To think that some married women on here think they are better than unmarried women?

[malificent7]

After reading the thread about legal rights, marriage and birth certificates I was struck by the patronising way in which some married women spoke to those who are cohabiting or not married.
True married women have better rights but it was the way in which the relationships of unmarried women were dismissed as lesser and these women were being sneered at.

Someone told a woman who had been cohabiting that her relationship meant nothing and that if you are not married you are single.
REALLY? I am not married but I am not single. I don't even live with the guy but why is my relationship seen as less valid? Some married people hate each other and don't have the guts to leave. Some of the best love affairs involve people who live miles apart.
I don't like the fact that I have to put single on a form . Why can I not be in a relationship?

Ok, If you are married you have some legal rights and security that the unmarried have but shouldn't we question this? Why should we make vows especially if you don't believe in the laws of marriage? Also, it was originally a religious ceremony..I don't believe in God and I am not a commodity to be given away by my dad to another male.

Does it lead to stability? My dp is divorced. The marriage vows didn't stop things from falling apart.

Marriage can be a great thing but the tone in the last thread was old fashioned and practically berated women for not managing to get a man to marry them. Surely there has to be other options if you don't believe in marriage ? It is a patriarchal tradition after all to do with male prperty rights. Also, many men want pre nuptuals as they are now wise to gold digging wives.

I think you can have some marriages which have less love than some cohabiting relationships. Why is one type of relationship more valid? I find it all very old fashioned.

Judging by the number of men who don't leave their wives a dime on divorce, I am not convinced by the stability argument.

I'm married and I don't think it's that their relationship is worth less or anything like that.

What I don't like is that there are unmarried men and women who think they deserve the same benefits as married couples (such as the case recently of widows benefit/allowance).

If you want those benefits then you have two options:

1. you and your partner make a legal judgment to get married and be eligible for them.

2. find someone you truly love and male that commitment to each other to care for each other during life and to protect them when you're gone.

fikel
Absolutely.

Dp gave up asking.

As for building together you know you can do that without getting married.

The recent case was re support a benefit for bereaved families- children. A child with unmarried parents should be supported just the same as a child with married parents unless you think families with unmarried parents shouldn't receive any benefits at all- CB,housing,PP.... Aside from that unmarried parents pay NI which pays for the benefit just the same as married. If they're not going to have access to the same support we'll pay less NI please.

A child with unmarried parents should be supported just the same as a child with married parents unless you think families with unmarried parents shouldn't receive any benefits at all- CB,housing,PP.... Aside from that unmarried parents pay NI which pays for the benefit just the same as married. If they're not going to have access to the same support we'll pay less NI please

Absolutely!

If a civil partnership was open to heterosexual couples we may consider it but it's not.

I thought they were now?

Best before - what utter nonesense.
Divorcing as a sahp gives you a right to half the assets even if your oh paid for them or they are in his name. and how are you going to keep that house, car etc. running once you're divorced? By getting a job of course. Unless you married a very rich man, you will need to get a job after a divorce. My point was that marriage gives people more protection, but not full protection (which some married SAHP seem to think).

Aside from that unmarried parents pay NI which pays for the benefit just the same as married. If they're not going to have access to the same support we'll pay less NI please

That's not how it works though. Plenty of people pay in and don't get things out of it, due to circumstances.

Follow that method, of paying less if you are entitled to less, would mean people paying nothing (such as long term disabled) wouldn't be allowed anything.

Maybe unmarried parents should think about all these things before they decide to have kids and not be married. I don't think kids should suffer because of their parents choices. But you have people who choose not to bring the law into their relationship but then expect the law to work in their favour.

If death benefits are so important, you would get married.

Well if you're going to go down the "some people' route, then yes...I have seen some smug and superior comments from married women on here. I've also seen idiotic ones from unmarried women. Just the other day, my decision to marry was compared, without a trace of irony, to joining the Ku Klux Klan. I wish I were making this up.

Being married doesn't mean that I am better than anyone else, or more in love. It simply means that unlike unmarried couples, my husband and I have chosen to legalise our relationship, with the accompanying responsibilities and protections. I am not necessarily smarter or more in love than an unmarried couple, but I am more legally committed than they are.

You may not like that, but unless the law changes considerably, it is a simple objective fact.

Can someone explain to me the “terrible” history of marriage alluded to in this thread. To me it seems like marriage has always at its root had the protection of the wife as one of the core defining features. Of course it was unequal, born as it was from highly unequal societies in the first place, but it’s not as if the men of those times didn’t have concubinage and slavery to resort to if they merely wanted to own women, their labour and their children. Of course concubinage and slavery were limited (though not eliminated) in Europe after Christianity took over, but for most of human history they were perfectly acceptable options for men.

No civil partnerships are for same sex couples only

They were introduced based on a concession to the homophobic wing of the Tory party as a not-marriage marriage because the idea of marriages equality was too distasteful to the bigots

There are so substantial differences between civil marriage and CPs apart from the branding, the format of the certificate (which does need changing for civil marriage) and the provision for STIs and infidelity as grounds for annulment or dissolution of the legal partnership

www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

So what happened with that court case saying it was discriminatory to disallow civil partnerships to heterosexuals?

How about rape in marriage being legal until the 90s!

It's been resolved for 27 years. Not long enough, true, but it's resolved now. I expect it has not been legal within the lifetime of mist first time brides and grooms. There was a time when women had had the vote for only 27 years but nobody is suggesting we don't use that.

I agree. Only placemarking right now. Marriage does provide legal protection but yes, marrying in itself doesn't make you a better person!

There was a woman on mumsnet who recently posted about feeling that her value as a woman was declining and she was PASTED, mostly by women in relationships who said that they felt valued. So while a lot of married women don't mean to be patronising I think they haven't analysed (why would they need to) how much of their value comes from their own internal locus, how much comes from being loved (which is valuable and desirable) and how much comes from society's view of them as a 'loved' woman. There is status in being married still in today's world. In practical terms being one half of any strong unit is a good place to be. Together the two have value which is more than the sum of their parts.

Yes, the divorce is the easy part. Most divorces are undefended. Kids and property aren't an inherent part of divorce either. People can and do get divorced without either.

It wasn’t until all these threads on MN I realised how many marriages came about by the women emotionally blackmailing their dps into it.

It's not emotional blackmail to say "I am not sacrificing my financial independence, pension and future security in order to stay at home and facilitate YOUR career without approproate legal protections".

Anyone who thinks it is has lost the plot.

Anyone is free to draw up their terms for being in a relationship.

I would not stay with a man who expected me to facilitate his lifestyle and career and take all the hits without some legal protection. If he's not willing to then that's absolutely fine. We differ on a non negotiable line for me so that would be the end of the relationship.

Why should women have to be strung along like men and regurgitate the convenient lines men use to actively keep their partners financially dependent on then and feeling trapped to remain in the relationship?

• it's only a piece of paper.
• we don't need a piece of paper to prove commitment
• well lots of marriages end in divorce so you know
• we've lasted longer than most marriages we know (smug look at each other)
• it just made sense for me to give my job up and all my earning potential. DP has a highly paid job so I can focus on staying at home. We don't need to get married because he's a great guy and I know if we ever split that he'd always make sure me and the children are looked after (again smug confidence... until he leaves and suddenly wants to protect 'his' assets)
• I'm not on the deeds of the house but pay half the mortgage etc. We are equal and don't need marriage to validate our equality. (Until it ends and he has had help with the mortgage on HIS house and the woman has nothing)
• I don't need to pressure my DP into marrying me. I'm above all the emotional blackmail. DP says he can't stand women who try to manipulate men into getting married (DP is quite happy he's got himself a nice compliant woman who will willingly sacrifice her options for him and not make a fuss. Good wifey. He can't be doing with women who stand up for themselves).

Men seem to know the score (re legal protection, assets, divorce, splitting assets when one partner has stayed at home). Funny that it's often women who end up with more to lose who don't brush up on the pros/cons of married vs cohabiting.

People can make whatever choice they like but it should be an informed choice and a decision they are happy to stick with.

INCORRECT. You will be asked as next of kin to sign for medical treatment for your spouse.

You can put it in capital letters if you want, it's still not true. Whilst it is good practice to consult the family (married or not) of a patient without capacity, you still cannot consent to, or decline, treatment on another person's behalf unless you have POA. You may be asked to sign something to confirm that treatment options have been discussed, this is not the same as giving consent.

Next of kin does have some legal status when a person has died, but in terms of medical treatment it doesn't.

I would not stay with a man who expected me to facilitate his lifestyle and career and take all the hits without some legal protection. If he's not willing to then that's absolutely fine. We differ on a non negotiable line for me so that would be the end of the relationship

There is no fucking way I'd take all the hits, and that is aside from marriage. My career is equally as important and there is no way I''d sacrifice that or my own income for a man - marriage or no marriage. End of.

I was happy to set aside my career.

I wanted to stay at home to look after our kids and support OH too.

I ditched my career 22 years ago and I have had the best time of my life!

Having no career has opened so many opportunities, I would not be in the amazing position now if I had not taken a leap of faith!

I wanted to stay at home to look after our kids and support OH too

So did many women on the Relationships board who then realised that gambling wasn't a good thing when he upped and left leaving them financially disadvantaged.

But I chose my career because I love it ultimately. I'd shoot myself if I was a SAHW.

What I don't understand are women who marry for security when 'it made sense for me to give up work' - whereas it makes much more sense to me to find a partner who is willing to be equal in the relationship and take the hit too. He always will earn more if you stop. The idea of legally binding myself to a man for financial protection, instead of ensuring that security myself is insanity. And yes, I have kids, and run two businesses from home.

YetAnotherSpartacus

But it worked for us.

OH and I both had jobs/careers totally incompatible with child rearing.

Something had to give.

The idea of legally binding myself to a man for financial protection, instead of ensuring that security myself is insanity.

Well then, isn't it fortunate that you can live with your partner for the rest of your life without legally binding yourself to him?

YetAnotherSpartacus
I'm not taking all the hits either. Any man who expects me to sit back, be nice compliant wifey and make his life easier isn't one in going to stick with. (Now if our situation changes and we had to have a discussion where all options were on the table then I would consider changing my view, but there has to be no expectation that Maisy will throw her hard work away).

I was paraphrasing the situation which seems to happen on here all the time.

speakout
If that's the choice you want to make, All power to you.
If you've made it with the legal protection of marriage, fine.
If you've made it without the legal protection of marriage and are relying on it not going wrong or 'he's a great guy who would never do me over' then that's the risk you've taken. As long as you are happy with the risk and wouldn't be back on here following a split bleating on about how unfair it is, fine.

But it worked for us

Like I said - I'm not a gambling woman. It didn't work for many.