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!

@bourbonbiccy that’s not what the op says. She says “why would you have children with someone you are not married to”. It’s nasty judgmental outdated nonsense which is hurtful to single parents and their children. Telling people they should get married before the children is really unhelpful when (like the thread the op was talking about) they already have children and are not married.

We should call this out where we see it. It’s misogyny. Trying to change it into some kind of empowering message for women is nonsense.

Of course its a bad idea to be financially dependent on someone who has no legal obligation to you. But I think it’s super rare that people genuinely don’t understand that there’s no such thing as common law marriage. Yet so many of these threads on mumsnet about the stupid women who have children without getting married. Just some smug women with misogynistic ideas who like to look down on others.

I will say it again- it doesn’t benefit every woman financially to get married. There is nothing wrong with women having children outside of marriage.

And as for the op that she would never have children outside of marriage and that it was “spelt out to her” that she shouldn’t do so. By whom? It’s sad that you have just taken on these outdated misogynistic attitudes without question.

My family are traditional but I still didn’t get married as until I thought it was right for me (so not yet). That decision benefited me and my children financially.

I would suggest to op that she considers being financially self sufficient as an alternative to being dependent on someone else. That may not have been “spelt out to her” but time to move on from your traditional and misogynistic attitudes.

I think common law rights in England are often thought to exist as I have had to correct a few people I know who thought they had the same benefits of a married/civil partnership couple.

Again it comes back to the fact that marriage and civil partnership is a contract tieing two people together financially. I have no children but still wanted that tie so we could both plan for the future but even then I would not willingly be financially dependent on someone else as no one knows how the future will turn out.

Others don't want that tie. However, if people make decisions which disadvantage themselves thinking their unmarried partner has a financial obligation to them they may find themselves in a lot of shit if the relationship breaks down but that is still their choice.

My friend had a rocky couple of years with her DP recently. They have two kids, and he’s a high flyer and owns three houses.

I advised her to marry him, something I never would have done before. Luckily she has. I feel very relieved, if they’d broken up he wouldn’t have had to split any of the properties with her, and just be liable for maintenance. She has given up her career to stay at home with the kids.

On the other hand, my other friend has a very well paid job and her parents put a lot of money into the house. Her and her DP have 3 kids. Her DP is lovely but flakey, does less childcare and earns a lot less, she manages everything including nannies etc.

She is not marrying him for the same reasons a lot of men aren’t. She’s done the earning and put up most of the equity. She won’t give him the rights to this by marriage.

I can’t really judge her as her DP has not taken a hit with his career or given up his financial security to bring up the kids. However it just shows how clear it is that economically marrying can force sharing of assets.

If you are the stay at home parent make sure you either marry or have enough assets not to!

Posted on this yesterday. The Debate rages on. It seems like there are quite a lot of people very invested in the idea that their decision not to marry was the right one. Thing is I'm sure it was, for them. People who have their eyes open to the problems that life can throw at you and try and plan accordingly. Sadly I think there are too many young women who more and more think that marriage isn't needed or that marriage can come later after children. And they find themselves burnt by this.

Let's face it schools aren't going to go back to preaching benefits of marriage. Young women are very savvy now. But it would help if they were taught that the world hasn't changed as much as they think it has.

Some people (men) think that having DC is a big enough commitment, so they don't bother with the ring. I can see how the hypothesis works. Having children is a much bigger commitment than a band of gold on your finger.

If you are destined to split the ring doesn't hold a magic force field preventing such situation, just as having 5 children doesn't guarantee till death us do part.

If getting married is important I'm quite traditional in thinking you go for marriage then children, as any other way is asking for trouble. Although I've seen couples with young DC get married it's not always done, some men/women think cohabiting together or having children is a similar commitment.

Absolutely, Zen.

^Really* @P3onyPenny - you don't think being kicked out your home without a penny, credit or skills, to find somewhere new for 2 children is any worse than being able to stay in the family home for 12 years, take half the money from the eventual sale, build up a good credit file and skills?

You are seriously clutching at straws now

I really hope there is never a day when my response to someone’s real life shitty experience is to start a thread blaming women, crowing about getting it right and calling women who have been lied to, gaslighted, taken advantage of and financially abused ‘stupid’.

There are ways to make points about women protecting themselves without being so critical and antagonistic. Life is long, complicated and unfair. Not everyone gets everything right. Not everything happens they way you plan it. You sound very young and inexperienced. I hope things work out for you. If they don’t, I hope people are more supportive and thoughtful than you have been.

My god this thread is depressing! I'm 8 months pregnant, not married, earn more that my partner, own a house together and am really not worried about any of this stuff... should I be?

If having your child will adversely affect your career prospects, mininmise your pension or mean you intend to be a SAHP, then yes, you should be worried. If none of those things apply, you have less cause for concern.

@cherry

No, you shouldn’t be an congratulations. This is just about women who don’t protect themselves, either by maintaining their own assets or securing their rights to joint assets.

It started out as a ‘there shouldn’t be a stigma about women who want to get married asking for it instead of waiting around and popping out children in the ‘hope’ that one day their partner will agree to marry them’ post, but this is MN so it’s morphed Into a pro vs against marriage debate and SAHP shaming. X

A number of people seem to think giving examples of women who aren't very well off and wouldn't be made significantly better off by being married before divorce is making their point for them. It isn't. Telling people to be richer isn't very helpful.

Additionally, these low income women we're talking about might have their relationships ended by bereavement, not divorce. In which case, if they have minor children, access to bereavement benefits is going to be very helpful. And the McLaughlin decision hasn't changed the law at this point. During the relationship, they might have been able to use the £200 per annum marriage tax break to purchase something important like insurance. I know some of you are wadded, but it's not small change to poor people.

Lastly, people need to stop claiming that having children is a bigger commitment than marriage. It's not. It probably should be, but it is a fact that it isn't. When you marry someone, you are making a legal commitment to them (which for some people would be a reason not to marry of course). When you have a child with someone, you are making zero legal commitment to the person.

My god this thread is depressing! I'm 8 months pregnant, not married, earn more that my partner, own a house together and am really not worried about any of this stuff... should I be?

Depends on your priorities and concerns. Have you had legal advice? You don't mention wills, so I'd make one as a priority and discuss the issue then.

@belle

Actually belle, if you read all of my comments you’ll see clearly I have nothing but empathy for those who have ended up in terrible situations!!!

I called women who aren’t in them yet but have no intention of securing their/ their children’s futures simply because they trust their partner, whilst ignoring the hundreds of warnings from other women who were in the exact same situation ...stupid!!!

And I stand by it, if you have children and give up your own inpendence/career/benefits for your child/partner without securing your legal rights to your hone/ combined savings - YOU ARE STUPID!

We both have wills. They'll have to change once DC is born. We're pretty sensible and have done all the legal stuff. We paid 50/50 for the house. We pay 50/50 in now. Things may change in the future but we will reassess. We MIGHT get married one day but aren't in a position to at the moment.

I don't think it's always that black and white and don't think it's the end of the world in this moment that we are unmarried. If we split up tomorrow we would both be fine in my opinion without a divorce to worry about.

Maybe they want to save for the wedding but don’t want to leave it to late to have children or want their children at their wedding.
Yes maybe in some cases the man is afraid of the big day but it’s probably because it’s so much expense and hassle.how many more people would be married if they just did it quietly without the fuss

You might well be fine/better off not married then cherry. Some people are and you could be one of them, especially if you're going to keep working and not reduce your income for childcare. As you'll be redoing your will soon anyway, I'd get some advice on the subject then, while you're seeing a solicitor already. Don't take your own word for it that you'll be fine if it's not your field, iyswim. That way you'll know you're making an informed decision and won't need to worry.

@zsaz

I have not one said ‘don’t have children with men you’re not married to’ what’s rude and nasty is twisting somebody’s words!

Or did you miss the big DISCLAIMER at the bottom of my OP which clearly states ‘this doesn’t apply to those who don’t want to marry’

Jesus do you just enjoy misinterpreting so you can be offended. ‘My OP was quite clearly talking about women who WANT to marry their partners, but DP isn’t going for it, so they have children instead and then get let down with DP doesn’t want to marry still!

If you don’t want to marry and you protect your own financial future then have as many kids as you want with whoever you want - no issue- this post isn’t about you stop trying to make it about you!! ☺️👍🏻

Not enough people make wills in general, but according to an article in The Independent, 52% of married couples have made a will and only 26% of cohabiting couples. This indicates to me that the OP very much has a point - the majority of cohabiting couples are not putting enough thought into the status of their relationship.

Cherry I suppose the point people are trying to get across is that if you split up the house will have to be sold.

In a divorce you may be able to insist on staying in it if there is a child.

Also wills can be contested if not married. Highly unlikely if married.

I want the same for my sons as my daughter.

Marriage commitment first.

A few years ago I was all for being cool about other people's choices but here on an anonymous forum I will admit I want any grandchildren to have the benefits of being in a conventional married set up.

@ElspethFlashman then we sell the house! Not the end of the world. I wouldn't want to stay here anyway I don't think.

I get how marriage can be really important to some people, but to others it's really not, and life would continue, and you'd still be ok regardless.

I'm not against marriage, and am sure I will get married at some point in the future, I just don't feel an urgent need to simply because I'm pregnant.

My tuppence.

Marriage is a legal contract. If you're going to have children do it within a legal framework as it gives protection and clarity.

Add a dress and flowers if you must.