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.

Thanks for responding. Foreign recognition is a good point.

It is. And more guesswork here, but I suspect the demographic who are informed about and give serious consideration to both options probably travel more than the average and would have more ability to work abroad if wished.

YANBU.

And for those of you that disagree and keep giving examples of "what if's" - that's probably why, as OP stated in her opening sentence: she should seriously consider getting married first. Emphasis mine.

SERIOUSLY CONSIDER. She didn't just leap in with a "you're thick if you don't get married" for goodness sake

Apparently ‘deadbed’ marriage is up 11% I’d imagine it’s mainly done for tax reasons and to ensure partner left behind has as smooth ride as possible dealing with bureaucracy.
Perhaps high profile examples like Ken Dodd and Alan Rickman are behind increase too.

A very strange view of marriage based on money.

So if a women earns more then don’t get married but if your a sahm then get married? Sounds very grabby to me and misandrist?

Grabby? That's what you have taken from this quite interesting and informative three hundred post thread?

With respect I think you’re being naive. What if you want or need to take more maternity leave, what if your circumstances change dramatically over the next 10 years. You lose your job, become disabled. Your child is disabled.

The cowardly op hasn’t returned. What a shock.

Sounds very grabby to me and misandrist?

Are men able to have babies, yet?

Bit mean.

if your friend is in the weaker financial position now, will have to fund her own maternity leave, may put herself at a financial disadvantage by being a SAHM then you're not wrong she should be married.

However. If she is in the stronger financial position of the two and can easily afford ML and will go back to work (unless independently wealthy) then marriage is not an advantage.

She should make the decision that strengthens her position not weakens it.

Well there you have it.
I've always been very practical and see marriage as a legal protection...but if I announced that I was thinking of having a baby to my friend and that was their first reaction rather than "oh my gosh how exciting!" And maybe whether or not they could see me as a mother...yeah I'd be a bit pissed off too....

Eh, I've posted multiple times, and answered the main questions - opinion is split, I've learnt what I needed to, and I have no interest is engaging with the pile on! Not cowardly, just busy.

But marriage evolved to protect women from the effects of men’s infidelity and fecklessness from a time when it was virtually impossible for women to work. And to guarantee the man’s bloodline.

Neither of these is relavant to me as I am financially independent and not going to have any more children. So while I understand that marriage is a very useful tool for women who are disadvantaged financially I don’t feel the need to respect any of the woo elements of marriage (romance and all that). They were always at best just window dressing on a financial contract.

And I certainly don’t feel any obligation to provide financial protection to an able bodied man.

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.

But let's be honest (we've had the stats about later in life marriages after years of cohabiting etc, and CP at 65+): most people don't make any plans for the future or bad things happening, especially if they (as OPs friend does) have no assets and earns NMW. They don't see the point.

I'm a pragmatic feminist. I married when i did because of death in service and other benefits specific to our jobs at the time (both military). It made a lot of things much much easier without us having to think about them at all.

YANBU, seen it much too often on mumsnet women left trapped and vulnerable. Of course there are many women out there who this doesn’t apply to but it affects enough women that it’s important to talk about the consequences.

I can believe it, often the very smart choice in those circumstances. It's a risky option to wait, because you don't necessarily get reasonable advance warning that your end is near. People die suddenly all the time. But for couples who through age or health have good reason to expect to be in that position sooner rather than later, it makes sense.

It depends how it is done, a leaflet that states what may happen if your baby is born ill could include this information along with other information.

Having never been pregnant I don't know what or if anything is discussed about what could happen post birth.

Marriage should be about compatibility, end of. If the man is of the attitude that his role is to be the main earner and the woman's role is to prioritise the children and the home, then that's perfect.

If however both are of the attitude that they are equal all around and everything should be shared, then marriage becomes more of a romantic nature, or both can be happy never to marry.

I was brought up by a single professional woman as was my OH. Both were raised believing that women and men are equal in their role. We married because we like the notion of a legal union, but we are both financially independent. We are compatible and it's working well.

Why do you think civil partnership isn’t more popular for opposite sex couples. I understand that for many marriage carries negative connotations and people don’t want to marry. But we have a mechanism to officially recognise partners but people aren’t using it.

Because the percentage of couples who care about the negative connotations of marriage are minuscule. When straight couples are unmarried, it's almost always because the higher earner (generally the man) doesn't want to risk sharing their assets. Look around MN: how many threads are there about women being pressured into marriage by their partners? Virtually none. How many are there from women wondering why their partner doesn't want to marry them? Truckloads.

@ZoeCM

Because the percentage of couples who care about the negative connotations of marriage are minuscule

That’s historically true but is changing I think. Historically women pressured men to marry them because it’s what everyone was expected to do for social reasons but benefitted from the protection it gave them. Men never gave a shit really.

Marriage benefitted the majority of women so one could overlook the unpleasant patriarchal connotations because it was a net positive.

As women are more likely to be (proportionately) wealthier or as wealthy as their husbands they don’t need it as much. All the old fashioned rhetoric, the religious overlay and naff culture of marriage and weddings starts to look like even more of a throwback to a bygone age and more women are questioning it.

I for one think this is a good thing. Marriage benefits some women hugely but it remains a patriarchal institution. The quicker we get to a point where most women don’t need it, the better.

I was definitely surprised by the age for civil partnership - average age late 50s, 29% 65 + when I looked up stats but it absolutely makes a lot of sense. Couples viewing it as paperwork probably done at same time as will, power of attorney. It definitely doesn’t carry the baggage of marriage - how could you get remarried, why didn’t you invite us etc. Just a ‘piece of paper’ that potentially makes surviving partners life a lot easier when dealing with govt depts, banks and pension companies etc. Plus potentially saves a lot in tax. You wouldn’t even need to tell adult children.

Men never gave a shit really.

Mine cared a lot more than I did. I wouldn’t have bothered. I really don’t see the difference between marriage and civil partnership, the latter seems completely pointless and should have been removed when same sex marriage was legalised. A lot of gay couples in civic partnerships are getting married now.

Just another point for the 'Marriage is the easiest way to protect yourself as a woman!' crew: my friend is divorced. The house was not in her name. Subsequent to the divorce, her former husband has declared himself bankrupt. She's now spending a fortune on solicitors and likely won't see a penny from the house sale, because the bankrupcy trumps the divorce.
Sometimes, doing it the 'complicated' way is worth it.

So her partner does have assets and/or a good salary? If not what’s the point of her getting married?