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 “?

You have no idea of the intricacies of what we have set up or our relationship. So again quit with your scaremongering.

Au contraire. If you're not married, people know exactly what you can't set up.

Toomanytealights Nobody is “forcing you to get married”. All people are saying is that if you want the legal protections and benefits that you can only have by being married, you need to get married. If you fully understand the protections and benefits of being married but decide that not being married is more important to you than having them, fine. If you have taken legal and financial advice and decided that in your own personal circumstances you would be better off not being married (which is the case for some people), fine.

But don’t whinge about not having the same rights as married people when you choose not to get married.

YANBU. Lack of true commitment stops a lot of people getting married. Some like the freedom to opt out of a relationship with no penalties to pay (child support excepted). Can't figure females having children with no security for them. The unmarried mother is so accepted nowadays and the children aren't given the label they used to. Second or third generation into this style so folk take it as normal. No wonder there is so much anxiety and depression about, life for sure is so unstable.

I think most women who would be protected by marriage would choose to get married loveintokyo but the choice isn't theirs.

@Talulah99 why don't you have a cohabitation agreement? If you would like to be married but your partner won't marry you, why wouldn't he agree to get at least SOME financial provision in place?

Have you taken legal advice about your position in the event of a relationship breakdown or one of you dying?

What has tradition got to do with this thread? It's about a legal contract and the rights, responsibilities and obligations of being legally married. It has nothing to do with romantic commitment or tradition

We can whinge all we like thanks. It's ridiculous.

An awful lot of people don't want marriage,if the point of marriage is just protection there should be an easier way.

Registering the birth of a new human is easier. It's ridiculous in this day and age. There should be a way of having no ceremony,just turn up with zero formality when you feel like it as you would to register a baby birth and sign a small form.

Not hard for the powers to be to organise.

Toomanytealights In case it’s escaped your notice, the government is a little bit busy at the moment with the small task of trying to leave the European Union without collapsing the economy. That’s on top of the daily business of running the country.

Creating a new “sparkly unicorn partnership” to give you the same benefits that you can get by being married just because you object to the principle of marriage is not going to be high up on their list of priorities any time soon.

N0tLinked1n

Yes and if you accidentally get pregnant by one of those men it’s pretty unfortunate. Deliberately having a child with a man like that and especially giving up work to raise that child without the protection of marriage is pretty mind boggling.

Odd that someone would have a problem with marriage taking one more appointment than the birth of a child, yet apparently have in place extensive legal and financial arrangements that would have taken much more time and effort to arrange and regularly review. For less protection and at greater cost, too.

There is a chance universal CP might be introduced if the legal challenge succeeds. However, although that will be a boon to those who reject patriarchy but don't mind a touch of homophobia, it's still going to require witnessing and one more appointment than registering a baby.

After our two were born I told (then) DP that if we weren't married by the time they started school I would leave, change their last names and bugger off with them. Didn't want a romantic proposal, wanted a grown up. responsible action to be taken. Married 3 days before start of Reception year for dd1.

PaulDacreRimsGeese

If that legal challenge succeeds it will be interesting to see how many men who currently object to the idea of marriage find a reason to object to civil partnerships as well, won’t it?

Sorry but my comments were regarding the original post where women who had children without being married but wanted to be married were being slated- that’s what annoyed me. It did mention tradition which is why I did. As for whether we have things in place If one of us dies etc- yes we do.

Oh do trip trap off Mani

Marriage does not give you stability at all. It is being pushed on here not for stability or staying together but for financial protection.

Forcing couples or partners into marriage is wrong and often damaging. 9 times out of 10 I'm sure anybody forced into it would eventually hop it anyway.

It's a huge step forward kids not being judged for being born out of wedlock,it's a huge step forward that women don't feel the need to get married when they don't really want to.

FYI all of our siblings had children out of wedlock and we're all in relationships decades long. Some have since married,we at 30 years strong haven't.I'm surrounded by other unmarried couples in equally long relationships giving far more stability than married couples jacking it in after 7 years.

Sadly I think some women think forcing their partner down the aisle means their wedding is some kind of chain. It isn't and can be dissolved at any time as the divorce stats show.

@toomanytealights that pretty much already exists. Civil marriage is pretty much that. There are a few requirements due to the fact that it's a legal contract and so there need to be certain safeguards but they're minimal. You say a few words in front of witnesses and sign a form. Simple.

That aside if you think things should be different then start a petition, join a campaign group, petition the government. As things stand marriage is the only option so until that changes your choice is to marry or not marry.

Why on earth would I discuss that with you a complete stranger?! I’m not planning on splitting from my partner nor is he planning on separating from me, so I really don’t think we have a problem here.

Indeed it will loveintokyo!

Honestly though, I doubt universal CP being introduced would make much difference. There would no doubt be some people who'd do it, quite possibly all of whom are on Mumsnet. It wouldn't be any cheaper or administratively different than marriage, so it would only really be people with particular political views. And I suspect most of those people would already have put in place some protections already: they're not going to be the marriage is just a piece of paper I don't need the state to recognise my love for my partner I can't possibly be expected to get two witnesses we're common law I can't be arsed brigade. Who probably form the majority of those who don't get married now, and who are the ones most impacted by the current legal landscape.

Paul I have a child who has experienced homophobia thanks. You have no idea what true homophobia is like,if you did you wouldn't make such a dreadful insulting comment.

Saying I'd like to have the chance to have the same opportunity as my gay son as regards cp does not mean I don't mind homophobia. He has had physical and verbal attacks but thinks we should have the same rights. Does that mean he doesn't mind homophobia too.

Have you spent much time on the relationship boards @hannahgracedunning23? Do you reckon the women getting screwed over on there knew that their partner planned to screw them over but cracked on regardless?

I can't remember a single post here where anyone has suggested that unmarried women are lesser or the love is less but everyone needs to educate themselves about what marriage means, whether they would benefit significantly from it (or not) and act accordingly.

Marriage does not give you stability at all. It is being pushed on here not for stability or staying together but for financial protection.

You say that like financial protection is a bad thing.

Forcing couples or partners into marriage is wrong and often damaging. 9 times out of 10 I'm sure anybody forced into it would eventually hop it anyway.

Right. So it’s good to have some rights if they decide to “hop it”, right?

It's a huge step forward kids not being judged for being born out of wedlock,it's a huge step forward that women don't feel the need to get married when they don't really want to.

OK this is an interesting one. I was just thinking about this.

It is a great step forward for children that they are no longer judged for being born out of wedlock. Being married does not make you morally superior, and neither does being unmarried make you inferior.

But whilst the lack of stigma is a good thing in itself, it appears to have had some rather negative consequences. Back in the day when there WAS a massive stigma attached to being an unmarried mother, women were more careful about who they got pregnant with because they knew that if they became an unmarried mother they would have a very hard life, full of judgement. Now that’s no longer necessarily the case, a lot of those women think, it’s fine, nobody needs marriage anymore, it’s not important for our generation. So now they merrily have planned children with men they aren’t married to and put themselves at significant financial risk.

FYI all of our siblings had children out of wedlock and we're all in relationships decades long. Some have since married,we at 30 years strong haven't.I'm surrounded by other unmarried couples in equally long relationships giving far more stability than married couples jacking it in after 7 years.

Sorry but you can’t really judge the everlasting success of your relationship until one of you is six feet under. I don’t care if you’ve been with your partner 30 years. If he runs off with a woman half his age tomorrow you will have considerably fewer rights than a woman who divorces after 7 years (or even one year) in the same circumstances.

Sadly I think some women think forcing their partner down the aisle means their wedding is some kind of chain. It isn't and can be dissolved at any time as the divorce stats show.

And when it’s dissolved, you have rights. Which is a good thing.

PS - not all men need to be “forced down the aisle”, by the way.

Only read the first and last pages - wow 22 pages - but surely the point here - and not judging anyone - is that it's only marriage that forms a legal contract. And if the relationship breaks down and no one can reach an amicable financial settlement, the law steps in. It protects both parties. Unless and until Parliament passes some kind of "common law" bill, it's all there is. I would feel that once a relationship has reached the stage of children and property purchase, it's a pretty reasonable step to take to ensure a fair distribution if the relationship then fails. And if one party brings enormous wealth to the table, you could have a pre nup drawn up (romantic though it isn't)

I think we've already been through this on a different thread toomanytealights, but you having a child who's experienced homophobia doesn't mean CP wasn't introduced for homophobic, othering reasons. Speaking as a bisexual woman, not that it should matter, you don't get to downplay the homophobic sop to try and avoid full equality that CP was. Given that CP has historical homophobic connotations, and it fucking does, if you want a CP that means you're willing to engage in an institution that has an inherently homophobic history.

All marriage is, is a legal contract at the end of the day. It has nothing to do with love.

I'd like to be financially protected in case my relationship goes tits up. Nobody is saying marriage makes your relationship any more likely to last, or even any better than someone who isn't married, but it means that if the worst should happen, you're a hell of a lot more protected than someone who isn't married.

I think after 30 years I have more ability to comment on the expected longevity of my relationship than you.

Why are unmarried mothers putting themselves at risk? Teenage pregnancies are falling and working mothers rising. Most households need two incomes so most have a working mother earning her own money and paying into her own pension.

You really do have an outdated and pretty insulting view of unmarried mothers.

And marriage doesn't ?