The term "Partner".

[marantha]

Am I being unreasonable to find the term "partner" intensely annoying when applied to those in a relationship? Particularly when they are actually married so it should be like, er, husband, wife or spouse instead?
Partner in what exactly? Ballroom dancing, bridge-playing. Isn't there something just a teensy-weeny bit smug about the term?

I don't want to get married personally although I don't care what other people do.

For me marriage is a hang over from a patriachal time where the 'ownership" of a woman passed from her father to her husband, and in which her wishes and identity were subsumed into that of her husband. I am NOT saying that this is what marriage is like now. What I am saying is that I have no desire personally to be part of that particular tradition. You don't have to go back very far in history to find something deeply unpleasant and mysogenist, and it's not for me.

What I get wound up about is this: I have two children from my marriage. That ended in divorce. I now have a child with my new partner, to whom I am not married. And yet because we live together, the authorities treat us as if I have a right to his money to bring up my children from my marriage, whilst my conniving ex has managed to wriggle out of making much financial contribution towards his children purely and simply because I DO live with someone else, and my ex now has a wife who needs his support to get her f*ing hair and nails done. But hang on - my partner and I aren't married, so the only money we share is money we have CHOSEN to share by putting it in a joint account. I bring up the children from my marriage with what I earn and the pittance my ex pays me. I'm with my partner because I love him, not because I saw a meal ticket.

In part, I think my status as a wife was what contributed to the downfall of my marriage. I DID feel a certain entitlement to be looked after because we had vowed "all that I am I give to you and all that I have I share with you". I no longer feel that sense of entitlement, because although my partner and I have a child together, essentially we are two individuals who choose to make a life together, whilst protecting ourselves financially (he lost half of what he had to his ex-wife).

For some reason, it seems to wind up people up that we think like this.

ok since you asked.what i dislike about concept of marriage.

wife and its connotations of chattel and ownership

i associate marriage with an outmoded set of expectations,usually female has domestic role,works part time raises family.man works

i have no desire to be defined by my relationship and unfortunately i think marriage adds a label

i never wanted to be married.as a wee girl i never did the dressing up wanting to be bride thing

the suggestion that marriage adds a stability or seriousness is not a belief i hold.i dont approbation of a ceremony

my parents have long happy marriage (to each other) i have other good family role models of marriage .but not for me

now this is not a direct criticism of anyone else it is my subjective opinion

love is a wonderful thing and people should do as they wish with their partner

You know, ClaraJo, the more I think about it the only genuinely fair way to approach the issue is to treat people who are not officially married as single and those that are officially married as married.
That way, nobody can complain because the unmarried have got the option of marrying if they want and the married cannot complain either because they made a vow to sustain each other through thick and thin so can hardly moan when the authorities assume this to be the case.
I haven't been in your position but I can understand your frustration.
Your ex-husband should be supporting his children and not relying on your partner to do it. A man -married or not- should support his children as best he can- this I will not be moved on.

i don't get being married either. i like my name as it is

but that is the rub i dont want treated as if married.i am not married

we have made sensible financial arrangements via solicitor to protect property and our individual accounts etc

Wow. All fantastic responses.

I cannot argue with any of them, so I will not.

You don't have to change your name though Baby! I always secretly think that anyone could be married but never tell everyone anyway. Marriage is a legal promise to stick by each other- what is to be put off by? Other than commitment & responsibility that is

commitment and responsibility no problem pugsandseals

just don't feel the need to shout about it

I presume we all agree that if a woman gives up work to bring up children she loses more in career terms than just the salary for the time she's not working. This is recognized in divorce law. I really really don't see why this should be different for couples without the piece of paper.

Interesting that no one has commented on my anti marriage as a personal political and philosophical statement post - not sure whether I am being humoured, ignored or just treated as a loony!

you want a round of applause for posting your opinion?

Nope. But I thought people might be interested and engage. Particularly as some posters asked specifically for reasons why speople choose not to marry.

i did like your reasoning seeker

Ah sorry seeker. As to your response... I am aware that some women feel like that about marriage. I understand your problem with the route of marriage. I respect that. I think you would be better off contributing to the changing of what a marriage is by, being married and making the statement that you are in no way property, though. I think you can make such a big deal about something by shouting about it and totally opposing it that you end up promoting what you hate about it. You however feel it IS better to boycott it, full stop. What else can I say?

Each to their own

I can think of one person i know of who has married for purely legal reasons

Actually, seeker, I don't agree. Not every woman has/wants a career.
Divorce law is concerned with WHY people broke the contract they made upon marriage- not about the giving up of careers -not every married woman has a career.
Besides which, how about compensating the man for the time he wasn't there as he had to go out to support his children via work?
I tell you what, let's orchestrate a campaign where cohabiting males can claim compensation for the time they DIDN'T spend with their children as a result of having to go out to work. Think I'll take this idea to fathersforjustice.
I am personally sick to death of the stupid idea that the marriage certificate is just a piece of paper and is somehow rendered meaningless because of it.
Is a degree certificate just a piece of paper?
If someone was the world's expert in family law they still would not get employed by a legal firm without PROOF -in the form of a degree certificate- of such knowledge.
Well the marriage certificate is also proof.
Society hasn't the time to work out the intricasies of people's relationships.
It couldn't care less; if you want to be seen as married, marry. It's easier all around.

i've been with my 'partner ' for 13 years. We have 3 children together .

We are unmarried and he is my partner. The term boyfriend seems immature in our circumstance

Career or job - giving it up still means a time when a stay at home parent is not earning, and therefore paying in to a pension/paying National Insurance contributions and keeping him/herself employable. This is to enable the other parent of the baby to go out to work and earn without having to worry about childcare. And to continue their career progression if appropriate. So it seems fair to acknowledge this if the relationship breaks down. The stay at home parent will be disadvantaged in practical terms whether or not the couple were married.

What bad things will happen if this is recognized in law? What is so important about marriage that it has to be preserved at all costs and specifically at the cost of unmarried (almost exclusively) women?

Most people marry for legal reasons. They don't need a piece of paper to love each other, but they most definitely DO need it if they want to prove it to the rest of society.
Like I said, society hasn't the time or inclination to give a S**t otherwise.
Nor will it ever, because although we like to think of politicians as being dumb, they are intelligent enough to realise that poking its nose into the private lives of cohabitees would be one step too far for most people.

seeker, please tell me that you are only joking here.
You honestly cannot see what bad things would happen if cohabitation rights were brought into law?
Well let me think...
State intrusion into people's lives who have NOT asked for it by marrying.

The bedroom stasi here we come...

Men -who cohabit because they don't want to be legally tied to the woman they're living with leaving the relationship before the relationship stasi force him to be married against his will. Same goes for females who have no desire to be married.
The law of unintended consequences kicking in i.e. MORE cohabitees splitting up as a result of cohabitation law, not less.

Baroness Deech puts all this better than I can. Look her up- she talks absolute sense on the issue of cohabitee rights.

Cohabitee rights = forced marriage. Simple as that.

I find people use tend to it when they make you want to play a guessing game as to the gender of the person in question. Hugely entertaining for them, I'm sure.

tend to use it, that should say.