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 “?

Depends on your situation. I wil lnot marry again. I earned 10x my husband and he got more than half of our money after divorce. It would be very risky financially for me and the children were I to marry again (not that I want to m ove a man in anyway as it's not worth the hassle). However I don't regret being married for almost 20 years. It was important for both of us to be married. I don't think anyone in the family has lived together without marriage before actually so it would certainly have set a trend anda ll the children in the family are legitimate and have been for at least 150 years as far as my family tree history has shown. not that that matters to a lot of people.

I thkn the state will and should abolish civil partnerships. If you want the additional legal protections of marriage and aren't religious i.e. you want lower eaners in a sense to be seen aas protected chattels then you can always just have a civil marriage. I you want to be free and independent then I deon't see why you would want a civil partnership any more than a marriage as CP gives you marriage type spouse as kept cared for property type rights. I don't understand why civil partner proponents think that is any better than marriage itself.

So poorer more uneducated women have to suck up marriage when they don't want it and look to it as their source of financial protection.

Why is it a bad thing that a poor, uneducated woman who gives up her earning power to raise children should be protected in the case of her partner fucking off?

What exactly would be causing her suffering day to day if she were married while the relationship is working well, and she's at home or part time?

But marriage is currently the only answer, and pretending otherwise does a huge disservice to those women.

And let’s face it, even if the government did get round to creating a “sparkly unicorn partnership” or whatever you want to call it for all the awkward buggers who object to the principle of marriage but want the rights it gives you, it wouldn’t help most of those people anyway. Because if they are with a man who doesn’t want to marry them because he doesn’t want them to have any rights to his property in the event that he decides to bugger off, he isn’t going to be up for entering into a sparkly unicorn partnership either.

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.

No one plans to separate from their partner

No one plans for their house to burn down

But you take out insurance, hoping that you won't need it, in case it does

You can't claim on the insurance without taking out a policy

Oh my god you guys are all actually a bunch of small minded ladies. Why are you even so bothered and belittling other women's choices? Surely your lives are so perfect in your little high towers with your shiny wedding bands, so just move on, you nasty little girls.

I don't understand why civil partner proponents think that is any better than marriage itself.

They do not like what marriage used to be (and hasn't been for decades if not longer), and they are under the delusion that civil partnerships somehow aren't inspired by marriage and share no roots with it.

I've even seen otherwise intelligent people refusing to get married, despite acknowledging that it would serve them better, for the sole reason that they don't like the word 'wife'. I mean, their decision and all, but keee-rist.

This really is not a debate. It's fact. If you have children and earn less / have less in assets than your partner - and have children. Then you are simply bonkers not to be married.

There is no 'agreement' you can make that provides the same protection. (It provides some of the protection, and costs a lot more - why the fuck would anyone buy more for less ?)) You can't 'get round' pensions, inheritance and next of kin. You cannot get round the fact that you are not even 'recognised' by the government as 'anybody'. You have no status. Nothing. You are not a 'widow' even if he has been your dp for 50 yrs.

Let's face it. The VAST majority of women with children would prefer to be married. The problem is, that by having children before marriage they have fucked up the 'bargaining chip'. By being impatient and believing the old chestnut that 'if i have his baby he will stay and marry me' .. it simply doesn't work.
If there was no child, would your partner have stuck around ?
If not , then chances are he doesn't have sufficient feelings for you to marry. Most men aren't complete evil bastards and will stick around for their kids as long as they are 'ok' with the mother but marriage ? No. That's proper commitment.
Pregnancy (quite rightly) is a choice solely for the woman. A man has no choice once the woman has conceived. He can stay or go but can't 'unmake' a baby.
Marriage is a genuine choice for both parties he can't be bounced into that.
Which probably tells you everything you need to know about why there are loads of women in this country who have painted them selves into a shit awful corner.

This stuff needs explaining in school so people can make INFORMED choices about their life choices.

So poorer more uneducated women have to suck up marriage when they don't want it and look to it as their source of financial protection.

Would you rather they remained unprotected and got completely screwed over in the event of a break-up or a death?

@toomanytealights

None of the posters here put the legislation in place, we each have as much control as anyone else over what laws the government chooses to review or change (ie not much). Maybe at some point in the future your wish will be granted and things will be different but it's unlikely to be a priority for any government for at least a decade of ever.

None of the above helps women who are unwittingly putting themselves in vulnerable positions now, today, this week. Right now (rightly or wrongly), the choice is to marry or not marry. I can't see how it's wrong to say to everyone that they need to fully understand what marriage means and make choices that best suit them once in possession of that knowledge. No-one is "pushing" anything.

UserV that's rude. Nothing about my post was smug or crowing. I never sought to offer advice to anybody. I asked a question. I made my specific position clear. For info I'm not high earning, nor is my partner.

I think after 30 years I have more ability to comment on the expected longevity of my relationship than you. My mum worked with two people who had an affair. The woman divorced her husband and did quite nicely out of it but the man's ex got nothing because they weren't married. They'd been together 35 years and had five children for whom she had been a SAHM. She had no savings of her own, no pension and no claim on his, the house was in his name. Their relationship had longevity but it still ended and she had no security.

Have you ever thought it might be the woman who doesn't want to get married or both.

Why the assumption that unmarried women are desperate to get married and can't force their man?

I actually loathe the idea of marriage,its history and much of what it stands for.Its just not me. I would go through a civil partnership,would like our relationship recognised in some way and would like my partner protected. Think we've done as much as we can with very little effort but would like the choice of a cp. Nothing sparkly or involving unicorns. Not entirely sure why it shouldn't be made possible.

Erm sometimes people get married because they want to, not as an insurance policy. I'm married and always says I wouldn't have children until I was. It wouldn't have felt right to me or DH to.spend money on the wedding we wanted when we had children to consider and I didn't fancy being a martyr going to the registry office in the same building as DH's office and then to the local pub. This way we've had the wedding we wanted, bought our home and have no debt other than a reasonable mortgage and had some time as a married couple, now we're having children. Oh and I earn more than he does. So I don't like the assumption that I'm married because I'm poor or uneducated and need to rely on DH , none of those things are true. It's the choice I made. The OP wasn't about two people who don't want marriage, that's their call. It was about women who want marriage but partners who fob them off and have children with them and then continue unsurprisingly to refuse marriage, and women who seem surprised or upset by this. If he's made it clear he doesn't want to marry you, a couple of kids won't change that. So if you want marriage don't have kids with that guy. If marriage isn't important to you or him, crack on.

You're fine with homophobia then?

Yes but it isn’t. And none of us can make it so. Right now you have the choice to marry or not marry. That’s it. So make your choice and live with it. All parts of it. If you want the benefits of marriage you can always get married and then convert your marriage to a civil partnership if and when you’re allowed to have one.

Great post fontofnoknowledge
I agree that too many people just don't understand the legal implications of being married/not being married.

I also agree with PoorYorick. Everything evolves, and I don't understand why intelligent women don't think that marriage has evolved away from men "owning" women. If that was the case we wouldn't have same sex marriages.

Not entirely sure why it shouldn't be made possible.

Because it IS possible! The option is right there! You have every right to refuse it because you don't like what it used to be but you can't expect us to recreate the whole bloody thing under a different name and pretend it's not an exact clone!

Civil partnerships are homophobic. Their entire point was to attempt to shut up gay people without giving them equal rights. And they are still rooted in marriage without being equal to it.

I am Sat here shaking my head....
A wedding ring won't stop a man leaving because he is unhappy....
Nor is it a chain to lock him in....
It's your choice how you do it....
You'd be shocked how many women just don't wish to marry their partner simply they are happy as they are and have children because they do so as an expression of that love...
Isn't saying no children before marriage selling your reproduction a form of currency....
There's a name for that....

Like many Schnizel I have a relationship with longevity and security.

Many married women are in marriages with crap or zero pensions,interest only mortgages,zero insurance policy.....

Their marriage certificate is going to be worth an awful lot less than the protection many unmarried couples have. Both come in all shapes and sizes.

Holding up marriage is ye holy protection policy is foolharding and will easily lull many into a false sense of security.

@mummy2017 have you read the full thread?

Mummy
But it is currency. So is sex. So is housework.

So poorer more uneducated women have to suck up marriage when they don't want it and look to it as their source of financial protection.hmm

Do you know how depressing and wrong that sounds

Surely we should be offering something else and giving them the power to protect themselves without looking to marriage as the only answer

So something identical to marriage that affords the same rights as marriage you just want it to be called a different name.

And we've covered the ridiculously insulting accusation of homophobia for those who would like cp. Or are you deliberately trying to goad?

Marriage today is so far from patriarchal that it's largely the men who are refusing to do it!

Does anyone alive today truly think that married women are legally owned by their husbands? That they can't earn their own money, buy their own property or leave the house without permission? Do you guys really think my husband can legally stop me doing anything I want just because we're married?

@toomanytealights

Do you accept that some individuals are better off married than unmarried?