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 “?

One thing to remember is that becoming a stay at home parent is not always a choice--for example if you give birth to a disabled child.

Another reason why it is safer to get married before children. We might all start off with intentions of pursuing our own careers, savings, pension plans, but it might not work out that way.

*The very idea of expecting someone to provide financial security for another adult is bizarre.

Why? Because you decided not to get a job?

Still not getting the justification for all this.*

Yes SAHMs have simply decided not to get a job. Nothing at all to do with wanting to be around more for their children or believing it's best for their children. You may not agree with this rationale but choosing to depict SAHMs as spongers that just can't be bothered to work is disingenuous.

Marriage as an institution financially protects SAHMs so if someone is against marriage in that situation because marriage is "symbolically" patriarchal then they value symbols over substantive financial benefit. In which case, they should be as horrified by the SYMBOL of a woman at home cleaning and childrearing and the SYMBOL of a man working and bringing in all the money, regardless of the financial outcomes.
So SAHMs symbolise to you cleaning and childrearing and you find that horrifying from a feminist perspective but yet feel going out earning money is more worthy. Firstly, being a SAHM can be symbolised by sharing experiences with your children and

And the reality is that the majority of the population don't have wills

And a very very very tiny minority of unmarried couples have legal cohabitation agreements

@Bumpitybumper

"Yes SAHMs have simply decided not to get a job. Nothing at all to do with wanting to be around more for their children or believing it's best for their children.  You may not agree with this rationale but choosing to depict SAHMs as spongers that just can't be bothered to work is disingenuous. "

Once the kids are at school, why can't they get a job?

How many women actually stay at home beyond the youngest starting school? And why would you? What's the point in sitting in an empty house?

I often wonder how the children of these non traditional families feel. Especially if their friends whose parents are married.

Everyone has a different surname, mum and dad won't 'commit' to each other. There's little security - the house could go at any minute.

The argument that unmarried SAHPs are hypocrites is not one that stands up to analysis. It's also unhelpful, because what people actually need to be taking away from this subject is that, absent the usual list of exceptions such as own money etc, being an unmarried SAHP often leaves you vulnerable and it's unlikely to be in your interests to rule out marriage on principle.

But as soon as the stuff about choosing not to get a job gets thrown in, it'll turn into the usual bunfight and meanwhile any SAHPs/putative SAHPs reading who actually would benefit from accurate information are going to end up feeling defensive, pissed off or just stop reading instead.

Once the kids are at school, why can't they get a job?

With all those appropriate school-hour jobs falling out of trees it does make you wonder doesn't it? Coupled with the fact that industry tends to not move on and tends to hang about waiting, it really does make one wonder. Also the fact that once children go to school they are all but ready for the adult world and don't require any more support, I think you are on to something.

My personal view is that unless a woman is independently wealthy then becoming a SAHM is a very perilous way to live but that's their choice; I won't judge them for it but I'd much rather be doing something, anything if it kept a foot in the working world.

Part of the problem is that people still believe in the myth of "common law husband/wife".

I don't see how it can be denied that a woman's financial stability is far better when she a job and a pension.

When DS was younger DP and I both took advantage of the flexible working arrangements offered by our companies and worked full time hours over 4 days. This meant that DS only had to have 3 full days in nursery each work and also meant that we both got to spend time with him on our own.

neonyellowshoes SAHMs don't have to justify their existence or their choices anymore than other parents.

Why do some parents choose to work FT with long commutes and miss out on seeing their children? Unless you are desperate need of the money who says this is a more feminist choice? What about parents that don't push themselves to the max to earn every single penny they can? Are they also "bad" feminists as they aren't contributing to their maximum potential? Also those parents that work PT or flexibly to try and be around more for their children? Are they allowed views on the patriarchy etc?

Life is about more than money, as I said earlier, i believe all SAHPs should marry to protect their financial interests but that does not mean that their views about what marriage represents etc are invalid.

I didn't say unmarried SAHMS are hypocrites, I said unmarried SAHMS who choose not to marry because marriage is patriarchal are hypocrites.

Again unmarried SAHMS who choose not to marry because marriage is patriarchal are hypocrites.

Again for the people who just see SAHMs and don't even bother to read to the end of the sentence: unmarried SAHMS who choose not to marry because marriage is patriarchal are hypocrites.

Ordinary SAHMs are not hypocrites. People who choose not to marry because it doesn't benefit them financially are not hypocrites. People who turn down being a "wife" because it's sexist but are willing to be financially dependent on a man and completely legally vulnerable are hypocrites and very silly indeed.

any SAHPs/putative SAHPs reading who actually would benefit from accurate information are going to end up feeling defensive, pissed off or just stop reading instead.

It's impossible to talk about any issue relating to cohabitation without triggering people's defenses. And anyone already in or about to enter a vulnerable situation is already going to be shut down and defensive.

This thread at best would educate women who may do this in the future. And they are unlikely to be defensive about it now so i don't see why we have to walk on eggshells.

Ordinary SAHMs are not hypocrites. People who choose not to marry because it doesn't benefit them financially are not hypocrites. People who turn down being a "wife" because it's sexist but are willing to be financially dependent on a man and completely legally vulnerable are hypocrites and very silly indeed.

I could maybe get on board with the "silly", but I just don't like the hypocrite stance at all. Maybe it's because I don't view the decision to be a SAHM as unfeminist so you can be someone that is comfortable with being a SAHM but ardently opposed to certain elements of marriage you find sexist. Does that leave you exposed and vulnerable? Yes. Does that make you a hypocrite? No, I don't necessarily see that.

Why is it a AIBU? None of your business I reckon and screw you for judging anyone else for daring to want their partner to propose to them. What the fuck is it to do with you? Maybe you should think about more important things to be offended about like social injustice, homelessness, prejudice and kids living in poverty in your own neighbourhood?

Is this having a dig at another situation a poor poster has found herself in?
Pretty cruel if it is the one I am thinking of

This thread is awful.

It's impossible to talk about any issue relating to cohabitation without triggering people's defenses. And anyone already in or about to enter a vulnerable situation is already going to be shut down and defensive.

That's true. The amount of bullshitting, denial and attempts to turn the discussion round to whether married people are happier or not that tends to go on whenever these threads come up stands as testament to that.

Nonetheless, throwing in comments about hypocrisy is not going to help with this.

It is isn't it flamingo. A friend of mine once said of mn, 'isn't it just full of women who want to bitch about other women?'. And to think I rushed to mn defense!

LifeBeginsAtGin - you can ask my DC. The oldest enough to be asked how they feel about being born to feckless (both employed) non-committed parents (in a 15 year relationship) and the risk of being made homeless any minute (from the house we own).

You could ask DC’s friends too. In a sample of four who were the lucky ones invited to the last birthday party, you have two who live with their divorced mothers and two who live with (both) their unmarried parents.

Bumpitybumper

I could maybe get on board with the "silly", but I just don't like the hypocrite stance at all. Maybe it's because I don't view the decision to be a SAHM as unfeminist so you can be someone that is comfortable with being a SAHM but ardently opposed to certain elements of marriage you find sexist. Does that leave you exposed and vulnerable? Yes. Does that make you a hypocrite? No, I don't necessarily see that.

Being a wife is no more unfeminist than being a SAHM. Can't support being a SAHM and sneer at being a wife. It's hypocrisy.

If a man can't be bothered to marry the mother of his children, then he is saying (not out loud), that he doesn't think they are worth it.
No one needs a massive wedding ring or even a big ceremony, you can get married at the registry office for a couple of hundred.
You could always save for a 'fancy' wedding later on a foreign beach, they aren't legal anyway until you sort it out in the UK.
It's only a piece of paper, but it's a legal protection document for partners who think things through!

Is this having a dig at another situation a poor poster has found herself in?
Pretty cruel if it is the one I am thinking of

This is ridiculous. Posters are adamantly opposed to any discussion of cohabitation in any form but somehow want it recognized as just as valid as marriage. People talk about marriage ALL THE TIME. It is discussed, dissected and criticized endlessly but unmarried couples lose it if anyone dares talk about their precious cohabitation.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES ON MUMSNET. This is a broad issue and not about one particular poster.

More hypocrisy from the cohabitation brigade.

What about when a woman does not want to marry the father of her children? I don’t want to marry him, or anyone. I do want to spend my life with him as a partner.

It’s possible to love and respect someone and not want to marry them.

PaulDacreRimsGeese

But this thread is about hypocrisy. It actually isn't about whether or not unmarried couples should marry. It was very specifically about them invoking tradition in a hypocritical way. My question (about invoking feminism in a hypocritical way) is closer to the spirit of the thread than all the comments about whether you are financially worse off not being married.

Married or not married - it’s up to you but if you’re not married and not financially secure, you’re an idiot!

It is indeed purpletraitor. It should just be an informed decision, in particular in respect of any disadvantage that might accrue to you because of it.