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.

If you aren't married then legally you are single. Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people.

I don't see it as sneering, more that women are pointing out how vulnerable other women are.

People just find some posters' indignation on this subject tremendously wearying. Marriage is a way of stating clearly, for people and institutions that are mystifyingly not as fascinated as you are with your own individual and doubtless very special romantic and domestic arrangements, that you've made a legal commitment to each other; the corollary is that by not getting married, you are exercising your choice not to make that commitment. The idea that the state should effectively foist marriage on people by default after a certain number of years, or because they've had a child, is outrageous.

Absolutely agree with you

There are also a number of smug unmarrieds who pop up on these threads to tell us how their independent incomes and substantial assets mean they'd be daft to marry but don't acknowledge that most women, especially SAHMs with small children, are not in that position.

What pita says. For some women marriage offers “protection” but only if you are the lower earner and have less assets. For the significant minority of women who are the higher earner, marriage would be disadvantages financially if they later broke up. All the sneerers on these types of threads are women who marry for money or “security”. Not a message I want to give my daughter. I was the higher earner and me and my dcs are better off because I didn’t marry.

Also once you isolate for poverty etc, children of single parents don’t do any worse than anyone else. It’s just that they are so often living in poverty. People should make the relationships that work for them.

And for the millionth time, there is no technical legal meaning to next of kin. You have no say over someone’s medical treatment because you are married.

nothing cries so needy as marrying a man for financial security

Nonsense. Financial security is important. If you earn enough money to keep yourself and your children, no need to marry. If you are not working and looking after children instead, living off the earnings of your partner, you should get married. This is only because people are bastards and leave ex-partners high and dry with no money or share of property when the relationship ends. Marriage prevents this. That's not a superior manner it's just practical advice.

I am married, but here m certainly not smug about it. I don't think any married person has less of a relationship than me. Each to their own...

I am an independent woman though, with earnings which exceed my husband's. My father did not walk me down the aisle as a commodity to given to another man. He lovingly accompanied me on my walk into my future. We both remember it fondly.

Lol at schnitzel. Like many women I have a job rather than an independent income. Marriage would not benefit the significant minority of women who earn more than their partner (quarter and rising). Of course if you are a sahp you would be better to get married (financially at least) but it’s not always as simple as that. In these threads people are often sneering at the women for not getting married when their partner doesn’t want to. It takes two to get married, you can’t just decide that on your own.

They are trying to get across that marrying is the smart thing to do in terms of legalities if you were to separate, it's not smugness about having a 'better' relationship it's about being protected should you break up. I can't help feeling a bit smug when I read threads where posters are banging on about how it's their 'right' and their 'choice' not to marry and how that makes them powerful etc when actually, if they were to separate, it's likely that they'd be none of those things.

You've got the wrong end of the stick, as always happens with this topic. As a married person I have never encouraged anyone to marry so that they are seen as a 'proper couple'. I have, however, encouraged someone to marry as to protect their future if they were to separate and I don't think that's a bad thing.

There are so many people who have been left with absolutely nothing after a relationship breakdown, it's bad enough when people are actually married. But at least with a marriage, in the eyes of the law, there is something you can fight to get your share. A relationship won't give you that protection and leaves you wide open to having everything taken away by the other person.

I married for love, pure and simple, on our own on a Sri Lankan beach. In that time we have bulit a v happy life, business, properties etc etc.
I have the security of knowing that either of us will be protected should something happen to one of us. I am proud of what we have achieved together, I think our relationship was cemented by marriage.

Fgs the thread was about legal rights.
The poster youre quoting said lesser in the eyes of the law. Which is true.

If you dont want to get married, nobody is forcing you to. But make sure you know what the law will and will not protect you from come splitting up / ill health / death.

Don't muddle up emotion with the legalities of it all. The previous thread was talking about marital status in legal terms, which is that you're either married or not. There is no provision for, "well, we really love each other and we might save up to get married in a few years but we're living together anyway for now." It's not a personal attack on anyone, it's just irrelevant. Are you married? No? Right, so tick the single box. Legally single. Job done.

I find much more sneering towards those of us who ended up with bad divorces and useless NRPs. Like I chose to marry a defective one so deserve whatever I get. Sadly the man I fell in love with and married was not the man I divorced 20 years later - I may be a bit dim sometimes but I'm not a total fucking imbecile.

It's not a lesser relationship in the eyes of the law, it's just different. By not getting married you've indicated that you don't want to be married and that is being respected.

nothing cries so needy as marrying a man for financial security

I think its more about children knowing that both their parents are financially and emotionally responsible for them, within their family unit - whether their parents are married or co-habiting. Much more stable than being dependent on the government to provide finances for an absent dad.

I haven't seen any posts where married women say they are superior to unmarried women. But, ultimately, being married brings more emotional and financial security to the married, man, woman and children.

I cohabit with my partner. We are getting married. It's actually a financial risk for me to get married. I have lots more savings/inheritance than him. Currently, my money is still in my name. Any big joint purchases e.g. for the house or ds come out of either joint money or I put some of my savings into a joint account from which we then make the big joint purchase. Should we split up, I take my money, it's easy. Once we are married next year, I will not have that security and if we split up then, he could take half of my money. Obviously, I don't think we will split up or I wouldn't be marrying him! But for married women to be telling me I'm putting myself in a risky financial position by not being married is so annoying and patronising! I understand that generally that is the case due to maternity leave and child care etc but it is not always the case. It isn't true in my case. I'm perfectly financially secure at the moment thanks for your concern married people!

But you are technically single. I've been with my partner for nearly 2 years, but as we aren't married, legally we are both still single. It's marital status. Being boyfriend and girlfriend doesn't make us married, and splitting up is just a case of leaving each other. Doesn't require divorce.

You have way more rights when married. There's many women who are sahms and aren't married. They are in for a rude awakening if their partner leaves, they are entitled to nothing. And they've then got children to deal with alone and find a job somehow with almost no working experience etc. It's not a position I would want to be in.

Yeah they say it in a bad way. But they are right.

Not a week goes by without at least 2 or 3 threads in Relationships from OP's who are unmarried, gave up work to look after the children, often also in a house only in the partner's name, and she's been abused or dumped and wondering what her rights are.

This thread is interesting. I'm in a far superior financial situation to my partner as I own property etc so other than the financial benefits are there any other benefits to marriage? If dad is on birth cert he has parental responsibility, right? I guess there's tax relief maybe?

Not a week goes by without at least 2 or 3 threads in Relationships from OP's who are unmarried, gave up work to look after the children, often also in a house only in the partner's name, and she's been abused or dumped and wondering what her rights are. This, time after time. And occasionally a poster who finds that actually she IS entitled to a share of the house, even though it's in his sole name, because they are married.

The poster you complain about is quite right. Cohabiting does mean nothing legally you are single. No one is interested btw or particularly cares about your domestic arrangements but it's plain wrong to think cohabiting for many years gives you automatic rights it doesn't. Not in England anyway.

there is no technical legal meaning to next of kin. You have no say over someone’s medical treatment because you are married

This has not been my experience. When my DH was in a coma in hospital, as next of kin I had to sign to give permission for his tracheostomy surgery and other procedures.
In addition, when my dad had dementia, we had to take his alcoholic and bonkers wife to court to get him into a proper care home.

pitapizzapie I entirely agree

I was on that thread OP and didn't bother going back to it after posting.

The marriage-sneerers all seem to say the same things which are usually legally incorrect as well - about concepts like "next of kin" that have no legal basis. I've mentioned this on these threads and no one ever replies....

I'd be far worse off if I got married. I'm the high earner, own our home and DP has debt that he doesn't want to saddle me with, so we cohabit and are unmarried. Personally I find that a much bigger sign of his commitment to me than if he proposed - he'd walk away with nothing if he left me. Once his debt has been paid off, he can contribute to our next house so it evens out our outlay, and we're earning closer amounts to each other we would consider a civil partnership if they're available for heterosexual partners by then. In the meantime we have bothered to get the more expensive (and requiring a bit more time with a solicitor, and the intelligence to understand what decisions we're actually making) paperwork sorted out so that we leave each other everything in our wills, are each other's power of attorneys and are named on pension/insurance policies etc.

Not a week goes by without at least 2 or 3 threads in Relationships from OP's who are unmarried, gave up work to look after the children, often also in a house only in the partner's name, and she's been abused or dumped and wondering what her rights are.

^^ This. It’s not sneering or thinking they are better. It’s frustration that women are leaving themselves so vulnerable and not thinking about what is the best way to legally protect them and their children. In some cases that might not be marriage but for many women and children marriage offers more legal and financial protection.

As snarky as some comments might be,and let's face it they can be snarky from the other side too...

The truth is that legally you have fuck all rights if you're not married. The law doesn't give a shit if you were together 50 years and had 20 kids...

So if you are in a vulnerable financial position or likely to be in one due to your relationship progressing (i.e. having kids) then the smart/safe thing to do is to get married.