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!!!

@BoxsetsAndPopcorn have you ever been a SAHP? Even for just a few months?

I think some people will never agree about the lot of SAHP. I think part of the problem is that the "running a household" aspect has to be done whether you work or not. And the "spending time entertaining, refereeing, playing with, feeding and educating your child" is seen as a luxury not a chore by some.

I have been a sahp. I have also been a wohm, while dh was a sahp.

I am now a single working mother.

Am I allowed an opinion?

All these roles are hard in their own way, imo. All for different reasons.

I think it's completely hypocritical of the OP to complain that sahp are looked down upon while claiming being a sahp is harder.

But then, imo, the OP has shown hypocritical thinking all the way through.

Thecrabbypatty
I'll be honest, people's views of SAHP are irrelevant anyway to the law.

Don't get me wrong, the OP's tone was a bit 'but my life was so hard raising kids' probably ruffled feathers, but the central mistake the OP seems to be making is thinking that people saying 'want protection, get married' are somehow devaluing the work of stay at home parents. I workes hard at home and my life was so much tougher than all of you working parents. I helped build a business and was happy turning a blind eye to tax evasion when it benefited me but now I want the law to change to give people like me assets when there hasn't been a legal agreement with witnesses really isn't a solid case.

Stay at home parents who give up their careers to raise children can be (and are) recognised and protected through the legal contract of marriage.

If someone chooses not to get that protection and then places themselves in a financially precarious position then there are implications, namely not being covered the way married stay at home parents are.

working in the home is harder than working outside the home

Wasn't for us. And we took turns. Both agree which one was less personally fulfilling for us on a day to day level in the short term (SAH) and which one really knocked the stuffing out of our energy/calm levels (WOH) on a daily basis.

The real kicker IME (DH expressed similar) of being the WOH parent is the cold dread that keeps you awake in the wee hours that all these people are relying on you to provide. And you can't fuck it up, take a breather or have bad luck because you'll take everybody else down with you if you stumble.

I think that gave me even more sleepless nights than our Tiny Insomniac Child did. And he didn't sleep thought the night till he was six years old.

The marriage / no marriage debate is simply down to education. The central tenant being for women to stop putting themselves in a position where they 'need' marriage for the legal/financial protection.

There has been much said about it being 'all very well to say get married but what happens if he won't ?' This is looking at it the wrong way round ! . The only reason an economically disadvantaged partner 'needs' to get married is because they are the primary child carer. (Almost always the women) and cannot improve their earning potential due to child care. This leaves them on the back foot 'needing' marriage to equalise their position within the relationship.

The solution is simple. Don't put yourself in this position. Don't agree to children without marriage. Don't agree to children with a 'promise' of marriage. If he doesn't feel sufficiently for you to WANT to marry you, then he sure as hell isn't the person to have kids with and even less likely to marry you when you NEED it, in order to protect your jointly accrued assets.
Too many women appear desperate to have children with men they barely know - or with men who show them far too little respect.
A marriage costs £215. If he won't stump up £107.50 once agreeing to try for a child, it tells you all you need to know about the person you are trying to conceive with.

The caveat to all these very regular debates about marriage or no marriage is that the pro marriage advice is aimed at the VAST majority of sahp/ part time/low paid (mostly) women in live-in relationships with higher earning partners.
Comments from those lucky enough NOT to be in this position crowing about how jolly pleased they are not to have married are entirely irrelevant to the debate.

Central tenet .. not tenant. Autocorrect malfunction!

In Scotland any assets you bring to a marriage are ring fenced as yours and not part of any divorce settlement, only assets acrude within the marriage are split. Seems sensible to me.

I got married when I was 16 and pregnant. Only lasted 3 years but by then I had 2 kids. I left with nothing at all but I was young.
I meet my now husband at 20 and got married 6 years later.
The problem is that when you are young you get neck deep in children and clueless about rights and adulthood.
Some countries have concubine rights so you can have some protection.
It's a shame you are in this situation but even when you are married you may end up with very little.
Marriage isn't just a piece of paper when things go wrong.

My stbexh is certainly wishing it WAS just a piece of paper!

I'd rather government made childcare much cheaper so it's more "worthwhile" for both parents to work with a couple kids in ft childcare. That would hopefully mean there are less women parents with huge career gaps & lacking experience so they'd be in a better place if their relationship broke down.

That wouldn't cover your ex amassing wealth and not sharing it with you, but you wouldn't be as fucked because hopefully you would be able to earn more than if you hadn't worked for years and years.

Oh and yes to more education on relationships and legalities.

We had education through religion in the past. Being a catholic somewhat protected woman and children as for cheap childcare. Children do benefit from having their mother at home. The only way around this is making women more assertive and encourage them to have ground rules. As well as having a trade or career prior to children. Men have scored very well out of feminism and the pill.

Write up an invoice for all the hours of childcare/home management/PA work you have done over the years for him and bill him for them.
Go to a lawyer and have it drawn up professionally, so that the consequences of non payment are clear.
I agree, women are manipulated into not valuing the contribution they make.
Good luck

Willyloman she willingly went along with being all the benefits of a wife without commitment. Once you're in that situation there isn't a lot you can do. She allowed this to happen to her. Perhaps a change in law would be good might have people think twice before jumping into relationships.

I'll still consult a solicitor for advice. First half an hour it's free in most cases. Or citizen advice bureau.

The OP already has hence the "let's change the law idea".

Write up an invoice for all the hours of childcare/home management/PA work you have done over the years for him and bill him for them.
Go to a lawyer and have it drawn up professionally, so that the consequences of non payment are clear.I agree, women are manipulated into not valuing the contribution they make.

The first thing he will do is remove cost a for rent, utilities, food etc. Also you can't invoice someone for work done, if there was no agreement to pay for that service.

The op wasn't manipulated. We need to stop automatically casting women in th3 victim role. She actively chose this route. This didn't happen TO her.

Don't live with a man unless he is prepared to get married. Definitely dont have children till then either.

Didn't she say they were engaged? Breech of promise?

It's laughable sometimes the justification for not working, makimg out it's far harder than actually having a job.

I think the main issue that I have with SAHPs(ones where the children are school age in most cases) is when they say that it is harder than having a job; well even if you work you still have to run a household, don't you! So working parents are basically doing the same thing but also do work on top of household duties. I think that some SAHPs find it a tough pill to swallow that a lot of parents do exactly what they do as well as working full time.

OP is not going to be able to take action for breach of promise wrt engagement. Those days are long gone. She has been accurately appraised of the legal situation, which is why she's talking about changing the law. People are clutching at straws now and it's not helpful.

In Scotland any assets you bring to a marriage are ring fenced as yours and not part of any divorce settlement, only assets acrude within the marriage are split. Seems sensible to me.

Nah, the English system where everything is potentially on the table if needed in order to adequately provide for the children is preferable. Neither party should be able to keep hold of ringfenced assets as a priority over housing the children of the partnership stably and securely.

Lastly OP, I don't think your last post did you any favours.

Didn't she say they were engaged? Breech of promise?

Don't be ridiculous. What in earth is breech of contract.

Again, imagine how damaging that would be to people who just decide a relationship is no longer for them. You would like to see people forced to go through with a wedding they don't want, in case they get sued? Wtf?

Beech of promise is covered under law in some countries. Not in the Uk, engagement means nothing.

What in earth is breech of contract.

That should have said 'what on earth is breech of promise'

And the OP hoping that a man will marry without being prompted. It doesn't happen women have to make it clear marriage is important and a deal breaker to them. The rose tinted specs will soon come off when you show how important it is to you and how they won't do that for you. It very sad but educate your girls never to rely on a man and don't put up with a man not prepared to commit and long engagement are a lot of nonsense you are either committed or your not. Where was your mother during this? My mother would have had plenty to say about the position I was putting myself into.