Is it antifeminist to promote marriage

I don’t think anyone’s saying that. We’re saying women should have genuine choices - affordable childcare if they choose to use it, a culture of equal parenting so the drudge work doesn’t fall solely on women, more flexible working arrangements, and affordable housing so if people do choose to be a SAHP it can be achieved on one wage. Perhaps child benefit also needs overhauling so it gives more financial support in the early years and less for older kids, again to give people parenting choices. Opting out of the workforce long term though isn’t good for anyone, particularly women, unfortunately we live in a capitalist society and until we don’t, there isn’t a better way for someone to become financially independent and secure except through paid work.

I think the idea that to be a feminist you have to commit to sending your kids to paid care by other women, so you can keep doing paid work, pretty stupid, and anti-mother.
That's quite an extreme characterisation of how to be a feminist

I think its about giving families the structure and support that means they can best choose what suits their individual context. Thereby minimising the number of women stuck in abusive relationships they can't afford to leave, or having to work in poorly paid jobs because that's all that fits round childcare.

Men need to be stepping up too.

I think the idea that to be a feminist you have to commit to sending your kids to paid care by other women, so you can keep doing paid work, pretty stupid, and anti-mother. And if you pit feminism against being a mother the former will always lose, on a societal level.

If society needs more protections for caregiving parents when a marriage fails that's what they need to pay attention to, not making it financially impossible for families to care for their own kids by subsidizing all parents in paid employment.

That has never really been about mothers, it's about boosting GDP.

I'm not invested enough in the word feminist to argue over it though, if it's going to be get rid of the nuclear family and all adults in paid employment, I am happy to leave it to those who think that would be great.

So basically a marriage but you aren't calling it that.

This.

Marriage as an institution has an anti-feminist history. In its current form it is useful protection for a significant number of mothers, but still has massive gaps. I think promoting it as a solution to the problems we have as a sex class with unjust outcomes for mothers is anti-feminist. Suggesting it (or civil partnership) as the best that is currently available for many women is sensible.

No. It's only anti feminist to tell women they don't have the right to choose what works best for them and that if they see it differently they aren't real feminists.
Choices are fine. Great in fact.

Feminism has always been about enabling equal rights and protections for women, not validating your enjoyment of wedding dress shopping, though. I agree with @TedMullins on the best ways of protecting women financially being affordable childcare and family-friendly workplace practices, as well as an end to sexist assumptions about women’s careers becoming weirdly optional after they have a child. No one should be relying on their relatiinship for financial support.

I’m not personally keen on the patriarchal baggage of marriage. We only did it because it was quicker and easier than trying to draw up documents to replicate marriage as far as possible.

I’m a bit tired of women constantly being given social engineering hoops to jump through. I was excited about getting married when I was a kid, and my daughter likes looking at wedding dresses. Modern feminism is starting to get a bit soulless. Men don’t seem to get this constant scrutiny about what they should and shouldn’t like or discussions about what should or shouldn’t be promoted to them.

Even if women work, there's the pay gap between the sexes and the motherhood penalty to contend with

Yes I agree with this. Also, low-earning couples who don't own a house, don't have savings and have tiny pensions don't have any assets to split, so marriage only provides protection if one or both parties are high earners. I agree CMS is a joke and it shouldn't be so easy for non-resident parents (overwhelmingly men) to get away with not financially providing for their child, or being physically present (unless there's a reason they need to be kept away like abuse). Affordable subsidised childcare, affordable housing and a higher minimum wage would give people choices.

What have you got against marriage? It persists for a reason.

The issue now is that marriage is not really enough to confer protections. The fact CMS is not enforced in this country, and the rise of the 'clean break' settlements in which each party is expected to come out of it with joint assets and be able to set up home. Which in effect will mean the partner needs the resources to be able to finance a separate home, as messher orders and the non-working parent, still usually the mother, getting some deal in the settlement until the child is 18, are now much less common. Divorces where settlements are legally contested and fought for are also expensive and there is no legal aid now unless there is demonstration of abuse/coercive control. So you need to be asset rich to even pursue a settlement that has been contested as you can run average assets down in paying court costs.

Despite the view of men being 'taken to the cleaners', the divorce outcomes for non-working mothers with no personal assets are pretty poor.

The best protection is to fight for more affordable childcare and for families in which both parents work. Don't ever give up your job for marriage, if you divorce, you are most likely to be housing your children, losing maintenance, If it is paid) at 16/18/20 - depending on how long they are in education and needing to get back into the job market with a poor pension.

If it's done by a legal contract, the same way as with any contract. There will be penalty clauses and possibility of legal remedy.

As for "encouraging women to separately set up all the legal protections they believe marriage confers? It could be cheaper and more effective" - can all the legal protections be set up? Is it cheaper? Is it more effective

Also, how do you stop one partner revoking or altering those protections?

You can draw up a cohabitation agreement (I did one with my DP when we first bought a house together). It's possible to make it more detailed and.tailored than a marriage contract (more like marriage contract plus prenup).

But it's not simpler (because you do have to actually think about all the specifics and contingencies instead of just plumping for the standard legal terms of marriage), it's not cheaper (compared with a no-frills marriage), and it can't replicate some aspects - like the tax advantages of marriage.

Marriage as an institution certainly has antifeminist roots. You could argue that its purpose today is different (it's not about ownership of women, it's about protection etc) but personally I do still think it is antifeminist. I'd like to see a massive cultural shift in what we model to, and expect of, boys and girls. So encouraging women to be financially independent, encouraging men to be engaged parents. And yes, teaching children what a healthy relationship should look like.

It depends what you mean by "promote marriage".
If its "promoting marriage" in a traditional, religious, patriarchal man as the head of the household, woman has a duty to defer to his authority sense then yes, promoting it is antifeminist.

If its "promoting marriage" as a way women can maintain some financial and legal protections when they have children with a man who turns out to be a wrong 'un, especially if they are planning to be the main child carer, then no, that's not antifeminist.

I suspect you mean the former though.

It's more important to encourage women not to settle for a bad or just good enough partnership. Ideally knowing what that looks like before being tied by marriage and children, but making sure you're never in a position that you can't walk away if it becomes bad.

So that would mean teaching teenage girls what a good relationship looks like, to stay financial independent, how to spot when an abusive partner is starting to separate them from their support network, etc.

Well said.

As for "encouraging women to separately set up all the legal protections they believe marriage confers? It could be cheaper and more effective" - can all the legal protections be set up? Is it cheaper? Is it more effective?

@HumanWrites, you're going to have to give some more detail here, not just sweeping statements. Make your case!

Marriage or civil partnership are legal constructs to help you achieve security, equality, rights etc.

The old fashioned notion it needs to be about patriarchy is just history now.

Now Civil Partnerships are available why would anyone "need" to get married? I can understand why some would want to but when it comes to the legal stuff a CP will do just as well.

A woman needs to make sure she has her name on the house deed also, just to make it 100% clear.

Do you mean it'll be more feminist to promote that marriage doesn't cover everything, and MORE protections are needed on top?

I would always encourage any woman who is having kids and giving up work/reducing hours/reducing pension payments to be married. You need that legal protection if the relationship ends.

Maybe there needs to be a contract detailing the amount of chores they both need to do at home... and to be clear that all income is to be shared for all members of the family, especially when there are kids. Men seem to miss this point from many posts in MN.