To think that if you are committed enough to decide to have children....

[Oakenbeach]

....you should also be committed enough to each other to get married (assuming that you don’t have any objections to marriage in principle), and that it makes no sense at all for couples to plan to have children (and I stress ‘plan’) before deciding whether to get married.

And why “ should” they be? If people want them, the answer is simple- get married! Nobody is stopping them from doing so

Why should we engage in a practice that we disagree with just for the financial benefits? Why not stop the exclusive little club? FWIW I'd nominate a friend and not my partner as my beneficiary. He does not need any financial help. She does and she has been there for me in ways that he hasn't.

Because Bad that person will have worked for and paid for that benefit over the years. You are no more deserving as a married mother of bereaved children than an unmarried mother.

As an aside I get all my dp’s should he die.

It's such a big commitment having dc I can't understand why people have them when their partners don't want to get married!

My children will be my children forever. My DP and I will either stay together or not - marriage will make no difference to that. So far, nearly 25 years in, we've lasted longer than a lot of marriages anyway.

Babdoc - the maximum you can receive as a bereaved spouse is now under 10k. I think this is post 2017. I guess the idea is that the payment aids transition in to life as a single parent and it is not a permanent source of income. There is an ongoing legal challenge about whether it is lawful to deny this payment to cohabitees. Lawful or not, I would say it is morally wrong as the payment is primarily to benefit the child not the parent; the child’s needs are the same irrespective of the parents decisions.

Because even with time off for a child, not every woman’s career is negatively impacted- and some have greater earning power and assets than their partners? Plus some people believe they should get married as they want to not just for financial purposes.

Well then, marriage is irrelevant to your point, isnt it? Either you are committed, or you aren't. And if you aren't, clearly you shouldn't be planning to have a child.

No, the commitment required of marriage is clear. A “commitment” that means something different to each person, is too vague and nebulous to be meaningful.

I don’t understand people’s pathological distrust of marriage whilst also professing marriage-like commitment to their partners....

The argument that it’s roots are based misogyny is daft, as everything is based in misogyny because of our history! Yet I don’t see many people arguing for a Khmer Rouge type Year 0 to completely wipe the slate clean of any reference to the past.... they still vote for political parties that have their roots in the sexist past, and send their children to schools whose roots are from an age that oppressed women far more severely that now.

So you're saying what's the point in protesting about anything mysogynistic, if it happens anyway?

Isn't it true that someone could change their will without telling their beneficiaries? You'd at least know about if you'd been disinherited through divorce.

I have came to realise throughout this thread that most people are getting married for money rather than love. I will never look at weddings in the same way again. For most it seems marriage is nothing more than an insurance policy. An insurance policy people are selling their souls for.

We're not married. Both of us have been married before and they were abusive, horrific marriages which took a lot of time, distress and pain to extricate ourselves from.

We've chosen not to marry, it doesn't make us "less" than those who do and I find assertions like that somewhat ridiculous.

"I just don't understand why you would actively plan to TTC if not married? If it were an accident, yeah. But I just find it odd that someone would intentionally TTC when they aren't married. "

I agree if you're talking about people in their late twenties or early thirties, but from mid-thirties on I think if you've found someone who you trust enough to have children and you really want children, I can see how you might say it's not ideal, but let's go for it.

I really think it's better to get married, particularly if one future parent has lower earning potential than the other, but I can also see how you might have a family outside marriage if you meet someone who's reluctant to marry and it might be a choice of cohabitation or no children.

Gwenhwfr yes anyone can change a will without telling beneficiaries and that includes a spouse.

"No, the commitment required of marriage is clear. A “commitment” that means something different to each person, is too vague and nebulous to be meaningful. "

And, also, tell that to my friend, that the commitment of marriage is clear. Her and her husband, who were so very clearly committed as they married, split up 6m after they 'committed'

Marriage means nothing unless there is commitment, it doesnt demonstrate it in itself.

So you're saying what's the point in protesting about anything mysogynistic, if it happens anyway?

Not at all

My point was that just because something has its roots in a society that was misogynistic doesn’t necessarily make it misogynistic now! If we took that position, we’d have to start society completely afresh and ban anything with any connection to the past!

Legally a marriage treated both parties equally - the legal notion of a wife being a chattel has been consigned to the historical dustbin.

Marriage means nothing unless there is commitment, it doesnt demonstrate it in itself.

True, there is nothing stopping someone reneging on their marriage commitments.... But that’s not my point. My point is that if someone doesn’t feel sufficiently committed to sign up to marriage commitments, they’re not ready to try to conceive.

Besides, the fact your friend was married means she’s more protected than she’d have been if her husband had never made those marriage commitments.

My point was that just because something has its roots in a society that was misogynistic doesn’t necessarily make it misogynistic now!

No?

So you don't say you'll "honour and obey" anymore?
Or wear rings marking you as the property of your husband?
Or wear white to show "purity"?
Or carry flowers to mask the stench of an unwashed vagina?
Or change your name to his?
Or he won't ask permission to take you from your father to become his wife?

These may not apply to every marriage, but let's not pretend they don't still happen.

"Besides, the fact your friend was married means she’s more protected than she’d have been if her husband had never made those marriage commitments."

It really, really didn't. She lost the home that she'd paid into for years before she met her husband.

Besides, the fact your friend was married means she’s more protected than she’d have been if her husband had never made those marriage commitments

Not if she was the higher earner, or had assets which could be split in the event of a divorce.

Were DP and I to marry and then divorce, he'd be entitled to half of my assets. The home is in my name (paid for by a legacy from my Mum) and DP deliberately didn't want his name on it, because the money didn't come from him, therefore in his mind it doesn't and never would belong to him as an asset. That changes nothing day to day, it's very much our home, but is an important legal definition in the event of a split.

If a woman has a pension, or higher earnings or assets she WOULDN'T be protected by marriage, so please don't state this as absolute fact. Because it's not.

"My point was that just because something has its roots in a society that was misogynistic doesn’t necessarily make it misogynistic now!"

And that is still a matter of opinion. Theres examples of it on this very thread. In 2019, women have admitted to receiving better treatment when they say they are a Mrs. That's absolutely outrageous.

@graphista

Thank you for your enlightening review of my situation. I will be off in a minute to book the registry office 😂

But seriously. I don't think that marriage would protect me at all. DP has no assets (other than our jointly owned house) or death in service benefits, no pension to speak of (my pension will be far better than his), we jointly own the house and have the same amount invested in it. I set up the life insurance policy, so he couldn't change it without my knowledge (it's a joint policy, shock horror they let you have these even if you're not married).

I guess if he really wanted to he could revoke me being his medical next of kin, but then that would fall on his parents, who I get on well with and would likely refer back to me any way. If we were at a stage though where he would revoke it, I'm guessing our relationship would be ending and it wouldn't be right for medical decisions to be up to me anyway.

Oh yeah and all our meagre savings are in my name, so no problem there either. If we split I would be in a better position than him (but I wouldn't screw him over, because I'm not a bitch!)

As I've said they may be some people marriage is protection for. Women who have given up work, but have a high earning husband with lots of assets that are in his name only. Then yes I get it. But for me and others like me, it doesn't matter.

My best friend has had two failed relationships, one child from each. The first unmarried, the second married. Being married has made no difference, apart from the fact she'll have to pay out to get devorced. All she gets from either farther is basic child maintainance. In fact more from the unmarried father as he earns more! (And she wouldn't have got more from him if they had been married, as they were young when they were together and it's much later after they split that he has set up a business and become successful).

Something that’s just occurred to me. The people who don’t want children to be “bastards”- how do you think other people will know they are? Do you routinely ask whether people are married?

@oakenbeach but some people take marriage very lightly. It’s easy for them to say yes, and not a commitment. Marriage isn’t a good signifier of commitment.

They must do Bertrand, so they know whether to offer better customer service/conversation.

My two bastards are constantly miserable and depressed, reflecting the unstableness of their mum and dads 20+ year relationship, so there's that signifier too.

The person I know who said that wears a wedding ring and changed her name. I guess people must have known her parents weren’t married and commented on it, something’s obviously made a very deep impression to say “I don’t want my children to be bastards like me”. It was a shocking thing to hear.

A lot of people don’t see children at a commitment. It takes all sorts.