Baby before marriage - parents NOT happy

[Oli16]

Me and my boyfriend are expecting our first baby and the way my parents have reacted makes me feel like I’m having a teen pregnancy (I’m 33, been with partner for 5 years who they love)

since telling them at Christmas they have been really weird about it, they say their excited but I’ve had multiple conversations with my mother who keeps asking me how “committed” my partner is and “why hasn’t he proposed to you yet” - I’m finding out their quite traditional and even though I say we have plans to get engaged / married quite soon, it’s left a very bitter feeling between us.

Its pretty common to have a baby before marriage but she says she “feels” for me which made me feel horrendous and upset.

has anyone else experienced people being dicks about having a baby before marriage?

so disappointed and I think they seem miffed too

I agree with this, the protection of marriage is beneficial.

@Oli16 id be very upset too if my daughter had a baby without being married. Statistically you are far more likely to stay together if you are married before having a baby ( followed by getting marrried after having a baby , then never getting married, in descending order of parents staying together) .

He has "plans" to propose?
You could propose and then start planning the wedding to suit you both.

Why on earth is it still down to the guy to propose? I see this all the time on Mumsnet, and it's bizarre. For goodness sake, it's 2025 and feminism has come a hell of a long way since I was born in the 50s. So why has proposing marriage not moved on with it? We seem to be in exactly the same place with 'waiting for the man to propose' that I grew up with in the 60s.

Bizarre. Really bizarre.

What protection does marriage offer? I often see it mentioned on here but I'm not sure what it means in real terms. Is it only beneficial if the guy earns more? Genuine question btw.

OP can you please have a trigger warning added to your title?
I have just gone partially deaf at the sound of all of the pearls being abruptly clutched by thousands of Victorian Mumsnetters...

Wills, nominations etc can be changed without the woman knowing. Marriage provides a measure of protection, other voluntary options don't.

IME men who don't get round to marrying , don't get round to writing wills, taking out life insurance, nominating partners for work benefits etc. etc. either.

It's the 'we are all free spirits' syndrome. Pretty grim/hopeless/irresponsible. in grown ups. ' I just need to feel 'romantic' not feel 'tied down' and all will be well' - but after a few sleepless nights with a young baby they don't feel the romance as much. And, oops, they're off.....and you're left 'holding the baby' - literally and metaphorically. Wake up Op.

This.

Have you just joined MN? Have you not read the literally hundreds of posts about women in this situation? And you wonder why she is concerned?

In the words of MN give your head a wobble.

Giving an opinion and/or advice isn't "hate".
If you see "haters" on here, please report them.

A very good post.

I used to think like you. When I met my DP I was the higher earner with more assets. He’s always mentioned marriage too. 5 years and 2 kids down the road and our financial situation is reversed as typically my career has taken the hit to have a family and thus each year whilst he wacks money into pension I’m just living. He still says he imagines we’ll marry someday but I’m very alive to how much I’m financially disadvantaged. I think your mum is just concerned for you as I think men are having their cake and eating it

I'd have no moral issue at all, OP, but if you were my daughter* I'd also be concerned. Pregnancy and childbirth / new motherhood really does have an impact on a woman's financial position in a way that it doesn't necessarily have on a man's. If, in particular, you might work part-time with small children, marriage is actually quite an important protection. If you aren't married, it is absolutely essential you get detailed, proper legal advice about finances, wills, pensions, savings, the lot. Otherwise if the shit hits the fan, you are more likely to be in difficulty. The shit doesn't have to be your partner being a bastard, either, it covers a fair range of potential trouble.

It would be * improbable, as if you are 33, I'd have been a 12 yr old mother, but.....

We planned to get pregnant before marriage, as it turns out DH was planning a proposal so we found out I was pregnant two weeks after getting engaged. We married 9 months after the baby was born.

My parents weren't bothered that we weren't married to be honest and I didn't have any odd comments.

However, I was in a pretty good position living in a house I owned before I met DH, and very financially secure with a good career.

IMO if you would be left in the shit financially were he to leave, it's best to hurry up with getting married. If you'd be fine financially, and you're happy to wait, let things take their natural course.

Its beneficial if you are not independently wealthy.

Usually women reduce working hours/ become SAHM / lower their pension contributions / slow down on their career trajectory after a baby comes along. At the same time, their other halves careers tend to progress, they get promoted and better pay and have decent pensions.

Marriage means that the consequences of both of the above happening are shouldered by both. The pensions are an asset of the marriage. The wages earned are an asset of the marriage. The home becomes an asset of the marriage (if not co owned beforehand). The woman would then have the right to claim her half of this in the event of a separation.

An unmarried mother who has been a SAHM with the joint children for 10 years, then finds out her OH is cheating on her then leaves with nothing - or half the house if bought before marriage together. She doesn't have a claim on his pension, she cannot remain in the family home till the kids turn 18 etc. She will then usually have to go onto UC and find part time work and generally end up in a worse financial position than had She never had kids. Whilst the man doesn't have this problem.

No marriage, no kids. Your mother is right. She only wants to protect your assets if you split with the man.

You’re correct in that if the woman has more assets, the better job, the bigger pension, then fill your boots. If that’s not the case marriage commits his finances to the child AND her. Not marriage, only the child. Forget pension sharing.

To be honest, it also costs a lot to unwind so only worth it when there are assets, but at 30+ that’s not yet known.

I suspect they may be concerned for you. You are right is relatively common to have a baby before marriage. I personally prefer if my daughter was married purely for security reason. I would be annoyed if daughter partner had no intention for marriage.

Because it's important to know that the man actually chose to marry you. Lots of men are lazy and get into relationships where they know the woman isn't really the one for them, but they're getting sex and there's a woman paying half and cooking and cleaning up after him so they stay for years.

If he proposes at least you know he's taken that action and actually chose you rather than going along with it begrudgingly.

So many posters being called Victorian, backwards, pearl clutchers... we are just trying to protect womens best interests with the knowledge that women had and passed down for generations to protect other women! Posters saying marriage is an old fashioned concept are doing the legwork for the modern patriarchy where men have no responsibilities at all.

I'm embarrassed for you.

You are being foolish.

I don't really get this - you've chatted about being engaged, so if you've both agreed you want to be engaged and get married then surely you're engaged? Why drag it out?
Personally, I see why your mum is concerned, and I don't think 5 years is that long. As much as you love him, you should protect yourself.

@pinkyredrose depending on who has more assets and who has the greatest earning power can have an influence who benefits most from marriage. However, in general terms if you are planing to have a family and possibly going part-time or becoming SAHM you would be wise to be married first, unless you individually own substantial assets.

There are so many threads on here where the man promises to propose and never does or women who say they don't believe or want marriage, they then go on to have a number of children with their partner, the partner owns the house, the woman gives up work or goes part-time to help with looking after the children, the husband builds up a nice pension pot and possibly a separate savings account and then the relationship breaks down. The woman could end up with nothing or very little and or may be able to fight for some equity in the house but will have to jump though some legal loopholes to get there. If they were married the house, savings, pension could all make up part of marital assets and be shared on divorce.

They'll get over it. If they don't that's a them problem. They have to accept your life choices

This is spot on.

People and comments like @devastatedagain can, frankly, FO.

I don't know what your parents' objection really is, but there are solid good reasons for being married sooner rather than later in case the worst happens, eg death or a breakup, because you would have more financial security. Once the baby has arrived it's easy for the wedding to be put off indefinitely because all your time, money and energy are needed for other things.