To not understand

[Ciderandskatesdontmix]

I've noticed a lot on MN that on a lot ok all of the threads that involve the theme of 'why won't he marry me' the advice to the OP is to not have children with a man who won't get married. AIBU to not understand why this is?

Gives security if he ever legs it

Means she is entitled to half his money if he has anything. Half the estate etc etc

Not married, nothing

I think marriage is less of a commitment thank children so if he's not willing to do that then perhaps the commitment and sacrifices made when children come along will be too much?

Because unless the woman is a high earner and isn't planning on stopping full time work, it's puts her in a vulnerable position.

Vulnerable how? I was married when I had my children and then subsequently got divorced. Being married made no difference in that we didn't own our own home and my ex didn't earn a lot. Maybe my situation was unique but I doubt it. He walked and I was left in the lurch with the kids. I don't see how being married gave me any 'protection'.

Being married made no difference in that we didn't own our own home and my ex didn't earn a lot
And if you did own your home it would have made a big difference. If he did earn a lot it would too, or even a bit.

Marriage gives women a legal claim on the mans property and money.

If he wasn't prepared to commit to me, I couldn't guarantee he could commit to a child.

It's never a certainty that a marriage won't end, but statistically unmarried relationships with children break up way more often than marriages do.

Unless he had an excellent reason for not wanting to be married, I would question his commitment to the relationship.

So really the advise should be to not buy a house with someone who won't marry you. Maybe I'm cynical now that I've been divorced! I was astonished how easy it was to get divorced and how little regard my ex gave to walking away from his kids.

cider you sound well rid of the idiot, his loss re; dc

Having children for women usually means they will be giving up paid work, or reducing their paid work. Women do bear the brunt of sacrifices for children. It's not that they're doing any less, they're taking on the lion's share of parenting and house work, but that's not paid and not regarded. That also has knock-on economic effects for the rest of the woman's life - she will struggle to have the time and energy to build or continue a career or be taken seriously in the world of paid work, and any pension will be lower. She is effectively sacrificing her paid economic potential for the rest of her life for the benefit of the whole family.

Men's work and the rewards for that work is seen by society at large as his alone, while the woman's sacrifices of her own economic potential for the benefit of all are completely invisible at best and at worst viewed as 'all her own fault'. Without that legal bit of paper she has effectively enabled the man to walk off with all the cash they have jointly earned while she bears all the burdens of childcare with much lower employment prospects.

Just wanted to further explain that "Marriage gives women a legal claim on the mans property and money", which men and indeed many innocent women find obnoxious. It isn't 'mans property' once children are involved - it's family property. Marriage recognises that in law.

I may be wrong but if the man dies his partner also has no claim on his estate, unless the law has changed.

Years ago I knew a couple who had been together for something like 16 years, no children, and fortunately she had a good career. He died in his sleep lying beside her. Didn't stop his brother, who inherited the flat evicting her from what had been her home for almost 2 decades though.

The flat they lived in belong to her partner, she had no claim on it, and his brother, wanted her out almost immediately. She walked away with nothing.

DH earns in three days what I earn in a month (teaching). It sounds mercenary but we're married and it gives me more protection if we were to split up now that we have a mortgage (which we've done 50/50 since we first moved in together) and DCs. We didn't marry because of it, but it's a definite consideration.

If he wasn't prepared to commit to me, I couldn't guarantee he could commit to a child
This ^. And also if he isn't prepared to commit to me, he does not get to be a father.

Ever heard of milking the cow for free?

Being a father is a privilege, and not optional once a new life is created so a bit of commitment wouldn't go amiss.

Because there is very rarely equality when you have a child. You may find your child has disabilities and one person needs to give up work (no childcare, lots of appointments) your child may just get sick a lot and you need a lot of time off work, your childminder goes off long term sick and you have no one to take over....One person's career usually ends up suffering more than another so it makes sense to have the financial security in the event that the marriage breaks up.

Buying a house with someone who won't marry you isn't comparable. Provided you set it up right, you should get out what you put in.

Children make you economically vulnerable.

I agree that children make you economically vulnerable, but this is the case with or without marriage. But all of the answers given so far only show that marriage gives you some level of protection from this if you own a property or your husband earns a substantial amount. If like a huge proportion of the population you rent and earn an average salary being married is of absolutely no benefit if the relationship breaks down.
I'm pregnant atm and shock horror am not married. If my partner asked me to marry him I would, but tbh I'm not too fussed. At this point in time I fail to see what difference it would make to our situation if we were to separate.

Ciderandskatesdontmix: Yes, children make you vulnerable whether or not you are married, BUT if you are married this offers you protection under certain circumstances. As you say, if you are the higher earner or if you don't own a home, it might not seem as though it matters. BUT it is very often the case that children change financial dynamics, so one partner (usually the woman) becomes more economically vulnerable than she was before.

In any case, the question is whether or not you should have children with someone who won't marry you. That is a completely different ball game. That is someone who, for whatever reasons, refuses to provide you with the protection of marriage. I would say it is unwise to make the irrevocable commitment of children with someone who is prepared to leave you vulnerable.