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 ?

Exactly this. My parents were very clear why they got married - sex and love and privacy. My dad got engaged a couple of times……then married my mother - she was a virgin when she married.

I think my parents got married because that's just what you did (and I'm sure they loved each other too!) no one lived in sin, or worse still, had an illegitimate child!

What nonsense. What absolute nonsense. So patronising and objectifying to women.

It's nothing to do with sex. It's to do with not maintaining financial independence. And accepting conntinuing a relationship with a man who will not commit.

It's the bit about having children regardless- marriage is not perfect but it provides a degree of protection.

Tbh I know two women who have children with their partners but unmarried. They are both worried about the future.

I agree that women's liberation has been an own goal in some areas - remember when we woke up and realised that 'having it all' basically means 'doing it all' ??

I didn't secretly engineer anything we had a mishap , condom broke I was on my period. My now DH didn't want to go to the chemist to get the MAP. He said there's no point as I was highly unlikely to get pregnant off period sex he had a point but I was in my early 20s. I wasn't religiously tracking my cycles I know now I have 25-26 day cycles and ovulate earlier than other women.

"Marriage is just a bit of paper" according to my now DH who was desperate to start a family.
I told him in no uncertain terms was I having kids without a wedding certificate. We were already tenants in common.
Lots of MN thread reading while breastfeeding in the wee hours taught me to never consider for a second going part time or an unequal split in childcare responsibilities.

If I'm honest as a result his career has suffered more than mine.
"Why is your wife not looking after sick child"? Was not uncommon.
What do you mean you have to leave (on time) and pick up your child? Where's your wife?
What do you mean you need to check at home first if you can do an overseas trip (we both had frequent travel for work)

MN terrifies me into working my ass off on a FT basis.

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!

Why? That's entirely reasonable in most situations. Women can choose to pursue proper careers and maintain them post-children just as men can. If BOTH parties agree not to have an equal relationship then some legal protection will be required, clearly. But that is a choice. It's up to women not to accept an unequal partnership ideally - in terms of work and responsibilities at home - and if they choose to, to refuse to get into that situation unless the legal protection they need to do so sensibly is in place. Women can say "no".

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?!

Don't you think many men would love to do that, too?

If you want someone else to support your lifestyle choices but choose to put yourself in that situation without any legal protection then surely the consequences are of your own making. Why are we infantilising adults?

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!

Yes, and are then royally screwed in retirement and come here to complain because apparently it's such a shock that they have minimal pension to live on.

Yep

@Justthisonce12

Women’s liberation appears to have done the opposite of liberating us in some aspects of our lives.

Really?

You want to go back to a world where women are encouraged to leave their jobs after marriage and where employers face no sanction in giving a job to a man because he's a man? You want to go back to a world where it's legal for a man to rape his wife? Where few girls graduate university? Where man can be paid twice as much as you for the same job just because? Where women use sex as a bargaining chip to get a rich man over the line?

The fact that a lot of men don't feel compelled to marry the women they have children with is regrettable. But the idea that you solve this by turning the clock back to the early 1970s and making women use themselves as walking honey traps for rich men is laughable.

@Thepeopleversuswork im certain theres some middle ground.

I also think a hell of a lot of men do not want to be fathers.

and indeed, for one reason or another should not be fathers, and if only we could educate our young people to spot the signs in both yourself and others.

I have a 30-year-old colleague who has two beautiful, healthy daughters and would like a vasectomy, the NHS will not sanction it on the basis that he’s too young, and he might change his mind. Can you imagine the reaction an 20-year-old might receive.

I didn't say you'll earn less, I said it's likely that if you hadn't had your daughter, you'd either be on more than £55k or you'd have gotten there much quicker AND it's very probable that your husband still earns more than you.

Nothing like a bit of anecdata, but every person I know who has had an “accidental” pregnancy, it’s been nothing of the sort.

• one friend years later admitted it was deliberate lying about taking the pill
• one decided breastfeeding would protect her, but knew full well that was a risk
• one family member was adamant they were on the pill and much later admitted they’d gone to the GP for the pill during a two week wait when they turned out to already be pregnant
• just plain old taking a risk after a one night stand

There are more. Even just incorrect use has been done in the full knowledge it was incorrect and taking a risk.

No.

Nor do I ever remember seeing that infuriating phrase 'having it all' applied to men.

The expectation of a family and a career is something men have always taken for granted. A work-life balance with both partners working and sharing parenting and domestic labour is hardly an egregious demand.

The phrase is also meaningless. We learn from a very young age that nobody can have absolutely everything they want.

@Justthisonce12

I also think a hell of a lot of men do not want to be fathers.
and indeed, for one reason or another should not be fathers, and if only we could educate our young people to spot the signs in both yourself and others.

I don't disagree with you that a lot of men don't want to be fathers and probably shouldn't. I certainly think a much large proportion of men than we will admit are basically not that interested in marriage and children.

But the logic here is warped; people on this thread (not necessarily you) seem to be arguing that the solution to this is to make sure women use sex as a bargaining chip to get married to wealthy men in order to live off their income.

If so many men are inadequate fathers, the idea that trapping them into marriage and forcing them to provide for women more or less in perpetuity is nonsense. Surely it's far better to educate girls and young women to provide for themselves as far as they possibly can and use marriage (only if its absolutely essential) as an insurance policy for when they can't work. Rather than holding marriage up as the Holy Grail of financial achievement.

That's not consistent with your argument that women's lib hasn't helped women. Surely with shit, feckless and lazy fathers we need more women's lib, not less?

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Nor do I ever remember seeing that infuriating phrase 'having it all' applied to men.
The expectation of a family and a career is something men have always taken for granted. A work-life balance with both partners working and sharing parenting and domestic labour is hardly an egregious demand.
The phrase is also meaningless. We learn from a very young age that nobody can have absolutely everything they want.

Thank you. I loathe this "women can't have it all" narrative. It's just (yet) another way of putting women back in their box.

I didn't say you'll earn less, I said it's likely that if you hadn't had your daughter, you'd either be on more than £55k or you'd have gotten there much quicker AND it's very probable that your husband still earns more than you
No, not really. I actually was offered another promotion but didn't take it. My children were already older teenagers. I just didn't want it.

I wouldn't have progressed quicker without them and no, my husband earns slightly less.

So many assumptions made to justify one's choice. I wanted a career for myself and my financial independence. I also wanted a great relationship with my kids and managed both as have most of my friends and colleagues.

I agree OP. For me it was lack of guidance and I had no idea how motherhood can change your world and it quickly can turn south if you don't have your child/children to a decent man.

I don't think the importance of marriage is pushed enough... I read a thread some time ago and women was upset shouting it's not the vikings time.

Marriage is important though. This trend of having multiple kids to shit fathers needs to stop too!

I learnt the lesson the hard way I stuck to my 1 child! But I would love another.

Admittedly 5x salary is unusual but it isn’t as rare as you might think for women to significantly out earn their partners/husbands. I have several friends in this situation. One met her ‘D’P when she earned six figures and owned a couple of properties. He worked part time and lived in a house share. They married, had DC and he decided he didn’t want to work at all, preferring to focus on a hobby that brought in virtually no income. Fast forward a few years and several affairs (his) later and she wants to divorce him but is worried about losing her assets and also sharing childcare with an utterly irresponsible and useless dad who will be in a position to claim maintenance from her. She now feels marriage was the single worst decision she ever made.

Its not always in a woman’s best interest.

I also agree with a PP that it is frankly depressing that women are encouraged to cajole reluctant partners down the aisle just so they can get protected financially. Many of these men become resentful, cheating husbands and the misery that plays out in these sham marriages is there for all to see on MN’s Relationships board every day. I don’t know if the financial safety net marriage allegedly confers is worth the stress, abuse and humiliation many women go through. Also, many married men manage to manipulate the system to avoid paying maintenance and hide assets etc.

Yes. I don't believe contraception failure is as common as MN insists it is. I think a lot of women have partners who are dragging their feet about commitment, and they think to themselves, "Well, I'm not getting any younger, lying about a few pills isn't a crime, I'm doing him a favour really, he'll love the baby once it's here..."

She now feels marriage was the single worst decision she ever made.

It was the same for me. Worst financial decision I ever made.

MN terrifies me into working my ass off on a FT basis.

Me too. I started reading on here when I was TTC - unmarried and many of the clichés on this thread applied. While I did see the issues of being a SAHM from my own mother with a financially controlling husband, MN was the modern reminder that men really don't change all that much.

So I thought - either I could quit this relationship of 8 years and find someone who would instantly marry me, or stay and ensure that I stayed independent enough to be ok if marriage never happened. I chose the latter.

Now, he's the best hands on dad I know but even so, there was often this assumption that I'd have to sort something out if childcare fell through or take time off for a sick DC so I pushed from day one that we took turns and were equal partners in every respect.

Then marriage actually didn't matter once I was financially stable for myself. That even if he did turn out to be a shithead, I'd be ok with DS if needs be. We did get married eventually - I was the one not bothering to organise a wedding but no, I've not settled into complacency. I'll continue to work FT, progress and continue to get pay rises and ensure that I earn because you just don't know what life might throw at our family and the ability to have a good well paying career that you can negotiate flexibility for home life is really important.

She now feels marriage was the single worst decision she ever made.

Same for me. I would caution my DD against marrying unless she planned to stop working for any length of time (which I wouldn’t advise unless it was essential for reasons of health).

I was lucky not to lose my home as a result of having been married and I would be £70k better off if I hadn’t got divorced.

Marriage is an insurance policy against not working. It shouldn’t be a financial goal in its own right and I can’t see any other reasons to bother with it.