To think that marriage is an outdated concept?

[YourAgileUmberPoet]

In today’s world, marriage just seems like a piece of paper that doesn’t mean anything anymore. AIBU to think that marriage is outdated and unnecessary?

@YourAgileUmberPoet why not read through all the eleventybillion mumsnet threads on the relationships topic where women who believed this the statement in your OP gradually work out that now they have 2 kids and have downgraded their career options because that made childcare easier, their formerly lovely partner has now started a new relationship with a younger woman and now she finds she has no rights to any share of all the assets her soon-to-be-ex partner built up while she sacrificed everything for their children (including house and pension) and is going to be in poverty for decades if not for the rest of her life, whereas that "piece of paper" she didn't both with would have ensured that when the relationship broke down she would have the right to broad equality financially as the two go their separate ways.

Even if you don't have kids and never limit your career options in order to pursue non-money-earning mutual benefits, and never split up, the "piece of paper" that makes you legally each other's next of kin is vital when the end of life comes around.

Staying emotionally and financially independent throughout life is valid if that's your choice. No one has to marry. But if you form a long term relationship and start making decisions that could affect your financial stability negatively but you feel they are safe decisions because you can rely on your partner, then that's the point where you should insist on marriage.

You can still end up exposed later on if you have kids. The gender wealth gap escalates in your 40s as many women take time out or cut their hours.

Is that what women are doing?

Yes, that’s why I said wedding, not marriage, and why I never did any of those things.

And I wasn’t giving at as a reason not to enter into the marriage contract , I was agreeing with the post about ‘archaic traditions’ so bit quick calling my post ‘dumbest’ @Aposterhasnoname ?

But the ‘concept of marriage’ often does get caught up with the supposed ‘romance’ of the wedding, and wedding pressure and subsequent family and social pressure are heavy. Demonstrated in many MN posts where a woman’s happiness in the marriage is affected by stigma or disapproval were she to leave. Marriage is very much a social construct as well as a contract.

@bifurCAT I have always been able to support myself, I’m female and a mum and I was a loser in divorce.

The one consolation is that although he took 55 per cent of my life savings, I am the golden goose and I can lay more golden eggs. He will have spent the money he took by now.

Yeah, it is in the literal/absolute sense as it used to fulfill a different purpose at a different time etc

However it's still useful in other ways - legal recognition of a relationship etc

This again?

@HotSource

You are confusing typical wedding to marriage. You can walk into a registry office together and sit down with two witnesses and get married in your jeans (or whatever) for about £100. That marriage certificate is a very important contract for many people

This.

Totally agree

And what about the discrimination against the unmarried? On the subject of spouses pensions….I am divorced so why can’t I nominate someone else to receive the spouses pension in my company DB scheme? I paid for it! I’d like to split it between my kids. Seems like patent discrimination that only those who have entered into an archaic living arrangement and contract can receive this benefit.

But saying it's a meaningless piece of paper isn't an opinion it's just wrong. Like others have said, it's a legal contact and gives both people certain protection and entitlements.

@Jc2001 you are wrong. It does not give both parties legal protection. Only one party will benefit. But you go on dissing the OP.

Well said.

From all I’ve ever read or heard, it’s very often men who use the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ excuse for not committing - all too often before buggering off with someone else, with whom they ‘commit’ not long afterwards.

Says it all really - or much of it.

This is a great reply! 😅

Yes, my ex-husband had the piece of paper which gave him my money. And that is why marriage is a bad idea!

That's admirable :).

No, my comment was more that the implications was that it sucks for women in this situation when the men probably gravitate towards women with money in order to "fleece" them (which it sounds had happened to you?), but the opposite, (women dating/marrying rich men) for the same reason is somewhat normalised.

Your employment contract is just a bit of paper, your bank account documentation is just a bit of paper, your will is just a bit of paper etc.

I am the higher earner and DH was a SAHD for a while. Marriage protects him. Any person who is prepared to let their partner become vulnerable through taking on childcare responsibilities without ensuring they are legally protected is not a good partner.

Yes and no.

As has been pointed out, marriage is a legal and financial contract. It still plays a very important role in protecting the financially vulnerable partner (usually, though increasingly not always, the woman). For a woman who needs or wants to stay at home with children for any length of time, marriage is essential to guarantee her financial security.

I do agree with you that marriage is at best neutral and more often than not negative if you are the stronger economic partner. Marriage essentially transfers value from the economic generator to the non economic generator. This is sensible if you are a homemaker. Not so sensible if you’re a female breadwinner with children married to a man who under earns you and doesn’t pull his weight at home. I am a relatively high earner with a kid and a partner and for me marriage would be stupid.

As an aside, I also find the trappings and language of marriage problematic. I know there are plenty of equal marriages today but the symbolism is still very much rooted in an era when women were essentially the property of their husbands. I can’t really get past my sense of nausea around that and I find weddings embarrassingly naff.

I don’t think marriage is obsolete but I do think it will become increasingly irrelevant if women’s economic power continues to grow at the rate it has over the past few decades.

Yes I think it's outdated. No one needs to live with someone else for their whole lives anymore. Different when we died in our sixties. It's almost impossible that you would still be happy with the person you met in your twenties when you're in your 70's especially after all the stress of decades of child rearing and domesticity.
The happiest women I know are either single or found someone who they truly had things in common with later in life, when their kids have grown up. Many women I know are still resentful of how their husbands were during the hard times, or they found they have become completely different people (boring, rude, selfish) as they have aged. Generally women stay active and social for much longer.

I hear you on this and you make some good points. But as someone in a long marriage with DC, the idea of ever putting up with someone else's DC is hideous to me. Or them having to put up with mine. especially these days when kids appear to need support until they are 30s. Most of the people I know in second marriages aren't happy either.

A blended family just wouldn't work for me. Would rather stay single if I got divorced.

As someone who won’t get married as it doesn’t suit my situation, I think the whole ‘marriage is outdated and just a piece of paper’ is really detrimental, especially to women.

Women’s careers take a hit when they are pregnant and have children. Even if they return to work, it’s take a hit. If a couple decide it’s better for the family for the woman to be at home or work less hours, not being married is really risky for the woman. especially where the family home is only in the man’s name.

Whilst I think it’s everyone’s own responsibility to look at the pros and cons of a situation before making huge life decisions like moving in to someone’s home, having kids, impacting your financial independence etc I think too many women have fallen into the ‘marriage outdated’ trap. Then found themselves out on the street with very little money and no right over assets they would have, if they had been married.

I find it quite interesting. No kids are taught these things at school. But men, very often, know what they are doing by not getting married and do it to protect their own assets. But so many women seem completely unaware of the implications of not getting married. Or if they are aware seem to be happy to believe it won’t happen to them and believe their dp when they say ‘yeah we will get married one day, let’s just have kids for now’.

I learnt it because mums second husband tried to take half the house she bought after she divorced my Dad. They had been married 9 months when they split and he wanted half the house. I learnt a lot from that.

I did get married. I was young and neither of us had more than the other and built what we had together. So when we divorced it was reasonable we both got half. I wouldn’t do it now as I have a lot more than Dp and earn more and have 2 kids with exh. I married when it suited both and won’t because it doesn’t.

I think we should be encouraging people to understand living a life with someone isn’t just about romance and love. Wether it’s living together, marriage, having kids, we should encourage people to really look at what the options are, the pros and cons and then make a decision.

Agree with this

@bifurCAT it was normal in the past for women to marry for money because maybe until the 1970s that was the only option they had! I don’t like the idea.

The marriage contract/divorce courts allow one person to take the other’s wealth on divorce and this is what is wrong. You should take out what you put in. Child rearing should be counted towards that equation, as far as I can see.

My ex-husband and I both worked and both did some of the looking after the children but he regarded this more as “sitting” whereas I was left with all the things that needed active organising or money - from dentists to arranging childcare to buying and washing clothes and cooking healthy meals. In any tally I did more and earned more. That was not taken into consideration. I have done also everything since the split to continue supporting our children - financially and emotionally and practically too. He has not been heard of since.

I wouldn’t say he married me for the money - at the start it wasn’t clear how it would turn out. But he was happy to sit back and let me carry the entire load. And the courts rewarded him for it. And maybe he always did have an eye on what he would get out of it.

I have friends who married wealthy men and have done well from divorce. But they did raise the kids and this is something that deserves recognition. And they have continued to provide a stable family home afterwards when the dads have left. So if that contribution deserves 50% (or more) then why isn’t my contribution recognised?? I did at least 75% but my efforts are seen as worth more like 25%.

I don’t know what my advice would be to the next generation. I am starting to see my friends’ kids marry and I cannot feel sure about that arrangement. The divorce laws need reform. I am not against marriage per se.

Civil partnership.