Why do posters stress the importance of marriage

[shesyourlobster]

I'd like to understand this more as I read it on posts here all the time and still don't get it. There will often be a post where the OP will happen to mention that they have a child but aren't married and then there will be tons of responses about how venerable they are. This is even if they don't mention anything about their financial situation. I have even seen posters assume that they are young and naive.

Financials aside, I do not believe that marriage means more emotional commitment. Divorce happens far too often for that to be the case.

So why do posters stress the importance of marriage in these cases?

The reason I am asking is because I have a child with my partner and we aren't married. So I really want to know if I am missing something! We have both said that we aren't really interested in marriage for the reason I said above. We both have our own houses (we live together in one and one of our houses is rented out). I have more equity in mine, and earn slightly more than he does. Child related costs are split equally. We have a joint life insurance policy.

So what am I missing? Do we really need that bit of paper?

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

If I was unmarried and wanted to live with a man, maybe a man who had left another marriage and children, why should I make my assets vulnerable?

Exactly - so why should men make their assets vulnerable by marrying a woman? A couple with kids should share leave after birth equally. Men shouldn't have to go into marriage as if they entered a round of Russian roulette where they risk losing half, or even more, of their assets when the relationship breaks up.

You're over simplifying. The decision on asset sharing on divorce would be made according to what each person had contributed to build up of the assets. If a man was able to make a lot of money because his wife was raising their kids, enabling him to have an uninterrupted career along with a family while her earning power remains impacted, then that absolutely should be reflected in the settlement, and of course vice versa if she worked and he stayed home or took the career hit. It is not as simple as a man loses half of what is his alone, that he earned with no assistance from his wife.

With that said, I do agree that nobody should be passively entered into an asset-sharing arrangement if they don't wish to be, which is why I'm not in favour of any system that doesn't involve explicitly signing on the line, and really, really want better education on this so women can make informed decisions. There are still ways to get some protection without marriage, like cohabitation agreements, but people don't seem to get them as often as you might expect.

I have no DCs with my EXH. He had money when we got together. I made mine, by myself, just after we got together. He had no input, no involvement, no role at all in my business. He ran his, I ran mine. And yet when we divorced I had to pay him out because the law looks at what you made while you were together, not what you had beforehand. Had we gone to court, I was at high risk of having to pay him even more.

I think we need to make a huge social and economic shift where both parents are expected to take parental leave and it's downright weird if the school always calls mum etc. And where they are expected to participate in caring responsibilities for their parents and share housework. Currently it's lopsided and women do so much by default, while the man just focuses on his paid work.

Oh yes, I don't disagree with that at all, but if you're a woman, why leave yourself vulnerable? What if your husband or partner finds themselves out of or unable to work? Marriage doesn't help a jot then. Women who deliberately make themselves financially dependent on men are taking a huge risk, marriage or not.

@Cam2020

I think we need to make a huge social and economic shift where both parents are expected to take parental leave and it's downright weird if the school always calls mum etc. And where they are expected to participate in caring responsibilities for their parents and share housework. Currently it's lopsided and women do so much by default, while the man just focuses on his paid work.

Oh yes, I don't disagree with that at all, but if you're a woman, why leave yourself vulnerable? What if your husband or partner finds themselves out of or unable to work? Marriage doesn't help a jot then. Women who deliberately make themselves financially dependent on men are taking a huge risk, marriage or not.

Because it's really shit and sometimes impossible doing everything when you have a partner who ought to be taking some of the load off, but isn't?

So the paid job is often the thing to go or suffer, as they're trying to make the relationship work, because there's more pressure on women socially to be the ones who "make it work". And they can't let their childcare or other caring responsibilities slip, and they have to keep the home going, and the man himself will encourage her to trust & rely on him financially rather than his lifestyle or work be affected.

@FortunesFave

Why do people keep acting as if there's no way of spreading news?? We literally live in the age of communication.

People can be educated about defacto and what it means. They're not stupid.

How on earth do people think Aussies manage??

People can be educated about marriage at the tap of a finger, yet even here we have an OP who hasn't a bloody clue, and who carried on having no clue throughout the thread. Apparently...

Marriage should not be something that you drift into, and neither should the legal package that comes with it. It should be a choice made with eyes wide open. Not a default position thrust on you because some time has passed.

What is making a difference are threads such as this one which reach people who really had no idea about the legal status of marriage.

Even just a couple of years ago threads such as this were full of people screeching that they felt that any thread about the legal protections offered by marriage was just stuck-up married people looking down on them and and judging them or somesuch bollocks. Talk about pawns of the patriarchy...

the man himself will encourage her to trust & rely on him financially rather than his lifestyle or work be affected.

The man can encourage all he wants - the woman doesn't have to go for it. She can choose to be a self-sufficient person.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

the man himself will encourage her to trust & rely on him financially rather than his lifestyle or work be affected.

The man can encourage all he wants - the woman doesn't have to go for it. She can choose to be a self-sufficient person.

Which begs the question, what does she need him for at all, if he is not pulling his weight at home, with care, or with the children and she still has to maintain her earning power as if she were single?

Because they are a couple - they both earn, they share child care and all other chores. It doesn't have to be all or nothing - they can share. That way they both continue to develop in their careers and if things go to pots neither needs to rely on the other to put food on the table and a roof over their heads and those of the children.

@purpleboy

Maybe it's some internalized misogyny, presuming these women don't have secure finances behind them? Maybe the op themselves indicate they are financially insecure?

I don't often see people telling the op they need to get married without it being indicated in some way that the woman could be vulnerable.

Good point well made.

Many women are capable of carefully considering their financial status and making sensible decisions.

Many women are capable of carefully considering their financial status and making sensible decisions.

And yet, when it comes to the issue of marriage, so many don't!

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

Because they are a couple - they both earn, they share child care and all other chores. It doesn't have to be all or nothing - they can share. That way they both continue to develop in their careers and if things go to pots neither needs to rely on the other to put food on the table and a roof over their heads and those of the children.

In which case, you shouldn't have cherry-picked one sentence out of my previous post, where the whole bloody point I was making was that the man was not participating equally in family life . And statistically men do not take up their half of care, childcare and housework.

“Also by some posters logic, if you lose capacity then the hospital would allow medical decisions (which are done by a doctor) to be made by a second cousin twice removed or parents they have not spoken to in years, or a husband/wife theyve never divorced or spoken to in 30 years!

Can you imagine, a doctor ringing up great aunt Ethel or contacting your partners wife from 30 years ago to ask "do we switch off the life support machine?" Hahahahahaha.

Sorry to go on. But working at the hospital the amount of times you hear a wife or husband say "I'm their spouse, I want them on X ward and to receive y treatment" ...umm doesn't work like that. The DOCTORS decide what ward and treatment they get. As thats their job they are highly qualified for. And no.. you cannot just decide to switch on and off life support. If the doctors think they can survive we won't switch it off. If there is no hope, we will switch if off, not keep it on indefinitely because you want too.

I wish LPA was known about as common knowledge would save a lot of heartache.

Likewise if your husband suddenly needed 24/7 nursing care in a nursing home, unless you have LPA you can't just take them home. They will be placed wherever deemed suitable by the authorities. If you dont agree you will have to take said authorities to court to prove its not in your spouses best interest.”

I work in a hospital and you’re over simplifying things if you think relatives have no input in the care incapacitated patients receive. When there is doubt of what the best course of action would be for the patient relatives can consent for care, can refuse care and can decide to remove care, not all decisions are made purely by doctors. I had a patient last week who is severely brain damaged and her husband was asked if he wanted to continue life sustaining care for her or whether he wanted to withdraw it and allow her to pass away peacefully. He was asked this because doctors believed it was unlikely (not impossible) that she would recover enough to have a “good” quality of life, but that she would have some quality of life, therefore, they wanted her husband to make the decision based on what he thought she would have wanted.

I’m not sure what your role is or what area you work in, but in my role decisions are frequently made by family members, and that doesn’t include boyfriends or girlfriends or only people who have power of attorney, it is spouses, parents, siblings, children etc.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

Because they are a couple - they both earn, they share child care and all other chores. It doesn't have to be all or nothing - they can share. That way they both continue to develop in their careers and if things go to pots neither needs to rely on the other to put food on the table and a roof over their heads and those of the children.

But you're mixing up your idea of how things should be, and how they are for the majority of couples. I happen to agree with you that this is how it should ideally be done - a more or less equal share of both paid and unpaid work between the couple - and it's what I aim for in my own marriage, but it's still much more common for people to have an uneven split, and it appears to be how the majority of couples want things to be in their relationship. One half of the couple (usually the woman) shouldn't end up disproportionately penalised for decisions about the split between paid and unpaid work that both of the couple make.

@Hardbackwriter But don't you think that unless women choose to push for an equal share of chores and work, rather than to give up work to raise the kids, things won't change?

If however women choose to give up work to raise the kids without even trying to see if their partner is prepared to do that instead, or to split things evenly, things won't change. And if one party chooses to become financially dependent on the other, that's a risk they take should the relationship break up.

Nobody is forcing anyone to give up work - it's a choice. And as such if that choice carries a risk, one people are aware of, they can't then cry for help when the proverbial hits the fan. If you take a risk, prepare for it - ensure you are financially stable before giving up work (savings, well-paid career you can go back to, property, etc).

If however women choose to give up work to raise the kids without even trying to see if their partner is prepared to do that instead, or to split things evenly, things won't change.

Right, sure, of course women don't even try to get their partners to take up their share of the unpaid work.

By 'instead' I meant the woman keeps on working and the father becomes the SAHP.

So "or split things evenly" was a typo?

@PrincessNutNutRoast

Many women are capable of carefully considering their financial status and making sensible decisions.

And yet, when it comes to the issue of marriage, so many don't!

Yes and that’s their choice. It’s not an automatic meal ticket. Women with children do not have to get married and that’s not automatically a poor choice.

Yesand that’s their choice. It’s not an automatic meal ticket. Women with children do not have to get married and that’s not automatically a poor choice.

Of course it's not always a poor choice not to marry; that's one very important reason why it needs to be opt in and not something you could passively drift into over time. It very frequently is the best choice, though, and yet so many women remain woefully uninformed and think that they have various protections without it, when they haven't.

Which is why I would like to see much more education on this. Not because I think women should marry or shouldn't marry, but so that they can make an informed choice...which includes realising what a man is doing when, for example, he encourages her to become a SAHM or move into his house without marrying her.

I mean, this very thread was started because an OP did not understand why marriage is so often encouraged on here, and even used the phrase "financials aside", as if those aren't the entire point of the thing! And then on to how it doesn't define "emotional commitment", which from context I take to mean "won't stop your relationship from failing". It's not that this isn't true, it's that it's missed the point by a mile. The entire point is to protect you if the relationship does go tits up, or someone dies!

This is why we need education on this. Because it's nearly 2021, and women on this website, of all places, still think we can put "financials aside" on the issue of marriage, and that the point of it is to contract love!

@PrincessNutNutRoast

I mean, this very thread was started because an OP did not understand why marriage is so often encouraged on here, and even used the phrase "financials aside", as if those aren't the entire point of the thing! And then on to how it doesn't define "emotional commitment", which from context I take to mean "won't stop your relationship from failing". It's not that this isn't true, it's that it's missed the point by a mile. The entire point is to protect you if the relationship does go tits up, or someone dies!

This is why we need education on this. Because it's nearly 2021, and women on this website, of all places, still think we can put "financials aside" on the issue of marriage, and that the point of it is to contract love!

You've completely missed the point. I was asking what else I should be considering, other than financials as I already have that covered!!

I've got my answer.

You've completely missed the point. I was asking what else I should be considering, other than financials as I already have that covered!!

No, you missed the point. The point of marriage is the financials. Now it may be that marriage isn't in your best interests personally, but the point is still the financials. That's what you need to consider in deciding if it's your best choice. The financials, and how they may change if you have kids. Because that's what marriage is about!

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother agree- so often on mn the tale is all about marriage is “protection” as if every woman was a sahm with a high earning dh. That’s not the reality for many women. Some don’t have children, some earn more than their dp and so on.

There are various tax breaks for married couples too, including inheritance tax. You may want to look into that, OP. There's a threshold so you'd want to look at whether your estate would exceed it. But the IHT exemption could also mean that if one of you dies, there's more to leave to your children when the surviving partner dies too.

I've known a few couples who were happily unmarried and each person financially independent, but decided to get married for the tax breaks after they had a meeting with a solicitor. I'd say it's certainly worth looking into.

I think pp have summed it up and given you ideas of different situations to look at re your rights and financial scenarios.
To me marriage isn't a piece of paper and it is so much more than that. For us it's a religious sacrament. Most Mumsnetters don't mention this is one of the main reasons why people get married also. As well as all the other reasons x