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!!!

You sound bitter actually.

You blame your partner as if you were an empty headed passive woman, who couldn't control her own life.

The top and bottom is you got yourself into a mess, chose a man who wasn't the best, avoided pinning him down, and now you want the law changed.

Why don't you just own up to making bad choices?

This sort of thing was in The Times this week, a very famous female lawyer, who did Princess Diana’s divorce said children should be educated to understand ‘that the most important thing was who people breed with’ her words. She will have seen too many tragic situations, women seem too keen to have children without thought as what could go wrong.

I'm not married

We have one dc together

Found myself unexpectedly pregnant with 2nd child. Felt extremely vulnerable even though property in both names etc.

Had a co habitation agreement written up as neither of us wanted to marry.

No way I'd have gone on to have further dc without protection.

You can now have a civil partnership rather than being married

There should be a campaign to educate women on how to protect your rights and legally for houses etc there are already legal ways to protect yourself with houses etc.

So its about making women aware of not putting themselves in precarious situations and be informed of the rights

I am loathed though to think that rights should automatically exist as that could be detrimental as well to some women and men

the religious element has now been removed with civil partnerships so it is an option

This is just one of my points. I have spent 18 years looking after our children! Cooking ,cleaning,washing, Organized play dates!! Clearly I loved all those jobs! It would be nice if just once my hard work got recognised! To be fair I do love cooking!!!

The thing is though, you don't spend 18 years looking after children, you spend the preschool years, maybe, if they are not in nursery.

All the household work would need doing anyway, alonngside a full time job, if you were married, or a single mother.

Woman who live entirely off their partners earnings are not necessarily financially disadvantaged at all, but living a lifestyle they couldn't hope to fund, at somebody elses expense.

I know women with no qualifications what so ever, for example, who basically have the entire school hours available for leisure, every day, and have done for many years. No way could many women afford that.

So yes, their life style may not be protected, however, they are not being financially disadvantaged in any way, on the contrary, they are living at a far higher standard than they would be able to provide for themselves.

It's actually really hard OP to understand how a woman of almost 40 or so never gave a thought to 'Oh hang on, what if he runs off with the neighbour..where will that leave me?'

Up the Swanny is your answer.

Complaining about all the responsibilities that go with having children- playdates etc (FGS!) - is a bit pathetic.

It's unbelievable that you never had Plan B for if the relationship went tits up. 4 children, no job to support yourself and not even £600 in your name to repair your car.

What were you thinking of (or not?) for 20 years?

You blame your partner as if you were an empty headed passive woman, who couldn't control her own life.

The top and bottom is you got yourself into a mess, chose a man who wasn't the best, avoided pinning him down, and now you want the law changed.

Why don't you just own up to making bad choices?

^^This.

This seems to be along dual lines for you OP, your rights and the rights of your children. There is whatever the CSA is now, and quite honestly, that needs to be revised into being much, much harder. So that takes care of your children, but it sounds as if you're wanting some kind of 'alimony' for yourself.

If your ex partner isn't a decent man then there's nothing that will change that. Look on it that at least you aren't married to him and take some consolation that he's nothing to you personally.

If I were him and I had millions in the bank you wouldn't be worrying about a car repair because whether you still love somebody or not, they were something to you once and money - when you have it - isn't a difficult fix. Have you asked him?

Regarding your campaign I would have to say an emphatic 'NO'. There are enough daft people who carry on wearing blinkers, having children with men who will not support those children. Before a woman is pregnant she has all of the power... after that, not so much. The very least a woman can do is make sure that the legal side is stitched up so that financials are secured.

That said, there are some really smug women about, feeling safe in their married states, as if their husbands will never leave them and will always want to see their children. That's a knife edge right there. Men do leave and they do neglect their children, if they're that way inclined. Married or not.

I would really support a campaign to make women very, very aware of how vulnerable they are if they rely on men for security. The law also needs changing there - SAHM should be a paid job and errant fathers should be legally prevented from fathering more children if they don't provide for the ones they have. On that point, I would support some medieval reinforcement involving rusty shears.

Sorry OP but women have to protect themselves and stop being so dreamy. Marriage never had a hint of romance when it was enacted, it's just evolved that way to make it a money-making exercise. The bones of it are cold, hard cash and control of women.

The only happy marriages, in my opinion, are where there is perfect balance and neither party is dependent on the other, they are together because they want to be and choose that path. All the rest are examples of fakery and living on a precipice.

I don't believe that the law should automatically involved in personal relationships.

It's not like it will help. The men that refuse to get married will just refuse to live with their partner. Contraception failures will still happen, or women will still ttc with their partners hoping some proper commitment will follow.

The women in this situation will still be in the shit, providing the main care for the kids trying to make ends meet etc.

If a bloke is a shit, he is a shit and will find ways round having to provide security. It's daft to think otherwise.

Women won't be better off and plenty of women who do have assets will be worse off.

... and oh my gosh, as if on cue. The smugs are in. Here's hoping for the 'karma' they so hope for others, lands on them with a hell of a smack...

Indeed PeakPants

Did he leave you for overuse of exclamation marks? There’s something pretty sinister about a thirty-year-old man who finds a sixteen-year-old girl interesting enough to shack up with. You’re better off now, I’d’ve said. Look up Eves v. Eves. One of Denning’s best: “I will call her Janet . . . “

A 30 year old dating a 16 year old isn't right. I'm 30 and I would be really 🤢 if one of my friends was chatting up a teenager.

OP obviously I don't know your background but I would expect parents in this situation to at least try and chase this sort of man off

Having legal contracts created by default where there is no action by the affected party to agree to it is a fundamental change that I cannot see any government trying as it is a legal quagmire, and hope they never try it . There is a mechanism to afford protections called marriage and therefore to change the law would be to say"ok so you didn't agree to get married so the state will impose it on you in another way". Sounds like all common sense will have gone if the state tries that one.

The stories of people affected by relationship breakdowns without protection are very sad but the state cannot recompense for each and every personal decision or indecision. As another OP pointed out, it will also just mean more men refuse to live as part of the family unit and yes would you want to be with someone like that, maybe not but some would rather have it than nothing at all

Exclamation marks? Just how much better do you feel after your shitty comments to the OP, KittyHawk?

And yes, it is hard to walk away from someone who won't marry you but we really should do it more often.

^ this @Gottokondo

The idea that you could end up in a legal contract with another person without actually contracting, or signing anything is horrifying. Education has got to be the way forward here. Marriage offers protection for the less well partner, which is often but not always the woman. We should be educating people

I know many out there will say I should have just forced the marriage talk, but seriously who wants to force it!

Well, quite but the solution is to not continue the relationship, rather than let him get way with this and then look to change the law to deliver protection to the less well off partner who does not want to force things. Sigh.

I don't think we should be campaigning for unmarried rights as then marriage wouldn't be much different and there should be a clear distinction between just living with somebody and actually entering into the legal agreement of marriage. We should be championing girls having careers and maintaining them once a man and children come along that would be far better and more worthwhile.

I don't think it's an age thing, at sixteen you may be naive but surely not as a mother of four children.

What parents etc should be doing is teaching their children nothing is forever and things change so don't over extend yourselves be it debt, number of children etc . Don't place all your eggs in one basket, maintain financial independence at all times. Ensure the family home is in joint names and can be afforded on a single salary etc.

Exactly the same as I did before them. Some of us don’t allow ourselves to become aerated over sweet fuck-all. Such a curious blend of dull yet hysterical . . .

Sorry but what 30 year old wants a long engagement? Unfortunately for you it looks like he knew exactly what to do to protect “his” assets.

Still my answer to change the law would be no.

And equally I honestly can't see any government changing the law to passively apply legal rights which marriage affords by taking away people's individual choice in the matter.

With the internet the information is out there and is easy to find. We have to make it clear that it's an individuals responsibility to decide how and what they deem correct for them in terms of relationships.

I do think there should be raised awareness of the legal aspects of marriage, divorce and separation especially that everyone’s circumstances are different. In some cases (mine) the woman is better off not being married.

I was the higher earner and exh benefited from my earnings after separation while he chose not to work and does not to this day. He does not pay towards the children either as he has no income (he’s living off the divorce settlement.)

There are so many misconceptions about divorce eg you can stay in the house till the children are 18. Someone was spouting this again on a thread yesterday. Not necessarily! I was forced to sell and I had two young children with sn.

1. I think the law should be much tighter on child maintenance. The government is quite capable of working out how much someone really earns and ensuring they definitely pay when it comes to tax, benefits, and all kinds of things. It's shameful that child maintenance is the one area in which you basically get to decide if you fancy paying or not because no one is going to do a thing about it. I definitely think women with children should not be disadvantaged in that way.

2. I think marriage/civil partnership is the protection available in law for partners. It should be opt in. It shouldn't be enforced on people. My first relationship was a deeply abusive one. Like you, I got into it in my teens, and then spent 5 years being physically, emotionally and sexually abused. I would have hated to have been tied to that guy as if we were married, or lost half the money I inherited from my mum, lost the savings I managed to build up while he gave up job after job to drink and shoot drugs. And I'd never have moved in with my husband if there was a risk of my losing my inheritance or savings because we shared a house.

We are married now and have joint finances but that's because I made a choice that I trusted him and I was ready. It shouldn't have been forced on me by the government. I hate that the benefits system already assumes that you're financially responsible for anyone you date, pretty much immediately. We should be campaigning against that and letting adults be treated as individual people unless they actively choose to form a family unit, not expanding that kind of bullshit.

And no I don’t think the law should be changed at all.

If you want the protection, get married.