Asking A Father's Permission

Esterhase

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's it like, I mean, people should surely have some idea long before any talk of marriage whether their boyfriend or girlfriend or future in-laws think that way or not. I mean, it's not like the idea should really come as a surprise to anyone?

I think Adamantium means that if anyone takes offence or thinks that much less of their boyfriend for this, then they shouldn't get married anyway. It's not like this is the biggest issue their relationship will ever face. It helps to keep a sense of perspective on these things.

Exactly - people should have some idea of what to do if they know each other well enough to even propose in the first place. The way it is in my situation - we have already talked about this and he already knows that I wouldn't like it. He has no strong feelings about it either way. If he went behind my back and had 'the chat' with my dad anyway it's the blatant disregard for my wishes that would make me say no. I see my feelings being ignored in favour of a silly (to me) tradition as a big issue for my relationship to face, and would certainly not be in any rush to get hitched.

So to clarify in case anyone really does think I'm ready to throw away my relationship - I would not be immediately dumping my OH, but I would be hurt and would put off any thoughts of marriage until we worked things through.

Zubeneschamali

Tarzana wrote: »

I can't understand how anyone can grow up like that in Ireland if born later than the '70s.

No, I was born in the 60s, and some of my brothers in the 50s. This stuff sounds more like my Dad, born in the 1920s.

He was a stone cold racist, too.

Reindeer

If the woman is young, you ask.


If she is older, you find one younger.

Zubeneschamali

Shenshen wrote: »

if he had actually gone and asked him it would make me question how well he actually does know me.

You seem like a very nice person.

My wife would have stuffed my severed head with garlic and buried it at a crossroads.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I was born in the 60s, and some of my brothers in the 50s. This stuff sounds more like my Dad, born in the 1920s.

He was a stone cold racist, too.

I was born in 1976 myself, and I don't think there's any correlation between what decade you're born in and your world views, let alone trying to imply that correlation is somehow related to causation - the fact your father was racist just means he was racist.

I played with a Golliwog, was I racist but just didn't know it? I also 'blacked up' for the children's Christmas pantomime, we were singing 'We are the world', and there were no black children in the community at the time. Racist too?

Trivialising racism like that and equating modern society to centuries, even decades ago is exactly the sort lack of perspective that causes people to think 'Would you ever get some perspective ffs!", and causes them to be unable to take you seriously.

I'd say the same for anyone's reaction that compared modern thinking about the idea of the boyfriend asking for his girlfriends' father's permission/approval to marry his daughter, comparing that to slave ownership or the perception of women in society decades ago would want to go away and get some perspective.

To you and other people it's silly, it's assimine, whatever - cool, you're entitled to your opinion, but, unless it's actually being forced upon you as if it's something you are obligated to do, then passing negative judgment on other people for actions you don't agree with, is missing the hypocrisy of your own "nobody else's business but the two people involved" argument.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I was born in the 60s, and some of my brothers in the 50s. This stuff sounds more like my Dad, born in the 1920s.

If you are referring to me (as the post you replied to was) I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? What exactly "sounds like someone born in the 1920's".

nelly17

I got married 7 years ago and I asked her Dad, her brother just got emgaged and he asked her Dad. My wifes sister was married before us and again her Dad was asked.

To be honest I think its just a bit of a tradition in certain families, and once the precedent got set we all stuck to it.

The way I see it is I done it out of respect. It was never going to be a No, it never really is.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then when you say you were asking him so you were not imposed on the whole family - it sounds pretty superfluous.

It sounds superfluous to you tax because of the way we think differently. It wasn't superfluous to me because it actually meant something to me that rather than take it for granted or assume that I was acceptable or met with her father's approval, I needed to know I was, for my own peace of mind. The difference between going out with his daughter, and marrying into his family, had numerous legal ramifications at the time, not the least of which were indeed inheritance aspects.

Because from the perspective of the family - you already knew their feelings on it. Even had he refused - you would not have felt you were imposing yourself on the family after all - because you knew what they felt.

I would actually, as it would have made for some pretty uncomfortable Sunday dinners, and definitely would have made me question the future of our relationship, seven years living together regardless. If I had known her father would never accept nor approve of me as his son in law, as a suitable husband for his daughter, then I would probably have suggested that our relationship wasn't going to work out and was untenable from that point on.

I mean in general - not specific to your case. Generally the tradition is to ask the father of the bride. Why does the tradition - generally - not go both ways if the tradition is based on the kinds of concepts you described? In the light of _that_ the idea that it is to ask for permission to become part of a family unit - seems to make no sense as why do we ask permission of one family, but not the other. Especially when - as you describe - you would have called off the wedding in the light of her familys refusal but you proceeded with it regardless of your own families one.

I guess people think differently about the idea tax, is the only answer I can give you to that one, like the idea that a woman can only propose to her boyfriend on Feb 29th or whatever, wouldn't bother me either way, but I imagine if you're a guy who meets a girl on Valentine's night and you have no intentions of marriage, you're probably going to be a bit edgy if Feb 29th falls in the same year two weeks later :pac:

With regard to my own family, tensions were strained there for a long time before I met the girl I knew there and then I wanted to marry. She was rather surprised when a month later she found out I felt the same way about her as she did about me, but for her, marriage wasn't on the cards then at all, nor were the six children!

(we got the marriage part down, still working on the other five children! )

The father has no such "authority" either. At all.

According to you, who has no authority over me to tell me whether he does, or he doesn't. We just don't, and most likely never will, think the same way about these matters. I wouldn't think any less of you for it though, I just wouldn't want to marry you!

Dial Hard

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd say the same for anyone's reaction that compared modern thinking about the idea of the boyfriend asking for his girlfriends' father's permission/approval to marry his daughter, comparing that to slave ownership or the perception of women in society decades ago would want to go away and get some perspective.

That's incredibly patronising to the women who genuinely feel like this tradition does have that connotation of ownership, Czarcasm.

I, and I suspect most of the women posting on this thread have led an incredibly privileged life in comparison to millions of women the world over. I'm well aware of that. But if anyone on this thread actually thinks that, even in Ireland, we're all that far removed from a time when women were essentially chattel, then they're either incredibly naïve or being deliberately obtuse.

That's why the idea of asking the bride's father for permission ( or approval, or his blessing - whatever way you want to pretty it up) grinds so much with some of us - we're literally only a generation or two removed from when a woman could do very little without her father or husband's permission. So for me, personally, this "tradition" hasn't yet attained the necessary distance (or perspective, if you prefer) for it to be seen as little more than a harmless anachronism.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

That's incredibly patronising to the women who genuinely feel like this tradition does have that connotation of ownership, Czarcasm.

I, and I suspect most of the women posting on this thread have led an incredibly privileged life in comparison to millions of women the world over. I'm well aware of that. But if anyone on this thread actually thinks that, even in Ireland, we're all that far removed from a time when women were essentially chattel, then they're either incredibly naïve or being deliberately obtuse.

That's why the idea of asking the bride's father for permission ( or approval, or his blessing - whatever way you want to pretty it up) grinds so much with some of us - we're literally only a generation or two removed from when a woman could do very little without her father or husband's permission. So for me, personally, this "tradition" hasn't yet attained the necessary distance (or perspective, if you prefer) for it to be seen as little more than a harmless anachronism.

Buy a tv? nope
bank account? nope
keep working? nope

Zubeneschamali

Adalyn Scrawny Goalkeeper wrote: »

What exactly "sounds like someone born in the 1920's".

Asking the father for permission to marry his daughter before proposing.

As phrased in the OP:

Girls, do you want your OH to ask your dad before you?

And you said:

It's the right thing to do and I would ask myself without doubt. I would find it a bit disrespectful not to as its a long standing tradition.

That sounds to me like something a guy in my Dad's generation would say, and something which would get you dumped by a lot of women born in the 60s or later, who would suddenly realize you are a fossil.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Asking the father for permission to marry his daughter before proposing.

As phrased in the OP:

Girls, do you want your OH to ask your dad before you?

And you said:

It's the right thing to do and I would ask myself without doubt. I would find it a bit disrespectful not to as its a long standing tradition.

That sounds to me like something a guy in my Dad's generation would say, and something which would get you dumped by a lot of women born in the 60s or later, who would suddenly realize you are a fossil.

Yet there are as many people in this thread saying they asked (and thats in AH where the common view is often the opposite to the what is common in general society), their sons asked or they were asked along with the fact I know countless people who have asked (infact as I said I think almost everyone I know who has proposed has asked) and from a number of different circles of friends (before you say I have a limited circle). You need to stop kidding yourself, an awful lot of people still do things the traditional way (and rightly so whats more).

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

If I had known her father would never accept nor approve of me as his son in law, as a suitable husband for his daughter, then I would probably have suggested that our relationship wasn't going to work out and was untenable from that point on.

Why? - you're not marrying her father.

Does your fiancee's opinion come into it in this scenario at all?

And if you're wife shared your attitude then you wouldn't be married I presume?

Barely There

Barely There wrote: »

Why? - you're not marrying her father.

Does your fiancee's opinion come into it in this scenario at all?

And if you're wife shared your attitude then you wouldn't be married I presume?

Personally I also feel a good relationship the other persons parents is important. I would find it very strange being in a relationship and not getting on very well with the other persons family. Contrary though to Czarcasm's situation the other person getting on well with my family is also extremely important as I am very close to my family and a person in a relationship with me would inevitably be spending time around my family, in my home place etc.

Anatom

Oho, this has stirred up a hornet's nest hasn't it??!!

The answer is very simple - you do what feels right for you, your OH and your particular, individual circumstances. End. Of.

In my own case, myself and my now wife knew we would be getting married and had discussed when and where etc. I wanted to "ask" her father's permission (insert whichever alternative phrase pleases you most there) because I felt it was the right thing to do, as did my girlfriend. It had nothing to do with property or chattels or any of that stuff - we were in the 20th century still at that stage afterall, not the nineteenth. Anyway, I kinda buggered it up a bit. We were both a bit embarrassed but he was glad I'd taken the time out to have the discussion anyway. We all knew - her family, my family, friends etc. - that we were headed for marraige anyway so it really was no surprise to anyone. I don't think that it is anymore really in general, is it?

All of my mates had discussions with their OH's fathers beforehand, and I'm pretty sure that the couples had discussed this approach beforehand too.

My sister was married recently and her now husband had the chat with my da. My father was absolutely delighted, and not because he was being asked for something as archaic as "permission" - he's quite liberal hmself - but he really appreciated the gesture.

My daughter is still too young yet, but when / if her time comes, I'd hope that her intended had the same chat with me. If anyone seriously suspects that their possible father-in-law would object to them marrying their daughter then that couple probably has bigger problems than who asked whom for anything.

God knows, its a small enough thing, I think its respectful and probably the only piece of the wedding that the father is notionally involved in anyway anymore...

But, it depends on who you are and on how strongly you feel about it. Each to their own.

osarusan

Dial Hard wrote: »

That's why the idea of asking the bride's father for permission ( or approval, or his blessing - whatever way you want to pretty it up) grinds so much with some of us - we're literally only a generation or two removed from when a woman could do very little without her father or husband's permission. So for me, personally, this "tradition" hasn't yet attained the necessary distance (or perspective, if you prefer) for it to be seen as little more than a harmless anachronism.

Yet there are a fair number of female posters on here who've said they don't think it's disrespectful at all, and even a small number who actually like the idea.

I think myself it's a fairly pointless but harmless thing to do (unless the guy knows it won't go down well). Still, I can see where females could find it disrespectful. I can understand that, and it's a legitimate position.

But, with the amount of legitimate criticism that can be made, going on about how it implies ownership in some way is a complete red herring, and there's no reason to be making that argument.

And it's not patronising, in my opinion, to point out that people bringing comments like the following into the thread, need to get some perspective:

Sitting at the back of the bus didn't do black people any material harm, but we understand why it's not the done thing anymore.

Dial Hard

osarusan wrote: »

Yet there are a fair number of female posters on here who've said they don't think it's disrespectful at all, and even a small number who actually like the idea.

Which is their prerogative. I'm trying to explain where those of us who do have an issue with it are coming from.

osarusan wrote: »

But, with the amount of legitimate criticism that can be made, going on about how it implies ownership in some way is a complete red herring, and there's no reason to be making that argument.

How is it a red herring? The entire tradition is directly borne of the notion of ownership.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

How is it a red herring? The entire tradition is directly borne of the notion of ownership.

Most people couldn't care less, but its seriously annoying you for some reason.

Dial Hard

Adalyn Scrawny Goalkeeper wrote: »

Most people couldn't care less, but its seriously annoying you for some reason.

How observant of you.

Czarcasm

I think though to be fair DH, and you probably do know me well enough to know this already, but I have always had the utmost respect for women (hell, only the other day I'd a fella on here calling me a white knight 'because you always agree with female posters in these gender threads', he completely missed the point that I agreed with their opinion, not simply because they were women), but when I see posters compare this ('whatever way you want to pretty it up' as you say), the reason I see them as lacking perspective is because they simply cannot appropriate the suffering of women back then and apply it in a modern context the way they're doing. It simply lacks context - "I'm sitting in Starbucks sipping a latte and using my iPhone or whatever to highlight the fact that women continue to be denigrated in society"...

The equivalence just doesn't work. Certainly, of course I understand that certain social attitudes that refuse to die a quick death already can really get up some people's noses, but to compare themselves or their perceived suffering because of this, or the reaction that causes them to react the way they do - it's because their suffering is only appropriated that they are free to react in that way, by firing off digital soundbites into the ether of the Internet, where it's more likely that all will happen is it'll be shared, liked, whatever for a while, and then easily forgotten, because people really can't relate to it or empathise with their suffering in any meaningful way, unless they too appropriate another person's 'suffering' sans context.

It's one of those things that will probably die out on it's own, eventually, but only if the people that are directly offended by it, choose to apply it in their daily lives in the present, rather than expecting other people too should be cognisant of the pain and suffering caused to women decades before they were even born.

It's like me trying to explain the nuances of quantum theory to someone who's never so much as opened a physics book - they just can't relate to it in the same way I do, and I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to them without bringing them right back to basics first.

It's no use telling people they shouldn't do this, that and the other, and expect them to understand, without explaining to them first where the idea comes from, and THEN - let them make up their own minds once they are informed as to the history of the idea, in this case this particular idea we're talking about.

I've already admitted though that even though I'm aware of the history of the tradition, my thinking isn't based on the idea that it's done because it's tradition, it's based on the idea of deference to authority, and while some posters here may see that as assinine or wrong or objectionable or whatever else, the simple fact of the matter is that a five minute back and forth online between strangers, isn't likely to have any effect on 37 years of one single idea contained within a whole mindset of a person.

As connected to each other as we all are in the modern world, we're equally as disconnected from those around us whose minds we CAN influence a lot more effectively than someone in another country or wherever, where we have no idea of the context of their life or the society in which they live.

osarusan

Dial Hard wrote: »

The entire tradition is directly borne of the notion of ownership.

Yes it is.

And there was a time when it really mean that. But it doesn't mean that any more. Nobody on this thread has said that, and I'd guess that nobody on this thread even thinks anything remotely close to that.

So it's a red herring to argue that, in 2014, those guys who would like to ask the father for a blessing/permission are doing so because of some notion of ownership.

If it has that connotation for some females, fair enough. But it's not fair to imply it has that connotation for the men also.

Czarcasm

Barely There wrote: »

Why? - you're not marrying her father.

I've already explained this what must be like a dozen times by now.

Does your fiancee's opinion come into it in this scenario at all?

Of course it does, and it did, she thought it was unusual, but as I said already, the only reason she thought it was unusual was because it seemed so conventional with regard to my more unconventional thinking.

And if you're wife shared your attitude then you wouldn't be married I presume?

I can't argue with your reasoning. Fortunately for me though that situation didn't arise. It could have arisen due to the way my family's opinion of her affected my wife, but fortunately for me again, she didn't regard their opinion as importantly as I regarded her family's opinion of me.

Dial Hard

osarusan wrote: »

So it's a red herring to argue that, in 2014, those guys who would like to ask the father for a blessing/permission are doing so because of some notion of ownership.

But what 21 pages of this thread has given me is the definite impression that a lot of the guys who asked/plan to ask don't really know why they're doing it, apart from some half-formed ideas around respect or tradition.

I don't think it's a red herring to examine where such traditions come from and explore the reasons why people continue them, is all.

osarusan

Dial Hard wrote: »

I don't think it's a red herring to examine where such traditions come from and explore the reasons why people continue them, is all.

Nothing wrong with doing that.

But, "I'm not anybody's property" type comments aren't even attempting to do that.

Zubeneschamali

osarusan wrote: »

If it has that connotation for some females, fair enough. But it's not fair to imply it has that connotation for the men also.

... and who cares what some foolish female might think, when this is a manly tradition for what men do man-to-man when organizing the females lives for them, bless their cotton socks.

Shenshen

Adalyn Scrawny Goalkeeper wrote: »

Most people couldn't care less, but its seriously annoying you for some reason.

I think you're right, most people couldn't care less either way.
But how you really cannot see how it would be insulting in the eyes of a number of females, given the history of the custom and the history of the entire female sex until quite recently is a bit beyond me.

I get that to some people who grew up without ever having to face male privilege and who never for a moment had to question their status in life as a female or know what it feels like to be treated a second class human being, it would appear to be nothing but a quaint tradition.
Those of us who have made these experiences though and have and still are fighting for equality the world over, it does have some seriously dark associations.

osarusan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

... and who cares what some foolish female might think, when this is a manly tradition for what men do man-to-man when organizing the females lives for them, bless their cotton socks.

Yeah, that's what I really think. You got me, well done.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

It sounds superfluous to you tax because of the way we think differently.

That - or because it actually is superfluous. If you were already aware the family accepted you - then asking the father to accept you on behalf of the family is superfluous.

Czarcasm wrote: »

According to you, who has no authority over me to tell me whether he does, or he doesn't. We just don't, and most likely never will, think the same way about these matters.

Exactly - the authority simply comes from how you think on the matter. Nothing more. The father has no _actual_ authority on the matter - save that which YOU afforded him. The only authority he had to permit - or deny - you his daugthers hand in marriage was entirely allocated _by you_.

But that is not my point. My point was that _other_ than the authority you personally gave him - he _has_ no such authority at all. It was merely your personal choice to deign to follow his decision. That is not the same thing.

Where a double standard comes in is that you would have called off the wedding that SHE wanted to have - on her fathers say so because you wanted to bend to the will of her family. YOUR family however were against it but you vetoed their decision and went ahead regardless.

Which means you offer yourself power to veto your families decision in the matter of marriage. But you also vetoed the same veto in your partner - in that had her family rejected you - she would not have had the power of veto that YOU exercised on YOUR families opinion.

So it appears to be one rule for you - and one for her - and that rule is that you give yourself power of veto in both circumstances and deny it to her. Nice.

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

Of course it does, and it did, she thought it was unusual, but as I said already, the only reason she thought it was unusual was because it seemed so conventional with regard to my more unconventional thinking.

I don't mean your wife's opinion on asking her father for 'permission', I mean your wife's opinion on getting married if her father refused you permission.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you have stated that if your future father in law did not agree to you marrying his daughter, you wouldn't have felt able to do so - regardless of hopw your finacee felt about the matter?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Where a double standard comes in is that you would have called off the wedding that SHE wanted to have - on her fathers say so because you wanted to bend to the will of her family. YOUR family however were against it but you vetoed their decision and went ahead regardless.

Which means you offer yourself power to veto your families decision in the matter of marriage. But you also vetoed the same veto in your partner - in that had her family rejected you - she would not have had the power of veto that YOU exercised on YOUR families opinion.

So it appears to be one rule for you - and one for her - and that rule is that you give yourself power of veto in both circumstances and deny it to her. Nice.

Bingo ...