Child out of wedlock / illegitimate - does it still matter

[Bananabreadandstrawberries]

Does it still matter in any way whether your child was born within a marriage or not? Is there any stigma to being an ‘unwed mother’ or ‘illegitimate child’ (apologies no offence intended). Do you view people differently before of this status? Are there any practical implications?

For those of you who feel it doesn’t matter, would you still prefer your own daughter were married before having children?

I ask as I feel despite most people not minding this about other people, the couples ‘doing better’ in life still tend to marry before having children. I am not sure

AIBU that legitimacy doesn’t matter anymore?
YES = Makes a difference (even though it’s not PC to say so)
NO = Makes no difference about being married before children.

I'm a midwife so see more than my fair share of pregnancies and I couldn't care a tiny jot whether someone is married or not.

So ridiculously sexist. I was the higher earner in my relationship and had more security by not being married. It’s so depressing that women (actually women) trot this crap out all the time on mumsnet. You are not necessarily more secure financially by being financially bound to a man. It’s not the 1800s any more.

Marriage foundation? Doesn’t sound biased at all 🤣. Twice as many unmarried women reported the use of force than married women? Could simply be that married women are less likely to report , not that it isn’t happening. I won’t be taking these statements at face value.

But why would they be snotty?

Not quite sure why it's anyone else's business, though? My unmarried daughter couldn't really give a toss what anyone else thinks, and especially if it's on religious grounds.

Look at the bigger picture though. Who is more likely to limit their career and earning once children are born. Rarely the man. That is why the woman is more likely to need to legal security of marriage before having children.

@SueVineer good for you. The fact remains that maternity leave and the ensuing hit to salary is almost always taken by the mother. It would be fantastic if this were Sweden, but it’s not. This leaves women in a vulnerable position with a young baby and potentially no right to shared assets.

The gender pay gap remains at 8.3% nationally. Shared parental leave has an uptake of less than 8% in the UK. The ONS survey in 2022 found that women do nearly twice the unpaid childcare and housework whilst statistically earning less. Do I like it? No. Is it a fact? Yes.

Facts are facts, and it’s not sexist to point that out. I would LOVE it if this was not the case, but just because it’s not the case for you doesn’t stop it being the case for the statistical majority of British women.

Tone deaf and smug. Your situation is the exception rather than the rule. For the vast majority of women marriage provides greater security.

In my culture it’s against social norms to have premarital sex and have babies before marriage. So yes there’s a huge stigma for us, even within the UK

We are assuming that most people realise there will be exceptions. But at a class level, more women are protected by marriage than not. Of all the reasons not to do it, "they did it in Victorian times" is really the daftest.

In 1971, a couple a few years older than me had a baby out of wedlock.

They were very popular kids, and I never heard a bad word spoken about them.

The girl had her baby and came back to school and finished her education and graduated. He did too.

They’ve been happily married for over 50 years and are one of the most beloved families in my former community. They’re active in their church.

Does it matter? Only to smug & holier-than-thou folks I imagine. The same sort of folks who want to tell me what I should be doing with my personal choices over my body, I suspect.

I think the marriage protects the legal rights of the adults and probably therefore the legal rights of the children if one of the parents leaves or dies. If they remain with the other parent whose rights are protected through marriage this could benefit them. For instance if they remain with their mother and the house is a marital asset.

I don't think anybody else cares if a child's parents are married or in long term relationships or separated. Most people wouldn't even be interested enough to find out the marital status of a child's parents.

Thankfully no. No difference, no stigma. Times have changed so much in so few decades.

@PaigeMatthews

Look at the bigger picture though. Who is more likely to limit their career and earning once children are born. Rarely the man. That is why the woman is more likely to need to legal security of marriage before having children.

Of course because we live in a patriarchal society where the default in most partnerships is that the man will become the breadwinner while the woman becomes the primary cater.

But there’s nothing innate or biological about this, it’s the way society has been organised.

I totally understand that in cases where a woman stops work for a period of time to care for children marriage is a sensible insurance policy. But the protection is linked to the fact that the man is still working and earning and contractually required to share the output of this in the event of a split, there’s nothing intrinsic to marriage in itself that provides this protection.

If you reverse the position the same logic applies, ie that a non working man should be entitled to half of the assets of a working woman. The major problem here, of course, is that a very small handful of men actually do equal domestic and child related work as women when they don’t work so it’s not parity. A non working woman thus needs and deserves the insurance more than a non working man and plenty of non working men exploit women’s greater earning power these days by getting married to a working woman and demanding access to the output.

A far fairer and safer alternative in my view is for both spouses to be responsible for their own finances by working. In the long run it’s a far more effective way to safeguard your financial future and reduces the risk of exploitation and dependency.

So yes obviously marriage is a useful tactical tool when you’re in a weak position but it’s no substitute for having your own resources. I do wish we would stop over-emphasising its usefulness as I feel that this entrenches the idea that relying on a spouse for money is the best and most natural solution. It should really only be an emergency backstop.

I can count on one hand how many people I know who had their children in wedlock. In fact I don’t have any friends who had any children in wedlock, a couple went on to marry after. I fully intended to marry my ex, even booked the wedding but covid meant we had to cancel - thank goodness in hindsight. Marriage may have sociological benefits for children but not for women. I will probably never get married now, the thought terrifies me, but I won’t have more children either. Hopefully having two parents who can love them and can pay the bills will all the influence our kids need to be well rounded adults.

It doesn't matter in any legal sense or any social sense among people who are under 60 or so.

BUT I have encountered older people who have said 'is so and illegitimate' whereas I've never thought about it. I have a friend who is 68 and they were a bit concerned about their grandchild being born outside marriage. So it's naive to think there aren't some older people about who don't consider it. But hopefully these views will die out eventually.

It matters and always will matter to bigoted judgemental close minded people. To everyone else, no.

Even the name illegitimate castes stigma on an innocent child who had zero control over their creation and birth. Illegitimate means something a human being doesn't have validity Vile.

I’d also add that I grew up in a very insular community. I was born in wedlock (just 🤣) but when my mother divorced and returned to our community many people refused to talk to her or still referred to her by her married name. I think she would have been treated better if she’d just had a child out of wedlock to be honest. I think that would have been treated with more ‘pity’.

I was never called names but there were definitely times as a very young child where I was treated differently by some adults. I even got hauled in front of the head for talking negatively about my father - the same man who’d caused me to need therapy aged 4. Apparently it was upsetting for the other children and their not-messed-up family situation.

And the term wedlock = a trap that women endure just to appease men to keep them under lock and key.

I agree. Regardless of the finer points of what legal/financial/moral protections being married might give you, anyone who describes a human being as “illegitimate” is beneath contempt.

This language is as disgusting in its own way as racist or homophobic language and needs to be called out as such.

For pearl clutches and people who hide behind religion to judge sure it matters to normal people no it doesn't

I'd strongly advise my daughter to get married before having children; it's a basic test of whether the guy has even the tiniest level of commitment, and it usually leaves the woman much better off in the event of a split.

I've spent my adult life mostly outside the UK (since about 2000) and live in a country where people rarely have children outside married. One big culture shock for me when coming back to the UK is the normality of having kids without being married. To me, it's like getting dressed by putting your shirt on first and then putting your bra on on top of that - like, uh, you realize that's the wrong order?

Haven't read whole thread so apologies if this has been added
In Ireland the stigma was very heavy until I'd say 90s at least. My sister has her 1st 2 in 89/90 before marriage and my mother gave her a hard time.
I had mine 2000 in my 30a and nothing was said.

Having said that in 1987, after many years of campaigning, the Status of Children Act finally abolished the status of illegitimacy. The purpose of the Bill was to equalise the rights under the law of all children, whether born within or outside of marriage.
I would presume it's the same in England but you would have to check that out.

I meant to say that was in Ireland

I don’t care if other people are married or not so no don’t judge them. I don’t know anyone from my background who has had a child out of wedlock. Tbh though I wouldn’t be keen on DD having kids outside of marriage. It’s the legal protection aspect, I’m an atheist so it’s not about my religious background or morality etc.