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.

Wow, so much vitriol against married women. Why the hatred?

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 know this is extremely hard for you to understand, but...wait for it.......it's not like this for absolutely every single marriage in the whle world!!!! Oh my god, I know right??! Colour you shocked!!! It's really sad you have such a patronising hatred of married women.

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......

I don’t recall any married women on this thread (or any other) suggesting that.

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

It's hard not to sound patronising when you're talking to people who don't understand the legal definition of single, who don't understand the laws around marriage etc, and continue to insist they are in a better position without marriage.

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

Well exactly. There was a post on here the other day, can't even remember what it was about because someone pointed out OP's husband was actually her partner as they weren't married and she stropped so hard it overshadowed everything else. Apparently stating that particular fact was meeeeeaaaaaannnnnn and she was being bullied.

I cohabited for years, we both worked and the house we bought together arranged legally so we could separate painlessly. We did get married before we had dc though it would have been ill prepared not too. My career has taken a huge hit post dc and I am aware that my marriage gives me protection and I do think some women are naive about the protections of common law.

I do because I don't understand what it achieves ? Do you assume they genuinely don't know and you are educating them? Do you genuinely think they imagined a marriage ?

Honestly what is the point of it? I will absolutely hold my hands up as wrong if someone can tell me what value it adds?

It takes nothing away from me being married if someone says it and isn't the letter of correct so the absolute only reason to say it is to be pedantic...which achieves What?

I don't think people should hissy fit and run off claiming bullying if it is said...i just think it's incredibly pointless to say it.

I don't think it's bullying but it does make me view someone who does it as a bit sad and silly

There are probably some women who think their husbands won't cheat because they're married. It's a big world and some of the people in it are stupid. But in general, much more energy is expended in refuting that point than making it. Usually by someone who isn't married and is in fierce denial on a thread purely relating to legalities.

Two adults who are there is an infinitely better model than one adult and a revolving door of "partners" who are not invested in that family and the children.

A marriage certificate never stopped anyone being irresponsible, Irma. I know people who've been together for 50-odd years and raised children together without getting married, and people (male and female) who've been married multiple times, had children with all of their spouses and not "invested" in any of them.

The quality of the relationship and level of commitment is what matters, not its legal status.

There has been at least one thread on here in the past year when someone referred to a DH who wasn't and there were legal issues gettingbackonmyfeet. But even if there hadn't been, someone who thinks correctly defining a legal term is sad and silly doesn't make me feel optimistic about their ability to contribute sensibly to a discussion.

Full disclosure- I'm a solicitor, so incorrectly defining terms that have a legal meaning causes me more ballache than it does most people.

A person posting on here about their relationship is likely to be doing it for financial or personal reasons (ie, relationship could be in trouble). Whether or not they are married is likely to be relevant.

I've lost count of the threads on here from unmarried women whose relationships are in trouble and who didn't realise the rights it would have given them. People often think that cohabiting is the same, when it is very different.
I married without knowing any of this, just because we were in love, and I have no intention of getting divorced. But I think it's helpful to let people know the legalities.

You are quite within your rights to be optimistic or pessimistic as you choose, it is irrelevant .

Excellent if you are a solicitor then my point is similar to the concept of patent ambiguity. Contextually it's rarely needed to define the specific term as the meaning is clear in these forums.

Whilst there may be the odd occasion where clarifying the legal status in a thread is relevant most of the time it's obvious that the distinction is only being challenged because of pedantry and a need to define the poster as seperate and inferior.

The way in which it is done makes a large difference but do feel free to deliberately misunderstand again...your choice.

Frankly as this does not affect me either way on the grounds I have in fact existed in the apparently hallowed state of matrimony and also on the other side , it makes no difference and I'm off to do something more productive like enjoy the rest of my day off.

Indeed I am so entitled. If you do manage to stick the flounce, that would be for the best, as your increasingly flailing contributions have been asinine. But do rest assured that if you come back and say anything that dim again, I'll be right on it.

If you're not married and don't wish to be, why would you be offended by someone pointing out that you have a partner and not a husband?

NameChanger22

I also feel sorry for married women

Your idea of married life isn't anything I have experienced. Quite the opposite in fact. My DH is amazing, he makes me very happy and I love being married to him and living with him.

I hate to say it, but you do sound very jealous

Thatsfuckingshit, I meant it more as a cultural/societal/upbringing thing than someone specifically telling me to. The message that is drilled into you (including on here on threads like this) is get married. Believe me when I say that the end of my marriage was completely unforseeable. I still think I'm in a parallel universe almost a year on. I can't be too specific but it involves a serious offence (still alleged at this stage in case anyone knows who I am) that I can't get my head round. I intended us to be for good but now I have all the responsibility for everything with the home and DC and I have to pay my ex off to add insult to deep injury. Which is why I think that people who do despicable things and leave their spouse to pick up all the pieces should forfeit a good settlement. I don't mean routine things like arguing over money or leaving the toilet seat up. Or maybe even a "normal" affair. I'm talking really shitty criminally bad. Don't want to give up your 50%? Behave decently.

I can understand that line of thought.

Do you assume they genuinely don't know and you are educating them? Do you genuinely think they imagined a marriage?

More often than not, the fact that are legally married is relevant. Go to the relationship boards. Many women believe they are as good as married because they have lived together for years. So many believe in common law spouses. So yes they do believe it's the same. I am not talking about people who both own the house and are legally protected. There was a thread a few months ago where a woman was upset because her friends had also told her that common law existed. Surprise, surprise....she got jackshit when they split up. No kids involved in that one thankfully.

DrCoconut I get what you are saying but it was still your responsibility to find out. The same as women who don't get married, have the responsibility to themselves to find out what position they are in.

You got married for protection, but from what? If you were financially independent? When people talk about this issue they are usually clear about what protection it gives.

I wonder why people in the UK believe that there is legal protection given to common law spouses if there never has been. Interestingly some countries have laws that have been around for quite some time recognising de facto relationships. NZ is an example, a relationship lasting 3 years or more (cohabiting) or one less than 3 years but involving a child is given legal protection.

user9876 when I was younger, I rented a room to my male best friend. We used to do a lot together. People often assumed we were a couple. He lived with me for 4 years.

If he claimed he had right to my house because we were a couple, how do you prove that we weren't?

Oh and also I think if you are the type of person to see your partner give up work too look after your kids and give them no protection. I think you are the type of person, if de facto became a thing here, to just not move in with that partner.

And there will still be women that think itwill change when they have a baby/ believe the false promises that it will happen soon.

User9876 - and NZ is currently reviewing its laws because they recognise the 3 year assumption is outdated and not fit for purpose for modern relationships (eg blended families). It costs money to ‘contract out’ of the NZ provisions too and not everyone remembers to in time, meaning their assets are at risk. The UK system - where you make a conscious choice to opt in - is better imo.

Go to the relationship boards. Many women believe they are as good as married because they have lived together for years. So many believe in common law spouses.
This.

So many people believe in common law spouses. And worse on some of these threads (woman left with nothing following a split when unmarried etc) there's almost always some posters who turn up citing common law and the right to remain in the family home until the children are 18. Neither are true.
(And usually at that point the usual claims of 'well the law needs changing so you have legal benefit and entitlements after X years' turn up)

Thatsfuckingshit - Presumably if he took you to court to make a claim on your house, he would have no evidence to support himself. I don't have any evidence proving that I'm in a relationship with my flatmates who I'm not in a relationship with.

SunnyintheSun - Blended families always have the potential to be slightly tricky.

Both systems have their own benefits and drawbacks, best was to insure your own future is to be able to support yourself.

"Your idea of married life isn't anything I have experienced. Quite the opposite in fact. My DH is amazing, he makes me very happy and I love being married to him and living with him.

I hate to say it, but you do sound very jealous.*

Not jealous in the slightest. Marriage doesn't look fun to me. I wouldn't want to live with a man ever or be trapped to live with one by marriage. Marriage seems like a trap.

I've never been married, I've had lots of proposals, but it always seemed like a bad idea to me. It's not hard to get a man to marry you.

My experience of marriage is by watching friends and people I know trapped in horrible situations. I've never seen one relationship or marriage I would want to be in. All but one of my married friend's husbands have come on to me at some point. I think some people are blind to what men are really like, but the delusion keeps them going and spouting rubbish on Mumsnet about how marriage protects you.