Not believing in marriage is a luxury belief

[ironorchids]

Is it me or are there a lot of men these days who disbelieve in marriage for various reasons at the expense of the women they are with who believe in it, want it and have wanted it their whole lives?

Whatever the various reasons they give for disbelieving in it, at the end of the day, it is a luxury belief for someone who will never ever have to worry about or to take on the risk of potentially getting pregnant, having to have months or years off work to recover, feed them from your body, or even risk being left holding the baby as you're the one physically pregnant, if their partner leaves?

Disbelief in marriage is a luxury, and it's usually (not always) when you are free from all that risk and have that luxury that you can afford to believe all the other reasons so many men give (at the expense of the women they're with) for not believing in it.

@blettedmedlar At least he had sorted a lot out. Without a will it’s difficult when people die younger and unexpectedly and have children.

I completely agree with this. We should be encouraging girls to work on being financially independent rather than pushing them to get married.

That's a very good point. I would guess that the reason for this is that education leads to fewer women expecting to have to put up with men not marrying them and fewer men being able to get away with it.

@ironorchids I don’t think there’s any cynical reasons for it. It’s more that in higher socioeconomic groups it’s more ‘the done thing’ and everyone, women and men, sees the benefit, especially when children are involved. There are also fewer ‘blended families’ in these groups because again, people are perhaps better equipped to see the advantages of nuclear families. So even if people in these groups do get divorced they are less likely to go on to have more children with a different partner. Boris Johnson excepted of course.

I don't believe in marriage and I'm a woman!

In my experience, most men who "don't believe in marriage" also don't believe in fidelity or commitment- it's rarely a political or philosophical position.

@LadyPeterWimsey

"The idea behind luxury beliefs is that they are positions you hold which you don't yourself practice but by giving them currency other less affluent people are therefore injured by them."

Thank you for the quotes and references.

It seems to be similar to people calling for the defunding of the police in parts of the US a few years ago. The poorest people who needed the police the most to protect them from robberies and violent crimes were not the ones calling to defund the police.

@NotSuchASmugMarriedAnymore

When I moved into university halls, mine was a little flat of 5 of us. One was my now ex-husband, and we became a couple while living together (6 weeks in).

It's a little difficult to go from living together to not living together

Marriage as a legal contract has very little to do with love or emotional commitment. It's a financial arrangement, first and foremost. I was one of those breadwinning women who suffered financially as a result of divorce. I paid out a heck of a lot more than my ex ever put in.

If I'd fully understood the immense financial risk that I was taking on simply by getting married I'd have certainly thought more carefully about it. I think that prenups, or some equivalent of them, should be a legal requirement before marriage.

With the benefit of hindsight, I now think it's astonishing that any man or woman would take on such a financial risk without fully informing themselves of all the implications. I don't blame the newlyweds, but rather the process of marriage itself. So easy to walk into, all hearts and flowers, but my god it's hellish to get out of, from a financial perspective - not to downplay the emotional fallout of course.

Because only the mc have assets? Oh, come on. These days the guys raking it in are trades. Ask my mum's Porsche owner mortagage free in Surrey plasterer neighbour

I wish laws would change for long-term partners as it's disgusting.

Is this advocating for common law marriage as a concept in law? That’s far more dangerous. Legal and financial committing to another adult should be an opt in action, not a default. But Labour are saying they’ll bring it in anyway.

I'm worried about this law changing too. I choose not to be married for many reasons and I don't want to be married by default without being able to opt out. Getting married is a huge financial commitment and should definitely be opt in only.

You're not wrong about the implications, but the same principle also applies to cohabiting. That's also a potentially substantial financial risk, depending on ones circumstances. There's obviously no practical way to force people to think about this at the point they move in together, so I don't know what the answer is. Ultimately there's no way to have a live in relationship with someone, particularly if it's going to involve jointly held property and/or DC, that doesn't involve potentially very significant legal and financial implications.

I would agree. I remember before getting married we were sat down by the church minister to talk about the commitment of getting married. But it was all about duties to each other and not a single word on "oh, and by the way, you could be financially ruined if you decide to separate"...

I think having kids is a commitment for women but the commitment for men is marriage. That's why so many of them are quite happy to have kids but not so keen to get married - because it IS a bigger commitment than just having kids.

I'm the reverse. Partner would happily get married, I wouldn't - will happily set all the legal protections in place, and have (joint on mortgage, named as pension/life insurance beneficiary, will etc) but I don't believe in the ceremony of declaring the commitment to family and friends and the state, as if that affects whether our relationship survives or not. I've seen too many weddings that end in divorces, and too many miserable marriages. Beyond the legalities, which can be taken care of other ways, it is totally meaningless (or at least only as meaningful as you make it over the long term). I choose to demonstrate my commitment to my partner and our joint children via, you know, actually showing up every day, actually sharing our assets. If I ever felt that I couldn't do that any more, being married would make no difference to that.

If marriage is important to you, don't get with or stay with (or god forbid have children with) a man who doesn't. Simple.

Also re my kids - I'd take them, with or without him, so his being in or out has no bearing on whether I'd want them or not. I couldn't have had them without him, and for that I'll always be grateful to him; but it's not like I wouldn't have chosen to if I thought there was a chance of him leaving me later with nothing. Of course there's a chance of that; there always is. Just like there's a chance he could drop dead or lose his job or cheat. None of those things would have made me regret having the kids, or thinking it was anything less than a privilege to raise them.

I'll tell you what would be an interesting test of men's beliefs on marriage.. and cavalier attitude to fatherhood. ..

Change the law so that the current marital rights accorded to marriage change - so that fathering or mothering a child guaranteed the same rights.

ie . I get pregnant by Joe Smith and instead of me being left with the baby and he skips off into the sunset - that dna proof gives me the legal right to half his property .. to bring up his child . Or vice versa for a man..

Watch the accidental pregnancy rate plummet as men try harder to protect their fertility and marriage become more popular as it makes no financial difference once you have decided to have kids.

Unlikely ever to happen but it should.

People who dont believe it in rarely stand to benefit from hit. Hence mostly men dont believe in it because they dont expect their wife to out earn them or spit up and leave him with kids to look after.

Its self serving.

We dont believe in marriage as an expression of love or commitment but we married for the legal and financial benefits. Less than £300 all in so money is rarely a reason, hence men delay and delay by saying crap like wanting to give you a day you deserve.

I completely agree with this. We should be encouraging girls to work on being financially independent rather than pushing them to get married.

It's a Mumsnet myth that marriage is the saviour of women. The relationships board will reveal many who fell for this and who are traded in in middle-age when they have no financial independence and with a share in the marital wealth that won't enable them to live well independently and with limited skill or capacity to earn their own income. Best to ditch the ring for good legal financial advice about asset distribution and keep one's own earning capacity while making sure he sacrifices an equal amount for the children.

It's a mumsnet myth that you can simply choose to keep your career and thus never need any of the legal and financial safeguards marriage can provide.

Women take on risk merely by being the sex who bear children. There isn't a way to make a male partner take on an equal share of that. It's nice and comforting to think you can just good choice your way out of the most toxic ramifications of patriarchy combined with bad luck and you'll be fine, but it's not that simple.

None of which is to say anyone should rely solely on marriage for protection, of course. But then very few posts on here say you should.

Women take on risk merely by being the sex who bear children. There isn't a way to make a male partner take on an equal share of that. It's nice and comforting to think you can just good choice your way out of the most toxic ramifications of patriarchy combined with bad luck and you'll be fine, but it's not that simple.

That's nine months plus a year maybe if a woman chooses to breastfeed. There is maternity leave. After that there is nothing to say it's a woman;s biological role.

This goes to my point about luck. You're talking about a situation where things have gone physically well, with no complications, and also when a woman hasn't suffered in her career due to being one of the thousands a year who lose their jobs due to being pregnant. Neither of these risks can ever be shared equally with a man, and some women are utterly fucked over by them.

This is even before we consider longer term issues like DC who need more substantial care. You can't opt out of this either, and neither can you necessarily choose for it not to affect your career.

This isn't true. I have children but am unmarried to their dad. I earn more than him and have a better pension, so as things stand a divorce would cost me much more than simply breaking up. I took time off to raise our children so I don't feel that he's had a raw deal, in fact he benefits from my wage.

But I do agree with the OP's general point, that typically it's the people who don't benefit who don't believe, and those people tend to be men.

This is even before we consider longer term issues like DC who need more substantial care. You can't opt out of this either, and neither can you necessarily choose for it not to affect your career

Comparatively few women have that level of complications and as for children needing more substantial care there is nothing to say that men can’t do this.

Of course men can do this.

They mostly don’t, though.

When a couple has a child who requires a really challenging level of care, it’s so common that the father just won’t provide it at the standard required. They’re not openly hostile, they just… don’t really step up, not to the level that the child needs. And so the mother starts to realize that either she stops working and provides the care needed, or her child will be neglected.

As women, we have the caring thing going on in our brains. It’s hard to switch off, even though it may impoverish us and make us very vulnerable.