Heteromonogamy is really just another way to waste women's time, isn't it?

Maybe your subconscious knows something sAf

Perhaps you can start a thread asking if abpnyine would be willing, (although you might be thought a troll immediately )

Wouldnt mind a third parent who was committed to dd cos we are bloody knackered. But where would we out him/her?

I think that a lot of women would too though, Len. I mean that in the nicest possible way, please don't misunderstand me. Having children, especially small children, is very, very hard work and there is very little time off. And even if you manage to squeeze a couple of hours out for yourself a week/month it is still dependent on whether the children are well and you having the option of affording childcare or having willing family.

I think, given the option many men AND women (not all by any means, but many) would quite like the benefit of having children without the unrelenting responsibility.

Sharing parenting and family life with another adult does make it easier to parent. Whether that is a sexual partner, co-parent, family member, etc. Especially if at least one of you can out paid employment to the side for a little while at least.

cutsoftheirtails - I don't understand about how aggregate effect on women's time works. Do you mean that individual women who are happy with the way they are using their time and emotional energy in their family ought to be using it in some other way (even if it would make them less happy..?) for the greater good of society? how would you decide?

how you use your time is personal - knitting or fishing would be a waste of my time. I'd rather just buy some fish and a jumper and do something else. But if someone enjoys fishing or knitting, who am I to say that they are squandering precious 'aggregate' human time and should be doing something else instead?

The idea of agregate time smacks of controlling structures and duties defined by others that I want to get away from. Surely every persons time should be their own, to commit in their own way. - into the relationships which suit them?

snowmama - but that kind of arrangement could apply to HM relationships as well, but allow other people the same kind of security, without having to be married to achieve it.

people can choose to declare 'we are a family' define who it consists of & how they will contribute, and also define how they will divide assets if/when the family unit changes/ends.

so a married couple could do all that, and redefine the situation once kids are grown. a gay couple could do it, just friends who choose to live together & raise a family, 2 sisters could do that.

if there were some security to it, it might encourage more stable relationships but without limiting that to only one kind of 'family' as defined by society/tradition.

i think that for some, not all, families, the option of having one parent stay at home for a while is a good one to have. the early years with kids is vv tiring, and if they need time more than money, then they should be able to pool their resources if that works for them. however, finances are heading towards every one being reliant upon themselves. there are many positives to that, but it does rather imply that all adults work all their lives, unless vv rich. which actually starts making it harder for some people.

i would just like to see some more flexibility and choice for the individuals without feeling trapped into a certain model, which may well not be the best one for them.

Exactly, SGB ..in fact your set up sounds ideal to me....

...and whilst I would not have chosen the route I have taken to be a single mother headed household...I am very happy with the stable,calm, relaxed happy household that I live in with my children.

I remember that case. So yes inheritance tax is a benefit (assuming you own a property in the UK)

Kickass, I hear what you are saying...but to both your points my personal preference would be different.

If I.had my time again I would have found a committed coparent who lived somewhere else (this is very theoretical because I suspect most men would prefer a traditional marriage to 50:50 childcare/all domestic work in seperate locations)......and I genuinely don't think 2 FT WOHM parents are more unhappy than the traditional set up.

Not sure if that fully makes sense...I should be asleep!

i like the idea of being able to form a legal 'family' unit, but it not having to be the traditional form.

i've been struggling with the conflict of genuinely believing that children need stability & support, that it is easier for the adults if there's 2 of them, not 1, but still not wanting to feel obligated to live within the traditional family set-up.

i can actually see how 2 friends may want to live together, raise kids, then dissolve the family unit once the kids are older (i'm thinking 2 single mums, but not necessarily). that would provide some mutual support & stability without the need for HM. it would also mean that if one of them was a sahp, then they would need to define how that counted as economic input, so that when the union was dissolved, it would give a fair division.

atm, too often sahm suddenly find themselves facing greatly reduced income, having assumed that their contribution of raising kids & running the house was their input, in exchange for sharing the wealth of a working husband. then they discover that he gets to keep the lion share of his wealth, even if she continues to raise his kids for him.

the answer of us all being seen as individuals, therefore both parents having to work ft, does not give enough flexibility & actually just puts more pressure on the family unit, meaning that divorces are more likely. (imo)

Ok so in your case that makes perfect sense, my ex would have got PR automatically, regardless of marital status (because of when they were born).

...and fundamentally that is his benefit, not necessarily mine.

I truly hope that all the people who that the OP is correct free themselves from these shackles, ditch their husband or partner and take up mountaineering. Be strong, have courage in your convictions; you can do it!!!

...child maintenance I mean (sorry crazy multi posting)

My ex actually does pay his maintenance payments, but again that is not dependant on marriage.

....at my work those benefits are transferable to an unmarried named partner

Yes in theory it means that.

That theory falls down when you know that the majority of absent parents don't pay a penny in maintenance for their children.

I suspect that most of the protections that marriage gives, are theoretical rather than actual.

None of those conditions are applicable to me....and I think it is relatively hard/rare to get spousal maintenance.

I have never assumed that it did provide any legal/financial protection - saw it more as a declaration of family.

...but constantly see it quoted on MN as to why marriage is a good thing.