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 ?

I've never heard any credible evidence to suggest marriage benefits men more than women. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, however. That's why so often people don't get married because it isn't in the man's interests as much as it is in the woman's, both legally and socially.

Sometimes women want marriage but the man refuses to marry her.

And when that happens maybe she is too far along to terminate. Or maybe she doesn’t want to terminate.

You should ask men why they get women pregnant and then don’t marry them. I think it’s just a lot of men who just decide they don’t want to marry the woman because marriage is sold as something negative to men.

Wrong again single women live longer and are happier than married women. The reverse is true for men.

Really, see I wonder why people bother getting married?

You can have a fantastic relationship without it, be a great parent without it, own properties without it, be successful without it. Why do certain people think that in 2022, that its still a requirement in life?
It doesn't stop a partner straying, it doesn't stop abusiveness in a relationship... if anything I believe it makes it harder to leave such situations ...literally a ball & chain.

I've been married & divorced, I tried my hardest to make that abusive marriage work ...why? Out of some stupid notion that I was a failure.
I now see the only failure I made was marrying that horrid man in the first place.

I've now met the love of my life and are very happy together as we are ...unmarried and living in sin 😀

Yes, indeed. Correlation is not causation.

'A long tradition of research and theory on gender, marriage, and mental health suggests that marital status is more important to men’s psychological well-being than women’s while marital quality is more important to women’s well-being than men’s. These beliefs rest largely on a theoretical and empirical foundation established in the 1970s, but, despite changes in gender and family roles, they have rarely been questioned. The present analysis of three waves of a nationally representative survey indicates that, with few exceptions, the effects of marital status, marital transitions, and marital quality on psychological well-being are similar for men and women. Further, for men and women, occupying an unsatisfying marriage undermines psychological well-being to a similar extent—and, in some cases, to a greater extent—than exiting marriage or being continually unmarried.'

Looks like a possibly interesting study. Albeit with a fairly logical conclusion.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018193/

Oh, this again. Boring.

People on mumsnet often fail to realise that not everybody is a high earner.

What protection would marriage provide if the DH is stacking shelves at sainaburys, for example.

Me and my OH are both on minimum wage in entry level jobs, cleaning and retail.

What would getting married change for us?

Even if I was a SAHM (I'm not) then marrying OH isn't going to provide me any sort of protection or vice versa.

Men are obliged to pay child maintenance regardless of martial status.

Anyone can change most of these unilaterally at any time.

And it doesn’t change the facts that fathers earn more and have better pensions than mothers.

Amd that mothers take more family leave and do more childcare and more unpaid labour than fathers.

And that mothers will be the main carers post split in 95% of cases, which adversely affects their earning ability and increases their costs.

In many unmarried couples, men have more savings and other assets than women.

So no, it’s only a near equivalent to the legal protection of marriage if both parties agree.

In my case, because I don’t want to be married. Because I value my independence and am aware of my ability to raise my daughter whilst earning my own money. Because I am my own person and don’t want to be contractually obliged to stay in a relationship that isn’t fulfilling for me. Because I am financially ok alone. Oh, and as @TheOccupier states so eloquently, because I am a feckless idiot 😃

Saw one do this for ten years post separation while divorce was getting worked out.

A relative who divorced, no kids, lost 250k to spouse… if they’d just lived together wouldn’t have owed her anything.

Morestigma £3500 lump sum (eg for funeral) and £350 a month widows allowance (bereavement support payment) if he dies and you are married with children. Easily replicated by savings/life insurance but low income earners often don’t have that. Law hasn’t been updated to allow cohabiting couples to claim it.

Men are obliged to pay child maintenance regardless of martial status.

TBH rather than a lot of stuff people use as criteria to vote for candidates in elections, i think I'd go for (and i am in no way affected by this at all, my children are grown up and I've been married since forever) making paying CM a legally enforcable debt that leads to garnishing of wages and seizure of assets pretty darned quickly if there are arrears. Are any parties offering that?

Anyone can change most of these unilaterally at any time.

That is what would worry me, tbh. At least you can't divorce someone without them knowing, so (little as they may be) those legal protections are there. I think there is a way to kind of link wills, isn't there? Also wouldn't there be issues if your DP left you and your children, then married someone else and had a family, then died without leaving a will? Where i am you can't disinherit your children (well, you can but it is not easy) so that scenario doesn't leave the first family children out, but in UK it's different, i think? Also the other way round. If you marry then separate but don't divorce, so you can't marry your DP, if you die, that makes a problem for your DP against your still-spouse.

And while Church (other religions are available) marriage is pretty much still based on patriarchy (you can drop "obey" from the vows? great) a civil marriage is still pretty much a contract between two people. (although the civil service, IIRC, talks about lifelong commitment through thick and thin)

People need to know all these things. (not just those with children)

morestigma Things like death in service payment and pension. If you work for a some companies or public sector even low earners get these benefits - bin man, school cleaner etc. Yes can nominate partner but lots don’t realise they need to or get around to paper work.

This post raises an important question…

Why are so many women willing to have children with men who are deadbeat and a waste of space - no assets and no likelihood of ever having assets…..

What is the point of this? If he can’t wipe his own arse how on Earth is he supposed to provide for a family?

Mystifying….

So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important.

If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter.

Agree completely with this - women need to keep their work and independence in some capacity. And be wise to DH money moves.

Average price of a house in the UK £274,000

Add in savings, all the assets in your home which are totted up, pension pot if there and any inheritance from deceased parents…. A lot of people are coming up over the 325k….

even married people need to be reminded to have the house as joint tenants!!

@aSofaNearYou re. your thoughts on it being a Catch 22 people getting married to have children and then finding fertility problems. There are a lot of people who for religious reasons would want to be married before even adopting or going down the ivf route. Honestly next you’ll be suggesting that prior to marriage people should have a full fertility screen. Also pretty shitty that you’re saying those who are unmarried are so lucky they can just dump their defective partner at the drop of a hat and piss off with someone who is reproductively functional…. What a horrid idea.

So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important.
If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter.

How much do you think people should have to earn to reproduce? Seems a tad extreme to put a floor on it - maybe we could have a system where you need a letter from your boss to confirm income before you’re allowed to procreate. I’m married but we only have one income - I guess I’ll need to hand DS back.

@Fridafever The average salary in the U.K. is about £38k. Even if that was the collective household income you would still accumulate assets - unless you have lots of kids.

My point was for the vast majority of people marriage will be important from a financial standpoint.

Also very rare that people go into minimum wage and stay there for all of life as there is sufficient motivation to want to progress.

Never said a minimum income required to reproduce - where did you get that from??

What was saying was for the vast majority of people - even on low to middle income - assets accumulate.

The only way they wouldn’t is if somebody was on job seekers their entire life or on an incredibly low wage… persistantly.

If it’s somebody like that why would anyone consider them capable of supporting a child to adulthood…. On that money they’d barely be able to support themselves.

There are definitely ways to mimic some
of the legal protections of marriage without getting married. How many couples actually jump through those legal hoops though? How many who choose not to marry have set up proper wills and medical powers of attorney before the first baby is born?

Marriage is by no means a guarantee. Your partner can still screw your over just like in any business deal. It has two particular advantages. 1) it’s the easiest and cheapest way to set up that legal and economic partnership. 2) it requires that you go through the mental step of choosing to make that partnership, it’s an extra step of vetting your potential co-parent

The money for the funeral is dependant on the savings etc of the deceased. I recently did this for a family member and it specifically says don't include your own money

Itloggedmeoitagsin no the lump sum bereavement support payment (widows allowance) isn’t dependent on savings. It’s just a lump sum. I used example of using it to pay for funeral but it can be for anything. It’s paid no matter how high your income or savings. It’s separate to any help with funerals for those on low income.
I used it as example for how would marriage benefit me as a low earner. Obviously it’s not a huge amount and easily replicated but if your boyfriend dies in crash on way home tonight it’s money you can’t get. For a low income couple it could be a big help whilst she try’s to get more hours at work, sorts out claiming other benefits etc.

Possibly because a lot of pregnancies aren't planned and you can't force the father to marry you.

Believing that your partner is as invested in the relationship as you are.

Because society doesn't place value on women.

Because despite earning less and being able to work less I already had a house albeit mortgaged and I'm not prepared to lose half of that

@Dixiechickonhols - death in service benefits go to whoever you nominate. If you don’t nominate anyone, the trustees choose. Same with dc pensions. Marriage make no difference to either.

@Brefugee - in England you can disinherit spouse and children, in Scotland only in respect of certain assets. In England you have absolutely no control over who your spouse will’s their property to. Same as if you were not married.

Lol exactly. And go on about you will automatically inherit all a spouses property (you won’t), you can’t will matrimonial property away (again rubbish) and so on. Lots of marriage myths on mn.