Controversial marriage question

[wedding12341]

Thinking about another thread on here where someone has moved in and had children with their fiancé who has now changed his mind about getting married. Someone on the thread said it is just a small minority of women that are disadvantaged by marriage.

Eg - the woman brings more assets / money to the marriage than the man.

Based on the above

If you were one of these women in the minority (or your friend / daughter was) - Would you advise them not to get married?

thanks, sorry, i did come across unnecessarily harshly as a friend i have been telling to get him to put the freaking ring on it already has... been left high and dry. I have a hugely transactional view of marriage in many many ways.

Why would it have been silly of him to of looked after his own child unless he was married?
Surely you become a sahp for the benefit of your child (and often the working parent) and the agreement is based on trust and love. If he didn't trust you enough to know you'd take care of your child and the family as whole then he shouldn't have had children with you let alone married you.
I know some people become a sahp and get left in lurch but that can happen even if you're a working parent.

@fullbloom87 oh you sweet summer child.

Nobody plans for everything to go to ratshit. And yet, here we all are.

As a single parent who owns a house outright, has savings and doesnt want more children, would anybody advise me to marry?

trust and love only lasts till it doesn't. You'd be a fool to give up financial independence without at least marriage as security. Not just for divorce, but also death etc

There most definitely is not any legal right to be next of kin in medical situations conferred by being married, which is the point I was making.

There is no legal standard of who is recognised as of next of kin. It can be anyone (except as I indicated above in the mental health act where it is called nearest relative and there is a hierarchy).

Hmmm, I was the higher earner and had more assets and didn’t marry my ex (who I had two dds with). It wasn’t just money but as I had two children I wanted to know I could provide for them.

I do think there are some women on mn who still see marriage as a career choice. I would always prefer to make my own way - I wouldn’t like to be financially dependent on another anyway. Obviously there is give and take in relationships but I am not the type who would happily live entirely off another for my whole life.

Absolutely correct - being married gives absolutely no rights to make medical decisions for anyone.

I agreed there is not legal right, but common practice is to recognise a spouse in decision making (where there is no formal power of attorney). Consistent with, e.g.:

https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/patients-visitors/advice-and-support/next-of-kin/
https://www.leanderfamilypractice.co.uk/pages/Next-Of-Kin

Again, easily sorted with a POA, but often people don't do that as a matter of course.

I am not encouraging people not to marry.

I am encouraging people to understand what it means legally and financially. Then make a choice.

I encourage people who have kids, give up their career (or take a step back from it) without marriage to really look at the risk. Then make their own decision.

If men also don’t want to marry on the back of the advice, good for them. They shouldn’t marry. But simply don’t expect your female partner to give up work, or go part time or damage their careers. These men need to be prepared to fully be 50:50 when it comes to the kids. Staying off for Sick days, using AL for school holidays m, obtaining a job with flexible working to do pick ups/drop offs. And also 50% of the house work.
Also do not hint that you do want to be married. Be clear. You don’t want marriage and be clear before moving in and having kids.

As I said before you can’t compare the situation for men and women as exactly the same. Because women usually take more of a career hit. That’s why women are often encouraged to get married, on Mn at least.

It appears you seem to think women should be prepared to take the financial hit but also not expect to be married? And to be happy about it.

You asked why it was ok to encourage women who have assets and/or wealth to not marry but to say men who don’t are immature or time wasters. It’s been explained to again and again why. But here it’s clear, because when it comes to raising children women are expected to take a financial hit. if you expect your partner to take a financial hit raise your joint children, you should give them some security.

The question you should be asking is why so many men are happy to have kids and see their partners take a financial hit, but don’t want to ensure the woman they love has some security.

The quote I replied to said

There are other advantages/ implications than just money though. E.g. inheritance, automatically being next of kin in medical situations,

I was pointing out that there is no legal right to be next of kin and that it can be anyone the person wants to be - and if you are incapacitated the medical staff will act in your best interests, especially in a situation where there is conflict between two people who both claim to be next of kin. (Which I have seen - new gf vs wife separated for many years but not divorced)

I never said it was a legal right did I? In my original quote. Anyway....

What marriage does is that it combines a lot of things (rights, oblgiations, legal, pracitcal or simply just customary) you can do in other ways in one legally binding act. That's handy because more often than not don't take these steps before they are needed (when it might be too late). It makes life easier in many situations. Even just ringing up and cancelling your late husband's sky subscription or whatever it is.

I'm just correcting the assumption that your husband or wife will be your next of kin legally - he or she won't be, there is no such right.

I have made provisions as much as I can to ensure that I am not left in a situation where I am vulnerable like I was the last time - the idea that the man who cheated on me would have been my next of kin absolutely terrified me.

I am not saying that I can recreate all the so-called protections of marriage as easily when I am not married, but for me they aren't really protections, they would disadvantage me and my children and therefore marriage isn't something I want to do again.

@Caprisunny Interesting last point there. But isn't that in effect, a dowry? I honestly might not know what I'm on about, but I've always had the impression that was the purpose?

But to turn it around... don't women get the most important 'asset', the children? Custody is invariably largely theirs, they get greater (xernity leave) to spend with kids, and they have the sole right as to their birth in the first place. It is often swung that women suffer because they've given up so much by being SAHM, but I'd actually argue they get the better end of the stick. It's even worse for men marrying into stepdad positions... they could lose half of everything, they bond with a child and then have zero rights if the relationship ends. Women only have a career to lose, men have a whole life...

In many cases though, the women don’t want to go back to work. Same as a pp on this thread who had a dh who could never seem to find the right job to go back to work. Yes, in some cases it’s a joint decision, but in many it’s not. how do you force someone to go back to work?

Also on mn it’s always women sacrificing their careers to facilitate men’s careers. But yet many of the women who have similar jobs have husbands and partners who work. And many of the women and men who “sacrifice” their careers didn’t earn much anyway. So I think it’s not that simple at all.

If children are involved, women should marry. This is true even if she is the higher earner or has more assets. This is because pregnancy is risky. Having children is risky. You don’t know what life will be like after having children. Even when women earn more, our bodies are the ones that are physically impacted by pregnancy. We are also more likely to become caregivers even when we have higher salaries.

being married mitigates risk. It is a contract that officially transfers some of the risk of parenting to the father.

I lost money in my divorce. I still don’t regret my decision to marry. It was the safe decision financially, I just chose poorly.

If he didn't trust you enough to know you'd take care of your child and the family as whole then he shouldn't have had children with you let alone married you.

I mean of course it would be lovely if people were always nice and fair and everybody lived happily ever after. We wouldn't need any laws or agreements ot anything.
The person you start a relationship with might not be so nice and cooperative when you break up with them. But then it's too late.

You’re mistaken too if you think you can cancel your dh sky subscription because you’re married to him. If you can do that, it’s because it’s a joint account (which could be held if you were friends or siblings, etc.). Same as you have no right to make medical decisions because you’re married either.

Yes, in some cases it’s a joint decision, but in many it’s not. how do you force someone to go back to work?

True, you can't. You can divocre them though.

Then they get half your stuff. Also I can see how some couples get trapped where the dh or dw doesn’t want to return to work and the working spouse isn’t happy about it but it’s not enough to divorce. Then you end up supporting someone when you don’t want to.

I used to want to marry my ex so badly lol. After we split, I had a huge windfall and I thank my lucky stars everyday that we never married or he would have had half 😂

But to turn it around... don't women get the most important 'asset', the children? Custody is invariably largely theirs, they get greater (xernity leave) to spend with kids, and they have the sole right as to their birth in the first place. It is often swung that women suffer because they've given up so much by being SAHM, but I'd actually argue they get the better end of the stick. It's even worse for men marrying into stepdad positions... they could lose half of everything, they bond with a child and then have zero rights if the relationship ends. Women only have a career to lose, men have a whole life...

Children are not a species of property. In financial terms, they're very much a liability. Perhaps that was less true when you could send them down the mines or into service and they'd bring money into the household, but alas those days are past...😂!

That’s total nonsense. I’m a single mum and the very reason I didn’t get married was to protect my children. Now our whole household is in a better financial position because I didn’t marry their father and he was not able to take my property when we split.

marriage transfers zero risk of parenthood to the father. That’s entirely untrue

nope. That goes for whichever sex you are.
Unless your potential marriage partner has loads more than you in which case: put a ring on it (if you love them) 😀

I have a friend who is in the minority and she married at a mature age when having children had zero possibility. I think she was really daft if I’m honest. She earns x3 possibly more than her DH and owns another house as well as the one they are both living in. Her assets are many more times his. I am really glad she is happy but he is about as interesting as an unpeeled potato and I do not see the attraction at all but I don’t have to live with him. He is a lot younger than her and a bit of a cocklodger I suppose.