to think a lot of men will not marry if they already get everything?

If they were divorcing and had children, a judge might well give her more than half the house.
However, if they weren't married, so were just splitting up and not divorcing, she might be bitterly shocked at how nasty and miserly her Dave suddenly became.

I agree.
What some want is just a "sexual housekeeper".

But you're still talking as though the entire process of having children is women's responsibility and choice.

Of course it should be changed!
Feminists are fighting to change it and have been doing so for centuries.

Meanwhile - women, get married before having children
(unless you are one of those rare, lucky women with a great career that has a fantastic maternity scheme)

I think a lot of women think their Dave would always 'be fair' if they divorced and would give her half of the house.

None of these belong in the 21st century.

However, some of them have a kernel of truth behind them, or might be applicable to the 21st century if reworded slightly:

Women generally want kids more than men do.
Women have a biological deadline for having kids, men don't have a 'deadline', just a fading out of fertility.
It is sensible to get married before having children, especially if you are not the higher earner.

These things are inescapable facts of living in the 21st century in our sexist, misogynistic and patriarchal society:

1. Society is still sexist and patriarchal, even if you don't want it to be and don't believe it is.
2. Most women don't realise just how sexist, misogynistic, and patriarchal society is until after they have children. Young women with no dependents often mistakenly believe that the sexes are treated equally by society
3. Men are not judged nearly as harshly as women for walking away from their children, and men are more likely to walk away from children than women
4. Women earn less on average than men, so statistically women will be the lower earner in a relationship
5. Because of this earnings disparity, when the couple are young and in their first partnership, so neither have assets from a previous relationship, women benefit more from pooling assets (via the legal contract of marriage) than men do
6. Even if a woman is not the lower earner to start with, she may well become the lower earner after a couple of maternity leaves, a few years of part-time work, and a stalled career
7. In the event of splitting up after having children, generally a woman is in a far, far better position if they were married. If they were not married, she has no claim on any of the savings he built up during their relationship (whilst her career was stalled), and is entitle to nothing but a bit of maintenance for the children that is nowhere near the actual cost of raising them.

I think a lot of men would be thoroughly delighted about it.

Which, if I have understood you correctly, suggests a lot of men are not that bothered about having children?

Is any of that a reason to perpetuate misogyny and pretend it's based in truth rather than constructed within a patriarchal system benefiting men? Shall we just say ok, it's got a kernel of truth (arguable) so it's natural and can never be changed?

If he is already getting everything on a plate, a committed partner, a sexual relationship, children, someone to split the bills with, emotional support and a family life, all without making any legal or lifelong commitment, why would he change anything?

I know this does NOT apply to every couple or to ALL men. Some people genuinely do not want to marry and both are happy with that. But if one person wants marriage and the other keeps putting it off year after year, are they really going to change when they are already getting everything they want?

Why would someone buy the ticket when they are already getting the whole show for free?

None of these belong in the 21st century.

However, some of them have a kernel of truth behind them, or might be applicable to the 21st century if reworded slightly:

Women generally want kids more than men do.
Women have a biological deadline for having kids, men don't have a 'deadline', just a fading out of fertility.
It is sensible to get married before having children, especially if you are not the higher earner.

These things are inescapable facts of living in the 21st century in our sexist, misogynistic and patriarchal society:

1. Society is still sexist and patriarchal, even if you don't want it to be and don't believe it is.
2. Most women don't realise just how sexist, misogynistic, and patriarchal society is until after they have children. Young women with no dependents often mistakenly believe that the sexes are treated equally by society
3. Men are not judged nearly as harshly as women for walking away from their children, and men are more likely to walk away from children than women
4. Women earn less on average than men, so statistically women will be the lower earner in a relationship
5. Because of this earnings disparity, when the couple are young and in their first partnership, so neither have assets from a previous relationship, women benefit more from pooling assets (via the legal contract of marriage) than men do
6. Even if a woman is not the lower earner to start with, she may well become the lower earner after a couple of maternity leaves, a few years of part-time work, and a stalled career
7. In the event of splitting up after having children, generally a woman is in a far, far better position if they were married. If they were not married, she has no claim on any of the savings he built up during their relationship (whilst her career was stalled), and is entitle to nothing but a bit of maintenance for the children that is nowhere near the actual cost of raising them.

I agree with you - I honestly don't think men want children in the same way that women do. Which, when you think about it, suggests a lot of men would be happy with a live-in girlfriend and no children.

Some of the stereotypes on this thread:

Women who aren't married are "giving it away".
Women want kids, men want sex.
Women want weddings and marriage, men want sex.
Women want big proposals with lots of money spent on them.
Women want big weddings with lots of money spent on them
Women want to "trap" men because they're scared their "fertility window" will close.
Women's value and ability to be truly loved lies in being chosen and proposed to by and married to a man.
Men get to do the proposing, women wait passively to be asked.
A woman's father has some say in her getting married.
There is a "right" way to do things and this involves being married to a man before having children.
Women can be bought, like tickets to a show.

Which of these do you think belongs in the 21st century?

I agree with you - I honestly don't think men want children in the same way that women do. Which, when you think about it, suggests a lot of men would be happy with a live-in girlfriend and no children.

I don't think they are.
Or they go along, to keep the peace, without understanding how much hard work it is. Then you get all these posts on MN about how their DH is useless with the kids.
It begs the question "did he actually want them"?

But would that be such a bad thing? In the context of men getting it all without any of the commitment?

He wanted them, but only to have the status of 'being a father', not to do any actual parenting.
He wants kids, and he wants a woman to raise them for him.

I don't think they are.
Or they go along, to keep the peace, without understanding how much hard work it is. Then you get all these posts on MN about how their DH is useless with the kids.
It begs the question "did he actually want them"?

I think a lot of men would be thoroughly delighted about it.

Which, if I have understood you correctly, suggests a lot of men are not that bothered about having children?

@PinkEasterbunny "Of course, women could change all this overnight by refusing to have children unless married. I know it would never happen, but if ALL women decided, from today, no wedding no children, then the shift would be very interesting to watch"

I think a lot of men would be thoroughly delighted about it.

This is all so depressingly transactional. Talking about love and marriage like it's the same as swapping properties and hotels in a Monopoly deal.

I don't believe most people conceptualise their lives and life choices like this

Yes! It would be just like going back in time! Keep your hands on your ha'pennies girls!

You still aren’t answering the question.

let’s go through a scenario and tell me what should be different…

girl meets boy, girl and boy date, they have a physical relationship and are monogamous
girl and boy try living together, first they rent while saving up for a property
girl and boy save up, and buy a home, they live together happily
girl and boy want to start a family, girl gets pregnant and has a baby

Where did this go wrong??? Was it when she had sex? Was it when they moved in? Or was it having a baby before marriage?

I need you to quantify your thread because otherwise it sounds like you are just complaining without purpose, in which case, why do you hate women?

So I’m still at a loss…not trying to be obtuse, I just genuinely don’t know what you are saying people should do to get a marriage.

you’ve said that they can’t get married because they are having sex with the man, that he is getting the relationship without marriage so why would he marry…but how can you marry without having a physical relationship, or without being a loving and supporting partner.

It doesn’t make sense. What shouldn’t we be giving without being married????