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.

A civil marriage ceremony costs £94 which is would be affordable to most people. It's definitely more affordable than finding yourself with dependent children, no home, income or pension.

It's significantly cheaper than a cohabitation agreement

I've asked multiple times on multiple threads but not one person has replied to say they have one in place that I can recall (happy to be corrected if my memory fails me)

Lots and lots of people saying they want access to the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage but don't wish to get married, but would do so if civil partnerships were available to opposite sex couples

But no one seems to have said they have a legal cohabitation agreement in place. I'm really curious as to why? It's one of the most significant ways to replicate some of what's afforded legally by marriage

Makes sense that those who want nothing to do with the legal obligations of marriage wouldn't have one

But so many posters object to not being able to have their relationships legally recognised without marriage, who have wills, pensions etc - but no legal cohabitation agreement

Really trying to understand why?

@claryfray I couldn’t agree more. I was one of those women who started a thread not so long ago seeking advice. Most of the responses I got was berating me for being stupid enough not to be married.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything on your post.

For a site pushing strong, independent, equality seeking women, nothing cries so needy as marrying a man for financial security. It is so very puzzling

What is even more puzzling is the fact that, as @AynRandTheObjectivist noted, the assumption is that women who are grateful for the financial security of marriage only married for that reason.

I married my husband becasue I love him and wanted to spend my life with him. I was just about to graduate with a degree in chemical engineering and a permanent job with a very good starting salary and 50ths final salary pension. DH was selling televisions in Currys. On likely projections, I would have remained the higher earner.

22 years later he is earning a very good salary in the City and I am living on a modest disability pension. He has inherited enough to pay off the mortgage on our joint property.

Did I marry for financial security - no, definitely not. Am I glad I have some degree of financial protection now..... what do you think? Believe me, I am neither stupid, deluded, gullible nor gold-digging.

It's not a conscious smugness...nor is it all married women, but nothing validates your desirability more than the fact that a man has pledged his fidelity to you for life.

That's one of the most nauseating things I have ever read on here and yet in some women it's definitely true, seen it myself, all their worth tied up in having a man decide to commit to them.

Marriage isn't affordable, and not for everyone.

Of course it's affordable. A wedding CAN be expensive. It doesn't have to be and significantly cheaper than an alternative.

Not it's not for everyone. And everyone seems to agree with that. But what you can't do is say it's not for you then moan that you get screwed. The same as, if you decide marriage is for you, you can't then moan that your assets have become joint.

Whatever you do you should go into it with open eyes and fully aware of the implications when you decide if it's for you or not. And it's everyone's own responsibility to be aware.

I had a very turbulent childhood. It wasn't great. What I did learn from mum's many marriages was, be aware of your rights AND responsibilities when you decide how your relationship will proceed.

The elephant in the room is that men dont want to get married if it suits them not to.

Awful to heap more shame on women /mothers specifically co-habiting without protection.

Fathers rights should have come with govt childcare so that women arent more disadvantaged financially by parenthood. Parenthood costs men very little if they refuse to step up.

A man can get away with being a father, which is a privilege, for 11% of his net income if that is his wish. And even then, it could be less.
A father can have it all.

Selfish men can and do play smoke a mirrors with women around this elephant in the room.

I know a few people, including my sister, who haven’t married because they want a big event wedding and so keep postponing it until they can afford such an event. In the meantime, they give birth to children and are missing out on the security offered by the “piece of paper” they say isn’t that important. Often men, as the higher wage earner simply refuse to get married and the girlfriend saves face by pretending to find marriage an outdated and silly concept. (whilst she tries to persuade him to put a ring on it, in private)

nothing cries so needy as marrying a man for financial security. It is so very puzzling

Not the same thing at all.

1. Doing nothing for your own financial security except ‘marrying well’

Vs

1. Both contributing to the financial success of the family unit and arranging your affairs so that you both, and any children, have maximum legal security in case of death/illness/disability or dereliction.

Most forms contain a tickbox for Co-habiting now, not just "single" or "married"

I also feel sorry for married women.

It must be so hard dealing with a man on a daily basis. Asking for permission to do things/buy things, doing what someone else wants all time, having to share a bed with a snorer, having to compromise, listening to man troubles and moans, male entitlement, walking on eggshells when they're in a bad mood, the lack of freedom and personal space. And they hardly ever get better with age. Look at all the 60 - 80 year old men around and ask yourself "do I really want to live with and have sex with one of those?". I can empathise, it can't be easy.

And if you ever do want to escape, it's so hard to walk away, untangle your life and finances, divorce and start learning how to do everything for yourself later on in life. I've seen a lot of divorce settlements. It's not pretty and women don't usually come out on top.

I love my freedom and independence. I feel happy and confident as a single person. I would not give that up for anything. I feel sorry for people who are trapped in marriage.

I also feel sorry for married women.

It must be so hard dealing with a man on a daily basis. Asking for permission to do things/buy things, doing what someone else wants all time, having to share a bed with a snorer, having to compromise, listening to man troubles and moans, male entitlement, walking on eggshells when they're in a bad mood, the lack of freedom and personal space. And they hardly ever get better with age. Look at all the 60 - 80 year old men around and ask yourself "do I really want to live with and have sex with one of those?". I can empathise, it can't be easy.

And if you ever do want to escape, it's so hard to walk away, untangle your life and finances, divorce and start learning how to do everything for yourself later on in life. I've seen a lot of divorce settlements. It's not pretty and women don't usually come out on top.

I love my freedom and independence. I feel happy and confident as a single person. I would not give that up for anything. I feel sorry for people who are trapped in marriage

Er, that sounds like an arsehole issue, not a marriage issue. Everything in the first paragraph of your post is equally applicable to anyone cohabiting with a partner, regardless of marital status. Only the second paragraph has anything to do with marriage

Why would any of your first paragraph apply to a married person by virtue of being married? If they're living with a twat in an unhealthy relationship, sure - but why apply that to married women in general!

You're talking about being in a relationship with a dick vs being completely single

It must be very hard to live in a household like the one you describe, but I certainly don't recognise it. I wouldn't want to live in a household like you describe, because it sounds like a completely dysfunctional relationship

It must be so hard dealing with a man on a daily basis. Asking for permission to do things/buy things, doing what someone else wants all time, having to share a bed with a snorer, having to compromise, listening to man troubles and moans, male entitlement, walking on eggshells when they're in a bad mood, the lack of freedom and personal space.

I don’t have any if those problems Name and I’ve been married for 20 years.

I love my freedom and independence. I feel happy and confident as a single person.

So, this is about you being happier single rather than cohabiting and nothing to do with marriage. Don’t conflate the two issues.

I feel sorry for people trapped in unhappy marriages who will be financially ruined if they divorce.

I feel sorry for people trapped in unhappy cohabiting relationships who will walk away with nothing if they leave the relationship.

I feel sorry for single people who are lonely and would prefer to be in a loving cohabiting relationship with another adult.

I dislike the attitude of a hierarchy of married v non married and I agree I've seen it on here but if I'm honest it makes me laugh at some of the comments because of the genuine level of ignorance people have about the protection of marriage and the desperate need to define themselves.

I am married as we haven't completed the divorce yet , I have a live in DP and I have DC from my marriage whom I am the resident parent for....i am also the higher earner compared to both DP and stbxh.

You know how often my status is relevant ? It's not ever.

I don't care whether my DP is legally the DC step parent because he behaves as if he is

Ultimately the only people who care about this crap are those that define themselves by it ....i don't feel the need to invalidate someone else's status because I am feeling threatened by the fact it's all I have.

That goes for both...ive seen people claim their relationship is more important because they choose to be together rather than stay because they are married.

I was married , it ended...i wasn't trapped nor was he (abuse situations excluded obviously which shockingly occur both inside and outside of marriage...theres a hint there ) and I've seen people claim marriage is the only legitimate option for a relationship and defends a woman to high heaven.

I particularly laugh at the stupidity of the correcting posters " he is not your DH/ stepchild / flying monkey unicorn because you are not married " ..and the point of doing that is ??? Oh wait that's right...to be superior and pedantic ...because that's all you've got...thats how you define yourself.

I'm not protected or vulnerable by marriage because I'm not an idiot...i have always earned more than my partners and ensure that where money crosses outside normal day to day life I protect myself with whatever the appropriate contract is at the time.

Marriage changed nothing about my finances or how I live my life , and it certainly doesn't fucking define me.

All this is , is for women to beat each other up again. Its not the patriarchy...we do this to ourselves.

We blame men without realising we do this all on our lonesome

I have never known a man to tell another it doesn't count if they aren't married.

One day we will figure out that if we stop point scoring off of other women at every given opportunity we will actually run the world

I think it's time for marriage to be referred to as a "marriage contract". It just makes it clearer.

I got married because when I sat down and assessed our legal situation, either DH or I would be screwed if one of us died. We either had to make wills or get married. At the time, marriage was the cheaper option (we were living in another country).

What got me was that without either a will or a marriage contract, if one of us was in an accident, then the other would end up in a horrible situation because the other one would have died intestate and parents would eventually inherit everything. I could well imagine the hellishness of that in reality: parents coming in to clear out possessions, discussions over who owned what. It would be an enormous strain even for the nicest of people who got on. And then there were issues about money as we ran pooled finances that meant we had savings in both our individual names that belonged to both of us in theory.

Personally, I think marriage as a word is too tainted for a lot of people and it's about time civil partnerships were open for everybody with a "divorce" function available that would just revoke the contract for a simple fee if both parties agreed.

Personally I believe that although not legally recognised as such all relationships where both parties intend 1) lifelong commitment 2) the production and rearing of children together and 3) a shared household are marriages whether the parties call it that or not and whether or not they have gotten the law and whatever religious authorities they may or may not believe in involved or not.

Formal marriage is a public statement of that private understanding though.

For legal and social reasons.

If you don't both make it public by either signing a register or drawing up a legal agreement together how is the rest of the world to know for sure ?

I

No I totally agree. I’m just saying because it’s not a question of (as some people brought up earlier) living in sin or even that marriage is some old fashioned thing that people are too cool to do now. You might be already married, you just can’t legally prove it and get the law involved.

IAmAllAstonishment

Just wow. Do you really think abuse only happens outside of marriage? What about if the couple are gay? Single parents? Are they all a no too?

Ah yes, we agree then!

It has to be acknowledged that there are people out there who DON'T feel that way about cohabiting even with children involved. If they are the cohabitee who doesn't want marriage then there is a real issue!

It's pretty irrelevant what any married women on Mumsnet think (as perceived by the OP!)

I just love the fact these 'married' women think because there husband read a few vows of a piece of paper that they will never stray or cheat HA......

Who even said that?

I particularly laugh at the stupidity of the correcting posters " he is not your DH/ stepchild / flying monkey unicorn because you are not married

You think it's stupid to point out that someone who isn't married doesn't have a husband? How odd.

I do think it’s morally wrong to bring children into the world without taking care to ensure they and their primary caregiver (if it’s not you) are supported. If you’re an independent woman and you’re protecting your assets for your kids from your first marriage fine, if your dependent on your partner for childcare and other household jobs you’re unable to do while at work then you should take steps to ensure their security (including but not limited to marrying them) and it’s assholish not to whether you’re male or female.