Why why why do people have kids without marriage

[changedandcantchangeback]

Obviously if you earn more.. have an independent income... so NOT aimed at you..

But WHY after all these years do I see threads from economically improvised women STILL posting how they are so severely compromised ?

Plenty of people want children. Its quite a normal and common thing for people to want and a pretty strong animal instinct for many. Not everyone can get someone to marry them or find someone who they want to marry.
Plenty of married people still get left.
Also, people do accidentally get pregnant too, and we dont force abortions or adoptions on unmarried mothers anymore thankfully

Yes, hence why I added you can do the ceremony for a couple hundred. We spent an added £200 on a dress and rings, which are optional.

We’re talking about why people don’t marry before kids though, not after.

Personally, I do not see the reason to get married after having children. For me, having my children after getting married made it so much more special. I suppose it makes me traditional, but it's how my family will always be! 😊

in terms of legal and proven societal benefits, marriage really isn't just a piece of paper

This is really lovely to hear, and you are very blessed.

You had children with a man you don't love?

So women need to stop letting men abdicate from their responsibilities and avoid the commitment of marriage. Once upon a time it was expected that men would make a commitment to a woman with whom he had a child. We can normalise that again.

It's only one aspect of this situation but I find it interesting that on another active thread people are arguing that it is unacceptable to leave a marriage because you've subsequently found out your spouse cannot have children, and at the same time there is such a strong narrative that you mustn't have children (thus discovering your fertility) before getting married.

Bit of a catch 22 for people for whom having children is more important than getting married.

Shocker, chat forum attracts a range of views ;)

That’s ridiculous though! You can leave a marriage for any reason you wish. Thank god we’re no longer in the time where someone else gets to decide whether you’re allowed to leave a marriage or not.

But why why why why why do you care, OP?

I cgaf what other women choose to do or not do wrt marital status; I find it curious to be hand-wringingly upset over other women's freely-made choices.

I suppose the point is that it's freely made but possibly uninformed, if someone genuinely doesn't understand the benefits and risks to marriage pre or post children. An awful lot of people sleepwalk into a bad situation without realising, because they're not aware of the legal implications, or they mistakenly believe we have common law marriage in the UK.

The discussion should be women having the expectation, and indeed demanding, equality in partnerships and the workplace bringing huge societal benefits for all.

Yes.

Having children and sacrificing your career (to whatever extent) for a partner without any kind of legal or financial protection is not fine.

What I see around me is so many women raising children on their own, without any/much financial or other support from their useless partner or ex, who has contributed fuck all apart from some jizz and his surname. That's not progress. That's a brilliant con trick on the part of the patriarchy.

Yes again.

Have you heard of the Gender Pay Gap?

Hell yeah. And the glass ceiling. Thing is, we need to challenge these rather than retreat to marriage to 'protect' us.

That's exactly how I read it too. OP is always composed as bait, wide-eyed faux concern... and on come the guillotine brigade; smug and self-righteous with the blame placed firmly at women for their poor choices.

Like catnip this thread is. I think there are lots of posters who enjoy reading about other women's fallouts.

I was agreeing with AnyFucker's post about women-blaming. I meant to quote it.

There's often an air of smugness at how the individual wasn't stupid enough to fall into that trap and how they bagged themselves a husband. Like you say, wide eyed faux naivety.

It's not blaming women to say that if you know there's a risk something can happen, it's wise to protect yourself against it.

Bad drivers shouldn't swerve all over the show on the motorway and change lanes without indicating, but they do - so I'm not going to stop wearing my seatbelt or leaving a huge gap at a notoriously bad junction for last-minute-lane-changers because THEY should do better.

@YetAnotherSpartacus So true. My husband gave up his career for our family as they weren't compatible and I am helping him find a new one but it was terrifying how easy it would have been to thoroughly screw him over because he trusted me and wanted the best for us. We need proper protection for people in couples AND we need to reinforce the importance of having your own security wherever possible.

Rather than the obligation of marriage I'd sooner see men having it dinned into them that if they father a child then they are financially responsible for that child - 50:50 - no arguments, no excuses.

And I'd happily pay more tax for any and all loopholes of CSA to be closed so that there is no escape. No job? Litterpicking or similar then, and government money to go to the mother.

Women don't need men, they need money to bring up their children and they should have that.

I totally agree - and I find it stunning that so many men have the same realisation that you do but then screw over their partners and children.

This.

If you have the appropriate paperwork and know your rights and responsibilities then marriage becomes less important.

Quite, and those who struggle to find £400 arent necessarily going to have assetts or careers where their finances need the protection of marriage if the relationship breaks down.

I think it's the wrong question though. Morals have changed (yaay for that) and it's no longer seen as awful to be unmarried (and/or single) with a child.

Agree very much with pp who have said that the right question is why do so many women, married or not, leave themselves [financially] vulnerable after having a child. The Gender Wage Gap is real (hint: it is not necessarily about your hourly rate) and pension poverty for women is even more real. So what women should be doing is educating themselves about how to be as sure as they can that if the worst happens (death, divorce, disability) they are not left financially stranded. (marriage as such is still really a financial transaction).

For all those who say "nah - cohabiting is fine": why do you think gays and lesbians fought so long and so hard to be allowed to marry? We heard a lot in before times about how a dying partner's family came in and sold a house from under a gay partner, took all the assets etc etc.
So of course one way around that is to be legally watertight with everything - wills, insurance policy, clear demarcations of ownership. Also if you do decide to SAHM (totally fine if that is what you want, totally not fine if it's because "i have a big man job that i can't possibly compromise by child sickness, school runs etc" and it is your only option) - make sure you have access to discretionary spending money, claim child benefit to get pension credit, and make sure that you have a life away from home/children. If it is financially possible, your partner's income should pay into a pension for you. etc etc

A marriage licence is 46 quid. I don't know if you have to pay for the registrar's time, but if that is the difference between legal security in case of death/divorce/disability - then it is 46 quid well invested. (and even then it is better to be legally watertight in terms of insurance, property, pensions etc etc. Belt and braces is never a bad idea). If you don't want to marry, or partner doesn't want to marry: "legally watertight" are the watchwords.

I think actually a lot of women want kids and a lot of men don't, or are ambivalent about it, or would want to wait until it might be too late to conceive for the woman. But then a lot of men seem to be lovely until they have kids or the woman is pregnant and then they change, even when the kids were very much wanted by both parties- according to Mumsnet anyway, we often only hear one side of the story and there is often a lot more to it. Like, I would suggest, the man not really being bothered about having kids in the first place. It's shitty to not take precautions then and not take responsibility when they do arrive.

I do think it's crazy to have kids with someone without knowing them very well or living with them, or having an intention to be committed or at least getting past the honeymoon phase where the shades have definitely falled from your eyes. Or not to know how you will manage financially afterwards. But I understand why people do and human beings make mistakes, we all do.

The argument still comes up that 'weddings are expensive' ... it's pretty depressing that even now (some) women want a fairy tale day and a princess dress. . I genuinely wonder how many men care about a big, show off day.

People don't like to think about death but, having supported friends who have lost their loved ones I am well
aware of the pitfalls caused if your partner dies and you are not married ... pension rights, NOK decisions in case of serious illness, insurance benefits, tax issues etc. All much, much harder to navigate if you are not married. To put it bluntly, it is much easier to sort these issues out if you had been married.