Is refusing to get married a control thing

[Kannet]

So this is not about me but a close family member. She had been with her Dp for fifteen years,two kids mortgage and so on. He knows that she is desperate to be married, she wants the same name as her kids (no idea why they don't have her name anyway). She also wants the status of wife, she feels people look down on her as she is "just girlfriend".

She has talked about it with her Dp and is even happy to just go off on their own and not have a "wedding". He just says right out no. No reason just "don't want to".

I honestly think he likes having this control over her. He holds all the cards so to speak.

They also have separate money and she works very part time so financially she is vulnerable. I just don't know what advice to give her anymore

almost always for the woman who has made the financial sacrifice
So tired of reading and supposed to believe that nowadays, women are still victims of having no choice but to give up a career of a lifetime and high earning potential for their husband by staying at home looking after the children when in almost all cases, it's the woman choice to be a SAHM.

There are millions of mothers working in this country, and yes, those who earn more are more likely to do so. It's a choice open to any woman in this country and I've raised my daughter to believe that she can a career, a good income and still be a good mum, it's just very hard work, but will offer protection for life. I am also raising my son to believe in sex equality and to believe that chores and raising children is as much the man's role than the woman.

Even if the woman has given up a good career for children, we live in a country where education is open to anyone at any age, nothing stopping them going to back to school and starting that ladder climb.

So whenever a woman wants a man to marry her, she basically just wants marriage so she can be more easily compensated when they break up.

Pretty much, yes. Marriage is not a romantic institution. It's only recently that we've started thinking of it that way. The Victorians and societies before them certainly saw it as a duty to create alliances and protect bloodlines. Plenty of people today get married for purely practical purposes. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to marry someone you don't love, but if you're asking me if the institution itself is romantic - no, it's not. Glad you're starting to realise.

With that said, if you do love someone, then I don't understand why you'd be happy to see them shafted if you break up, after they've given up their earning power to raise your children and run your home. It's a pretty hateful thing to be happy with.

Scott, if you were the one who was expected to give up or severely compromise your earning power, future career potential and pension contributions long term - going part time, being the default carer when a child is sick, doing all those long hours of unpaid childcare, and thus enabling your partner to continue her career and earning power largely unfettered - would you really be happy to be left without compensation for it if you broke up? Given that the sacrifices you made would impact you financially forever?

Marriage protects people (women) legally and financially, and that's it. It's quite clear that you have a problem with that. So, fine. Be 50% responsible for your childcare and domestic duties. Go part time, or give up work entirely. Be 50% responsible for all childcare hours, when the child is off school sick and so on. Would you be prepared to do that?

So tired of reading and supposed to believe that nowadays, women are still victims of having no choice but to give up a career of a lifetime and high earning potential for their husband by staying at home looking after the children when in almost all cases, it's the woman choice to be a SAHM.

I would hope it is. I wouldn't want them to be forced into it. But don't worry. Unmarried SAHMs and part time working mothers who aren't married are indeed frequently shafted for their free choices, which were made in a vacuum with no influence from the father of their kids, if the relationship breaks down. So you have nothing to complain about.

after they've given up their earning power to raise your children and run your home. It's a pretty hateful thing to be happy with

And here we go again :)

Amazing that there should be so many professional women sacrificing their 5 years Uni studying or more and the hard work to get these amazing high earning jobs just so that their husband can enjoy their wonderful exciting careers. They should be applauded for their devotion because clearly, they couldn't both be working and still raising well adjusted children or keeping a house clean otherwise!

I guess all the female doctors, solicitors, head of businesses, must have husbands who've done the same and sacrificed their amazing career for the love of their wives, or are all childless!

Amazing that there should be so many professional women sacrificing their 5 years Uni studying or more and the hard work to get these amazing high earning jobs just so that their husband can enjoy their wonderful exciting careers... They should be applauded for their devotion because clearly, they couldn't both be working and still raising well adjusted children or keeping a house clean otherwise

It's more to look after the kids the two of them have together. You know, those.

And the fact that, despite their five years at uni, there is still a pay gap so that it makes more sense for the woman to make this sacrifice (where do you get 'amazing high earning jobs' from? The pay gap is a huge part of the problem. You surely can't be making up shit to suit your agenda, could you?)

And the fact that, even if you do work, sometimes someone is going to have to take the time out when a child is sick or has additional needs. Can you guess whose responsibility that usually becomes?

I guess all the female doctors, solicitors, head of businesses, must have husbands who've done the same and sacrificed their amazing career for the love of their wives, or are all childless!

In my experience, yes, or more likely, they work part time and are still chiefly responsible for home life.

But as I said before. If you don't want your wife/female partner to work part time and make a career and earning sacrifice, you know what you can do. You can go part time yourself and do 50% of the childcare hours, time off when child is sick, etc etc etc.

I hear a lot of men complaining that marriage should be changed, that men are getting a bum deal, that women are evil and manipulative and totally have a free independent choice about working with small children etc etc etc. Yet for some reason, the other solution - that men could just combine childcare with reduced working, as bajillions of women do all the time - is never an option.

Why is that, do you think?

It's about control of his money and assets. That is what he is protecting.

So tired of reading and supposed to believe that nowadays, women are still victims of having no choice but to give up a career of a lifetime and high earning potential for their husband by staying at home looking after the children when in almost all cases, it's the woman choice to be a SAHM

It usually it, many times the partner doesn't even get a say.

Given how many women do manage a career and parent just like men, it's got to be down to role models growing up and copying them or a lack of work ethic and the children are a convenient excuse.

If more carried on with their careers, marriage wouldn't matter and both would be equal meaning one partner wouldn't be shafted in the event of a divorce.

Yet for some reason, the other solution - that men could just combine childcare with reduced working, as bajillions of women do all the time - is never an option

It is a catch 22. Men and women are treated differently in workplaces- women are expected to need time off for childcare, and no one bats an eyelid. Men aren’t, there is less flexibility and requests for part time working unusual.

So women are the ones that sacrifice career as it’s usually easier for them to negotiate hours. So workplaces become predominantly men working full time, which contributes to the mentality.

With the increase in divorce rate now you also have to factor in that many men may have non resident kids that they are financially contributing towards. If they go part time that has a knock on effect for those children.

Men are rarely rp. Dh did the larger childcare share with his ex wife as he worked shifts. When they split he negotiated part time so he could take on the larger share. This was refused by his ex wife so the kids stayed with her and went into paid childcare. He applied for rp and was refused. A solicitor wouldn’t take his case as courts never take children away from a mother unless proven unfit.

So when it came to us choosing who went part time, even though dh would have done it in a hearbeat, he couldn’t. He even suggested to the ex the kids stayed with us in the week as he would be at home, and she wouldn’t need childcare. Nope.

I suppose what i am trying to say is if men do sacrifice careers and then get divorced, what happens? Either we see more men becoming rp, which tbh i have never come across a woman happy with that, or the wife is rp and gets little to no maintenance as his career is shafted, at least in the short term.

He knew i wanted to get married, so there ws definitely a level of cruel-ness to his jokes.

What an absolute arse!

It is a catch 22. Men and women are treated differently in workplaces- women are expected to need time off for childcare, and no one bats an eyelid. Men aren’t, there is less flexibility and requests for part time working unusual.

What? Are you saying that this is a complex societal problem?

Are you saying that it's not actually as simple as 'well mothers should just continue working as normal with no compromise, as should fathers, and Mary Poppins or Nanny McPhee can fly in as required'?

Dear me!

You think I am having free childcare from my partner? No. He doesn’t do childcare. He does parenting. He does the parenting whilst I am at work. We share the parenting when I am at home.

I won’t marry him, he would get married in a heartbeat. That’s my choice, but it’s one of those things that need to be unanimous. He is of course free to leave should he prefer to be in a relationship with someone who will marry him. That would be his choice.

Actually, your partner is getting free childcare from you. Just as mine did from me. As he pointed out, if he had been a single parent he would have had to pay a fortune for me,

Sorry, you are getting g free childcare from your partner. Got my sentence muddled up.

That’s my choice, but it’s one of those things that need to be unanimous.

Of course. That's why I'm not in favour of a 'common law marriage' situation whereby you can be entered into a legal contract (which is all marriage is) by stealth.

With that said, your partner is making financial sacrifices in order to raise both your children, and leaving himself vulnerable in the long term should the relationship break down (and even if it doesn't, come to that, since there are certain other financial protections you don't have while unmarried). I don't know the details of your situation so I can't say what the best option for both of you would be. It's possible that marriage isn't in either of your best interests, though that's unlikely if you have young kids together.

If it were the case that you refuse to marry him because you want to protect 'your' assets, while still being quite happy for him to be left vulnerable long term as a result of raising both your kids - and that's the case for many, many men who refuse to marry the mothers of their children - then that's a horrid and loveless thing to do. It is not a simple case of walking into a decent full time job after years of being out of the job market, and especially if you remain the resident parent.

I don't think it matters whether you call it 'childcare' or 'parenting'. That's a deflection.

AynRandTheObjectivist your username there is very ironic. You are saying men (and more rarely some women) should make a huge potential sacrifice and put themselves in a financially vulnerable situation not out of rational self interest but because its the "right thing to do".

AynRandTheObjectivist your username there is very ironic.

Yes, it's a complete pisstake.

It is not a 'huge potential sacrifice' to protect the person who lost their own long term earning power so that you could keep your own, even after you break up. It is not a huge sacrifice to give the mother of your children her fair share of the assets you would not have been able to acquire had she not been on call for childcare, sick days off school, domestic duties and so on. If you think it is, you are wrong. The huge potential sacrifice would be to take on the woman's job in the family unit, and that's clearly not something you're prepared to do.

It is not a 'huge potential sacrifice' to protect the person who lost their own long term earning power so that you could keep your own
Out of curiosity, which career did you give up, or that all those people you know gave up because if they hadn't their partner wouldn't have been able to have a fantastic job themselves?

Why didn't you hire a nanny/au pair if you had such a great earning power that you didn't want to lose?

Of all the women I went to uni with who I've kept in touch with, one BA, two MAs, so getting to know quite a lot of women with career prospects, I can't think of one who's given up their job after having children for the only purpose of allowing their husband to have their own career.

If you partner was so controlling that he stopped you having this wonderful high earning career to suit him, why marrying him in the first place!

Out of curiosity, which career did you give up, or that all those people you know gave up because if they hadn't their partner wouldn't have been able to have a fantastic job themselves?

Who cares if either job is fantastic or high earning? Who cares if you enjoy it or not? Is being a SAHP a barrel of laughs?

It’s a simple matter of one person keeping their long term earning potential and pension contributions unfettered, and one having theirs compromised. Both parents have contributed to the family having the assets it has, because they couldn’t do it without each other. They have equal rights to it. Why is anyone attacking women who want their share to be protected? Why are women being berated for not wanting to be left shafted, as we see happening on here every day of the week?

The only way anyone could have a problem with this is if they want women to be dispensable once they’re no longer useful. I’m sure you’re not one of those people.

All this stuff about Great Careers is irrelevant deflection. It doesn’t matter if the job is completely shit, it still enables you to provide for yourself and your pension. If someone is enabling you to have a family while not compromising that, then that contribution needs to be recognised.

Why is this even a controversy? What on earth does anyone find objectionable about this?

You could only think of this as a 'huge sacrifice' if you think of the money and assets as yours, and not the family's or jointly owned.

Clearly, Scott et al do think that way. Fine, but own it instead of blaming marriage, women and all the rest of it. And don't have children.

Who cares if either job is fantastic or high earning? Who cares if you enjoy it or not? Is being a SAHP a barrel of laughs?
You're the one who goes on about loss of long term earning power! It's nothing to do about whether being a SAHP is a barrel of laughs of not. For some it is, for others it isn't. The bottom line though is that mothers do have a choice to earn their own money, and if they don't, it's because they haven't taken the steps to do so, not because they were tied up by their husband at home or because if they hadn't, their partner couldn't possibly have managed to have the career they've had.

I find it so sad that in these days and ages, so many women could think that they should fight for marriage to get some financial security when the reality is that more women end up with university degrees than men and therefore are capable of earning a decent living for themselves.

Personally, I think it's a case of wanting their cake and eating it. I hope my DS will see behind this and want to marry a woman prepared to contribute financially into the marriage as much as I expect he will want to contribute with the day to day care of his children and home.

I hope my DS will see behind this and want to marry a woman prepared to contribute financially into the marriage as much as I expect he will want to contribute with the day to day care of his children and home

Me too. I'd hate for him to be taken advantage of. Likewise I want my daughter to find a partner that pulls his weight at home and work.

A lazy partner is an unattractive one for me, I want an equal not somebody who is prepared to let me do all the hard work and finances whilst they reap the rewards.

You're the one who goes on about loss of long term earning power!

Yes, because when you reduce or give up your work, that’s what suffers. It doesn’t matter how shite the job is – if you do less of it, you give up long term earning power!

The bottom line though is that mothers do have a choice to earn their own money, and if they don't, it's because they haven't taken the steps to do so.

What steps can someone take to ensure that neither parent will ever have to make any compromises to their working lives once they have kids?

I find it so sad that in these days and ages, so many women could think that they should fight for marriage to get some financial security when the reality is that more women end up with university degrees than men and therefore are capable of earning a decent living for themselves.

You are completely distorting what's been said. Nobody is suggesting women marry instead of working, ffs. And plenty of people don't get degrees. I think your privilege is showing rather badly.

What some of us are saying is that if you're going to be compromising your earning power by having kids (and if you're a woman, you probably are) then you would be wise and completely reasonable to insist that your fair share of the assets is legally protected. The man could not have maintained his earning power or gained these assets without the woman's contribution. She's not lazy or grasping to request that her input be recognised and legalised.

It's very nice to say that women can earn their keep etc etc, but it ignores the childcare issue when kids come along. In some cases, the woman literally cannot afford to work because she's such a low earner that she wouldn't cover the cost of childcare.

No, he is an adult, and he can make his own choices, just like I make mine. If he wanted to go to work, he could go to work. We would split childcare costs. It would not be a problem. He is protected financially. So am I. So are the children. He has not made sacrifices to his working life to raise our children. Even if he had that wouldn’t make me selfish for not marrying him. You just can’t say that in such a blanket way.

I will only get married for inheritance tax reasons so that may mean I marry very late in life or I never marry. That’s fine with me. He knows that and chooses to make a family anyway. It’s not, and never has been, about control.

marriage isnt obligatory. It is in fact a state derived legal construct. What has that to do with love ,caring or commitment? I certainly do not need not want the state to have anything to do with my relationships nor do i need it to sanction or validate them !

Of course he doesn't want to get married.
Right now he has all the benefits that being married provides, with none of the risks which come to the higher earner in a divorce.