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 she thinks marriage is anti feminist would she consider a civil partnership?

As per my previous post, it's not true that 'you can distribute pensions/lump sums how you like'.

For lump sums you can tell the pension trustees how you would like them to be distributed (but they don't have to follow your wishes). Defined benefit pensions in payment (or a percentage) will only continue to be paid to a spouse or civil partner if one exists. If not, they will cease to be paid to anyone on the death of the pensioner.

There are fewer defined benefit pensions available to new joiners so this will not be relevant for younger people.

It's important to understand the implications of marriage on your OWN circumstances

It's important not to just consider your circumstances now but think about when you are 60+ years old. You may not wish to get married when you are younger but it's important to keep this under review as your circumstances change.

A number of PPs have noted the phenomenon of people aged 50+ deciding to marry after many years together.

One thing we only understood about the IHT situation when we spoke to a solicitor to do our wills was that if we allowed each other to continue living in our jointly owned house after the death of the first partner in a non-legal couple, then the whole house becomes part of the estate of the second partner to die and, in our case, subject to IHT. The only option to avoid this was to get married or form a civil partnership.

Its fine to have an opinion on whats the safest option for people legally, but I dont blame your friend for getting annoyed. There have been MANY decisions my friends have made that I personally wouldnt have chosen for myself as I can see it not being beneficial in the future. That said, I dont batter them with it or castigate them for it because ITS THEIR LIFE and their choice. I would bin off a friend who constantly told me what I should and shouldnt be doing with my life because they are meant to be my friend, not my mother and that kind of over protective helicoptering would annoy the fck out of me- its infantilising and patronising.

Had a very similar conversation with a work friend last week. She’s much younger than me (early 20s) has been with her BF only a year, lives in his house. They are planning on having a baby, she is going to give up work. When I asked had she thought about marriage, she was horrified….apparently that’s far too much of a commitment - but a baby isn’t? When I pointed out that she didn’t have many rights to the property etc if they weren’t married and he decided to leave her, her response was “he’d never do that”. Her mother also thinks it’s a wonderful idea. I despair……

Does your "friend" also "despair" of your life choices? I'm wondering how much leeway you give her to comment on your lifestyle and make criticisms and remarks about how you live your life?

Have you read OP’s update? Friend said ‘we’re thinking of ttc, what do you think?’ OP gave an honest answer. If it’s infantilising to answer the question then it’s equally infantile to ask and then kick off when you don’t like the answer.

It is a kind of lack of intelligence tax really. Unfortunately it is mostly paid by the children of the unintelligent rather than the woman herself.

@TurkishClouds thanks for clarifying that

@TurkishClouds Internet cut me off, I was about to say everything you said makes it even more important to check wills, pensions and insurance, status of bank accounts, loans, whether you are married or not. Losing my husband was terrible, but much easier to prove who I was and do life admin with marriage certificate.

No, she said "what do you think"- presumably about the idea of a baby, she didnt ask for an opinion on getting married first so you are wrong, its very infantilising

Well I the highest earner shouldnt get married than I guess that means no one should?

I always thought that the point of marriage was to build mutual financial security on the basis that no one knows what life may throw at them. I guess that's old fashioned then?

Absolutely this.

@Fizzywaterbubbles but the ideas are interlinked. Otherwise what exactly was the OP supposed to be thinking about?

shouldn’t the solution be for them to be better protected under the law than for them to have to get married

Marriage or civil partnership IS precisely the legal protection available. Of course the law won't offer you additional protection (beyond child maintenance and your share in legally jointly owned property) if you choose not to opt in.

I appreciate that some people want to reject marriage because of its patriarchal/feudal connotations but now civil partnership is available to all as an alternative which I think is brilliant.

I have a friend who grumps about not being entitled to IHT benefits etc because she isn't married/civil partnered. She says it's unfair that the law doesn't reflect that they are in love. I've tried to politely explain that love is subjective and would be impossible to assess in order to consider if it qualifies for equal legal rights. You could be in love one day and fall out of love the next, or your partner could, or you could live your partner but your partner lives someone else ... I've suggested civil partnership - she thinks marriage is unfeminist - but she still thinks it's unfair so I try to avoid the subject now!

This thread reminded me the BBC Radio 4 personal finance programme 'Money Box' this coming Wednesday is answering questions about cohabiting and finance.

It's at 3pm, Wednesday 30 November.

I know at least 6 couples that have quietly married in their mid 40s to mid 50s after 15-20 years of cohabitation.

I suppose it’s partly due to increased understanding of mortality (we tend to feel invincible when young!) and not wanting your long term life partner to have to pay inheritance tax?

You aren't your partner's legal next of kin for one. If he's hospitalised then his parents will be making the decisions on any treatment and on-going care if he isn't able to. They could even stop you visiting him and if the worst happens you'll have no legal say in any funeral arrangements.

You may not benefit from any life assurance or benefits from his employer either.

I've seen both of the above happen more than once.

I hope for your sake you both have decent wills in place at least.

I'm assuming it's legally protected then

I think as a friend you were right to share your views.

This is site is full of threads from women who are left with nothing after a spilt or who can't leave an abusive partner because they have no career/money of their own after spending years caring for children and sometimes have no rights to the family home because it is solely in the man's name.

If I was your friend I would have thanked you for your concerns and then said that marriage was not important to me. There was no reason for her to get that defensive and angry.

I find it odd when people can only be friends with those who never have different views or opinions. It is rather boring to be surrounded by ''yes men and women'' all the time...

If I had a daughter I would advise her to never rely on a man for an income/roof over her head and that marriage can bring additional security not just for the wife but also for the children.

It is just common sense to me.

Friend: Jamie and I are thinking of trying for a baby. What do you think?
OP: How lovely. Might be an idea to get married first.

Folks, the above is an example of an INFANTILISING CASTIGATION. I do hope you are all taking notes.

Well hopefully reading a few threads on here will at least inform your friend OP, and then she can make a decision from a position of knowledge.

Even if the man makes a will, there's nothing to stop him making a newer one the following week without the knowledge of his DP and that one being the newest and therefore the relevant will in the event of his death.

Unless your friend is loaded, she could well end up in a very difficult situation if not married but at least you know where you stand with her now.

Number 1 priority is to have a career and earn your own money. This protects you in all scenarios.
Number 2 priority is to get married which legally protects both parties.
Doing both makes you much better prepared in the case of spousal death, separation etc...

In 10 years time, you might have 4 kids and be working part time, as childcare for 4 kids is too expensive....or you could have a disability which means you cant work full time. So your salary is low (or nil), and your pension has turned to shit. Meanwhile, your partner has been climbing the ladder at work, earns 3x what you do and has a nice pension. He then decides that Sharon from work is nicer than you and decides he's going to move in to her house, leaving you with bills you can't pay and no tidy way to divide up the assets and pensions. Then what?

even if it's just a register office job.