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.

I just find this such a dated, discomforting view.

firstly no woman should be forced to have a child , it should be a decision a woman makes in full knowledge of the consequences and risks. Ultimately the woman’s decision.

secondly, it’s not common women need to take years to recover from pregnancy or birth, yes it happens, but this is a risk the woman should chose to take as she wishes to, not to please a man.

thirdly, if the potential to manage as a single parent or co parenting, isn’t something the woman could deal with, then she shouldn’t proceed. It’s not just men leaving, people die, become incapacitated.

and the whole “have wanted it their whole lives” is quite nauseating for me. Like the whole myth of the little girl dreaming of being a bride.

tne whole undercurrent of this op is women dream of marriage, have babies for their partners, and are on the whole vulnerable.

we should be teaching women to make decisions in the full knowledge of the risks and benefits, and be accepting of the risks before proceeding.

and plenty of women don’t want to marry, a close friend of mine is one of them, she loves him deeply. As he does her, but for personal reasons she sees no need to marry, he’d marry her in a shot if she wished,

Where as that does happen, let us be completely honest, in many instances the woman prefers to be the one to provide the care. And for the man to work, not she works and her husband is the carer.

I don’t believe in marriage, I believe it’s an outdated concept and the laws need to change to reflect this.

I do also have the luxury of being financially independent from my partner. If I wasn’t marriage will be the easiest way to protect myself financially

'Comparatively few' doesn't really mean anything here. Some women do, you don't get to decide whether you're going to be one of them, therefore it is not a risk that you can good choice yourself out of.

As for men doing it, yes, some do, but this is what I was referring to with the bit about the toxic combination of patriarchy and bad luck. There are structural and societal reasons why this falls disproportionately on women and again, it is naive to think this is something you can avoid by simply staying in work.

And your argument does need to address the impact of maternity discrimination, speaking as someone who's experienced it and got the settlement agreement to prove it. Took me a while to get back to where I wanted to be afterwards, and there's been an impact on my career total earnings because of the way in which I was penalised for biology. There is no way in which my male partner could've taken an equal share of that load and it's just plain wrong to suggest otherwise.

ie, you have the luxury of not believing in it

'Preference' is one way of looking at it.

Mine and DHs ND child doesn't preclude either of us from working, fortunately. If one of us had had to quit entirely, I earn less than him. Interestingly, I earned more until experiencing maternity discrimination.

If we'd have been in a position where only one income had to cover the bills, we'd have had to pick the higher one. And of course, as women tend to be younger than male partners and jobs we do tend to be worse paid anyway (often because of their association with our femaleness) the male partner is likely to be the higher earner. Thousands and thousands of families face this choice every year. They do so in a climate of significant structural factors that make it more likely the woman will be the one to provide the care.

I came back here to suggest this brilliant idea but you beat me to it.

This would protect all mothers. I agree with it.

@Cosywintertime
No woman should be forced to have a child
What you're saying here is effectively unless women have been forced to have a child, then the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are their problem because they chose to do it.

It's not common women need to take years to recover from pregnancy
It's quite common for women to still be breastfeeding years after pregnancy, to have issues like impaired pelvic floor function, haemorrhoids, continence and other issues years after as a result of pregnancy. It is quite common for women to have long lasting effects on their careers, slower promotions, and other effects that have a lifelong impact on their finances, even those who are very highly paid.

And as for the myth of the little girl dreaming of being a bride, I think the popularity of things like Hallmark movies involving marriage at the end should indicate that this is not a myth.

I don't understand why you think my post is about women dreaming about having babies "for their partners".

None of what I've said is about women having the children to please their partners.

This is a fantastic idea.

@ironorchids

What you're saying here is effectively unless women have been forced to have a child, then the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are their problem because they chose to do it.

Fundamentally, yes. Absolutely yes. Obviously in a good world we should have a responsive functioning health service to support women through difficulties in pregnancy and postnatally; but no-one can remove that risk. Just as no-one should be able to remove a woman's right to control her fertility. So the only person who can or should take responsibility and ownership of that decision is the person who would be undertaking the very real risk.

Being married won't stop you getting pre-eclampsia, or haemorrhaging during labour, or becoming doubly incontinent through childbirth. Being married won't stop you getting PND. Being married won't prevent you getting mastitis. Being married won't stop you from dying in childbirth.

These are the risks; also the risks are obvious that a man can up and leave his wife and child, married or not, and contribute very little subsequently (even if married, a clever lawyer or being even remotely savvy about concealing wealth or income, or he goes on to start another family with someone else, and the ex is fucked for money). Or he can die penniless having secretly gambled away the savings. Anything can happen and being married is little or no protection from bad things happening.

So you should only have children if you are 100% comfortable about being the only one who is there for them when the rubber meets the road.

With the Hallmark movies promoting marriage aren't you looking at it the wrong way around? Surely the movies are instilling a very conservative idea of marriage as the ultimate end goal into the minds of gullable young girls rather than genuinely reflecting an innate desire that girls are born with?

I think it would be much more interesting to see what would happen when men were allowed access to reliable short-term contraception, like the male pill. Yes you'll still get the genuinely feckless dads, but men who really want to avoid being a parent can have a real choice of doing so, on a par with women's choices now. (The usual abstinence argument on mumsnet is useless as it should be applied to women too).

No excuses to get out of sharing assets and paying maintenance then, with fewer 'baby-trapping' arguments, and fewer unique downsides to marriage too.

Condoms exist for those men though!

Of course they do BUT the current 'consequence' of preferring a 'bare back ride' (excuse the gross terminology) is that the long term affect rests SOLELY with the child.

This is what my ideal plan is all about. There are feckless men and feckless women.. often both are thoughtless .. but the only one truly affected is the child..

To give an extreme example ;

Unemployed or low income woman becomes pregnant to a high earning man who owns his own company. He doesn't want anything to do with the child. The current set up is CMA which he can easily avoid any substantial payment by paying himself minimum wage and the rest in un assessed dividends.

Mother gets 31p a week or pretty damn fuck all and father continues to live his best life . So unfair on the child and absolutely wrong that his/her father can legally do this ..

If his DNA in the child's make up meant she could sue him for half his assets .. guess who would be more circumspect as to where they used their fertility..

Hang on, as much as it maybe difficult for many, it is the woman’s decision to proceed with a pregnancy, and have a child. It isn’t just wham bam baby. And anyone with moral or religious objections to termination should not be having unprotected sex with someone who doesn’t wish a child.

If you check the Abortion Act 1967, it's actually the decision of two doctors whether the woman continues with the pregnancy. Abortion is still illegal in England, Wales, and Scotland.

This is a site predominantly occupied by women. I'm sure there are other views from a male perspective. We just don't see all that many of them on here.

The posters who are advised to get their ducks in a row are generally with a violent, aggressive, cheating, financially controlling or otherwise abusive partner, and need all the help they can get in order to escape from the relationship. The advice would be the same whoever was asking for help, male or female.

But it doesn't have to. My partner topped up my mat pay so that we both had an equal loss in pay that year. At the end of mat leave, me and my partner both changed from full time to 4 days a week. So again, we both decreased our salaries. This has allowed us to only use nursery 3 days a week. This didn't happen by chance - i would never have agreed to a child with someone who expected me to sacrifice my career while they continued theirs.

For the majority of women, it will work out with her losing more. Relationships board is full of women who've been burnt that way.

Also, you spent several months out of work on mat leave, experiencing skills fade and the weakening of workplace and client relationships. This will have more of an impact than you think.

i would never have agreed to a child with someone who expected me to sacrifice my career while they continued theirs.

What would you have done if he promised that and then changed his mind when the baby arrived?

My DD is self employed so no maternity pay from her “employer” at all. So obviously a huge fall in earnings to be a mum! That’s for the future but clearly not all couples are the same. Women are often in a worse position financially after having dc. Certainly can be left behind when it comes to promotion. That’s why many women are leaving it later to get pregnant. Plus so many men are not ready to be dads. Still think they are 18 just starting at university. However for most women in this country, marriage gives legal protections and frequently it the women who need it but don’t realise that’s the case.

Any decent divorce lawyer will get a forensic accountant to find hidden assets.

I don't believe in marriage so got a civil partnership instead. It's not perfect but it was closer to my values

You're right, that could have happened. But we had been together 4+ years before we tried to conceive and had talked at length about how we could make it work in terms of finances and logistics (we have no family support). On our very first date he asked if I wanted children and I said only with a partner who is an equal parent - that I didn't want to be the one at home doing all the childcare/life admin. But of course people do change. My career was established enough by the time I had my child that if I had ended up a single parent I could have coped (financially at least).

How many women would trust a man who said he was using a contraceptive they couldn’t see?

Marriage didn't provide me with any financial security at all. It just caused problems. Huge regret. Note to self: do not marry a wealthy chartered accountant who is also a cunning and lying narc.