Men - a meal ticket for life?

[marantha]

Reading the amount of abuse the poster Washwithcare has received here over the past few days for suggesting that her husband does not offer more money to his ex-partner (not NOT married, no contract signed) and her (not biologically HIS) children it strikes me that feminism doesn't really exist- or only exists when it suits women.
Women are still baby machines that try to get as much money off a man as they can, when the chips are down.
AIBU?

Morloth yes. Is it just me or are there some quite alarming things being said on this thread?

I was in a bit of a mood yesterday and after reading all this I felt

mumblechum can I ask what you do for childcare?

Peachy, sadly ds died just before his 8th birthday, but he was of course at school all day. I worked p/t so could be home just before he was dropped off, and if in court or whatever, either ds2s nanny looked after ds 1 as well, or I'd arrange for him to go to his ex childminder who adored him and was happy to help out occasionally.

There were of course crises, eg him being ill when I couldn't take a day off and then I had to rely on the kindness of friends to care for him. That was v v rare, though, I'd normally take a day off when he was ill and make the time up another day, work from home, go in on a Saturday or whatever. Sometimes when he was in hospital having orthopaedic ops I'd sleep on the floor next to him, go into work and nip back at lunchtimes and after work to the hospital, juggling ds2 as well. Not easy, but possible!

Some people just have some really bizarre ideas about families and how men and women interact. I don't think it is asking too much that people be treated with respect by their partners in the event of a breakdown and failing that respect being forthcoming that the law should insist on a minimum level.

Grr at the idea that couples who don't marry are less committed to each other and their families. That might sometimes be true but can be true of married couples as well. Marriage is fundamentally a religious convention, which has become a social convention and if people don't feel the need to subscribe to that, why should they be judged. A family is a family regardless of a piece of paper.

Realise I am late to this thread, and that isn't the view of most posters, but the anti cohabitant crowd could do with being less judgmental.

BTW, a serious issue is if a DP dies. Most don't realise that even if a DP made a Will (and many don't)that inheritance tax applies whereas it doesn't to spouses. Its a real bugbear of mine and I realise that for many people they won't be liable for inheritance tax but in the south east an average family home can be over the threshold leading to a bereaved DP having to sell up at a really difficult time.

Luckymummy, that's exactly why, until the law on cohabitation changes, marriage is very important from a legal point of view.

I agree, but that's not changing any time soon (has been shelved by the Government despite recommedations from the law commission and the Torys are hardly likely to make a change given their love of marriage). I object to people's personal choices leading to different treatment, it's discrimination in a nutshell

MC I'm sorry .

The school hours job is what I will be after as well, I think.I did apply forlaods of TA posts but didn'teven get an interview, then found out many were made redundant so understtod why. DS4 is still tiny (21 months) soam not desperate yet in that i'm not bored stiff. I did speak to someone at college about a TA coutrse but as I have a degree they won't fund it and I was tipped off that many schools won't hire graduates as they think you're either going to grab another job or just feel a bit awkward about high qqualified TA's- I don't now how righgt that is though. AS my degree is world faiths and its all Church schoolsa round ehre I think that'smroe the issue.

Weekends are out becuase of DH's field, I would love to be an ASD child,minder but we can't in our rented house..... I'm sure there is some magic think I ammmissing but not sure what so I willkeepplodding on with the MA and hoping something shows up.

luckymummy2010 While I certainly agree that some cohabitees are absolutely devoted to one another, some cohabitees have zero desire to be regarded as legally tied to one another.

The problem with cohabitee laws is that they will force those who do not wish to be "tied" to their partner e.g. young people in a trial relationship, those in it for the "now" only and so on to be effectively married against their will.

It is not fair to force marriage upon these people- for heaven's sake, if you want to be regarded as "married" get married.

The marriage certificate IS only a piece of paper, but then so is a degree certificate, so is mortgage paperwork.

I could know everything there is about medicine but without a medical degree nobody would employ me as a doctor, would they?
I'd have to have some proof, why, then, should cohabitees who are it for the long-term NOT be expected to provide proof in the form a marriage certificate.

It is a bugbear to me that those long-term cohabitees who moan about their lack of "rights" don't just bloomin' well be quiet and just do the one thing that will give them the "rights" they require in one fell swoop i.e. GET MARRIED!

Most reasonable people simply do not understand the issue of cohabitee rights when there is already a simple solution to the problem- marriage. Even gay people can -RIGHTLY- get married these days.

Also, I find it absolutely bizarre that a person can be somehow "against" marriage but FOR cohabitee proposals- for what are these proposals if not marriage by default?

Well surely there is a middle way then?

not everyone wants to be married, often forgood reasons: have a wanderarpund (wellmaybe not buy YKWIM) a DV hotel,askt ehs urvivors if they fancy nuptials- often not.

but as you say some co-habitees want the freedom,the 'first stage'bit.

So it should be made easier to get a basic levelcontract done up if co-habitees choose,something that ciovers basic rights but doesn't take 2 years and a lot ofcash to escape.

Something the solicitor will ahve in afile,rather than having to do from scratch,and that crucially is therfore not prohibitively expensive. INdeed if it could be signed at the registrars office for£25 somuch the better.

marriage lite- forwhen bothwant the safety net but not the long term commitment.

Peachy What you say may have some merit- nevertheless SOME contract would have to be signed and BOTH parties would have to agree with it.

Bottom line is this: it is NOT for me -or anyone else- to judge what goes on behind closed doors between two adults in their relationship, it is for THEM to make it clear to the outside world themselves by way of a signed statement/agreement (if they wish to, that is) it is no good living with someone for 5 years WITHOUT making your stance clear and then moaning that you should have legal "rights" if things go wrong- the rest of society has to have some form of agreement/contract that they can refer to to pass judgement. It's only common sense.

Agree it has to be both and something must be signed

Marriage bears connotation fordifferent people both negative and positive- if the only way one can have realsecurity is to go through something you really don't want that's sad,especially if trying to create optionslines a few pockets and leaves you potless.

£50 and a trip to the regitrar t osign a declaration of intent.

Peachy I am glad you agree with me: too often I have been accused of being anti-cohabitation. I am most certainly not, I do find it morally unfair that some women cohabitees find themselves potless and wish more could be done for them, but having thought about the issue a lot, I don't really see that there is any other option- they really SHOULD make things clear - because it is not reasonable for an outside party to judge the seriousness of the relationship if things go wrong- for reasons expressed above.

marantha
Are you talking about my posts when you say "anti marriage". Where did I say that?

I'm not anti marriage. If a couple want to get married (and by the way its a civil partnership for same sex couples, not marriage, same legal effect but nonetheless a discrimination against those same sex couples who would prefer marriage)they can get married, its frankly none of my business and my decsions are none of theirs.

My main point is that if I don't subscribe to a religious and social convention, why should I be taxed more? Either re inheritance tax, or in transferring assets to my DP (tax free for spouses/civil partners) or, if the Tories get in, on my income. I'd be happy to register as couple with the Inland Revenue but my DP and I regard our love and respect for each other and our love for our DD as sufficient and don't feel the need to be married.

The Government regards cohabitation as sufficiently significant to impact on benefits and working tax credits but not on tax.

You seem to regard cohabitants as often in fly by night relationships that won't last. Its an out of date view in 2010. Commitment is commitment in whatever form and the the divorce rates would seem to indicate that a high percentage of those who marry don't retain that commitment.

luckymummy2010 No I am not talking about your posts about "anti marriage".

Look I don't wish to appear nasty here, and I respect that you and your DP regard your love for each as other as sufficient- that is great.

However, if you do not inform an outside agency of your devotion then they cannot reasonably assume what the nature of your relationship is, can they? Do you honestly think that society has a crystal ball that lets them see into your soul?

You say that you'd be happy to register as a couple with the Inland Revenue. Do you not understand that in the cold light of day, that is what a couple are really, really doing when they marry?

Your religious convention argument is irrelevant- I know plenty of married atheists.

If you read my post here I did not say that I regarded ALL cohabitation as fly-by-night but a great deal of them are. I challenge anyone to argue with me over this as I myself have been a fly-by-night cohabitee.

You can't have it both ways, luckymummy2010, you can't say that your relationship is none of society's business then expect society to care about it when it suits you.

I think often people who marry view that as far more than "registering their relationship". I recall a quite religious friend asking if my DP and I were still together (admittedly pre children) when we had been happily together at that point for 8 years and owned our house together and there was no reason for her to think that we would not be (ie I had never expressed any problems to her). I don't think she ever would have asked a married couple if they were "still together" !

Maybe not all, but some married people regard their married relationship as superior and an indication of a higher level of commitment. That simply isn't true, I know more than one couple who show very little commitment (or love and respect) to each other despite their marriage.

But I think we wil simply have to agree to disagree here...

luckymummy2010 I am a married atheist. I married because I love my husband. Now I agree with you 100% that I need not be married to love him and be devoted to him, but please, answer me this one question:

If I did not marry him/ register our relationship with him then how would an outside party be reasonably be expected to know our feelings to each other?

I will say this: the act of marrying is NOT about religion, love or devotion it is simply to let society at large know (if you want to that is) that you wish to be considered as one with another human being.

I simply do not understand how anyone can not see this.

You don't want to marry, fine, but please, please stop this cohabitee right nonsense.

"cohabitee right nonsense" words fail me!!! (well they don't but I try to avoid swearing on forums)

You said it "I simply don't understand how anyone cannot see this" - blinkered, bigoted narrow minded - do you understand now?

My relationship is my business - I absolutely do not feel the need to "let society at large know". Why would I need to? (that's rhetorical , please don't answer, cos you are annoying)

luckymummy2010 Look I'm sorry if I've offended you.

But please consider this: you say your relationship is your business, fine.

BUT please answer me this: if you DON'T let society at large know the nature of your relationship, how can society (and by this I include the Inland Revenue KNOW that you wish to be considered your partner's "other half"?

Because society has not got a crystal ball and cannot reasonably know the nature of your relationship unless you say so.

It DOES flabbergast me how anyone cannot see this, I'm not being arrogant here- it's just so obvious.

luckymummy2010 keep your relationship as your business by all means, but don't go crying to the state when life deals you something you disagree with regarding your relationship because YOU failed to tell them you were in one.

I have respect for people who GENUINELY believe that their relationship is no business of the state's and cohabit outside of marriage ONLY if they don't demand to be treated "as married" if their relationship fails.
That is reasonable.

What is NOT reasonable is to want to keep your relationship totally private YET demand the rest of society to recognise your relationship if something goes wrong within it such as separation or death.

luckymummy2010, you are unreasonable.
You want to have your cake and eat it.

I wonder if a third way couldn't be made possible, i.e. does a civil partnership have to only apply to gay couples or could hetero couples also enter into one?

Or perhaps a time frame when it stops being "living together" and starts being "co-habiting".

It does worry me that all couples living together will effectively be viewed as married if the new laws come into effect and I wonder how that applies to long term flat mates and people who are not interested in committing in the long term or having children together but who are enjoying living with each other now.

Morloth I am a married atheist. I genuinely believe that you don't have to be married to love someone and you don't have to love someone to be married to them (cynical, I know), but to me because I am not religious or into the concept of a hearts-and-flowers massive wedding, I tend to see marriage as a legal thing (yeah, I married my husband cos I love him) that covers legal stuff only.

In this respect, if my view is correct that it is just a legal thing, is there any difference legally between myself- a married heterosexual- and a civilly- partnered gay couple? Aren't I in effect in a heterosexual civil partnership anyway?

I can't really see these cohabitee rights being popular- most people are aware that they can marry if they wish, so I think it's reasonable to assume that if they wanted "cohabitee rights" they'd get married.