UNMARRIED -NO RIGHTS!!!

[Oncewasneedy]

Just wondering what MN readers would think about a campaign for the rights of unmarried women/mums!! (Long one-sorry)
I am so tired of hearing about women on here getting the crap end of the stick purely because they weren't married! And also because they don't understand that being unmarried leaves you with no rights over anything!
I was one of those women!
I met my partner when I was 16 and he was 30. It was all good for a long time and when he proposed to me I didn't even look back! The very next day he said he wanted a long engagement! I was not happy about this!! But when I also began to have my own thoughts about things he didn't like it!
However in the time we were together we had 4 children! I would have had more as he wanted but his behaviour got more unforgivable with each birth! (Think narcissistic and your there)
We also went through many problems with losing parents to our family business going to pot! We fought hard to get our livelihood back and thank god we did it!
But despite everything it wasn't enough! I could go on and on about how selfish he was and how I thought I would die of sadness and loneliness being with him but it doesn't serve anyone! I begged him to try but in the end I couldn't take anymore and I left!
After 20 years together I had to leave!
I had to leave the home I had raised my children in, where they took their first steps, where I bathed them and had their birthday parties and Christmas!
I had to leave because I had no rights to the home- all in his name!
After 20 years- I meant no more to him than hired help!
Thank god I took a part time job when the youngest started school otherwise I would have been clueless!
Clearly this is a rant and a half but do other married women think that unmarried women should get legal protection in some form! I know that some women will flame me for being so naive and an idiot but when you meet someone at the age of 16 it twists your mind somewhat!
Im still trying to get my head around it all! So I'm sorry if I still sound angry!!!

What's deeply fascinating about this UK debate is how many of you women cling to the get married or it sucks to be you.

Other countries do it very differently so partners are protected, especially where children are involved. Live with a partner for 2 years in NZ and you have the same rights as if you were married. Civilisation hasn't fallen, women are protected, children more importantly are protected from relationship breakdown,

It's possible for people to protect assets in de facto marriages just as it is in legal marriages. The issue around gay marriage in Australia was that it was impossible to have a de facto marriage if you were same sex and civil unions were not legal here.

I think so many of you Brits are totally blinkered on this issue. There's no country in the world that someone can march off with half your assets if you live together for a week.

i know all this but my DP doesn't want to get married so hey ho.

I’m not sure I want to get married but since I’m the higher wage earner getting married doesn’t help me one bit

Why, oh why don't they teach this in schools?"

Because sometimes, just sometimes as a parent it is your duty to bloody well take responsibility and educate yourself and your children. I think now as a society we are so fucked it that prople have lost sight of what having and raising a child actually means-it is YOUR responsibility, not the state’s or schools or other people, but YOURS.

I am married and I don't think unmarried mothers should have the same rights as a married mother.

Also, your point would maybe have more impact to some if you moderated the use of the !

I'm firmly of the opinion that whether it's parents' responsibility to teach their kids things or not, it's all of our responsibility to make sure that children - who don't get to choose what their parents do our don't do- are apprised of essential facts. The fate of children is not a parent's reward or punishment. They are people in their own right.

This is the hair tearing out brunt of the problem. No one is saying you HAVE to get married. That is the beauty of choice that comes from living in a free society. Just don't sulk when YOUR CHOICES bite you on the bum!! We have laws, they protect you if you use them. If you don't or your partner won't, and you still choose to stay with them and procreate and it doesn't work out then don't go round bleating about how unfair everything is! Shitty divorce terms are one thing that can be hideously unfair and we can all get behind, but you can't use the rules of the game if you don't sign up to the match! It's really pretty fucking simple, if you wants the rights of marriage, get married or get a civil partnership.

I had three children with my ex husband before marrying him. I was a SAHM, but there were no assets so it didn't make a difference really.

I'm marrying my 'new' partner in two weeks. We intend to TTC and the house is in his name only so I want to be protected.

do other married women think that unmarried women should get legal protection in some form

I'm married and I don't think unmarried women should get the same benefits...otherwise there's no difference.

I'm sorry for your situation. I'd be besides myself if my 16 yo child was with an adult man of 30. I dislike large age gaps especially at that age because with age comes experience in relationships and the ability to manipulate the younger person.

No decent 30 year old man would be sniffing round a 16 year old girl. He knew he could control you..because most confident assertive women his own age wouldn't put up with his crap. They'd be more experienced in relationships.

He was wanting more kids to keep you under his control and hold the power. The more kids you had the harder it would be to leave and he knew this.
I'm glad you're out of the abusuve relationship. Well done for that.

Did your parents approve of the relationship?

I'm sorry because you were taken advantage of as a child...that's the truth..you were a child. It's often older women on your position who I think should have known better.

The man isn't marrying you for a reason. He wants the benefits of marriage without providing the security. While women compromise on what they want (if they want marriage) ..because they are desperate to be in a relarionship or blinded by love...this will continue to happen.

If you arent getting married...get your name on the property...if he refuses...walk away. Let him find another mug to have his kids with no security protection while her career take a a hit and she's a SAHM.

I hate how black and white it is here sometimes.

It's all very well saying 'should of got married' but in most cases (like the op) the
woman did believe marriage was on the cards and was strung along by the bloke who made all the right noises but had no intention of marrying her.

Currently the law is that when a couple with young children seperate the absent parent must pay maintenance, I think that's fair. Perhaps there could be something similar in place where if a co habiting couple who had children together seperate and one parent can show how they put their career aside to raise the children, look after the house and basically enable the other parent to build a career/assets etc they should be entitled to something, maybe a share of the pension or something. I think the work of raising the children and taking care of the house does need to be valued in some way, not just between married couples. Affording long term co habiting couples with children some sensible legal protections doesn't take anything away from married couples. People don't just get married for the legal side anyway.

"I'm not saying school is the answer either, but nor is the expectation that parents will impart correct information. Many would need education themselves first."

School already teaches kids to eat healthily, do regular exercise, refuse drugs including cigarettes, drink alcohol in moderation and use contraception.

Plenty of people go on to still do all of the above.

"I suggested a mechanism that could work in one of my earlier post which basically relied on one partner (usually the woman) acting to their detriment based on assurances provided by the other partner (usually the man)."

So just taking the word of one partner over another?

@Halebeke425 the problem is you can't set the parameters of cohabiting. I agree some people are strung along and it's cruel, but you have to at some point stand up and do something to take responsibility if you are in a precarious situation. You can't expect the state to step in and intervene because you had a private, non legal, no written agreement between two private individuals.

Nails, I agree with everything you write. Also, with regards to the value of a SAHP of either gender, is it really worth the value of half an incredibly high wage if the working partner is a high earner?? For example, the Prime Minister of New Zealand is going to continue being PM, and she her husband is going to be the SAHP. She will quite rightly provide for him while they are together. However, if they were to split, then should she really provide half of her salary to her husband to compensate for the fact he was at home for a few years?? I would say no way.

If you were to monetise the labour of SAHP, then surely it would be nanny rates, not half of whatever salary the working partner earns? Otherwise, the SAHP of someone on minimum wage would be valued less than the SAHP of a banker, when they clearly do the same work.
Someone staying at home is usually someone who has had less of a career to start with. If two lawyers marry, then it would be rare for one of them to be off work for 18 years. Whereas a lawyer marrying a minimum wage worker, the low earner would probably give up work. Why should they receive huge "compensation" after a break-up when they would probably have continued to earn minimum wage if they had stayed single? Compensation for what exactly??

Men and women both need to look out for themselves and not be naive.

"Affording long term co habiting couples with children some sensible legal protections doesn't take anything away from married couples. People don't just get married for the legal side anyway."

Correct, but misses the point. It takes a vast amount away from those who wish to cohabit. Forcing them into 'new marriage' simply because they cohabit is wrong.

With the new ruling on CP for heterosexual couples, getting legal protection will not need to be marriage. But it should be a deliberate act, no an omnishambolic attempt to define when you are no longer single, even when you actually don't want to be in a legal partnership.

I think the issue is squarely lack of education about legal status of types of relationship, which leads to some people sleepwalking into arrangements they do not want. Rather than people choosing what they actually want/need and using the time spent dating to establish is your new suitor wants the same things and will actually do them.

Here here Harsh! MY DH and I decided we would both work even though he was the higher earner. Its the choice you make

I’ll just never understand the amount of women who go into having a child/ren with apparently so little thought of the long term...people have to jump through more hoops to adopt a bloody cat! For me, that’s the crux of the problem, if you have 1 child and the partner is still not making any marital/contractual/legal commitment to you, why the hell would you go on and have numbers 2,3,4 etc? Take some responsibility and educate yourself

The value of a stay at home parent is more than what you would pay in childcare. They are also forfeiting promotion opportunities and are likely to go back into the workplace at a lower or only the same level as before. While the wp will likely have been able to develop their career in the interim. So half is fair.

I think that a change in law should be considered.

You obviously can't force someone to enter into a contract but there are plenty of concepts that protect business relationships where a party has relied on a course of conduct which could be applied to personal relationships.

If you really don't want to get married but want to have children, want to give up your career(if you have one) that is surely your choice. If your boyfriend wants the house in his name the state are nothing to do with your own private arrangments. Why would they be!

What is also your choice is whether to protect yourself should you break up. If you don't think you will that is fine. Do what you like and make your own choices but don't blame others for your foolishness should the worst happen.

I have a relative you makes daft choices time and time again. head in the sand, always portrays themselves as a victim - I had no choice etc etc. Not ONCE have I ever seen them say 'how could I have been so stupid' EVER. So they never learn from their mistakes. Doesn't stop them having a jolly good moan about their lot in life.

@kenandbarbie no its not. Once again as a mother you chose to have children, understanding the sacrifices of time, money and career opportunities that this would mean. As a father you understand that your money will now be supporting two dependants and that you know have the additional responsibility to provide for them, make enough money to keep them and also give up your time in the hours before and after your job. It's a consential exchange. Im sorry but you seem to think you should be paid to raise your own children which is ridiculous.

Women under 30 earn more than men in the UK on the whole and plenty of us older than that outearn men. We need to keep the married - unmarried distinction so that people can make active informed choices. If you want a high earner man to keep you then you would be better off only having sex with and moving in with one of them after he marries you. If he won't marry you find another target.

I should imagine the only people who really would benefit from the introduction of a third pathway - not marriage but providing the same/similar protection, would be lawyers

Why do we need anything else? If you want the protection you get married. If the other party doesn't want you to have that protection they aren't going to sign a contract just because it doesn't have the word "marriage" in it are they?

It's ridiculous over complication of a system that works perfectly well. The problems arise because of magical thinking by people who want to believe "he/she would never do that to me"

@NailsNeedDoing
The idea I'm talking about is already a legal principle in UK property law so whilst I accept that there are issues with proving shared intention regarding the future division of assets, there is evidence that this mechanism is workable and does achieve decent outcomes for those people that would otherwise be denied rights.

I just don't understand why you are so opposed to some reforms in this area when there are so many blatantly unfair cases? It's not a black or white thing as there are mechanisms that can be used to legally recognise that some unmarried couples have effectively pooled their assets whilst others have deliberately decided not to. Affording some parties rights does not automatically withdraw the rights of others, the law isn't always a blunt instrument.

@MaisyPops
How does the above suggested reforms remove rights from anyone other than questionable people who are keen to leave their ex with an inequitable split of assets?

" It's a consential exchange. Im sorry but you seem to think you should be paid to raise your own children which is ridiculous."

I don't understand this point. Paid by whom?

Surely the point is that on separation you are not being remunerated for a job well done, or seeking compensation for any perceived sacrifices, but instead asking to leave the marriage equitably, with a fair share of the assets brought into the marriage and acquired during the marriage.