How many more women are going to find themselves in this situation ?

[sofrustratedbylackofknowledge]

Thread borne by the sheer amount of posts this week alone, of women who have moved in with wealthier men . Men who own houses solely in their name.. and women who have children with them without a contract of marriage or civil partnership..

The relationship breaks down and the woman is either not working or massively economically disadvantaged compared with their partners .

Made even worst by the courts bias towards shared care rendering CM almost negligible...

Why are women putting themselves in this situation. ?

Marriage has a lot of patriarchal connotations which are 'no go' for some women... but now we have civil partnerships why would you not go for this option .. ? Or is it the man refusing to commit ?

Also really concerned about the massive number of contraception failures . So many women taking the pill finding themselves pregnant and deciding to continue the pregnancy with no legal protection ..is the pill /implant failing ?

Honestly, the only one who seems to convince themselves of anything, is you…

I would also want to empower ALL young people with knowledge of the CURRENT legal position. Mostly so that young women understand that shacking up with a man and having kids with marriage. Is a decision that needs to be made from a financial view point with all the facts.

All the studies, statistic and just people around us show that relationships with men and kids make women miserable or at least less happy.
Shouldn’t we empower (your words) women to be single and childfree since that would make them happier.
Oh, and healthier.

Why is it such an absolute that women have to have a man and kids?
I believe this is the real problem.

All of the ‘but he strung me along’ is bollocks, it’s allowing yourself to be strung along rather than calling it and leaving.

I agree with this, you can’t be “strung along” without your consent.

Because people don’t want the state bossing them around and telling them what to do. Its not for the government to tell us how to lead our lives.

That’s religions job.

My view:

It's fine not to be married if your affairs are in order. It's fine to have children and not be married.

I don't get why women wait for men to propose. Are they not in an adult relationship where you have a conversation about that is probably one of the most imporant things that can happen in your in relationship legally. And if you are not on the same page with marriage, you discuss how you then manage your affairs to avoid anyone being in a vulnerable position.

But yes, in absence of the above, I don't understand why some women would put themselves in a vulnerable position while they sit arounding waiting for a proposal that will never come.

Well quite 😆

I don’t think MN realise how utterly unreasonable their expectations of the state is sometimes. And actually how badly wrong it can go if you appoint the state as responsible for micromanaging every aspect of your life, ‘educating’ teens on the life choices they should make etc. Lets face it when have teens listened to authority anyway?

I agree @Coffeepot72 Brilliant post! Not sure who posted it because you c & p and didn't tag, but that poster has nailed it! Men not being expected to marry women now, and being able to walk away so easily, is a nasty result of the 'womens revolution.' Feminism did more harm than good for women IMO.

Women think they've got it made, they think they're equal, they think they're being all liberal and cool by shagging by the third date, they think they're sticking it to the patriarchy by not getting married, and they think they're equal to men in the workplace.

They're wrong about it all. Men are laughing at them. As that poster said, they get a shag quickly, if she gets pregnant they can easily walk away and arrange it so they end up not paying for the baby, and even if they stay, SHE will end up doing all the grunt work and looking after the children. And as the pp said, probably paying half towards everything too. Because men who refuse to marry the mother of their children will NOT be 'keeping' her and looking after her and the children. He'll want her paying half of everything, ya know, coz women fought for equal rights and all that.

Being the only sister of 4 who is married and who had children in wedlock may not necessarily mean @MrsMiddleMother is a better person than her sisters, but it sure as hell means she is more sensible and logical and has protected herself and her children well.

The amount of women in this day and age, who have children willy-nilly with men they barely know and/or are not married to is astonishing. I don't know why they do it. And as a pp said, this is what the 'old days' got right. Men MARRIED the women, and they had the children in wedlock, and they pretty much all had the same father and the same surname. Ergo, the security for the women AND the children.

Deep down I believe these women (who have babies out of wedlock,) hope the man will marry them, and that's why they give the children HIS name. Some women look down on marriage and sneer at married women 'bowing to the patriarchy' but the married women are just laughing at them, or shaking their head and pitying them, because they know THEY have the better deal.

I couldnt' disagree more. With the sentiment and that it's a brilliant post. It reduces women's value to basically that of a whore. That if she doesn't capatalise on the only thing a man could possible want from her (access to sex) she is devaluing herself.

And the comment on sexual revolution for women 🙄Jesus. Who needs men to hate women, when women clearly do the job so well.

Huh?
What does this comment have to do with anything?

Many women now out earn their partners. My best friend won't get married her DM has given her a 400k house. She wants to keep the equity she's having a baby but no interest in marrying because it wouldn't financially benefit her. It's this sexist trope that women have no money so need to marry a wealthy man for financial security.

Ok, but what would you say if the sexes were reversed? If he wouldn’t marry her to protect his equity?

He's not having having to take extended leave from work, he's having standard paternity leave so his earning power won't be affected. My friend is taking maternity leave and will be primary carer for the new DC. If he was the primary carer for the DC I would say it's cruel and she should marry him.

They're wrong about it all. Men are laughing at them
Talk about utter rubbish! I'm glad I didn't have to marry to enjoy sex. I glad I could pick to marry a man I'm sexually compatible with.

I chose to start a career before having kids and to continue to work FT so not to make me vulnerable. Turned out to be the best decision when we separated.

I had many days of dreaming of being a SAHM. What an easier life it would have been, but I wasn't prepared to trade easier for more vulnerable.

Too many women want their cake and eat it. They want to be SAHM or work PT, hours of their choosing whilst enjoying a perfect work life balance whilst still enjoying all the money that offers, but then to be able to continue as much of that lifestyle as possible after separation or divorce.

Ultimately, no one wants to be in a vulnerable position nor want to be shafted. Women want financial security and feel they ate therefore owed marriage that protects them. Men want to protect themselves so that if their SAHM wives, enjoying spending the money he brings in, decides when it suits her to take her bags and the kids, they don't find themselves losing most of their financial comfort in addition to his family.

Honestly I think of all of this is a red herring. I wouldn't get married to my partner if I had far more assets than him or had inherited family home etc. I would know that he could potentially leave me In a couple of years for some one else and take half my parents home with him. I don't blame men for feeling that way too.
The issue isn't really about marriage, it's about woman being the ones who often choose to give up their careers/work to stay at home and mind their kids. It leaves that partner in such a vulnerable state if the relationship breaks down .

*I know you've said most not all, and especially those with children so I do acknowledge you're trying not to make a sweeping generalisation... but please, don't cringe on my behalf, don't feel awkward on my behalf and be assured that I am not heart broken. I am happily unmarried, secure in my decision and now my friends' marriages are starting to sadly end even less convinced by marriage as an emotional concept, or one that I should feel heart broken not to have experienced.

As a legal concept, yes, I understand completely and particularly where children are involved but since I'm child free and the higher earner, don't pity me anymore than you pity anyone else happy with their life choices!*

This this this. And I speak as someone who has experienced this wonderful thing called marriage that we're all supposed to long for and have NO intention of falling for that one again.

Women also need to take account of their financial future - pension, employment after children leave home or go to school.

There will be a lot of women heading for poverty based on being at home and not returning to work or going part time.

Women also need to take account of their financial future - pension, employment after children leave home or go to school.

Thats put it well, Lex.

It’s less an issue of Marry or Don’t Marry, and more an issue of Earn or Don’t Earn.

In my opinion, being a grown adult without your own dollar is just too disempowering.

@Peedoffo

Many women now out earn their partners. My best friend won't get married her DM has given her a 400k house.

🙄

This post isn't even worthy of a response tbh. But I'll bite. Many women DON'T out-earn their partners, only on mumsnet do the majority of working women earn more than their partners. And as for your 'friend' being given a £400K house. Words fail me. This will not happen to 99.9999999% of women - ever!

And as a pp said, imagine if a man refused to get married because he wanted to protect his assets and the equity on his house! Some posters on here would be frothing at the gills!

@vivainsomnia

Too many women want their cake and eat it. They want to be SAHM or work PT, hours of their choosing whilst enjoying a perfect work life balance whilst still enjoying all the money that offers.

Actual fucking WOW! The jealousy and bitterness is strong on THIS one!!!

I mean GOD FORBID that some women want to have children and work shock horror part time! So they can have a good work/life balance. Are you actually kidding me right now?!

You're seem so bitter, and are clearly jealous of part time working mums, and stay-at-home-mums ... Your entire posts screams bitterness and jealousy. NOT a good look!

Actual fucking WOW! Shock The jealousy and bitterness is strong on THIS one!!
Haha, the good old 'you must be jealous' when you dare bring up what many think but won't admit!

No jealousy on my part at all in any way. I've been with someone but not marry and that was the best decision I could have made. I'm now married but totally self sufficient financially. Actually a trait that attracted my OH who got done by his ex who left for another man taking half.

We're both pleased to be able to depend as much on ourselves as eachother. I would gate being financially dependent on a man, especially now the kids are grown up, and would hate having to support someone just because they never wanted to work or go back to work

So jealous? Most certainly not 😀Not sure the opposite can be said, reading all the posts from women who seem to have grown to hate their husband or partner and miserable but won't leave because of the lifestyle they want that they can only have staying with someone they despise a bit more every year. No, I wouldn't trade for a million year!

To me I think it's pretty simple, unless you're already a higher earner earning significantly more than your husband, it's very likely that when you have children, your earning potential and career progression will decrease or slow down and he will earn more than you. Obviously it's possible to catch up, but the likelihood of that decreases the more children you have and the more part-time you go.

To protect yourself in this situation, it's imperative you marry, so you have access to the assets built up in the case of divorce. It's also important you continue working in some capacity to keep your work experience current in the event you suddenly have to start working again.

If you are not in the above situation, all it means is you need to consider the benefits and disbenefits of working/marrying and see if it works for you. There is no advice that will apply to everyone, but for many or even most women, it will work for them.

Something i'll also mention here, I think more women should insist on their partners sharing custody more equally. I see so many women who have 75% or more of their kids' time which restricts their working capacity and puts htem in hardship. Yes, you want to see your kids, but I really do think it sets them back a lot.

it's very likely that when you have children, your earning potential and career progression will decrease or slow

Surely only if you let it? Why not make sure you just… earn well?

Make sure he does childcare to accommodate your career.
Make sure you don’t leave the labour market.
Keep your money.
Don’t get married.

Surely that’s far preferable to having to ask a man for some of his money (or marriage to access it)?

Marriage isn't just convenient for entitlement in divorce, but also in sickness and death. So while I agree with all these things, legally marriage is a sensible idea. And, in reality, women do earn less than men (gender gap is not a myth).

But yes, one of the reasons I work (out of many) is to protect my financial independence.

It's about thinking how you will live your whole life, not just your child bearing years.

We are living longer and longer. Women should contribute to a private pension the moment they start working - don't rely on the state pension, or your husband's. You need your own for a comfortable retirement.