Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah FFS. You're far too sensitive about this. If you think the only way to discuss a topic is to use the exact same words back and forth then you're being silly. Disconnected from young people or unable to understand young people. Whatever way you want to phrase it. Being unable to understand young people means you can't really connect with them. That's obvious.

If you don't see the problem then that's a genuine problem - and you know it's a problem and that's why you're avoiding actually responding about it.

El_D, the issue isn't just with using different words, the issue is with being dishonest. You quote me, assign new words to create different meanings to what I said, and then, interject your own argument.

You're not arguing/discussing with me. You're discussing with yourself. Since after three posts, you're no longer discussing what I said, but instead, you're discussing something else entirely. Go back to my original post, and then compare it to your last post.. I haven't added anything extra to it... but you have.

As for this being "a genuine problem", you really should consider applying the same logic to yourself first....

Ninja Moose

Ninja Moose wrote: »

El Duderino was never able to compete in terms of masculinity in his adolescence, girls weren't interested in him and he ranked low on the totem pole amongst his Male peers. He was likely not very good at sports, the domain where masculinity thrives. This was a very painful experience for El Duderino. As a coping mechanism he came to disdain masculinity, a better alternative than accepting himself as not good enough.

Oddly enough, that could be used to describe me. Pretty accurate description of my teens.

It's textbook "mirroring" of his inner trauma.

More projection than mirroring. Not that I agree with your analysis of El_D since this is still a BBS, and I know nothing about him beyond his posts... which I'd never use to assign any weight of evidence to represent an actual personality.

Antares35

the purple tin wrote: »

Old married couples always have great stories about how they met and started courting.
In a few years the stock answer will be 'we met online'.

Probably, but I suppose there isn't anything wrong with that. I met my OH online and I've never been happier. He really is the love of my life. TBH it's no better/ worse/ different to "we met in a bar when we were hammered". And the "first time you meet" is just that. There is so much more to every couple's story. I've a friend who is a real snob about online dating, he thinks it's beneath him. Always moaning how he "can't get a girl". Don't know how many times we tried to set him up online. He is having none of it. He just expects her to turn up at his bedroom window or something :pac: He's just getting more and more bitter all the time because he literally hasn't had a date for almost a decade

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don’t think the current system provides adequately for every single circumstance. In every system you can think of, no matter what way you try to force an outcome, there are advantages and disadvantages in every system. The closest system I can think of where we might agree is the system in the US of family leave, but again, there’s the question of who ultimately pays for it, employers, or Government, and it also comes with its own set of who qualifies for it -


Millions of Americans Could Finally Get Paid Family Leave—If Lawmakers Can Agree On Who Pays


The current system in Ireland doesn’t assume the person with the career is male btw, it’s based upon the assumption that the only persons who can become pregnant and give birth are women (but watch this space ), and that assumption has all sorts of consequences in family law and employment law. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing will depend upon the individual’s circumstances (I reeeeally don’t want to go down that rabbit hole, but think legal guardianship, surrogacy, adoption, custody, etc).

In short, I find it difficult to understand where you’re coming from in a system where there are advantages and disadvantages for both sexes when there is an obvious justification for extended maternity leave for mothers in employment law, but there’s no obvious justification for fathers apart from the idea of handicapping them by forcing them to take paternity leave they don’t want, in the pursuit of women’s equality in employment.

Yes of course you could argue that fathers are supposed to use that time to bond with their children and take a load off the mother, but most couples are able to delegate among themselves already in ways where they are strongest, and that usually means mothers being the primary caregivers, and fathers being the primary providers - they each have different, but equal responsibilities.

It’s not the system which disadvantages couples where the opposite is the case, that’s simply down to people within the relationship who are unhappy that the other person (or persons!) in the relationship are unwilling to compromise. In order to avoid those circumstances, women again have the option of going Danish, but again, there are advantages and disadvantages in that system too -



The motherhood penalty is still deeply entrenched ... even in Denmark

You make good points, most of which I agree with actually. I suppose for me an ideal system (which possibly doesn't exist currently) would be one where the family is allocated (X) amount of parental leave, to be split between themselves in whatever way they choose. Except that where one parent has given birth (so not for cases of adoption, surrogacy) that parent should have mandatory 6 weeks of leave after the birth, in order to allow physical recovery and avoid a situation where they might feel under pressure to return sooner.

As far as I can make out this in no way disadvantages families who wish to take the 'traditional' route where the father works and the mother does most of the childcare, while also allowing families who want to take a different approach to do so. The only disadvantage I can see is of course the cost and time associated with changing the current legislation. Not insignificant, but still worth doing in my opinion.

What do you think?

lozenges

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends on who you're talking to. Did you know that possession of sperm outside of the male body doesn't belong to the male? Women can (and have) taken male sperm through various methods to have children without the consent or actual involvement of the male.... Women's body rights are protected, but male rights are dismissed.. so, you'll find that it doesn't take two people to have a child, because women's rights are greater..




Actually I didn't. I said that they want a successful career in addition to having children. If they just want a career, that's easily done by taking the low end positions which don't require much in the way of time commitment. The problem is that women often include the nursing/raising of a child as being part of having a child. Which means a distraction from having a career where they can compete against others to gain higher positions.

Take breastfeeding for an example. In the States a huge percentage of women who have children are finding that they don't produce enough milk to feed their babies. This has been tied to the stress that women have through their jobs. Now, there is the belief that women should be able to work and feed their kids, in spite of that biological problem. Which is why there is a major push to decrease the stress in positions for women, but there is still the problem of being competitive against others to gain positions.... and so, we get quotas and other initiatives to decrease those problems. Which is unrealistic, simply because the company still needs to compete with external threats, but they're forced to accommodate women who want a successful career along with having children..... That's why the economics are so important and there is a sense of unreality to the whole thing.



We're in agreement then.



Depends on the role TBH. Considering the deadline nature of IT, and especially the project orientation, many aspects of IT don't do well from a WFH application. It requires all workers to be supremely disciplined about their work, which in a modern world, is becoming rare. Sure, the people at the top of their game are extremely well disciplined, but most others aren't. Which is why WFH isn't likely to become the norm.



I'd like to see efforts to reduce the living costs across the board. IMHO living in a western nation doesn't have to be so damn expensive. At the same time though, competition between companies is only going to increase, which will result, in greater competition from an employment perspective.

If someone just wants to work, while having a child, they can already do that. The problem is the expectation of holding a prominent position, while also playing the role of a mother. Men traditionally know that it's next to impossible to do both. The lives of those in upper management, is littered with divorces, custody battles, children with "daddy issues", etc... because the men chose their careers over spending enough time with their family. The difference now is that women/feminists expect to hold those positions without those problems, and are expecting reality to shift to accommodate them.

That's why I find it unrealistic. I'm not finding your posts unrealistic btw.

Heh, thanks. I like to think I'm realistic, but you never know!

I think that yes, being the primary caregiver for a child(ren) and having a very successful career is pretty much impossible, so there's no point people twisting themselves in knots trying to achieve it. And purely anecdotally from the women I know, most of them do want children and to be the primary caregiver for them. Grand. The difficulty is for the, admittedly smaller proportion, that don't, ie families that prefer the male parent to be primary caregiver, or to try to split the care amongst themselves.

The way I see it there are probably 3 broad paradigms for how it works:

1. One parent works and the other is a stay at home parent. Works well for childcare costs, etc. No obstacles if the father is working and mother stays at home. Some obstacles (the paternity/maternity leave disparity) if the opposite is true (less common though admittedly)

2. Both parents have careers. Primary caregiver is someone other than the parents, e.g. nanny, au pair, maybe boarding school when the child is older

3. Probably the most awkward scenario - both parents working, one parent is the primary caregiver. Probably not as difficult if neither are 'careers' as such eg one parent teaching and other mid level civil service, happy in their roles with no desire to advance. Much more difficult otherwise.

Anyway I feel I've dragged the thread somewhat off topic! Interesting conversation though, I think we probably have more that we agree on than not which is always nice

Silentcorner

Antares35 wrote: »

Probably, but I suppose there isn't anything wrong with that. I met my OH online and I've never been happier. He really is the love of my life. TBH it's no better/ worse/ different to "we met in a bar when we were hammered". And the "first time you meet" is just that. There is so much more to every couple's story. I've a friend who is a real snob about online dating, he thinks it's beneath him. Always moaning how he "can't get a girl". Don't know how many times we tried to set him up online. He is having none of it. He just expects her to turn up at his bedroom window or something :pac: He's just getting more and more bitter all the time because he literally hasn't had a date for almost a decade

I don't think people are aware of the long term impact of being single or alone, it requires an enormous amount of personal strength that a lot of people struggle with, you can see it in people who think they are not to blame for the predicament they find themselves in...imagine that festering in a persons mind for 10/20 years.

There are no amount of articles or youtube videos or whatever that is going to make your life easier...in fact Id say to both genders keep away from any content that tries to persuade you that you'd be happier alone.

If you find yourself on your own, you need to be prepared to work hard to remain healthy!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't think people are aware of the long term impact of being single or alone, it requires an enormous amount of personal strength that a lot of people struggle with, you can see it in people who think they are not to blame for the predicament they find themselves in...imagine that festering in a persons mind for 10/20 years.

There are no amount of articles or youtube videos or whatever that is going to make your life easier...in fact Id say to both genders keep away from any content that tries to persuade you that you'd be happier alone.

If you find yourself on your own, you need to be prepared to work hard to remain healthy!

Yes and no. There is a certain PR spin out there about relationships and the "need" for companionship. For myself, I've been single most of my life.

Sure, I've had a variety of relationships but when considering my 43 years, most of it I've been single. As a child/teen, I had very few friends, same with my 20s, and while my 30s were far busier with friendships, I've found that I've reverted back to having few actual friends in my 40s. Plenty of acquaintances, but few actual friends. Which suits me just fine. Just as I get older, I feel less of a desire for a romantic or intimate relationship.

I always felt that I was a bit of an oddball by thinking/being that way, but in the last decade, I've met a lot of people (both genders) who are similar to myself. It's just that we don't tend to talk much about it, being rather private about our personal lives.

I think some people are suited to being alone. That's not to say that they don't have friends or lovers, but they don't need a life partner. I do think it's not a terribly common attitude though.

As for personal responsibility for their lives... if you're alone a lot, introspection is unavoidable. I think too much. Always have. And I'm very aware of what has led me to this kind of lifestyle, and I wouldn't change a thing. It suits me just fine. Some responsibility rests with the people I have encountered throughout my life... but the majority rests with me due to the choices I made.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

What do you think?

I think there doesn’t need to be any change in legislation, we already have maternity leave, paternity leave, parental leave, adoptive leave, and even parents leave as distinct from parental leave, so people are generally well covered in the area of leave from employment.

The issue surrounds the fact that in taking leave, there is the risk that the employee is not considered equally by employers in terms of employment opportunities, promotion or financial remuneration. It seems obvious to point out that there would be a trade-off when comparing people who aren’t as committed to employment to those who are, and while it’s not an equal comparison, it’s a fair one - I see no justification as to why an employer should consider someone who takes time off as equal to someone who doesn’t. By all means employers should support their employees, that just makes good business sense, but obliging employers to bend over backwards and ignore the bleeding obvious is where it gets tricky.

The other issue as I see it is this idea of portraying motherhood as a “penalty” in terms of their employment opportunities. First of all, from what I can see anyway, it’s an immediate depreciation of the value of mothers, and secondly it places something of a coercive obligation on women that they have a responsibility not just towards their families, but also towards other women - that they must be seen to be able to fulfill both roles, with bells on!

Men exert a similar sort of influence on each other - provide for their families by being in gainful employment, that’s how most people, both men and women, perceive fatherhood, not because it’s tradition, but simply because it’s what they know, of their own experiences of childhood and growing up in a society where mothers are generally the primary caregivers, and fathers are the primary providers. That’s why people generally form the opinions they do, and they’re wondering because they don’t see anything wrong with that.

I don’t support people who see something wrong with that, because their ideals are based upon devaluation of motherhood and the promotion of the idea where the obvious and logical conclusion is that if women are to be equal to men in terms of employment - they must forego motherhood. They simply can’t commit to either role - they’re pressured to fulfill both, and those people champion “working mums”. I don’t, because from my experience I see mothers who are trying to balance family and work life and it puts an enormous burden of guilt on them that they aren’t able to split themselves in two and fully commit to both roles equally. These women themselves have soaked up the notion that motherhood is of lesser value to society than excelling in their careers as men are pressured to do. Women are burdened with a dual responsibility, whereas men aren’t. There are concerted attempts to shift that dual responsibility onto men so that men feel equally guilty that they aren’t fulfilling dual roles and aren’t fully committed to either - by spending time with their families and by providing for their families - can’t do both equally and excel in both, and there is the idea among some people of championing fathers who do both, in the same way as they champion “working mums”, now they champion “working fathers”.

It’s all a bit naff tbh, but I’m biased because I don’t imagine I’m failing as a father if I’m not “bonding” with my child and excelling in employment. I just have a different ideals, standards and expectations of fatherhood (and indeed motherhood) than they do. I don’t imagine most people of either gender share their ideals and that’s why their ideals are still in a minority - they’re a bit shìte all round really. They’re of no real benefit to men, of no real benefit to children, and they’re certainly of no real benefit to women, but rather they create a standard where women are being set up to perceive themselves as a failure, in whatever role they choose for themselves.

It’s one of the contributing factors, I believe, in the rising numbers of women who are choosing to take their own lives. Yes, we know all about the male suicide rates, but suicide rates for women appear to have either flown under the radar, or rather I suspect more likely, been brushed under the carpet and hidden away, at the cost of promoting an ideology that women have to do it all in order to be perceived as ‘successful’, and anything else is failure -


Women's Suicide Rates Are Increasing Faster Than Men's. We Asked Experts Why

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

El_D, the issue isn't just with using different words, the issue is with being dishonest. You quote me, assign new words to create different meanings to what I said, and then, interject your own argument.

You're not arguing/discussing with me. You're discussing with yourself. Since after three posts, you're no longer discussing what I said, but instead, you're discussing something else entirely. Go back to my original post, and then compare it to your last post.. I haven't added anything extra to it... but you have.

As for this being "a genuine problem", you really should consider applying the same logic to yourself first....

Sure. And you'veade clear that you won't engage with the problem you've highlighted, namely that you don't understand the young people. I've outlined why that's a problem... and you've taken issue with the phrasing I used and completely ignored the wider context. If you were able to address the Context without acknowledging the issue, you would have.

If you're unable to understand young people then it's a comprehension problem on your part. If you can't understand them, you can't communicate with them. And if you don't even bother to communicate with them, how can you teach them?

The irony is when someone who can't be bothered to even try to understand and communicate with younger people then complains that young people have different values - even though they haven't even bothered to teach them about their own values.

I've heard the expression that common sense can't be taught (and if you're stupid when you're 20 you'll be stupid when you're 90) I completely disagree. "Common sense" as we call it, is mostly taught informally in the form of role modelling. You have to have older, more experienced people around in order to learn from them.

Abdicate your responsibility to teach the younger generation if you like, but at least be honest about your failing. And don't dare complain that the younger generation don't share your values when you didn't even bother to teach them about your values

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Abdicate your responsibility to teach the younger generation if you like, but at least be honest about your failing. And don't dare complain that the younger generation don't share your values when you didn't even bother to teach them about your values

I do wonder about you sometimes. How you manage to come to these kind of conclusions about other people, when it's not represented in their actual posts? You seem to have the amazing ability to see past what is written and...

Nah. You're full of ****e. I posted something in response to someone else, and you've been intent on doubling down, on expanding what I posted far beyond what was originally written. Complain? The fact that you took that from my post, just shows how little you tried to understand what was written, or the lack of an attempt to understand another persons pov.

The sad part is that I probably have more empathy than you do, since I'm not intent on reinterpreting everything to fit my own worldview. I listen to people. I don't claim to understand exactly where they're coming from, but I listen to what they actually say. You, on the other hand, seek to twist what people say. You've done it many times before, and undoubtedly, you'll continue to do so.

So, I really am finished responding to these posts... because you're incapable of listening. As I said earlier, you're arguing with yourself, rather than seeking to engage with other posters.

DEFTLEFTHAND

My maternal grandparents basically had an arranged marriage, they were both in their thirties at the time and single. Their respective fathers were in business together, Offaly cattle dealers, and made it happen.

They had 4 kids together but a joyless marriage.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think there doesn’t need to be any change in legislation, we already have maternity leave, paternity leave, parental leave, adoptive leave, and even parents leave as distinct from parental leave, so people are generally well covered in the area of leave from employment.

The issue surrounds the fact that in taking leave, there is the risk that the employee is not considered equally by employers in terms of employment opportunities, promotion or financial remuneration. It seems obvious to point out that there would be a trade-off when comparing people who aren’t as committed to employment to those who are, and while it’s not an equal comparison, it’s a fair one - I see no justification as to why an employer should consider someone who takes time off as equal to someone who doesn’t. By all means employers should support their employees, that just makes good business sense, but obliging employers to bend over backwards and ignore the bleeding obvious is where it gets tricky.

The other issue as I see it is this idea of portraying motherhood as a “penalty” in terms of their employment opportunities. First of all, from what I can see anyway, it’s an immediate depreciation of the value of mothers, and secondly it places something of a coercive obligation on women that they have a responsibility not just towards their families, but also towards other women - that they must be seen to be able to fulfill both roles, with bells on!

Men exert a similar sort of influence on each other - provide for their families by being in gainful employment, that’s how most people, both men and women, perceive fatherhood, not because it’s tradition, but simply because it’s what they know, of their own experiences of childhood and growing up in a society where mothers are generally the primary caregivers, and fathers are the primary providers. That’s why people generally form the opinions they do, and they’re wondering because they don’t see anything wrong with that.

I don’t support people who see something wrong with that, because their ideals are based upon devaluation of motherhood and the promotion of the idea where the obvious and logical conclusion is that if women are to be equal to men in terms of employment - they must forego motherhood. They simply can’t commit to either role - they’re pressured to fulfill both, and those people champion “working mums”. I don’t, because from my experience I see mothers who are trying to balance family and work life and it puts an enormous burden of guilt on them that they aren’t able to split themselves in two and fully commit to both roles equally. These women themselves have soaked up the notion that motherhood is of lesser value to society than excelling in their careers as men are pressured to do. Women are burdened with a dual responsibility, whereas men aren’t. There are concerted attempts to shift that dual responsibility onto men so that men feel equally guilty that they aren’t fulfilling dual roles and aren’t fully committed to either - by spending time with their families and by providing for their families - can’t do both equally and excel in both, and there is the idea among some people of championing fathers who do both, in the same way as they champion “working mums”, now they champion “working fathers”.

It’s all a bit naff tbh, but I’m biased because I don’t imagine I’m failing as a father if I’m not “bonding” with my child and excelling in employment. I just have a different ideals, standards and expectations of fatherhood (and indeed motherhood) than they do. I don’t imagine most people of either gender share their ideals and that’s why their ideals are still in a minority - they’re a bit shìte all round really. They’re of no real benefit to men, of no real benefit to children, and they’re certainly of no real benefit to women, but rather they create a standard where women are being set up to perceive themselves as a failure, in whatever role they choose for themselves.

It’s one of the contributing factors, I believe, in the rising numbers of women who are choosing to take their own lives. Yes, we know all about the male suicide rates, but suicide rates for women appear to have either flown under the radar, or rather I suspect more likely, been brushed under the carpet and hidden away, at the cost of promoting an ideology that women have to do it all in order to be perceived as ‘successful’, and anything else is failure -


Women's Suicide Rates Are Increasing Faster Than Men's. We Asked Experts Why

Sure, but in one of your earlier posts you specifically mention that you think that families should be permitted to raise their families in the way that best suits them, not the way that someone else thinks they should be raised. Yet you don't agree that leave arrangements should be altered to allow families to do just that, despite the fact that it would not negatively affect those who the current arrangement suits, presumably because you think the traditional paradigm is superior.
Do you not see the contradiction there?

As for one parent being 'less committed to employment'. As I have said previously - for planned pregnancies - two parents are involved. Two people make that choice. So why do you decide that one parent is 'less committed to employment' when two people have a child together?

I have also never asserted that you are 'failing as a father' as you put it. I simply don't understand why one would choose to have children in that instance. As you say yourself there are downsides to having kids - time, money, freedom. In a 1st world country I would have thought that the major upside for people which balances out these negatives is the anticipation of having a close and loving relationship with the child. What are the reasons that you see for having children (I mean this as a general question, not *your* personal reasons for having children) other than that?

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

Sure, but in one of your earlier posts you specifically mention that you think that families should be permitted to raise their families in the way that best suits them, not the way that someone else thinks they should be raised. Yet you don't agree that leave arrangements should be altered to allow families to do just that, despite the fact that it would not negatively affect those who the current arrangement suits, presumably because you think the traditional paradigm is superior.
Do you not see the contradiction there?

Well, no, I don’t see any contradiction in what I actually said earlier. I acknowledged that people are free to make these decisions for themselves. I never said anything about what they should or shouldn’t be permitted to do, they’re free to do what suits them within the current framework that I don’t think requires any changes -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rest assured that’s not what I’m doing. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from but you’re jumping all over the place from suggesting that if parents don’t want to spend time with their children, you don’t understand why they would have children, to pointing out the downsides of maternity leave and suggesting that it’s only fair that the same downsides should be experienced by men in the form of paternity leave, to now suggesting as I have throughout this thread that people are free to make these decisions for themselves. That doesn’t require any adjustment to current policies - people just work within the current framework and there are advantages and disadvantages to that framework, same as there is in any framework.

lozenges wrote: »

As for one parent being 'less committed to employment'. As I have said previously - for planned pregnancies - two parents are involved. Two people make that choice. So why do you decide that one parent is 'less committed to employment' when two people have a child together?

I don’t decide that parents are less committed to employment if they have children. Parents themselves decide that they are less committed to employment if they choose to take time off to commit to their families. I don’t have any issue whatsoever with people taking time off employment to commit to their families. I have massive issues with people who take time off to commit to their families, and then expect employers should be obligated to treat them equally to those who commit to their employers. It’s just bizarre to me that someone would expect to be regarded equally when they don’t commit equally to someone else who does? It’s as though they expect employers to reward them for putting their families before their employers! People are free to do that of course, but they shouldn’t expect their employer to reward them for it. Most people don’t, only a minority of people do.

lozenges wrote: »

I have also never asserted that you are 'failing as a father' as you put it. I simply don't understand why one would choose to have children in that instance. As you say yourself there are downsides to having kids - time, money, freedom. In a 1st world country I would have thought that the major upside for people which balances out these negatives is the anticipation of having a close and loving relationship with the child. What are the reasons that you see for having children (I mean this as a general question, not *your* personal reasons for having children) other than that?

Ahh no I know you didn’t assert that I personally was failing as a father, I was making the point that there are a small cohort of people who are trying to shift that dual role that they expect of women, onto men, so that men too feel as guilty as women that they aren’t able to split themselves in two -


Working Father Fail? Why Many Dads Struggle With Work-Life Imbalance


The major upside for me of having children is simply that I love children, and from an early age I knew I wanted to have a few. I think it’s that simple for most people who want to have children. The idea of having a close and loving relationship with them though isn’t something I can relate to. I mean, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not something that I considered - I’m more fulfilled I suppose by knowing that I can provide for my family so that we have a good quality of life, so that I suppose my wife can concentrate primarily on raising our child as that makes her happy, and I can concentrate on providing for all three of us, as that makes me happy.

I don’t want to give you the impression that I think any form of relationship is superior or inferior to another btw, I’m a firm believer in the whole “you do you” (not you personally, I mean just whatever works for people, y’know, more power to them), but when I think people are taking the piss by expecting that they should be treated equally to people who they see as having advantages over them, and they want those advantages, without all the disadvantages, I can understand why they wouldn’t want the disadvantages and don’t want to have to make the same compromises or the same effort, but they’re taking the piss by wanting everything their own way and being unwilling to make compromises, wanting to be rewarded in spite of not putting in the same effort and commitment, and that’s why I wouldn’t support their ideas.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, no, I don’t see any contradiction in what I actually said earlier. I acknowledged that people are free to make these decisions for themselves. I never said anything about what they should or shouldn’t be permitted to do, they’re free to do what suits them within the current framework that I don’t think requires any changes -







I don’t decide that parents are less committed to employment if they have children. Parents themselves decide that they are less committed to employment if they choose to take time off to commit to their families. I don’t have any issue whatsoever with people taking time off employment to commit to their families. I have massive issues with people who take time off to commit to their families, and then expect employers should be obligated to treat them equally to those who commit to their employers. It’s just bizarre to me that someone would expect to be regarded equally when they don’t commit equally to someone else who does? It’s as though they expect employers to reward them for putting their families before their employers! People are free to do that of course, but they shouldn’t expect their employer to reward them for it. Most people don’t, only a minority of people do.





Ahh no I know you didn’t assert that I personally was failing as a father, I was making the point that there are a small cohort of people who are trying to shift that dual role that they expect of women, onto men, so that men too feel as guilty as women that they aren’t able to split themselves in two -


Working Father Fail? Why Many Dads Struggle With Work-Life Imbalance


The major upside for me of having children is simply that I love children, and from an early age I knew I wanted to have a few. I think it’s that simple for most people who want to have children. The idea of having a close and loving relationship with them though isn’t something I can relate to. I mean, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not something that I considered - I’m more fulfilled I suppose by knowing that I can provide for my family so that we have a good quality of life, so that I suppose my wife can concentrate primarily on raising our child as that makes her happy, and I can concentrate on providing for all three of us, as that makes me happy.

I don’t want to give you the impression that I think any form of relationship is superior or inferior to another btw, I’m a firm believer in the whole “you do you” (not you personally, I mean just whatever works for people, y’know, more power to them), but when I think people are taking the piss by expecting that they should be treated equally to people who they see as having advantages over them, and they want those advantages, without all the disadvantages, I can understand why they wouldn’t want the disadvantages and don’t want to have to make the same compromises or the same effort, but they’re taking the piss by wanting everything their own way and being unwilling to make compromises, wanting to be rewarded in spite of not putting in the same effort and commitment, and that’s why I wouldn’t support their ideas.

That's fair enough, I can understand where you're coming from with your own family. As you say it's not something I relate to personally, but it's certainly no more or less valid for that.

As for the advantages/disadvantages. I actually agree with you on this. For example if a mother ( to take the typical situation) decides to take 6 months maternity leave to care for children, of course she's going to be on the back foot by 6 months compared to someone who hasn't taken those 6 months off. The other person has put the time in at work, the mother has decided that the kids are her priority for those 6 months, that's the compromise you make. Should be the same if it were a male taking time off to, say, care for an elderly parent after an illness. You choose your priorities and what's important to you at different stages in your life.

All I'm saying is that it would make more sense to me if parents could split leave amongst themselves as they wished. It wouldn't result in increased cost to the employer, because the total amount of leave available wouldn't change. Just that if they happened to be one of the families where it suited them for the father to take more paternity leave compared to the mother, (and I acknowledge that they remain the minority) that that would be possible.

I suspect we're not going to come to an agreement on this, but nevertheless it has been an enjoyable (i.e. reasonable) discussion.

Antares35

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't think people are aware of the long term impact of being single or alone, it requires an enormous amount of personal strength that a lot of people struggle with, you can see it in people who think they are not to blame for the predicament they find themselves in...imagine that festering in a persons mind for 10/20 years.

There are no amount of articles or youtube videos or whatever that is going to make your life easier...in fact Id say to both genders keep away from any content that tries to persuade you that you'd be happier alone.

If you find yourself on your own, you need to be prepared to work hard to remain healthy!

I have seen how he has gone completely downhill over the years. And it seems he is stuck in all walks of life not just his relationships. He wants his own place but stays living at home because that's an easier and cheaper option (but still complains about it). Wants to move jobs because he is treated really badly and works 60-70 hours a week but is afraid of change so he just stays there, complaining about it. And he hates being single, but doesn't do anything to change it - and complains about that too all the time. I feel for him but when I try to boost his confidence or set him up online or encourage him to change jobs etc. he just won't have any of it. He just wants to complain.

He doesn't talk to me anymore, because I told him he needed to stop complaining and start doing stuff. Maybe it was harsh, maybe he didn't want to hear the truth. Perhaps he is happier just sitting maudling over pints and having the same "work is sh*t/ I can't get a girl/ I want to move out" conversation over and over but after 6/7 years I just can't have those conversations anymore because he simply won't change.

Kermit.de.frog

wench wrote: »

Not all husbands were kind and hard working. Many were abusive arseholes.

Quite a few wives would fall in to that category too just for balance!

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

He doesn't talk to me anymore, because I told him he needed to stop complaining and start doing stuff. Maybe it was harsh, maybe he didn't want to hear the truth. Perhaps he is happier just sitting maudling over pints and having the same "work is sh*t/ I can't get a girl/ I want to move out" conversation over and over but after 6/7 years I just can't have those conversations anymore because he simply won't change.

The problem is likely his environment. Everything reinforces the frame/image he has created for himself. I was similar (kinda) to him at one point. I couldn't change anything because of my work, routines, family/friends expectations, and my own hangups. Likely, you'll say that his friends/family aren't part of the problem, but they usually are a major part of what holds us back from committing to lasting change. Few people genuinely want others to change especially if it alters the power dynamic of their relationship.

For me, leaving Ireland changed everything. A year away from all my previous triggers gave me the breathing space to figure out what I wanted.. not what I thought other people wanted of me, but what would make me a better person.. for myself.

If he's on boards, you can get him to PM me. I do a lot of motivational work for professionals/students, and changing ones environment is a major step for many people. Not everyone, but sometimes we do need to actually escape for a while. A restart is easier when your triggers are far away and out of sight.

JoChervil

Antares35 wrote: »

I have seen how he has gone completely downhill over the years. And it seems he is stuck in all walks of life not just his relationships. He wants his own place but stays living at home because that's an easier and cheaper option (but still complains about it). Wants to move jobs because he is treated really badly and works 60-70 hours a week but is afraid of change so he just stays there, complaining about it. And he hates being single, but doesn't do anything to change it - and complains about that too all the time. I feel for him but when I try to boost his confidence or set him up online or encourage him to change jobs etc. he just won't have any of it. He just wants to complain.

He doesn't talk to me anymore, because I told him he needed to stop complaining and start doing stuff. Maybe it was harsh, maybe he didn't want to hear the truth. Perhaps he is happier just sitting maudling over pints and having the same "work is sh*t/ I can't get a girl/ I want to move out" conversation over and over but after 6/7 years I just can't have those conversations anymore because he simply won't change.

Truth must go with love (compassion) to be heard. Otherwise it is taken as a criticism and rejected. Often together with a messenger...

KM792

Female 30 here..

Just to wade in with my two cents..
Out of my year in school,(maybe 50/60 girls) only a handful now have kids..about 10.Out of 60.
I find that quite remarkable as at 30 you're not over the hill yet but no spring chicken either in terms of fertility.

It does make me wonder when the choice is given freely to women..Are the majority of us even maternal?

Antares35

KM792 wrote: »

Female 30 here..

Just to wade in with my two cents..
Out of my year in school,(maybe 50/60 girls) only a handful now have kids..about 10.Out of 60.
I find that quite remarkable as at 30 you're not over the hill yet but no spring chicken either in terms of fertility.

It does make me wonder when the choice is given freely to women..Are the majority of us even maternal?

I think the average age of first time mums is increasing but not because women arent maternal (though not all are) but because we are spending longer in education and setting up our careers and waiting to actually meet someone that is worthy of being a parent with! I knew from the time I was in my twenties that I wanted to be a mum and I felt broody then. Im 36 now and due my first baby in ten days. I am where I want to be in terms of studying, career and partner etc. Sometimes its just about getting your ducks in a row first

I dont like the pressure put on women to have kids pre 35. Your fertility doesnt just fall off a cliff at midnight on your 35th birthday but do you ever see how the media goes on when someone "older" gets pregnant. There are definitely unfair pressures being put on us and the subliminal messaging is there all the time, that if you dont want kids there is something "wrong".

eviltwin

KM792 wrote: »

Female 30 here..

Just to wade in with my two cents..
Out of my year in school,(maybe 50/60 girls) only a handful now have kids..about 10.Out of 60.
I find that quite remarkable as at 30 you're not over the hill yet but no spring chicken either in terms of fertility.

It does make me wonder when the choice is given freely to women..Are the majority of us even maternal?

I'm early 40s and the only one of my group of close female friends with children. The other 4 are child free by choice. Wider access to contraception and now abortion has made it easier not to get trapped in a life you didn't want. Our parents and grandparents didn't have that choice.

eviltwin

Antares35 wrote: »

I think the average age of first time mums is increasing but not because women arent maternal (though not all are) but because we are spending longer in education and setting up our careers and waiting to actually meet someone that is worthy of being a parent with! I knew from the time I was in my twenties that I wanted to be a mum and I felt broody then. Im 36 now and due my first baby in ten days. I am where I want to be in terms of studying, career and partner etc. Sometimes its just about getting your ducks in a row first

I dont like the pressure put on women to have kids pre 35. Your fertility doesnt just fall off a cliff at midnight on your 35th birthday but do you ever see how the media goes on when someone "older" gets pregnant. There are definitely unfair pressures being put on us and the subliminal messaging is there all the time, that if you dont want kids there is something "wrong".

That's another thing. It's taking longer to get to the point where people are ready to have children. College is a large part of that, older generations tended to leave school and start working so were ready to have children sooner. Now you might have to work a few years just to pay off a student debt.

I feel sorry for younger people now because they can't win. If they have children too early they are classed as irresponsible and if they wait they get judged for that. There are pros and cons to both.

Best of luck with the new baby Antares

lozenges

KM792 wrote: »

Female 30 here..

Just to wade in with my two cents..
Out of my year in school,(maybe 50/60 girls) only a handful now have kids..about 10.Out of 60.
I find that quite remarkable as at 30 you're not over the hill yet but no spring chicken either in terms of fertility.

It does make me wonder when the choice is given freely to women..Are the majority of us even maternal?

It's not quite that high for me, but I would say of the women I know currently about 20% have no interest in kids. Which is surprising to me, because you do get the impression from the media that that figure would be way less.

There was an article in the IT a couple months ago about women without kids - I assumed it would be about (or at least include) women who made a choice to be child-free. Nope - every single woman interviewed had wanted kids but didn't have them because of fertility issues, or hadn't found a partner and didn't want to go it alone.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/i-m-not-a-mother-please-don-t-judge-me-1.4104446

mariaalice

https://www.irishtimes.com/covid-19-lives-lost it is a sad but lovely article.

I love the woman who had 12 children widowed young a great baker and cook who took to eating takeaways and fast food in her old age ELIZABETH MORRIS

To me it shows the arrogance and disrespect of thinking we have it better.

The vast majority of them lead full and contented lives.

KM792

Re having kids/childless women It's interesting to stop and take note of because we never really see figures or statistics for it I suppose..

For me if I was scrolling through Facebook someone having a baby wouldn't make me jealous whereas someone buying their home and getting on the property ladder would.

lozenges

KM792 wrote: »

Re having kids/childless women It's interesting to stop and take note of because we never really see figures or statistics for it I suppose..

For me if I was scrolling through Facebook someone having a baby wouldn't make me jealous whereas someone buying their home and getting on the property ladder would.

Don't use Instagram or FB much, but yeah. I have never aspired to motherhood. Knew that since I was a young teenager. Nothing to do with work or anything like that, just that I don't find the idea of raising a child attractive.

I think the 'child-free by choice' thing is a much more common in some parts ofthe US, whereas not so much here. I still get total strangers here telling me I'll change my mind about kids.

Antares35

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm early 40s and the only one of my group of close female friends with children. The other 4 are child free by choice. Wider access to contraception and now abortion has made it easier not to get trapped in a life you didn't want. Our parents and grandparents didn't have that choice.

Indeed, sure wasn't it a sin to refuse your husband? :eek: Awful times. In those days you were "on the shelf" at 25.

ohnonotgmail

Antares35 wrote: »

Indeed, sure wasn't it a sin to refuse your husband? :eek: Awful times. In those days you were "on the shelf" at 25.

worse than that he could rape his wife and get away with it.

Antares35

lozenges wrote: »

Don't use Instagram or FB much, but yeah. I have never aspired to motherhood. Knew that since I was a young teenager. Nothing to do with work or anything like that, just that I don't find the idea of raising a child attractive.

I think the 'child-free by choice' thing is a much more common in some parts ofthe US, whereas not so much here. I still get total strangers here telling me I'll change my mind about kids.

I hate that! It's up there with people thinking their opinion "as a parent" is qualified. "Oh you'll change your mind when you have kids etc." - smug feckers. I had someone in work kept saying that to me about my dog - "oh just wait now, that dog is in for a shock and then you will realise she is just a dog" etc. Er... I already know she is a dog! I swear I will not become one of those parents - and even at that people will say, "oh you say that now..." - like feck off would ya I can't wait to get back on the gin and into my skinny dresses again :pac:

Another one that annoys me is people saying that kids "Complete them" either as individuals or as a couple. Neither of those are healthy. If you're going to spend your life with someone, that person alone should be enough, you shouldn't need kids to complete the relationship. Same on an individual basis - seeking out some kind of identity/ status from procreating is a bit sad.

lozenges

Antares35 wrote: »

I hate that! It's up there with people thinking their opinion "as a parent" is qualified. "Oh you'll change your mind when you have kids etc." - smug feckers. I had someone in work kept saying that to me about my dog - "oh just wait now, that dog is in for a shock and then you will realise she is just a dog" etc. Er... I already know she is a dog! I swear I will not become one of those parents - and even at that people will say, "oh you say that now..." - like feck off would ya I can't wait to get back on the gin and into my skinny dresses again :pac:

Another one that annoys me is people saying that kids "Complete them" either as individuals or as a couple. Neither of those are healthy. If you're going to spend your life with someone, that person alone should be enough, you shouldn't need kids to complete the relationship. Same on an individual basis - seeking out some kind of identity/ status from procreating is a bit sad.

Exactly. I think there's still a massive societal expectation that heterosexual couples will have kids just because that's the way it always has been. More so for women than men. I think most men don't think about it that much, because they assume that virtually all women want kids and therefore they'll just end up with them at some point.

There are some exceptions to that, there are one or two men I know that very definitely want kids, but they're not the majority by a long stretch.

The thing is as well that if you have kids without thinking about it that much, and regret it - you're almost certainly not going to talk about that much, because you would come in for massive criticism from other parents.
Understandably in some ways - once you have kids you have a responsibility to put their needs first, however you feel about that decision. But you don't hear that side of the narrative much.