Asking A Father's Permission

Czarcasm

Dial Hard wrote: »

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.

See I'd find that opinion just as patronising as you find the idea of deference to authority. I also find ideas that respect is earned, or that we're all adults and we're all equal, etc, to be just as patronising.

I've worked with women who were in authority over me in my career, and some I would have thought of them as utter ball breakers, but off the clock, and I can think of one woman in particular who would frequently refer to me as 'babe', 'hun', 'star', etc, you get the idea, but when in a meeting I referred to 'this paperwork is a load of balls!', she pulled me up on 'referring to a certain part of the male anatomy', had me completely lost until she explained exactly what she was talking about!

The same woman we were out one night and I got a rare glimpse into her as a person, but back in work Monday morning she was back into ball breaker mode.

Did it color my opinion of women that one woman thought the way she did? Of course not, and ultimately we had a great working and personal relationship afterwards.

Then she went and fecked off to the other side of the world with her boyfriend leaving me in the lurch! :pac: We still keep in touch of course, but I imagine she wouldn't think a whole lot of her boyfriend if he ever thought of doing what we're talking about here. I also imagine he knows that already though and probably wouldn't think a whole lot of the idea himself.


Forgot to add - this woman was ten years younger than me too!

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

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 actually don't understand how someone would be insulted by it apart from actually trying to be insulted by it, its bordering on off the wall feminist claptrap saying stuff like it "implies the woman is owned by her father". I actually don't even know any woman who would be offended either for that matter. Most women I know are extremely close to their fathers and would/did very much want this type of bonding experience between their future husband and father.

Shenshen

Adalyn Scrawny Goalkeeper wrote: »

I actually don't understand how someone would be insulted by it apart from actually trying to be insulted by it, its bordering on off the wall feminist claptrap saying stuff like it "implies the woman is owned by her father". I actually don't even know any woman who would be offended either for that matter. Most women I know are extremely close to their fathers and would/did very much want this type of bonding experience between their future husband and father.

Well, as I said, you appear to live in a very different world to the one I live in.

I've put it up for discussion in the canteen at breakfast this morning and earned a round of laughter. Most people found the notion absurd at first, and when thinking about it rather disrespectful to a lot of people.
But then there is no real data either way, just anecdotes.

I do like how you dismiss women coming on here and explaining why they would feel insulted by it as "off the wall feminist claptrap". Respect seems to be reserved exclusively for your future father in law and traditions, nevermind women's feelings.

Barely There

Adalyn Scrawny Goalkeeper wrote: »

I actually don't understand how someone would be insulted by it apart from actually trying to be insulted

Most wouldn't, but some would.

The fact that you can't understand why, despite posters supplying their reasons, is more a reflection on your ability to comprehend some fairly straighforwaed reasoning than it is on them..

ash23

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.

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:

For me it's not ownership per se. But it would really bother me that someone would think to ask my father to ask me to marry. I am a grown woman, I've not relied on my parents for 15+years and I've never relied on my father. I have a child of my own, my own home, a job and I am certainly capable of deciding who I want to marry without the input of my father. I don't like to be spoken for and for my authority over my own life to be deferred to someone else.

I wouldn't for a second expect or want my future son-in-law to ask me could he marry my daughter. That would be entirely her choice and nothing to do with me. And if I didn't approve, it would be her I would speak to about it and not him.

It's a patronising act in my opinion. And that is my opinion and feeling on it.
It might not be someone elses feeling on it but that's not to say mine aren't relevant.

Barely There

Barely There wrote: »

Most wouldn't, but some would.

The fact that you can't understand why, despite posters supplying their reasons, is more a reflection on your ability to comprehend some fairly straighforwaed reasoning than it is on them..

I should probably have worded it better.. I understand the reasoning fine I just don't agree with it.

osarusan

ash23 wrote: »

For me it's not ownership per se. But it would really bother me that someone would think to ask my father to ask me to marry. I am a grown woman, I've not relied on my parents for 15+years and I've never relied on my father. I have a child of my own, my own home, a job and I am certainly capable of deciding who I want to marry without the input of my father. I don't like to be spoken for and for my authority over my own life to be deferred to someone else.

I wouldn't for a second expect or want my future son-in-law to ask me could he marry my daughter. That would be entirely her choice and nothing to do with me.

It's a patronising act in my opinion. And that is my opinion and feeling on it.
It might not be someone elses feeling on it but that's not to say mine aren't relevant.

You quoted my post, but I don't really see anything in your post that was in reply to anything in mine, was there?

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I was aware that the family accepted me, but I wanted it guaranteed, I wanted to hear it from her father, for my own peace of mind. To YOU that is merely superfluous. To me your opinion is merely superfluous.

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_.

Well that's just stating the obvious.

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.

You understand the difference between what you see as fact, and what I see as fact, is merely based on our difference of opinion?

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.

Might be a double standard if that's what I said, I didn't. It would be a double standard if I felt my wife didn't have the right to make the same decision as I did. She could well have said that she could no longer continue the relationship without my parents approval.

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.

My wife has that same power to veto her family's decision in the matter of marriage. If her family had rejected me, she would of course have had the same power to veto that I exercised on my families opinion. I'm still not seeing the hypocrisy, unless you mean that I would disregard her veto in favour of her father's decision? Yeah, then you might have a point alright, but as it stands, you don't.

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.

I never denied her power to veto, you came up with that double standard yourself based on your assumptions about me, in the same way as I would have made the assumption that her father approved of me if I hadn't asked - just because someone doesn't say something doesn't mean you should assume their position. That would be disrespectful. Nice.

ash23

osarusan wrote: »

You quoted my post, but I don't really see anything in your post that was in reply to anything in mine, was there?

You said the ownership thing was a red herring. I was trying to explain that it is less about physical ownership and more about the insult of deferring to someone else to make a decision for a woman.

It's the implication that a father would have that kind of authority over his daughter. Stemming from a time when a woman was seen as a possession and not able to make her own choices.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

If her father had refused, then I wouldn't have asked his daughter to marry me, as I feel that would be me imposing myself on his family.

There's your double standard, you did say it

My family doesn't like the wife - tough sh!t for them
Her *father* doesn't like me - tough sh!t for her

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

My wife has that same power to veto her family's decision in the matter of marriage. If her family had rejected me, she would of course have had the same power to veto that I exercised on my families opinion. I'm still not seeing the hypocrisy, unless you mean that I would disregard her veto in favour of her father's decision? Yeah, then you might have a point alright, but as it stands, you don't.

Where's your wife's 'power of veto' in this scenario?

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.

osarusan

ash23 wrote: »

You said the ownership thing was a red herring.

What I've said, more than once is that the idea that the man asks the future father-in-law because he believes the father-in-law has some kind of ownership is a red herring.

ash23 wrote: »

It's the implication that a father would have that kind of authority over his daughter.

Again, if that is what it implies to you, then you have every right to feel insulted. I've no problem with this argument.

But when the argument is that a man's wish to ask his future father in law implies that he believes the father-in-law actually has some powers of ownership/guardianship/authority to make such a decision for his daughter, I think it's not a fair argument.

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was aware that the family accepted me, but I wanted it guaranteed, I wanted to hear it from her father, for my own peace of mind. To YOU that is merely superfluous. To me your opinion is merely superfluous.

You see, you've gone and tied yourself in a nonsensical linguistic knot in trying to portray yourself as some uber-respecter of this archaic tradition.

I'm all for a bit of tradition - some of it's nice and this one if a fairly harmless one that most people would take or leave.

But

By giving your father-in-law the 'right' to veto your marriage, you've effectively installed him as the pseudo owner of your wife - and that's not a very sensible way to think about things.

Czarcasm

bluewolf wrote: »

There's your double standard, you did say it

My family doesn't like the wife - tough sh!t for them

Her *father* doesn't like me - tough sh!t for her

That's a rather simplistic view in fairness that takes what I said completely out of context, or maybe because it lacks context, you're seeing it that way.

I was incredibly hurt that my family couldn't accept my wife, but at that stage, they had already lost my respect, so their authority over me was of no consequence to me personally. That was a completely separate matter long before I'd even met my wife, and perhaps I could say it's what fuelled my need to be accepted by my wife's father, because my own could never accept me as a person. Her father after all to most people would just legally be labelled my father in law, but to me personally, the idea was far more important than just what it meant on paper.

If her father didn't like me, it was tough shìt for both of us.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was aware that the family accepted me, but I wanted it guaranteed, I wanted to hear it from her father, for my own peace of mind.

So the whole engagement in the superfluous practice was because you are needy?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well that's just stating the obvious.

Glad we are agreed then. The father has no _actual_ authority in the matter. You just chose to deign to his opinion. That is the fact, not a difference of opinion.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It would be a double standard if I felt my wife didn't have the right to make the same decision as I did.

She didnt. You had the right to veto your families opinion and proceed with the wedding. She did not. Had her father refused you would have cancelled the wedding and not married, regardless of her attempt to veto.

That is where the double standard I refer to lies.

Czarcasm wrote: »

unless you mean that I would disregard her veto in favour of her father's decision? Yeah, then you might have a point alright, but as it stands, you don't.

But that is exactly what you said. You said you would not have proceeded had the father refused. So she did not have the right to veto his decision because YOU simply would not have proceeded with it. Two users have directly quoted you above saying this.

ash23

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was incredibly hurt that my family couldn't accept my wife, but at that stage, they had already lost my respect, so their authority over me was of no consequence to me personally. That was a completely separate matter long before I'd even met my wife, and perhaps I could say it's what fuelled my need to be accepted by my wife's father, because my own could never accept me as a person. Her father after all to most people would just legally be labelled my father in law, but to me personally, the idea was far more important than just what it meant on paper.

If her father didn't like me, it was tough shìt for both of us.

But if the roles were reversed and your wife was planning on proposing to you, would you have minded her asking your parents seeing as you felt that way about them?
Would you have been hurt if they had said no and she had then refused to marry you?

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

If her father didn't like me, it was tough shìt for both of us.

I'd never invest an external person to my marriage with so much power over myself and my wife's own personal happiness.

Czarcasm

Barely There wrote: »

You see, you've gone and tied yourself in a nonsensical linguistic knot in trying to portray yourself as some uber-respecter of this archaic tradition.

Did you miss the numerous times I have already said my opinion isn't based on tradition? Hence your point about me trying to "portray" myself as anything is the reason for your nonsensical misinterpretation of my point of view.

I'm all for a bit of tradition - some of it's nice and this one if a fairly harmless one that most people would take or leave.

I'm not, tradition for tradition's sake is meaningless at an individual level. I always make the point that just because people did something in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea now. I completely agree with DH in that respect, that we should examine and discuss ideas and see if there's a better way of doing things.

By giving your father-in-law the 'right' to veto your marriage, you've effectively installed him as the pseudo owner of your wife - and that's not a very sensible way to think about things.

You had to infer an awful lot to try and make that point with your quote unquote 'right', and your use of the word pseudo. Perhaps if you didn't tie yourself up in linguistic knots to make your point, you'd realise you really don't have one, unless you fabricate one out of assumptions.

GarIT

I'd never do it for a couple of reasons.

I think it is very insulting to ask the father if you are going to do what he says. You can't offer someone the right to decide something on condition they say what you like. It's essentially 'your opinion is important to me if you agree with me'.

More importantly I feel it insults the woman as you are either implying someone has control over her or actually giving someone control over her.

I someone asked me about my daughter there is no chance I'd agree, he would be ran from the house and I wouldn't have the lowlife in my house again.

Czarcasm

Barely There wrote: »

I'd never invest an external person to my marriage with so much power over myself and my wife's own personal happiness.

Good for you, but because we don't think the same way, I wouldn't be applying your opinion to my particular circumstances any time soon. My wife feels the same way I do. She doesn't feel any way owned or anything else, and somewhat similar to the point tax made earlier - my wife's father isn't offended that I defer an authority upon him that he doesn't feel is necessary. He understands that's who I am as a person and he doesn't feel the same need some posters here do to foist his opinions upon me and tell me that my opinion is stupid, archaic, etc.

In fact, none of my wife's family feel that way, and they have told me as much so I didn't have to assume, and I'll place more value in their opinions than the opinions of people on the Internet who have the barest glimpse into 17 years of a relationship, and 37 years of a mindset.

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

You had to infer an awful lot to try and make that point with your quote unquote 'right', and your use of the word pseudo. Perhaps if you didn't tie yourself up in linguistic knots to make your point, you'd realise you really don't have one, unless you fabricate one out of assumptions.

I really didn't have to infer very much at all.

I just had to read your comments that you wouldn't have married your wife if her father had refused you permission to, and inferred from this that you viewed your father in law as having the right to dictate who should and shouldn't marry his daughter, without either of you taking the lady's opinion into account it would seem.

If this doesn't imply some kind of 'ownership' over his daughter, I don't know what does.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So the whole engagement in the superfluous practice was because you are needy?

Human beings having needs, shocking!

Glad we are agreed then. The father has no _actual_ authority in the matter. You just chose to deign to his opinion. That is the fact, not a difference of opinion.

Stating what YOU feel is obvious, from YOUR point of view. Is that easier for you? Your point of view and my point of view are not the same. That's the only fact that's relevant here.

She didnt. You had the right to veto your families opinion and proceed with the wedding. She did not. Had her father refused you would have cancelled the wedding and not married, regardless of her attempt to veto.

That is where the double standard I refer to lies.

She chose not to exercise her right to veto the wedding. My father had refused, and she chose not to exercise her right to end the relationship. You're looking for something that isn't there, perhaps because you need to see it.

But that is exactly what you said. You said you would not have proceeded had the father refused. So she did not have the right to veto his decision because YOU simply would not have proceeded with it. Two users have directly quoted you above saying this.

She had the right to veto my father's decision, and she did. Where's the double standard again?

Call Me Jimmy

I'd do it in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way possibly... unless future wifey had a problem with it

then I'd have to smack her around a bit and tell her to show some damn respect :pac:

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

I someone asked me about my daughter there is no chance I'd agree, he would be ran from the house and I wouldn't have the lowlife in my house again.

That's pathetic to honest. You do realise its very lightly to happen as its common practice.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Human beings having needs, shocking!

Hardly what I was saying.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Your point of view and my point of view are not the same. That's the only fact that's relevant here.

Except they are the same. You said as much by stating that the fact I put forward was "obvious". So we are entirely agreed on that fact - and opinion or points of views have nothing to do with it.

Czarcasm wrote: »

She chose not to exercise her right to veto the wedding. My father had refused, and she chose not to exercise her right to end the relationship. You're looking for something that isn't there, perhaps because you need to see it.

What I see is there. What you are replying to is something I was not talking about.

Again:

1) Your family refused but you proceeded anyway. You had the choice to proceed regardless of your own families wishes.

2) SHE did not have the same chance because had HER family refused - the wedding would not have proceeded. Because while she could have chosen to ignore her families wishes - as you did with yours - her choice was irrelevant because _you_ would have chosen to cancel. Thus vetoing her veto over her fathers decision.

So in both cases the power of veto was yours - never hers.

Czarcasm wrote: »

She had the right to veto my father's decision, and she did. Where's the double standard again?

See above.

Czarcasm

Barely There wrote: »

I really didn't have to infer very much at all.

I just had to read your comments that you wouldn't have married your wife if her father had refused you permission to, and inferred from this that you viewed your father in law as having the right to dictate who should and shouldn't marry his daughter, without either of you taking the lady's opinion into account it would seem.

If this doesn't imply some kind of 'ownership' over his daughter, I don't know what does.

That's the way it would seem to you, because you're ignoring what else I've already said on the thread. My wife and I had often talked about marriage long before I ever approached her father.

Honestly, you'd swear some people here thought these things happen in a vacuum the way they go on. That's called 'blinkered vision', when you're only seeing what you want to see and refuse to view it from anyone else's perspective.

The irony that those people then would berate others for anything about 'implied ownership' when they refuse to bend to their will :rolleyes:

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

See above.

With all due respect tax, I see where you're coming from, but I think I'd only be repeating myself at this stage as you're unlikely ever to understand my perspective without context which I am unwilling to post on the Internet.

I'll only justify myself to strangers up to a certain point, and after that I'm willing to say fair enough, you can think whatever way you want, as if it'll make any difference.

Barely There

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's the way it would seem to you, because you're ignoring what else I've already said on the thread. My wife and I had often talked about marriage long before I ever approached her father.
perspective.

Did you mention to your future wife during these chats, that regardless of what ye both decided, if her father didn't agree to the marriage, it wouldn't be going ahead?

If so, you're a very lucky man if you didn't get a firm kick in the balls.

Czarcasm

ash23 wrote: »

But if the roles were reversed and your wife was planning on proposing to you, would you have minded her asking your parents seeing as you felt that way about them?

I wouldn't ash tbh.

Would you have been hurt if they had said no and she had then refused to marry you?

Of course, absolutely, but I would have had to respect the fact that that's the way she feels, and I would have had to accept that and move on with my life.

She was by no means the first girl I'd ever dated that didn't meet with my parents approval, none of the girls I'd ever dated met with my parents approval, and they chose to exercise their veto to end the relationship on that basis. I couldn't blame them for making that decision. They had to do what they felt was right for them, and I wasn't going to make their decision any more difficult for them. Exposure to my parents opinions had already hurt them enough.

Czarcasm

Barely There wrote: »

Did you mention to your future wife during these chats, that regardless of what ye both decided, if her father didn't agree to the marriage, it wouldn't be going ahead?

If so, you're a very lucky man if you didn't get a firm kick in the balls.

Not that I believe in luck, but of course we talked about that aspect, and my wife understood where I was coming from, so we avoided any unnecessary ball kicking, thankfully!