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???

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)

But why don't more women demand an equal investment in childcare from their menfolk?

That's what I don't get.

There is no way in hell I'd give up my income and earning potential to be dependent on a man with or without marriage because marriage provides only a small safety net. Just look at all the threads on Relationships where he strolls off with OW after many years of marriage, the DCs are teens and the OP realises that she will have to give up her house either then or when he stops paying her maintenance. It's not marriage that is or is not the issue - it's sacrificing the potential for income.

But why don't more women demand an equal investment in childcare from their menfolk?

Because in doing so his job is jepordised.

A SAHMs livelihood is dependant on the career success of her man.

Many workplaces have little sympathy for employees leaving early or taking unplanned days off to look after children.

That's the way it is.
It's fucked- we know that, but I choose to make the best of a bad situation.

My DS had chronic ill health when he was at primary school. His attendance was never more than 80% at school.
What employer would be sympathetic to such large amounts of time off work?

It's a risk I was prepared to take.

Nothing is certain in life.

I am seriously struggling to understand how opting in to a set rights and protections in law is not the most feminist option in your circumstances.

DO NOT be an unmarried SAHM if you want to protect yourself.

Speakout and thundercat it’s unfeminist because seeking a partner to fund you taking on a childcare/housewife role is literally the definition of a patriarchal model.

The fact that you then said a SAHM’s “livelihood” depends on the career success of her man - so you’d rather let him take a back seat in all family responsibilities so you can spend more of his money, than work out how he can share that responsibility with you either through you both going part time or insisting he makes the career sacrifices so casually expected of a woman - is incredibly regressive and again the definition of a patriarchal model

Johnnyfinland

But it is better than any other options.

As I say the system is fucked.

I am not about to launch a one women crusade to change it.

I make the best of a bad situation- and that is a feminist choice.

Not every task in a family has to be shared 50/50.

As long as two people are both pulling their weight then it's fair.

Johnnyfinland

The idea of two parents working part time sounds good, but in the real world is not possible.

Part time workers are usually poorly paid, lack career progression, opportunities, promotion.

Career success favours those who work full time, prepared to give 120%, work late with no notice, travel at the drop of a hat.

If I thought that our family would be better off with OH and I both working part time then that would have been a serious option.

But we were better off financially having OH work his socks off in a good job and me taking up the slack in the home and childcare departments.

To decide whether something is a ‘feminist’ choice, you would have to define feminism, which is almost impossible. Some would say being a 1950’s style Stepford wife was a feminist choice if it was genuinely chosen by a woman as feminism should not restrict a woman’s choices. Others would disagree.

Better questions might concern whether it was either a sensible or a fair choice long term.

A sensible choice?

It was the best option.

A fair choice long term?

Definitely.

“The idea of two parents working part time sounds good, but in the real world is not possible.”

DH and I both work part time. He works 4 days, I work 3 days, and DS is in nursery 2 days. It’s not possible in every job but it is possible in many jobs. We are lucky but last time I checked we live in the real world!!

(AnotherEmma

As you say you are lucky.

My job or my OH's job would not tolerate part time work

Don’t make sweeping generalisations based on the assumption that all jobs are like yours.

I don't think it's unfeminist to want to devote one's life to bringing up children. But I do think it's somewhat unfeminist to start with an assumption that the woman should get to make that choice independently.

At a structural level, we will only fix disparities between men's earnings and women's earnings when men do their share of childcare, whether that's staying home, working part-time, earning less, or being supported financially by women. To put it another way, to get to 50/50 equality, 50% of women who have children in a relationship will have to not be the default SAHP. That's quite hard for a lot of women to get their heads round. But SAHP-ing continuing to default to the female doesn't do women any favours.

That's quite hard for a lot of women to get their heads round.

Must be their kitten heels.

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett

Equality- but only when you are defaulting to patriarchy.

That's no equality at all.

Having women default and being treated as men? You are duped.

I don't believe it's defaulting to patriarchy to state that childcare, in fact all caring, should to be shared equally amongst women and men. Interested to know why you think it is?

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett

Breastfeeding to term is one idea?

So arrange childcare to support breastfeeding and, of course, post-partum recovery while you're at it. What about the next 16 years? My own child has autism so requires quite a lot of support, more than an average 13 yo. But there's absolutely no reason why DH is less able to provide that care and support than I am.

(Actually we have a very traditional set-up where I do most of it. I'm not kidding myself that that was the most feminist choice I've ever made though.)

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett

I made a feminist choice within a non feminist set up.

I agree Lonny. It’s the exact opposite of patriarchy to say caring should be viewed as something that can be done by either sex. Otherwise we risk reverting back to a society where it’s assumed all women will stay at home and have to be either supported by their spouse or the state. That’s not a place I’d want to live in.

It’s not unfeminist to want to devote your life to child rearing, but the issue is who’s going to pay for it? If you find a willing spouse, fine, but if you don’t, then who picks up the tab? I don’t think it’s feminist or indeed sensible to directly or indirectly aspire to become financially dependent. That may not be the sole aim, but it’s a by-product

@johnnyfinland that is why I worked hard on my career, to get to a point where if I never found someone who could afford for me to be a SAHP, I could still afford to have kids comfortably. Thankfully I found someone who earns more than me, so I am able to be a SAHP for a couple of years (if our IVF ever works). I don't plan on it forever. Ideally until they are at school then work part-time. As you say, the desire is to parent, the requirement for my partner to earn decent money is a practical requirement for that lifestyle.