to think a lot of men will not marry if they already get everything?

[Pinkshocks]

If he is already getting everything on a plate, a committed partner, a sexual relationship, children, someone to split the bills with, emotional support and a family life, all without making any legal or lifelong commitment, why would he change anything?

I know this does NOT apply to every couple or to ALL men. Some people genuinely do not want to marry and both are happy with that. But if one person wants marriage and the other keeps putting it off year after year, are they really going to change when they are already getting everything they want?

Why would someone buy the ticket when they are already getting the whole show for free?

I agree with you - I honestly don't think men want children in the same way that women do. Which, when you think about it, suggests a lot of men would be happy with a live-in girlfriend and no children.

I agree.
What some want is just a "sexual housekeeper".

None of these belong in the 21st century.

However, some of them have a kernel of truth behind them, or might be applicable to the 21st century if reworded slightly:

Women generally want kids more than men do.
Women have a biological deadline for having kids, men don't have a 'deadline', just a fading out of fertility.
It is sensible to get married before having children, especially if you are not the higher earner.

These things are inescapable facts of living in the 21st century in our sexist, misogynistic and patriarchal society:

1. Society is still sexist and patriarchal, even if you don't want it to be and don't believe it is.
2. Most women don't realise just how sexist, misogynistic, and patriarchal society is until after they have children. Young women with no dependents often mistakenly believe that the sexes are treated equally by society
3. Men are not judged nearly as harshly as women for walking away from their children, and men are more likely to walk away from children than women
4. Women earn less on average than men, so statistically women will be the lower earner in a relationship
5. Because of this earnings disparity, when the couple are young and in their first partnership, so neither have assets from a previous relationship, women benefit more from pooling assets (via the legal contract of marriage) than men do
6. Even if a woman is not the lower earner to start with, she may well become the lower earner after a couple of maternity leaves, a few years of part-time work, and a stalled career
7. In the event of splitting up after having children, generally a woman is in a far, far better position if they were married. If they were not married, she has no claim on any of the savings he built up during their relationship (whilst her career was stalled), and is entitle to nothing but a bit of maintenance for the children that is nowhere near the actual cost of raising them.

Why don't they?

Is any of that a reason to perpetuate misogyny and pretend it's based in truth rather than constructed within a patriarchal system benefiting men? Shall we just say ok, it's got a kernel of truth (arguable) so it's natural and can never be changed?

Men and women, hopefully, still marry if they love someone enough and want a legal and public commitment.

Of course it should be changed!
Feminists are fighting to change it and have been doing so for centuries.

Meanwhile - women, get married before having children
(unless you are one of those rare, lucky women with a great career that has a fantastic maternity scheme)

Correct. I don't think a lot of men are that bothered about having children and certainly nowhere near as much as women are. And a lot of men who think they want children really don't like the reality very much. At this point I'm obviously going to use the Mumsnet caveat of Not All Men.

I think a lot of women think their Dave would always 'be fair' if they divorced and would give her half of the house.

For me I have never wanted to get married. I have been proposed to more then once and have turned it down each time. Not all women want to get married.

I'm sure you're right that this is a scenario that occurs sometimes. "A lot of men"? Who knows? How do you define a lot? I wouldn't think it was the majority of men. Without statistics to back it up, I don't know what the point of this thread is.

If they were divorcing and had children, a judge might well give her more than half the house.
However, if they weren't married, so were just splitting up and not divorcing, she might be bitterly shocked at how nasty and miserly her Dave suddenly became.

But you're still talking as though the entire process of having children is women's responsibility and choice.

Ultimately, she is the one who risks being left holding the baby. Statistically, far, far more men walk away from children than women do.

Unless she is prepared to leave and see her children every other weekend, like so many separated fathers, then yes, it is her risk (even if it was both their choice and is still both their responsibility).

The law cannot force a father to look after his children, so he is free to abandon his responsibility and renege on his 50% of parenting any time. All the law can do is make him financially pay.

A single mother is going to get a better financial deal if they were married and now divorce than if they were never married.

Edited to add: the law should never force a parent to look after their children if the parent doesn't want to do it. Just think how much neglect and child abuse would result if that was the law.

Interesting that you seem to think a relationship without children is akin to being someone's sexual housekeeper.

DH and I are child-free by choice. Are we each other's sexual housekeepers? Doesn't sound bad come to think of it.

I think that as it unfathomable to most women to not do right their kids, they think Dave will too so don't need the hassle of getting married.

Why purchase what is already freely available?

For many men, marriage is less an act of devotion than an arrangement of convenience, valued for what a wife provides, manages, and absorbs.

This is why women should enter serious relationships with a clear understanding of their own worth.

You think marriage is... a man purchasing a woman?

There are some very strange ideas on this thread.

Contextualise, dear.

Grim sexist language whatever the context. Dear.

Do not be obtuse.

Why buy milk when you have the cow for free?

That is not complexity; it is simple male arithmetic.

You're married, that's what makes the difference.
So you're husband and wife, equal partners, not man + live in fuckable domestic appliance.

That is why marriage was invented. That's why you are 'given away' and change your surname to his as you are now his property.

Why does being married somehow elevate her status. More the opposite, as she is an independent woman who lives with a man because she wants to.

An unmarried woman described as a "fuckable domestic appliance" 🤣
I've read some funny shit on this thread but that is the winner by a mile, well done.