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.

'The sneering cuts both ways though - I have come across unmarried couples who definitely give off the vibe that they are far too cool, unique, right on and special to be married like the boring mundanes that are. Cringe.'

Oh yes, this. I had a couple of (RL) friends who effectively dropped me for getting married.

Also, many men want pre nuptuals as they are now wise to gold digging wives.

Sooooo, are you a feminist who is sticking one to the patriarchy or a misogynist who uses terms like the above?

I unfortunately came across this attitude in ds’s class.

Apparently one of his friends told him on finding out we were not married that it couldn’t possibly be right that we weren’t married as only when God sees you are married does he let you have children.

Talk about contraceptive advice.

Barnaby I was blue lighted to hospital which resulted in a period in high dependency. The staff were superb and dp had all the discussions and dealt with the consultants when I was out of it. He certainly wasn't treated any differently.

Sigh. Hi, y'all talking about me :)

P3, you've got your back up about the truth. As I said, and I quote -

Legally, it doesn't. Shrug. Don't get mad love, get married. Or not. But the system says, your relationship means fuck all in the eyes of the law

You said you did everything you could (to MIRROR marriage) - getting a will done, etc, but LEGALLY, your relationship doesn't mean anything IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

Don't twist things. You stopped commenting on that thread because everyone was pointing out the exact same thing to you - legally, cohabiting means nothing in the eyes of the law.

In fact half the patients on any ward are very likely to be unmarried,eventually they'll be the majority so they must be used to it.

In terms of making things more straightforward being married provides a legal 'shorthand' creating a relationship 'entity'. Most though not all of this can be done outside of marriage.

The difference is that the married entity cannot be easily dissolved without the agreement or at least knowledge of both parties. Wills and other agreements can be ended unilaterally.

People can live with more than one person at once, sliding between relationships. Marriage is legally an exclusive relationship. You are not married until you are married and you stay married until the marriage is legally ended. The same cannot be said of cohabitation where relationships can overlap.

It should continue to be possible to choose to be married or chose to not be married. I would not like to see married 'rights' be acquired by stealth or apathy. If you want your relationship to be legally recognised then get married, if you dont then dont.

Threads like this and the many others are part of the education but I do worry especially about women who do not get this information. Women who dont speak/read English, who are kept isolated. Women who believe themselves to be married but when the chips are down find that they have no rights because the ceremony they have been through was social/religious but had no legal standing.

42% of marriages end in divorce and it is on the rise again. Marriage is hardly a guarantee of security.

You are missing out the word ‘financial’ there and that is what a lot of posters are referring to. If there is a divorce, both parties have legal protection over what they are entitled to share in terms of assets.

And if you are going to quote statistics, the Washington Post did an interesting article last year claiming that 70% of unmarried straight couples break up within the first two years of a relationship. So technically, marriage would seem to offer more security, just not in 100% of all couples.

I personally would never refer, conversationally to someone as being single, if they were in a relationship but ticking a ‘new’ box on a form referring to that, seems odd, as the forms are only asking for which legal status you are and in reference to the thread talked about by the OP, this was a particular form where the legal situation for the parents of the unborn child was important to clarify and not a personal slight on those couples not married.

In a flip side from the OP (and it would be nice for the OP to come back and join in on the discussion), there are also plenty of ‘sneery posters’ who seem to think marriage is a dirty word and somehow women have sold themselves out by getting married, on this forum. It goes both ways.

@Oliversmumsarmy the poster lives in some backwater where same sex couples with children don't exist.

I think there is a bit of over egging on mumsnet on this topic. It’s really only a big issue if there are some assets for a start and then if there are for the vast majority you can be put in the same position as married (protection wise) by making sure the house is owned as a joint tenancy.

You have less “protection” (by which posters mean access to money post split) by being married to a low earning non house owner than having children with a rich man.

I’ve seen people get really carried away on this topic including giving some dreadful advice to unmarried women. There was one quite recently where a guy was trying to throw his ex girlfriend and their joint children out the house. There were people saying things like “no point speaking to a lawyer, you have no rights you have to just move out”. This is actually not true and I very much hope she didn’t follow this ignorant advice.

Having said that, I’m married. This is partly to give DH (who doesn’t work much) some security. I think it’s a very useful short cut to some various rights and the inheritance tax point is relevant to us.

"Cohabiting means fuck all.Fuck.All.Marriage is different. Get over yourself."

Actually it was this delight to to somebody else I objected to and yes the patronising dismissal and rudeness towards cohabiting in general alongside the bullying undertones I objected to.

As I said I object to being called "love" or ordered to get married by anyone.

Why should we make vows especially if you don't believe in the laws of marriage?
That's fine. If you don't believe in 2 people freely entering a legal contract thay gives each of them responsibilities and protection then you can choose not to have a marriage contract. Nobody is forcing you.

Some women, however, opt to have multiple children with a man, opt to sacrifice or limit their financial independence, limit their pension contributions and pay into houses their name isn't on the deed of because 'it just made sense'. Then later on when it all goes belly up tjey start MN threads part upset that they arent entitled go anything and then wanting to change the law force people who cohabit into having a load of the benefits of marriage. (Something which would remove the choice of cohabiting for people who do not wish to enter a marriage like agreement).

It is all well and good taking the 'marriage is just a piece of paper / I don't believe in marriage/ I'm not marrying because I'm a feminist/ whatever other reason you like here' because that is your choice. Just don't start complaining that the law should be changed to remove other people's choices when suddenly you don't like the consequences of your choice.

The truth is there are some sneery people in general.

I have been here for about 9 years. I am on some other forums. I have seen lots of cohabiting or people in ltr that don't live together sneer at marriage and think they are better because they don't feel the need to get married. I have seen married people sneer because they think being married is better. I have seen all this in real life too.

The fact is that legally if you aren't married, you aren't married. It doesn't mean your relationship isn't worth anything. But legally it has not status. But if you choose not to involve the legal system in your relationship, I don't know why that would bother you.

Marriage gives far more rights and protection. But it's not the ultimate protection, you can still get screwed. What people should do is make the decision to get married or not with their eyes wide open and don't settle for not knowing your rights, your family finances etc. And don't give up financial independence, without some sort of protection. Even married women need to remember that if they become a sahp and split when the kids are adults, that they are reducing their earning power long term. What's their plan if divorce happens later in life? Spousal maintainence isn't a given.

But as I said, why people are getting upset that the law doesn't recognise their relationship, when they have chosen to include the law into their relationship? If you don't want the law involved, don't. If you do, do.

I was married, now a divorced single parent with a Dp who lives in his own house. This relationship means a lot to me. It doesn't matter what the law thinks. I am was not better than others when I was married, I am not better now I am legally single, or that I don't live with Dp. But non of this makes me lesser either.

@BlueBug45
I would argue most people (men or women) would be wise to refuse to marry anyone that is clearly not contributing enough to the relationship looking holsitically across all aspects. You don't have to contribute equal amounts of everything however if the amount of effort expended is unequal then I would definitely see it as a red flag.

I don't think being the higher earner automatically means you can do less of the other work associated with the family. What if both partners are working FT similar hours but one happens to earn more than the other?

@P3onyPenny

Ah so glad for your kids that you’ll pack them off for sleep overs at whoever’s house they like without gaining any background info about the partners...etc. They sound ....safe guarded.

Maybe my mum knew as they wore wedding rings?? Equally whilst I was in primary there was a big scandal where a parent had sent their DD off to a sleep over at a friend house. The friends mum had a DP and the kids mum didn’t interrogate

(probably because MN’s like you would jump on that as ‘unfair’ or ‘bigoted’ when you wouldn’t ask a married couple)

She assumed DP was the child’s dad and long term partner, as you do. Nope...this guy had been on the scene less than 3 months and molested the DD at the sleepover.

...bet that mother was super glad she’d been so politically correct and liberal.
Just accept that for most marriage offers a bit more security, if you’re happy to be quizzed about the length/ commitment of your relationship fine but don’t expect me to guess those things whilst making the calculated decision of whether to trust you with the single most precious thing in my life.

As a parent you are constantly making calls on calculated risk and I’m never going to apologise for safeguarding to the best of my ability. PC/liberal or not.

@GnomeDePlume there is a solution to these religious marriage ceremonies but it still won't stop those who are cohabiting and fine with it doing so.

The solution - which some vicars, priests, etc agree with - is to make all marriages civil. In otherwords no religious leader is allowed to stand in for the registrar. Then and only when you have your marriage certificate can you have your religious marriage ceremony. This stops people being conned into thinking they are legally married when they aren't.

I hear you op. For a site pushing strong, independent, equality seeking women, nothing cries so needy as marrying a man for financial security. It is so very puzzling

It isn't puzzling! You are being monumentally thick, I'm afraid.

Imagine this:

Jane and Bob both earn £30k. They decide to move in together (into Bob's home), and start a family. They go on to have 3 children. Jane takes a career break, to raise the children. By the time the youngest starts school, Jane has been a SAHM for 10 years. Her CV is blank for the past 10 years. Meanwhile, Bob's career has gone from strength to strength. He has had 3 promotions, and now earns £70k. His Pension pot is worth £50k. Jane doesn't have a Pension.

Jane and Bob separate. Maybe Jane was unhappy, or perhaps Bob was shagging around and wanted out. Who knows, but it's not really the point.

Upshot is:

If not married : Jane could walk away with nothing. She has to start over with no assets, no pension, no job, no career and 3 kids to look after. Jane is skint. Bob keeps his home, his Pension, his career and is financially sound.

If married : Jane has a claim on the family home. Jane has a stake in Bob's pension (bear in mind, he only built up that pension, because Jane was at home holding the fort). Jane has a claim on all assets that Bob many have amassed during the marriage (cars etc). Jane can get more money than Bob from the sale of the family home, because Jane sacrficed her career and Bob didn't (this is called Economic Recompense).

Let's not forget, if Jane hadn't been at home, looking after Bob's kids and keeping house, Bob would have not been able to buy nice things, as all of his money would have been spent on Nanny's/cleaners etc.

Jane can set up a new life with the assets she walks away with

Now do you get it?

If you're a higher earner, as a woman, you'd be a fool to marry.
True.
I think marriage is a "piece of paper" to nearly everyone, even those who get married. IME, if people want to split, they do. No matter how long they've been married, if they have DC, if their spouse will suffer considerably after divorce. I have seen many couples divorce with exactly the same reasons as cohabiting couples. Having seen my uncle divorce his wife, a SAHM with 3 small kids, and having experienced the havoc this wreaked, I really don't get why people think marriage gives any emotional security at all. There are many who take their vows seriously, but many who don't. Even on the relationship board here, posters are sometimes advised to leave when their spouse suffers from long-term mental health problems like depression, when this is clearly a case of "in sickness and in health".
Marriage used to be for life, literally, no matter what happened. It just isn't that way anymore, except for very religious couples.
(And I think this is a good thing, relationships should be ended when they go seriously wrong.)
Marriage does give a small amount of financial security, but if you are a SAHP during marriage, a divorce still forces you to work. The fact that you got married because you were planning to be a SAHP forever becomes meaningless. So the financial protection in itself is limited.

I don't think being the higher earner automatically means you can do less of the other work associated with the family. What if both partners are working FT similar hours but one happens to earn more than the other?

Totally agree with this. Me and exh split child care, cleaning, basically all household stuff depending on who was doing what that day. If the kids were sick, I may have time off 3 times in a row (I was the higher earner) because they happened to be sick when exdh had meetings. Sometimes he would be off many times in a row, because I was in the middle of a probe t and couldn't take time off. Sometimes he would cook dinner every night for a month because he was able to do early for a project.

Current Dp has changed his shifts so that we can see eachother more. Also because we are planning on moving in together next year and this means he will be in when we gets in from school etc. We will split household stuff over who is here. Not who earns more.

But legally it has not status.

This isn’t true, there are loads of circumstances where it has legal status. Most obviously in benefits calculations.

Of course marriage does not guarantee security but the facts are that non married couples are more likely to split up than married couples.

Statistics may show less people are getting married but I don't see that in real life. All my family and friends are married. One lot of neighbours live together but in a road of 16 houses all the rest are married -most are fairly young couples too.

It depends .. if you are a woman with a good job and you don’t give it up to have children, you jointly own the property, fine.

If you have a poorly paid job, don’t work, don’t have name on the lease or part own the property you are in a vulnerable position if things go wrong.

If you are in a relationship - what constitutes you or partner deserving some of the assets when you split - one month of relationship/ one child from the relationship/ 10 years of relationship/ if 1 month you get 1/100 of assets, 10 years you get 1/2 of assets if one child you get 1/3 etc etc etc etc,. It's an impossible minefield and you can't just make a vague law of 'in a relationship the other partner gets half if they split'. People would form relationships to get the assets.

Best before - what utter nonesense.
Divorcing as a sahp gives you a right to half the assets even if your oh paid for them or they are in his name. Splitting up as an unmarried sahp entitles you to - nothing. Although you might eventually get some child maintence if you are very lucky. Your ex partner will keep the house etc.

I think it is every woman’s right to chose to marry or not but each should be informed of their rights properly. So many people get themselves into 20/30 year relationships which they equal but actually they are entitled to nothing. That is a mugs game.

Ooookay. I work in schools and have several years teaching experience under my belt so rest assured my knowledge of safeguarding is tickety boo.

As to the rest of your post,words fail me.