Is it antifeminist to promote marriage

[HumanWrites]

instead of encouraging women to separately set up all the legal protections they believe marriage confers? It could be cheaper and more effective.

This.

So basically a marriage but you aren't calling it that.

I think the idea that to be a feminist you have to commit to sending your kids to paid care by other women, so you can keep doing paid work, pretty stupid, and anti-mother. And if you pit feminism against being a mother the former will always lose, on a societal level.

If society needs more protections for caregiving parents when a marriage fails that's what they need to pay attention to, not making it financially impossible for families to care for their own kids by subsidizing all parents in paid employment.

That has never really been about mothers, it's about boosting GDP.

I'm not invested enough in the word feminist to argue over it though, if it's going to be get rid of the nuclear family and all adults in paid employment, I am happy to leave it to those who think that would be great.

I think the idea that to be a feminist you have to commit to sending your kids to paid care by other women, so you can keep doing paid work, pretty stupid, and anti-mother.
That's quite an extreme characterisation of how to be a feminist

I think its about giving families the structure and support that means they can best choose what suits their individual context. Thereby minimising the number of women stuck in abusive relationships they can't afford to leave, or having to work in poorly paid jobs because that's all that fits round childcare.

Men need to be stepping up too.

I don’t think anyone’s saying that. We’re saying women should have genuine choices - affordable childcare if they choose to use it, a culture of equal parenting so the drudge work doesn’t fall solely on women, more flexible working arrangements, and affordable housing so if people do choose to be a SAHP it can be achieved on one wage. Perhaps child benefit also needs overhauling so it gives more financial support in the early years and less for older kids, again to give people parenting choices. Opting out of the workforce long term though isn’t good for anyone, particularly women, unfortunately we live in a capitalist society and until we don’t, there isn’t a better way for someone to become financially independent and secure except through paid work.

The best protection is to fight for more affordable childcare and for families in which both parents work. Don't ever give up your job for marriage

Or we could fight for better protections for mothers and mothers who choose to be SAHMs?

Increasingly housing seems to be absolutely key to all of this. If we want to talk about 'choice' then focus on housing affordibility rather than childcare.

Increasingly, I think the conservative feminism of Mary Harirngton is worth considering.

As I recall it the argument was that the helplessness of human babies and their dependence on maternal support, meant that women were more programmed towards monogamy. Men for whatever reason, do not have this programming.

So the commitments made in marriage - particularly in an era where women are not trapped in marriage for life - do offer a degree of protection. I think her argument was that women's greater vulnerability meant taking care to choose a man who would take commitment seriously.

There's a younger woman I know who is currently having a really hard time because her high-earning husband is not giving her much support, and they have demanding small children. (Part of me really feel that she may have not made the best choice according to Harrington's criteria.) But I have reminded myself that if she gets really fed up, a good divorce lawyer will at least ensure a decent settlement.

What protection could be given? A single income is unlikely to be enough to support two households if they split, so where would the extra money come from to support the non-working parent who hasn't worked for years so is likely to struggle to find a well enough paying job to support themselves?

If you mean things like making wills, or making you the beneficiary of a pension, then you're depending on the other person not to change it without telling you.

And really only very privileged women can make a genuine choice to be a SAHM. Either they have a high earning husband or independent wealth, familial wealth etc. How many working class women who stay at home and claim UC and have a husband earning the national average wage or below, do you think are really a SAHP through choice? Could it be that even both their wages together wouldn’t leave enough left over to live on once they paid for childcare? That’s why affordable childcare is important, as well as housing. Yes, perhaps lower earning women would still choose to stay home even if childcare was more accessible but at least there’d be options for when she did want to return to work.

As I recall it the argument was that the helplessness of human babies and their dependence on maternal support, meant that women were more programmed towards monogamy. Men for whatever reason, do not have this programming.

This is one argument, rooted in the same gender norms that suggest men are "programmed" to spread their seed. Research into humans and other primates suggests its more complicated than that, and that theory is heavily influenced by Victorian ideals of womanhood and chastity.

In any case humans are an extremely adaptable species and there are indicators that the culture we experience is more important than genetic programming in how we interact with each other.

I distrust anyone who claims innate differences in men's and women's behaviour. It rarely stands up to scientific scrutiny.

If the gov can pay for childcare, why can't they pay mothers directly?

Omg really?

• because the man could take that money and the woman will have even less chance of independence
• because the woman could use the money for all sorts and neglect her children
• because it gives no options to mothers who have to work (single parents for example)
• because it doesn't encourage men to be more involved with parenting
• because it costs more to administer
• because it makes it easier to defraud the government
• because it will be really unpopular with child free voters who won't want to pay for others to have babies

Just off the top of my head

In our current society, it would encourage even more women to make decisions that are good for them in the short term and bad for them in the medium to long term.

When it comes down to it, being a mother is not enough work over the course of a lifetime. Women as a class have always done far more than look after the kids and setting society up to prioritise that role in a way that lessens women's liklihood to be engaged in other production is really damaging for us.

I think it is yes but that civil partnershipa are the way to go

Even with actively setting everything up for equality and financial independence between DP and myself, we will still get stuck for inheritance tax if one of us dies as can't pass assets, and there's no way round that other than civil partnership or marriage.

There's no other financial disadvantages though, apart from widows pension, if you make the effort to protect yourself.

So it's for their own good, because we can't trust women to make the best choices for themselves?

What if what is often called a 'gap' on a CV was actually a time that was valued by employers?

I consider a mother to most likely be someone who is organised, capable and dedicated. I don't see child rearing years as a 'gap', but as valuable experience.

Why is it that 'production' is the only thing that's valued?

How is it 'damaging' for women to prioritise motherhood?

What’s that woman going to do though when the kids are teenagers or adults? It’s perfectly reasonable for her spouse not to want to financially support another adult beyond the child rearing years. And if the spouse decides to leave and that woman has no recent employment experience or earning power? Sure, if the spouse is a high earner the divorce settlement might see her right but what if they’re not, and there aren’t any assets to divide? Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society and the best way to ensure security and independence is through work

She can go back to work? Why on earth would you imagine she'll stop working forever?

Higher paid roles tend to require up to date knowledge and experience, rather than just being "organised, capable and dedicated" and to live comfortably as a single mother if your relationship breaks down you're going to need to earn as much as you can.

Working or not working isn't a judgement of any individual - it's purely practical. A woman who continues earning will find leaving a bad relationship and supporting her children on her own much easier than one who has stopped working or stepped back in their career.

Possibly extreme but I am responding to a post that said precisely that.

If both parents would rather work that is one thing, but the idea that they ought to work and it is anti-feminist to say otherwise, because it makes them financially vulnerable is a complete abdication of the responsibility that society has to make room for the fact that women are more often in a childcaring role for reasons connected with their female body. And to protect them when they take on that role (and by extension any men that take on that role as well.)

It's also never going to be really successful, because there will always be families where a parent has to become a caregiver because of things like medical problems.

I don't think marriage per se is anti-feminist, and there are things you can do to challenge its patriarchal traditions eg. retaining family name and title etc.
I do however think most wedding ceremonies are steeped in sexism. I made sure to challenge this at my own wedding. Example: my father didn't walk me down the aisle, didn't throw a bouquet, made a speech etc.

It is actually possible to get work after your kids grow up.

But I am not sure why it matters whether the husband (or perhaps sometimes the wife) doesn't want to support the child-rearing spouse after a divorce. That's what he signed up for, or would if we had the kinds of laws that demanded that.

I find the demand that men step up on the one hand, and then this sort of excusing on the other, a very odd combination.

Try asking without taking one fraction of a quote out of context.