To think that women should stop starting families before they get the ring?

[MeteorGarden]

Ok so hear me out.

I’ve read a few threads now from women who have got themselves into the same difficult situation and judging by hundreds of comments, they are seriously not alone!

They desperately want to marry DP who ‘always said he would’ But now (a few children/ years later) has declared he has no intention of marrying them.

It follows the same pattern, OP wanted to marry early on and DP was open to it but didn’t actually pop the question. OP didn’t force the issue (god forbid she be labelled ‘pushy’ or ‘crazy’) and instead started a family with DP (OP seemed under the delusion that having his children would make him propose).

Why!??
A) Would anyone ‘start a family’ with a man who isn’t proposing to you? If he’s open to it why isn’t he doing it?
B) Is having children becoming just an alternative to getting the ring/ security you want?
C) Would anyone think having his children will make him propose? If you have the kids without a ring it’s fair for him to assume you’re happy enough with the current situation!
D) are so many women put off flatly asking for what they want? It’s terribly backward to just quietly have his children and keep his home in the hope that one day you’ll be ‘rewarded’ you with a proposal! We’re living in a society where you can carry his children but feel uncomfortable asking WHEN he’s going to propose and pushing the issue?!?!

The stories I’ve read are horribly deflating and I empathise with their explanations of frustration and humiliation but wonder if perhaps it could have all been avoided?

We have so much more freedom and independence than our grandmothers, but we’re expected to pretend we don’t care about marriage or kids for the first year of dating so as ‘not to scare a man away’!! WtF?

I wouldn’t ever plan a family with any man I wasn’t married to. It was spelt out to me that the time to lock down my chosen relationship was BEFORE I had children or made irreversible sacrifices!

This kind of thinking seems to instil fury in a lot of modern women but why? Taking the more ‘modern’ approach really doesn’t seem to be working out very well for alot of women so would a bit more tradition In our approach to getting the ring really be that bad?

Maybe if women banded together and made ‘getting the ring’ more socially acceptable we’d be able to push the point and get answers before wasting years with a guy and learning the hard way! Right now it feels men have more power over the marriage process than they really should!

* This applies only to women who ‘want’ to marry but aren’t getting the ring. Not those who don’t want to marry!

Agree bitey

When did marriage become this romantic fairytale about love and cake? Marriage was always a financial arrangement, how did that get forgotten and ignored?

Spot on @MaisyPops !!

I didnt get married before children. Even now I am a single parent I dont regret it. Marriage just is not for me.

Some women do not want/need to get married either

Everyone should be free to choose marriage or not as for some people staying single is to their benefit.

I've never chosen being single. It's just the way things have ended up. It's possible that if anyone had ever asked, I might have chosen to remain single, but as it is, I've never been in a relationship which has reached a point where marriage is on the cards. I don't own a house, either.

Why do you think a ring - or marriage - give you security? One or the other can still leave at any time.

Marriage won’t stop a partner from leaving; it stops him from leaving with all the assets. That’s the point.

Bearing children, raising them to daycare age at least, perhaps several times, does impact your career. That’s why there is a fatherhood salary gain and a motherhood penalty. I wish to hell this wasn’t the case, but it is. Why do you think the most successful women on this earth are almost always childless women?

These threads will keep popping up until we agree on this: marriage is not about a ring and pretty white dress. It’s about financial security.

OFC a marriage can break down, no one is disputing that. But men can be really tight-arsed about financial responsibilities to their children’s mother; which is why you often hear men describe divorce as the biggest wealth killer. It doesn’t all go to the lawyers, they are just bitter that the ex-wife gets some of “his” money. That’s how they see it, it’s all “their” money and if they could take it all, they would. (Yes, I know. Not all men. But a surprising number do feel this way).

Some women do not want/need to get married either
I agree.

But some women feel thay because they didn't look after their own security and financial situation that the law should be changed to remove the choice from others. It's obviously easier for some women to expect the law to mop up their poor choices than it is for them to take responsibility for their own decision and choices.

PineapplePower I agree. It's all well and good people saying 'we are secure. He likes the fact that I'm not one of those pushy women who'll try to blackmail or manipulate him into marriage' (aka I'm not a woman who will walk and he likes that because he has the best arrangement here) / 'we don't need a piece of paper or a party because I know should anything happen he'll look after me and the kids'. Words are cheap. Look how many threads are on MN where some women take statement at face value.

I think introducing common-law marriage would be unfair. I lived with my boyfriend for a few years during university and I'm glad that when we split up (on pretty good terms), that was it. No need to go through a de facto "divorce", neither of us having access to each other's pensions, etc. We were together for that time in our lives, but we didn't want to make a lifelong commitment to each other and that's completely okay. People should be allowed to cohabit without being forced into common-law marriage.

The law as it stands is fair. If two people want their relationship to be legally recognised, they can get married. If they want some of the rights of marriage but not all, they can get a cohabitation agreement. If one person wants to marry but their partner doesn't, that's the business of the couple, not the government.

Unless you're looking to "lock down" a reasonably wealthy man I don't think pushing a reluctant partner into marriage as your contribution is taking financial responsibility. Half a 3 bed semi( even with a decent amount of equity in it) isn't going to get you far or maintenance from your average salary,zero savings for long.

Taking financial security is ensuring you are able to provide a decent rooof over your head, you can work and enough to support yourself and your children,you put money away into a pension.

Using marriage as your security net is not much better than relying on benefits imvho.

What I don't get is the "I'm too unique for an old institution like marriage but I want all the good bits". You either want to be married or you don't.

So true, Pineapple. A friend just completed a divorce after 26 years of marriage. She had stayed home to look after their 2 disabled children, thus enabling his career. He was all amicable until it came to talk about money. So much for 'he'll always take care of me'. He told his solicitor she had 'never brought anything to the table' and the usual tight fisted bollocks. Because they were married, however, the court recognised her contribution and she got a fair split of all the assets, including his pension. Had they not been married, he could have left her with nothing.

Unless you're looking to "lock down" a reasonably wealthy man I don't think pushing a reluctant partner into marriage as your contribution is taking financial responsibility
Taking financial security is ensuringyouare able to provide a decent rooof over your head,youcan work and enough to support yourself and your children,youput money away into a pension.
Using marriage as your security net is not much better than relying on benefits imvho.
It's not about locking anyone down.
If a couple decide that one partner should stay at home etc because it's right for their family then it is only common sense that there should be legal protection in place for that partner which recognises what they have done & the fact the other partner has benefited due to one partner staying home with kids. You get that through marriage. I think women should be very wary of any man who is all for them staying home, moving into his house but not on the deeds etc without marriage (as in legally wed, not all this someday we might nonsense).

Or are you suggesting nobody should ever stay at home or go part time on principle?

The main thing surely is that there are many ways to run a family unit. It is very sensible for someone who will be making some sacrifices personally for the good of the unit to be aware what legal protection they have under different arrangements and make their decisions accordingly.

What I don't get is the "I'm too unique for an old institution like marriage but I want all the good bits". You either want to be married or you don't.

Or the ones who say, 'I'm traditional/old-fashioned' and then go on to whinge about how 'DP' won't get married and they have 2 children (or more).

'Marriage is a piece of paper'. Yep, so is a will. A title deed to your house. A court summons. A high court enforcement order. A fixed penalty notice. A passport. A university degree or trade certificate.

So now gerring married is like living on benefits. If that's the case, why are you so insistent that your financial arrangements mirror marriage, P3ony? Is that not like living on benefits? Nothing like insulting married women, is there. I have to wonder why you feel the need to do that.

Wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone who you have fallen in love with is romantic, getting married really isn't, as pp have said it's a legal arrangement. I really think people need to separate the two in their heads. Nearly every day on here there is a woman, it's always a woman, who is waiting and hoping for her dp (who has 'hinted' about marriage) to propose. They always have DC, usually have careers, mostly have a joint mortgage, and are sensible intelligent people who for some reason can't seem to bring up the subject of marriage with the person they are closest to for fear or being pushy. I always tell them the same thing, tell him you want to get married. If he agrees set a date, if he doesn't and you really you do then re-think the relationship. I just can't imagine hanging around waiting for someone else to decide my future, it's unfathomable to me.

Well it is,the op used the term "lock down " in her op.

I think we should be aspiring to a Scandinavian model with both parents getting excellent maternity and paternity rights,sharing periods of sahp and part time/ compressed hours if needed.

Nobody needs years off work as a full time sahp. Kids start school at 4. Women need to be able to get back into the work place and to support themselves.

I don't think it's about being married or not, it's about feeling able to be honest about what you want and have your partner respect that. So if you are ambivalent about marriage and happy to have children first crack on, your call. If it's important to you to be married first, voice that, and don't think you have to back down on your needs. If a DP is dismissive of your priorities they may not be the right person for you long term. Marriage wasn't important to DH in the grand scheme of things, although not massively anti. We spoke and I made it clear I would want to be married before children, I wanted the same name for the whole family (we both double barrelled I didn't take his) , and I wanted to be able to plan the wedding I wanted and to enjoy a fantastic honeymoon (we paid for everything ourselves, in fact I contributed more as I earn more). I knew once we had children I would always put them first and would compromise my wants for them and not have the spare cash at had before. I also wanted our wedding to be just about us. I have diagnosed fertility issues and we didn't know if DCs we possible for us, I wanted him to marry me because of me not through a sense of tradition or obligation to our children. He respected all of that and as he didn't feel strongly opposed we got married first. He actually said to me last week, 'I'm really happy we got married first, I like being married, it's made me feel different and I didn't think it would'. We're now expecting DC1 and have no regrets. BUT this is a big one, there is nothing wrong with having children first of its what you want, I just agree that if you think it'll persuade someone to marry you that's unlikely if they didn't want to before children.

PaulDacre, should we not be spending the energy you are currently wasting telling women that reforms are impossible, in actually pushing for those reforms?

There is not one thing in any of my posts that says these reforms are impossible wrongontinternet, nor even that implies it. Unfortunate username there!

Agree. A man should put his money where his mouth is before tying a woman down for life by her having his baby. Unless she'd rather be unmarried of course.

@P3onyPenny I agree about shared parental leave/childcare etc. DH and I work in the same industry and are very lucky that it is very family friendly. I will be taking nine of the twelve months parental leave (choice we've made together) DH gets a month of paternity leave, full pay, after the birth and will then take the last three months of parental leave after I go back, work are happy with this. We're also both going back full time on consolidated hours I will work tues-fri he will work Mon-Thurs GPs will have baby one day each and one day in nursery. Work have essentially said what do you want, at long as it's reasonable we can accommodate it. Start and finish times are also Flexi. It's made planning so much easier.

Saying pushing somebody into marriage is taking financial responsibility surely isn't much different to relying on benefits though. You're saying they have to be married as they couldn't survive alone. You're saying they need to rely on others to support them. Any man can lose his job,fritter away house equity and not pay into a pension the same way any gov can pull the plug on benefits. Relying on somebody else to support you is not taking financial responsibility,supporting yourself is. Then marriage becomes a choice.

Any woman who moves in with a man or has a baby with a man without securing her financial position is a fool. This does not mean she has to be married.

What we really could argue is that men shouldn't be able to walk away so easily from their financial and moral responsibilities to any children they've had, surely. But as long as the law is entirely on their side, it will continue to happen.

But I do agree OP that there are a lot of women on here who've been royally screwed by a commitment shy partner.

Any woman who moves in with a man or has a baby with a man without securing her financial position is a fool. This does not mean she has to be married.

This. I’m unmarried, and bloody well happy that way. However, I’m also financially secure and actually getting married would leave me more vulnerable.

Not that DP is a dick I have to add!