about 'umarried' mothers?

[Thurlow]

I probably am being. I just want a rant. I have seen so many comments on MN over the past few months about unmarried mothers where the assumption is that you are only unmarried because one of you, usually the man, is a non-committal waste of space, and that he has no right to share a name with any DC because he hasn't bothered to put a ring on it.

Yes, it's only words on screen, but I'm starting to feel an overwhelming belief out there that unmarried couples are less committed than married couples. As someone in a very long-term relationship who made the joint decision not to marry as it wasn't for us, and who - sin of sins - gave their DC their father's surname, it just leaves me with the impression that I am being judged by most people as less committed. It's not a cheerful impression to have.

This isn't a rant against marriage - it just wasn't for us as a couple. And it's not a debate about marriage because I know that legally it brings so much protection, which is not relevant to our current situation.

I'm just getting royally narked with all the 'if you like it you should have put a ring on it' comments I've seen lately.

And breathe...

Every relationship is different, there's no way I'd marry dp because I don't think we'll last more than a few years, we've little in common and I can't stand his family. We're just stuck together for the time being. I'm not opposed to marriage in theory though. One couple I know is strongly opposed to marriage and they've been together more than forty years.

I don't think marriage status is much of an indicator of the strength of the relationship. People can marry too swiftly or for the wrong reasons just as cohabiting couples can settle down too soon or move in merely to suit current circumstance but with little intention toward the future.

Every relationship deserves to be judged on its own terms.

In my case there there are lots of reasons why I don't want to get married. My main reason for sometimes wanting to get married is to stop people from assuming I have sooner sorry of second hand relationship.

And it's not that much of a historical anomaly for people not to be married. OK, in the days when it made a big difference to property and inheritance people got married to have children but after my great grandmother was widowed she lived with her subsequent partner without marrying him for 30 years until he died. It doesn't seem to have been all that unusual amongst her peers, many of whom cohabited without marrying after marriage breakdown.

Timely letter in the Telegraph this morning (stumbled across it in work) relating to a judge suggesting changes to legislation to protect cohabiting couples:

Marriage is a legal arrangement which exists, among other reasons, to formalise clearly the relationship between two people. Cohabitants do not have the confidence or commitment to one another to embark upon a formal relationship. Having rejected marriage, such people should not be given the advantages of that great institution

So yes, Molly, it's clear many people do think it is a second-rate relationship...

I wanted to be married and to me living together would be second best for me. I didn't live with my dh before we married even though people commented on this and someone at work said about their dfs who lived together and married around the same time and weresupposedly great role models. Their marriage didn't last.

I also think being unmarried gives license for men to be feckless and selfish. I know this isn't the case on this thread but the women are left having to give birth and bring up the dc. You see that alot in certain cultures and i don't think it is good for the dc particularly the ds and now it has become normal to do this.

I know they can still walk out when married but not quite so easily with property and the legal side of things.

In my social circle circle the very first round of divorces were from the couples who hadn't lived together before getting married. They were the religious ones who got married to their university boy/girlfriends because they felt guilty about unmarried sex, and realised after a few years that they wanted different things out of life.

almeci, genuine question based on the way you've phrased your post - do you really believe that all men are genuinely "feckless and selfish" and that, if so, they will stop being so just because they said a few words in front of some friends and family?

I'm not questioning how many people feel changed by making that statement, just that your opinion as stated above is quite sad and very negative to men.

Property-wise, as long as you own your home jointly, which most couples I know do regardless of whether they married, engaged or unmarried, that is just as hard to walk away from.

"I wanted to be married and to me living together would be second best for me."

Which is fine, I just don't feel the same way. What is slightly annoying is when people judge my relationship as second best when that's not how I feel about it.

I have no problem with people doing what makes them happy - I just don't like it when I don't get the same back, why does someone else's relationship matter to them?

"I also think being unmarried gives license for men to be feckless and selfish."

I think if someone is feckless and selfish, no amount of wedding ceremonies will change that.

No Thurlow I don't believe that about all men but I think them not having to marry their partner for the sake of the dc and social convention has encouraged this to some extent.

Yes of course this can apply to men in a marriage as well but it is more legally binding.

Molly I understand where you are coming from on that one. I agree to some extent as well. we did have a relationship before marriage ITMS. I just didn't want to live with him.

It's a bit of circular argument sometimes, but I do feel my original AIBU is standing from some of the replies - that people who make a conscious decision not to get married are judged by a lot of other people as being in second-rate, less committed relationships

I mean, as in there seems to be a strong opinion amongst some people between "I wanted to be married before I had DC and bought a house" - fine and non-judgemental - and "people are less committed when they aren't married".

You can draft all the documents you want but it still won't give you some protections that marriage does. e.g if your spouse dies before they ever draw their state pension then you will be able to claim it when you reach pensionable age - not so if you're unmarried.

What if you're not bothered by that?

Thurlow - I disagree with the judge's wording, but I think that there should be no automatic rights on cohabitation, unless the couple have specifically sought to put cetain things in place.

So you can agree to marry and obtain legal protection via that route.

Or you can legally draw up an arrangement that suits you both.

I think unknowingly sliding into legal obligations via living together for what ever period of time could have some very worrying consequences.

Very true, Gosh. I agree that "opt-in" is the way forward, rather than something that just sort of happens.

I would love something like they have in France, where you can nominate any person to be your next of kin and automatically get inheritance rights etc. If you were cohabiting with DC this could have the benefit that you became treated as a 'spouse' when it came to maintenance after a split. The courts are becoming far more favourable to that stance anyway, though obviously you would have to go to court, rather than it being more automatic.

Not sure the state pension will cover the cost of even the most basic of weddings though :)

I think the reason that people see it as less committed, is because there is a wide range of commitment in living together relationships but all married people have chosen to make a lifetime commitment (and this is not about whether the relationships survive....married and unmarried relationships break down)
So, if you are married, you have made that choice and made those promises publically and legally.
Unmarried couples range from those who have literally just met and may not have any intention to be together in 2 weeks time, to those who are totally committed to each other. The huge range means that others often simply do t know the level of commitment.
The other thing is the public declaration of commitment in marriage. When people marry,mother declare their lifelong commitment to the world. I think the fact that unmarried couples have had this option, but have chosen not to declare it makes their relationship seem different and as if they are rejecting aspects of it. People see the refusal to make a public declaration as an indication of a lack of commitment (which it sometimes is)
I think that however committed you are, if you choose not to sign up to the institution which is the sign of this commitment, people will wonder at least, if there is a commitment reason for not signing up to it. In married people don't have to justify themselves, but I think that whilst we have marriage as a way of formalising a relationship, people will always wonder about those that have chosen not to do it.
I also think that although unmarried women in particular don't feel themselves in a secondsclass relationship (unless they are those who would really like to be married, but their partner is resistant) they feel that other people see it it his way. They can be hyper sensitive to anything which may suggest they are being judged (when in actual fact they are not being judged) and jump to defend their position. This can lead to a 'they protest too much' kind of feeling.

chocolatewombat has it spot on re explaining why some people think as they do.

I have commented on many a thread that I don't understand DCs automatically getting the fathers name, so don't know if mine's a comment OP is referring to.

Marriage protects most women because most mums earn less than their partners.

If the woman has the assets then marriage probably isn't a good idea.

"I think that however committed you are, if you choose not to sign up to the institution which is the sign of this commitment, people will wonder at least, if there is a commitment reason for not signing up to it."

Why though? Why will they wonder when it's not relevant to anything that's being discussed?

I mean if you introduced your husband to me at say an office party, I'd say hello, or how do you do...I wouldn't ask about the state of your marriage or how long you've been together - I might as part of a conversation, but not just because you said this is my husband X.

As soon as I use the word partner I'm usually asked how long we've been together and why we're not married.

Come off it - you're the one doing the judging. You keep saying how much better and more committed marriage is!

In fact I've only ever come across this ridiculous judginess about marriage on MN. Oh, and DP's 90something grandmother.

Tabulah, I wonder if you are very sensitive to this, so feel like people always ask why you're not married, but in actual fact they don't always do this.
If you are in circles where most people ARE married,it is quite simply that they are interested to know why you have gone a different route. People are always interested in other people making choices outside the norm. If you are in circles where few people are married, I wouldn't imagine anyone would ever ask, in fact people might ask the married, why they have gone for that option.
People are just a bit nosy. People without children often report that everyone co stanly asks them why they haven't got children and if they will be trying soon. it is the same kind of thing....people just assume everyone wants the same as them and are interested to know why they make other choices. Sometimes this kind of thing is rude,sometimes it's not. But I guess it is commonplace for those who have chosen a path different to that taken by most.
Are you in circles where most people are married? Is it simply that your choices seem out of the ordinary to them and they are interested to understand your reasoning?
The other reason it happens I think, is when people are really happy. many married people are really happy and bei g married has made them happy. They therefore think it would make you happy to. They struggle to understand you might want something else. By evangelising about marriage, they are simply trying to share something g they have found to be good with you. It doesn't particularly occur to the, that it might be annoying to you, or imply criticism of your choices.

I can't say I've seen this assumption either here or in rl, in fact I usually hear the reverse. Many people say they don't get married because they don't want to be a divorce statistic, its not what its cracked up to be etc.
We got married because and when we wanted to, we were together as man and wife before this for 4 years.
I don't think it matters at all and is up to each couple what they decide to do.

Mother, but this a thread about this topic. Am simply responding to the OPs question and that of other posters.
I have tried to do 2 things;

1. To explain why I think people in general feel the need to justify being unmarried and why people ask about it
2. To relate the discussion to my own personal feelings about it and experiences of it.

In RL I am not sure I have had many conversations with people about why they are not married. I don't think I have ever had the discussion we are having here with anyone else in RL either. But this is an anonymous forum, where we can honestly express views we have, which might be difficult conversations in real life, so I am simply doing that.

Ultimatley, I respect everyone's choice to marry or not and to not have to justify it to anyone. At the same time, I do believe that being married is different to not being married. You might not agree, which is fine, but I do think there is a difference.

On the commitment issue (and I think marriage is different for more reasons than simply that) I am sure that many unmarried couples are more committed to each other than some married couples. The status of unmarried couples ranging from those who have literally just met and are livi g together with no long term plans, to those who are still together after 5 years, but without ever having committed to anything specific, to those who have been together for 50 years having vocalised every intention they have towards each other.....the sheer range, makes it hard for outsiders to know the commitment unmarried people have towards each other, if they don't know the couple well. I don't think people assume there is a lack of commitment, but just WONDER if there is, because if you don't know people well, they may only have just got together and be in it for the short haul. If they are married, you know they have made lifetime promises. You simply don't know that about the unmarried.

There is no reason, as far as I can see for me to assume someone with a partner is in a lifelong relationship, unless they tell me they are. I would naturally assume it about married people. I think most people come from this angle. I can see that if you are one of the unmarried in a lifelong relationship, this is a bit annoying. It's not though, for those who remain unmarried, precisely because they don't want to be committed......and the state of being unmarried covers the full range, which is why people perhaps make wrong assumptions or try to pin down the nature of the relationship.

Oh I'm not sensitive about it, I don't usually take offense, unless they're very full on about it being a bad decision to be unmarried...you just notice that you end up having the same conversation a lot, with people that you think, well actually, this is kind of none of your business...

Friends and family, yes they want to know that you're happy with your situation, that you have access to information, that you're financially safe. People you've just been introduced to or you don't know that well (because it's using the word partner or the fact that you have a different last name that sparks it off) not so much.