To think marriage doesn't actually make much difference to most everyday women?

[Dojasayso]

Interested to hear other people's realistic opinion regarding marriage.

In principle marriage in practical terms means a joining of assets/finances and thus meaning in the case of divorce assets are split accordingly.

So therefore I understand on that basis it can be seen as 'protection' as often stated on mumsnet.

However in the real world of modern everyday people where both men and women typically work, I don't actually see how it makes such difference unless you are a high earning household.

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage.

Examples:

1. Many people rent so in the case of divorce then whoever can afford it will take over the tenancy and the other rents somewhere else. Either party may also be helped by housing benefit to top up rent if eligible. Child maintenance also issued to primary caregiver.

Marriage has made no difference?

1. Unmarried couple buy a house together, split up and sell property and split equity or someone buys the other out just like if divorcing? Someone can't run off with the equity of a jointly own home if you've bought a house together. Judges won't demand the party that moves out (usually man) pays the mortgage until children move out unless they are exceptionally high earning. Especially if that means that party cannot go on to buy another house themselves.

So again, marriage hasn't made much difference?

1. Unmarried couple, dad walks out on part time working mum.

Mum then claims tax credits and housing benefits and all other associated benefits which tops up wages. Sometimes even making the mum better off. If house is owned then as above, they split equity and mum still claims plus maintenance. She can either buy another house if she can afford it or rents with housing benefit element if low earning. Being married would have made no difference.

1. SAHM, dad walks out. Same as above, income support plus other benefits and child maintenance. If renting then housing benefit, if owned then equity split.

So unless you are hugh earning how are you protected? A man doesn't suddenly become a high earner when your married so that in the event of divorce you suddenly have money when you previously didn't.

There's also lot of two parent families that still need to claim top ups despite working. Being married then divorcing won't change that?

You get asked to name beneficiaries on pensions and life insurance when you sign up, so again marriage makes no difference there in the event of death. Unless again, one is a high earner with assets on top on pensions/insurances to be split.

And before ANYONE does the classic line of "medical decisions and next of kin if DP is in a coma/life support". Marriage makes NO difference!!
Unless you have Lasting Power of Attorney for someone you CANNOT make any decisions about someone incapacitated regardless if they are your husband/wife. It's a medical decision made by a doctor in regards to procedures. A doctor won't say "we won't perform surgery because his wife doesn't want us too". You have to have an advanced statement in place which is done through a solicitor and not marriage.

Anything else requires a "best interest decision" decided by health and social care professionals (usually social worker). Doesn't matter if your married or not. Unless you have LPA you cannot make decisions on any incapacitated persons behalf.
You don't need to be married to have LPA, you can make anyone your LPA.

Soo mumsnet, am I missing something?! Unless you are a high earner I don't see this magical "protection" thats talked about? Other than widows benefit? But you can only claim that for 6 months.

Please enlighten me to how marriage protects your average Joe family that claim tax credits/rents/jointly owns etc .

Disclaimer: I am not against marriage and infact plan on marrying my DP next year but for emotional/commitment reasons of wanting marriage and not practical/financial reasons.

VOTING:
YABU: marriage does benefit low/middle earners
YANBU: marriage doesn't make much difference to everyday people.

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men
You won’t realise until it happens. Then you’ll find out that you’re the one who’s constantly vomiting for 9 months and your boss is annoyed about you missing meetings and having days off. You’re the one who can’t get out of bed for a couple of months after a c section. You’re the one who’s exhausted from breastfeeding all night. You’re the one with all the hormones who feels you can’t possibly leave your baby. You’re the one who’s lying on the floor sobbing and threatening suicide because you have PND. You’re the one who’s pissing yourself because of birth injuries and needing to take time off for repair surgery. None of this burden can be shared with your partner. It will severely impact your career.

I would never have children with someone that doesn't take 50% of children workload
Yes I said that. Then I discovered that he couldn’t take half of the breastfeeding and the physical damage. I discovered that babies won’t settle for Daddy because they want Mummy’s breast. Even toddlers often demand that they want Mummy. I discovered that I was full of attachment hormones and felt much less comfortable leaving my baby than he did. I discovered that although he was willing he had no skill or patience with kids, and I would have to step in when DC was crying even though it wasn’t my turn. And the biggest problem: I discovered that employers discriminate against Mums which means Dads get promoted and end up being higher earners, so then the obvious decision is for Mum as the lower earner to give up at least part of her career for childcare.

DH is the most egalitarian partner, but he didn't take maternity leave I did, which then led to me reducing hours (hard to find a financial circumstance and willing employers who'll let you both reduce hours). Then we had another, so rinse and repeat. Seven years later whilst we were both on similar pay pre kids (I earnt more actually) he out earnt me twice over. He was also doing more interesting work and had more flexibility. Ten years later, I've made some steps and worked my nuts off to get back to something nearer equivalent (but look lots less). As he often says now is my career focus time. Problem is I am now in dangerous territory of facing that other female penalty, getting really high level roles where employers don't want older women (perception of grey menapausal women not having the intelligence or energy to cut it). I'm not quite there yet but I need to get on with it. All of this obviously impacts earnings and pension and there were points at which if DH had left i'd have been fucked. If he'd left and we'd been unmarried I'd have been royaly fucked.

@SwimBaby

The thing is you can marry someone who has nothing (as I did) and 20 odd years they are a really high earner.

Me too. Lean early years and mutual trust/respect meant we worked as a couple for shared goals.

@SteveyFluff this isnt true of all women and their careers though.

I've been through pregnancy, maternity leave and returning to work with two different employers. Both have been excellent and when returning to work after maternity leave I felt respected by them.

With my youngest, I suffered the awful PND that you spoke of in your post. I went back to work when DS was 6 months old. It gave me a reason to get dressed and shower in the morning, get out in the morning and see other people. I had zero confidence when returning to work but work had confidence in me. Less than a year after returning I was promoted ahead of my male colleagues with the same length of experience as me.

I juggled the kids and work in the last year as DP has had to continue working away from the home.
In January, I crumbled and told work I was struggling with work and DS who has SEN. I wanted to continue working but my DS needed me. They did everything they could to help me get through those months.

DS is now back in school but workwise, it actually seems like they respect me more because I met all my work deadlines and targets even with the difficult circumstances.

I completely accept that we all have different struggles and battles. It just doesnt seem fair to assume everyone will face the same struggles and achieve the same outcome. Its not fair to assume that every womans career will be severely impacted.

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men. I would never have children with someone that doesn't take 50% of children workload. It hasn't impacted my career in the slightest.

So your husband gave birth to half your children and breastfed them for half a year each?

@Thesagacontinues

That is incredibly unuusal and despite what sounds like a very rarely supportive employer of course your career has taken a hit. If you took 6 months maternity leave that's 6 months fewer opportunities for progression than someone who was working in that time.

Of course the women ha r to give birth and if you want to bf that has to be the woman too but men can make their equal contribution in different ways at the same time by doing housework, winding and settling baby, waking baby for naps, picking up mental load at home, general life admin etc etc. It is entirely possible for a couple to contribute equally to childcare and family life even though the man can’t do the physical side at the start. I can hand on heart say that from day one my husband has done at least 50% of the work with our children. It’s possible if they want to and you won’t settle for less.

@IMNOTSHOUTING

But the male employees who worked for the 6 months while I was on maternity leave did not get promoted, I did.

I’m another one who has been promoted over a male colleague on an equal grade despite having less experience than him and having taken two mat leaves. I work for a fair employer who judged us on merit and I came out on top. I know a lot aren’t like that but equally I have spent the last four years demonstrating my ongoing commitment at work and part of that is they have seen that it isn’t always me taking the sick days etc. My husband does his half. I don’t think I would have been valued the same and promoted if I had taken every sick day, early finish etc. 90% of this battle is down to having a partner who pulls their weight. At the same time it benefits women at my husbands work as he and others are showing their employer that it isn’t just women who have to balance home and work once kids come along. I don’t think we will get anywhere meaningful with this issue until more men start reducing hours and committing to their home responsibilities. The excuse is always that their job isn’t family friendly, involved travel etc but guess what, women move on for those jobs and find something suitable in order to have a family. Men can do that too.

@Thesagacontinues

Surely you understand what I'm saying, firstly your employer is incredibly unusual so your situation is largely irelevent to anyone else, secondly you took 6 month off work and had a stressful situation when you returned in which you struggled to cope. If you hadn't had 6 months off and hadn't had the additional stress you would have done more work. No one is saying that no woman who gives birth i ever promoted over a man they're saying that in most cases their career takes a hit as a result of having children (and that's just statistical fact).

On the whole, marriage is better for women. I'm not married to my partner, it would probably make little difference financially if we did as similar wages, similar pension pots and both own similar valued houses however I was married before and that was bad for me as he was an abusive drunk, we had dc together, and even though I had sole care and no maintenance, marriage cost me financially ( and in lots of other ways too) Anyway I just think women should just be aware what marriage and dc mean to them, it's not a one size fits all.

Most employers just want the work done. Someone disappearing for 6 months on maternity leave is a hassle as they'll have to find someone to temporarily cover the work.

[quote IMNOTSHOUTING]@Thesagacontinues

Surely you understand what I'm saying, firstly your employer is incredibly unusual so your situation is largely irelevent to anyone else, secondly you took 6 month off work and had a stressful situation when you returned in which you struggled to cope. If you hadn't had 6 months off and hadn't had the additional stress you would have done more work. No one is saying that no woman who gives birth i ever promoted over a man they're saying that in most cases their career takes a hit as a result of having children (and that's just statistical fact).[/quote]
Yes, largely because they and their partners let it. There is a lot more choice involved in these situations than a lot of people like to admit. We all have agency over our lives. There’s nothing wrong with WANTING to take a step back from work and have more time with kids but just own it, don’t pretend it’s structural forces over which you have zero control!

It’s not inevitable that the woman’s career will be disproportionately affected by children, childcare etc. There are plenty of cases where this hasn’t happened. But you’d be foolish to ignore the huge number of people for whom this is the case. The arrival of children changes people, tests them in new ways - ideals give way to practicalities. I’m v fortunate that both my husband and I are able to work part time and we share the load; my career has been fine. But there are so so many marriages / partnerships where this isn’t the case. And it is hard to say that these are all cases where both parties chose equally and fairly that this is how they want to run things. Also, they may choose a path which focuses on one person doing all the earning for several years - especially in lower income houses where one salary doesn’t cover childcare costs - and this absolutely is likely to disadvantage one person. And the one who has taken 2 bouts of maternity leave over 2 or 3 years, perhaps, and is “more used” to looking after the children, and for whom so many of the “mum and baby” groups are focussed and welcoming - well, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how this goes. You can still be low earning but one person worse off than the other financially.

Like airbags in cars... Useless until you need them

@IMNOTSHOUTING i'm completely fine with people saying that 'in most cases' the womans career will take a hit. I agree that is probably true.

Some people (not you) think this is true in ALL cases with all women. I think its very doom and gloom to tell every woman that has children that their career WILL be severely impacted.

@MayorGoodwaysChicken At the very least women need to givebirth and breastfeed (if they want their child breastfed). Women have to suffer the after affects of labour. That isn't a choice.

“ Yes, largely because they and their partners let it. There is a lot more choice involved in these situations than a lot of people like to admit. We all have agency over our lives. There’s nothing wrong with WANTING to take a step back from work and have more time with kids but just own it, don’t pretend it’s structural forces over which you have zero control!”

True, in a number of cases. But just because it was chosen freely doesn’t mean it doesn’t disadvantage the stay at home parent, if it comes to a breakup. And marriage helps with the division of assets, however small.

@SteveyFluff

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men You won’t realise until it happens. Then you’ll find out that you’re the one who’s constantly vomiting for 9 months and your boss is annoyed about you missing meetings and having days off. You’re the one who can’t get out of bed for a couple of months after a c section. You’re the one who’s exhausted from breastfeeding all night. You’re the one with all the hormones who feels you can’t possibly leave your baby. You’re the one who’s lying on the floor sobbing and threatening suicide because you have PND. You’re the one who’s pissing yourself because of birth injuries and needing to take time off for repair surgery. None of this burden can be shared with your partner. It will severely impact your career.

Yes, women are the ones who give birth. After that both can take care of the children equally. With my two children both of us are taking 6 months of parental leave. My career won't be more impacted that my partner's.

With my second child I developed PND, fortunately it didn't last long (I am 4 months postpartum), otherwise I would have taken AD as my GP suggested. Plus anyone can develop depression at any time.

Regarding hormones in the mother, it has been proven by science that the caregiver develops those hormones, regardless if they are men or women.

www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/2014/fi-research-summary-fathers-care-taking-and-hormones/

It is terrific if I woman wants to step back, but that is her decision. All I am saying is that it doesn't have to be that way if she doesn't want to.

I decided that I want an involved father for my children, and I knew him enough to be certain he would, otherwise I wouldn't have had children with him.

I am the higher earner, but I respect my partner's career as much as mine, so just because I make more money he doesn't have to take on all childcare.

*if a woman

As I have my own home I feel that marriage would be worse for me because then my partner would be entitled to half my property (I'm single anyway). Its not always the man that has more to loose so as a woman I am against marriage for myself as I want everything I own to be left to my dd. Maybe if you have children with someone it's more beneficial but as a single woman with some assets behind me I have no intention of ever marrying a future partner.

What Mint julia said! My DSD used to say that marriage was for the protection of women and children .Some women its true ,do tend to stay in their well paid jobs and carry on as before .However just on this site alone ,there have been many that have given up work entirely to care for DC ,or taken PT or lower paid jobs that are more "family friendly".When they divorce ,they have at least some chance of continuing their lifestyle .If unmarried a whole sea of problems exist

@dontdisturbmenow

But what if you had been in the (large) section of the female population who had children with a man who said he would share equal responsibility for childcare and the hit to his career, and just... didn't? You don't accept it? Do most women accept a man who cheats? Who gets into debts spending in his interests? Who stops her from spending any money, going out with friends, who says she can't see her family? Most married women would find the above unacceptable and would either leave, plan to leave, or challenge and expect change.

Yet, somehow we are supposed to believe that sahms are so against their wishes, for many years and a few children later.

Sorry but I don't buy it for the majority. I think most are sahms or working few hours because that's what suit their choice if lifetime, whilst married to a man who earns all or most if the family income.

I think this is incredibly naive. Crucially for me this is about children. And it doesn’t matter if your husband earns loads or not - you have less protection legally if you are not married.

Why is about children? Because as a woman you are usually the main carer, and therefore you become more vulnerable and dependent. That’s just a fact. As the main carer your career is affected, your ability to earn is affected, your ability to move around and do what you want is affected.

I have this levelled at me a lot. That I ‘chose’ to become a SAHM because I like painting my nails or something. That the option to work would have no consequences other than not being able to paint my nails during the day.

Most women are doing it because their children are better off for it or need it. Most children aren’t child minded from 8am until 6pm (most working hours) from the minute they are born until they are 18. And even if they are, who takes time off when the kids are sick? At appointments?

So someone, usually the woman, has to sacrifice and compromise earning power. THAT is what makes women more vulnerable and that is what marriage provides as a protection because it doesn’t just look at the child, it looks at what the woman has had to give up (e.g. wages). Anyone who thinks that the Child Support Agency will protect better than a divorce settlement has not looked into it.

Listen OP can do what she wants and looks like she’s getting married. To be honest if the man is OK about marriage it’s usually a better sign that they are not going to be as feckless as mine. He promised marriage but evaded for the sole reason that he’d been married before, had had to pay decent maintenance and had no intention of losing any of his money again.

He was very clued up about how marriage protected my rights as a mother to our child. I was not. Guess who lost out?!

Don’t be me.

@Ilovegreentomatoes

As I have my own home I feel that marriage would be worse for me because then my partner would be entitled to half my property (I'm single anyway). Its not always the man that has more to loose so as a woman I am against marriage for myself as I want everything I own to be left to my dd. Maybe if you have children with someone it's more beneficial but as a single woman with some assets behind me I have no intention of ever marrying a future partner.

I would agree, without children marriage is not always best for the woman with assets as you may lose them. It may be more important if you as a woman moved into your partner’s house and contributed to the mortgage. But even then you could just draw up a legal document before you moved in.