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!

Genuine question - I'm intrigued about tax reasons not to marry. What are they?

A it happens, we got married before children, but I really wasn't bothered either way. I let him choose. I knew we were equally committed either way. Getting "the ring" was irrelevant.

You seem to assume that every woman wants to get married and the only reason they don't is because their men won't commit. It really isn't always like that.

I don't want to be married. I think marriage is an outdated, patriarchal
Institution and I want no part of it.

@MaisyPops All very valid points, but I’d put good money on legislation not changing to protect cohabiting couples (ie women) on the basis that it would cost men and benefit women.

Why would I get married? I earn more and I have savings. It would be a better idea to encourage women to make their own living and be independent. Also to ensure they are on the mortgage etc etc if they buy a house or whatever. No need for marriage then unless women want to be a sahm which puts you in a dangerous financial decision married or otherwise.

Oh do Fuck Off with your holier than thou preachy shit. DP and I have been together 17 years. I have been married previously. We have wills etc in place. I don't need his and he doesn't need each other pension. We don't and will never have property together. Please tell me why a piece of paper makes all the difference?

Because it’s not the 1950s. Because children are a bigger commitment than a wedding. Because mind your own fucking business?

BTW we have a 14 year old DS together which has bonded us more than a fecking ring could ever

Here we go, vitriol time. I thought this thread had been civilised for an unusually long time.

dinosaurkisses
Sadly, I think you might be right on why the reform wouldn't happen. But I would happily push to keep the law as it is.

People should opt in to legal contracts.
If someone wants you to make massive financial sacrifices for them but won't enter into a legal contract to protect you, that gives you enough information to make a decision on the relationship and/Or your next steps.
It's not the world's fault if someone isn't up for marrying and their partner happily continues to have children and give up work etc.

I'm not sure that marriage is so important but I do feel it is important to have some stability, a decent partner, a reasonable home and job.

This is hilarious and totally a joke right? 😂😂😂😂😂 just doesn't even fathom in today's society. Cus getting a piece of jewellery & a signed piece of paper means everything? What kind of outdated theory is that?! 😂 I'm not sure I've ever met anyway who thought popping out a kid would get someone to propose 😂 I certainly didn't have my babies for that reason which turned out to be a blessing in disguise! I had my children because I wanted a family setting, because I wanted a child to adore & love certainly not because I desperately wanted to get married. I like the idea of one day getting wed but certainly don't factor that into my decision to conceive 😂

Because it’s not 1930. I didn’t want to marry. I don’t need to marry.

Ds is the most precious thing ever and I won’t jeopardise his financial security by marrying. I’ve always been able to provide for myself, a house, a pension, car, work, but have watched friend after friend lose their houses, pensions, businesses because of the stupid or selfish actions of their partners.
Ds’s father and I co-parent well and ds is happy & well adjusted. Why would I risk all that for a ring and a bit of paper.

I interpret this a huge generalisation. I don’t think being married and having “a ring” makes you more or less likely to break up once having had kids. I have 3 kids, not married and have no intention of marrying. We have suitable wills. And the mortgage is in equal names. If we break up everything will be divided equally. But we are adults and we’re fairly choosy over we started a family with. I don’t think being married or exchanging a ring is an indicator or making the right choice.

A

this just in it only takes a woman to make a kid

A

To all those saying you don't want to marry and are financially independent. Great that is not what the op is saying, the advice is if you are in a couple and financially dependent then a marriage certificate gives you some insurance and some protection.

It's gives these protections cheaper than deeds of trusts, wills and other legal documents.

All these for whom marriage is not wanted or needed, this is not aimed at them. But for anyone reading the relationship boards and that has not heeded the advice is get married before children, or who have 3 kids and 15 years later are still not married and not on the house and not financially independent, then this is what the op and others are talking about.

This is to all those financially independent pps above this post. Rttt.

When I fell pregnant my dp started to hint at proposal/ rings (he did this before pregancy too but this increased), etc. I flatly told him not to dare propose to me while I was pregnant or anytime soon after. If we’re to marry then we are to do it in our own time and not rush because I fell pregnant. Marrying is not the key to making a relationship last, it just makes things more complicated if you are to split up.

I was setting up a bit of a straw man I admit. I don't like the opposition for women of career or family - and that's what it is for most of us outside Mumsnet's charmed circle - and believe that women are having to take far too much responsibility for something that requires men as well.

The thing is, just because something isn't fair doesn't mean it isn't true.

It would be better if things weren't like this. There are massive structural factors leading so many women to take a disproportionate share of the caring work, and to being penalised even if they don't, which is why all the don't get married just make sure you're rich instead advice is so unhelpful.

But until and unless these structural factors stop fucking us around, we can make ourselves be better educated more easily than we can make men be less selfish. Particularly since women as a cohort have so much less power than men. With all this in mind, the current best option available for those of us in the trenches now might well be more women making better decisions. I'm not saying that's fair.

But the whole point I and many others are making is that it's NOT about getting a ring it's about educating women to make sure they are covered legally. That does NOT necessarily mean getting married like the OP seems to think is the only option. BTW I did read the full thread thanks

The Op seems to be under the misapprehension that being married means you’ll be financially safe. How many women have come on here post break-up to lament the fact that they know their husband has money but they have no access to it, or proof of it and no way of funding a lawyer to get it for them.

flirtygirl
I agree. It's not saying women should get married.
It's saying women who opt to place themselves in financially precarious positions are better protected by married and should whine after a breakup when they get nothing as a result of not marrying and claim the law needs changing.

Women should take some responsibility for their own situation. For some that means realising that they do not want to marry because they are better not married. For others it means not jacking every ounce of independence you have to be dependent on a man who tells you that you don't need a piece of paper and he loves you but won't prove it by legally protecting you.

Op makes some very good points

I'm not married

Not really fussed but when Dp wanted dc 2 I said no way unless financial protection as my earning potential would be effected even more.

He's against marriage so we ended up with a cohabitation agreement.

No way would I have made myself and more vulnerable.

@Dinorattle1 I don't agree with the opening post as the way it's worded does imply women are a bit dim and suggests everyone should be married before children, ignoring the fact that some women don't need to be or want to be!

I personally have no strong feeling one way or another about people who are married or aren't.

However, I do question why some women (through choice) put themselves in a position of being both unmarried AND unable to financially support themselves. But that's you're right, thats a different question entirely than what AIBIU was about!