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!

Also how many threads have we see where women who are married but in awful relationships don't want to leave because of the financial impact. If you are a sahm, it does have a significant impact on your earning potential and in most couples (with the exception perhaps of high earners wohp), assets received on divorce wont make up for that. so perhaps the message should be, be wary of depending too much on other people.

I dont disagree that you shouldnt be too shy to say you want to get married if you do. but you cant make someone else do something they dont want to do! so lets stop condemning women for making the choices open to them.

I wouldn't have married my ex although he wanted to but didnt push it. tbh it wasn't all for financial reasons either. but he couldn't have made me marry him. but i think neither of us regrets the relationship or the dcs. even though i am an "unmarried mother" and didn't "get the ring"

Personally I think insisting on marriage before starting a family is taking back the power. Capitulation when you want the legal protection of marriage for yourself and your children is handing male power over on a plate.

Interestingly, my son who is the most eccentric and unconventional person I've ever met, says he would never entertain having children without marriage.

I agree with you OP.

Being married is a legal arrangement that means the person who takes a career break to have a family (usually the woman) has more legal rights in the event of breaking up.

It's not "just a piece of paper".

Marriage is the easiest way to simplify and clarify the financial consequences of relationship breakdown or the unexpected, sudden death of your partner without anyone having to think too much about it. What is aggravating is women who poo poo the easy way of clarifying the legal situation, but who do nothing else to clarify expectations, either - then get upset when the law doesn't protect them adequately, because nobody can clearly establish what anyone actually intended to happen in certain circumstances (it's not as if warring couples tend to agree, nor extended families who never liked the long term partner, anyway!). And sadly, I think there probably are still women too weak or deluded to stand up for themselves even when they don't reject the idea of marriage, and those same women are just as likely to be too weak to protect themselves in any other way.

However the law is changed to try to protect people in long term partnerships that were never legally formalised, people too weak and ignorant to make sure their understanding of the status of their relationship is legally protected are always going to be disadvantaged, because they are leaving their lives wide open to a multitude of interpretations to be argued over.

ohreallyohreally - we dont condemn the men for having children without being married as in the minds of people like the op its not an achievement for men to be married. People like the op dont think men need the "protection" of marriage.

Its just women who should be getting married by catching that man and tieing him down! sillly feckless unmarried mothers who have not managed to do that! no need to do something so radical like get a job! just get a rich man and how daft to have kids with someone who turns out to be a bit useless. clearly you should be able to tell the future.

in some situations yes itd be more secure for the woman to be married... but certainly not in every instance.
And even so women should not get married if they dont really want to regardless of what benefits it might bring.
YABU

YANBU.

Women who go on about how silly jewelry is and start mentioning the 1950s are being a touch short-sighted.

When you say marriage doesn't matter, unconsciously or otherwise you're endorsing the behaviour of absent fathers and deadbeat dads.

Who are no good for anyone, particularly the sisters you're so keen to support. Freedom of choice for women = marriage for some of us, not being dumped with no job or child support and his kids to bring up.

@bluelady - great for your son. how will he guarantee that? is he having a reversible vasectomy or something?

What I don't understand is why the man has to propose. My mother proposed to my father. It takes two to marry, after all! Take the power back and propose, and if he's dragging his feet for too long a time, but for some reason expecting you to help him create a family... ltb! I think it's making yourself very vulnerable to give him all the benefits of acting married to him, but not putting a marriage contract in place. The rug could be pulled from under your feet too easily.

I'd be very nervous about starting a family with someone who could just up and leave with no consequences if he felt like it. People who are married are more inclined to try fix their problems even if they're serious ones, which is the whole point of it really, which is especially important when children are involved. The person (usually the mum) left caring for the kids after a divorce at least will get some financial help for it or visitation so she can have a break, whereas if it's just a boyfriend, he can just bugger off and leave you and your kids to fend for yourselves. It's a lousy deal. If we're aiming for equality, then women should not give men all the power of proposing by waiting quietly for him to do it. Women need to start proposing too.

OP were you asking for a proposal or marriage? I do think we need to separate the two out. You can be married without the big proposal, just agree it and get it done.

I think the same OP. If you're going to push out kids for a man then why not have the protection of marriage first? At age 55 I've just seen too many women shacked up with a man for years then when he marries it's not to them - it's to someone else. All their 'marriage is just a piece of paper/means nothing' talk gone out of the window.

Of course there are threads with women distraught at being in dire financial straits after being left. 'Common law wife' for years. Also women who've already had kids for their man and are anxious as he doesn't want to and won't discuss getting married. You don't have to scroll back so far on Relationships board to see them at all

My own sister got married at 40 to a man who'd been with previous partner 17 years, unmarried. They had 2 DCs. He'd always said he'd never marry, apparently.

You'll get short shrift on here though.

*CoughLaughFart

Did someone order a goady pile of shite? Because it’s arrived.*

snort this is why i love mumsnet

@LanaorAna2 how are people saying marriage doesn't matter endorsing the behaviour of deadbeat dads? many, many deadbeat dads have been married to the mother of their children Im afraid!

IMO, we should have a better system of child support which ensures better support for children and rp. regardless of marriage. children shouldnt be disadvantaged because their parents are not married. also employers need to be more flexible to allow women (or men) to take time out for children and pick things up later.

people should get married if they like. but we should not shame women for being unmarried mothers. or single parents. we are mum and dad and usually are doing a great job.

@bluelady - great for your son. how will he guarantee that? is he having a reversible vasectomy or something?

Maybe he's decided not to have PIV sex until he gets married.

I completely agree with you OP

It's my understanding that condoms are very effective, zsa.

I think if both parties go into it with open eyes and with protection in place for both parties then people can do what they like. But the endless threads on here from women desperate to get married who have been fobbed off for years by men who have lied and lied and delayed and delayed while they become more and more trapped in unsatisfactory relationships by having a baby then another and another, giving up careers, security and independence is ridiculous. I think if straight civil partnerships become legal this will become a good way of letting women (and its always women on here saying it) know whether their partner is committed or is stringing them along. They can just say 'OK if you don't want marriage, let's just pop to the registry office and sign this binding contract' even though that's what they can do now in a civil marriage. It would sort the truly committed from the ones protecting their assets and the ones looking for something better to come along and the ones who want to be and act like they are single.

I mean id certainly be up shit creek if I hadnt married and my partner turned out to be a feckless dickhead who tried to run off.

I unexpectedly fell pregnant and was without savings or a house and on a zero hours contract. I lost all my hours when I was very sick with morning sickness and never went back. Have had another child now so wont be back looking for work for another few years again. So thats 6+ years out of the workforce im going to have. We have moved to a rural area to be near my partners work and I have no friends or family here really. (although I like it here and am hoping to make some friends)
Basically I am pretty reliant on my partner. I view us as a team and because we are married the law backs that up. Everything is in his name but that doesnt actually matter im still protected because we are married. It would have been incredibly stupid of me not to get married in these circumstances yes.

BUT there are lots of women in different circumstances now days where it doesnt really matter at all whether they are married or not. And some where being married would actually cause more problems than it would protect them if the relationship broke down.

I think whenever you're going to pool resources (by buying a house, sharing childcare etc) it's prudent to be married. If you have kids it's very difficult (although not impossible) to remain completely equal. Someone is usually more able to leave work in event of sickness, somebody is able to move to part time hours, somebody has a great job offer in a different place which means either they give up the opportunity or their partner has to restart their career. Aside from providing for your child it's also important to provide for yourself in retirement - if you are the one working less you're reducing your pension and future earning potential.

That said I find the tone of some posts rather judgemental and condescending. I can understand why marriage doesn't happen for some women and have every sympathy for them if the relationship breaks up and they're left in a bad situation.

Meteor is right. If you are married and it all goes wrong you still have more protection than if you never were married. I agree there are women that do not want to get married but still are happy to have children but it is a legal fact that they and their DC are far more vulnerable financially than if they were born within marriage. These things need to be thought through for example what happens if either partner dies or is rendered mentally incapable etc. It's not just about money either. You can live with your DP for 25 years but still not be considered next of kin in a dire situation. Men are handed all the power in these situations and sometimes it all goes wrong and they can just pack a bag and walk away without a care in the world and do so in a lot of cases.

YABU. Not your business. People are free to make their own choices for their own reasons.

Frankly, I'm glad my dd is not married to her partner, as some day she will hopefully wise up to how controlling he is and be able to simply walk out. Being married to him would make things much more complicated.

It's this type of nonsense that leads to shaming single mothers, which I think is wrong.

The debate about marriage and cohabitation is important in relation to life options for individuals, partners or families. Which one is best will depend on circumstances. The known cost and responsibilities of parenthood, particularly for women will always be a critical factor which is all too often not understood.

The real issue is the extent to which people are life planning effectively for themselves, their partner and their families that takes account of the realities of life. First up, a reality is that you will most likely go through stages of being single and being in a partnership (married or not), a some point you may have children with one or more partners. That you will get old and won’t be able to work so you need a pension for yourself; that accommodation and moving is a expensive, rented or owned, funding two homes are beyond the reach of most single income families; that Child care is expensive but so to is a career sacrifice (we do need a tool that calculates this cost !) and that Ill health happens at any age and may mean you are unable to work.

In marriage or cohabiting SAHP or a career sacrifice (reduced hours, flexible working, etc ) is a decision that comes with long term financial consequences for both parties and most importantly for children. This cost is most keenly felt by women and their children who are not married and who separate. However, married couples divorcing, are equally too often shocked by financial implications of this decision for both of them. Bitterness sets in as soon as it becomes clear that you have to give up half your pension, won’t get the house for life or even until the kids are 18 anymore, will be expected to maximise your income, need to find two homes of equal size etc. There are plenty of those posts too.

Career sacrifice and/or SAHP are probably unavoidable for parents but all too often I am amazed that the implications are not considered or discussed by either party until the fallout happens. Although I do think most men have a better handle on this than a lot of women, see cohabitation debate.

I am well past the age where the rights for cohabitees matter to me and firmly in the need to protect my assets zone. But it seems to me that whilst the current English divorce laws offer substantial advantage for women these are being slowly eroded in case law without a lot of debate. The cohabitation equal rights lobby often fails to recognise that it will lead to a call for rights that will allow people to protect wealth and income accrued outside the relationship, married or not. That’s why rich people want to get divorced in Scotland not England.

I think we do need to have a legal provision that allows people to enter into a relationship that limits their responsibilities to their partner to the time of the relationship and not beyond it. But ....

I worry that a lot of women have a compulsion to have children that overrides their rationalisation as to the cost and sacrifice and they will go along with whatever is on offer at the time. Laws need to be in place to protect them and their children. However Ultimately we need to shift the paradigm that results in so many women needing or wanting dependency on a partner who financially and emotionally is likely to have more control. In other words we shouldn’t need the ring but the reality is too many women do.

Ypu need to enter the 21st century, love.
It's 2018 not 1820

More important to a) keep your financial independence and b) spot the red flags early on for a man who wants everything his own way and is enthusiastic about having you 'tied down' but in a way which gives him all the advantages (living in his house, your name not on the mortgage, isolated from your friends and family, no money of your own but not actually married).

Watching this with interest as I think it may be my post on Relationships that OP is referring to