To not understand why people get married?

[Mummyto4WM]

Waste of money and merely a show to the world

That's me being flippant but I genuinely don't get it. My partner is desperate to get married. He's already divorced, a divorce following his ex-wife running off with another man. What are the benefits of marriage, when so many end in costly divorce?

The legal system hugely penalises such women. They end up having to pay off an ex-husband AND be the sole provider/ carer. No allowance for this is made in divorce proceedings. Then the man is meant to pay a pathetic amount of money nowhere bear 50% of the cost of raising a child (if he even bothers to pay at all and no consequences if he does not), having waltzed off with a large chunk of the money the woman has earned

This. If you’re a high earning woman with children marriage is basically a cocklodger’s charter. A man divorcing a well paid woman can walk off with half her assets, pay nothing in maintenance and do nothing in the way of childcare or support if he doesn’t want to.

The people who come onto these threads saying “why aren’t you married?” don’t realise how punishing marriage and divorce can be to a working mum.

We need to wake up to this and stop knee jerking to the assumption that marriage is always in the woman’s interests. Unless you are a SAHM marriage is a really risky idea.

There is rather a substantial middle ground here between being the high earning provider in the family and a SAHM. The majority of working mums won't be outearning their partners.

There's a valid point that there's a category of women who marriage is a risk for, albeit those women may still need to consider IHT too. And there isn't a male equivalent of those women, because of what we know about how mothers still take on a disproportionate share of domestic labour even when they outearn their male partners. So it's a female specific issue. But it's an overstatement to say marriage is really risky unless you're a SAHM.

@PregnantWithHorrors

There is rather a substantial middle ground here between being the high earning provider in the family and a SAHM. The majority of working mums won't be outearning their partners.

At the moment thats true.

But the proportion of women who earn at parity with their partners or out-earn them is growing fast. According to the ONS it one in four women out earned their male partner in 2020. And you don’t have to be particularly high earning either.

I just think it’s remarkable, as a previous poster pointed out, that the law takes as read that a man will always out earn his wife and in a divorce there is no mechanism to account for the fact that women invariably have more domestic and child related work.

I understand the law is a blunt instrument here but it’s very striking how little this is understood.

So the clarion call of “Don’t have a baby until you are married,” is less reasonable with every passing year. Obviously it’s useful in some situations but we should stop making the blanket assumption that it’s universally a good thing for a woman.

I was 25, didn’t really know or care about the financial protections, the inheritance and tax issues etc. I was madly in love with a really wonderful man, we were living away from home and were happily renting as we knew we didn’t want to settle this far from home. So we got engaged because it was the he done thing and we saved for a wedding instead. I wore the most beautiful dress I’ve ever seen, fabulous shoes, booked a gorgeous venue, chose lovely food. Paid a fortune for photos, videos and an awesome band. It was the best party I’ve ever been too, we had a fantastic day and have lovely pictures and memories with a number of older family members who are no longer with us.
10 years and 2 kids later it was still worth every penny. We are really happy and I’m proud to be part of a little family unit. Now I understand/care more about the other benefits. When my husband needed surgery it was me the drs spoke to, I didn’t have to wait for my in-laws etc.

@PregnantWithHorrors & @Thepeopleversuswork

It is always useful to hear - the other side of the argument! When I met my OH, he had little ambition. I earnt double what he did. I supported him through his PGCE and career progression. In a relatively short period of time, he's doing really well!

I know being married is all about "our" money and all that but he was lucky that the house his parents and MIL brought him and his ex wife, had a lot of equity in (the area boomed), as he wouldn't have had a penny in the bank otherwise.

He earns not too much less than me now, but he likes all the nice things in life. We do have a joint bank account. We put equal amounts in that pay bills, mortgage and all those joint costs but his disposal income is zero. But he drives the big car (on finance), has the expensive trainers, owns the fancy watches. I'm not that kind, and save my disposal income for a rainy day. Own my modest car outright etc.

If... things went wrong, our situations would look very different. Of course I hope things wouldn't go wrong following marriage but imo at my age of nearly 40, I have to plan for every eventuality. We have a 5 bedroom house, a holiday home, 4 kids between us and stability long term, is important to me as I don't come from an affluent family who will pick up the pieces

I work in care. A gentleman I worked for had a catastrophic brain injury in his 50s, his partner of 28 years and mother of his children had absolutely no legal rights whatsoever in regard to his care. The person who knew him better than anyone in this world had no say on what would be in his best interest, instead a team of health care professionals who knew a little snap shot of him, in his worst moments, set up his ongoing care.

I'll be honest, I'm not saying that was the only reason I married my DH, but it was my main reason. There's no one on this earth I'd rather advocate for me, if such circumstances were to occur. Marriage may be just a piece of paper, but don't underestimate the power it holds.

Too risky having children and owning assets without legal backup. My mum who never married my dad was screwed over massively.

My dad married my step mum last year after 20 years together - and thank Christ he did because he just had open heart surgery and their marriage made it that much easier for her to be at the hospital outside of visiting hours, in ICU etc. My brother in law, god bless him, died this year after marrying my sister last may (he wasn't sick when they married). It has made sorting out a terrible, terrible situation much easier, as he didn't have time to make a will and my sister received the respect she should.

Totally agree it’s a waste of money and also a very tricky contract to get out of

I think it’s worth getting married if you have kids with someone. Yes in your situation you’re relatively ok as you earn similar amounts and you’re not part time and doing a lot of child rearing. I’ve got 2 friends unmarried but worked 2-3 days per week for the last 15yrs since oldest child born. When I asked one jokingly when the wedding is as she asked me to be her bridesmaid 13yrs ago when she got engaged she said never. I said well if anything you should as you’ve worked all these years part time whilst he’s been full time and got a few promotions and adding a lot more to his pension pot. She hadn’t ever thought of it like that. Sad as she doesn’t want to marry him as I genuinely thinks she doesn’t want to be with him and she would be gone in an instant if someone turned her head. So her risk but so many women don’t see this, and when the guy runs off with a younger version they are stuffed with their small pensions

People have their own reasons.

For me, I sacrificed my career and earning to make family life easier for both of us so marriage will protect me financially to some extent if we divorce.

For my husband, I am not too sure to be honest, he earns a lot more than me, we share our finance, I think it's his destiny to have his own family and I am part of it.

The court system is the court system. I would have thought it was obvious.

In theory, the judge making a decision on finance, would do so, in line with, what has already been decided in terms of where the child should live and how much time the child should spend with the other parent.

It would be nonsensical to decide money first... as clearly that could mean, a parent couldn't afford to care/couldn't put a house over a child's head.

It rightly should be a question of okay, who is best to care for the child, a child arrangement order is put in place and agreed, then a higher being decides what does a parent need financially to make this work for the child.

OK, first of all, no it’s not obvious as I have no experience of how family courts work. I had to Google CAFCASS when you said that was who you worked for. As I said, it was a genuine question.

It sounds from what you are saying that the parent with whom it is decided the child will live will be awarded whatever the parent needs financially to support and house the child, regardless of that parent’s legal rights. If that is indeed the case then perhaps understanding the legal implications of marriage is not in any way relevant to your job.

Yes, at the moment it's true. 75% is looooooots! Clearly it is a more sensible idea to frame our understanding of an issue on what is happening now over changes that may or may not occur in the future.

We shouldn't make blanket assumptions, but saying marriage is really risky unless you're a SAHM very much is a blanket assumption. And wrong.

I think the main thought I have when reading threads like these is that people tend to confuse the wedding for the marriage itself. Which is hardly surprising, as plenty of married people don't really seem to understand the legal commitment they've signed up to either!!

But marriage is a legal agreement which links you together with your spouse more as one combined unit not two separate people, which is often very protective to couples who have kids and one person much reduces their earning potential as a result. Others have already posted more detailed explanations and links so I won't repeat! It's possible to replicate the majority of benefits through other means for sure, but it's a lot easier (for many) to achieve that situation through marriage, not layers of other documents.

We got married in 2018 and it was done for love, not something you hear a lot of the time on MN but it genuinely was because of love and wanting to spend the rest of our lives together and share a name. Money didn’t even cross our minds as a reason

Same. Married 15 years now, no children (by choice). Still totally in love, still the best thing I ever did.
We had a small registry office wedding then a party. I didn't want to spend a lot and im quite anxious so being centre of attention didn't appeal.

@PregnantWithHorrors

We shouldn't make blanket assumptions, but saying marriage is really risky unless you're a SAHM very much is a blanket assumption. And wrong.

Well, I do think that unless you are planning to take a significant amount of time out of the workforce to raise children the case for marriage is at best negligible and becomes progressively riskier the more money you make.

Let’s put it like this: the default assumption that marriage is always the best policy is wrong. Women should be encouraged to look at it on a case by case basis and properly evaluate the benefits and risks.

It doesn’t help that as a society we fetishise marriage and particularly weddings and many young women are encouraged to see a wedding as a “prize” and the pinnacle of what they can achieve in life.

The miasma of fuss and drama and the whole Disney princess syndrome is profoundly regressive and unhelpful in helping women see marriage with clear eyes. An awful lot of women still egg their daughters on here and urge them to think of marriage as a goal and this is partly why so many women still can’t tell the difference between a wedding and a marriage. It really is time we demystified this.

I presume I live in a bit of a bubble, but in my group of friends (aged late thirties/early forties), for about 75% of the couples the women out earn the men, some by a lot, some marginally. Medics, engineers, academics, senior managers. There was a mix of parental leave split between parents. I assumed this was becoming more usual? I work in a male dominated industry and have always been well paid, in line with my experience, and out earned my partner significantly, although we've swapped recently as I've gone part-time to set up a side business. It's becoming the norm for men to take shared parental leave (and it's actively encouraged), whereas ten years ago it was unusual. My partner is a software engineer and his male colleagues seem to take a minimum of three months parental leave, so his industry is changing too. It does sound like the law needs to catch up.

That's a different point again then. But still too generalised.

For one use of the term 'plan' is significant here. Women don't necessarily plan to be the lower earner or take a disproportionate share of childcare. There are a whole load of societal factors at play there. I was the higher earner before being pushed out of my job due to maternity discrimination, as an example.

It's also not simply about how much money you make, because higher earning women are disproportionately paired with higher earning men. A higher earning woman with DC may still very well be the more financially vulnerable of the two. We won't get anywhere if we consider only the woman's earning in isolation.

Agree 100% on the Disney princess point.

Basically, women do need to evaluate the situation and not generalise. I am absolutely, fully on board with that. There are absolutely situations where marriage is a disadvantage, especially if you have DC already from a prior relationship and want to protect assets for them.

But part of that situation is that a majority of us are the financially weaker party when in a relationship with a man, and that there are wider societal and cultural factors shaping that which cannot be waved away. All women are at some risk of being impacted by these. Simply being of the sex who get pregnant is in itself a risk factor for being made poorer. We could do with more understanding of this, not less.

There is also the need to consider what happens on death too, and most marriages end with bereavement not divorce. For obvious reasons, this tends to be more pressing the older someone gets, and people who didn't want to marry often start marrying or registering a CP once they get to a certain age and realise they prefer the way the law treats bereaved spouses to the way the law treats bereaved cohabitants. Unfortunately, we don't get advance warning of when we're going to die.

@sugarbyebye

It does sound like the law needs to catch up.

It certainly does. It may technically be true that this is still a metropolitan minority scenario but it’s on the rise and the demographics suggest it will continue to rise.

Divorce law certainly needs to find a better way to reflect this. It is currently framed around an assumption that the man will be paying to support a woman whose earnings are compromised by the need to care for children.

When what is increasingly the norm is that the woman in this scenario gives a man free money without any corresponding obligation. So she pays him to fuck off and have fun with his new partner and still has to work, support children and do all domestic work.

That, I agree with. We know that women take a disproportionate level of the domestic load at all income levels, and it isn't the case that male lower earners as a cohort behave in the same way as female lower earners. It doesn't actually matter whether this becomes more common in the future, it's enough of an issue now.

Yanbu, any woman that states "I would never consider having children without being married" is really saying that she is not financially independent. I could never marry because I am indeed financially Independent!

If you work and generate your own income and particularly if you out earn your partner it’s a bad idea.

^this

A friend of mine just separated from her dp of 20 years and thank god she didn't marry him or he'd be off with half her (fully paid off) house and pension. As it is he is back living with his mummy.
Marriage is definitely not always beneficial to women.

Or we are from cultures where children outside marriage simply are not accepted. Or we foresee that we may have to take time off when we have Dc because childbirth and young babies are not predictable.

@PregnantWithHorrors

But part of that situation is that a majority of us are the financially weaker party when in a relationship with a man, and that there are wider societal and cultural factors shaping that which cannot be waved away. All women are at some risk of being impacted by these. Simply being of the sex who get pregnant is in itself a risk factor for being made poorer. We could do with more understanding of this, not less.

I completely understand this but in my view the prevalence of marriage plays into those wider societal and cultural factors.

I’m going to caveat this heavily as I recognise that marriage is a very important tool to protect women who don’t work and that a lot of people have very equal marriages. But it is at it’s heart a patriarchal institution which codifies traditional sex roles in the family.

Of course you’re right that by virtue of the fact women carry, bear and nurse children they are more vulnerable. But there’s something a bit fatalistic about saying “it is what it is”. The expectation that they will marry someone who will “take care of you” is still held up as a life goal for women.

Its everywhere in popular culture. How many times have you watched a character on TV wistfully telling his daughter he wants to be able to “walk her down the aisle,” as though this was the best she can hope to achieve. The centrality of marriage in our culture holds women back at the same time as protecting them. It teaches them to scale back their ambitions. It teaches them, crudely, that they need a man for money.

I’m not arguing that we should do away with marriage: it clearly plays an important role in protecting people and is culturally important to many people. But I think we need to really reframe the way we present it to girls: instead of seeing it as their ultimate life goal they need to start thinking of it as one of a suite of tools.

This.

Do you earn a lot more than your partner? How do you split childcare/other domestic responsibilities? What financial risk are they exposed to in your relationship?

Also: it does make a difference to how permanent the relationship feels. I only got married after being together for a decade, having a child and a house together etc. I thought we were just doing it for the paperwork. We both said afterward that we were surprised how much of a difference (positive) it had made for both of us. It was way more romantic than I was expecting. I'm not a sentimental person at all.