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 think assigning rights automatically to cohabiting people would be an extremely risky move by the state. People can live at the same address for years and during that time move through different types of relationship:

lodger, lodger with benefits, friend, friend with benefits. Sometimes sharing rent and expenses, sometimes not.

Both parties to this situation may have different views on the nature of the relationship. Putting the onus on the people to 'opt out' could cause many people to be very wary of letting rooms or home-sharing for fear of finding themselves 'married' by default.

Marital rights should always be opt in not opt out.

Yy to Baum the man has to have had the decent pension,zero debt,insurance polices,assets etc in the first place.

Basing your security on somebody else is bonkers. Sort your own out.

@Baumederose
I appreciate you have a strong emphasis on self reliance but surely you can see even that is potentially flawed? What if you get sick and can't work anymore? What if your DC happen to have a SEN or health condition that means that they need additional support that wouldn't be compatible with building a career? What if you build a career in a sector that takes an unexpected downturn and you are made redundant? What if you get to pensionable age and find the pension pot has been drained and you will get less than expected? Nobody, no matter what their life choices is immune to these things happening and I think suggesting that pursuing relative financial independence at any cost isn't necessarily for everyone. You could do everything you can to be financially independent and it still might not work out.

It's not always the lazy or easy choice to not prioritise one's career and to suggest this is seriously disingenuous and undermining of women that have chosen a different path to you.

But surely basing your financial security on somebody else is insanity. People can stop paying into pensions,deplete savings accounts,rack up debt,pay interest only on a mortgage,stop insurance policies and also get ill.

This idea that you're sorted if you're married is bonkers.

I had a period at home. We saved for it,continued paying my NI,put some money aside for my pension and made sure I could get back into the work place. Sitting back thinking I'm married,everything is sorted is foolish. Many unmarried mothers on not a fortune will be better off than many married women. Debt is rising,house ownership harder. Marriage does t equal honesty,prudence or wealth.

A lot of married women MY age arent prepared for l8fe on their own. Im single and feel on top of it. For that reason, although "superior" is not the word id use, id say now at this point in my life, 48, im glad im not a married woman. Obviously that does depend a lot on the womans independence. It is not a blanket feeling of relief and i dont compare myself except on mm where people pour out their heart.

But surely basing your financial security on somebody else is insanity. People can stop paying into pensions,deplete savings accounts,rack up debt,pay interest only on a mortgage,stop insurance policies and also get ill.

Most of those things don’t happen overnight. Why would you not notice if they were and take steps to account for it.

Two people depending on each other makes for a stronger whole than two independent people having to cover all bases on their own, but obviously comes with additional risks. Some people are not comfortable with risks that are due to someone else (I guess risks due to themselves alone they can feel like it’s their fault) but plenty of people are willing to take those risks for the benefits they can bring.

@P3onyPenny
Nobody is "sorted" whatever they do. Irrespective of finances, we all take a gamble on our partners when we have children or share our lives with them. An engaged, responsible father will contribute so much more to family life than an uncommitted father, some partners will nurse you in your Ill health whilst some will walk away. There is no way of knowing for sure how anyone will support you when the chips are down and you're facing adversity.

I think the focus on the financial is of course important but not the be all and end all. I think it puts a lot of pressure on women in particular to try and have it all and be totally independent in all matters just in case the relationship does breakdown. This is a real burden for women to carry and I would argue one that men don't contend with as although they often maintain their careers and therefore financial independence, they often don't carry the same responsibilities regarding family life and don't have to be pregnant, give birth etc.

I think a successful family works as a team and this may involve a division of responsibility which inevitably weakens an individual member's own independence to a certain extent. The alternative is everybody remains completely independent of each other, but I would question what the benefits of being on a family are if you are all acting as seperate individuals anyway.

@DieAntword
Cross post but yes that's what I was trying to say.

I know the title refers to unmarried women, and that women who don't have a partner are just as unmarried as cohabitants, but I do think the argument being advanced by namechanger is a different argument to the one that OP actually articulates in her (poorly argued, TAAT) post. The reality is that most women will cohabit with a partner at some point, usually a male, and so the discussions are generally about whether they're better off being married or not. I think it's a fair point that we could do with questioning that model more, and I say this as someone who's been partnered nearly all my adult life. But that is not the discussion that the OP is describing, doesn't come up that much on here and the arguments being made against marriage from the perspective of someone who doesn't want a partner are mostly also applicable to cohabiting.

Also, the idea that marriage is automatic protection and solves everything is, like the idea that married men won't stray, one that's more argued against than actually advocated. There are a few women who actively think that, so it isn't a strawman, but the amount of time spent arguing against it is likely disproportionate. There may be a generational thing here too: I suspect I'm 20 years + younger than p3onypenny and believe me, women of my age are very well aware that house ownership is getting harder! We're the ones living it.

Bumpity.

My dc has a disability.

I've also been made redundant in my working life.

The clue is in the words self-reliant. I have worked very hard to ensure my own sustainability and secure my own future.

If you choose to make other choices, good for you.

If someone chooses to think in the short term and doesn't think about what they might do when the children are grown up or gone to secondary school and they've taken a decade out of working, or they get divorced, or any of the curve balls life throws, they live with the consequences of those choices.

The partnership you describe with someone else does not succeed or fail based on marriage vows.

Talking of burdens, theres also some very interesting research that marriage and relationships benefit men much much more than women. But that's another thread entirely!

But surely basing your financial security on somebody else is insanity. People can stop paying into pensions,deplete savings accounts,rack up debt,pay interest only on a mortgage,stop insurance policies

Depends on the somebody else you picked to depend on, doesn't it? I'm not dependent on my spouse but I could be, and it wouldn't be insanity.
If your partner or spouse is a bad one then either married or unmarried you are fucked, but less so if you are married. If they are a good one then you'll be fine either way, but there are still many benefits to marriage, legally.
Either way marriage wins.

"Either way, marriage wins". Not at all, it's much easier to walk away if the one you thought was good turns out rotten if they can't take half your assets and pension. Marriage is a gamble.

Relying on yourself alone is also a gamble. Plenty of things can go wrong. Single people are the most vulnerable as a group even if individual single people win the independence lottery. Even a simple thing like getting a parcel delivered or going to the shops when you have young kids is twice the faff when you’re on your own.

Not at all, it's much easier to walk away if the one you thought was good turns out rotten if they can't take half your assets and pension

usually its the man with the assets and the pension and him that gets to walk away if unmarried, leaving the woman holding the babies and none of his money.
If you think thats a good position for women there's no talking to you.

But sometimes it's not the man with the assets. Sometimes, it's the man with the debts, and the woman with the earning potential.

Not recognising that the woman isn't always "protected" by marriage, but actually made much more vulnerable by it, is a very close minded view.

Some women weigh up the pros and cons, and marriage is good. Some do the same, and realise it's not. Both of those are fine. One is no better than the other, and so there is no need for being smug. Some, however, appear to get married, or stay unmarried, due to romantic notions, or superiority, or ignorance of what it actually means financially. That is plain stupid.

Marriage is a financial contract. Some people it's in their interests, some it's not. Women who think it's always better for the woman to be married are wrong. Women whose greatest achievement is getting a man to marry them are pitiful. Women who look down on other women for being unmarried are foolish, and small minded.

Die, I thought we were talking married vs unmarried couples? Collecting a parcel and shopping are allowed if you live in sin, too, you know.

Sometimes, but usually not.

Women whose greatest achievement is getting a man to marry them are pitiful

Women who think that other women think like that are pitiful, and nasty.

TheWinterofOurDiscountTentsMk2 so, you admit that sometimes It's not "protective" for women to marry?

But then if you’re setting up an interdependent relationship doesn’t the partner specialising more to the “earning money” side owe it to the other partner to give them the legal protections of marriage? Regardless of whether she is male or female? If you set up a household it’s not “what’s good for me” but “what’s right for us” surely?

@Baumederose
It reminds me of a group project at school or university. I imagine most of us have had the experience of someone not pulling their weight, letting down the group and consequently having a negative impact on everybody's grade however, there are certainly cases where the group all puts in the required effort and the end product is much better than what one individual could achieve.

I guess your approach would be to do the whole assignment yourself just in case someone doesn't do their part. Others might take a calculated gamble and rely on all or some of the other members to complete their bits of work. I don't think any of the approaches are definitively wrong but their obviously downsides associated with each course of action.

I do find it interesting that the insults of stupid, pitiful or nasty seem to coming from married women, aimed at other women expressing a different view.

I think pre nuptial agreements could have a place there.

If the partner is not making a career sacrifice, eg. Part time hours, or longer parental leave, etc, for the family, then, no, I can't see why I would ever enter into a contract that made me vulnerable financially to offer greater financial security, at my expense, to another adult. But that's my situation. I can completely see why an adult who was making sacrifices greater than that of the other adult would want such a contract. I know what's best for my situation, and I resent women who are much more vulnerable judging me for that. Anyone who enters the financial contract of marriage for sensible reasons, or who doesn't for sensible reasons, should not be judged. But it's not an obvious, one fits all, marriage is always better, scenario for some women and families.

So don't be smug!

Hmmmm.

I would frame it in terms of cultivating female friendships as my team, rather than placing my eggs in one basket with a man.

I think this is really part of a broader conversation about relationships and the retention of ones own identity, personally.

I know quite a few women that once the kids have grown don't know who they are. The importance of keeping your own interests and individuality is really important. But I'm derailing so I'll stop there.