Éditions [France_____________] Rubriques * Page d'accueil * Culture * Économie + Entreprise * Éducation * Environnement + Énergie * International * Politique + Société * Santé * Science + Tech * Data * En anglais Recherche ____________________ (BUTTON) Services * Événements * Lettre électronique * Google Play Newsstand * À lire sur Flipboard Information * Ce que nous sommes * Notre charte * Notre équipe * Transparence financière * Nos partenaires * Directives sur la republication * Contactez-nous * Faites un don * Ami·e·s de The Conversation * Politique de confidentialité * Conditions générales * Corrections The Conversation * * Édition: Éditions disponibles France * Africa * Australia * Canada * Canada (français) * España * Global Perspectives * Indonesia * United Kingdom * United States * Faites un don * Devenir un auteur * S’abonner comme lecteur * Connexion * Recevoir la newsletter * * * The Conversation Recherchez ____________________ (Recherche) L’expertise universitaire, l’exigence journalistique 1. Culture 2. Économie + Entreprise 3. Éducation 4. Environnement + Énergie 5. International 6. Politique + Société 7. Santé 8. Science + Tech 9. Data 10. En anglais Dans l'actu 1. Afrique 2. Union européenne 3. solutions 4. économie circulaire 5. podcasts 6. vidéo 7. gilets jaunes Marriage has changed dramatically throughout history, but gender inequalities remain 15 novembre 2018, 04:08 CET Michelle Brady, The University of Queensland, Belinda Hewitt, University of Melbourne Auteurs 1. Michelle Brady Senior Research Fellow in Sociology, The University of Queensland 2. Belinda Hewitt Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Melbourne Déclaration d’intérêts Michelle Brady receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has previously received funding from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. Belinda Hewitt receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Partenaires University of Melbourne Victoria State Government University of Queensland University of Melbourne apporte des fonds en tant que membre fondateur de The Conversation AU. Victoria State Government a apporté des fonds à The Conversation AU en tant que membre bienfaiteur. University of Queensland apporte un financement en tant que membre adhérent de The Conversation AU. Voir les partenaires de The Conversation France Republier cet article Republish Reproduisez nos articles gratuitement, sur papier ou en ligne, en utilisant notre licence Creative Commons. Same-sex marriage has been legal for a year in Australia, but more progress can still be made on gender inequality in marriages and cohabiting relationships. Jono Searle/AAP * Adresse électronique * Twitter * Facebook * Linkedin * WhatsApp * Messenger One year ago, Australians were asked “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”. The answer was a resounding “yes” – more than 60% of those who expressed a view backed marriage equality. The anniversary of this historic moment offers an opportunity to reflect on how marriage as an institution has changed in Australia and other Western democratic countries over the last few hundred years, as well as the ways it remains stubbornly the same. Many of those who argued for the “no” vote asserted that Australia should retain “the traditional definition of marriage”. But our research on the history of marriage and divorce shows that the tradition of marriage has actually changed a lot since the 18th century. Although much progress has been made, gender inequality within relationships continues to be a problem, particularly if couples prefer to live together without getting married. Women have gained more rights Historically, marriage was the key way families passed on status, wealth and property from generation to generation. The institution of marriage also came with strongly prescribed gender roles. Women’s sexuality, rights and access to financial resources were strictly controlled in marriages. Regardless of whether a family was poor or wealthy, women’s bodies and labour were regarded as the property of their husbands in the 18th and 19th century. Prior to the 20th century married women lost their identities and many of their individual rights. __________________________________________________________________ À lire aussi : If we're serious about supporting working families, here are three policies we need to enact now __________________________________________________________________ In the mid-20th century, however, many laws that explicitly discriminated against women were reformed in most Western democratic countries. Wives gained their own legal and economic status within marriage. The decline in the influence of religion also played a role in marriage laws becoming more “gender neutral”. Though Western countries have removed laws that explicitly discriminate against women, gendered consequences remain. For instance, society continues to promote different roles for men and women within the family following the birth of a child. Women take on much more of the housework and childcare duties. And married women, in particular, do more of the housework on average than women in cohabiting relationships with men. But cohabiting couples have fewer legal rights Today, the laws in most Western democratic countries recognise a diversity of family types. At the same time, couples in cohabiting relationships continue to have fewer rights, entitlements and obligations compared with married couples. __________________________________________________________________ À lire aussi : Explainer: what legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not? __________________________________________________________________ As a result, cohabiting women are overall more likely than married women to experience relationship dissolution, single parenthood and poverty. For example, no country legally obliges cohabiting couples to financially support a partner staying home to look after children. Like married women, cohabiting women are more likely than their partners to take time out of the workforce to care for children. And the lack of legal protection makes women in cohabiting relationships economically vulnerable. Another example is the difference in laws around financial settlement and the division of wealth after a relationship breaks down. In most countries, women in marriages who take on a home-maker role can seek to claim a share of their spouse’s property if their relationship dissolves. Women in cohabiting relationships, however, often have no similar rights or very limited rights. Paternity is another issue for cohabiting couples. Many countries do not automatically assign paternity of children – and the assumption of shared custody of children – to cohabiting fathers. Australia, however, is somewhat of an exception in offering more protections to cohabiting couples. Here, couples who have cohabited for at least two years or have a child together are protected by the federal family law’s property division regulations. These laws take into account both partners’ non-financial contributions to a relationship (such as caring for children) and their future needs. The court also has discretionary power after the breakdown of a relationship to give one partner a share of property held solely in their former partner’s name, such as a superannuation fund. And fathers in de facto relationships do not have to take extra steps to establish paternity and shared custody of children. This makes it easier for fathers to obtain shared custody if a relationship breaks down and for mothers to seek child support. These laws give Australian women in cohabiting relationships greater financial protections. However, there are limits to these protections. The laws do not apply to cohabiting relationships of less than two years, for example, unless the couple has a child together. The appeal of marriage to same-sex couples Research has found that because Australia offers such strong legal and social recognition of de facto relationships, LGBT activists initially focused their efforts on gaining de facto recognition of same-sex relationships, rather than marriage equality. LGBT activists didn’t really start focusing on marriage until 2004, when the Australian government altered the Australian Marriage Act of 1961. By strictly defining marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”, the government offended many in the LGBT community and helped spark the desire for change. __________________________________________________________________ À lire aussi : A year since the marriage equality vote, much has been gained – and there is still much to be done __________________________________________________________________ The symbolic importance of marriage in the LGBT community also gradually increased, resulting in more LGBT attention on gaining marriage equality. Today, the extent to which marriage appeals more to gay men or lesbians depends on a range of factors. Lesbians have accounted for the majority of same-sex marriages in Australia so far. Jill Kindt (left) and Jo Grant were the first. Dan Peled/AAP So far, lesbians have accounted for the majority of same-sex marriages in Australia. This may be because in the context of a limited social safety net compared to other countries, women may value the marginally better financial protections offered by marriage given they are more likely than gay men to have children. For all the debate about “the traditional definition of marriage”, our research finds that marriage has always been a constantly evolving and changing institution. Same-sex marriage is just the latest change. But more progress can be made. Even though we have finally addressed inequality for same-sex couples, and laws relating to marriage no longer explicitly discriminate against men or women, gender inequality within the institution of marriage continues to be a problem. * Marriage * Gender equality * Marriage equality * LGBT * Same-sex relationships * Tweet * Partager * Recevoir la newsletter Newletter l’expertise scientifique. Nous croyons en une information indépendante et de qualité. Votre don, fiscalement déductible, nous aide à vous proposer un journalisme basé sur l’expertise scientifique. Faites un don Vous aimerez aussi Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Glasgow Pride, 2018. David Cheskin/PA Images Putting LGBTI issues in the school curriculum goes far beyond ‘political correctness’ The results of the SSM vote brought great jubilation on November 15, 2017- but the fight is not yet over. AAP/Luis Enrique Ascui A year since the marriage equality vote, much has been gained – and there is still much to be done Rwanda holds the world record in share of female MPs. Emmanuel Berrod/WIPO/Flickr Political representation: ethnicity trumps gender in Burundi and Rwanda Diego G Diaz / Shutterstock.com What the racial equality movement can learn from the global fight for women’s rights Les plus lus sur The Conversation * Pourquoi le temps semble filer plus vite avec l’âge * Evan, 8 ans : « Pourquoi on doit mourir dans notre vie ? » * Grace, 9 ans : « Pourquoi des larmes coulent de nos yeux quand on pleure ? » * « Depuis 1778 » : quand les marques créent de la fausse familiarité * Elvire, 10 ans : « Est-ce que c’est vrai que sans les abeilles, on peut pas vivre ? » * Débat : La foule n’est pas le peuple * Que dire à son enfant au sujet du Père Noël ? * Comment bien mentir aux enfants : Trump, le Père Noël et la théologie d'après Platon * Dix principes pour penser dans un monde complexe * Connaissons-nous vraiment l’histoire de Noël ? Notre audience The Conversation a une audience mensuelle de 10,7 million de lecteurs et une audience globale de 38,2 million à travers les republications sous la licence Creative Commons. Vous voulez écrire ? Écrivez un article et rejoignez une communauté de plus de 77 500 universitaires et chercheurs de 2 661 institutions. Enregistrez-vous maintenant The Conversation Communauté * Charte de participation * Règles de republication * Ami·e·s de The Conversation * Événements * Nos flux * Faites un don Notre groupe * Ce que nous sommes * Notre charte * Notre équipe * Transparence financière * Nos partenaires * Pour les médias * Contactez-nous Restez informé en vous abonnant à notre newsletter quotidienne gratuite et recevez les dernières analyses et commentaires directement dans votre messagerie. Souscrire Adresse électronique ✔ Spinner ____________________ Suivez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux * * Politique de confidentialité Conditions générales Corrections Mentions légales Droits d'auteur © 2010–2019, The Conversation France (assoc. 1901)