Do we need a new marriage contract?

[Horsesandzebras]

Having just read other threads about women being financially abused and the meaning of marriage do we need to create a new way for our society and a new "family contract" insted of marriage or maybe just have "family equality laws" so there is no need for marriage. You could have a romantic ceremony, but the contract side of starting a family is written into law anyway.

How could things work to bring about equality?

• both parents get equal parental leave entitlements. They can give the entitlement to partner if they choose to.
• the mat leave (maybe 6 weeks prior to birth and 4 weeks after - before "parental leave" for the mother starts) is financially substantial
• if you are a SAHP the other parent has to give x% of wage direct to SAHP through a government mechanism, at source payslip or an app maybe.
• CB is paid to SAHP or equally if both work
• A universal basic income for all

It's complex so figured it's worth a chat. Anyone out there with some good solutions? Lots to be worked out here.

Interesting question. I don't really like the idea of having contracts you don't actively enter into. It also seems a bit "Nanny State" to have instructions on how family finances should be allocated.

I would make any such contract renewable every few years, eg 5. Then both parties would know that if they don't pull the weight, they can simply walk away without the drama of divorce.

if you are a SAHP the other parent has to give x% of wage direct to SAHP through a government mechanism, at source payslip or an app maybe.

What if one wants to be a sahp and the other doesn't want to support this and wants an equal work/parent deal?

I honestly think that before ANY of this proper CMS enforcement is needed. The current system is lip service - at best. Attitudes need to change, sanctions need to change.

Written into law for everyone? Or just a contract for you and your partner? Where has choice gone in if the former? Not everyone wants that set up. Some of us are perfectly capable of looking after our own affairs without a government mechanism. Everyone's financial arrangements with regards to utility bills, mortgages etc is individual. I have no desire to fee all that information into some clumsy, vastly expensive bureaucratic mechanism that will inevitably suffer data breaches.

Universal basic income just for parents or for everyone? UBI is a completely different issue and one with many pitfalls. It is also hugely expensive. Do you really want our taxes going on UBI instead of health and education?

Your post is a muddle.

Women go through pregnancy not men. It often takes more than 4 weeks to recover from birth. The idea that men could demand half the maternity leave from 4 weeks is disturbing. It would also just lead to unnecessary litigation between acrimonious parents.

Breastfeeding, though not always possible, should be supported in maternity leave legislation by prioritising maternity leave over paternity leave in the first six months, maybe longer.

Anyone that is going to financially abuse a woman, isn't going to not, because of a contract.

Ok, I think my communication skills are messy. Let me try rephrase my question and see where it goes.

If you run the country how would you rig society so women don't shoulder the "motherhood penalty" ? How would you prevent financial abuse occuring specifically to women when they have children?

A thousand rubbish ideas are better than none if we find a good one.

What I'm hearing from the above answers is we need

• Education for all about financial independence and financial abuse.
• Education for all on mothers employment rights in the workplace.
• a place to go about financial abuse if it is occuring

That's the first point of call by the sounds of it.

I think all citizens should be entitled to three years of 80% pay, taken at any point during their career - sabbatical, childcare etc. Doesn't need to be taken all in one block.

(I'd use this as two mat leaves plus 6-12m of study to get back into the workplace)

I think there should be "off ramps" for employment of near-pension age. A bit like reverse apprenticeships. Taking account of the relative unimportance of learning new tech and of being physically weaker with age, but taking advantage of the skills and experience of those nearing retirement.

I think there should be "off ramps" for employment of near-pension age. A bit like reverse apprenticeships. Taking account of the relative unimportance of learning new tech and of being physically weaker with age, but taking advantage of the skills and experience of those nearing retirement.

This is an excellent proposal!

Sorry, I don't understand this. Can you clarify a bit more?

I was quoting @thecatsthecats

How are you going to enforce this?

What about when your not with the other parent? How would parental leave work then?

I like some of your ideas but I'd be wary of enshrining equal parental leave in law as for those who have controlling husbands may well be forced back to work 4 weeks post partum by their husband insisting he takes the leave - regardless of breastfeeding/recovery from the birth.

Some things I would like:-

• cms is charged at a basic rate to all non resident parents irrespective of their incomes, then if the person is unemployed it is funded by the state and the non res parent is then billed/has it taken from future income. Those on higher incomes obviously pay more, but if out of work it reverts to a base rate paid via the state

• businesses are targeted by their respective cabinets/national governing bodies to increase uptake of the flexible working policy for their male staff and are benchmarked against each other in the aim of closing the gap between their female employees and their male employees who take up the flexible working policy- specifically in senior management positions

Would this be compulsory or would traditionalists and non feminists like me be able to opt out?

The parental leave could be taken at the same time by both parents.

I think we need to definitely need to increase mat leave pay.

I think we need a better way to handle controlling partners - and that is either the mother or father.

The marriage route would absolutely remain open to those who choose it.

But parental leave can currently be taken by both parents at the same time.

So much of this is about changing social norms. More childcare leave for fathers (that can't be used by the mother) would be the first thing I'd do to even things up. So after a baby is born, mum gets months 0-6 and then dad gets months 6-12. Workplaces would have to offer paid paternity leave on the same basis as paid maternity, and it would set an expectation that men also take time off for kids.

Different mechanisms are needed to deal with the cases of abuse and of absent fathers who don't pay their way.

The 'off ramps' are already available in some pension schemes. You can take some of your pension earlier and combine it with part time work.

I agree with you that everyone should be entitled to paid sabbatical leave, and if some people choose to use it to have babies, that is their choice, but you should be able to have the leave, whether or not you have children. However, the last poster who suggested that on here got roasted.

The giving a % of the wage to the SAHP is ridiculous frankly.

Most couples I know just put everything into a shared pot, so would end up with the working parent actually getting to keep more money for themselves....

I agree with the person who mentioned proper CMS enforcement.

I'd also have restrictions on large age gap marriages, or at the very least extra steps that have to be undertaken. Dirty old men who dump women when they get to 40 for a younger woman should not be able to abandon their responsibilities.