Women who have children before marriage

[FissionChips]

..but get upset when their partner does not want to/ has not asked to marry them , yet still insist they are too traditional to even contemplate asking their dp to marry them or just discussing it like adults.

I dont get it. Most of the complaining women give the child their partners surname as well which isn’t even traditional if the parents are not married. They live together for years. They are in no way following tradition.
AIBU to not understand why they lie about being “traditional “?

Like a legally binding will which benefits both parties?

I also agree @name, BUT, the truth is that many women are still giving up work or partly giving up work, so hubby can be a high flyer while she looks after dcs. There’s no point denying it. I wish it was different but it isn’t.

The contract is already there- you get back what you put in if you split up and aren't married. What more do you need?

If one partner stays at home and doesn't earn any cash, that's their decision.

Most women should consider that childcare is a joint cost which should be split between both parents; and that staying in work is wise, given that so many marriages end in divorce.

If one partner stays at home and doesn't earn any cash, that's their decision

Strictly true, but there is still stigma attached to going back to work full time when you have young children.

In my ideal world, dh and I would be able to work part time and share childcare responsibilities. Funny enough he isn’t happy with that idea .

Staying in work is a security, marriage often isn't.

I think we need to stop assuming that women are always financially weaker in a relationship. And stop assuming that marriage is a good idea for everyone.

I agree but the OP never argued any of those things. She asked why people used tradition as a fig leaf (proposals, marriage) when they don't follow any other traditional behavior (no fornication, children in wedlock).

Staying in work is a security, marriage often isn't.

Tell me about it! Much better to stay in work. Everyone knows this, but lots of women don’t.

I think we know why the OP really started this thread. It's another bash at single parents.

...many women don’t AND many of them don’t get married either. Which, to me, is the worst of both worlds for her. Yet it’s incredibly common.

NameChanger22 absolutely!

I think we know why the OP really started this thread. It's another bash at single parents.

Really? I thought the reference to 'lying' in the OP was rather specious but by and large I thought the discussion was about the pitfalls or benefits of marriage. A cursory glance at the Relationship's board sheds a lot of light of the very unfortunate circumstances women have found themselves in and I don't think anyone has said their way is the only way of doing things. Why make it personal. It's a discussion forum.

I think we know why the OP really started this thread. It's another bash at single parents

How on earth did you get that from my op?

If anything, there needs to be an alternative legal contract which both partners agree to. Like marriage but without the stigma.

So what would this alternative contract entail?

As I've already asked: So you'd like an alternative legal contract that you can opt into, that's the same as marriage in terms of legal rights, but isn't called marriage?

If it's an opt in contract you want, that you can sign to get the same rights as married couples, how would that opt-in contract differ to the opt-in contract we currently have (signing a marriage register)?

Is it the name 'marriage' that's the issue? If civil marriage was simply renamed 'legal union' would that suffice?

De facto relationships seem like they would disincentivize parents re-partnering. If that's the goal, I think it's not a bad way to do it.

Think about it. Women would benefit from receiving more money/property from their children's fathers in unmarried situations. But they would then be vulnerable to having any property they did have taken by any future partner. It creates a huge disincentive to move a man into your home around your children. The number of cocklodgers on the relationship board - every single one of them would have rights to the marital home. I think a lot of women would simply live apart from their new partners. And bear in mind that in NZ, you don't have to maintain a joint residence to create a de facto relationship so that's not even safe.

So it discourages mothers or fathers from moving randoms into the family home. Maybe that's the actual goal. If so, it's an impressive way to do it.

‘Which is why imposing the obligations of marriage on cohabiting couples (whether or not they wish to enter into a legal arrangement or not), is so objectionable to many people on this thread’

It should be a choice though. Why would people care if it was?

Oh forgive me banana I’ve misread your comment

If people want money and property they need to actually earn it. When the kids are all of school age, there is no reason why both parents can't work.

All this talk of getting money out of an ex husband because the woman did not get a job, does us all a disservice.

I'm not a helpless little housewife and nor is any woman I know.

NameChanger22

How is this a bash as single parents?

One, These aren't even single parents! You're not a single parent if the other parent lives with you. Yes, technicalities blah blah blah but that's not even what people colloquially mean when they talk about single parents.

Two, why is it unacceptable to discuss unmarried relationships on Mumsnet? People discuss marriage all the time. If people want other relationship models taken as seriously as marriage then you can't shut down discussion on them any time they are brought up. If de facto relationships became legal, do you think there'd be no discussion of them?

What are you even complaining about?

As I've already asked: So you'd like an alternative legal contract that you can opt into, that's the same as marriage in terms of legal rights, but isn't called marriage?

Yes, I would. But, I’ve been married for years anyway. I would just like the option as there is so much assumption and prejudice against marriage. An alternative would presumably be free of that stigma.

I perhaps shouldn’t have used the word lying, was rather drunk when I wrote it though.

I hadn’t thought about the fertility angle before, I can see how desperation for a baby can lead to making choices you perhaps wouldn’t have. Thank you to the posters who brought that up.

The thread has gone away from my op and more about whether people should marry if they have children. You can’t blame me for that.

I think what we’re saying though banana is that there are situations where people want the rights without the marriage ceremony. It’s easy for people to say just go to a registry office but there’s still the need for witnesses and how ever down played this is there’s still far too many formalities. Why can’t it be just a case of signing and that’s it without the ‘marriage’ and rings and religious part.

Ah, this old chestnut! It's good though, because the more it gets talked about on here the more people will see it and gain a better understanding.

The topic is a difficult one. As a cohort, women are better off being married because marriage is more financial protection for the party with less income and assets, and that's more likely to be us. But it's not true for all women, and it would be daft to get married because of something that applies to the class you're a member of but not you.

I do agree with the OP though, that while the reasons that women knowingly put themselves in this position are complex, I do a massive facepalm whenever a poster who is dying to get married doesn't want to discuss the issue with her DP, because she's traditional. Despite having lived with a partner and had kids outside marriage.

I mean yes, people can be as pick and mix as they like about what traditions they want to observe. That's their right. But really, if you're choosing the ones you want, why the actual fuck would you select all the ones that most disadvantage you? The worst of both worlds? It's one thing if you're with someone you know won't marry you and you've taken the decision that you'd rather be with them unmarried or not. At least that's an actual decision process. But not even being willing to discuss it seriously is totally self-sabotaging.

Haha chips i’m responsibility for the fertility comment but also for getting involved off topic too...apologies

bananafish81

If by change the name, you mean remove all references to marriage and church and god and the history of matrimony, then absolutely! This is what civil unions are. Civil unions should be legal for straight people!

This is different to "de facto" relationships which are forced onto people.