Why why why do people have kids without marriage

Because they don’t think they can demand more.

Zombie thread.

I think this has a lot to do with it. People are staggered when you say there's no such thing.

Current trends in the UK suggest that the proportion of women choosing to remain childfree is expected to rise significantly, reaching 45% by 2040, according to reports.

So, the trend of having children outside of marriage is expected to decline.
However, as others have pointed out: "Why do women have children before establishing themselves in a career, having a plan to manage childcare to continue that career, and having an exit plan should they ever need it?"

This thread is 18 months old!

I cannot bear the thought of being married OP.
HTH

True but it's a man's world still. Most women get harassed bullied etc etc at work and don't earn as much as men still. It's even harder if you are mixed or poc like me what with all the racism in the world.

Also for anyone in a council house - rights to remain in the house are different for married vs unmarried… Particularly if tenancy started before 2012… can’t actually believe this. Came to mind as we had a relative who passed on their house to DGC when they died.

england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/council_housing_association/can_you_inherit_a_council_tenancy

@speakout

Vs 90% cohabitation split rate.🙄😂

@Villagewaspbyke to reiterate there is a difference between a low earner and a deadbeat - I was talking about the latter.

For example, a man who does not want to earn and accumulate anything. Who is predominately on very low paid work sporadically and who when given the opportunity to buy their child a Christmas present spends the money on drugs. That is what I meant and you can accept that or not.

Why would anyone want that?!

@Felix0204 put out this ridiculous assertion for somebody without assets marriage is unimportant. However most people low/med/high earners accumulate something in the end. And in any event there are death benefits due if your spouse dies so that at least is something to help with funeral costs.

re. Protection - in the event of divorce we both take what we put in, in the event of my death I want a good chunk of my money going to my DC. We have life insurance policies. I am organising my business so my DH and I have a pension income. That sort of thing… and I don’t really see why we should have to justify that? Shouldn’t everyone be doing this sort of thing?!

Isn’t that what this thread is about really, that people don’t think about what may potentially happen in future and don’t have sufficient legal protections?

And marrying is stable??

42% divorce rate in the UK

People's individual experiences do not trump the fact that not marrying is inherently unstable.

It's just yeah but, whataboutism.

@Robinni that’s not at all what you said above.your post was all about how women were selling themselves short by being with poor men!

what are you “protecting yourself” from by marriage to a lower earner?

I am not, was never tied to the prick. I walked away, his version of fighting for his child was back in the day when you got a free solicitors letter.
I changed my number, still live in the same house now as I did then, he has never knocked my door.
I now have an amazing adult son who I have never regretted. I wouldn't even change meeting his dad or I'd never have my son.

This is what we did.

We got married when our baby was a year old.

Maybe some of them are more successful/ have a better career than you

@Villagewaspbyke if you scroll up and read full explanation…

I am the bigger earner in our house so well know that women can earn more….

And I have been very proactive in protecting myself, and my DH via marriage and other legal measures. This isn’t just about legal protections for women, the men matter too! If the shit ever hits the fan we know where we stand. We wanted to make sure there would always be respect and fairness.

Another poster said if a man has no assets then no point in marrying them.

I responded to this with incredulity, but stupidly didn’t put proper punctuation in.

My DH had no assets at the point of marriage. But works hard and contributes equally to the household/DC. I felt there was a point to marrying him, he is incredibly loving and supportive.

My comment was never a dig at low earning men…

My exh was a big earner.

Still is. Over £100k per annum. He provides £56 per month because he's self employed.

He doesn't see our daughter. He phones her maybe once a month

Marriage did not benefit me. Or her.

But he has parental rights yet he doesn't see her, provide properly for her.

What has being married to her father done for her or me?

Waste of time.

I think you judge women very poorly. Marriage only benefits the poorer partner. That’s not always the woman whatever you think. If you are the wealthier (even if the main carer of kids) you can end up worse off being married.

You seem to think that no matter how low earning the man, women could never hope to earn any more. You are absolutely wrong- about 25% of women earn more than their partners. And not because they are big losers who couldn’t get a better man - it’s because women can and do earn good salaries doing responsible jobs.

Agree- this is an awful thing to say. And deeply sexist- men can be great fathers without being wealthy and ditto for mothers.

Re. Pre nup/post nup they are not legally binding as they would be in US. But if you get one drawn up and filed with solicitor then they are looked upon favourably by the court and are unlikely to be disregarded. Not cast iron but pretty good.

@Brefugee yes clearly everyone on MN needs to pre-empt all potential sensitivities and misconstructions when posting - hard to do!

Yes, definition of deadbeat accurate. Of course rich men can be so too, however if you have marriage or other legal protections then, by and large, in the event of death or divorce you will get what you are due.

My initial comment re. Why women go for deadbeat guys (the sort to avoid CM, spend money on themselves rather than kids etc.) - I genuinely don’t understand why the bar is set so low - accumulate nothing and no point in getting married as nothing there.

Most working class people I know either own their own houses or have aspiration to buy their council house in future. Or they have a car or other things considered assets. Very few are in the position where legal protection would be null and void.

If you go back to the original post I responded to

@Felix0204 said

“If a man you marry has no assets then marriage doesn't benefit you. You would just get CMS if you divorced.”

My response admittedly needed better punctuation… should have read with question marks.. punctuation matters people 😫

So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important?

If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter?!

Which brings me to your second point

Marriage and the legal protections it gives are important for all - low, middle and high incomes. The system is highly biased towards married couples. And while I sincerely hope that changes to give equality to those who are wives in all but name, right now it isn’t the case, so important that other measures are taken….

It’s a shame it can’t just be about falling in love and having a family, but I guess that is adult life isn’t it, piles of paperwork and being sensible.

Why are so many women willing to have children with men who are deadbeat and a waste of space - no assets and no likelihood of ever having assets…..
What is the point of this? If he can’t wipe his own arse how on Earth is he supposed to provide for a family?
Mystifying….
So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important.
If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter.

I saw this raised a few hackles, but i understood it to be about 2 things.

1. deadbeat dads (can be rich, I think if I've understood correctly? but are the ones who do nothing, leave it all to the mum and if the relationship ends do nothing and pay nothing?)

2. marriage is important for higher earners, not necessarily for lower earners? It's one way of looking at it, but i don't agree.

I do think that in a partnership if one is vastly more wealthy, or has many more assets than the other (can be the wife, of course) then the best way to protect their assets is either not to marry or have a watertight pre-nup (are they legall binding?) But in that kind of relationship the less wealthy person is better making sure they are married because even with a pre-nup which restricts payment to half of assets/wealth accrued during the marriage, that leaves them slightly better off than without a marriage.

This whole topic is really interesting and vitally important for people to understand how life works, outside of falling in love and having a family.

@Verity226 We have been on many tills ourselves… apologies if took offence at pound stretcher - Knew of a few examples to work there who fit the “deadbeat” mould (actively trying to avoid work/doing anything for family) so perhaps why it came to mind. Please poundstretcher employees do not lynch me, I’m sure many are very admirable people. I do prefer B&M though😁

I apologise then, Robinni. I took your post as looking down on low earning WC people as thats how it came across with the 'on the tills in poundstretcher" comment.