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 “?

If you're in a position where you're able to dismiss the equity on three quarters of a house as shite toomany, I'd venture to suggest that perhaps you're taking a view different to that shared by most low to medium earners. If it's that minimal of a concern to a divorcing SAHP, she doesn't have to take it!

Toomany, on the one hand you’re saying that if a couple don’t have two pennies to rub together than any benefits they might get from being married are minimal (and there may be some truth in that) and on the other hand you’re saying they can achieve better securing through looking at their own income, savings, investments etc. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Your hypothetical low income couple doesn’t have any spare money at the end of the month for savings and investments. If they did, they would be a different, financially better off couple than the couple you initially described, and the SAHP would have more to gain from being married.

I wonder how many of those married for more than seven years would marry the same person again. I am certain I wouldn’t and we are together because of the children. At least I am. Therefore it stands to reason if an unmarried couple are together for seven plus years, they would be far more unlikely to marry because they are all too aware of each other’s flaws.

It isn't that cut and dried.

That’s exactly what I and various other posters have been saying for quite a while now. It isn’t cut and dry at all. You need to research it rationally and figure out what is best for you as a couple. It’s a lot more important than a white dress and cake... and I rarely say anything is more important than cake .

Many people don’t think any of it through before they decide to either get married or to have dcs without being married, which I think is a mistake.

whitesea, my husband and I had been together 6 years and were well aware of each other’s flaws when we got engaged.

The reality is marriage as a security blanket is ridiculous. It isn't that cut and dried. If you want real security look at your income,your future,your savings,your investments as a couple and as an individual.

Many unmarried partners will be properly provided for and many married partners won't have a pot to piss in in the event of death.

No, the reality is that this is obfuscation.

Marriage is not a security blanket, it's simply more security than not being married for the one who has less money. It definitely is. You're allowed to not think this is important, and it might not be for you, but this will not change the fact that it's more security for the poorer party.

Your comments about savings, investments etc simply boil down to- be richer. So not very helpful. It's likely the case that an unmarried SAHP who has these will be doing better than a married SAHP who is poor, yes. Marriage doesn't automatically move you up a few income brackets, notwithstanding that married couples are wealthier on average. But again this is a flawed approach because the appropriate comparison is with an individual from a family in the same income level and with the same setup. So if you're a rich unmarried partner, comparing yourself to a married woman from a couple without much money is idiotic.

It's not cut and dried, but actually we can make generalisations that will hold good in the majority of cases. It's just that women as a class being better off financially if they get married shouldn't influence a woman for whom that isn't the case. Too often when this is discussed, people continue to conflate better for most women with better for all women. It would be stupid to get married just because most SAHPs are better off married, when you're not a SAHP and you want to leave your assets to your adult children not your partner.

Tokyo Children, for us, highlighted all our flaws as people. The lack of time to do our own thing highlighted with the endless tasks involved in raising children made me realise we were very unsuited.

Whitesea then that would be the case whether you were married or not. Do you think you personally would be better off if you hadn’t married?

Yes I would.

Plenty of couples who have children before marriage end up getting married but often imo it's when the woman has a low self-esteem that they don't.

Ah sorry to hear that @whitesea .

Notlinked I cant even begin to interpret your post but I suspect you mean that a woman with low self esteem won’t push their partner to get married thereby assuming that pushy women are married women. This is all kinds of insulting to all women!

I've been with my partner for 15 years, no kids and no plans. House in joint names, pensions, wills, life insurance, rights of attorney/kinship etc all sorted out with lawyers, at great, time-consuming expense.

I don't particularly want to get married (although the OH, who we jokingly refer to as 'Groomzilla', would quite like to). I wish we had civil partnerships in this country for heterosexual couples, would have been quicker and cheaper.

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

A lot more secure than the children of married parents who are all getting a divorce

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

Given what I have witnessed in other people's divorces the house is the first to go.

As an unmarried set of parents we are more secure than most married couples.

Lived with dp for nearly 40years.

As for IHT I think depending on what you have the cost of divorce definitely out weighs any benefits

I resisted marriage before and after my dcs were born. It worked out well for me as I broke off the engagement and left but didn’t have to give any assets to my ex. So now I can better provide for my dcs. Still on good (enough) terms with my ex too.

That’s a shame for you Whitesea. Difficult to see how you could have done differently though.

What Thistle and Oliver said.

That's exactly what I mean whitesea and it's not offensive, sadly it's a fact that I see borne out every week on mumsnet. A woman who doesn't value herself finds herself boiled like the proverbial frog and wakes up without a job, a sahm to one maybe even two children. It suits her partner who's maintained his career despite being a father down to the ground. She got herself in to that mess because of a low self-esteem, told her job wasn't equal to his so she had to give it. It is insidious and if you find it offensive to women then you're not living in reality. I want women to value themselves more and to realise the power they have to walk away to say no to say this is what you'd need to do for this relationship to continue.... and plenty do! But plenty DON'T and those are the ones I'm refering to obviously.

ps, because if you earn 3 times what your 'partner' does then what the hell does it matter?

Toomany, I think statistics show that a couple living together are far more likely to split up than a married couple.

I think the idea that all divorces are horrendously expensive and complex and therefore marriage is financially disadvantageous is untrue. Divorce itself is relatively cheap, the cost is usually caused by people being unable to agree! I'd suggest that, an unmarried cohabiting couple who shared assets could have an almost equally costly and complex seperation if one or both of them were determined to be difficult about it.

Ultimately marriage benefits some groups of people and doesn't benefit others. I'd say educate yourself and work out which group you belong to and then act accordingly.

I've never understood the Civil Partnerships argument, they only exist as a result of homophobia. I suspect they are likely to be abolished all together rather than extended.

How can you 'insist on marriage?!?!' Some people actually believe in ensuring you're compatible before marriage you know? Quite often kids come along despite the best methods of protection. Nothing wrong with upholding some kind of tradition?

And my daughter has her Father's surname out of respect for him but mainly because if we were to later marry, she would then have our surname. However this didn't happen. He's a monster. But I don't regret her having his surname. Mine is awful!!!

Well put Sunshinegirl