Apparently I'm "old fashioned and anti-feminist"

[MVDC]

Because I told my friend who's thinking about TTC that she should seriously consider getting married first, even if it's just a register office job.

Apparently that makes me puritanical and woman shaming. Have directed her to the 4 threads I've read so far this morning where women had kids unmarried and are now getting completely screwed by their partners as the relationship breaks down.

I'm really, really angry. Not so much at my friend as at society who's convinced women that "cool girls don't need marriage" and I'm just... My coffee isn't Irish enough.

Just to add, if there hadn’t been a spouse, there’d have been no payment.

You are an outlier though.

Look at all the tales of woe here on this site of women who are in LTR, with kids, no job or low earning power, feeling trapped, financially abused, unable to leave DV situations, careers dead in the water, etc. because they became stay-home carers with no legal rights to their homes or what they assumed were joint assets.

Or civil partnershiped.

Good grief. What a straw man argument. No-one has said that women should get married 'so that a man can support them and financially provide for them' ffs. Stop having right-on arguments with your own imaginings.

You need to get intelligent instead of 'woke'. Marriage is there to legally protect the children and their major caregiver in the event that they CANNOT support themselves.

@Haffiana i think you are mixing marriage and benefits up

Why do the cliches always get rolled out about single parents on threads like these? The majority work and some - shock horror- are higher rate tax payers.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7334313/amp/I-never-felt-marriage-important-day-Paolo-died.html

I’ve posted this before but it shows the additional hassles that an unmarried bereaved woman had. Bereavement support allowance ‘widows benefit’ still isn’t payable to unmarried partners.

Mil was frozen out when her partner she lived with was ill in hospital and his children were nok. How do you counter she’s just a friend? It was made worse by Covid restrictions on number of visitors. A marriage certificate would definitely have got her more time with him at end of his life. They also didn’t involve her in funeral arrangements.

I’ve also seen many scenarios through work - wife inheriting pension and death in service (separated when young never divorced) partner of 20 yrs and children getting nothing. People often don’t get around to life paperwork eg nominating death in service.

The point of marriage is more agreeing to lean on each other as needed, and to have legally binding financial security in the event one of you is disabled, dies or fucks off.

Unfortunately, marriage is not a guarantee of legally binding financial security. Many women end up far from financially secure after a divorce.

While marriage is generally a good thing, it does not automatically give a woman financial security. There is no question that it is certainly beneficial in the event of death and it is particularly useful if the ex-husband-to-be is well off. However, many women overestimate their financial security in the event of a divorce.

Women who give up work or financial independence to raise children usually end up stuffed by divorce. In the region of 40% of divorced women end up in poverty.

I was told I was "anti-feminist" for having a joint account with my husband.
I currently earn a little bit more than him but not massively.

The person who called me anti-feminist (for "relying on a man" apparently) earns significantly less than her husband yet pays 50:50 of everything and therefore has very little spare cash while he has plenty. Not really sure how that's fair or feminist.

(I understand that some people like to keep money separate but in that case I think people should contribute proportional to income)

The higher earner can be a woman - woman are capable of earning money.

I don't know your personal situation but the YOU NEED A MAN, YOU NEED MARRIAGE message to young women is harmful. And especially when it if from the perspective that it is the man's wallet and income that the woman needs.
The idea that you call a straw man argument is voiced on this very board day in and day out. He should be supporting you, he should be paying your bills, his money is your money, etc. The same is not said of women towards men. It is not a sex or gender role neutral position. As much as we should expect men to be actively involved in childcare and domestic work, we should also expect women to be actively involved in financially supporting their children and families.

It is the stereotyped and traditional gender roles that are harmful to continually perpetuate. Throwing out the word straw man to try and invalidate someone's view doesn't really have any meaning. Read the threads on here, the traditionally held views are currently still a majority held view. When a man is expecting a child - the advice is to get out and get a job and support the family - not to find and marry a high earning woman to pay for everything. Both parts of that sentence are based on traditionally held views.

I think people think if they have been in a relationship of x long they have rights which they don't. Was reading a story in the local paper this morning where couple been together for 17 years, 4 kids but not married. Male partner died of cancer and had bought the house with a family member who now wants the house so is evicting the female partner and the kids because they weren't married and she has no right to it.

If he won't marry you that is a red flag IMO.

Another straw man. Another complete misreading in order to support some imaginary stereotype blah gender blah argument that only exists in your own head.

I specifically said Marriage is there to legally protect the children and their major caregiver in the event that they CANNOT support themselves.

"Major Caregiver" not 'man'. Marriage protects the one who is not earning whether that is a man or a woman. Whoever it is that might have to give up earning their own money because they need to care for children. Yes, that is usually a woman but by no means in all cases. Marriage also protects a man if he is the major caregiver and the woman is the major earner/property owner etc etc.

Do remember that wills and nominees for insurance and pensions can all be changed at the stroke of a pen. A wife is significantly more likely than a flatmate to be able to contest will, establish claim on payouts. Because without marriage or CP that's what you are, flatmates.

And value of pension would be taken into account in financial settlement on divorce. Not if unmarried.

The same is not said of women towards men.

It is. You are incorrect to say that it is not.

@meditrina I do know that.
And it works both ways.
We are financially equal.
I'm here because I want to be and not because I need to be and vice Versa.
If it ended tomorrow then everything would be split 50/50. We would change who receives insurance and pension and both be on our way.
No fighting over stuff.

This is a good point. A friend's husband died right before Christmas last year, on a business trip, in his hotel room. Of a stroke at age 50 -- and he didn't have any risk factors or known issues. Was planning to take the kids to select the Christmas tree the next day. Instead he died leaving a wife and two pre-teen kids.

Thankfully he had just barely had enough years of service in to qualify for a salary-based pension, which his wife will collect, and because he was deemed to be 'on the job' when he died there was some added benefit to the life insurance, which again was only payable to a spouse.

She and the kids would be in the poorhouse with that. There is no way a "partner" of 20 years would have received a dime.

@ZeldaWillTellYourFortune then they should of had named insurance.
Make financial watertight decisions based on circumstances not on marital status

Lots don’t though. Usually the ones most in need of £3500 lump sum and £350 a month bereavement support ‘widow’s’ allowance.
Lots of unmarried people don’t get around to nominating death in service/pension either.

In this case, it would be whiskey, not whisky.

Yes.

If people did what they should, many fewer people would fall foul of this issue. Back in the real world, people don't and lots of them couldn't whether they wanted to or not.

Judging by the posts whenever this topic comes up, there seem to be a good number of unmarried, well informed and well provisioned women on MN. The demographic on here is such that most or all of them are probably telling the truth. However, those things are inaccessible to a lot of women, including OPs friend by the sounds of other things. You need money to spend on insurance in the first place to get an insurance payout.

*This is a good point. A friend's husband died right before Christmas last year, on a business trip, in his hotel room. Of a stroke at age 50 -- and he didn't have any risk factors or known issues. Was planning to take the kids to select the Christmas tree the next day. Instead he died leaving a wife and two pre-teen kids.

Thankfully he had just barely had enough years of service in to qualify for a salary-based pension, which his wife will collect, and because he was deemed to be 'on the job' when he died there was some added benefit to the life insurance, which again was only payable to a spouse.

She and the kids would be in the poorhouse with that. There is no way a "partner" of 20 years would have received a dime.*

sighs

If I drop dead tomorrow, my 'partner of 31 years' will get the mortgage paid off; two years' worth of my salary as a lump sum, and a percentage of my pension. Not through magic; because we have thought about this shit.

Marriage can indeed simplify SOME stuff, especially for the lower earner. But it can also cause problems, and it certainly isn't a magic bullet for every woman everywhere. It genuinely is infantilising, not to mention rolling over for the patriarchy, to pretend it's the wise default.

The idea that marriage is always the wise default whatever the circumstances is much more often disputed than actually advocated, though. There really aren't a lot of people on MN who think it's always and inevitably a good idea, and the few times I've seen that view stated it's been corrected quickly.

@SirMingeALot this is why you need to be earning your own money.
I've worked some god awful shit jobs but I needed to earn money.

That doesn't address anything that I wrote.

My reading of this thread suggests otherwise, tbh. Overwhelming vibe of 'why wouldn't you though?'