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 “?

Marriage does actually involve forfeiting rights as well as acquiring them, in that you're entering into a contract that reduces your ability to decide what happens to your assets should that contract end. So of course there are some people who don't want this, and decide not to get married because of it. Many situations where it makes complete sense. I don't know whether there are more people who decide against marriage because of this than because of what you mention whitesea but it's definitely an issue for some.

"So almost half of couples cope just fine without being married"

If you're referring to the statistics mentioned above then no. That statistic states that 42% of married couples will divorce.

I feel like there quite a lot of defensiveness whenever this topic comes up. I don't think married couples are "better" nor do I think everyone should get married. For many not being married is absolutely the right choice, but everyone needs to know the facts and make their own assessment.

The problem with the vast majority of replies on this thread and indeed most others on this topic is that is does assume that women need financial protection, women give up their careers etc. Just as many woman I know walk into marriage with careers and assets of their own and have to draw up a pre nup to "protect" them from the harsh financials that come with divorce!

Haven’t read the full thread.

Not married here, don’t want to be. It’s a tradition I don’t relate to, not religious, don’t like how it stems from a religious and very sexist background. The big show, the fanfare (yes I know you can get married in a registry office on the cheap, but it’s not the norm), White wedding dresses symbolising a women’s purity, discustingly sexist. Also I don’t need my father to give me away. I am not his property.

I earn more than DP (often refer to him as DH on here to avoid conflation around my perceived “vulnerability”).

I earn around 20k more, we have one child, my career didn’t suffer as a consequence of taking 6 months maternity leave. We have wills, insurance and all the legal documents for our finances in order. So for all legal purposes we may as well be married.

Was hard work sorting it all out, would be easier if they had civil partnerships for heterosexual couples who don’t want the negative conatations of being “married” but require the proper legal protection.

It's because being the more financially vulnerable party is the reality for the majority of women, and certainly the majority of SAHPs. Most of whom are women. Plenty of us have pointed out that this is a description of women as a cohort, not of every individual woman. A woman might have very sound financial reasons for not wanting to get married, and the fact that she'd be in a minority amongst women doesn't prevent that.

But as an AIBU, than this answers the question.

Some women don’t wont to get married period.

Some don’t know what they are sacrificing without marriage. But that’s a different AIBU.

Making it simpler (and less of a ritual) for people to be legally responsible for their children and finances once they enter a long term relationship, would surely be beneficial to both the above.

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. Aping the form of traditional marriage but eschewing its protections because the patriarchy really is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

No PTW you may not as well be married for legal purposes. Your position is still quite different from that of a married couple. It sounds like you've got a decent setup anyway, but having wills that either of you could revoke with minimal option for the other to challenge is not like being married. If your assets are/become high enough to incur IHT, that won't be like being married. You may prefer this of course.

Do you not have an issue with the homophobic, othering history of CP though?

Making it simpler (and less of a ritual) for people to be legally responsible for their children and finances once they enter a long term relationship, would surely be beneficial to both the above.

Organising our civil marriage was quicker and simpler than drawing up our wills

The wills involved drafting the content and specifying the provisions, with some back and forth to draft the wording, as well as going into the solicitors to sign in the presence of two witnesses

Our civil marriage involved giving notice to marry, booking a date and time, then rocking up to the registry office on a Tuesday afternoon to nip in, give verbal and written consent to entering into a legally binding union (also in the presence of 2 witnesses), then 20 mins later we left with a copy of our marriage certificate. Job done. No rings. No one had to know that we'd ever done it. Apart from ticking the box for married / in a civil partnership on official documentation where required, there's no reason anyone should have to know we'd signed a marriage contract, same as no one had to know we'd signed wills.

We did choose to have a wedding at a later date - a humanist ceremony with a party to celebrate with friends. But that was entirely separate from the legal marriage.

To those who want the legal status of marriage but object to the historical patriarchal baggage of the term marriage: if marriage was renamed, let's say 'sparkly unicorn union' and retained exactly the same legal status and obligations but just under a different name, would that be more palatable? If it's the naming that's the issue?

I'm not saying that everyone should get married, or that marriage is right for everyone, or anything like that. I'm simply observing that signing a marriage contract is pretty simple (and devoid of ritual) already, in order to obtain the legal provision currently afforded by marriage (if that's something that a couple wants).

I’ve been trying to put this into words a few times. Here it is.

I don’t think that de facto relationships should be a thing, I don’t think you should acquire rights by default, we should all opt in. Just to get that out of the way.

I don’t want to get married. You can ‘first world problem’ me if you like but there are plenty of people who don’t want to marry for many reasons and most of them are entirely valid. I have arranged my finances and legalities to our advantage as much as possible.

This is the kicker though, yes I do want some of the protections to my financial future that are currently only attainable through marriage (inheritance tax doesn’t affect me now, but I hope to be successful enough for it to matter before I die - I want to be able to leave my pension to my partner, etc etc)

So I will be, at some point, forced to marry in order to ‘qualify’. Essentially, the government will impose a fine my partner and my children upon my death unless I sign a contract during my lifetime that commits me to have sex with one named person only, or the contract can be invalidated. I cannot avoid this by law. I have to sign, or they will suffer more than they need to.

We can say that the marriage ceremony does not require you to promise this as much as we like, but the marriage contract can be dissolved in the case of adultery, defined as sex with someone not your spouse - synonyms disloyalty, infidelity, unfaithfulness.

I cannot understand how it is considered reasonable to expect people to choose between their income as an elderly person/their right to leave their assets intact to the person of their choice and their right to do as they will with their own bodies.

we have wills, insurance and all the legal documents for our finances in order. So for all legal purposes we may as well be married.

You can't obtain exemption from IHT

Your partner doesn't have the same legal rights to challenge a will if you choose to disinherit him (or vice versa)

(Amongst other legal rights, responsibilities and obligations that are exclusive to legal marriage)

They simply cannot be replicated by a cohabitation agreement

You may not want these rights, responsibilities and obligations. But it is fundamentally inaccurate to say that for all legal purposes you might as well be married.

Yes I'm not sure how much simpler people think marriage or an alternative provision could or would actually be. We learned earlier in the thread that apparently there are some people put off by having to get witnesses, but that would also be true of eg straight CP.

I speak for the countries where I have experience working. Most frequent scenario for me was: In the beginning they mostly earn +- the same amount (grosso modo), although women are much more likely to already work part-time (statistics). Or more in a caring profession, e.g.: a Latin teacher in a secondary school (very noble and interesting profession but it pays peanuts). On top of that, as the relationship progresses the woman works more part-time thus damaging her earning potential (again statistics). Mind you I could/can also see it in action in real time. At the beginning there were more women (more female graduates), suddenly they disappear to not to be seen again (side-tracked, different less taxing employment, who knows). Mostly around the time they want children. Off course there are women who do things differently, but I’m talking about the scenario here.

If you’re going to do something like that scenario, it would make sense to marry before you have children. Afterwards you’ve made it more difficult for yourself, less appealing. It would be quite an unnecessary risk for the partner to marry afterwards. I suppose you could also do everything to insure that both partners take on an equal share of everything (and probably work less/outsource more – not everyone’s cup of tea). In reality this is probably an illusion; it’s almost never equal and most of the time it’s the woman that gets the short end of the stick from a financial pov. If you can get the things you desire without marrying, you have quite an advantageous arrangement. Someone is enabling your career/children whatever, it’s quite cheap, and if you decide to bugger off it has relatively little consequences. Sure you can own assets jointly, tontines and all that; but not a lot of people do something like that. If you want, you can work something out that will provide similar protection as marriage, but again not a lot of people do that.

Prenups, marriage contracts, division of property … all valid over here. You can do whatever you want. Still the easiest way out is saying that you’ll most definitely marry the other partner, you just don’t know when. Mostly you’re not going to find a lot of (wo)men that are willing to sign a marriage contract or something similar concerning something major. Most want the default system. Save yourself the argument, dangle a carrot. From a moral point of view this is quite dubious.

I don’t see how, in the scenario above, you can get paid for your unpaid work that undoubtedly helped the other partner without a marriage/or a construction that closely resembles that, when the relationship ends. Divorces can be quite cheap. Money isn’t everything, but it sure helps. If you’re the financially stronger party, most of this probably doesn’t apply.

Children don’t really mean much in terms of commitment, they just make your own situation more difficult.

Do whatever you want, but know what you’re doing.

Two points that really irritate on this thread ;

Smug high earning women who like to crow about how happy they are not to be married. Woohoo for you . You are in a TINY TINY MINUSCULE MINORITY. Something like less than 3% of women are the higher breadwinner compared with all the lower paid/part-time/sahms. (Look on the ONS website for the actual numbers) So good for you if you're financially secure but don't presume to use your experience as 'useful' information to the 97% of women in much less fortunate situations. It's simply irrelevant.

Second point is that there is a lot of skirting around a lot of unpleasant realities here.
There simply is not the level of contraceptive 'failure' that is claimed on this website. There is, I would suggest , a large amount of nonchalant sexual behaviour and failure to use contraception in the manner it is meant to be used. Failed contraception simply cannot be a matter or geography or social class. ! If it was then the leafy suburbs and naice avenues of the southeast would be just as populated with single never married mothers with feckless absent and/or inadequate fathers. But they aren't. They are populated with ALWAYS married -before -children -two parent families, who may well divorce down the line but will leave each parent (mostly) adequately provided for but most importantly have a long and strong bond with their children. Who they see regularly or (increasingly) share care with.

This is because they plan. Planning and patience.

They don't just find a bloke and have a baby within five minutes of meeting, Then find that they have either procreated with an abusive dickhead who is going to make them and their child's life miserable for two decades or they simply don't bother to stick around at all.

They get to know someone over a few years. Then decide they want a family, to settle down, realise that the person they want to do all of this with has the same values as them and believe they will be the right person to jointly parent their children. - when people take the time to work all this stuff out, they also fall in love and respect with each other and want to marry because that's the best, most secure legal contract to protect each other. They want to do the best for them.

Ending up in a relationship by default because a condom split or the women lied about taking the pill is not a good basis from which to expect marriage. Marriage is mostly a bigger advantage to women than men. Where is the incentive to want to do the very best for your partner if you haven't even had the time to get to know if that person is the one you want to marry before there is the pressure of a child in the mix.

I am not put off by witnesses. I am not put off by the contract itself. I understand you can opt out of all paternalistic frippery.

I would be entirely happy to sign a nominated person contract in front of witnesses, akin to a will, to confer the rights of a legally recognised partnership. That can only be dissolved by a court and the agreement of both parties. That does not require a reason to redraft or redact - like changing your will does not require you to explain why you are doing it or disclose details of your private life. That does not infer the joining of families or ask anyone to make promises or declare the other to be anything other than official next of kin and a beneficiary of their financials, in the event of death.

Thing is font if you've had shit parents who have never demonstrated anything positive about having a baby-ie there was abuse or adultery or just much unhappiness, then the offspring will grow to have little concept of the benefits of planning.
They will think that relationships are shit and unstable anyway, so they may as well grasp the happiness that goes with an unplanned pregnancy. No condom, doesn't matter, 'what will be will be'.
For those women, they are used to scraps. They don't know what someone wanting the best for them is, most likely the men they are sleeping with fall into that narrative and are not going to offer marriage preggers or not.
It's all very well saying marriage isn't important in both classes-well paid women don't need it, lower class women don't value it because they won't be offered it.
One thing is true and that is that life as a woman with children is precarious and difficult. Mostly, we are the ones it all falls down to married or not. Only with marriage you are at least guaranteed some support.

Sorry, wasn't suggesting you did feel that way re witnesses purple. The proposal you outline doesn't sound any simpler than marriage though. And that's what the witness stuff was in relation to. Divorce/dissolution yes, as you don't seem to be suggesting time requirements for no fault. But not the actual process of entering into the union.

Thank you Great post Chavtasticfirebanger, that is such a well reasoned response and gives a lot of food for thought and answers one of the conundrums I've never really understood.. if you've come from a difficult abusive home and been set a shit example of relationships - why would you do the same for yourself? As you say, I think you are right, it's simply grab 'happiness ' wherever you can no matter how fleeting.

Well sure, they are both contracts. I do not want to be a wife or make a promise to take someone as my husband when I do not actually want to take them a husband. It seems to defeat the whole point - I would be lying. (if it is relevant to the posts above, I have been raised with huge negativity attached to the titles. I think lots of people ‘against marriage’ have been raised that way, either expressly, as I was, warned against marriage, or children of messy divorces - which I also was)

Witnesses are required to make sure you are not being or coerced into signing the contract. Problem is I am being forced and coerced into signing the contract - by the law as it stands. Is it my biggest problem in life, no, but it would be not a free decision, if I did it. As I said above, my family would be fined after my death if I did not sign.

I agree with this from page 1 by @fluffymccloud

Patriarchy. Women are socialised into thinking they have to be desirable to men and the ultimate goal is to be desirable enough to be marriage material and they need the big showy proposal to prove they made it. Marriage is still a very unbalanced societal institution where women get to be picked by men as being worthy and need that validation from a proposal.

I don’t really get why unmarried mums give their kids the dads surname either - unless there are plans to marry in the future and so all change to the same surname. If neither party ever want to marry then mums surname should be default in my opinion as statistically she is the one most likely to stick around...

Yeah I don't get why women let the kids have the man's name either, and I can also say that I would never have children with a man I was not married to. It's downright foolhardy. Also, I would not want to have children realising (later in their childhood) that their father thought their mother was not good enough to marry.

There was a story on the news the other week, about a woman who had been with a man for 25 years, and had had 5 kids with him. He died suddenly at 48 or so, and she was not entitled to a BEAN of his money or estate, OR his pension because they weren't married. She fought it in the high court but they said 'NO!' Because she wasn't married to him, she had no more rights to his money and pension than their postman. The judge said if people want the same rights as married people they need to GET MARRIED.

You know the score. I don't give a bat's tit if other countries have different rules and 'protection' for co-habiting couples - this is the UK, and we DON'T. Want the same rights as a married couple?

GET.

MARRIED!

If you don't get married, then quit yer bitching when you have no rights to anything if he dies.

Sex isn’t a requirement of a marriage contract! Well, I guess a marriage could be annulled if no sex whatsoever soon post marriage, if one party wishes it, but after that not compulsory!

^^^^This in buckets

@UserV that is

Yeah I don't get why women let the kids have the man's name either, and I can also say that I would never have children with a man I was not married to. It's downright foolhardy. Also, I would not want to have children realising (later in their childhood) that their father thought their mother was not good enough to marry

In an ideal world everyone would have a home and get married before they have DCs but life just isn’t that straight forward. Not all pregnancies are planned, sometimes people prioritise finding a home and keeping a roof over their heads which is damn difficult these days. There can be many issues and obstacles that can place the wedding on the back burner for a while. It is not always simply a case of the father not thinking the mother is good enough. Maybe it’s the mother that does not want to get married, perhaps there are issues due to her parents divorcing or previous bad relationships. Parents often give their DC the fathers name because they have every intention of getting married in the future and this saves the job of changing it by deed poll.

I do understand the arguments about people feeling forced into marriage because of the economic implications. I can see how that would feel unpleasant. And it's a much more sensible, reality based way of looking at it than some of the more convoluted attempts to pretend they don't exist. I disagreed yesterday with the poster who was talking about hypocrisy, but she was certainly bang on about the denial.