AIBU to tell women to get married before they have babies

[NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1]

This forum is absolutely full up of the following stories, repeated on a loop

Woman falls in love with selfish twunt (doesn't realise at this stage he is a selfish twunt)
Woman is persuaded to move into the home selfish twunt owns, or is persuaded to by a house but only in selfish twunts name because (insert excuse here)
Woman suffers "contraceptive failure"
Woman gives up her job to look after children.
Twunt has got her exactly where he wants her - now he can fuck other women without any fear of financial loss

I am so so saddened to keep reading these threads on here time and time again.

Women - protect yourself. There is a reason why a man won't marry you AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE'S OLD FASHIONED.

What museum have you escaped from.

Poor Yorick - next of yin? What do you mean by that? It doesn't have any particular legal meaning in the UK.

Correct, but it's a useful term for matters such as contact for medical professionals and the like. They'll usually assume it's the nearest blood relative, or spouse if you are married. If you're not married, you can still name your spouse as next of kin, it's just that they'll probably make the assumption if you are.

In many other countries, NOK is a legal term with various implications, so it may or may not serve your purposes to be married if you're planning on travelling or moving.

If NOK were the only benefit to being married, no, it wouldn't really be worth it for most people, but it's only one very minor part of it.

I think marriage should be mainly about love!

Legally - and it's nothing but a legal contract - it is not, whatever you think it should be. You cannot legally contract love. All you can do is legally recognise a relationship.

Which is why unmarried people are entirely right when they say they don't need to get married to prove their love. But wrong when they imply that marriage is not intended to serve any other purpose.

The answer to me is to FIX THIS. Not to tell young women to find a rich man.

Absolutely nobody on here has advised women to marry men based solely on their wealth, and absolutely nobody has suggested promoting marriage instead of fighting the pay gap. That is ridiculous.

What some of us are saying is that, given our current situation of unequal pay (not 'in the past' at all, I am afraid), a lot of women will be better protected by being married before they have children. Not all, of course not all. Plenty of women on here are unmarried for very good reasons. But already there have been some who are unmarried for very, very poor ones, such as 'well we don't need to prove our love and I can still change my name'.

Also, many people are focusing on relationships ending and forgetting that people can also die.

Yorik - legally marriage is a status not a contract. I think you should marry for love but recognise that financial sharing of resources is a legal effect. But I am not going to marry for financial security. I don’t need to AND I don’t want to.

What you are saying is marry for financial security because of the pay gap. That couldn’t be less feminist if you tried.

And you are saying marry a rich man or at least one who is financially secure. Cos otherwise you would be less financially secure not more. How can that be some sort of modern feminist solution to poverty of single parent families or the pay gap?

Tbh I don’t think people who say stuff like were not married cos we don’t need to “prove our love” are being honest or entirely forthcoming anyway. I think it’s more likely that there are other reasons afoot such as one or other does not want to get married.

And it makes no difference re financial security if someone dies if they don’t have assets (like my ex). If we had been married I would not have been better or worse off.

So maybe we should say to our daughters, “marry a rich man in case he dies or leaves you”. A rich old man perhaps, one with his health on a shaky peg?

Or maybe we should say to young women to make their own money and set themselves up financially and do more to fight the pay and childcare/domestic work gap.

All myself, Yorick and others are saying is:

Make your decisions from a place of knowledge. Don't assume or just drift along.

Have upfront conversations with your partner about wills, about the legal consequences of being married or not married.

How many women don't even feel empowered enough to do that? Far too many, as you can see on this thread with the waffle about "piece of paper", "he doesn't believe in marriage" etc.

"Or maybe we should say to young women to make their own money and set themselves up financially and do more to fight the pay and childcare/domestic work gap."

I thought was exactly what OP meant, because as her later posts clarified - her message was 'think very carefully before giving up your ability to support yourself and before slowing/halting your career progression unless you are happy with reciprocal (legally binding) arrangements to mitigate your losses'

Sod all to do with the material worth of the putative partner. Everything to do with one's own finances and independence.

The thing that couldn't possibly be less feminist is women continuing to live with men, continuing to have children and bear the impact of that on their earnings, and continuing to bear the brunt of the caring whilst enjoying none of the legal protections of marriage. Which is statistically what's likely to happen, for all the women posting about their higher earnings and assets. Unmarried women don't behave any differently from married women in that respect.

YABVU to tell anyone how to live their lives. If you're sick of the threads, stop reading them. I'm not married, with my second baby on the way. DP and I won't be getting married, because WE don't want to, not because he won't marry me. It will cause hassle with the family, who would expect a big wedding, which we wouldn't have, we don't have any assets that would be easier dealt with in the event of our death/the breakdown of our relationship should we be married, so I see no reason for us to marry.

My cousin owned her own house where she lived with DD from first marriage. She married again, new husband turned out to be a twunt, and she and DD lost their home to pay him off for the divorce. It’s not always a good idea to be married.

YABU

I met my DP 5.5 years ago, we fell pregnant by accident 2 weeks later..

We kept the baby and have since had another. Are now engaged, just purchased our 2nd house and trying for baby number 3. I also work full time

This is very old fashioned thinking!

Even if they return to work full time the maternity leave(s) will already have impacted on their career. You also do not know what needs your baby will have that may not make full time work a possibility. Couples who earn less will have less possibility of paying for childcare too.
We decided together that having the children in childcare five days a week was not what we wanted for them, so have both worked reduced hours at different times. My hours have remained reduced - we have decided this together and it works for us as a couple but I’d be damned if I would take the risk of being left and not having a full share of assets.

Who seriously has a job that would enable you to support a young family completely alone? Assuming you are still paying rent / mortgage.

YANBU
It’s always all rosy when things are great between the two partners.
It’s always very different once you separate.

A one off contract (which is what a marriage is) means you save discussions and checks every time you do any financial ‘investment’. So

• when you buy a house
• when you decide how much everyine is outing in the common pot, is it fair that one person has more money than the other, how to do compensation for the wife’s work etc etc
• pensions and investments - who has their name on it

What I say particularly dangerous is when the woman has children. The she is expected to use her savings to pay her way (why??? Childcare has a cost, why is the father not paying his way too?), when she is gong part time because there is more disposable income overall like this (or it’s assumed that childcare only comes out from her wage) for forgetting that, by doing that, she is missing out on promotions at work, being able to up/get more responsibility, has put her career in hold etc etc. The list is endless tbh.

I say that as, both the woman who is thanksfully protected by that contract, and as the mother of two boys.
I’ve made it my aim to teach them how much women are actually loosing and the actually cost of stopping work, the wife’s work etc... so they hopefully appreciate better the fantastic opportunities they get thanks to being married/with a partner.

Of course, if you are married to a guy who is is doing it all 50/50, is earning a similar wage than you and is allowing you to have a fair share of the family income to build up youR savings etc etc, then maybe you dint need that. You will need to review every year the family finances, get to negotiate how much each can have in savings etc etc.
Id rather get married tbh.

Barbie I did. DH was injured and I was sole support for our family of four for nigh on two years. And that included paying for childcare whilst DH was retraining. And since I'm in the US, there was no social safety net for us. My BFF was the sole support of her and her DS because her ass of an ex did not pay support.

Don't assume that just because someone is a female that she can't support a family. Because that's what this whole thread is about. The assumption that a female needs to rely on a man for support once she has children.

As far as marriage, I believe everyone (male or female) should make an informed decision about whether or not it's for them. I wouldn't change my decision to marry DH as we married on an 'equal footing' as it were. But now, if I were to be single, I would NEVER marry again. I have too much to lose.

And that’s wo talking about next of kin, wills and any issue associated wth the death of one partner.

IMO, not getting married can only work if you put A LOT of safeguardings in place and review the situation regularly. Which very few people do.

Don't assume that just because someone is a female that she can't support a family. Because that's what this whole thread is about.

Nope for me this thread is about ensuring that the woman isn’t loosing out because

• the pay gap means she will always be paid less
• she is more likely to put her career in hold
• her DH is likely to be slightly older and therefore earning abit more (so his job takes the priority)
• she is doing all all the wife work, parenting, running of the house (even when the relationhsip is said the be equal, it never REALLY is)
• because her wage is lower, her pension is lower, and even if you assume partners out money in the common pot in proportion of their wage, she is still less able to put money aside, have savings etc etc
• men benefit a hell of a lot to be married/in a partnership. They are seen more professional to get more promotions than their single counterparts, they have a reader sicial circle (thanks to said woman) etc etc

In effect, being in partnership/married benefits men a lot and is a hindrance to women in a lot of areas.
Why shouldn’t, at the very least, get a benefit from it, which is a safety net?

As far as I am concerned, saying that marriage is old fashion and should be forgotten should only happen when we have actually got some proper equality in the couples. Which we are nowhere near in our society.
Until the society is still as patriarcal as it is, I believe women should still protect themselves rather than fooling themselves that they are equal, should stand up in their two feet just like men whilst they carry on with all the woman’s activities, are still being discriminated etc... in effect, more or less carrying on the same than before but without the little bit of protection the patriarcal Society was giving to women.

Although I personally believe in marriage before babies, I would never, ever tell anyone that that’s what they should do too.

It’s every person’s right to make their own decision. So yes, you are being very unreasonable.

Stop treating women like stupid infants, if they want to have kids before marriage then so be it.

More state help with childcare and child maintenance that reflects the cost of raising children would also help. Why should it matter if you are married to someone or not if you have sacrificed income to provide childcare and raise their children.

Absolutely.

I have come across people who think having children is less of a commitment than getting married. That is the problem. There is no bigger commitment than having children with someone. If you or your partner don’t agree with that statement, then you shouldn’t be having children.

Ummm I'm financially self sufficient with a career and supportive family. I have no interest in getting married. If all was to go wrong tomorrow I'd be able to survive, support children etc. It wouldn't be easy but would be manageable.

It's offensive, to me, to say women must get married.

Although just to add I think your sentiments around being financially aware and secure are more spot on.

What you are saying is marry for financial security because of the pay gap. That couldn’t be less feminist if you tried.

Let's start with the feminism accusation before we get to this gross oversimplification of my actual point.

You have made this a feminist issue. In my view, there is absolutely nothing feminist about allowing a man to impregnate you without insisting that he first commits to you legally, when it would protect you. If you are in a position where marriage would give you security after motherhood, and commit the man to seeing you right should he leave or die, there is NOTHING feminist whatsoever about allowing him to have the family life without it.

Nothing whatsoever.

On to the mangling of my point - yes, the pay gap is significant because it's a major contributing factor to women usually being more financially vulnerable than men, and therefore often benefiting from the protections of marriage. If the pay gap disappeared overnight, perhaps marriage would not be as beneficial as it is to so many people (although I'll still take the IHT exemption etc). But as it is, the pay gap DOES exist, and until we close it, we would be wise, and feminist, to use the protections at our disposal.

You appear to be implying that by suggesting women insist on this protection when it's in their interests, I am somehow suggesting we ignore the pay gap as a separate issue. This is frankly daft, and nobody on the thread has even hinted at it. Nobody would argue with you that women setting themselves up is a good idea, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also insist on the existing protections until we reach egalitarian utopia. It's not going to happen any time soon.

You appear to be so naive about the realities of working after children, I find myself thinking you probably don't have kids. Of course, you will tell me you have five of them and a six figure salary or whatever, and it's the internet, so I can't say it's not true. But I would be astonished that any working mother would not understand just how very much children change the earning capacity issue for at least one partner.

On your other point, if you don't want to get married, then don't.

All women need to know is there are no rights as a 'common law wife'. People seem to assume that there are. So make your decisions accordingly.