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!

If you're with a partner whom you don't want to share assets with, then surely it can't be love as you're putting materialism above him/her. I love my son more. My will leaves the most to my son and the rest to my partner. I'd never leave my son with nothing and I don't know any decent parent who would.

A ring does not stop your DH husband from being a total twat and leaving you on your arse with nothing to take care of his offspring while he starts a new life with someone else.

And by the way OP WTF has it got to do with you whether unmarried women have children, has it impacted on your life, has it made your day miserable?

PS I am a mother without a ring and could not be happier thank you very much, it is possible for people to be happy without the same last names.

Just remember a piece of paper or jewellery does not make a family!

Just because some women are worse off because they didn't get married before having children doesn't mean it's the right choice for all.

Had I married my ex and father of my two children it would have been a huge mistake, financially. HUGE. He tried to screw me over as it was. And it would have made leaving him logistically harder.

Not saying yes when he asked was a very good decision on my part.

There is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to relationships.

OP. Totally agree with you.
Graphista - good post

I have a DD with my DP, we're not married but he did propose when I was pregnant. We are very happy and I don't need a piece of paper to confirm that.... but at the same time I am very very lucky that my DP is an old fashioned man and would pay the bills if we was to split up.

There is much naivety on this thread

I'm actually quite shocked

Well exactly

Is it not fine and naive for married mothers to make themselves financially vulnerable then? Mothers who don't save beforehand,don't build up a career, don't ensure they get a good maternity package,don't ensure they pay enough into a pension,don't ensure they have means to support themselves,mothers who discover that their financial hero husband actually has nothing to provide you with post divorce.....

Not really getting that getting somebody to marry you defines financial prudence.

Don't agree with mortgages being easier to get without joint names,it's quite the reverse in our experience. We've had joint mortgages without a whimper for 25 years even during the few years I wasn't contributing to paying it. Mortgage companies prefer dual income as it's safer.

Marriage does not make joint home ownership or joint bank accounts easier. It doesn't make insurance policies and pensions with named beneficiaries easier either.

But it makes changing a will or the beneficiary of a pension MUCH harder.

You don't need a will if all your accounts and house are in joint names. Re changing names on pensions-have your own pension.

it's all too easy to clean a joint account out, which is why I refuse to have one.

When I saw this title I knew op would get some slack. I am in full agreement having seen two lovely daughters with two lovely men dragging their heels . Now they are married they are all perfectly happy and dont know why they delayed

But surely you would want your much loved partner to benefit from your financial assets in the event of your death.

I can see how a person with DC in subsequent relationship may wish to prioritize their DC.

My DH's cousin was a SAHM army wife for years and followed her DH round with their 2 daughters until he left and they settled back in their home town. She had bad credit so he got the mortgage on their house in his own name with his Army severance money (or whatever it's called!).

When their daughters were 6 and 8 he left the family for a younger woman, shock horror. This was 3 years ago and he hasn't seen the girls since, doesn't wanna know. He wanted to sell the house and take the money to get another place for new gf and their new baby (again, shock horror). But because they were married he can't force a house sale until their children are 20 (or 18, can't remember but basically adults).

Had thy not been married, the kids and her wouldn't just have the pain of losing their father, they'd have been turfed our their home, to no doubt find somewhere where the Mum could afford (which would be somewhere tiny and/or in a bad part of town because she is unskilled due to SAHM status, and works in a minimum wage job.

Marriage is 'just of piece of paper' until you need the legal protection should it all go to pot.

DP and I have 1 child and are not married, with no intentions of getting married. I’m not in a vulnerable position. I will go back to work after maternity leave which I 100% want to do. I have a very good salary and pension and am in a much better position than many of my married friends. The only difference is that it would be foolish for me to give up work whereas it’s an option for them. But, I don’t want to give up work so it’s not an issue. It’s not about being married or not but ensuring you’re financially secure.

The issues are two. Having children with someone is a more massive commitment than marrying. Why ok to the former. Not the latter? Because you can leave? Leave your children? People get together later now so there is a biological clock pressure which makes these decisions more pressing. By agreeing to children the man is let off as he has it all without the marriage. It is not a ring or a piece of paper.. or a proposal. It is an act of committment and love. Oh and did I mention the legal protection it brings? Also durely what a loving partner would want should he die for example.

I thought the OP was posting tongue in cheek.

Then it dawned on me that she was being serious.

When I see women saying things like ‘I’m lucky my DP is traditional and would pay all the bills if we broke up’

^ using this as an example @babyshark as many women are saying similar!

It makes me feel a bit sick 🤮 and very VERY nervous that there are so many women out there who think this way!!!

I’d like to invite all of the women who once thought exactly this way, and were 100% sure their DP would NEVER leave them struggling/ disadvantaged, and have since had EXACTLY that happen to them, to please come forward and warn these naive and frankly stupid women!!!

I have read so many threads on here about women being put it horrible situations by DP’s and not a single one ever starts out with ‘well I did acknowledge this was a possibility’ 😒 its always ALWAYS ‘I never ever thought he was capable of doing this- 20 happy years together and now he’s banging a 25 year old from the gym and cut me and kids off.’

Can we try to learn from the mistakes of hundreds of other women before we go gambling with ours/our children’s futures??? Otherwise what is MN for?

I honestly don’t agree with the ‘angry anti marriage’ campaign touted on here by posters like @P3ony, and I’m 100% sure she doesn’t agree with my ‘let’s be more traditional’ opinion either but what I think we can all agree on is, regardless of which approach is ‘better’ women NEED to protect themselves, emotionally and financially.

If you want to be a SAHP (calm down @p3ony we know you don’t like this) then get married, or get some sort of legal contract in place else you are quite frankly an idiot!

If you don’t want to be a SAHP (see @p3ony posts as in this situation she’s pretty bang on) don’t make work pattern/ pension/career progression sacrifices to accommodate your partner as it’s only to your detriment!!!

Whichever side of the ‘SAHP/ Career Mum’ argument you come down on... please lord dong think ‘well whatever happens I know DP will look after us, even though I’ve given up everything and have no real security’

FFS

I would never have planned a child without being married first. I still work now and earn similar to my DH, however I took a demotion to allow me to go part time and this has obviously impacted on my pension.

Those who say they couldn’t wait for a child- getting married takes 20 minutes. Go to the local registry office and sign some paperwork. Job done, financial security for you and your child.

Gunpowder said mother is in the shit regardless of marriage which won't protect her from reality.

When the house is eventuallly sold she won't be able to buy another due to her poor credit rating and lack of skills. Said pay out from half a probably already small house could be very little( forces wages aren't that high and there could be very little equity in the house). She has a fair few years to get through with no skills to offer the workplace before getting her hands on half a relatively small forces pension.

Sorry not seeing much financial prudence in that story.

Wow- guaranteed financial security for you and your child if you nip down to the registry office.And that isn't naive?

'Don't expect to be treated as if you were married'
What even is the difference?

That you're not married?

Before people get all ragey and accuse OP of being a prude, why don't you read the first post at least? OP does not talk about morals or that unmarried people shouldn't have kids, or that all women should get married. Only that one should know what you're getting yourself into, of you're not married but decide to behave like a traditional married couple, without even knowing 'what even is the difference'. The difference is that legally, you have just as many rights and obligations as random 2 people on the street.

Yes to everything graphista said.

I do believe part of the problem is HMRC having a living together box for tax credits so people assuming that gives them a legal protection the same as marriage would.

But yes yes yes more education is needed on the financial situation with just living together verses marriage.

Marriage is not the be all and end all. I'm married and have 3 kids but our marriage isn't great.

I've been looking at how to leave and being married makes it that much harder to leave a toxic unsatisfying relationship.

I think two things. Womenshould plan their life and career to be financially independent no matter what happens well before planning any children.

And women (and men) should choose their partner and father (mother) of their children very fucking carefully. I think too many people slide unconsciously into relationships and then that’s the person they have a child with. Not someone they specifically and consciously choose to be their co-parent for the rest of their lives.

Difference is without marriage, that army wife would be homeless with dependent children now, at least she can plan for the time the house has to be sold. Marriage may not give her life long security but It's certainly protected her while her children are young.