13 years, mortgage, 2 kids... No proposal!?

[Faith27]

Hi, super new here, just after some advice..
Been with my partner 13 years in April. We have 2 wonderful children. It's never been a secret that I want to get married. He's always said he'd "never say never" or "yh one day* ..
3 years ago a random, chilled, no pressure, marriage discussion happened. The end response from him... "I don't want to get married, I don't see the point in it!" ... Would anyone else be furious??? :(
We are off to Paris for our 13 years together anniversary in April.. which I planned! He never says he loves me first, never a cuddle or a kiss unless I get one from him myself. But he can be kind and makes me a cup of tea every morning and helps with chores, he pays all the bills. But he's the most unromantic person ever! :( he says he's happy when I've asked. I Just feel lost and lonely and wish for the ultimate romantic gesture from him. What would you do?.
Will he ever propose?? Xx

That isn't what DownThePubWithStevieNicks
is saying. If the parties are equal in status, opportunities , earnings and future earnings potential and don't automatically assume that the female partner will take extended maternity leave/ go part time/ stop working when children arrive then marriage is less important or irrelevant or even not to the woman's advantage on a divorce.

Of course it is, but the poster was suggesting, on a thread about a woman who has not maintained her own career and pension and was financially unequal in her relationship, that she had strongly advised her daughter to marry before children for these reasons. Read to me like an automatic assumption that the woman’s career would be sublimated to the man’s, so she’d need to marry him to make up her losses.

It is of course also possible to be financially independent and unmarried.

Her partner would either be willing and able to support her and the children or he wouldn’t, regardless of marriage surely. If she wasn’t unable to work, and had burned through her savings and paid sick leave, marriage wouldn’t force her partner to support her. Plenty of threads of here about married women being financially abused. Unless you mean if she wasn’t unable unexpectedly on her uppers, she could divorce him to get a bit of cash.

I was in this exact position a good few years ago. No proposal and looking back it wasn’t because he was unromantic (my excuse too) it was because he was uncommitted to me.
He ended up cheating on me and surprise surprise the proposal came with the begging apology. With 2 young DC I went ahead with the wedding. Am now divorced.

you are wasting your time and also putting yourself in an incredibly vulnerable financial position.

My friends long term partner died and left everything to the kids - absolute nightmare for her. Nearly lost her home when her DC got to 18 and wanted to sell his half of her home not to mention having to get solicitors permission every time she wanted to use some of the kids money for anything!

in your position I would give him a deadline then say you’ll make plans to leave. You will soon see if he sees any future with you. Good luck

Even if he has a big salary, a woman being the lower / non earning spouse does not mean she js “taking from him”.

In any family there is unpaid and paid labour to support the family both of which provide value.

This is not comparable to a “cocklodger” as typically those men give nothing, no domestic and emotional labour. Just cock and taking.

Where did you read that?

Because like many women, she may decide to take a break / reduce her hours once children came along and this offers that protection.

And some people just prefer legally recognised relationship. I am a high earner and have frequently earn more than the men I date but would not consider children / building a household without marriage. Not least of which formalises the promises made between a couple.

Have you both made wills? If you aren’t married you would have to pay IHT.

They want to be married.

That’s all that matters.

But that's not at all what the original poster suggested, and DownThePub claimed to have a sinking heart because she thought encouraging a young woman planning to marry before having children wouldn't also be encouraged to work etc (seemed a rather naive approach to the realities of postpartum life and early motherhood, tbh).

There will be exceptions but at a class level, when joint children are involved, women are much better protected when married than when they're not, even if they still work.

Thread after thread on here about a woman who really wants to get married, and always has done, but the man is delaying or doesn't want to etc. Surprise, surprise, they've already had children and the man isn't making provision in his will, or the house is in his name etc etc.
This is yet another one. Why do some women have children before marriage and put themselves in a financially vulnerable position, when that isn't what they want? I don't understand why the OP would have had children first if marriage really was that important to her. What's happened to partners discussing their situation? I would have laid it on the line- no marriage, no children- then she would have seen his true colours.
If he won't marry the OP then she must insist his will is changed so that she inherits at least a large part rather than everything going to the children directly, they'll get it when she dies anyway.
Seems to be yet another example of the man dictating how the relationship goes rather than equals. He's got no incentive to marry her, if he wanted it for romantic reasons he would have proposed a decade ago. He's got children, so why would he bother.
Is it any kind of legal union he is opposed to, or would he consider a civil partnership instead of marriage?

Then she’d be fine if she wasn’t married. She would have her own money, would own assets, would be able to support herself if the relationship failed, she’d have a pension. She would be providing her own security rather than gaining it from marriage, so why would it be such a non-negotiable?

Because she will be the one bearing the children, taking maternity leave, and is far more likely than her DH to reduce her hours or stay at home when the children are young.

Because she will be the one bearing the children, taking maternity leave, and is far more likely than her DH to reduce her hours or stay at home when the children are young

Other than being pregnant there is nothing inevitable about the other points. I took 3 months maternity leave and returned to work full time. Marriage gives some protection but it's still not as good as being financially independent.

Perhaps I’ve expressed myself poorly, or perhaps I’m simply way out of line with majority opinion. Either way, the discussion I entered/annoyance I’ve sparked isn’t about OP…

The Security Of Marriage is Mumsnet canon. But I hardly ever see ‘the security of your financial independence’ being parroted. There is no shortage of threads on here of married women being left after years and kids, and being screwed because she gave up work or went part time in low prospects employment. She’ll have half a house she can’t afford to keep (which if owned jointly she’d have whether married or not) and half his pension in another 20 odd years but that’s not much use to her now with her £12k income.

I guess ultimately I find it frustrating that advice is never only have kids in a financially and practically equal relationship with a man that respects you and wants a family enough to facilitate your life and career as much as his own. Of course life is unpredictable, of course some people fall in love with someone who earns 10x as much, of course some women want a family so much that they are happily willing to take on all the load. But there’s tonnes of evidence on here that marriage won’t matter that much at the end of the day if it all goes sour. And given divorce rates, everyone should plan on basis that it will!

Other than being pregnant there is nothing inevitable about the other points. I took 3 months maternity leave and returned to work full time. Marriage gives some protection but it's still not as good as being financially independent.

You must realise that 3 months is not the norm for most UK-based women though.
Regardless, as a family, having children might mean that one adult family member scales back or pauses their economic activity for the joint good of the family, and being married creates a legal framework that protects them, and acknowledges their non-monetary contribution.

But I hardly ever see ‘the security of your financial independence’ being parroted.

Leaving aside your dismissal of excellent life and financial advice through sarcasm or by calling it "parroted" (which makes even less sense when it's your own viewpoint, but hey), if you think women aren't warned on here over and over about the risks of stopping work then the only explanation is that you aren't reading much or that you've selectively forgotten it. It's said all the time, inevitably when we have so many threads from SAHMs whose husbands don't respect their work and screw them over.

Marriage matters enormously; no, it will not protect against every single possible eventuality but when a woman has children it always impacts her life in a way it doesn't impact a man, if only for the realities of pregnancy and being postpartum. At a class level, obviously with some exceptions, women who have children are financially better off married than not. That is a simple fact and it's not helpful to ignore it or suggest that a married woman somehow can't also work and stay independent.

At any rate, men who refuse to marry their partners when those women have their children and do want marriage do tend to fall into a certain personality type, and this guy is no exception. It's not absolutely perfect but it's a pretty good litmus test as to where his priorities lie. You can guarantee someone will come along accusing the woman of being a princess who just wants to hold flowers and wear a meringue for a day as well.

Without the said pause in economic activity - the human race would die out completely, so one rather imagines it should attract far more respect than any mere money making activities.

You are financially in a very vulnerable position - he probably is aware of this and wants to protect his own wealth. I genuinely don’t know what you can do as there is absolutely no need for him to get married. He’s got everything he wants. What you do need to need to do aside from getting married is improve your financial position.

The point of getting married is to register your relationship with the government, which will help you in so many different ways if things go wrong - hospitals, bereavement, divorce.

It doesn't have to be a romantic thing if he doesn't want that, but it's quite important for practical reasons.

But marriage doesn't do that. It goes some way to it. In many cases it affords little protection.

But marriage doesn't do that. It goes some way to it. In many cases it affords little protection.

It gives a huge amount of protection in the case of the death of a spouse, and some protection when assets are divided if a divorce occurs. In what ways do you believe it doesn't provide protection?

Have you read the threads on here from women let down after divorce?

@JHound Even if he has a big salary, a woman being the lower / non earning spouse does not mean she js “taking from him”. In any family there is unpaid and paid labour to support the family both of which provide value.

This is true, but the higher earning partner often believes that money is being taken from them. There is plenty of evidence of this on mumsnet.

This is not comparable to a “cocklodger” as typically those men give nothing, no domestic and emotional labour. Just cock and taking.

Actually, it's directly comparable to a cock lodger. Men often claim that a woman who doesn't earn anything "doesn't bring anything to the table." This is the common narrative within degenerate red pill and Andrew Tate communities, and it's exactly the same narrative you see on mumsnet with all the "cock lodger" threads. If you think right wing "red pill" attitudes do not exist on mumsnet, then you are sorely mistaken.

I’m not being mean but it’s going to sound harsh because it’s the truth. He’s not going to marry you for a few reasons:

1. He was honest from the beginning and told you he didn’t want marriage nor did he think marriage was necessary. You should have ended the relationship then because you wanted marriage and he didn’t. Now, you’re upset because you feel cheated out of marriage but honestly you cheated yourself out of marriage because you didn’t get with a marriage minded man.
2. You showed him you were willing to accept his terms for the relationship. Instead of you leaving when he told you that he didn’t want marriage although you wanted marriage, you decided to have children with him and buy a house with him. Wise words from my elders: “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”
3. It’s been 13 years, 2 kids, and a mortgage later. He’s comfortable and has everything he wants. The issue is going to come from your end because now you want to change the agreed upon terms of the relationship.

So, are you going to break up your family because you now want to get married even though you knew he never did and you accepted it from the beginning or are you going to keep your family together and learn from your mistake so you can teach your children to make sure that their values align with their potential significant others?

Also another wise quote from my elders: “If a man doesn’t think you’re worth the risk to marry then he’s not worth the risk of bearing his children.”

“I Just feel lost and lonely and wish for the ultimate romantic gesture from him”

One romantic gesture won’t change your loneliness and sense of being lost. If you got married, after the celebrations, it would still be exactly the same relationship. It reads as if this isn’t the life you want. If that’s so, will being married make a break up easier, or harder?