As a woman, something very strange happens as you approach 30 - friends who previously seemed quite sensible either start shelling out incredible wads of cash for their weddings, or whipping themselves into frenzies over being single. Faced with this recently, I found myself questioning why the idea of marriage retains such a hold over us. I suspected that, like all conservative institutions, marriage helped preserve the status quo, and thus the dominance of men - specifically middle-class men. And as I started researching the subject for a book, I was taken aback by how accurate this notion is.

Let's get this clear: I like men, and my opinion isn't based on bitterness, bitchiness or spinsterish rage. It is about marriage itself - a bloated, aged, outdated institution, which consistently screws women over while selling them a snake oil vision of romance. Just consider its history.

Once upon a time, marriage tied a single woman to a single man for life, to the extent that, legally at least, said woman became part of her husband. According to Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s: "The very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband." Marriage asserted paternity; in doing so, however, it also entrusted men with the ownership of women's bodies and reproductive abilities. Marriage was a deathly serious contract that bound two people in the sight of a god that, these days, few of us even believe in.

Puzzle rings

Wedding rings have always been the symbol of this contract. In ancient Rome a man claimed a woman with the giving of a ring, making it a sign of ownership rather than affection. Greek and Italian custom dictated the giving of complex puzzle rings - very difficult to remove or replace quickly - as a way of ensuring a wife's fidelity. In most European countries, the ring was traditionally exchanged along with a promise of money from the bride's father, which was often the primary motivation for the marriage. Cash, mistrust and ownership - hardly a recipe for romance.

Until 1840 brides were wed in a variety of colours, but in that year Queen Victoria set the trend for wearing white. It's not a coincidence that her era was also the one in which the traditional belief that women were lustier and earthier than men (remember that temptress Eve?) was replaced by the notion of the sacred feminine, of women as symbols of ethereal purity. This desexualising, patronising vision led to generations of belief in the idea of "the little woman", including the notion that women's delicate sensibilities are unsuitable for the harshness of life outside the home.

Another less-than-brilliant custom that still crops up is that old chestnut of asking for a woman's hand in marriage. These days this is often viewed as charmingly old-fashioned, but what woman wants to be handed from father to husband like a prize cow? Likewise, the custom of fathers giving their daughters away at the altar: a symbolic handing of the woman from one owner to another. And don't get me started on the whole changing-your-name debacle.

Symbolism

While it's easy to laugh off all this symbolism, the fact is marriage is statistically still much, much better for men than for women. It is common now to suggest that marriage - and particularly divorce - is wonderful for women's pockets. If a marriage goes well, it's often supposed, a woman can sit around eating bon-bons while her husband sweats away his youth; if the marriage breaks down, she can score a great settlement.

In fact, women are better off financially without marriage. Research by Jan Pahl at the University of Kent found that in over half of British marriages the men have more money to spend on themselves than their wives do. Then there was a global survey of 17,000 people in 27 countries, that came to the conclusion that married men do significantly less housework than their wives - and, astoundingly, less than their co-habiting male counterparts.

If economic penury and piles of washing up don't bother you, you might want to think about another insidious effect of marriage. We are constantly inundated with reports about how marriage is good for our health, but it's not actually that clear-cut. While marriage may generally be beneficial, in those cases where a relationship descends into fighting, it's far more harmful to women than to men.

Research by psychologist Robert W Levenson, of the University of California at Berkeley, illustrates that wives suffer the ill-effects of arguments far more than their husbands, because they remain stressed for longer - which has negative consequences for physical and mental health.

Marriage is, overall then, a pointlessly venerated, thoroughly out-of-date institution. It is hard to see what the benefits for women are, aside from encouraging relatives to shower you with generous wedding gifts. So why do we do it?

Extract from Ball & Chain: The Trouble With Modern Marriage

The Guardian