Men who refuse to marry the mothers of their children

[SparrowNest]

You see that so often on here. I don’t mean couples where both parties are happy to marry, but ones where the man refuses despite their partner desperately wanting it, or else strings them along indefinitely.

Is there any reason at all, other than that he doesn’t want to have any duty to provide her with financial security for if they break up? So not only is he already thinking about potentially leaving, he’s happy to fuck over the person he ostensibly currently loves if they do break up.

My AIBU is that I don’t understand why women tolerate it. I suppose the ones being strung along have just been lied to, but having children is actually the bigger commitment in many ways. You’re joined for life. It seems so nasty to be prepared to do that, but not offer your partner the security and commitment they want.

@Porcupineintherough

I dont really think anyone should be forced to marry against their will, male or female.

That said I wouldnt have set up as a common law wife with anyone, and even less so as I wanted children. And that I think is the answer. If marriage is important to you dont settle for less in a relationship.

This.

Not marrying is a valid choice for either party. But it’s wrong to string someone along on a promise for years. I also can’t understand why people don’t make their wishes/plans for the future clear at the outset of a relationship, and most importantly refuse to settle for less, in case they scare someone off. Surely if you want different things there is no future anyway.

Marriage was important to me personally so I told dh that very early on and he proposed very early on. We married in our early twenties and only moved in together 4 months before the wedding. If I’d told him I wanted marriage and he’d run a mile, I would have known it was a non-starter and moved on to the next one. As it was, he said he knew I was the one and he wanted the same.

There is nothing wrong with asking for what you want and I find it terrifying that so many people, particularly women, have such low self esteem that they are afraid to express their wants and needs and end up in shitty situations that only benefit their partner.

But marriage is literally about security: that's all its about.

It really isn't. Yes, it's a legal contract, but it's also a public declaration of your commitment to that person. Of course, you absolutely don't need to make that declaration to be committed, but it's important to some people.

The fight for gay marriage is a prime example, IMO. Yes, it was about having the same legal rights as a hetro married couple, but it was also about being able to publicly declare your relationship, without shame or stigma -and that's a very new thing in our society.

I apologize if I've got this wrong, but that's how I viewed it.

But marriage is literally about security
It's always security for the higher earner. It just happens to be more often men. When it's women, they ARE advised not to marry just in case because they deserve to keep what they've worked hard to build.

But the bottom line is that if you expect a woman to give up her job and thus her financial security to care for your children there's a quid pro quo
My experience is that it's much more often women who want to give up their job especially when lower earning than their partners. At least after the kids start school. I had a number of male colleagues frustrated because their wife/partner only wanted to work minimum hours or not at all once the kids were in school despite them helping at home.

I think situations when the man is the main earner and the woman the low or no earner come in many different shapes and forms and not always the stereotype portrayed here of the wife unable to work because she has to look after the kids and her partner doesn't want to work because he doesn't want to do anything to do with the house and kids.

@CinnamonJellyBeans

I can't believe some posters are still glibly insisting that you should insist on marriage before kids. Yes, it's the ideal scenario, but you are not taking into account that women have a small window of fertility.

Once you're firmly ensconced in a relationship and you're in your mid twenties, without an agreement to marry, but a mutual desire to have children, it's a hard choice:

Leave, find a man to marry and then have kids? Ideal solution but your eggs could get past their use-by date

Stay, have kids and hope for marriage? Puts you in financial jeopardy but at least you have a better chance of offspring.

I think you are missing alot.

So the woman really wants marriage and he doesn't, so have kids anyway? Don't worry that you have 2 different plans for your lives, think abut eventual resentment and/or compatibility.

But also, you say its a hard choice. It's is hard. Bit it's still a choice. If you would rather have kids with someone who doesn't share your vision of your future lives, than risk not having them at all.....then that's the choice you make.

But the bottom line is that if you expect a woman to give up her job and thus her financial security to care for your children there's a quid pro quo.

The solution is to make it much easier for women to work and support their own children, taking the financial pressure off the man somewhat. But a lot of men are not comfortable with this because it requires a much greater input on their part into childcare and the maintenance of the home. They need to learn that they can't have it both ways.

But this doesn't address that in a lot (I would guess majority) it's the women that want to stay at home or reduce their hours.

Making it easier to work has made someone women feel they can't be at home.

But, yes, if the man is driving the idea of the woman staying home I do think the least he could do it marry her. And vice versa if the roles were reversed.

We need to be saying loudly and clearly to young women if you want to be married then make it clear to partners you will not have children until married. Non negotaible.

We've sold young women a lie with the laissez faire it's fine to live together, have a baby and then get married attitude which seems to be prevailing, and it's leaving too many mothers very vulnerable and unhappy.

This is made even harder on young women as men are commiting later and later and the biological clock for women is ticking, which is why I think they have the babies before the men will commit.
Which I understand, becoming a mother is very important to most women.

Feminism has put young women in a bind where they are leaving motherhood late, cannot delay it any longer, alongside everyone living longer and men reaching maturity and readiness for commitment later.

Our biological clocks really work against the modern set up they are sold at the moment.

As an older women I'm having these converstaions as much as I can with younger women who want marriage and children: they need to take agency, use the negotiating power they have (men do want children) to place themselves in strong positions.

No children without marriage.
From 25 years onwards make your position on this clear and don't waste time if he's not on board with this.

Value yourself, what you have to offer a man, and if he doesn't value it move on.

If more women did this the dating 'marketplace' would shift, and women would hold more power within it.

@Briony123

Once you have children, it really isn't in the higher earner's interests to wed, in case of divorce. I am baffled by the women who want to get married but move in and/or have children and carry out all wifely duties without being married and yet are then distraught that the man has everything he wants so obviously has no need of a binding legal agreement.

This. ^ And as someone said further back, many men will not marry because they want to leave the door open in case they meet someone better/more suitable. Some women do have babies before their man marries them, because some women are desperate to have babies, and would rather have them without marriage than lose out on motherhood.

I know a woman right now - my friend's daughter aged 29, who has been with her DP for 10 years. He is 30. He flat out has NO intention of marrying her - ever. She said to her mum some 4 years ago (about 6 years after they met,) 'I have mentioned marriage many times over this past year, but he just keeps saying 'one day.....' That's all she ever gets from him. 'one day...' Even 6, 7, 8 years on, she was still getting 'one day...'

Now, they have a house together, (bought it in late 2019,) but the relationship is no further on than it was 10 years ago. Buying a house is not a commitment, it's an investment. So the relationship has not advanced, even remotely.

She has seen friends and colleagues and family members meet a man, get engaged, get married, and have a child, ALL in less time than she has been with this man.

She basically does her own thing now, and goes on trips away, and for nights out with her friends, and does hobbies, and pursues interests without him. He does his own thing too: golf, football, gym, pool, nights out at the pub with his mates 3 or 4 times a month etc... They rarely do anything together, and live completely separate lives. I don't even know why they're together to be honest...

She also says to her mum 'don't get thinking you're going to have a grandchild soon. Ain't gonna happen.' Yet 4 or 5 years ago, (aged 25-ish) she wanted marriage and babies very much. (Clearly trying to convince herself/over-egging the pudding etc...)

Her mum (my friend) said 'fine, I wouldn't want you having babies anyway til you're ready, and you're sure you're with the right man. I'd rather you never have them, than have them with the wrong man.' Her daughter was like when her mum said this.

My friend said she doesn't want her daughter having a baby with this man now, and will actually be gutted if she does now. She doesn't even like him anymore. She liked him to start with, but has gone cool now, as he has clearly been stringing her daughter along for a decade now, and has NO intention of marrying her.

My friend doesn't like his family either, as she's convinced that his mum and dad have put him off marrying her daughter, because the family is wealthy, and my friend is quite poor. No assets, her and her DH on a low income, and they have a poor private pension. She said they were quite friendly at first, but cooled off a bit when they discovered that they lived in rented accommodation and were quite poor.

So my friend's convinced that her daughter's boyfriend's parents could be part of the reason he won't get married to her daughter.

Quite sad to witness really, as this young woman is wasting the best years of her life with a man who will never commit.

Back in 1999, my then-boss, who was about 30, told me that she generally gave bf about a year to propose-if there was no sign of a proposal, she ditched them! She was in a senior position earning six figures and knew exactly what she wanted and knew her own value.

As it happens, she was dating her now-husband at the time and they married in the autumn of 2000. If he hadn’t proposed quickly, he’d have been given the boot.

@AlDanvers

But this doesn't address that in a lot (I would guess majority) it's the women that want to stay at home or reduce their hours.

That may be true but its cultural and the rest of millennia of societal expectation. It's not in anyone's interest to remain at home with children beyond the point where children go to school. Why do you think so few men want to do it? They understand that it leaves them dangerously exposed.

They made a choice to have children without being married.

There are lots of reasons people don't marry, but your comment about not understanding why women tolerate it struck me. Not everyone has an upbringing which makes them feel 'worthy' or 'good enough'. I am married now but for a long time I didn't even contemplate it because I didn't see the point. Everybody left. Parents, partners. Looking back, I didn't feel people like me ' deserved' to be married-I should be happy with my lot.
I've been happily married for almost 10 years now and I totally understand why it's a great idea. But I still understand those who don't.

@Comedycook

Your op is fundamentally sexist as it seems to presume the man is always the one who is better off financially. I know plenty of couples who have got together and the woman has owned property while the man has been renting previously.

And this is why I'm so happy I didn't marry ex DP, even though he is DD's father. DD and I get to keep my house, salary, savings and pension.

[quote thepeopleversuswork]@AlDanvers

But this doesn't address that in a lot (I would guess majority) it's the women that want to stay at home or reduce their hours.

That may be true but its cultural and the rest of millennia of societal expectation. It's not in anyone's interest to remain at home with children beyond the point where children go to school. Why do you think so few men want to do it? They understand that it leaves them dangerously exposed.[/quote]
Yes. I know its a society issue and needs addressing.

That includes women. I agree it's not in anyone's interests to stay at home long term, unless independently wealthy.

However, I don't believe that men on the whole drive the need to have a sahp. Its driven by mainly women. So my point is that just because someone is a sahp, I don't think it's right to say the man must marry them.

Being a SAHP is supposed to be a joint decision. I'd hope that if someone became one, the working parent would be on board with that and want to ensure they were protected.

If they're not, and the other one becomes a SAHP anyway - effectively making a unilateral life decision that ought to be made consensually between them both - that's a more serious issue.

@DrSbaitso

Being a SAHP is supposed to be a joint decision. I'd hope that if someone became one, the working parent would be on board with that and want to ensure they were protected.

If they're not, and the other one becomes a SAHP anyway - effectively making a unilateral life decision that ought to be made consensually between them both - that's a more serious issue.

There was a thread here a while ago (last few months) where the op wanted to stay at home. Her OH didn't agree.

There were many posters that claim it was a biological need and of a man didn't want to give his wife that opportunity he was 'a failure as a man'.

Its not that uncommon for women to believe they have a right to it.

My point isn't that 'oh women are awful' vut that often the decision to stay at home is driven by the women, not men. As the original comment quoted was saying.

@AlDanvers

I remember that thread. It was quite an eye-opener. One poster in particular insisting the DH was abusive because he wasn't prepared to finance his wife to stay at home forever.

Some women do think they have a right to be totally supported but I think more often than not its a toxic combination of the fact it suits the bloke in the short term to have someone at home doing the stuff he can't be bothered to do and the woman's unwillingness to rock the boat and point out that he needs to get involved on the home front if she is to be financially independent. It's cock up rather than conspiracy.

There was a thread here a while ago (last few months) where the op wanted to stay at home. Her OH didn't agree.

There were many posters that claim it was a biological need and of a man didn't want to give his wife that opportunity he was 'a failure as a man'.

I know. I argued with them. One of the ones who kept saying every man had an obligation to support a SAHM kept dropping mentions of her Aga and expensive wines. I thought at first she was just an idiot who didn't realise she was showing up how little she knew about money and real life. Then I thought she was just trying to make herself look rich as consolation for losing the argument. Then, after reiterating that all women should be at home for precious child time, she said her kids were boarders but she saw them loads, every two weeks. At that point I realised she was either a troll or criminally thick. Either way, she wasn't convincing anyone except one other loony.

I do believe she was on the wine, though.

But she wasn't the only one that had that train of thought. Yes she was ridiculous but by far nit the only one who thinks a woman should have a right to stay at home, regardless of what the OH feels about it

@DrSbaitso

You literally couldn't make people like that up.

[quote thepeopleversuswork]@DrSbaitso

You literally couldn't make people like that up.[/quote]
The more I think about it, the more sure I am that somebody did!

It was done well, though, I grant you. The mentions of the Aga and wines were dripped in as they lost more ground (there was actually a thread at the same time about Agas being shite...no offence to anyone who has one or likes them), and the snooty "oh I am so above this conversation, it's just something to entertain me while I sip my Dom Perignon" was very convincing.

@FanGirlX

And this is why I'm so happy I didn't marry ex DP, even though he is DD's father. DD and I get to keep my house, salary, savings and pension.

Bully for you.

However, Many women don't have the luxury of already having their own house, and a sturdy pension, along with 'savings,' and a good salary - and especially when they have children. You are the exception rather than the rule.

[quote LittleRoundRobin]@FanGirlX

And this is why I'm so happy I didn't marry ex DP, even though he is DD's father. DD and I get to keep my house, salary, savings and pension.

Bully for you.

However, Many women don't have the luxury of already having their own house, and a sturdy pension, along with 'savings,' and a good salary - and especially when they have children. You are the exception rather than the rule.[/quote]
Why would a woman having her own home, good salary, pension and savings prior to marriage and children be an exception rather than a rule? Maybe I live in a bubble, but all the women I know have or had these things. Yes, the gender pay gap exists; and yes, women are more likely than men to jack their careers in after they become parents, but there’s no organic reason nowadays why men and women of the same age should have vastly different financial circumstances when they arrive at the point of decking to have a family.

Feminism has put young women in a bind where they are leaving motherhood late, cannot delay it any longer, alongside everyone living longer and men reaching maturity and readiness for commitment later.

@MalagaNights, I agree with most of what you said. The general gist of it is an exhortation for women to be made aware that they can set rules and should be encouraged to be willing to wield the power that they have.

I disagree that it's feminism that has created the world women must now navigate, though. The tendency to ignore the necessity for someone to take care of babies and children isn't something feminism is guilty of.

It's to a large extent capitalism and the fundamentally misogynistic mindset that underpins all of western culture that has got women into the almost impossible position they now find themselves in. If they have babies in their late teens they often have to forget about third level education. If they have babies in their 20s their careers flounder. Waiting until their 30s means making sure they have the right man and all their ducks in a row financially so that they can take a career break if they want to SAHM for a while, or a high enough salary to hire someone to do childcare and give them the flexibility to fulfill the often insane demands of their workplace. My DD1 is 31 and three out of four of her friends who recently got married have had prenups.

I know many women who started out as high-flying lawyers in leading firms who are now teachers. Ironically, I also know a few women who started out as secretaries or receptionists who are now earning more than the former lawyers because they eventually trained as dental hygienists or ultrasound techs.

The messages we give young women are often based on a myth that there can be such a thing as Happily Ever After - there is a narrative in which the heroine works hard in school, gets into the great university, progresses to the high status career, and all the factors working against her will be vanquished. Having It All is a fairy tale where good triumphs. The advice is not always practical or sensible, and it doesn't take biological reality or the nature of the system they live in into account.

@ComtesseDeSpair, you live in a bubble.

[quote mathanxiety]@ComtesseDeSpair, you live in a bubble.[/quote]
That genuinely surprises me. I’d assume that most people partner with people similar to themselves, so can’t see why men and women in relationships would have such disparate backgrounds and jobs that the man would have everything and the woman nothing when they met.