To think that marriage is an outdated concept?

Isn't the solution self-sufficiently of women before marriage, or even instead of marriage, rather than marriage itself?

The number of times I've sent on here "we've been together 5 years, I'm living in his house, he wants kids, I'm staying at home, and he doesn't want to marry etc", or similar posts.

Yes, you're royally screwed if the relationship breaks down. But why rely on the man at all? Pull your finger out during school, get a good education, build up some reserves, have your OWN money, BEFORE having kids, that way you don't have to rely on 'his' money.

If your attitude is 'I want to be supported', then you've put yourself into that hole.

I guess there could be alternative solutions like changing it to civil partnership. There might be alternative paperwork that could be done that it not marriage but provides the same rights. Something resembling marriage is needed until everything is genuinely equal and it can't really be due to biology. Also trusting general public to do all the paperwork is going to be a nightmare after death. I can agree that some aspects should be changed.

Also it is important to remember that marriage is not beneficial in every case. That's why you need to know what you get into when you do get married or when you decide not to.

Totally. I was 21 years in my relationship before we married.

A relative recently split from her long-term partner - they were not married. It cost her a flat rate (very low) legal fee for him to buy her out of the house. No other costs and she was free of his financial fecklessness.

I was married. The legal fees to divorce were around £10k. Then I had to pay him the price of a house to send him away. All expenses for the kids going forward through teen years and uni were deemed irrelevant as apparently that’s what the CMS is for. It didn’t scratch the surface, of course, and he tried to dodge paying that.

I am not against the concept of marriage, I am against its practical application in the law courts when it comes to divorce. I didn’t expect to divorce when I married but that is 21st century life. Women who out-earn their husbands (and usually do all the “wife work” too) are the big losers from marriage these days. We are a rapidly growing number. You have been warned.

Then don't take the husband's name, many don't. I didn't and that was over 20 years ago.

You know that’s a wedding not marriage right? Every single thing you’ve mentioned there is not legally required in order to get married.

I’m not getting married to obtain the legal protections it confers because some people choose to wear white and get given away by their fathers, is up there with the dumbest reasons I ever heard.

what do you think marriage used to be? It’s a legal arrangement that sorts out property rights. If a married couple splits up, the court decides what happens to their property according to needs. If an unmarried couple splits up, it’s a mess.

It’s certainly outdated - based on the notion of women as chattels - but it isn’t meaningless. It’s a contract which can seriously damage your wealth.

My friend lost her home where she had been living for 10 years, and a lot of money and security, because she didn't have that bit of paper.

Her partner had refused to marry her and had not put her name on the mortgage. She was silly not to insist on it - but this sort of thing happens all the time. If they had simply been married, she would have been much more secure.

So yes it does mean something, if only financial security.

I'm married and it means a lot more than that for me, but for a lot of women and children particularly, marriage offers financial/ legal protection.

The OP is probably going to jump on this as backing up her post. But it actually reinforces the point that marriage is not "just a bit of paper".

@Lentilweaver lower earning women who are mums usually stick around and look after their kids. That’s really what a divorce settlement should be for. The vast majority of men don’t end up raising the kids alone. That’s where the argument that this is “equality” doesn’t work.

I think divorce laws should better recognise the person who will be the resident parent - they really do not do that. CMS money is easy to dodge. I had to pay for a lot of childcare in order to just go on working to support my kids when their dad left. Better in the long term for all of us that I kept my job.

He was happy to take the money and run. They have never heard from him since. Appalling behaviour.

Of course there will be people who will say I “chose badly”. But the deadbeats don’t exactly advertise themselves as that. You can never tell how someone will behave until it comes to it.

@LoneandLoco I think your experience illustrates how marriage benefits the lower earning party in a relationship.
Not always women. But usually women.

Thank you for sharing your experience from the other side of the fence. This is what is so very dangerous for woman that have assets and children to provide for. A decent man would realise this so you could keep your assests to pass to the children. But nope they claim "their share" then most probably spend it on their new fancy piece.
Yes some men out there will do the right thing and put their children first, but if we are all honest with ourselves men like that are in a minority, most men see nothing wrong in indulging themselves simply because the law allows it!

It’s the only serious legal contract which you sign without ever seeing the small print. Think of any other legal equivalent where you don’t get a written explanation of the implications? There aren’t any.

If you are a woman with a decent income - more than the man you are marrying - it is a huge danger. Particularly if it is likely to stay that way throughout. He can take you for more than half of your assets and you will still be left with the kids to support, because that’s what the vast majority of mums do. Married men can abandon their kids AND take a chunk of the woman’s hard-earned cash with them, aided and abetted by the courts.

I was married and now I am divorced having lost 55 per cent of my hard-earned savings to a man who never lifted a finger do any meaningful share of all the work that’s involved in raising kids and running a home. I still did all that.

I will never marry again - I couldn’t risk it. Why is someone entitled to money just for having had a relationship with someone? He gave up nothing, I took on all the burden of the child rearing plus earning more than him. The courts don’t recognise this because they “don’t look into the details of a marriage”. What a rubbish system.

As for the so-called protections touted by mumsnetters….for me there were none!! The only protection is for SAHMs. Personally I’d never risk being financially dependent on a man like that anyway.

But thanks for all the comments about anyone with an anti-marriage view being ignorant or uneducated.

Nicked from yougov

If you’re not going to give any kind of thoughtful reasoning for your opinion, I think it’s fair for people to pin it pretty quickly as flippant and or provocative.

A good rule is don’t start something you’re not planning to engage in seriously, and the same could very much be said for marriage.

And if people want to get married with all of "that reactionary crap" then that is their right, and they shouldn't be judged for it.

Well apart from being a legally binding contract so it gives uou and your children protection in law. I think it's good for children to know there parents are committed to each other .and feel it makes us all feel safe husband as well and he is a good man so no regrets forsaking all others as it went .

In my opinion, if you're going to have kids (general you) I wanted to do it in a married relationship.. So did.
Same with buying a house together.
I don't get buying a house and having kids together easily like many do but not the marriage bit?!
It keeps you more protected surely.
So why the big bits like kids but not others like marriage? To me they come together.

That's a wedding. Not marriage. You don't have to have any of that. I didn't. Who on earth still takes their husbands name if they don't want to?

Marriage is a contract which protects the weaker party. Usually STILL women. Personally I don't know how any woman has children or gives up her job without the protection of this piece of paper.

OP , of course, has not elaborated her thinking process at all.

I'm old school.

Assuming the marriage is a strong one and you love each other...

Men get a lifetime of reasons to work hard and build things, to devote their efforts to a cause that fulfills them. Men like that. Plus let's be honest they also get a lifetime of sexual satisfaction. They also like that - a lot.

Women get a partner who will look after them during the child rearing years, someone they can rely on and who won't leave them when the going gets tough. Women need that. Plus the sexual satisfaction thing, that's not too bad either.

However one thing I will shout from the rooftops all day long, repeat after me ladies:
Every woman needs her own income and means to support herself. There are bad men out there, and also ones who seem good but turn out bad. Never rely on a man

Because the OP has farted out drivel like “just a piece of paper that doesn’t mean anything”.

All the legal consequences of getting married mean that it is a serious contract, and the idea that it doesn’t mean anything is completely wrong.

There are posts every so often by people who believed that living together gave them common law wife status and they were entitled to financial settlement if the relationship broke down, even if they had never actually got married. Those people are wrong, in England, anyway.

There is plenty wrong with marriage and weddings as a concept, but rubbish like “just a piece of paper” leads to more people wrongly believing the above.

What a peculiar POV!

How is Marriage misogynistic? How is it outdated?

To make such a statement you should explain your reasoning.

To be clear - we're talking about the legal advantages of Marriage or CP, not a "wedding".

Given that women as childbearers and normally primary child carers are totally disadvantaged by the process, how can you not see that Marriage or CP gives a mother legal rights and advantages financially as opposed to "living together"?

It's not the dress, rings, confetti, cake or "first dance" that's important. Those are all irrelevant and all optional. The legal contract is entirely the point.

Totally agree!

Weddings are outdated. Marriage is not.

Fo you know what SHOULD be outdated? Misogyny. But it’s not. And because it’s not, marriage is also not outdated.