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.

@TedMullins He was extremely successful and the company was making a lot of money. However they were a professional engineering consultancy and you just cannot leave it to others for months on end. They didn’t have “managers”. They had professional engineers running design projects. Plus, for me, it was better that he kept his eye on the goose that was laying the golden egg. Leaving it to others wasn’t in his dna or mine. AsI have said, there is not a one size fits all. So people who keep working should not be called out either. We were and are married though so he was not walking off with £million!

Yes I think there are more men now who 'do not believe in marriage' if by that you mean chose not to marry as it disadvantages them.
Why would that surprise you that a group of society chose things that are favourable/desirable to them if there's the choice to do so?
Generally speaking women earn less than men and women and tend to take on the bulk of childcare/raising. There are some things women have far more choice about eg do I want a baby and they chose the outcome that want. A man cannot have his own biological child without a women....ever! A man cannot chose to go ahead with/terminate a pregnancy....ever!
Taking away emotional/psychological impact, a marriage only benefits a woman if she is financially dependent on a man (and they separate/divorce). Marriage benefits a man in so far as it gives him 'rights' to the children.
Marriage (then divorce) doesn't give each equal rights, more "as fair as they can be'. The man will often lose out on family/home life (could end up living with his mum or in a bedsit) and the woman will often end up saddled with most (all) of the responsibility for the children. That's the same whether you're married or not really, it's the home that's the issue but that can be sorted before children.
The issue really is if a woman is financially dependent on a man she should consider seriously if she wants to have children. If she does there's always a risk...for both parties.
I guess the 'answer' is that once a relationship starts to get serious you establish what you both want. Marriage, children, finances should be the first things you agree on.
Of course people change there mind or back down. My friends SIL is desperate for a family but his wife is still delaying...at 38. We suspect she doesn't want a family. He has no choice. If they divorce he will lose half of his home to her. He's paid 80% of everything.
It works both ways.

I wasn't bothered about being married but it meant a lot to my husband, so we married (willingly!) We also divorced. We did not own a home at the time but we had children. The outcome would have been exactly the same if we weren't married. Incidently he went on to marry again...4 times in total.
I do agree though that on the whole women tend to favour marriage more than men. It's hard to say if it's primarily the financial aspect or the psychological commitment. I suspect sometimes it's actually also about the fairytale wedding. I've heard women planning weddings and it's almost as if the groom was incidental!

@NaughtybutNice77 That is not the case for many women. Not married means a father has no legal duty to support you financially. Sadly many women with dc find this out too late.A bit of child maintenance often does not go far. When renting you might have no right to stay if the tenant asks you to leave when you are not joint tenants. You always have more protection when married.

A man cannot have his own biological child without a women....ever!

Women can't either. That sperm donor is a man...

Not married means a father has no legal duty to support you financially.

Yup, and if you are able to say "well I don't need his money because I have my own well-paid career and none of my kids are disabled so I didn't have to quit work to be a full-time carer" then you are in a position of privilege. The "luxury beliefs" concept absolutely applies to you because you can use your money to protect yourself against the adverse consequences of your belief. Poorer women and those whose with disabled kids don't have that ability to self-protect.

I mention disabled kids because you can have all the best plans in the world about how financially independent you are going to be and then discover when a child is two or three that they have severe SEND.

Depending on your wage; you might not actually be significantly worse off to go part time. It actually COSTS me money to go to work on my 5th day of my working week. I’ve got a decent but not amazing salary (I’m a teacher)

Im only just into the 40% tax bracket, but I wouldn’t be if I worked 4 days. So I only take home around £25 per Friday I work, after tax/NI/student loan/pensions are deducted. And then I pay £75 for childcare. My commute also costs £25.

That’s quite a high commute cost. I think it also means the higher tax salary level
is too low. I would argue it needs adjusting upward by £10k at least. However it still remains that many women need a full time salary. I’m assuming you are not a single parent? This also makes a difference to many.

It is - but if I was to move; my mortgage would increase. And it’s not that much every day; but that’s how much it costs on a Friday when I have to do two school drop offs before work; and then the reverse on the way home.

Higher tax threshold is most definitely too low. My salary is £48k.

I do work full-time. But I’d actually be better off if I didn’t!

And I am not a single parent; I am however the main earner in our house by quite a margin. However; we would actually break even if I only worked 3 days per week. We would become eligible for free childcare and universal credit. And that is on a “professional” level job - the difference is even more stark for those on a lesser salary - however this is obviously short sighted as childcare costs obviously decrease as your children get older. Hence why I plod on full-time.

@SisterHyster Yes. Totally agree. I do hope we can get more invested in childcare in the future.

I don't know 1 woman (or man) that has claimed spousal support. This would only really apply if the non resident ex spouse is a high earner. Most men are not in a financial situation to run 2 households.
Pensions would make a difference.

These days, the courts prefer clean-break settlements bar for child support.