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.

And while it’s true that in ancient times the interests of individuals in general (even male individuals) were of not much concern the whole distinguishing point between marriage and concubinage is that in marriage the maternal as well as the paternal family’s interests are taken into account. Part of those interests are in their sentimental attachment to their female relatives and insuring they are treated well and fairly.

As individual rights became more and more of a concept that naturally evolved into the direct interests of the wife herself.

Sometimes its hard to respect a "different view" when that view is palpably legally wrong and its a field in which you work so you know it really is properly wrong.

Quite. As an example, in the past few days on these threads I've had someone refer to the law relating to PR for unmarried fathers before registration as mumsnet made up law.

Growing up my parents wouldn’t let me sleep over at the homes of friends with unmarried parents. This was because my mother never knew whether the father was the biological father of the kids of whether the relationship that been going for 3 months or 13 years. I would feel basically the same now tbh. You may not agree with me but that’s how I (and a vast amount of my peer group) feel.

This has to be one of the worst things I've ever read on here.

@PrimalLass

Thanks

Feel free to send your kids into sleepover situations without background info of the home/relationship you’re putting them in, that’s responsible parenting.

Well I wouldn't do that regardless - my children only go for sleepovers when I know the parents. Anything else is just stupid.

But I'm unmarried and have been with my children's father for 23 years.

@PrimalLass

I fail to see your point. If my mum had known that/ you she’d have been fine with it. My point was that being unmarried means you could have been together 3 months or 30 years and unless you’re willing to ask someone about the validity of their relationship (and feel like a giant douche) then you’re left guessing.

Marriage doesn’t make anyone’s relationship ‘better’ than unmarried but it DOES make it far more transparent to society.

But that's not what you said. At all.

Why would she have let you go to sleepovers anyway if she didn't know the family well enough? The mum could have been married to the bloke for a month. But it's ok as they are married - right?

The fact that someone is married means jack shit.

My abuser was married. So was the person who abused my best friend. So being married doesn't indicate anything.

Or what about my situation. I am married. But I have split with the main am married to. If you come to my house, the man you might see is DP.

I have never seen anyone on MN claim that married men cannot be abusers.

As for not letting kids sleep over if the parents aren't married, these people must be 500 years old.

This "discussion" has gone completely daft.

unless you’re willing to ask someone about the validity of their relationship (and feel like a giant douche)

Yes. Exactly. Asking about that as if it's relevant would indeed make you a giant douche.

That article states that 42% of marriages end in divorce.

I think it can offer financial
Protection for sure . But for the financial position I am in with the equity in the home I own id be a fool to marry someone who couldn't at least match it.
Cynical yes . But once bitten n all that

Which is why it's a good thing that you can cohabit for your entire life without marrying if that's better for you.

The divorce rate for first marriages of people over 25 educated to university level is significantly lower than the generic rate.

That doesn't surprise me. If you're a bit older you'll know yourself better and have more maturity, and if you're university educated you're likely to have privileges that mean your marriage would be under less strain.

Well Exactly ! My comment was more about the often general consensus on here that you must be an idiot to do cohabit with someone and not marry them !

My comment was more about the often general consensus on here that you must be an idiot to do cohabit with someone and not marry them !

I think most posters do recognise that it's not going to suit all people in all situations. The trouble is mostly with unmarried posters who think they should have the same legal rights as married people purely because they have cohabited for an unspecified amount of time. (If that came to pass, it would fuck over your option to stay unmarried and cohabiting.) Or, worse, the ones who think they actually have and then get stung if it goes belly up.

If you're a woman planning to have kids with your partner, marriage is probably going to protect you. Not every time, of course, but it's worrying how many people refuse to accept this.

I've seen posters ask what rights I would lose if they got marriage rights by cohabiting. Honestly, as long as I am married, none at all. That's not what concerns me. What concerns me is that I might be widowed or divorced in the future, and if they had their way, I'd be unable to cohabit without marrying. And if I did get divorced or widowed, I would not want to marry again because I'd want to make sure everything goes straight to my kids.

Thing is people make out that basically all men are probably bastards and if they are not there’s no way to tell anyway, but in reality there are many ways to significantly mitigate your risk of divorce (not of course eliminate it) such as waiting until you’re over 25, getting at least a degree level education and marrying someone of a similar age who hasn’t been married previously (big age gaps - of course they work in some cases but they’re a risk factor for relationship breakdown). It’s not purely luck although even the most prudent can be unlucky.

Of course. But i had a low self ezteem and no sense of self due to a controlling mother. Married a controlling abusive man.

It is not just looking out for red flags. It is your childhood dynamic feeling right.

I envy women who blithely say "marry a good man".

Well, clearly nobody would advise you to marry an abusive shitrag. Obviously the first and most important thing is to be able to recognise a healthy, loving relationship, and sadly many people have not had the background or experience to enable them to do that.

The next best thing we can do is encourage education regarding marriage so that people can make an informed decision. It does amaze me how many peel reject marriage without actually knowing what it is. You know, the "just a piece of paper" and "don't need it to prove our love" brigade. Would they set fire to a £50 note or their house deeds? And do they honestly believe that it's illegal to marry someone you don't love?

My partner and I are not married, we've been together over 13 years and we will never get married. Legally we have everything sorted so we are equal in the eyes of the law. I've known people who have met, married, divorced and married others in the time we've been together. As for "declaring our love" and all that nonsense, how we feel for each other is private and we don't need public validation. One person once said to me "but it's so your friends and families know you're together", to which I told them that if people didn't know we were together, they weren't worth knowing.

I don't understand the smugness around marriage.

One person once said to me "but it's so your friends and families know you're together"

Well, that person didn't know what marriage is, so ignore them.

I don't understand the smugness around marriage.

I see very little of that. I do see a lot of people who are aware that in their case, it affords them legal protection that they wouldn't want to do without.

A friend of mine got married, but only on the condition of a prenup; because if she'd died her house would have gone to her partner instead of her daughter. He owned nothing before marrying her. This could still be a problem for her in spite of the prenup (not worth the paper it's written on). I never would have married in her situation. Marriage was the opposite of protection for her and her daughter.

Prenups aren't legally binding in the UK. They may be taken into account or upheld but there is no guarantee. They are not legally enforceable.

Yet another example when marriage would not have protected someone is still more proof that it needs to stay opt-in. It's a legal contract, why would anyone want to be in a position where they could be bound by that if they didn't actively sign?