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 “?

I agree with the patriarchy comments and that there is definitely still a bit of a stigma towards women proposing to men. It's almost viewed as though you had to "cheat" to get engaged so you're not as worthy as all the other women who got a man to propose to them. Sexist rubbish of course, but I really think that attitude persists.

I also think that there are some women who have children with men that they know deep down would not choose to get married to them. I believe men in particular are sometimes in what they perceive to be placeholder relationships, waiting for something/one better to come along who they would be willing to commit to. Children aren't always properly planned by both parties and I definitely think there are a proportion of men in what they perceive to be temporary relationships who end up with children with women that they have no intention to marry whatsoever. Often these women are at least partially aware of this but in my experience tend to kid themselves that marriage doesn't matter anyway, a child is a bigger commitment or that the man will propose when they have more money/find the perfect opportunity/have more time.

I think education is key. While I have professional colleagues and friends who still believe in common law marriage we have a problem. These are educated people, who are knowledgeable in so many aspects of life, but still have not realised that you do not have the protections of marriage without being married.

My children don't carry my surname because their father is "a deadbeat with a restraining order against him" (wtaf?!!!) but because I am the last of my line. It's really that simple. Personally I will never understand women who prioritise a piece of carbon and silly frock over their, and more importantly their children's, security. If your priority when a mother is still Disneyfied romance and a party then you need to give your head a wobble. Getting married and having a wedding are not the same thing.

@badlad

Personally I'd be outraged to live in a country where I didn't have the option of living as a couple but without sharing finances, if I wanted to. The system in the UK seems much better to me - people can commit to each other by getting married, or they can live together without going as far as that.

Most relationship property protection acts include the right to contract out if that's what the couple wants to do and can agree on. So you do indeed have that option.

However, in the instance where a couple cannot agree on a split of property that they are both happy with, there are standard protections. This generally works for the benefit of the half of the couple who is going to end up more financially disadvantaged – which is usually the woman.

I'm unmarried with children and wouldn't be remotely concerned about getting married if it weren't for the tax implications. In order to avoid inheritance tax, I have to get married and that really annoys me!

(My two have my partner's surname in order that they have the same surname as my step-children).

KanielOutis I think you're right about women and men being educated about marriage and the legal rights it confers. I do think that this would force a couple to discuss the issue of marriage and with the excuse of "it's only a piece of paper" removed, a lot of women would also have to face up to the fact that their DP doesn't want to marry them.

The reality is that once children start to come along and the associated issues of pregnancy, maternity leave etc, the legal protection provided by marriage tends to benefit the mother at the detriment to the father. I can see why some (morally dubious) men could be more reluctant to marry once they realise the difference it makes to them.

I have lived with dp for nearly 40 years and although he has asked me many times to marry him the answer has always been No.

We have moved several times my name is all over the deeds to the house, his pension, life insurance policy, etc.

I have never been too keen on marriage and the last year helping my friend through a divorce I am glad I am not married.

Just to extract herself from this marriage is costing her at least £25000. Her Stbexh is fighting her and wasting time not filling in forms. She has been to court twice and he still hasn't filled in form E.
If there was any tiny bit of wistful thinking that it might be nice to get married this has put me off altogether.

Do you have children oliversmum, simply for inheritance purposes being married makes a large difference.

Such a shame that someone elses divorce impacts you so much.

Ginandplatonic

Sorry but that's actually bollocks.
In SOME states you can register a de facto relationship, but it doesn't offer you much in the way of legal protection, certainly not compared to marriage and it is easier to just get married.
Relationship registration is more useful for eg visa applications where you have to prove you've been together for at least a year but aren't married.

What FluffyMcCloud and NewYearNewMe said.

I don't understand why someone would expect the rights conferred by a legal contract (marriage) without entering into that contract, and I don't understand a system that makes that possible.

I think there's a big difference between couples where neither has a wish to get married and those where the desire for marriage is one-sided (and usually, it seems, on the part of the woman). The first is fine, the second is very difficult for the woman. The sooner we (societally) break through all the cultural nonsense about the man being the one to ask - which is nothing but continued control for men over women's lives dressed up as 'romance' - and change to a culture of having mutual, equal, grown-up conversations about entering into marriage, the better.

I was determined never to get married - though I am now - but only for practical purposes as it was easier and cheaper to do so to ensure DH got custody of DCs in the event of my death - would much rather a civil partnership though.

I agree. I got had an unplanned pregnancy with then dp. I told him I wanted to get married when ds was one. No it wasn't romantic, I agree with whichever poster said that ship had sailed. I'm very glad we did it though.

I agree about the patriarchy and the " pick me" dance.

However I do think a proposal from the man is a demonstration he genuinely wants to commit as opposed to saying "yes" to keep the status quo.
If men weren't renowned for not being entirely reliable, in long term relationships, it wouldn't matter so much. Women in 95% of the cases end up holding the baby so it's an uneventful playing field in terms of what couples get out of relationships,

Interesting questions.

I'd be more outraged to be living in a country that insists on couples getting married if they want financial protection.

No, I'm bloody relieved that people have to actively make that choice! People should not have that forced upon them just because they've lived together for x years or had a child. That, in my opinion, is outrageous.

Marriage is a legal contract that you should have to sign in front of a witness if you want the rights and protections that come along with it. It should definitely not be something that just happens after a while!

Out of curiosity @Stillwishihadabs - what if he'd said no?

Most relationship property protection acts include the right to contract out if that's what the couple wants to do and can agree on. So you do indeed have that option

Financially committing to somebody else should be something that people opt to do, not something they have to opt out of, in my opinion. Therefore I am not outraged to live in a country like the UK.

If you get married, it is easy to find out what rights you and your partner have agreed to share. It is also obvious at what point those rights have kicked in.

The New Zealand system, from what I have read on previous posts on here, give judges discretion to consider how long the couple have been together, whether their friends and family consider them to be a couple, among other factors. It all sounds very nebulous.

Personally, I like the clarity of the UK system.

I don’t understand the need for proposals. Why don’t couples discuss if they would like to get married and then plan a wedding. I am surprised when people tell me they have no idea if their partner wants to get married. Surely these are conversations people in serious relationships should have. Neither do I understand why a couple can’t choose to take the woman’s surname.

Civil partnership is the way forward.

I'm not married and don't want to be, but do sort of agree that it's a bit silly to strop about it if you want the whole proposal / wedding bit but won't ask. If I wanted to get married I'd suggest it myself.

My kids have their father's surname because I don't like mine. Their names just sound nicer with his. In fact I keep meaning to change mine to theirs, just haven't got round to it yet.

This thread is hilarious.

I'm an unmarried mother and my children have my surname.

Thankfully I don't recognise myself or my ex in the frankly ridiculous assertions being made about women in my situation on this thread.

For one thing, marriage would have been a financial risk for me, rather than providing me with security. But hey, let's just make assumptions about unmarried mothers financial situations. It's more fun that way.

Ah. Another thread to drag women down. How refreshing.

I know quite a few women who now have 1 or 2 DC (some in teens) who are not married to their partners. All of their careers have suffered because they are the ones who have done most of the childcare. Their partners are now in the 40's+ and have very well paid careers. One of them has just left her partner and she is entitled to zero, only the fish's he will throw her. On the other side one of my male relatives has always said he would never get married to his partner as he didn't believe in it. They have a baby together. They have split a few times and she is the one who holds all the cards over the baby. It is his own fault.

I got told off for saying people should get married before they have DC. I understand that people can't always control their contraception. However, it is not about being old fashioned or living off a bloke. It is about security and protecting yourself. My friend has nothing after her split. Whereas, if I split from my DH I get at least half of everything and my DC would have a decent roof over their head. There are also inheritance issues if you are not married to your DP and they pass away.

mums surname should be default in my opinion as statistically she is the one most likely to stick around...

^
This. Seen it happen so many times! Children lumbered with a surname from a dad who fucked off and doesn't give a toss.

Also, marrying my current partner would be a risk as I'm the higher earner by far. If we have a child together I'd want to see if he stuck around/we work together well etc before marrying as you never know how someone will be after having kids.