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.

That's the point. What would be evidence?
For either party. We food shopped together, split household chores, cooked, ate together, spent lots of our free time together, holidays etc.

What if we were a couple and I denied it?

The things that have protected me are 1) owing my own home outright, no co-owing; 2) always being employed; 3) being educated; 4) being as informed and knowledgeable about things as possible; 5) forming my own opinions and points of view on everything; 6) having my own money and savings.

Marriage would take away some of the above and is therefore the opposite of protection.

owning.

NameChanger22 yet again you are conflating the issue being discussed here which is the benefits of marriage versus cohabiting. You don’t believe either would suit you, which is fair enough. However, we are not discussing marriage versus being single.

This thread has taken a rather peculiar turn thanks to namechanger!

If you are happier not being married that is great. isn't it lucky that it's opt in and nobody can force it on you by stealth? That you can cohabit forever without being married others your wish?

Namechanger - My experience of marriage is by watching friends and people I know trapped in horrible situations

So, you're calling women stupid and idiot and incapable of making a decision for themselves to get married. You're saying men force women into marriage.

Or, you're just a nasty little troll. So, so sad.

I think the point being made, is that if you make poor decisions in relation to your assets and finances as a woman, then yes, you need to get married.

Do married women think they are better than unmarried women? Yes, appears to be the short answer from alot of the responses on this thread.

I think the point being made, is that if you make poor decisions in relation to your assets and finances as a woman, then yes, you need to get married
Or alternatively some decisions stop being poor if married because the risk is lower.

E.g. woman gives career up entirely, loses her financial independence, reduces future earning potential, takes a hit on her pension, spends a decade out of work raising children and running the house, which facilitates her man's career - neither a good nor bad decision in itself. We may all have an opinion on us personally but that's absolutely for the woman to decide.

Choosing to do that whilst married is a different decision to choosing to do that whilst unmarried.

The main message seems to be:
Want to get married? Get married.
Don't want to get married? Dont.
Do whatever you like which suits your financial situation, family situation etc. That is your choice and you are free to choose.
Whichever you choose, there are pros and cons.

So (for example) don't make a choice to remain unmarried, place yourself in a precarious position, keep having children, not get married because 'it's just a piece of paper and he'll be reaosnable if we ever split' and then bitch later about how unfair it is that you spent 8 years out of work raising your children, enabling his career onky to find you aren't entitled to a divorce settlement. And certainly don't try to suggest other people should have the law brought into their relationships automatically because youve decided you don't like it (as some posters have said, they wouldn't get married because they wish to protect their assets. That's their right. And a right that some women would seek to remove because they didn't bother to check their own situation).

Married women often do think they are in a better position than others, I hear it all the time on Mumsnet, including on this thread. My point is that they are usually delusional in thinking this.

There are three main options - marriage, cohabitation, living alone. I think living alone (or with flatmates) is nearly always the best, most enjoyable and safest option for women. I can understand why men want to get married, but not women.

I haven't derailed or conflated anything. Just because you don't like my point of view, because it hits a raw nerve, doesn't mean I'm a troll.

To cut this down to essentials

Whether or not you benefit financially from being married depends upon your income and your assets.

if you have a good income and have built up reasonable assets then you don't benefit from being married unless you marry a financial equivalent. This holds for both genders

Emotionally as so many people have said, it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference

The issue with a long marriage as I have had is that people can enter into a marriage as equivalents and then realise down the line that they are not equivalent in financial terms.

Married women often do think they are in a better position than others, I hear it all the time on Mumsnet, including on this thread.
Of course you will hear that because we are in a society where:

1. Women are the ones who take maternity leave

2.even though men could share the leave, they tend not to

1. women tend to be the ones returning to work part time (if the couple don't botj work full time)
2. women tend to be the parent to stay at home if there's going to be a stay at home parent
3. because of 3 and 4, women's future earnings are more likely to be affected (even 1 to some extent) due to time out of the workplace, if they return to work then it's more likely to be in lower paid roles
4. Because of 3, 4 and 5, women tend to find their pension is affected (think about all the women in their late 50s/early 60s currently who've just had it dropped on them that their state pension might be affected if they've had time out of work)
5. If a woman is working, it's often her job that has to come 2nd so they get called out for emergencies, they take the unpaid leave when a child is unwell etc.

Then think about how MN is a parenting site so you're going to get a lot of women affected by those issues.
If you're in some of those situations then being married is probably a sensible thing to do because in the event of a split, your sacrifices for the good of the family unit are recognised and you stand a better chance of being able to get back on your feet and rebuild.

The fact you have called women delluded for being aware of this is just a bit goady.

I think living alone (or with flatmates) is nearly always the best, most enjoyable and safest option for women. I can understand why men want to get married, but not women.

Er, well the key there is 'I think'. What's right for you is somewhat of an anomaly, given people settle down together as a couple the world over

I enjoy sharing a home and a life with someone I adore. Why on earth would life be more enjoyable and safer living without the love of my life, who brings me such happiness?

(also how does your preferred setup work for raising children? Mum and Dad live apart with housemates and shuffle the kids back and forth, even though they're still very much in love?)

You don't want a romantic partner. Fine, you live your life however you choose and what makes you happen

But feeling sorry for married women because, in your world view, no one could possibly be happy living with a man - that's just nuts

What about married lesbians? Do you feel as sorry for women who are married to women as you do for women married to men?

Married women often do think they are in a better position than others, I hear it all the time on Mumsnet, including on this thread. My point is that they are usually delusional in thinking this... I think living alone (or with flatmates) is nearly always the best, most enjoyable and safest option for women. I can understand why men want to get married, but not women

You think women are best off living alone and you call everyone else delusional?
Newsflash: most people don't want to be alone. There is a reason the majority couple up.

Your assumptions about women and relationships above are very dated. And you are basically saying women should conform, stick with tradition and get married because otherwise they will be poorer. That is not enough reason to shackle yourself to another person in my eyes, even if it were definitely the case. How are women ever going to change any of it if they just resign themselves to the way it's always been?

I admire women who stand on their own two feet, who don't play weak and hand men all their power on a plate. Women are capable of standing on their own two feet nowadays. Things are moving on.

Decisions don't just suddenly become great ones because you got married.

Hiding of assets, going self employed to evade maintenance, the man going on to have more children and thus reducing maintenance, the overall decrease in spousal maintenance orders; there are no guarantees of anything.

I would never place myself at the mercy of a other person to ensure my survival based on a piece of paper, let alone fluid emotions.

If a woman chooses for her career to be secondary or make martyr-like sacrifices, that's a poor decision. Placing yourself in the position to have to 'rebuild' anything is also daft. Make provision for yourself and ensure you can always support yourself. We are all responsible for the choices we make.

You sound as though you don't have kids.

In my case, you'd be wrong

I understand I am coming from the fortunate position of not needing to depend on another person. Not everyone can achieve this.

Just please stop deceiving people that marriage is the safest and best option for women. For some people it might be; but for others not.

Marriage is indeed not right for everyone, which is precisely why it should be opt in.

However, if you think it's anti feminist to insist on protection before taking the financial hit as a parent, you're an idiot. Though I promote thus protection for anyone who takes the hit as a parent, male or female.

If you know how to have kids without it changing you or your life, do share.

If a woman chooses for her career to be secondary or make martyr-like sacrifices, that's a poor decision

thats your opinion. Works for a lot of people, it can be a great decision.

But at least if you are married you have protection when things go wrong. It's like wearing a seat belt in a car, you hope you won't crash and if you do its no guarantee you'll be ok, but you have a much better chance with the protection of seat belt.

The point being, it's a fallacy that there is guaranteed protection. Unless you have a working Crystal ball, obvs.

If the man or woman you marry is earning a million a year when you marry them, only for them to be penniless when you divorce, there is no protection.

If they hide assets, leave the country, spend the equity on legal fees, the list is endless, you get nothing, or not enough to support yourself and your children. Despite waiving a piece of paper around.

I'm not clear on the point about children changing ones life being related to this in any way.

I had my first at 17 and have always supported myself and my dc. Im not sure what point you're trying to make? Work hard and don't sacrifice your own career for a man and warm fuzzy feelings? If thats what youre getting at, spot on.

The point being, it's a fallacy that there is guaranteed protection

I doubt anyone imagines there is a guarantee. As I said, its like a seat belt. It might not save you, and on rare occasions it will actually kill you, but overall you are much more protected with a seat belt than without one,

I'm not clear on the point about children changing ones life being related to this in any way.

Because having kids is not generally conducive to both parents putting their careers first and foremost at all times. Generally, at least one person has to make a compromise of some kind to their working life.

I must assume that you don't have kids if you didn't know this. And anyone who mistakes this for 'giving up your career for a man' is too thick to have anything to contribute to this discussion.

Um, did you read my post?