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...

I have been with my partner for nearly 16 years, we have two children 6 and 4. He is nine years older than me, we got together when I was just a teenager. We haven't got married because other things have been a priority. We have been engaged for about 7 years but we just haven't bothered to organise a wedding. We are just as committed to one another as any married couple, everything we own is joint. Nothing would change for us if we were to marry apart from my surname. My sister has also been with her partner for around the same length of time, they have one toddler son. She is against marriage; so as far as she is concerned they will never marry, they are the strongest couple I have ever met! I have to say both of us have seen friends marry and divorce in the length of time we have been happily in our relationships and we are both protected financially so all us unmarried women out there aren't that silly!

Is it about not having to obey anyone/the state?
Or kowtow[sp] to whoever/whatever?
iyswim?

[never had to spell kowtow before!]. Bow, that might be better[and easier to spell!]

BalloonSlayer My DD has my partner's surname - can you or anyone else enlighten me as to why this was an unwise decision? My late grandad didn't agree either but I've always viewed unmarried mothers giving their DC their surname as a bit 'anti-men' and immature tbh.

Also, on a slightly foolishly romantic level, I like the idea that every day we commit to each other anew rather than making a single one off promise. I like that our vision of commitment involves constantly tweaking at the promises we make to each other as we grow and change.

That's silly Molly. (Happily) married couples do that too .

I have to be honest. I know a few unmarried couples with children and they always feature either a belligerent/hostile/bitter woman OR a lazy, non-committal manchild. I judge .

I don't know many happy cohabiters. God this is depressing.

All the good relationships in my family are long term cohabiting ones, where the couple married once they were in their mid forties after 20 years or so together. Do I don't feel quite old enough yet for a truly successful marriage

In my circle of friends, it's pretty mixed. I hadn't actually considered it before this thread made me analyse the relationships among people I know. The tends seem to be:

People who got married in the church where they regularly worship have mostly divorced or had seeps relationship problems. I am aware that this does not reflect religious marriages as a whole, and I was in fact pretty surprised when I realised that of all Church weddings I have attended this is the case.

The people who entered a relationship before the age of 25 needed to agree on what they wanted out of life together again at around 30 or they split up at that point.

Breavement, especially lots of a child, serious illness or suitability within the household and unemployment tended to strengthen the strong relationships and end the weaker ones. Amongst the people who had shared goals at 30, there was no difference between how the married and unmarried couples coped.

In couples where after committing to each other it became clear that one person wanted to havechildren and the other didn't the married ones tended to have several years of unhappiness but stay married without children and the unmarried ones left their partner and found someone else who wanted to have children with them.

So in summary, among the people I know the key to having a lasting relationship seems to behaving regular and honest discussion about your goals and plans for life together and working together in times of crisis.

Molly has summarised it better than I managed: The feelings that I have for DP are deeply personal, and I want to keep them private and not have them officially registered. It all seems a little bit embarrassing and makes me cringe a bit.

So it's not about obeying anyone or kowtowing to the state. I'll do that for the legal side of 'marriage', the joint finances, owning a house, custody of DC and all that. Just when I sat down and thought about it properly the idea, as I said, that you need a law court to decree that your romantic, personal, sexual, loving relationship is officially at an end makes very little sense to me.

Infinity: And there was a part of me that considered I had done all the hard work of pg and childbirth and feeding. I didn't want to be edited out of my baby's name. On some level I think it's anti feminist to automatically give a baby the dad's name, as if the mum ceases to be important once she's popped the baby out and the important parent is the dad!

I feel very mixed on this point! I kind of see both sides of the picture - that it's not like a man had a choice to carry a baby and decided not to, so it's not their fault they didn't get to do the hard work of pg, and so they shouldn't automatically be excluded from sharing a name if a woman has decided not to take her husband/partner's name for one reason or another. But equally yes, the default should definitely not be just to take a father's name just because of the historical precedent.

What depresses me sometimes is the assumptions people can make in general, as I've said before. That all unmarried couples must be unhappy with it because they know some people who are unhappy with it. That all overweight people are overweight because they eat too much, because they know some overweight people who survive on takeaways. That all teenage mothers are inherently crap mums or not in loving, solid relationships because they know some teenage mums who were abandoned by the dad and leave their parents to do the bulk of the childrearing etc.

If a couple BOTH are neutral are uninterested in marriage then I would make no assumption about their levels of commitment at all.

But if one wants it and the other does not, then it is different because if in a committed relationship, why NOT get married if the other wants it?

As others have pointed out, it depends.

Personally, I would do away with marriage and introduce a 'couples with children' legal contract that has much the same rules as marriage as leave everybody else alone.

I don't see why whether two people love each other is anybody else's business unless they have children.

Additionally, there may be grounds for state intervention in cohabiting couple's relationships IF there are children of the union, as the sahp could argue that they've given up work to nurture children in the event of a split, but otherwise, forget it; two childless adults should be free to split without third party involvement.

I agree completely, jeni. If you don't have children then yes, you need to split the property assets and that, but I don't image many people who haven't bought a house together would be in a position to argue for much in terms of support. Pretty much everyone I know has bought a house together, whether married or not, have bought as joint tenants.

It is only when DC are involved and one party has given up their career to stay at home that I think any couple, whether married or unmarried, would need legal involvement to make sure the finances are split fairly.

In my imaginings, there would be a legal contract that anyone could sign like the French Pacte Civil. Then there would also be weddings. You could chose what suits you but bar the religious, spiritual and romantic side of marriage and calling yourself husband and wife, at heart it would be the same as the civil legal arrangement behind the scenes, where next of kin and inheritance etc was involved.

A bit like ms but for partnerships?

I'm not sure that having children should be the only criterion for obligations. Couples without children can also end up work person sacrificing their career to support the other, eg of one has a career requiring frequent relocation.

Infinity - just out of curiosity, when you got married, did you change DC's name too? I've thought that must be odd for children to have two different surnames, but even odder to have a different surname to both parents!

My DC have DP's surname mainly because the first names we chose worked better with his name partly because it would be easier if we did get married.