Heteromonogamy is really just another way to waste women's time, isn't it?

[solidgoldbrass]

All those books, articles, courses on how to Find The One, Make Him Commit, Keep It Exciting - keeping women occupied with the Perfect Relationship means they don't have time to do anything interesting with their lives.

Himalaya

It could be either A or B

and is probably more likely to be the C that swallow alluded to earlier - they are genuinely happy, because the set up genuinely does suit them, because that's how conditioning works.

Shit, I'm a mixture of A and C.

And again - I'm not saying that individual women in heterosexual, monogamous relationships are wasting their time (although some are).

The point being made (as solid has so well explained it) is about the aggregate effect on women's time, not about whether individual women are happy or not.

No, the balance isn't right. We should fix that too.

I am in the process of going through a divorce...I struggle to find a single aspect of marriage that provided me with any legal or financial protection.

I am not saying this to be confrontational...I just genuinely cannot come up with one benefit that marriage, has brought me.

Himalaya, I think there are women in both categories...but that more in 'B', than generally acknowledged/recognised....

Hmmm, maybe it doesn't provide any benefit, snowmama, I've never had to put it to the test. Would be interested to know what protections you thought you had that you didn't, or were you just credulous and lazy like me until it became an issue?

I'm less than keen on the automatic assumption that people who share a bed should be treated legally as a household - as per tax credits etc.

People should have the option to have sex with someone they share a house with and not have that officially recognised.

I have never assumed that it did provide any legal/financial protection - saw it more as a declaration of family.

...but constantly see it quoted on MN as to why marriage is a good thing.

None of those conditions are applicable to me....and I think it is relatively hard/rare to get spousal maintenance.

Yes in theory it means that.

That theory falls down when you know that the majority of absent parents don't pay a penny in maintenance for their children.

I suspect that most of the protections that marriage gives, are theoretical rather than actual.

....at my work those benefits are transferable to an unmarried named partner

My ex actually does pay his maintenance payments, but again that is not dependant on marriage.

...child maintenance I mean (sorry crazy multi posting)

I truly hope that all the people who that the OP is correct free themselves from these shackles, ditch their husband or partner and take up mountaineering. Be strong, have courage in your convictions; you can do it!!!

Ok so in your case that makes perfect sense, my ex would have got PR automatically, regardless of marital status (because of when they were born).

...and fundamentally that is his benefit, not necessarily mine.

i like the idea of being able to form a legal 'family' unit, but it not having to be the traditional form.

i've been struggling with the conflict of genuinely believing that children need stability & support, that it is easier for the adults if there's 2 of them, not 1, but still not wanting to feel obligated to live within the traditional family set-up.

i can actually see how 2 friends may want to live together, raise kids, then dissolve the family unit once the kids are older (i'm thinking 2 single mums, but not necessarily). that would provide some mutual support & stability without the need for HM. it would also mean that if one of them was a sahp, then they would need to define how that counted as economic input, so that when the union was dissolved, it would give a fair division.

atm, too often sahm suddenly find themselves facing greatly reduced income, having assumed that their contribution of raising kids & running the house was their input, in exchange for sharing the wealth of a working husband. then they discover that he gets to keep the lion share of his wealth, even if she continues to raise his kids for him.

the answer of us all being seen as individuals, therefore both parents having to work ft, does not give enough flexibility & actually just puts more pressure on the family unit, meaning that divorces are more likely. (imo)

Kickass, I hear what you are saying...but to both your points my personal preference would be different.

If I.had my time again I would have found a committed coparent who lived somewhere else (this is very theoretical because I suspect most men would prefer a traditional marriage to 50:50 childcare/all domestic work in seperate locations)......and I genuinely don't think 2 FT WOHM parents are more unhappy than the traditional set up.

Not sure if that fully makes sense...I should be asleep!

I remember that case. So yes inheritance tax is a benefit (assuming you own a property in the UK)

I have got a stable, happy set up for my DS' upbringing. It just doesn't involve a heteromonogamous relationship. DS dad and I do not live together but we are co-parents with a friendly attitude towards each other, DS dad makes a financial contribution, visits regularly, takes DS out regularly... we even have family outings now and again. There just isn't a heteromonogamous couple relationship (or any kind of sexual/romantic relationship) between the two of us. If we did try to pretend we're 'normal (we qare both single, were old drinking buddies and very-long-ago GF&BF) and move in together, it would all go horribly wrong in short order as we would get on each other's nerves massively.
This is one of the many things that pisses me off about the heteromonogamy cult - that because our family is free from heteromonogamy it is somehow inherently inferior to any and every heteromonogamous family, including ones being forcibly held together by domestic violence, or being messed up by addiction/abuse/repeated non-consensual breaches of monogamy.

Exactly, SGB ..in fact your set up sounds ideal to me....

...and whilst I would not have chosen the route I have taken to be a single mother headed household...I am very happy with the stable,calm, relaxed happy household that I live in with my children.

snowmama - but that kind of arrangement could apply to HM relationships as well, but allow other people the same kind of security, without having to be married to achieve it.

people can choose to declare 'we are a family' define who it consists of & how they will contribute, and also define how they will divide assets if/when the family unit changes/ends.

so a married couple could do all that, and redefine the situation once kids are grown. a gay couple could do it, just friends who choose to live together & raise a family, 2 sisters could do that.

if there were some security to it, it might encourage more stable relationships but without limiting that to only one kind of 'family' as defined by society/tradition.

i think that for some, not all, families, the option of having one parent stay at home for a while is a good one to have. the early years with kids is vv tiring, and if they need time more than money, then they should be able to pool their resources if that works for them. however, finances are heading towards every one being reliant upon themselves. there are many positives to that, but it does rather imply that all adults work all their lives, unless vv rich. which actually starts making it harder for some people.

i would just like to see some more flexibility and choice for the individuals without feeling trapped into a certain model, which may well not be the best one for them.

cutsoftheirtails - I don't understand about how aggregate effect on women's time works. Do you mean that individual women who are happy with the way they are using their time and emotional energy in their family ought to be using it in some other way (even if it would make them less happy..?) for the greater good of society? how would you decide?

how you use your time is personal - knitting or fishing would be a waste of my time. I'd rather just buy some fish and a jumper and do something else. But if someone enjoys fishing or knitting, who am I to say that they are squandering precious 'aggregate' human time and should be doing something else instead?

The idea of agregate time smacks of controlling structures and duties defined by others that I want to get away from. Surely every persons time should be their own, to commit in their own way. - into the relationships which suit them?