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 ?

@TulaDoesTheHula

Instead of going down this route, we should be teaching women critical thinking skills & giving them the tools & opportunities to be financial independent in their own right.

Yup

Yeah. For all the "I was forced to SACRIFICE MY CAREER!" lamentations, there are quite a few out there who don't like working, don't want to work and are happy to take the risk.

I don't like working and don't want to work either, but at nearly 60 I still do, because I don't want to be at anyone's mercy. Can't imagine what it feels like to be 35, 45, 55 and have the guy walk away with his assets, leaving her impoverished and with the prospect of trying to get into the workforce and work till she drops.

Because women think they should, because they want to, because they're told by the father "oh you stay home it's better if you do it", because other women sneer at mums going out to work, (as well as those that sneer at those staying home ofc), because the man says I earn more, it's not worth you working.... so many reasons

Who is "we" ?

Most of my female relatives, friends and acquaintances got this message. Most of the elder women in my family, born anywhere from 1910 to 1950, made a point of always working and having their own stash of money. Some were lorry drivers, laundresses, cleaners, etc. we aren't talking high-flying careers but they managed to fit in some work because they didn't want to be dependent. If women like my grandmothers, born more than 100 years ago, got the message -- why are young women today failing to realize these simple facts?

There was a thread a while ago, where the man was prepared to go to the registry office and arrange a civil partnership, but wouldn’t get married. At least this gave his partner financial protection but what she really wanted was a wedding. I just don’t understand men at times.

@TulaDoesTheHula I agree

Exactly.

The divorce itself is usually the legally straightforward part. It's the kids and joint property that make things difficult and expensive, particularly if one party decides to be a twat. The reality is that if you have children and/or assets with someone, not marrying them isn't protection against being embroiled in protracted and expensive legal proceedings.

I disagree!if you want the legal protection of marriage...then get married!

'It's just a bit of paper'

Yes, so is your employment contract. You enter employment with great hope on both sides. You love the job, they appreciate your skills and experience. Maybe you stay together for years, maybe you move on to something else. Amicably.

But, my goodness if things go wrong in the relationship you NEED that employment contract. It sets out what you both agreed and expected from the beginning. It provides a basis for negotiation out of the contract.

I know that love and relationships and not in any way the same as applying for a job, but there is some sense in which not getting married ( it's just a bit of paper ) when there is already inequality in a relationship (i.e. he has a career and her career has been diminished) is akin to keeping someone on a zero hours contract where they have fewer rights and are more vulnerable.

@ZeldaWillTellYourFortune

Did they? I mean, my family did. Yours did but on the whole?

Im not so sure. That survey that should a majority of 18 - 34 yos thought mothers shouldn't work was only a few years ago.

I think the sexist conditioning that tells women they shouldn't ever want to leave their kids is much stronger than the keep your independence message

I know that love and relationships and not in any way the same as applying for a job, but there is some sense in which not getting married ( it's just a bit of paper ) when there is already inequality in a relationship (i.e. he has a career and her career has been diminished) is akin to keeping someone on a zero hours contract where they have fewer rights and are more vulnerable.

yes!

There is another side to this conversation…

From a man’s perspective, a 2 year marriage isn’t worth the risk of losing half or more of his estate. When there’s kids involved, it’s even more.

I guess fairness in these financial settlements is a balancing act, but at some point, the risk outweighs the benefit.

So is a 50 pound note...

If there is inequality in your relationship then get married.

Is there anyone who can tell me they got what they felt they deserved from a relationship because their marriage broke down but they had that contract in place?

If there was equality there to begin with then there should be nothing extra to gain from a piece of paper. Unless of course, you are insecure.

If a relationship is breaking down the fact that you are married isn't going to help. If your assets are already split 50/50 then no problem.

As someone who married a man wealthier than me so no snark intended. Some rich men don’t want to get married for precisely those reasons and I think often women believe a baby might make him change his mind.

I have daughters and there is no way they are having a child without a ring (signed piece of paper). And if by some disaster it managed to happen he would be nothing more than a sperm donor in my eyes, and I would do everything in my power to financially ensure that he didn’t benefit in, anyway shape or form from her labour.

Oh the majority of women absolutely do realise but choose to ignore it anyway in favour of love which is what I said in my full post.

That particular paragraph was aimed at the small minority of women who do sleepwalk into a vulnerable situation & genuinely don’t see the precarious situation they are in, basically the small minority the OP wants to change the law for. By “we” I mean schools, society, governments providing training / job opportunities & more childcare options so women can carry on working etc.

My friend was in this situation, but it was her who refused to 'be tied by the bonds of marriage'. However, 2dc & 13yrs later, they split and everything's in his name. She said to me she felt truly bitten in the arse by her earlier reticence & regretted it big time. She was forced to leave with nothing and start over.

@Coffeepot72 "But I was very clear - no wedding, no baby. And I was very diligent with contraception" are you me? 🤣 I was exactly the same with my now-husband. I made it clear too that I'm not faffing around waiting forever, (and he can bloody well wear a condom in the mean time). Some of my friends found this so strange and asked "but don't you want it to be a surprise, don't you want him to come up with the idea himself?" And I just can't understand that view at all.

I wanted just a little legal protection before putting my life and health (and therefore my future earning potential) at risk to have his baby, and made sure I got it. That certainly seemed more important to me than assuming/hoping my partner would pick the perfect moment to propose or whatever.

You sound incredibly patronising and smug. I know women who have compromised in order to have a baby with someone that they have no intention of marrying. I know women who earn more than their partners and don’t want to marry them for financial reasons and I know woman who are dragging their feet because they are not ready to commit(even after having a baby). I have yet to hear any of my friends who split up with their partner saying “oh, if only I had been married to that arsehole”. If you are simply looking at it from a financial point of view, then you shouldn’t have children at all.

My dp wouldn't leave as such, we wouldn't need to negotiate child maintenence because we respect each other. If one decided they wanted out it wouldn't be an ordeal, it would simply be one of us moving out and taking over 50% of duties and payments with regards to ds.

If I had £1 for every woman who goes on Mumsnet desperately seeking help, even though 4 weeks ago she had been sure her partner loved her and respected her and wouldn’t need negotiating with, and in the unlikely event they split up he would move out with no fuss and take on 50% of parenting etc etc …
I’d be sunning myself in Bermuda right now

@Lopilo aren’t women genetically programmed to breed with the best quality of male they can get their hands on. This is what I feel its gone, really badly wrong over the last few years these inferior specimens are going round Impregnating women that are completely out of their league.
Why ? Why is there such desperation on some women’s part to have a baby with literally anyone.

The typical thread on here surrounding this issue tends to go like this ...

DP is probably having an affair.. I am pretty sure but have no proof. I don't know what to do. It's his house. I work very reduced hours since DC1 .. earn 4x less than him. DC2 on the way. he has changed .. shows no interest , out all the time sometimes doesn't come home at night. .. I don't have enough money to move out.

. Married/CP entitlement to a
Share of his pension. As primary cater probably more than 50% of equity ...child maintenance.

Unmarried ; Nothing except CM.. (and fuck all of that if he is self employed or company director on minimum wage and dividends..)

Children still cost the same. The father is still the father. Yet the law does not provide protection for that child's upbringing.

Would it not really be better or fairer for that child's primary carer to be adequately compensated for their upbringing by giving the primary carer the legal right to claim against the other parents assets ?

50% your child .. then 50% your cost ?

I think condom use might go through the roof !

I've gone on about this many times on MN @sofrustratedbylackofknowledge. The thing that saved me when I got divorced after 20 years was the fact I was married. I'd have been well and truly up shit creek without that legal protection which recognised that being a SAHM was an equal contribution to the big man job.

My dad was a feminist because he badgered me to go to uni and get qualifications so that I could have options. He always to told me to set up my career first and then settle and have children. He always said marriage first and then kids & after reading the posts on here I now understand why.

There was a post on here a few months ago where the op was pregnant but didn't want the commitment of marriage. I was like 'wtf, kids are more of a commitment than marriage'. You can leave a childless marriage & never see your ex again, not the same if you have kids with someone. Why are so many women prepared to have kids outside marriage, they're scoring an own goal there.

Plus, many people settle & move in together too early on in the relationship. We should be encouraging our children, especially our girls, that waiting and living apart while dating is an excellent survival technique.

married. Legal implications of cohabitation