Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to tell women to get married before they have babies

424 replies

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1 · 12/01/2018 12:39

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.

OP posts:
Bumsnetnetbums · 14/01/2018 08:36

Head thats illegal

Headofthehive55 · 14/01/2018 08:39

goodbyee
Yes I know it's illegal. But knowing and acting upon it are different things. I work for the same organisation and I didn't want to create difficulties...it's the Large and is the major employer of my line of work.

IsaSchmisa · 14/01/2018 08:47

It's absolutely illegal, but it would be woefully naive to think it doesn't go on, and go on a lot.

goodbyeeee · 14/01/2018 08:47

I know it's hard. I was told I had to "make up" the time I spent on maternity leave. Challenging that was very difficult. But we're never going to tackle the pay gap if they're allowed to get away with it for fear of rocking the boat.

PoorYorick · 14/01/2018 09:04

The way women are penalised for having children, or even just being capable of having children (I have been asked in job interviews if I plan any more kids, as have other women I know - not one single man. That's illegal too), is beyond disgusting.

It makes me gladder than ever that a system exists by which women can, if they want, insist on a certain protection before they enter a vulnerable situation.

PoorYorick · 14/01/2018 09:06

Anyone who thinks that statement is 50s throwbacking is sadly ignorant of the realities of society in 2018.

Totally agree. I'm actually quite shocked at how many people think marriage is about 'living in the past' or 'being in the 1950s', given the appalling things working women have to put up with. But then, as I said in my first post, I think the biggest issue in this question is so many people truly not knowing what marriage is before they make a decision about it.

goodbyeeee · 14/01/2018 09:16

It is disgusting yes and marriage affords a degree of financial protection for some women (and men).

But I would rather we actively challenge the patriarchal sexist system rather than passively accept our lot.

It seems to me that women should not need to get married in order to achieve financial security or equality. In my ideal world the structures should exist which remove the power disparity such that marriage becomes largely redundant (which - before anyone accuses me of naivety - I realise is an ideal).

IsaSchmisa · 14/01/2018 09:23

Which is great, but meanwhile until we achieve these new structures we still have to live within the old ones. If someone's DP gets hit by a bus tomorrow, the lack of state bereavement benefits isn't going to be any easier to live with because people are fighting to address inequalities.

There's also absolutely zero to prevent a person from both marrying and trying to challenge patriarchy and power disparities.

YellowMakesMeSmile · 14/01/2018 09:24

It seems to me that women should not need to get married in order to achieve financial security or equality

They don't need too. They just need to realise that they have to be in employment and go back to it after maternity leave. So many women quit or go part time stating they can't possibly be a parent and work despite millions of working women around the world.

Going into a relationship with equal or no assets, both working hard to maintain financial independence and any house purchase 50/50 with decent life insurance means they will be protected should anything go wrong.

Promoting marriage alone solves nothing, The message should be to be sexes is not to rely on another and if coming together make sure it's an equal partnership rather than one side doing little whilst the other puts in the effort.

HermioneAndMsJones · 14/01/2018 09:28

But I would rather we actively challenge the patriarchal sexist system rather than passively accept our lot.
Fully agree with that.
What I don’t agree is to jump wo any protection as if we had achieved equality when we don’t and out ourselves in a worst situation.
Because by doing that we are actually reinforcing the patriarcal society.
Not only men will be able to get away with their privilege but in the top of it, we will have remove the only bit of responsibility they actually had!! Talk about throwing the baby with the bath water.

Besides, it’s worth remembering that marriage will actually protect men when we will have actually achieve said equality too. Because then it will not be the norm for them to earn more than women. It will not be the norm for women to shoulder all the mental load etc... Basically, the protection of marriage will work both men and women. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing tbh.

goodbyeeee · 14/01/2018 09:31

Completely agree yellow. Which is why I'm not married and have chosen to work after DC and protect myself in other ways. But not every woman can do that with the current structures we have.

Investing in much better and cheaper childcare provision would be helpful as a starting point.

diddlemethis · 14/01/2018 09:31

I think a lot of assumptions are being made that either party will always be able to control their lot.

What happens if you get sick, your non married spouse decides he doesn't want to be with a sick person, clears out the bank account, and buggers off leaving you with the kids.

A marriage contract isn't infallible, but it would help. This happened to a friend, a lovely hard working doctor with 3 kids including a new baby. She did nothing wrong, nothing to deserve the shit sandwich, and it was horrible to understand just how grim her situ was because she had believed him that marriage was old fashioned and unnecessary.

Eltonjohnssyrup · 14/01/2018 09:39

But I would rather we actively challenge the patriarchal sexist system rather than passively accept our lot.

This kind of ignores the fact that marriage was mainly an institution which benefited women in the first place. We've only had contraception for 50 years and mechanisation for a couple of hundred. Before that we lived in a mainly agrarian society which required hard labour in order to survive which was mainly beyond the physical capabilities of women.

Marriage basically said to men 'In order to have sex with this woman you need to stick around and deal with the consequences: e.g. feeding and housing this woman and any resulting babies. It would have been a much more preferable system to men if they could shag who they wanted and leave the consequences to women who were unlikely to have the physical capability to actually feed that offspring.

Likewise, in the majority of cases these days women benefit more from marriage financially than men do.

I don't really think a constructive way of smashing the patriarchy is to tell women not to enter into the only legal arrangement which recognises their non-financial work in bearing children and recognises a man's responsibility not only to his children, but also to her for for having them. Not least because most women do want children. In fact it seems deeply unfeminist to me.

MoggyP · 14/01/2018 09:42

"Investing in much better and cheaper childcare provision would be helpful as a starting point"

Only if you have no intention of changing the mindset that childcare is a mother's issue, not one that should fall on both parents.

Eltonjohnssyrup · 14/01/2018 09:42

Someone has to spend some time at home with the children. And be they male or female, marriage recognises that as a contribution to family finances.

The only way you can get around that is to make everybody work full time and put their kids in nursery. Given how many mothers (and some fathers) choose to go part time or stay home, do you really think that idea would have much support?

Eltonjohnssyrup · 14/01/2018 09:45

Only if you have no intention of changing the mindset that childcare is a mother's issue, not one that should fall on both parents.

And only if you're going to say children should be in full time childcare and not with their parents. And what would flow from that is that parents who did go part time and stay home would therefore see their contribution negated and worthless and it wouldn't be financially recognised, therefore impoverishing them in case of a split.

goodbyeeee · 14/01/2018 09:48

We should challenge that mindset Molly . I'm not sure the two things are mutually exclusive. Parents who want to work need decent affordable childcare.

LadyBunnysWig · 14/01/2018 09:48

Too late

Kingsclerelass · 14/01/2018 09:56

Uhmmm, I have Ds, career, nice house in my name, pension etc and got rid of selfish man child. And have never been happier. Ds is happy, healthy, doesn't ever see parents arguing or have to see father so drunk he can't get out of the car.

What's vital is Women need to be able to support themselves. Expecting Richard Gere to come and make their life perfect is not a good idea. Marriage doesn't seem to be much protection as far as I can see.

IsaSchmisa · 14/01/2018 10:12

Richard Gere?

PoorYorick · 14/01/2018 10:17

I think that was a Pretty Woman reference.

goodbyeeee · 14/01/2018 10:19

That well known feminist movie Grin

PoorYorick · 14/01/2018 10:19

And nobody on this thread has suggested that women should marry so that we can all ignore the pay gap. I'm really fed up now with that bollocks claim.

IsaSchmisa · 14/01/2018 10:22

Which was be using since they didn't get married in Pretty Woman! Perhaps it was something to do with gerbils.

IsaSchmisa · 14/01/2018 10:23

Bemusing. Not be using.