Shared Life, Unequal Law

“I won’t marry because I invest too much, and I don’t want to share. But I want my child to carry my name.”

These are the words of a modern german man.

Should we just accept this?

Women have always been treat­ed unequal­ly. Even though many mod­ern coun­tries claim to stand for gen­der equal­i­ty, in prac­tice, this is far from real­i­ty. I’ve seen first­hand how these so-called “equal­i­ty laws” work. They are often just well-writ­ten declarations—a check­list that male-dom­i­nat­ed sys­tems use to say: “Done.”

The worst part is, it’s not only men who uphold this inequal­i­ty. Women, too—often dri­ven by emo­tion, cul­tur­al pres­sure, or lack of real options—end up par­tic­i­pat­ing in and per­pet­u­at­ing the same struc­tures that lim­it them. Many women don’t even have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to stand for what they tru­ly believe in.

Let’s go back to injus­tice. In today’s world, women are con­stant­ly placed in a low­er posi­tion. Why today’s world? Because today’s world is dri­ven by mon­ey. If soci­ety were dri­ven by nur­ture, care, emo­tion­al intelligence—domains tra­di­tion­al­ly asso­ci­at­ed with women—then per­haps women would final­ly have a fair chance. But no, this is a world that rewards male-cod­ed oblig­a­tions and pur­suits: prof­it, prop­er­ty, pow­er.

When a woman has a child, she can­not do any­thing else but give her­self ful­ly to that child. Every study con­firms that babies need their moth­ers more than their fathers, espe­cial­ly in the ear­ly stages. The moth­er feeds, nur­tures, and soothes the child. And the father? He should pro­vide for the mother—but rarely does so in the long term.

The woman, mean­while, gives up her career, her dreams, her hob­bies. The man doesn’t. He con­tin­ues building—for him­self, for his future. The woman can’t. She adapts her life around the child, and around the man. And this is what we call equal­i­ty?

In Ger­many, women spend on aver­age 52% more time than men on unpaid care work (BMFSFJ, 2020). This dis­crep­an­cy is not mere­ly about time—it’s about free­dom, auton­o­my, and future secu­ri­ty. In addi­tion to this, women have less payed work­ing hours than men. One in three women in EU says she can­not work because of care­giv­ing respon­si­bil­i­ties, com­pared to just one in ten men (BMFSFJ, 2020).

Ger­many claims to pro­mote gen­der equal­i­ty. But let’s take a clos­er look. One cru­cial pol­i­cy stands out: Ger­many does not ade­quate­ly sup­port non-mar­i­tal part­ner­ships. A woman who is not mar­ried, work­ing part-time (as most moth­ers do in Ger­many – the “bread­win­ner mod­el” is still deeply root­ed in them), often unknow­ing­ly gives up her future. She sac­ri­fices her finan­cial sta­bil­i­ty, career pro­gres­sion, and pen­sion secu­ri­ty. And what does she get in return? No legal pro­tec­tion, no shared assets, no secu­ri­ty.

Mean­while, the man keeps his full-time job, con­tin­ues invest­ing, buy­ing prop­er­ty, and build­ing wealth. He pays rent and liv­ing costs temporarily—but it ends. And the woman can eas­i­ly end up with noth­ing.

This is sys­temic. Men are paid in cash and build equi­ty. Women are paid in “care” and “love,” which don’t pay the rent. From the begin­ning, men build for their future. And despite all this, they want their child to car­ry their name. A woman car­ries the baby, gives birth, expe­ri­ences deep phys­i­cal and emo­tion­al changes—but the child gets his name, lives in his house, fol­lows his rules. After twen­ty years, when the child is grown, the man can proud­ly say: That’s my daugh­ter. His name lives on. His lega­cy is secure.

And the woman? Not so secure future.

Let’s take an exam­ple that shows just how deeply root­ed this injus­tice is—an old­er cou­ple, now in their eight­ies. When asked about pen­sions, the man respond­ed, with dis­be­lief in his voice: “She doesn’t have a pen­sion at all. I have mine, I pay for every­thing.” He worked long hours, often away from home, build­ing a career. She raised their two chil­dren alone, with no income, no part­ner in par­ent­ing, no time for her­self. She had no career, no hob­bies, no space of her own. The man still sees him­self as the sole provider, but what he fails to see is that her entire life was spent providing—just not in ways the sys­tem counts.

This is not an iso­lat­ed case. In Ger­many, women receive, on aver­age, 49% less pen­sion than men—one of the largest gen­der pen­sion gaps in Europe (Desta­tis, 2023). That gap doesn’t come from lazi­ness. It comes from struc­tur­al pol­i­cy: women step back from careers to raise chil­dren, sup­port part­ners, run households—and then are aban­doned legal­ly and finan­cial­ly if and when the rela­tion­ship ends.

Rais­ing chil­dren is not a pas­sive or sec­ondary role. It is emo­tion­al­ly, men­tal­ly, and phys­i­cal­ly heavy. It requires con­stant nego­ti­a­tion, plead­ing, com­pro­mise. You don’t get week­ends off. You don’t get a pay­check. As a moth­er, going to work feels like a hol­i­day. At work, no one screams at you, no one demands your atten­tion every sec­ond. At work, no one tests your emo­tion­al resilience.

In my case, it’s the same. My part­ner works a lot, and I’m the default par­ent. And he doesn’t ask if I have any­thing planned. First, he orga­nizes his life around his job—and his hob­bies, which are the same thing for him. Then, only then, I can try to make space for my own plans. That’s the price I pay for stay­ing with such a man.

Yes, I could leave. And he would no longer have a daugh­ter in his life. But she would no longer have a father either—and I don’t want that for her. I live inside this (non) com­pro­mise. I stay, because I care more about her emo­tion­al well being. But why should women always be the ones to sac­ri­fice?

Let’s take this one step fur­ther. Imag­ine a cou­ple liv­ing togeth­er for 20 years. They raise a child. They build a home. But the house is in his name—because it was eas­i­er, or because he had the job and the loan. Then they split. And she has no rights. Not unless she sues him.

She has to go to court, start a civ­il law­suit, and try to prove she con­tributed. That his suc­cess, his house, his savings—weren’t just his. That she was there the whole time, hold­ing every­thing else up. That her unpaid work made his paid work pos­si­ble.

I think we shuld turn this a lit­tle bit around. What if she sues him for steal­ing? Let’s call this a theft.

Because that’s what it is. He didn’t just “earn” every­thing. He took it. While she gave up her time, her career, her plans, her mon­ey. What he has is not just his. He was build­ing his future on her back, and in the case of sep­a­ra­tion, he walks away with everything—and she has noth­ing. And that is a theft that’s pro­tect­ed by law.

The sys­tem lets men get rich with women by their side, and then cut them off when it’s done. And if the woman wants jus­tice, she has to fight, explain, beg, col­lect receipts. That’s not equal­i­ty. That’s a set­up.

In con­trast, some coun­tries auto­mat­i­cal­ly rec­og­nize long-term non-mar­i­tal part­ner­ships for legal pur­pos­es such as inher­i­tance, even with­out a for­mal con­tract. If two peo­ple live togeth­er, raise a child, and share a house­hold, the law treats them as a fam­i­ly. This offers pro­tec­tion to the care­giv­ing part­ner, most often the woman, even if they nev­er mar­ried. But in Ger­many, such a woman would have no legal claim—no right to inher­i­tance, no shared prop­er­ty, no pen­sion rights. Ger­many still ties all these pro­tec­tions to mar­riage, despite how many peo­ple live out­side of it. Ger­many, despite mod­ern brand­ing, remains legal­ly root­ed in reli­gious and con­ser­v­a­tive ide­ol­o­gy. Its dom­i­nant parties—especially the CDU/CSU—continue to push the nar­ra­tive that the only “real” fam­i­ly is a mar­ried one. This legal favoritism is not acci­den­tal; it reflects a delib­er­ate polit­i­cal stance, influ­enced by decades of Chris­t­ian demo­c­ra­t­ic pol­i­cy-mak­ing.

Ger­many may out­ward­ly claim to sup­port gen­der equal­i­ty, but its legal sys­tem is still struc­tured to sup­port out­dat­ed mod­el of fam­i­ly life. Women who raise chil­dren out­side of mar­riage are pun­ished by law for not enter­ing a con­tract the state deems wor­thy of pro­tec­tion.

This is not neutrality—it’s ide­ol­o­gy. And women are pay­ing the price for it.

Men and women will nev­er be the same, because we are dif­fer­ent in how we function—especially when it comes to hav­ing and rais­ing chil­dren. That’s biol­o­gy. But who has more chances, more free­dom, and an eas­i­er path in life isn’t decid­ed by biol­o­gy. It’s decid­ed by the soci­ety we live in. Right now, the kind of work men usu­al­ly do—paid jobs, careers, investments—is more sup­port­ed and reward­ed. The kind of work women often do—raising chil­dren, car­ing for oth­ers, run­ning a household—is not. That could change. Maybe one day, soci­ety will val­ue care work more than mon­ey-mak­ing. But until then, we need to pro­tect and share the work both part­ners bring into a relationship—whether it’s income or unpaid care. It shouldn’t mat­ter if they’re mar­ried or not. What mat­ters is that they built some­thing togeth­er, and both gave some­thing up to do it.

The only real solu­tion is this: Ger­many must legal­ly rec­og­nize non-mar­i­tal part­ner­ships that func­tion like a mar­riage and treat them as such in mat­ters of prop­er­ty, care, and sep­a­ra­tion. Until that hap­pens, Ger­many can­not hon­est­ly claim to rep­re­sent gen­der equal­i­ty.