Criticisms of marriage

[JosieRosie]

Since it's 29 Feb and all....

There's a very interesting thread open at the moment about all the patronising rubbish that goes with 29 Feb and women being 'allowed' to propose to men for one day only. There's quite a bit of anti-marriage feeling on that thread - most of which I share! - so just wanted to open it up a bit.

What bugs you about marriage? What makes you not want to be a part of it? What do you regret getting married/having been married?

Disclaimer - if you are married/getting married/hope to be married one day and are happy about it, good for you. I'm genuinely happy for you. However, not everyone shares this view and I would like to hear some different views on why marriage is a bad idea as far as some are concerned

Full disclosure - I am very pro civil partnerships and fully support the Equal Love campaign for civil marriage to be made available to gay couple and civil partnerships to be made open to hetero couples. I didn't mention that from the start on another thread and got flamed for it!

If you put the child into childcare, then someone is doing that work, only this time it's visible and paid.

I said STOPPING. Not ensuring that it gets done. Leaving it up to men to ensure it gets done. Stopping.

Basil "leaving it up to men to ensure it's done" - I live in a partnership where we have equal responsibility for childcare arrangements (and when they break down). This "mother's strike" idea and fighting for recognition has a very 1950s classical gender role feel to me.

And as long as we live in a system where childcare costs mean that non-working is financially better for many families than working I think suggesting to increase incentives to stay at home by paying for it should be very much to the bottom of priorities - if anything, financially recognising SAHP-ing would lead to further disincentivising of going out to work, and possibly striving for a career. We have thankfully left the days behind where women had their employment terminated as result of marriage, I don't think I want to go back there.

Morning everyone. I am a bit ill today so bear with me if I ramble a bit.

Widow, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that people should be SAHPs. But the point is that even when both parents work, there is nearly always one parent whose career is very much secondary to the other's because of child-caring responsibilities - the one who takes the time off at short notice for a sick child, the one who goes in an hour late because of the dental appointment, etc. Again, this is nearly always the woman. And while there are exceptions where there is a much better balance, and there are even gender reversals, this is NOT the case for the vast majority.

You could argue that we should just get more men doing this. I don't think that will ever happen. You can't undo the biological fact that only women conceive, gestate, labour and lactate. In many cases a new mother will want to be the primary care giver. There is a biological imperative for her to do so that is hormonally drive and it just doesn't apply to men. They can duplicate it through will, but how many will?

Even in those cases where the man may want to be the main caregiver and the woman wants to return to work, that may not be possible for practical reasons (e.g. the demands of expressing if a mother wants to exclusively breast feed, which isn't always easy and doesn't always work) not to mention that until paternity leave is identical to maternity leave we don't stand a chance of getting more male primary caregivers. (And the article Basil posted shows that some men may not use paternity leave for the purpose it was intended anyway).

So basically, unless we want to radically change our society, we are always going to have a situation where one parent's life is disproportionately affected by parenthood. For the reasons I've given above, I think this will be largely women and we'll never achieve anything remotely approaching 50/50. Nor do I think women should be forced into giving up their primary carer status in the name of equality. Instead, I'd rather the worth of what they do be recognised and compensated for. There are so many ways this can be done - it only requires political will and the the recognition that "women's work" is actually a valuable and vital part of a healthy economy that facilitates everything else.

Before puberty I announced I would never marry or have children. Adults laughed. And I am now 53 and still stand by it. It seemed to me to be a trap for women. And nowadays it makes me cringe to see women changing their names, I really cannot bear it. Even if it is a helluva faff to change the surname on a million cards and documents they still do it! Why? I could never get married, I'd feel that the man "owned" me. And I could not possibly promise sexual fidelity for the rest of my life, either -- I enjoy a variety and anyway what happens when the old man isn't up to it any more?

sunshineandbooks - I think recognising "the primary carer" status (instead of doing something like introducing equality and choice when it comes to deciding who is looking after the children in the first few months) will only reinforce the idea that a mother's (or even just woman's) place is in the home. I see that as a huge step back.

If people don't get it right in their relationships to arrange that parents take equal responsibility for their children, that cannot be solved by incentivising people to stay at home. But the opposite is really what needs to be done.

I don't think breastfeeding is an argument for mothers staying at home instead of going out to work. I know plenty of women including myself, whose breastfeeding has not stopped them from working full time (in one case from 2 weeks post birth).

If you believe that it is a radical change to think that parents decide between them who's taking that day off short notice because the child is poorly etc according to who can squeeze it into their diary more easily, I'm more radical than I thought. I thought that that was just normal shared parenting.

Recognising housewifes, which is what you propose, also will just put more pressure unto women in the shape of "how can you be so selfish to want a career instead of looking after the bairns". I don't want a woman's role as primary carer protected - because it's just a shackle to tie women down with.

As for Basil's article saying that men don't use their maternity leave not for the intended purpose - do women do it in general? At what point is it not used for the intended purpose? How much training/exams/time spent without your children are you allowed before it turns into not doing it right? The current approach to maternity leave in the UK is still deeply deeply sexist and holding women back.

Widow, you've only got to look at the statistics about maternity/paternity leave and the gender pay gap to see that women most emphatically are not achieving shared parenting with their partners. How you can say that shared parenting is the norm is beyond me.

Your whole argument works on the premise that the role of primary carer is undesirable. Clearly many men agree with you, but I think many women would disagree. Your view is that it is conforming to gender stereotypes and represents loss of a woman's autonomy, status and financial independence. Currently, you're right. But why should you be? Why should something so important and necessary be considered low status? Is it the actual role that is wrong, or simply the value society puts on it? I think the latter. You don't, fair enough but I disagree.

I would argue that if we could raise the status of childcaring, and protect the financial interests of those who do it, it would become much more attractive to men. That would do far more to encourage a greater gender balance than telling women that if they don't negotiate a fairer split with their partners then it's all their own fault.

FWIW, I breastfed my DTs and returned to work within a month - but not without some considerable cost. At one point I was working at 2am on my laptop wearing an electronic double breast pump attached via a bra I'd cut two holes in. Given that breastfeeding is such a natural thing for mother and baby, I think a society that requires a mother to jump through hoops like that simply in order to keep her job is a society that has devalued motherhood. And I say that as a woman who has possibly the world's best boss who has never quibbled about my taking time off for my DC. The reality for a lot of women is a lot worse and simply horrific.

As an aside, 50/50 parenting (quite aside from the fact that it happens very, very rarely) is not financially viable for most couples since two parents adopting this approach will nearly always end up earning less than when one parent takes on the status of breadwinner and the other primary carer.

Women have children. Women breast feed. Some women want to stay at home and care for their OWN children. Some women want to be able to return to work without an insurmountable setback to their career. In a modern, civilised society that values women and men equally, all these things should be possible. Currently they are not. If you disagree, please explain why you think the 14% of the 14.9% gender pay gap is irrelevant and why every single study out there shows that women are still performing more than their fair share of all domestic duties. Women cannot change this simply by insisting men "do their fair share". To say they can is victim-blaming IMO.

Yes I hate this idea that the only reason men don't do their fair share of parenting and domestic work, is because the women involved are too incompetent to negotiate a better deal.

It lets men off the hook for their exploitative behaviour, it totally ignores the structure of the workplace and home, the subliminal assumptions people have without realising they do, the subtle change in the balance of power between men and women when women have babies and the systemic sexism in society which is still there.

It's not really a feminist stance IMO. Any stance which assumes that structural sexism has been solved, is not feminist.

Who has said that it's the woman's fault for not negotiating a better deal? Or that structural sexism has been solved? It very much hasn't. And that's why the idea of paying mum to stay at home (and that's what it would end up being if you're being realistic) is such a bad one in my opinion.

I'm just saying that "recognising SAH-ing" would do nothing to change the status quo, but rather reinforce it. If anything, it would make one parent staying at home even more financially better than 2 working parents. I just can't see the logic how it would close the gender pay gap to incentivise not working, when it already is traditionally still the woman who is more likely to give up work.

I actually don't have a problem with 'marriage' in the sense of people wanting to make a public commitment to each other and have a party to celebrate this. I think it's nice. Celebrating happiness is a good thing to do..
But I'm not so keen on the obsession with heteromonogamy as the only way to arrange your life.
I mean, our family works fine despite there being no marriage and no couple-relationship between me and DS' dad. We are amiable co-parents and always have been. DS also has three loving grandparents, aunts and uncles on both sides, and various family friends who have been constant in his life, so he's a happy, confident child.

Heteromonogamous marrige is not, in itself, any guarantee of happiness, stability or safety. Don't forget that two women a week are murdered by their partners.

This is a great thread - too many excellent comments to say things about individually, but SGB's in particular have made me smile, groan and nod vociferously. I say this as someone who has always been deeply critical of the institution of marriage for many of the reasons already listed, but who nonetheless got married on Friday, a lunchtime quickie in jeans with only our witnesses present, and rings drawn on one another with the town hall registrar's pen. (I will say the registrar was a bit taken aback, but was cool with it.)

I've been with my lovely partner for twenty years, and this was done purely because our first baby is due in a couple of weeks, and it seemed the least bureacracy-heavy way of ensuring certain legal things before that, though we did seriously consider having a solicitor draw up a document that would ensure these without actually having to marry - we would have contracted a civil partnership like a shot if allowed, as it hasn't the same misogynistic cultural baggage.

We do both view is as a purely legal hoop through which we're both rather annoyed we had to jump in the course of a very happy, equal relationship - the certificate is hidden in a drawer somewhere, we haven't told anyone we did it (witnesses sworn to secrecy), and no one is changing anyone's name - the baby will have both names.

we are married for pure legal reasons. we live abroad and having children gives us a little extra protection. it would be very difficult, and much more expensive than our registry office wedding, to achive the same through wills.
we were committed and happy before. this piece of paper doesn't do anything for our relationship otherwise.

My main problem with marriage and, yes, apart from the legal side being different (obviously) I do include long-term cohabitation here, is the soul-destroying loss of individuality that comes with it. The way that being married can deny access to the rights that single people have. For example, should somebody's income stream dry up (as did my self-employed friend ) they will be denied certain benefits because of spouse's income. He earns a lot but is a bastard and her life is awkward at the moment because she is financially dependent upon him. But that is not all apparently even 'living as married' counts, too.
Marriage is a con. A big fat con. Good for bringing up children they say, but, you know, I think a lot of that is b.s., too.
It suits the patriarchal society because it can exercise all kinds of methods to keep women in their 'place': be they social and -as in the example above- financial all wrapped up in a neat package of 'romance' bolstered by all manner of crap like the wedding industry.

But, please, I don't want to hear any nonsense about 'civil partnerships' for heterosexuals being better: legally they are identical to marriage and there is no difference at all in that respect. And if living together, who really gives a monkey's as regards whether a couple are 'civilly-partnered' or married? Nobody that is who.
As for it being 'different' for a civilly-partnered couple as opposed to a married couple, no it won't make any difference at all. They will live as they live and the legal status is not relevant.

Having said all the above, I do understand that it is necessary for a couple who wish to be tied in a legal sense to actually get married, I've no time for cohabitee rights; the authorities aren't mind readers, if a couple do wish to go down the route of being recognised as a couple by the authorities than they have to get married because, in the event of death or separation, there is no real way of knowing if they were a couple or not.

"My main problem with marriage and, yes, apart from the legal side being different (obviously) I do include long-term cohabitation here, is the soul-destroying loss of individuality that comes with it. The way that being married can deny access to the rights that single people have. For example, should somebody's income stream dry up (as did my self-employed friend ) they will be denied certain benefits because of spouse's income. He earns a lot but is a bastard and her life is awkward at the moment because she is financially dependent upon him. But that is not all apparently even 'living as married' counts, too."

So you reckon that someone should be able to claim benefits even if their partner they live together and share a household with is more than able to support a family? I'd find it crazy if public money went to couples or families with a high earner, whose income can meet their bills. Where do you draw the line?

People are taxed as individuals so there is a basic unfairness there.

To be honest, I would abolish marriage and the concept of it. People should b e seen as individuals all their life
If they wish to cohabit, up to them, but each individual is treated as a person in their own right. If they split, they get NOTHING apart from what they've paid for. OK, no maintenance payments because divorce would not exist.

Marriage is THE tool of a patriarchal system. The main cause of female oppression. Women may work and pay taxes as individuals, but if in a family unit, her man can support her. Nothing short of state-sponsored prostitution. Got a man? If you fall on hard times (or not) he can support you.

So you think it would be a good idea to create a massive loophole in which a couple may decide to have one SAHP who is regarded as individual and can claim benefits, regardless of what the WOHP earns? Which would lead to weird discrepancies, where a household with a single earner income would still be entitled to benefits, whilst one with a double earner income wouldn't, even if the joint income of the double earners is lower and the costs through childcare may be higher? If there was ever a disincentive to go out to work, that would be it.

It's not about it being a 'good idea' or not-if it is an inevitable consequence of treating people as individuals in their own right and not an appendage of another adult, so be it.
As long as marriage exists (or the treatment of long-term cohabitees 'as married'. And this is why I think the campaign for civil partnerships for heterosexuals is pointless- straight people in civil partnerships will STILL be treated as 'married' by the state. Remember, the point of CP's is that it they offer legal equality of marriage. As for the idea of heterosexuals behaving differently if civilly-partnered and not married or long-term cohabiting, Really? Sorry, if the opening poster is going to treat her partner differently because of her legal relationship to him, then she is really kidding herself.), then I think feminism has not yet succeeded.

Why should a human being be treauated as financially dependent upon another adult because of a sexual relationship?! We're still in the f--ing dark ages.

I often read threads here about women being 'feminist' because they keep their own name, not given away etc; to me, this is like arranging the chairs on the Titanic. It's marriage itself that is shit-the fripperies surrounding it are not really the problem.

That's one of the most bonkers things I've read in a long time. So you reckon that cohabiting people who yield all kinds of savings through joint expenses compared to single people, should still be treated as individuals when it comes to needs/entitlements to benefits?

WidowWadman, OK, so explain this to me: If two friends cohabit they are treated as individuals in their own right. If two lovers cohabit their income is combined as regards benefits. Now, in a lot of cases, the ONLY difference is a sexual relationship. So sex=financial support.
Being in a relationship=assumed financial support. If that doesn't make women angry, then are they really feminists? Not in my book.

I've lived in shared flats with friends. We shared the rent and other bills related to the flat, but nothing else. No joint meals, laundry, shower gel, whatever. Completely different relationship to cohabiting with your partner or not. And sex had nothing to do with it.

Also, I've financially supported my husband when he was unemployed, without finding that unfair, and when I was on SMP he of course increased his relative contribution to the joint expenses. When one of us loses their income or has their income vastly reduced by circumstances, the other helps. Nothing to do with sex, but just the give and take in a working relationship, I think it's called "sharing".

I don't understand why the idea of sharing what you have with your partner makes you angry. And I don't understand how you think that treating people as individuals always would help anyone? If your idea became true, financially abusive partners would have even more reason to be so, after all the other one is getting benefits.

All you're proposing is shifting financial dependence from being dependent on one's partner to being dependent on the public purse. That's not empowering, but the opposite.

No, WidowWadman, in some cases, lovers are just friends with benefits.

As for financially abusive partners, I personally cannot see anything more likely to PROMOTE financial abuse than denying a person an income (i.e. benefits which are paltry) because they've got a partner!!! An abusive partner would use this to further abuse.

As for the public purse, ha! People are taxed as individuals, they should bloody well be treated as 'individuals' when they need support!

Did the fight for smashing the cohabitation rule pass you by? 'Sharing' it is this wishy-washy attitude that has allowed the patriarchy to crush women. Do you seriously think that if more men were affected by cohabitation rule than women it would exist in first place?!

The male attitude would be: I paid my bloody taxes as an individual, f--- what my wife earns!! And quite right, too.

Do lovers who just are "friends with benefits" normally live together? If you don't have a shared household, things like shared household income don't apply.

If you want to be treated as an individual, then live as an individual.