feel like I’m turning into an anti-marriage feminist

It’s the joint asset split which robbed me of my life savings as the higher earning wife when we divorced - don’t kid yourself it will always reward you for the sacrifices of childbearing and rearing. From my point of view marriage was the most foolish decision I ever made.

I’d like to leave my stuff to my kids IHT free. I care about them the most!

I've never seen any place where such arrangements are called marriages. Generally they are something like "registered partnerships" which is not exactly catchy.

I'm not sure why you think, because some people think it might be a good idea, that people need to be out protesting about it? Lots of policy ideas are made and followed up without crowdfunding and protests and such. Thank goodness.

There are laws that allow for this kind of arrangement in other places besides the UK. And they are used and some people find them useful. Somehow that's not ok because - why?

It's true that in some places that have these laws, they are used for same sex couple partnerships rather than marriage as such. Generally the argument is that the issue isn't sexual activity in the relationship, per se, but one is formed around the needs of reproductive roles while the other isn't. While plenty of people disagree with that, that's hardly the same as it being offensive.

I don't think that's quite the implication.

It's more that some of the legal elements associated with marriage, like defining next of kin, inheritance, taxes, etc, could also be things that would make sense for households that have other kinds or relationships that anchor them.

Who's making this argument though? I thought the straight couple determined to have a civil partnership were quite odd, but they fought and fought and won in the end, so fair play to them.

Where are the groups of single mothers crowdfunding to take this to court? Or the elderly siblings, or whoever?

It's just hot air, because they believe marriage has already been watered down and therefore should be again. I don't believe many of these people are serious.

It is really offensive. Marriage does also represent the public celebration of a relationship as well as being a legal contract. I know there are couples who get married for the tax breaks but they are still couples. People who marry solely for immigration reasons for example are often investigated. It doesn't have the same social status, people refer to them as sham marriages.

I get that people might want to save tax or have a legal next of kin who isn't the existing one etc. But if what we call marriage is opened up to flatsharers or work colleagues or siblings and ceases to be a signifier of a serious relationship, why not three people, why not twenty? Marry all of So Solid Crew, there were a few hundred of them.

I'm not seeing any genuine attempt by these people to try to form legal unions or legally recognised families or signing cohabitation contracts or writing their mates into wills. It's just a cheap comment about marriage.

This thread has been really odd. But I've seen a few posters commenting that they should be allowed to marry their sister or their best mate and I have to say that as a lesbian I find this really offensive.
It smacks of "they let anyone get married now so I'm marrying my brother".

I don't think that's quite the implication.

It's more that some of the legal elements associated with marriage, like defining next of kin, inheritance, taxes, etc, could also be things that would make sense for households that have other kinds or relationships that anchor them.

I used to know an elderly lady and gay man who had lived together for years, they were officially in a common law relationship, which meant they filed taxes as a couple and also there were other administrative provisions that made sense to them. It was a bit dodgy though, obviously they were not having kids or any kind of sexual relationship.

Similarly, if my husband were to die, I would probably form a household with my sister, but it would function as just that - a permanent household, not a roommate situation.

People form these kinds of households already, if there is a need for some kind of legal institution to facilitate it, it's not an offence against anyone.

No, and I think discouraging women from marrying is potentially detrimental to women.

Marriage isn't about presents and dresses it is a legal contract that has benefits and protections that benefit many women. If a woman wishes to have children with a man then being married first is beneficial to her due to the legal protections. It isn't about being rescued or relying upon a man, it is about formalising your partnership, women can and should be equal partners within a marriage (fuck that obey bullshit).

I remember when civil partnerships were made law, it was fucking momentous, and Boris said he might as well marry his dog.

We had no way to get married or have a civil partnership for centuries, gay people died and their families swooped in and claimed the house, chucking the partner out. Lesbians had their kids taken away by the courts.
The "domestic bliss" that isn't always rosy just wasn't available to us because we were seen as filthy perverts, a danger to children, and a menace to society. Don't cheapen it by using all the same shitty arguments Norman fucking Tebbit used back in the day.

If you want to get married, get married. If you don't, don't. If you get fucked over because your boyfriend convinced you that common law was a thing then I'm sorry, but you've been had.

Also if you're a Muslim woman in an unrecognised religious marriage, maybe his second or third, you've been had.

But getting married makes sense in most cases where there are kids involved. I think it costs about £150. No reason to not do it.

Something that always strikes me though is that a lot of her ideas aren't new. (Not to put her down at all, she is very systemic in her thinking and an articulate writer.) It's just that it's new to see them discussed in a feminist setting.

I have had similar thoughts about authoritarianism. I used to think UBI might be a good solution, but now I tend to think that it could be dangerous, at least as the main element of a solution. In general I'm much more inclined to see state solutions as likely to undermine low level social structures that are ultimately more robust, flexible, and practical. Marriage laws that see the family as a self-supporting unit with obligations that continue even when the marriage breaks down should be part of it too, however.

Usually in these cases you mention people don't want the baggage they feel is attached to the idea of marriage, even though they see the utility of it. It's like it has a bad image.

Where I live we do actually have that kind of arrangement that you can have very similar rights to marriage but with no expectation that it is a sexual or reproductive arrangements (though that isn't precluded.) Originally it was created in response to the desire for a way for gay and lesbian couples to access those same kinds of rights and protections like pension benefits, next of kin rights, and so on, though due to other changes in law that aspect is no longer very relevant.

But in general there is a lot of confusion around this because people tend to assume their specific cultural baggage is more universal than is the case, and also because many are uncomfortable with the idea that it's so closely intertwined with reproductive role.

@CheeseMmmm I think you have a point that maybe ‘burden’ wasn’t the best word for me to use. I don’t regret having children and don’t see my DC themselves as a burden. It’s the expectations and rules of society that are the burden on women.

What I more mean is that an important aim of feminism should be (and I think is) the promotion of shared responsibility between both parents for both childcare and economic activity in whichever proportion is preferred by both parents.

I also agree with whoever it was said earlier that socialism is vital to feminism. Child rearing should be recognised as an activity which can be exchanged for other goods and services. IMO the best way to do this would be a universal basic income for the child rearing parent.

FWIW, I agree with Floisme - young mothers are often shocked by their feelings about leaving their infants...... Feminism has really neglected this issue, to the point where if you want to explore it, you have to look to conservative women's organisations, the kind feminist organisations look down their noses at.

Thanks Lobster I also like Nonnymouse's post, including this:
The mother-baby bond is pretty strong among mammals and I've come across women who are genuinely surprised at how strong this bond is

I read reports of the number of mothers of small children in full time work climbing ever higher, always presented as a sign of progress, and my first thoughts are always about new mothers crying for their babies in the office toilets (seen it, done it).

I used to think better financial support for mothers from the state was the answer. But now I look at growing state authoritarianism around the world, and it doesn't feel like such a great solution any more.

However when I said I'd never seen feminism really engage with this, I forgot about Mary Harrington. To my shame, I've only recently discovered her.

I also think it’s unfair that you can leave your stuff to a spouse free if iht but not to a sibling or friend. To me we should be able to choose how we live and who is dear to us. One size doesn’t fit all

I totally agree!

I also think it’s unfair that you can leave your stuff to a spouse free if iht but not to a sibling or friend. To me we should be able to choose how we live and who is dear to us. One size doesn’t fit all.

the institution is there because of the consequences of reproduction. If we did not reproduce sexually, there would be no need for marriage, even if for some reason we still had some sort of pair bonding

Are you saying you think people wouldn’t couple-up if there weren’t sex or kids?

Don’t you believe in love?

@Darkpheonix
Well said. I’ve also thought they should allow siblings to form civil partnerships. My mother and (single asexual) uncle have always said they’d live together and support each other in old age if my father passes before them. Many times a partnership has nothing to do with romance or sex. It’s about love and not living alone but having someone to share your life (or old age) with.

I don't know how I feel about marriage tbh

I think for me the trade off is this alleged financial security and stable environment Vs being trapped with someone who then changes or couod still ne entitled to half of what you have despite being a lousy husband and father.

I jate the idea if the embarrassment of having to day its iver after everyone chipped in thousands for your wedding. Having to leave before the credit card bill or even paid off.

I hate how even thinking about if someone is marriage material turns it into sonw limd of credit check like the bank does as opposed to being because you love eachother.

But then I ended a LTR a year ago amd I can't imagine going back to a situation where I lose my financial independence (sadly its benefit top ups and part time work but it's mine ) and be come part of a situation where Im financially stuck with someone again.

Having attenuated every combination amd compromise in.a relationship ie - stability vs chemistry vs love etc and not found what I can live with or without. I dont wanna be stuck again.

If that makes sense.

Plus the whole idea of a man giving me away to another man just makes ne too angry

the institution is there because of the consequences of reproduction. If we did not reproduce sexually, there would be no need for marriage, even if for some reason we still had some sort of pair bonding

Yes that's one of the reasons marriage was created. Doesn't mean calling it prenatal agreement is right.

I do agree that there should be some way of having similar agreements, between say friends. That would be something new. My best friend is also my dps sisters and we have talked about it. As much as we love out respective partners, we do feel that life would be happier and easier if it was us that lived together. Especially for her as her husband is a bit shit.

But that's not what I was talking about. This is the first time I have discussed that sort change, outside me and my friend and seeing a video on tiktok where 2 women, had got married. Not because they were in love or in a relationship. But as 2 single parents to raise their kids. I support that. But that wouldn't be changing marriage. That would be the creation of something new.

The vast majority of the time this conversation is around creating something identical to marriage but still revolves around love and romance. It's always marriage between 2 romantic partners. It usually involves marriage by default, to benefit people who didn't get married and now regret it.

You’re conflating ‘wedding’ and ‘marriage’. The former is a commercialised hyped up event where (for some people) appearance is everything. The latter is a useful legal arrangement, especially for women who are planning to have children and therefore likely to take the associated career hit. It might be different if we had better legal protections for cohabiting couples, especially those with children, but in the absence of that, marriage forms a useful framework for what to do in the event of a relationship breakdown.

We also have civil partnerships.

Did opposite sex couples get the right to that though I can't remember.

'
The fact is though, as much as some countries allow other permutations including same-sex couples, and as much as many couples may not have children, the institution is there because of the consequences of reproduction.'

Specifically it's about male paranoia about paternity. That's why it exists.

The fact that we were and still are in some places property of husband when marry, is a basic fact. And it says it all surely.

The examples I gave upthread.
Child marriage.
Women and girls conferred 'value' according to sexual experience.

Most value is girl puberty ish, definitely not had any kind of contact with men, possibly face not even seen by any male outside family.

Value reduces with things like sex before husband, already got children, previously married, often having been raped counts as lowering value, seen as / is promiscuous, has ever earned money through prostitution.

This male hierarchy of female value, maybe with small tweaks, is still embedded in the UK. If you look and listen it's obvious.

Marriage exists because of.. male paranoia. I suppose that could be called the consequences of reproduction but that airbrushes all the fundamental stuff out.

Are you sure it's only other posters who are looking too narrowly at what constitutes marriage?

I think it is important to consider marriage as something separate from the traditional patriarchal oppression women face as well. I can be what we make it.

There are several legal protections in marriage, next of kin (in case on an accident), inheritance, sharing of assets accumulated during the marriage, tax breaks of gifts and inheritance etc.

When I studied law, our family law professor said that he had come across a lot of people who were trying to come up with complicated legal documents to protect their partner in case something happened. He was always saying “why don’t you just get married, this is what marriage achieve.

So this business about free childcare vs some kind of income so mums could stay home is interesting. I disagree that both are about socialism, that's not what I've observed. TYpically in my experience you will see universal childcare pushed by progressive parties that see themselves as socialist, while you will see payments directly to mothers is more likly to be pushed by conservative parties. Not the neoliberal wing, but the traditional kinds of conservatives.

That difference speaks to a lot of splits I see about right vs left issues. It's not about one nice side wants to help people and the other is just against that. It's a different view of what is really help and what isn't.

FWIW, I agree with Florisme - young mothers are often shocked by their feelings about leaving their infants. I had a boss suggest to me that this might be so when I was pregnant and planning to come back to work, I was incensed. He was entirely correct though.

Feminism has really neglected this issue, to the point where if you want to explore it, you have to look to conservative women's organisations, the kind feminist organisations look down their noses at. There are probably a few reasons for it - being blinded by a tendency to compare women to men and look for equality of outcome (thanks identity politics.) Perhaps a certain amount of capture by the state and industry who prefer women to work. The fact that two incomes is more advantageous for professional families. But I also think, at times, that there are a certain number of influential second-wave types who actually hate the female reproductive role, and the fact that it involves fathers. It limits the degree to which feminist messages will ever resonate with women though.

It's just whatever mechanism a society has to recognize a set of commitments between a couple (or in some societies more than that, usually one man and several wives.) This generally involves some customary form of agreement, responsibilities to the people involved, and social recognition and support.

Our society has typically put this in the form of a legal contract, but that's because we live in a record=keeping, law-governed bureaucracy where we have pensions and medical insurance.

The fact is though, as much as some countries allow other permutations including same-sex couples, and as much as many couples may not have children, the institution is there because of the consequences of reproduction. If we did not reproduce sexually, there would be no need for marriage, even if for some reason we still had some sort of pair bonding. People could make alliances and change them or whatever, and they would be equally able to work, participate in politics, whatever.

So yes, if you change the name but accomplish the same thing, it's still marriage. Changing the name isn't really changing anything either, it's just a process change, or change of custom.

Though arguably you could have a similar institution that shared some features - say access to pensions - but were not organized around the needs of dependent partners and children or related to sex, and that would be rather different. So for example in some places you could have two sisters who formed such a union but clearly not a marriage, in any sense we'd recognize.

The group that has a particular paranoia that is the root of the interest in controlling members of the other group in so many ways and for so long.

The group that have for millennia decided on what makes members of the other group high or low value.

The group so preoccupied by these things that when they decide to pick someone from the other group to be closely linked to them. That valued characteristics are youth, obedience, total lack of any previous sexual experience of any sort going as far as never having been alone at all with any man not related to her ever....

Any and all issues with the institution of marriage when it comes to negative impact on women/ girls is due to...

Women.
And how awful they all are to other women.

Are you ABSOLUTELY sure? As a woman with an interest in feminism?

OP your perspective is... Well I've heard it before for sure. The amount of support for OP view is also, erm, noted.