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.

Well, and what impact marriage has. You may or may not want it!

The problem with some of the comments a few posts back about not infantilising women, it being offensive etc, is that whenever these discussions happen, it becomes very clear that people have some extremely odd ideas. This thread is no exception.

We've had the usual its a piece of paper, baby is a bigger commitment, marriage should be or is about love, and marriage doesn't mean the relationship won't go sour. The usual mix of wrong and irrelevant, with a couple of new spins like my DP is so committed to me he's happy for me to take his name. And this response always happens. It's troubling that some people clearly aren't making their decisions with an adequate understanding.

the 'I'm allowed to take his name' is a brilliant idea. Girlfriend kept happy because it looks like you're married, but no obligations and no sharing of any assets. Gotta hand it to that guy.

Myself and my dp were together for 10 years before we had dd. Not got married because it’s too expensive. We rent a house together. I don’t have to answer to you but I just wanted to say that not everyone’s experience is the same and neither is it any of your business.

the 'I'm allowed to take his name' is a brilliant idea. Girlfriend kept happy because it looks like you're married, but no obligations and no sharing of any assets. Gotta hand it to that guy.

I bet he'll even allow the baby to have his name too.

Even if they return to work full time the maternity leave(s) will already have impacted on their career

If multiple leave and leave maybe but I can't see how it impacted mine. I could work the same hours, put the same effort in etc. It didn't change my earning capacity.

Or how about: don't get into a long term relationship with a twat. And definitely don't get into a long term relationship with a twat without using at least 2 forms of contraception.

That would be a lot easier than marrying the twat just to divorce him to get half the house.

How about getting a career of your own and not having sex with twats. That way you get your own house and don't have babies with twats. What a revelation!!

Not every man is a twat. I'd say not marrying them they've got a quick and easy escape. Some people just don't want to marry. Married or not a twats a twat he's gna do it either way you just end up with a messy divorce.

Or he dies, and you end up getting state bereavement payments which really help even though he was a twat.

poor yorick - I certainly do have children but I am a high earner and earned more than my both my exes. It is ofc hard to manage as a single parent and I need lots of paid help but I can afford it. If I had married my last partner, I would likely be still paying him off instead of using the money I earn for my children.

Would it be great if somehow I could just live off my ex if he had been wealthier? Well life would be easier, but I am not that kind of person and I don't want that for my daughters either.

You say"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."

What an awful thing to say! You're still saying the same thing. If financially he's worth marrying, get that ring on your finger before you have his babies. So by your rationale, only rich men are worth marrying anyway. How do you know they will always be rich and that you will always be protected? That they wont gamble away your money or otherwise hide it or lose it? If you depend on someone else for your financial security, what happens when they prove to be rather less than dependable?

I am a single parent. I am now happily unmarried and will likely stay that way. I can make my own money and I don't need someone elses. It seems to me a bit that some people want to judge women for not getting married and having children out of wedlock. My last child is my daughter as well as my partners. I was not doing him any favours by not marrying him after I let him impregnate me.

Its great if people want to get married but they should do it for love and because they want to get married not so they can get their hands on some "security".

I agree that people shouldn't have misconceptions about legal rights of unmarried spouses. But the idea that women should marry before they have children for "legal protection" belongs in the dark ages. And is very much a feminist issue.

But Yellow the very fact that you’ve had ML (or even, might have, as you possess the required female organs) can negatively impact on a woman’s prospects. Not in your job perhaps, but lots of prejudice exists re employing or promoting women who may just be “mummy tracked” later on.

It’s like going into business with someone. You plan roles and finances on the basis that you are a team and are in it together. If one of the team then leaves it is wrong for one party to bear the brunt of any sacrifices that were made when you were together.

I wasn’t married when I had our first child, didn’t want to be then, but I had no idea how much I was about to give up in terms of my financial independence.

I certainly do have children but I am a high earner and earned more than my both my exes.

Well, there you go. I am not a high earner, and since becoming a mother I am less likely to hit my earning potential. For you, marriage would be a bad idea. For me, it is a very good idea and I would not have had a child with my husband if he had not been prepared to marry me first.

What an awful thing to say!

What, that I don't think it's feminist to have a child with a man who isn't prepared to commit to you when it's in your interests? That's offensive to you? The previous poster whose partner refuses to marry her when she wants him to, but she's decided to be happy because he's allowed her to take his name...that's girl power?

I'm not offended by your decision not to marry. Perhaps you should consider your motives as to why you become so defensive about this.

As for the rest of it, once again, I have never suggested that women should marry only rich men or forego all financial independence. I say only that people should understand what marriage is before they decide whether or not it's right for them, and they should insist upon it before going into a situation where being unmarried would leave them vulnerable. And yes, the pay gap means that a lot of women earn less than their partners (even if their partners aren't wealthy), and so being married before having children would be wise.

If you insist on seeing this as "girls, marry a rich man and never work a day in your life!", I have nothing to say to you. I just don't engage with that level of disingenuousness, wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

This dichotomy between providing financially for yourself and getting married some people insist on trying to establish is completely unhelpful.

Though the reality is that women are the ones who get hit by more of the impact of caring, and it's not something you can necessarily opt out of. Those pretending it is and yarning on about dark ages need to do some privilege checking.

How can getting married be too expensive. A wedding can be expensive. Getting married need not be expensive. Why wouldn't two committed people not want to get married. Don't get it at all.

marry a rich man - isn't that the nub of what your are saying though? Marriage is a bad idea for me cos I am a high earner? Is it? Why?

It worked for you financially so marriage is a "good idea" for you? Isnt that a bit calculating though? As I said, I didn't marry my ex mainly cos I knew I didnt think he was "the one". Not for financial reasons. But financially, it worked out well for me.

I was happy to have a daughter with him though and she is well provided for. We are on good terms and coparent well since we split.

So I think this thread (and many like it) is just a bit judgy judgy on unmarried mothers and more than a bit old fashioned.

Maybe I am sensitive on this issue. I live in an affluent area and I am a member of a religious minority so I am very much an oddity as a single parent where I am. Some people do treat me as if I am somewhat of a tragic case. But I genuinely don't feel that way at all. I am happier on my own (or else I wouldn't have split with my ex). I also like that I have control over my life and make my own decisions. Its hard being a single parent but there is lots of good in it too. We certainly shouldn't be shaming people for it in 2018.

My daughter is wonderful and is a great benefit to me (although she drives me nuts sometimes of course). She is not my ex's child and having her was not some deal with him for his wages.

And I have my own name. And my daughter has mine. I think its bonkers that women are changing their name to their husbands in 2018.

With the repeated comments about dark ages and how people should marry for love and finances shouldn't come into it, you've veered pretty close to shaking yourself.

Shaming. Not shaking. No need for violence!

do you mean shaming myself? How am I shaking myself?

I do think that marrying someone for money isn't anything to be proud of. sorry if you think that's some sort of achievement.

Also I didn't mean in my previous post that my daughter is not my ex's biological child. I meant that she is mine too. I wanted to have a child, so I did. I don't need to be married first. I can provide for myself and my family and like being able to do so. I would go as far as to say I am proud of being able to provide and care for my family as a single parent.

If people want to rely on someone else, good for them. But that doesnt always work out whether you are married or not.

You've engaged in Shaming yourself, and you do so again with your most recent post. That sorry if you think marrying for money is an achievement is snooty and nasty as well as stupid. It would appear it isn't shaming you have a problem with, it's just that single mothers aren't your preferred target.

Massively unreasonable! Did all unmarried mothers of the world ask your opinion?

Not all men are twats, not all woman who have babies out-with married are stupid/got pregnant by mistake

Being married isn't the most important thing to some people. Respect people's choices to live their own lives and just worry about yourself

I do think that marrying someone for money isn't anything to be proud of. sorry if you think that's some sort of achievement

Nor do I. It's quite calculated and cold hearted.

However for many it's what they aspire too, a husband who will provide everything so they don't have to work etc. It's not what I would want for a daughter.

I haven't RTFT but I believe it simply cones down to always making sure you have a way out.

Whether that be savings, a job, friends, family, have something or someone that can help you if you really need it. When my ex emotionally, financially and physically abused me I was able to make a decision and remove myself safely. He took most, but not all my wages, so i started stashing cash with my parents on the guise of paying off some money they'd loaned us (he approved of that as he thought it kept me poor). My family also supported me to secretly find a house back near them, and helped me move into it when he fucked off on a holiday he had excluded me from.

Without those two things I would have been trapped. I run things myself very successfully and I would now never move in with a man without being put on a tenancy/mortgage, especially if I was handing over cash for it. I also have savings so if I'm ever on maternity leave or out of work again I can support myself and have a stash just in case.

I know it's not very romantic to have an escape fund, and many women laugh at the idea. But having gone through it I think it's an essential.

Thing us, in my single Mums group I know many women who are still living with their STBXH because he won't give up the house or contests her right to half (Even when they've had a joint mortgage, because "he earns more"), or ones who are being evicted by vindictive XHs and/or can't afford to rent by themselves (even though some of them work). And they were married. As a never married woman, I'm better off than many of them.

Knowing what I know of my single Mum friends, I don't think marriage is the safety net some think it is. If a man wants to leave a woman with nothing and can afford a good lawyer then he can and will do that. In fact, it is mostly the ones who have never married but who are reasinably intelligent and/or have their own means that are the most secure.

marry a rich man - isn't that the nub of what your are saying though?

Not even close, and I'm starting to wonder why you're so desperate for me to be saying that.

Women's contribution to asset acquisition is often non-monetary. They provide childcare that enables the man to continue earning without disruption, at the cost of their own earning capacity, pension provision and so on.

If the couple should split, the woman’s contribution and resulting sacrifices should be recognised in the distribution of these assets. No matter how large or small they are.

In many cases, the best way to ensure this is to be married.

This is so far from ‘girls, marry rich men’ that I can’t put it any more simply. If that’s still what you’re taking from this, then maybe someone else should have a go at explaining it because I can’t make it any clearer.

As an aside – I’d say the same if the roles were reversed (I asked a PP why she wouldn’t marry to give her partner security and she never really answered) and if I outearned my husband, I would fully expect to give him the same protection I’d want for myself.

I would run a mile from a man who wanted me to have his children and do the brunt of caring for them but would not commit to me legally. That man is not a feminist.

Maybe I am sensitive on this issue.

If you'll pardon my saying it, I think you are, or at least have a somewhat skewed perception of what earning life is like for many women.

You are very affluent and a high earner, and your prior relationships ended (I'm sorry and I'm honestly not trying to be a cow in saying it). We're all products of our experiences, but if you really can't understand that some women need marriage for their own protection, and can't just walk into a six figure salary with a bit of 'you go girl' rhetoric, then...well, please just take my word for it.

As an aside, I have never, ever shamed anyone for being a single parent and I wouldn't maintain a friendship with anyone who did. Single parents are fucking troopers and deserve medals. One of the reasons I want women to look at what marriage is, and insist on it IF IT WOULD PROTECT THEM is precisely because single parenthood is so bloody hard and thankless...so why would you not insist on protections that could make it a bit less difficult if it did come to that? Or indeed, if you should die?

One thing that comes across massively is that lots more people than I thought really don't like to share. Depending on your point of view within the marriage, it seems that you are either standing smugly on your own two feet, or you're being a selfish bastard. I'd love to hear the other side of the story from all the other halves.

RhodaBollocks had it right - always have your escape planned!

I dont think it is anything to be proud of - marrying someone for money. Issa - I wouldn’t go as far as to say I am shaming anyone but how could that be anything to be proud of. It’s not.

Yorick - it is what you’re saying though. You’ve said it lots of times in lots of ways. That it’s a “good idea” to marry a rich man and not “let a a man impregnate” you if you’re not married. How old are you?

On divorce assets will be divided whether or not one party does more childcare or not. One party might get a greater share on that basis but they might not and there might not be much to share. I personally think we should award maintenance and share of assets to reflect the sacrifices involved in childcare rather than on the basis of marriage but I agree that we don’t.

Great that you’re concerned about single parents and have such insight. I do agree that we should go into these things with our eyes open but that’s entirely different from deliberately marrying for money.

I think it’s a bit patronising to tell women they should “insist on marriage” if it would give them “protection”. Not everyone wants to get married even if it would benefit them financially. And if their partner refuses, not much they can do about it.

Being a single parent has its rewards. It’s not thankless. I’m pretty glad I let my ex “impregnate me” even though it wasn’t a good idea to marry him.