Anti-marriage feminist. Should I marry for money/tax reasons?

[Thund4rcat]

*Trigger warning for sensitive content"

I am 36 and have been in a committed relationship with DP for 3 years. We have a shared mortgage where I own 1/3 of our flat because he put more in. We are doing IVF as both desperate for a baby and suffer MFI. I earn a good wage, but he earns a lot more and has a lot of property. If I get pregnant I hope to be a SAHM as long as possible. I love him very much and plan to be with him forever.

I was brought up feminist and anti-marriage. I expect in this forum I don't need to explain the misogynistic history of marriage but the main sticking point for me, since being a victim of repeated rape in a previous relationship myself, is that marital rape only became illegal in England in the 1990s. Not ancient history. Too recent for me to be OK with joining a club that condoned that.

DP wants to get married for romantic reasons but isn't pushy about it and understands my reasons not to. I wish we could have a civil partnership but we are different sexes so it's not legal here and even if I did that abroad it wouldn't be recognised here.

However, should I put my feminist reservations aside and marry him because of the benefit of inheritance tax? Any other possible benefit? Am I cutting my nose off to spite my face? Should I marry him in secret and hide my shame of becoming a traitor to feminism???

@uncreative unfortunately non-UK civil partnerships are only recognised in the UK if you are a same-sex couple :'(

@johnnyfinland my ambition wasn't to find a man, but a partner of either sex, who earned enough that I could be the SAHP. I don't see how being a SAHP is unfeminist. I also don't see why my pension should suffer if I am providing unpaid contributions to the family home through childcare. I do see it as unfeminist to consider childcare less of a contribution to a partnership/family than earning a wage from an employer.

i would not have DC outside of marriage again. This becomes even more important if you will be SAHM

But from a purely financial perspective it is less of a contribution, and you seem reluctant to support yourself from your savings during the period you stay at home. I just don’t understand the mentality from any adult that it’s anyones responsibility but their own to financially support themselves. I am also anti-marriage, for some of the reasons you mentioned but primarily because I never want to merge my finances with someone else, and I’d still feel the same if I was going to have kids or if my partner earned more. It feels completely ideologically wrong to me to not take responsibility for myself

I felt much the same, OP. We held out for 8 years, and had the financial side of things reasonably well tied up. (It helped that we both work for employers who make it easy to nominate cohabiting partners for the same death in service benefits and pension rights as spouses, and that we aren't worth more than the IHT threshold!). What eventually persuaded us to the register office was becoming tired of how effortful it was to have others recognise what our relationship was to each other, in a society that's stuck on the simple shorthand of marriage = committed, not married = haven't decided yet. The final straw was filling in the forms at the IVF clinic and having to tick "single" because it was the only alternative to "married".

We had a simple register office ceremony, with our parents as the only guests (our mothers were witnesses so that they at least appeared on the register somewhere), and didn't really bother telling anyone else about it as we were changing nothing about our relationship or life together. We already wore rings which we had given each other when we made our mutual commitment to each other years before. Neither of us changed our name (though Christmas cards from MIL now come addressed to Mrs HisName, grrr). I refer to him as my partner probably more often than husband and he only uses the "wife" word when he wants to wind me up.

Thundercat,

Being a SAHP is making a contribution, but the logical way to value it is ‘replacement value’.

So, maybe (at most) 40k per annum, which is the level where you could provide high quality childcare for when you would be working.

The idea that staying at home is worth half a high salary is just not right.

If people are valued only through financial contributions then that is very sad.

@larrygrylls I disagree. It might only cost £40k to provide high quality childcare but that's because in our patriarchal society traditionally "women's work" such as childcare is undervalued. I believe it should be valued as much as a high salary.

So presumably you also think childminders, nannies and nursery workers should be paid huge salaries? I would agree that they’re underpaid but no, parenting in the home is not equal to earning a high salary. It’s a financial outlay for the working partner who let’s not forget also has to pay all living costs and things for their kids on top of the upkeep of another adult

Johnnyfinland

But many familes don't function like that.

Being a SAHM allowed my OH to work longer more flexible hours, to travel, to advance his career.
Knowing that his children were being cared for.

We are a team.
We put in equal effort.

@johnnyfinland Exactly, I do think childminders, nursery workers etc should be paid high salaries. Everybody should. I am a socialist feminist because I don't think feminism is possible without socialism precisely because of the undervaluing or non-payment of "women's work" that allows capitalism to function.

I think we need to re-evaluate the race to the top.

In an ideal world parents with small children would work part time, both men and women, allowing children to be cared for at home, and a rethink of the whole working structure to allow for decent salaries and career progression with part time employment.

Patriarchy favours those without child care responsibilities to thrive.
Those individuals who never take time off, can work late at the drop of a hat, to fly off to Dublin with no notice for a meeting. These people are usually men. ( And I use my OH as an example here)

It's the system that is fucked.

I also had a job that required overtime with zero notice, lots of travel, very long hours.

Having OH and I both continue in our careers was not going to work. Part time was absolutely not possible.

So I jacked in my career.
Played the game to some extent, but finding some way to make family life work was our priority. And I didn't want to use me or my kids as a battering ram to fight the system.
As it happens my time at home allowed me far more opportunities and major re-thinks than I had dreamed of.

I have chosen to remain a part time worker- even though my youngest is 18 and lives in University accommodation.

Thundercat,

Take your pick of total communism vs total capitalism or anywhere in the middle, being a SAHP is ‘worth’ 40k or less.

In a capitalist society jobs that most can do are not paid particularly well. In a completely egalitarian society, everyone gets the average salary which is closer to 20k than 40k.

This is nothing to do with a ‘patriarchal, society. Builders, the military, firemen etc, all male dominated professions, are not especially well paid either.

There are some very special flowers who believe marrying someone very wealthy and staying at home is somehow worth a large home in a nice area and an income for life. There is only one country in the world that agrees with them and that is England, which is why London is the ‘divorce capital of the world’. However this was probably won’t last that much longer (look at Scotland).

That is definitely not correct under Scots law. Perhaps English law is different

Yes, English & Welsh law is different

I'm still not sure that the statement made earlier that the OP's flat acquired before her marriage and which is not the used as the matrimonial home goes into the matrimonial pot is correct.

Professor Google doesn't support it.

Matrimonial assets are those assets that are acquired by either one or both spouses during the marriage.

www.solomonslaw.co.uk/divorce-settlements-classed-matrimonial-assets/

This is how I see marriage.
Marriage for me is an insurance. It’s a partnership between two people, a financial, emotional and practical partnership and support.
Because if that, it means that if one partner can’t work anymore, whatever the reason, they still have a safety net.
It means that when things get tough, you have a support system in place, at hand, emotionally and practically.
And because of that, it also means you can support each other. So for example, one partner can stay at home and look after a child, having more input in the family sphere than the other whilst the other will work and have more input in the financial side. Meaning that the person who stays at home doesn’t loose out financially. And the one who works doesn’t loose in the family sphere (as in their dc is cared the way they want them to be cared for).

What is would NEVER do is to be a SAHP and stop working wo been married. It’s much much too dangerous for the person who stays at home unless their partner is happy to divide EVERYTHING in half. Ownership of the house, savings, spendings etc etc. Which of course is much less likely to happen and much more heavy to manage.

On the top of it, it’s likely that if the man is the high earner, they will only be able to do that IF they are supported by their dw. Travel, longer hours, flexibility or simply not to have to also think about all the responsibilities at home, means that it’s their partner who is expected to pick up the slack.
I wouldnt agree to be a facilitator to their working life, the manager of the house AND also Not Get some ‘reward’ for all the hard work and the sacrifices coming with it because I’m not married.

I would agree that they’re underpaid but no, parenting in the home is not equal to earning a high salary. It’s a financial outlay for the working partner who let’s not forget also has to pay all living costs and things for their kids on top of the upkeep of another adult

And?? The working parent also have the chance of not having to think about what happens at home, they know they don’t need to worry abiut little Johnny cold because someone is there to handle it (and no it’s not the same than a Cm or a nanny looking after them).
The working parent or rather the man gets to have his working life/life facilitated by their partner.
In return they look after said person financially.

The other issue i have is what if the partner is getting ill and can’t work anymore. Should the working partner just ditch them because they cant work and have become another financial outlay??
It’s not just about being a SAHP. It’s about getting some financial security, an insurance that actually protects BOTH partners, not just the woman.

And that’s even before wondering if you equate a relationship just to its financial side of course.

But does it actually work? Even within marriages, the earning partner can still keep the money to themselves by not allowing access to bank accounts etc (I’m not saying that’s right, but as we see frequently on threads on here, it happens).

Genuine question, if your spouse is withholding money from you, can you take them to court for access to it without actually divorcing?

That is definitely not correct under Scots law. Perhaps English law is different

Professor Google doesn't support it.

Financial relief law for divorces in E&W is....complicated. On the one hand, there is the requirement that settlements are fair with a presumption of a 50/50 division as a starting position, but also E&W Courts have too a, possibly conflicting, consideration as to the needs (especially their housing needs) of each of the parties - so if there isn't enough matrimonially acquired assets to deal with these needs, the courts have absolutely no problem looking to the other assets of the parties - see the link

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/guidance-on-financial-needs-on-divorce-june-2016-2.pdf (I've only glanced at it so just see the footnote at the bottom of page 23.

That way each party gets a house to live in -.

so if there isn't enough matrimonially acquired assets to deal with these needs, the courts have absolutely no problem looking to the other assets of the parties - see the link

Yes - I saw that. It still doesn't support the blanket statement on this thread that the OP's flat automatically goes into the matrimonial pot.

At the time of my post, the OP had disclosed that there was the jointly owned property that that they lived in (so what would become in the event of a divorce, the former matrimonial home) and a flat that she had acquired in her sole name before the relationship. As I stated in my post, that this addition to the pot would be to a 'lesser or greater extent', so I stand by my comment. Even without taking any other factor such as 'needs' into account then any increase (or decrease for that matter) in value of the flat (usually since the point of co-habitation to the date of the final settlement) would be put very firmly into the settlement algorithm.

I am an accountant and I have had two clients who have regretted not being married. One helped her partner build a successful business (50:50 commitment, plus she looked after the kids a lot more than he did) but she only owned 10% of the business, and when they split that's all she got. The other is 70-odd and she's struggling to keep the house because of the inheritance tax she has to pay on it, plus she gets none of his pension.

my ambition wasn't to find a man, but a partner of either sex, who earned enough that I could be the SAHP.

This is your life ambition... and you're a feminist

@Tacolover are you suggesting it's unfeminist to want to dedicate your life to raising children?! I don't see how that's a problem.

One of the main reasons OH and I got together was because we wanted children- and I was happy to be a SAHM. He was happy to financially support us.

How is that unfeminist?

I'm don't think it's unfeminist to want to dedicate your life to raising children. It think it's a bit weird to have your life ambition as finding someone rich enough to support your chosen lifestyle.