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!

I don't get the negativity on the legal side of marriage. I really like the fact that the DH and I are considered a legal unit.

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

No but this is where said man should step up and pay child maintenance. Sadly not a lot do bother. But he shouldn't lose half of his house either.

If a woman owns a house, then has her partner live with her for say 10 years. Is he then entitled to half of it if they split up but aren't married? I would say no, even if he paid rent. You would pay rent on a rental property anyway, doesn't mean after 10 years it's yours.

I had a ring. “Proper” wedding. Got the house. Planned a baby. Got pregnant. Then, “DH” changed his mind and tried to get my sister to persuade me to have a termination. He didn’t feel ready. He muddled through and left when DS was 4.

I was then a single mum. Not because I chose the wrong husband but because he changed his mind when real responsibility arrived.

Well I'm not married and not with dc father either . Marriage does protect you more but Iv found the best way to protect myself is absolute financial freedom. Own career . Own my own home . Zero dependence on any man at all

I have learnt from bitter experience of my ex partners turning out to be absolute arseholes though so possibly have a different perspective to some !

“The law should be changed to protect unmarried women, especially mothers, so they are not left with nothing when the relationship ends”

Don’t agree with this. If you protect women you would also need to protect men/dads. you’d get a lot more dads wanting to be the main carer - you see this in the benefit system now where some dads just want one child living with them. Until they are 18. So dad gets his payoff then doesn’t want the kid any more. (Yes namalt)

What about one night stands!

If you want legal protection get married. If you don’t want it don’t get married.

@marybobaby, you're right of course, but those couples aren't the ones who need help. It's where there is a power imbalance due to salaries usually and that feeds on itself. REgardless of what's happening in the outside world and regardless of your feminist views it can be very hard to fight the economics of your own household if you earn a third of what 'your 'partner' earns

I think instead, there should be a change in legislation which protects women in families regardless of marriage. It is very outdated, so many choose not to marry these days.
Why can there not be a deaf to which kicks in after two years cohabiting?

Oh, you can add what happens to rape victims and their children. We can see the results of women focusing on marriage and children elsewhere in the world, we can see it in our own history, and no, we're not putting up with it again.

To a large extent I agree with you, OP.
Nothing to do with morality, everything to do with protecting yourself in the event of a break up.

So many women still believe there is such a thing as "common law marriage" - there isn't, there is no legal protection for women living as wives who are not actually married to their other half.

Why this myth still perpetuates is beyond me!

If you don't see the relevance of the "piece of paper", then you have to understand what the outcome could be if you don't have one and your partner does the dirty on you.

Yes, it's possible to get all the legal protections in place without getting married, but it's an awful lot cheaper and easier to just get married.

Married or not, it won't stop your relationship distintegrating if it's going to - but at least you are better protected financially if it does break down.

Men come out of cohabiting relationships far better than women, especially if children are involved.

It's not "progressive" to not see the point of marriage - you're just selling your rights down the river.

Coughlaughfart, you have the cheek to post that after the thread you've seen fit to post? This OP isn't being goady.

You seem oddly over-invested in my posts.

Thanks for the passive aggressive sentiments Meteor

I reply on the belittling unmarried mother threads because I don't like snobbery,some of the crap spouted, the goading and some of the downright nastiness. Think I only expressed anger to comments such as the " I wouldn't let my kids play with kids who have unmarried mothers" and " unmarried mothers are secretly desperate for a ring"......

Is that not ok?

You're right about one thing I shouldn't rise and actually rising to goading is a complete waste of time. Think I'll put my phone down ,toddle off and focus on my lovely dp and kids.

Women certainly should not have children until they have put measures in place to ensure that she and the children are legally and financially secure should things go wrong- either by marriage or other legal means.
Calling it "getting the ring" is repellent.

childcare provided in the same way as hospitals, roads and schools would allow women to be mothers and to financially protect themselves but interestingly whenever i see ithis discussed on line it's men who are the most against it! men don't women to not need men iyswim, although they may not consciously realise that that is the basis of their lack of enthusiasm for free childcare.

It's not only on Mumsnet that people get married for the financial security. I think you're misreading it I think you're misinterpreting financial security as meaning that the woman wants to get her hands on the man's money, it's not that. It's just that the best way to protect yourself and your children in the event of a split is to be married.

DH and I were together for 10 years and only got married to have children. There are other good reasons to be married even without having children. Mainly so you get to be their next of kin.

Most of my friends from the uni and my work did the same thing. Got together, some years dating, bought a house, got married, had children. I'm not saying that absolutely everybody has to do things absolutely the same way. However if this is what you want to do then it makes sense to do married before children and not sometime after.

For all the lucky women who are absolutely secure in their relationships with lovely men and it doesn't matter when they marry them exactly, brilliant.

OP is specifically expressing sympathy for those women on threads where they say "been with my DP x number of years, x number of children, he's reneged on his promise to get married, what do I do?" I don't think she's saying that those women are stupid or goading or being horrible about them. I think she thinks that we need to educate people more not to end up in those situations.

If marriage is a deal breaker for you, then get married before having children. If it's not then do what you want. It's not difficult.

Ive told my children that if marriage isnt an option they shoukd think of drawing up a 'contract' stating what they want to do about having children

I appreciate that it won't be legal but at least it will be evidenced

OliveBranchManager - that's nailed my unease over this topic in far fewer words.

YANBU. I completely agree with you OP.

Exactly Elspeth.

How many times do we see threads where OP has 3 kids with a man who always promised a proposal but never came up with the goods, is abusive/useless/unkind/having an affair, the house is in his name and even though the woman was financially independent once upon a time, circumstances/childcare costs have meant that she quit work or reduced her hours, now she can't leave or kick him out his own house so had to stay stuck in a miserable relationship. I always think if they'd have been married, although he wouldn't be any less useless/abusive/unkind it would be a damn sight easier to leave or kick him out as it would be their home

All the 'well, just be financially secure before you have babies (you silly women)' stuff bears very little resemblance to the reality of having a child or children.

If you have, say, an eight-year-old, a five year-old and a two-year-old, and you're a single parent needing to work full time, the combined cost of your childcare and the logistics of organizing it through term-time, holidays, illnesses and emergencies are exhorbitant and exhausting. In the absence of free childcare and reliable help (ie a partner, a family member), it's almost impossible unless you're a high earner - which you're most likely not, especially as you've taken three maternity leaves. Even with just one child, you could seriously struggle without family support, especially if your job requires you to live in an area where childcare and property are expensive.

I don't think anyone should be tutted at for not being 'financially secure' in this situation, when their partner has buggered off and they have sole responsibility for their kids with limited family support.

I don't give a crap about marriage as a social status or swanky ring, but people should know that a) parenthood disproportionally affects women's earning potential, and that this is not necessarily a 'choice' each mother makes, or a form of laziness and complacency, b) raising children on one income is difficult, and can't just be hand-waved away as 'oh, just keep working and you'll be fine', c) sometimes you have to look at your relationship with the unromantic practical scrutiny you'd use for a tenancy agreement or car insurance policy, and work out what legal protections you need.

Personally, I couldn't give a damn how other people structure their families. I won't judge someone for marrying or not. I don't care.
I do judge when people opt not to marry and then think when the relationship goes downhill they should have access to all the protections and rights as a married couple - Or worse, think the law should automatically confer rights on cohabiting. That pisses me off because what they are actually saying is "Because I didn't bother to protect myself and made poor decisions, other people should have the law forced into their relationships".
Everyone (man or woman) should have the choice whether to enter a legal agreement or not and it shouldn't be forced on anyone just because some people don't bother to think about their choices.

If a woman wants to be married, why doesn't she propose to the fella?

I did want a child but I never should have married. Marriage doesn't suit me at all. I was sucked into thinking marriage would be good coz so many gush about liking marriage, but I should have stuck with what I knew from childhood that it didn't suit me. Am not really on same page with OP in any way.

I also know what you're talking about op, and I suspect the folks having a dig do too.

I wasn't aware of anyone in this situation until becoming a mumsnet user, but there are a myriad of women who either assume a man will marry them, have kids with them, and deeply wish to get married, often just for love, and then are bereft when they realise the man doesn't wish to marry them.

There are also others who think they will never split up, have babies and give up their financial independence and then are royally fucked at the end of it. And every variation in between.

It's simple life choices. What seemed like a good idea at the time wasn't.

But then many married women end up royally fucked too, or who belive marriage is forever and then find he leaves for someone else.

It's simply humans and the choices they make in their lives.

Totally with you OP, personally landing up as a single parent would be my worst nightmare so I wouldn't of had a child with someone who wasn't prepared to commit to me 1st ie marry me. Not saying being married means you'll never land as a single parent but I think it gives you a better chance.

Ragged so it affects you so much in your day to day life to have a legal tie, rather than no legal tie? How?