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!

Wow not many understand metaphors do they?

By saying 'getting the ring' op is meaning getting married.

Op is right. Yeah you can be an independent woman, free from the shackles of a man, but make sure you have your own money before you do that. Don't rely on him for money, housing, give up your career etc to have children and then wonder what to do when he replaces you with a younger model and kicks you and the kids out.

You can say it won't happen to you. I bet all the women who've posted on here thought the same too.

Maybe it makes me not a feminist, or a 1950s woman, but I refuse to have children with someone im not married to. Nor will I give up my job for children. If you want to do those things, more power to you. But you're more stable being married or continuing working or having your own money, a significant amount. A couple of hundred won't go a long way after all if he leaves and doesn't pay for his kids, as many men don't bother doing.

realistically how many can afford the cushion of a deposit for a house, new furniture, childcare costs if everything goes wrong in the relationship?

Exactly. It's a little unrealistic, especially as women tend to have kids before their earning really takes off. Most people only start earning decent money 35/40+ unless they're in a very very good job.

And there have been people on those threads who earn enough to support themselves. But they can't necessarily stay in the area the kids have schools. Too expensive. So the upheaval is huge. Whereas in a divorce, often the agreement can be made that the house is to be sold only after the kids have finished schooling.

I think it's odd. I only go onboards I can gain advice from

You never offer advice?

@OliveBranchManager perhaps I’m one of the lucky ones then. We have been through tines where I am the main earner, and currently it’s my OH, but it is all OUR money because we are a team. Perhaps it stems from us meeting at uni as students and not having anything, so we have shared everything right from the beginning of our relationship. I understand that may be harder when people meet later in life and have savings in the bank.

I agree with OP. Everybody focusing on her turn of phrase about wanting a ring is missing the point spectacularly. She is referring to the legal protection that marriage brings. Ironically having a child is a bigger commitment than getting married but mainly for the woman.

I think it has done women no favours at all to move to a situation where men get to opt for less and less responsibility and women always the ones left holding the baby so to speak.

And sadly the well off well paid asset rich money rich women is a minority in this situation. More often it seems to be women on the same or less than their partners. So it's disingenious to pretend that women being stuck as unmarried mothers when they didn't want to be is some kind of choice to do with protecting their assets.

Notwithstanding a lot of people would actually be better off getting away from their partners and not having to deal with divorce. I do feel sorry for the women that thought that having a baby would inevitably lead to a happy family and the security of marriage. Some men are not so bothered about "doing the right thing" as the Old phrase goes.

I see lots lots of people on Mumsnet over the years complaining about just this problem.

I'm not interested in marriage, but then I don't have children. If I wanted children there is no way I'd have them before getting married. That's nothing to do with tradition or being old fashioned (I'm very much neither), but everything to do with the financial security marriage gives women. So many end up in difficult situations when they've become SAHPs (given up careers, not paid into pensions, etc) and the relationships have broken down. So I think unless a woman has safeguarded herself financially in case she splits from her partner, she's taking a huge risk in having children (with the usual giving up of things) unmarried.

IMHO the law should be changed to protect unmarried women, especially mothers, so that they are not left with nothing when relationships end. Just like if they'd been married.

Yup, I wouldn't have children or make a y sacrifices without the comparative security of marriage. Nothing old fashioned about it.

I wouldn’t ever plan a family with any man I wasn’t married to.

OP, if you'd put a bit of effort into being a bit more precise in your point rather than spouting shite like this, I'd possibly believe that this thread was about women who have children without ensuring their secure home and financial situations.

As it is, it reads to me like it's actually a 'foolish unmarried mothers and the situations they get themselves into' thread.

How you word a thread like this is very important. Poor wording can make a big difference between what you potentially mean and how it's actually coming across.

But Santa you're assuming he has half a house and assets to give you.

Debt is rising,many people only pay interest free on mortgages,don't pay into pensions.....

Pretty sure for many divorce does not mean a similar sized house and a decent pension.

Unless op thinks women should only go for a rich husband.......

Not old fashioned, but very cynical and quite sad really.

of course @marybobary, the thread doesn't really apply to YOU.

There are so many vulnerable women who are low earners, co-erced in to giving up their job because it doesn't leave anything after childcare, then they're worse off than a low earner because they're unemployed with a gap on their cv and dependents and no income. I wouldn't marry now, so I can separate the issue of women's greater tendency to become very financially vulnerable through having children from my own circs.

😂😂😂 @P3ony

I’m not married! I’m happily dating though and planning to marry next year!
I wasn’t lurking around the relationship board it came up on ‘active’ and I said kind things because obviously the woman was distraught and wanted advice.

I could ask why as a ‘happily’ unmarried women you spend so much time battle axing your way through endless MN posts (yes I’ve seen you on other threads being just as grumbly and disagreeable) but I won’t!

You seem awfully angry, I hope things get better for you xx

It’s lunacy to give up work, be totally financially dependent, lose years of pension contributions and career progression, without the legal safeguard of marriage. Such women, as you comment in the OP, are shocked when they realise they’re entitled to nothing in the event of a break up.
I agree.
But...
If a woman wants to choose not to marry then that is absolutely her right (just like it is for a man).
A woman with assets might decide she's happier to keep her job, her pension, her house and not marry. She wouldn't be foolish for starting a family out of marriage.

The bottom line is it is very silly for anyone to sacrifice their own financial security for someone without ensuing they have protection in the event of a split. It's even more silly to whine retrospectively that you should have the same rights as those who opt to enter a legal contract.

As long as people take responsibility for the outcome and consequences of their choices then they should be free to do what they like regarding can't set up.

Only in the MN do you get married "for financial security"

WTF happened to getting married for LOVE and creating your own financial security?

I just can't get on with the concept of "you must get married if you have children because once you give up your job/career/pension you'll need the financial security of marriage".

Erm, don't give up your career, get your OH to share the burden or childcare and if he refuses then WTF are you doing having kids with and thinking about getting married to the moron for?

IMHO the law should be changed to protect unmarried women, especially mothers, so that they are not left with nothing when relationships end. Just like if they'd been married.

Why though? There's a perfectly good law in place already. It's used for when you are married. Just get married, doesn't need to be in a castle, go to Gretna green if that's all you can afford. Who cares as long as you're protected.

Be single and free all you want, but you don't get the same protection as married people. Otherwise there's no point to marriage at all if we get rid of the rights that go with it.

Besides a woman could get pregnant on a one night stand. Should the guy lose half his house just because of an accident?

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

I've been with my partner for 23+ years, never married and don't intend to. We have 2 DS who are both 16. If anything this feels better (to us) because we stay together because we want to be together.

However, I would dismiss marriage, it may be fine for others, just not for us.

Besides a woman could get pregnant on a one night stand. Should the guy lose half his house just because of an accident?

Should a woman bear all the financial costs of said accident?

@OliveBranchManager it doesn’t apply to me, and I’m sure it doesn’t apply to a lot of women so it is a massive generalisation. It just makes me feel that women either have to be doormats who just provide children, or power bitches who point blank refuse to share anything and are solely focussed on their own financial situation.

What happened to all of the couples who love each other and treat each other with respect?

YABU. You can’t ‘lock down your chosen relationship’. Many married men turn into such asshats that divorce is the only sensible option. So what was the use of getting married? How did it help?

This is a fun debate

P3onyPenny sorry I wasn't clear on my post. By him providing housing, I was meaning him paying the rent or mortgage on the house because the woman isn't working and is a sahm. Not what he would provide her with in a break up. This is during the relationship.

I mean if he's paying rent or mortgage himself, it's his house. Same if the woman was doing it, it's her house. If the rug is suddenly pulled from under the partners feet, they are now homeless.

Ffs - are we still living in the 50s? It shows your outlook on life op that you want to find a rich man To support you and get a ring on him. It’s a bit sad that you don’t have any better ambition for yourself given all the years of feminism.

I didn’t marry my ex partner(with whom I have dc) and am financially better off as a result. That applies to a significant number of women (although unfortunately not the majority). It’s hugely sexist to think women are always the lower earners or have fewer assets. , it’s not true at all. There are many good reasons for women not to get married.

Women should aim to ensure they are financially stable before having kids. A good job would probably be best as relying on someone else can often not work out so well. But not everyone can do that.

Most of all we should stop joining in with the ridiculous sexism of shaming unmarried mothers. Women should support other women. I would like to see a child maintenance system that I should fit for purpose in the modern world. But that’s another thread.

I think the answer to most threads starting with “AIBU to think that women should...” is YABU.

It certainly is in this case

I kind of see where you're coming from. The reality is that once you have kids, women are vulnerable. It's all very well saying work work work: someone, somewhere, has to look after those kids, and in Britain 90% of the time that's the woman. With Britain leaving the EU we're losing the EU's social democratic and egalitarian influence. Children will all be women's fault for ever and men will continue to walk when it gets too much and claim they have no money, and the state isn't interested in supporting women.

But that's the problem isn't it. What do you propose to do about all the social issues that go along with making women responsible once more for all the real burdens of society. Are we going to get more respect for this? Are we going to get paid? When it goes wrong and there are unmarried women with children are those much-reviled single mothers and their children going to be the focus of all the stigma again? Are women going to get cut out of public life and regarded as hormonal children who can be used as punch bags? Are we going to be viewed as having a price and be put up for sale to the highest bidder as women have in effect for a couple of thousand years while the men fuck off with all their self-importance again?

On balance I'd sooner save the fight for getting men into that Scandinavian-style equality. I'm a bit suspicious of people urging we just give it up.

OP I completely agree with you, and I think those fixating on the turn of phrase ‘get the ring’ are wilfully missing the point.