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.

But the woman doesn't have to be the main carer. And what happens if the husband becomes ill and unable to work? What protection does marriage have for those cases?

There’s more to marriage than money.

I liked the commitment of marriage. It felt special in a way that just living together didn't. I guess when DH died it did happen to have other benefits, such as being able to claim widows pension, that I wouldn't have got otherwise, and which has been a huge help.

@Pyewackect

There’s more to marriage than money.

Agreed. But I was discussing here the financial protection for the woman. In my opinion, the best financial protection is for the woman to keep her career and try her best to progress in it. Also I think it is best if both parents are equally involved.

@Pyewackect

There’s more to marriage than money.

Absloutly! Call me old fashioned but I married for love ❤️ He's an amazing person and it was the best decision I ever made. If he was a T**T I wouldn't have married him or had children with, a choice I made in previous relationships.

@Increscendo

But the woman doesn't have to be the main carer. And what happens if the husband becomes ill and unable to work? What protection does marriage have for those cases?

Yes she usually does but usually the man won’t. You can’t make them! Or like in my case, he’s happy to do 50/50 childcare. Except that means farming our child out to his sister so he can do exactly what he wants.

When you have children. You want them to have the best care. Almost always that is by a parent who knows them intimately and puts them first - even if a childminder is bought in - someone supervises and guides the childminder. Who is that person?

Why wouldn’t you ensure that you are able to provide the best care for your child through marriage? Marriage can’t protect everything, but it can protect a lot. And it certainly won’t make you worse off if you are the main carer (unless you are way more loaded than your partner). And like it or not, that directly affects a kids life ultimately.

My disabled child is not going to be cared for as well as he needs - as a direct result of not being married. I’m not sure how you can argue against that?

@Pyewackect

There’s more to marriage than money.

Yup. It sometimes feels many people forget that

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
But women don't have to main carers. Most of my male colleagues share these duties 50% with their partners when they work FT. Because she wants to work FT and the deal was that everything was 50/50.

I was promoted 3 times during my kids life and that was a single mum when the eldest was only 5. I always worked FT and it was a blessing when we separated.

Working PT and looking after children is for most the preferred arrangement, or for those who don't care about working, being a SAHM. Most women do drive that decision but it's much easier to pretend that they either devoted themselves to it by giving up a career or pretending that it was all their partner's decision.

I don't think anyone thinks that in all cases a woman's career takes a hit.

It's not even mainly about bad employers.

The point is that it isn't all about a choice that people need to "own" . The situation for women and men is not identical because reproductive role in not really negotiable, and that has ongoing consequences. There is also the often totally neglected question of wanting to have a family life and spend time with kids, or even what is good for kids. Many people don't think it's better to have kids in care for long hours so both parents can have high level careers, and they think of kids as people rather than accessories to be fit into a lifestyle. Or they actually think using a whole salary to pay for childcare, when they have kids because they want to spend time with them, is contradictory and crazy.

The family, including the children, functions as a unit for many people. That is the point of it. Decisions are made on the basis of what is best for everyone, parents and kids.

If the whole focus is on maintaining each adult in the workplace with a good salary and pension, that is not a neutral choice, it means putting those concerns over the concerns of the family unit which has it's own consequences.

This is the main reason that there are certain protections within marriage - so the family unit can operate with some integrity but there is also some protection if it fails, due to death or divorce.

It's interesting - some conservatives warned years ago that when women began to enter the workplace fully, it would not only devalue domestic work and childcare, it would ultimately end up with a loss of protection within marriage. Whether we like that or not it doesn't seem like they were wrong.

Or like in my case, he’s happy to do 50/50 childcare. Except that means farming our child out to his sister so he can do exactly what he wants
And? If it means you can work more hours, what's so bad with that? It's good for children to spend time with their extended family.

Or so you just resent that he could have some fun?

@Lincslady53

If one of you dies (it happens) being married gives you rights over the assets that you don't have if you are not married.

It also has an impact on Inheritance Tax, where assets pass directly to a spouse, children and grandchildren the threshold is considerably more, almost £1m, and yes. I know that doesn't affect everyone but with property prices etc it affects more than one might imagine,

@dontdisturbmenow the overwhelming majority of main carers for children are women. There is a lot of evidence that even when it is easier for men, they don’t take on the bulk of the childcare. For example only a tiny percentage of men actually take up parental leave (which was fought hard for to give both sexes equality in child caring status). However some men, if they become main carers, (not 50/50), are also more protected if they are married and split - they would be entitled to better maintenance and pensions etc.

I don’t know where you get the evidence that women who are SAHM aren’t interested in their work and only do it for their own benefit? I loved my career, loved my financial independence. However early on in our child’s life, like most women, we took almost all the interest and energy in the children and the men didn’t.That is very common.

It's interesting - some conservatives warned years ago that when women began to enter the workplace fully, it would not only devalue domestic work and childcare, it would ultimately end up with a loss of protection within marriage. Whether we like that or not it doesn't seem like they were wrong. I think this is very poignant. There is a certain left wing, liberal view that if you make things more open, like work for women, that equality of bringing up children will just emerge. I believed that. I was in fact the higher earner, and because of that I found that I was not only left holding the baby (Ex just didn’t really cope well and avoided childcare, not uncommon) but I was also left with less financial security.

I now have completely changed my mind about marriage. I also think that my Ex would have thought twice and worked harder at our relationship if we had been married. Partly because he would have taken more of a financial hit. One of the reasons he was keen to leave is that he could protect his assets.

Emotionally also I think marriage, being a clear statement that you are together in sickness and in health, and having some legal security, provides a more secure base for a relationship.

@Rejoiningperson

In your very particular case, maybe. But unless your husband's sister doesn't treat your children well, I think that solution is potentially better as it allows you to work.
Childcare is almost always beneficial, not sure about SN children, so I won't speak about those cases.

When the husband doesn't take responsibility for the children, that's worse than being in a bad financial position. It can happen to anyone I guess, but there should be more emphasis on getting to know the person you are going to have children with, rather than marrying them. But I agree you can't always know for sure.

As per my personal situation, if I married I would make me a lot worse off. I have worked very hard (as everyone, not saying that if you don't have a lot you haven't worked hard enough!) and It wouldn't be fair that if we separated I would lose half.

My partner and I are a team, we help each other and work together to get the best for our children. To me that means keeping our careers, so if the worst happens, we would have the other one to rely on.

@Increscendo I am not an unusual case. Most women become the main carer. Most take a bigger hit through jobs.

And yes of course I don’t want my child bought up by my Exes sister! Why would anyone want this instead of an actual parent? Even a court would acknowledge that. Why would I value money over the wellbeing and upbringing of my child?

Unfortunately most of the arguments against marriage are those that are re devaluing the role of a good parent in bringing up a child.

Mother’s especially are derided if they choose to give their child better care by providing it themselves, and told to stop complaining by other women.

Bringing up children is an amazing job and it should be valued. It should be valued financially, emotionally, professionally even. That is some of the heart of this debate. Many here are devaluing the role of parent and mother. I believe that valuing mother’s bringing up their children is an extremely supportive feminist issue.

[quote Rejoiningperson]@Increscendo I am not an unusual case. Most women become the main carer. Most take a bigger hit through jobs.

And yes of course I don’t want my child bought up by my Exes sister! Why would anyone want this instead of an actual parent? Even a court would acknowledge that. Why would I value money over the wellbeing and upbringing of my child?[/quote]
Most women do it out of choice. And of course I understand that you would prefer your ex rather than his sister looking after your children. But that arrangement is not a lot different than say a childminder.

In my case I benefited a lot from having two loving parents with amazing careers, both fully involved. I have always been very close to them. Quality time is better than quantity (not saying that if you spend all day with your children it can't be quality time).

In case of no SN children, I actually think that childcare and spending time with other children is beneficial to them.

the overwhelming majority of main carers for children are women
Yes, because that's what most women want. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it.

SAHMs are predominantly those who never got on the career ladder, because being a mum and being a main carer is what they want above a career.

Women who care as much fulfilling themselves in a career as being a mum manage to work FT and either have their partner sharing the responsibilities, or manage both themselves.

Mmmm I think that you are both projecting your own situations onto others - and being quite judgemental really.

It’s a shame as I am here to warn other women in order that they are forewarned, and can better protect themselves their children.

There really isn’t any need to deride stay at home mother’s at all. You can make your points without putting down other women you know!

I am not being judgmental at all. If women stay at home out of choice, that's fantastic.

All I am saying is that it is not the only option, and I honestly think that -in most cases- it's not the best choice. What would happen if, due to covid or any other crisis, the husband loses his job? Or even in case of divorce, even if the woman gets half the assets of the man, she will probably still need to work to feed herself and her children. Wouldn't it be better then having had a career instead of coming back to work after 10 years out?

Also, if both parents contribute to childcare, I don't see why one should get half of the other's assets.

I am not sure I’m getting across my point very well @increscendo

However I do think what you are saying is that parenting isn’t that valuable or important. Parenting is being around, hands on. I find it very sad that parenting or being around to be a main carer is seen as a luxury, and a fairly trivial one at that.

Most women are quite capable of getting a job if their husband suddenly fell ill or couldn’t work. However this isn’t something that usually happens and for the woman to have to carry on working just to ensure that no wage is lost - when she could be being a parent to her kids all that time - is devaluing the value of that parenting time.

I think something very wrong has happened where women are either expected to have a full on career OR expect little or no provision for being a parent. Both are valuable, parenting is not trivial. Childcare isn’t really a substitute for good parenting.

I could decide tomorrow to go back to my career and leave my child with with a combination of childcare and Exes relatives. I know that my child’s quality of life would totally plummet. But I could. I don’t really call that a choice to be honest.

I agree with you @rejoiningperson

It doesn't have to be the mother of course. Either parent (mother or father). I think it was under Blair when things changed?

It suits government to have as many worker drones as possible. Quality of family life doesn't matter to them. It was dressed up as liberating women (which could have been achieved through campaigns to end the stigma of the man being a SAHP). All it actually did was inflate house prices - so that increasingly a stable home is out of reach for many young families. It also allowed employers to lower wages/worsen conditions.

The majority are not in rewarding careers. They're stuck in drudge work because they still need to fit in around family commitments but also because that's what the majority of work on offer is in many cases. Meanwhile children are being cared for by someone else and put through very long days at school. Breakfast clubs, after school wraparound care. It's exhausting and must be particularly shit for those being bullied.

It's such a precious time when they're young. Unfortunately what I'd to see is, I think now with the increased cost of living, unrealistic - but SAHP should be more valued (mother or father).

Yes you are right, SAHP should have value. Family life and parenting has tanked. That we have to ask why marriage is a sign that we don’t see protecting the family or children is important. Plenty of posts here where the main carer is chastised for even choosing that, how foolish! They should be making sure they are in a good career.

I think marriage, kids and the ability to parent as much as we feel is right for us, is still very pertinent to women. Marriage does protect much of that in a way nothing else does. Flexible careers that allowed 10 year breaks would also be amazing too!

My story is no it made no difference.

I'm a full time worker. We had our daughter and after 12 months I went back to full time work.

Long story short.

We split up. Mortgage in joint names.
He left the country and refused to pay any mortgage.
I let the bank know, they advised I was responsible for 100% of the mortgage as I was named on it.

I think marriage is important if you are not going back to work/reducing your hours/taking a back seat in your career to accommodate theirs.

Otherwise I'm not sure what the benefits are? Happy to be corrected.

I have a 10 month-old daughter with my fiancé. Fact of the matter is I have no choice but to return to work. As much as I'd dearly love to be a SAHP it isn't possible. Would make no difference regarding this if we were married.