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 we need to bear in mind that the current employment model most people are lumbered with depends on a man working, with a woman providing all the domestic service and childcare unpaid. Even though it doesn't work for most families. And the combination of the speculative property market and artificially low wages makes things worse. Marriage isn't the answer to those problems: state-funded childcare, better wages and more flexible hours are what's needed to get rid of the business of women being forced into economic dependency on men.

Frangipani did you not suffer any loss of earnings at all when having kids then?

Yes, but so did my DH equally.

Yeah, if you can't physically force him to drop his own hours at work or even get off the sofa then just pop in your fine machine and take that baby-having back

Why on earth would you wait until after the "baby-having" to have that conversation?

We discussed how we would manage childcare and who would do what before we started trying for a baby. There's a reason it's called baby planning.

This is my issue - why does it fall to the woman to suffer loss of earnings, to reduce her hours etc etc? Why is it on the woman to even raise these questions in the first place? Why aren't couples having these conversations when deciding to have a baby or if accidents happen as soon as you find out you're pregnant?

Lanaor, no I'm suggesting that the emphasis on women taking responsibility is removing the need for men to be responsible. The energy in this conversation should be focused on how to get the men to stop being irresponsible gits, we agree on that. Is marriage the only or best way of doing that? Would bringing back common-law marriage, and having various other social conversations aimed at reducing hypersexualisation with no responsibility, not have the same effect without all the negatives?

It is quite sad that so many don’t understand the power of marriage is when you divorce/die.

Most mums would benefit from that

BUT - don’t marry if he has lots of debt

Frangipani so when you took maternity leave, did he pay half the contributions to reinstate your pension rights. Did he take the same time off so that his employer might see him as a bit unreliable and probably best not to promote to a more senior position?

I agree
Every single unmarried family (even if engaged pre kids) who has not married, the man always walks away

If he doesn't love you enough to be with you for good, don't lumber yourself with his children, potential poverty , lack of security and all the grunt work.

If either of my daughters were pregnant out of wedlock I would advise abortion (if they asked). The world is a difficult competitive place and poverty, struggling alone, would be terrible.

Unless you are independently wealthy, never have children unmarried.

Ypu need to enter the 21st century, love.
It's 2018 not 1820
It's not dated to suggest women should get themselves clued up on the consequences of their choices.

Marry or don't marry. Most people could not care less. Do what suits you and your family.
But if you opt to place yourself in a financially precarious position without the legal coverage of marriage then don't whine retrospectively that you should have more rights and access to assets (Or worse that the law should be changed to force material style rights on people).

Also we need to bear in mind that the current employment model most people are lumbered with depends on a man working, with a woman providing all the domestic service and childcare unpaid. Even though it doesn't work for most families. And the combination of the speculative property market and artificially low wages makes things worse. Marriage isn't the answer to those problems: state-funded childcare, better wages and more flexible hours are what's needed to get rid of the business of women being forced into economic dependency on men.

While none of this is wrong, as we don't have any of the solutions you mention at present, women still need to navigate society as it is not as it should be. Meaning that even in the best case scenario of such reform happening as soon as is realistically possible, those of us in our peak childbearing years need to consider how best to protect ourselves. For the majority of women, marriage will be a better way than cohabitation. One doesn't have to think it's fair to see that it is so.

I think it depends on circumstances. I'm pregnant with our first and we aren't married and have no immediate plans to be. However, I own property separately as well as our shared home (which we have a deed of trust for) so in financial terms it's not of any real benefit for me (actually I would technically end up worse off in that respect),

What I find seems to be the problem is the startling number of women who end up living in a home without their name on the title deeds or mortgage.I'm not really sure how this happens. I certainly wouldn't spend any length of time in a house someone else owned, helping to pay the mortgage without being on the deeds and having a deed of trust drawn up. I think the more important thing is not so much about marriage but teaching young women about financial independence and the importance of retaining access to your own money and share of property regardless of your marital status. The unmarried women who end up in terrible situations often seem to have been very naive about their financial arrangements generally and learn that the hard way.

don't whine retrospectively that you should have more rights and access to assets (Or worse that the law should be changed to force material style rights on people).

Why is it that women are being told to stop whining and put up/ shut up? PaulDacre, should we not be spending the energy you are currently wasting telling women that reforms are impossible, in actually pushing for those reforms? They are not impossible. The fact that they exist anywhere else in the world - and just across a very shallow sea in fact - tells us that.

@ReanimatedSGB you are absolutely correct in what you say

"Get the ring". OP, are you living in the 1950s?

Yeah, if you can't physically force him to drop his own hours at work or even get off the sofa then just pop in your fine machine and take that baby-having back hmm

Then you don't drop yours either and leave him. But what do so many usually do with such a specimen? 'Fall' pregnant again. It's mind-blowing that a person would procreate again with someone who's proven himself a git. As for 'contraception fails' then you use 2 forms. Get a termination or better yet, don't have sex with a shit like this again. And sometimes again.

Look, I get the biological urge to have kids and wanting more than one child but shouldn't the one who's already here come first?

My heart sinks every time I read an OP along the lines of - I'm going back PT (or not at all) whilst 'DP' works FT and he still expects . . . 5050 on bills, to be completely exonerated on all lifework etc.

And seriously, if marriage is a dealbreaker for you, then you don't have kids before marriage. And yes, it is that simple. Use two or three forms of contraception, don't have PIV, get a termination.

@bluelady, there are many people alive today who are testament to condoms not being 100% effective. my dc says that she will be a dr and have 60 children. i will wait and see though.

I agree with you op. I read the posts that you're referring to on the relationship board last night and really felt for the women who have ended up in these situations.

I think there should be more education about what marriage means - - it's legal implications. So people are aware of what they are getting into and make decision best for them – knowledge being power and all.

I meet DH at 18 but we fairly early on talked about what we wanted careers education, number of children and before we had kids I made it clear I wanted to be married first -as part of normal conversations - he proposed much earlier than I thought and we ended up with a long engagement which was mainly my choice.

I know friends who’ve had conversation so both on same paper it was a fling and not long term – I’ve known other find out there weren’t on same page and sometimes that been the women not wanting long term.

Yet there a lot of advice out there given to women not to have these conversations – in case you scare the men away. Usually find women who give out that advice fair proportion are ones sat waiting and hoping for want they want.

Op yanbu. For me, the issue is that far too many women are unaware of the potential consequences of having children out of wedlock. I think this should definitely be a topic that is covered in schools. And I have certainly seen lots of posts on here that support this.

My dm always viewed marriage as a good indicator of respect and mutual equality. You are both equally committed to your future together. It’s all well and good saying that women can do what they want, of course they can, as long as they truly understand the implications of this.

Some women may well be better off financially remaining unmarried, and for this reason I am against laws protecting those who cohabit. For some it is a conscious and valid choice.

I do however, feel that whatever the situation, children should have more protection in the event of a breakup. I find it appalling that men get away with paying nothing for their dc because they are unemployed or self employed, even though the partner with the dc may well be in the same boat. The women have to manage and make do, just by virtue of being decent parents and not choosing to abandon their dc’s. More should be done to protect them and their dc and ensure such men are held accountable, even if it means tracking down hidden savings, cash in hand earnings, taking a share of home equity etc. Only then will marriage become the less desirable option.

The problem with not being married to your long term partner is that if they leave you, they can marry someone else and the wife immediately takes precedents over the woman who is left behind. This happened to a friend of mine. All the paperwork in the world won't stop a wife's rights over her husband's property. No matter how long you lived together.

Dsisex offers an engagement then delay any actual planning of the event - even post children or post buying houses.

He's been engaged nearly constantly last 15 years and never got near to being married.

Know a few women who had similar with children always later.

So actions and deeds not just conversations are important.

I sort of agree in that women should protect them in terms of financial security.

That said, I don’t judge unmarried parents.

Ari - what was the alternative though? I am an unmarried mother. I am greatly financially better off than if i hadn't married my partner. but perhaps i am worse off than if i had married someone else. or perhaps not. either way, i don't regret my dcs in any way at all. Or being an unmarried mother. there are disadvantages, but advantages too.

I am glad I don't have to depend on a man for income and be dependent on what he wants. I am glad I can support myself. and ultimately i like being independent. Its not easy being a single parent but its certainly worthwhile. but that's my choice.

Generally there's no point saying these things. There's no real choice for women who would financially benefit but whose partners don't want to marry them. They cant choose to get married unilaterally. They could choose not to have their children but not once they're born as we have not yet managed time travel. So you are saying, "don't have your children who already exist feckless unmarried mothers" How very 1950s. and nasty and judgemental to single mums.

Is like saying to women who marry guys who turn out to be useless, not to do that, when they are getting divorced. Not helpful.

find it appalling that men get away with paying nothing for their dc because they are unemployed or self employed, even though the partner with the dc may well be in the same boat.

I think married or not one parents shouldn't be able to duck out of financial cost of raising a child.

I increasingly think government should pay out then aggressively recoup costs over entire lifetime on non resident parent.

Heaven forbid anyone not believe in/be bothered by marriage on Mumsnet hey, it's like the Holy Grail on here and if you're not doing it you're an idiot.

I'm married, we were married for 2.5 years before I initiated separation and we have 3 children together. Turns out it was a fat waste of time and money and I won't be doing it again (I was iffy about it in the first place, but I wanted my name to be the same as my children's and he didn't want me to do deed poll).

I agree with you OP because of the legal protection e.g. house in his name

Frangipani - it's all very well having a conversation with your partner when planning for a baby, but unless that conversation is turned into a legal document, it's still just based on trust. It is not always possible for both partners to take the financial and career hit of having children equally - you're lucky if it works out perfectly for both of your careers. At least marriage smooths out the unexpected for both members of the partnership.