still put up with sexist, lazy, selfish men for quite a long time.
Join the discussion
Please login first.