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.

If someone would be financially vulnerable as a result of having a baby eg working part time, giving up work, relying on their partner's wage then hell yes they should get married before conceiving!

Either stay financially independent or enter into a contract that at least gives you some rights and entitlements in case things go tits up.

It's foolish to let your heart lead your head on this.

Couples that aren’t married don’t own their assets jointly. Because on the whole women’s careers take more of a back seat after they have children, and sometimes even more so after they separate, having children outside marriage generally financially benefit women and children.

Of course sometimes the male partner might be disadvantaged, but that’s far less common.

the issue for me is that as long as women think that getting married is the way to financial security (as many do on mn) we will never be rid of the patriarchy. If marrying well continues to be a career path for many influential women, then the issues of gender pay gap, disproportionate amount of work in home for women, women giving up careers for children and so on will continue. seeing marriage as the only way to achieve financial stability for women is deeply sexist

What the fuck? So you think all women who get pregnant without being married are not very bright or are secretly devastated because their partners won't marry them?
No, @rickandmorts - I think this specific woman, who asked OP for her opinion, then reacted in such an extraordinarily aggressive & deranged way with her "puritanical and woman shaming" attack, must have been feeling extremely defensive. Seems like OP accidentally hit a nerve. Or that her friend is - yes - a bit thick.

I'm a week off giving birth and not married, entirely my choice. I don't want to get married. I see threads on MN weekly about how silly and foolish unmarried women are to have kids with their partners and it gets boring. And yes, I find it anti-feminist. It's just another stick to beat women with.
Sure, wanting to see your friend have the financial & legal protection of marriage if she becomes a SAHM or lower earner or loses out career wise due to maternity breaks is anti-feminist ...

Congratulations on your pregnancy, & I hope you have as smooth & trouble-free birth as possible.

@SueVineer see all my other posts for the long list of rights and responsibilities you obtain through marriage, or check out the link below. It’s not all about money. Some can be replicated by other legal means but that takes a lot of effort - if a friend was very much anti marriage but wanting a baby with a partner (can be a valid choice to have a baby without a partner- different set of legal challenges to face then) I would advise them to see a lawyer asap to replicate as many of the legal benefits as possible

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Happened in my circle too....

It wouldn’t but your financial position is unusual.

Couples that are married don’t own their assets jointly although they may have a claim on some or all of the other partners assets on divorce. But they don’t own them jointly necessarily.

a significant number of women out earn men - about a quarter. Also it’s giving up their job and spending a disproportionate amount of time on unpaid childcare that disadvantages women - not being unmarried.

not all married people have children anyway.

“should seriously consider getting married first”! This is very unreasonable!

Its a personal choice and people generally know that marriage is a contract that affords some protection in certain situations. That’s a choice she can make and you telling her she SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER anything is offensive and rude! Mind your own business.

@Qazwsxefv our child has my DP, who is the father on the birth certificate. As I said were still renting atm so will sort that if we do buy a house together otherwise I'd be at a disadvantage considering my earnings and savings. I would prefer my parents arranged my funeral anyway. My pensions are good! Several years private company and Several years paying a lot into NHS pension.

seeing marriage as the only way to achieve financial stability for women is deeply sexist

Good job I didn't say that then, isn't it? without marriage I'd have been very much the poor partner (and homeless). As it was we had an amicable as possible 50/50 split.

Here too.
Two of my relatives in their 50s quickly got married to their long term partners after a family friend became critically ill and their partner was completely sidelined and next of kin was the parents. A lot of shit happened and it was hellish.

They realised the actual benefit of marriage and both just went and did it and didn't even tell anyone until after.

YANBU and you’re not wrong but if she wants to fuck up her own life that’s her choice to make.

Thanks but that’s a list of differences between married and unmarried people not benefits of marriage.

There isn’t any “replication” of “benefits” of marriage because marriage may or may not benefit people. I didn’t marry my ex because I wanted m assets to go to my daughters not him. There was no benefit to me in marrying him at all.

There are some minor tax benefits of being married but for me they are not worth it as I wanted to leave my estate to my children anyway. So it wouldn’t outweigh giving my ex the right to take half my assets. As I’ve noted marriage doesn’t give you a right to make medical decisions for someone- it’s a myth that it does.

How is having a child without being married “fucking up her life”? We know nothing of her circumstances! What a sexist thing to say.

Marriage only benefits the poorer spouse. It's anti-feminist to assume that's got to be the woman

in a lifelong commitment - which is what we believe marriage to be - who the ‘poorer spouse’ is can change many times over. When healthy and without children, re-gaining independence is not too difficult. It is a different issue when your child doesn’t sleep at night, you are battling cancer, or you are left with life limiting injuries after a car accident. Marriage is a legal partnership, a commitment on a ‘for better or worse’ basis. Just because you’re the poorer partner today doesn’t mean that will always be the case. It is naive to assume you will always be in the same position - healthy, able to work, without caring responsibilities - and in this regard, marriage is something that protects over a lifetime.

My friend had a similar viewpoint, it's fine if you don't want kids, only she did. She had a nightmare birth with her second, which resulted in debilitating birth injuries and her child is severely disabled. She ended up having to give up career to care for her child and her OH is wanting out, forcing the house sale and the whole situation is a bit shit.

My parents married after 35yrs of living together, it wasn't a romantic decision but a financial one, so there must be something in it.

So you mean iht exemption? I can’t think of any others unless you have an unusual pension scheme that has spousal benefits that don’t go to unmarried partners

In the UK marriage offers protection.

It doesn't everywhere.

Women should know the difference in the protection for them and their children if they are married vs not - and it does sometimes feel like a societal decision to keep this knowledge hidden.

She was asked for her opinion. She gave it. How is that rude?

Did you want her to reply ‘ ooo whatever you say , dear?’ Very feminist.

I imagine it was more from a medical perspective, a partner has no decision making powers but spouses do.

People can share their assets fine without being married. The difference with marriage is that you have a right to make a claim on the other person’s assets when you break up.

I can only tell you what I was told.
Person was hospitalised. Condition critical. Possible death. If survived likely very disabled. Person's parents were making all sorts of demands and plans. Partner treated atrociously and constantly told they weren't married so fuck off, basically. Hospital much more on side of and listening to parents than partner.

It was absolutely horrible for the partner and they felt utterly powerless.

That is what happened.

That’s not true at all. A complete myth. If you want medical decision making power you need a poa married or not.

marriage in later life can also leave children disinherited.

Unlike France , for example, there is no legal obligation in the Uk to leave anything to your spouse. The spouse will inherit automatically only if the deceased dies intestate.

If you wish to leave all your money to the fabled cats home, you can ( although the spouse might be successful in legally challenging such a will).