Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

El_Duderino 09

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for arranged marriage. I know the trendys in Western culture laugh at it and look down at it, but the more you think about it and examine it as a route to finding a mate, the more it makes sense. Who better to find an appropriate match for you than your parents and wider aunts/uncles? They share your genes, know how you were brought up, know your likes and dislikes inside out, and have the wisdom of experience. They will be far more likely to recognise a chancer than you will. So at a minimum, the parents would choose your dates, and you would then decide whether you want to continue seeing them or not. Best of both worlds.

Arranged marriages would be great for people who struggle to get a partner based on their own choice. There have always been introduction agencies and friends attempting to matchmake.

ancapailldorcha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that most women didn’t and still don’t want to enter the labour market once they’re in a relationship and have children is entirely the point. Claiming that their options were severely limited compared to those of men is the outlandish claim based upon the presumption that women wanted to enter the labour market after marriage. Many of them didn’t, many still don’t, and there are only a minority of people who buy into the notion that they can have it all, who end up utterly miserable with the realisation that no, they actually can’t do it all in order to have it all.

So the marriage bar is entirely fictional then?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Evidence that women prefer to leave the labour market when they’re married isn’t just borne out by evidence from the Irish Central Statistics Office, it’s a trend that’s been observed in the States for the last decade -


After Decades of Decline, A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers

Irish society tends to be about two decades behind the US, but we’ll see the trend here too in spite of the current Governments efforts to address a perceived gender imbalance which the vast majority of people in Irish society couldn’t care less about, they’re simply more interested in taking care of their own families than they are about women’s lib.

It's a slight rise. Doesn't really prove your point. You've ignored the huge drop in numbers as well prior to said slight rise.

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

I've noticed the worst thing a woman can do to her chances of finding a mate is to buy a home by herself.

I read that in a David Attenborough accent.

suicide_circus

the more people that cum on you, the happier you will be

witchgirl26

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that most women didn’t and still don’t want to enter the labour market once they’re in a relationship and have children is entirely the point. Claiming that their options were severely limited compared to those of men is the outlandish claim based upon the presumption that women wanted to enter the labour market after marriage. Many of them didn’t, many still don’t, and there are only a minority of people who buy into the notion that they can have it all, who end up utterly miserable with the realisation that no, they actually can’t do it all in order to have it all.

That is crap. I am a woman. I am in a relationship. I have a child. I also have a career that I love and was looking forward to getting back to after my maternity leave. Right now - I have it all and I am not utterly miserable. Neither are 90% of my female friends who are in similar positions to me. It's about choice though. Fair enough if someone, male or female, wants to be a stay at home parent. But their gender, marriage status or family status should not prohibit or be a barrier to employment.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Evidence that women prefer to leave the labour market when they’re married isn’t just borne out by evidence from the Irish Central Statistics Office, it’s a trend that’s been observed in the States for the last decade -


After Decades of Decline, A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers

But does that state the reasons behind why women are being stay at home mothers than going out to work? Is it a case that the calculation of take-home pay after childcare versus stay at home works out in favour of one parent staying at home. And as wages are imbalanced between genders, it is generally the woman who earns less so ends up being the stay at home parent. Also comparing Ireland to the States is a tricky one as in a lot of places in the States it is very possible to have a nice house in a good location on one salary where it is much less so here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Irish society tends to be about two decades behind the US, but we’ll see the trend here too in spite of the current Governments efforts to address a perceived gender imbalance which the vast majority of people in Irish society couldn’t care less about, they’re simply more interested in taking care of their own families than they are about women’s lib.

I think it's been a while since we've been behind the States in terms of society. And I think that is a pile of poo to be honest - I don't know a single woman who doesn't agree with men and women being offered the same pay for the same job. Which doesn't happen in all areas. And that is borne out by figures from the CSO. Yes people want to take care of their families but woman also want equality.

Best example - my mam was a stay at home mother. She got married after the marriage bar had been lifted. She *choose* to be a stay at home mother but it was down to women's lib that she was able to make that choice. She still supported equal pay and equal rights for women and fought on a small scale for them. Being a stay at home mam & being in favour of equality are not mutually exclusive.

witchgirl26

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Let's be honest, surely the major difference with times past is women are way more choosy now. I've noticed the worst thing a woman can do to her chances of finding a mate is to buy a home by herself. All of a sudden the criteria the man must satisfy to be considered marriage material goes up exponentially. He must also own a home, and earn more than her of course. And the women sort of gets used to having things "just so" in her own home, so the quality of the male required to give up that independence increases substantially.



But you're right in a way, there are no easy answers. But no easy answers for men either to such issues.

There is literally not enough eyeroll emoji in the world for this.

What do you think women are like? I know quite a few women who owned their own place and married someone who'd been renting. It didn't make up any factor of their decision!
And what about the reverse? If a man owns his own home & likes things "just so" but the woman doesn't own and has to move in? Is she just meant to get on with it? It's called compromise. And course there is adjustment when two people who've been used to living alone start living together. They need to figure out their rhythm and go with that.

Electric Sheep

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yes but people put more mature thoughts into who they were marrying.
this lead to more stable marriages and less social problems in later life.
Most of them inmates in the 'Joy are from broken homes and have histories of alcohol and drug abuse.

Some did. Others married spouses that they would never have married if it were not for an unplanned pregnancy, and were often extremely unhappy and resentful of being "trapped" into a loveless marriage.

amdublin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

My uncle told the story of the town near our village. In the 80s when there was terrible unemployment, even when a lad was offered a job he'd be terrified to take it. Reason being all the rest of the lads in the town were roaming around with nothing to do so his Mrs would have a stream lads calling to the door looking for a "cup of tea".

This notion that affairs only started recently when people stopped going to mass or when "dating came a lol g, is nonsense. Pure rose tinted, nonsense.

This "story" of your uncle's is insulting to women on lots of levels.

It portrays a time where the little womens were apparently at home only dying to spend their day opening the door to random men and making them.cups of tea.
Or worse, only dying to open their door to random callers in order to have sex (an affair) with them.

Your uncle sounds like an idiot.

Please don't ever tell this "story" again.

amdublin

I dont think our grandparents or parents got marriage right. From what I see, a lot of my friends parents are unhappy stuck in loveless marriages, unable to leave for financial reasons, afraid to leave because of the stigma from church.

Ugh

Daisy78

mariaalice wrote: »

That always said and while it is true for some marriages it was not true for the majority of marriages, the quietly contented ( not happy ) marriages just did not make the headlines. The big difference is that expectations are different women had less choice and less of a life outside the home so that shaped their lives and expectations. It not as simple as saying the OP has rose tinted glasses its is a lost more complex that that.

To be honest that’s exactly it, women or at least very few women had much choice in the matter. Getting married was as much to do with getting by in life, your husbands income to fall back on, a house to live in, food on the table, etc Love if it did come into it played second fiddle. And of course you wouldn’t leave if times got a bit tough, you risked being homeless and being shunned by the community if you did that. There is a lot wrong with modern dating, no arguments from me there. But as a unmarried woman in my early forties would I choose my current life with all its freedoms over the option of contentment (not happiness) with a husband and kids? Absolutely.

eviltwin

I don't think getting married young is something to aspire to at all. I'd be fairly horrified if my 20 something came home and said she was engaged. What parents would genuinely want their child to be getting married in their early 20s.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything. If they didn't want to enter the labour market that's not the point. It's that their options were significantly limited compared to those of men.

You've made a few outlandish claims here with no real evidence.

The limitations weren't entirely due to gender though. It came down to the finances available for education and other considerations. Men were often very limited by society. My father was the first child in his family to go to university (60ish years ago), and he only got in because of the educational grants which were given to those who did all their studies in Irish. Without those grants, he would never have attended university... whereas my mothers family had more money, and she did attend university without any issues.

Education was a limiting factor for many men because there were expectations that they should remain in traditionally held positions. I'm not saying that women had it better, but the idea that men had so many more options is ridiculous... and only encourages the idea of a male/female divide solely based on gender. Men were discriminated against by other men due to class, money, etc. Just as women were discriminated against for the same reasons by both genders.

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So the marriage bar is entirely fictional then?

No, the marriage bar isn’t fictional, women who wanted to work were still able to find work, the marriage bar only applied to women working in the civil services, and was lifted in 1973. It doesn’t explain why today women who are better educated than they were then (my own mother trained to be a teacher, got married, trained to be a nurse, and when the marriage bar was lifted, went back to teaching, my old man worked in Bord Na Mona, their seven children were practically raised by their elderly neighbours) are still preferring to exit the labour market once they get married and have children. One thing that does go some way towards explaining it is the rising cost of childcare which places it outside the realms of most household incomes, and it’s simply a case of practical everyday realities for many over-riding ideological aspirations of the few.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a slight rise. Doesn't really prove your point. You've ignored the huge drop in numbers as well prior to said slight rise.

It’s a slight rise which is indicative of a longer trend over time. There was a huge drop in numbers in the previous decades because of the changing nature of the labour market, it’s still a fact that people adhere to traditional roles as opposed to the idea that women’s lib is some great leveller between genders. It’s just not, and historically it hasn’t been, and even most women themselves don’t care for it, which is why in spite of having equal access to education and equal opportunities and all the rest of it, they’re still choosing to exit the labour market once they’re married and their husbands role is to provide the household income while their role is to provide care for their family. It’s a role many women still take pride in, as opposed to entering the labour market for little reward when it just makes no sense to them on any practical or financial level to be paying the guts of €2k a month to have their children raised by someone else.

The current economic circumstances are going to undoubtedly change the labour market again, and with many people finding themselves suddenly unemployed, it’s a chance for them to reflect, and already people are realising that there are alternatives to their aspirational lifestyle that don’t involve them drowning in mountains of crushing debt in order to keep up with the Jones’, and they’re far happier for it, as it comes as something of a relief that the pressure is off them to try to prove themselves, like trying to find a balance between career and family life and feeling guilty because they’re not coping very well with trying to prove themselves in either role.

Xertz

Some very rose tinted views of the good old days back up that thread.

While some marriages were great, plenty weren’t and I think everyone’s well aware of some marriages that went badly wrong and that people were trapped in.

How many were trapped in loveless marriages with someone they didn’t get on with?

How many shotgun weddings?

Decades of being perma-pregnant or bringing up way more kids than you could afford.

Pushed into marriages you didn’t want if you were gay or lesbian or stuffed off to a career in the priesthood / convent or exiled if you weren’t “the marrying type”.

Then it was simpler times with no disposable income in most households. So it was decades of underpaid work, limited opportunity, drudgery of cold houses, no appliances, washing clothes in tub by hand ...

Ah yeah! Them were the days. (If you were a sadist or didn’t know any better!)

0lddog

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Not always the case. My grandmother ... didn't get married till she was in her early 30's.........

Exactly.

My parents, both sets of grand parents and at least one pair of great grand parents were in their 30's before they married.

There are other inaccuracies in the OP

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The limitations weren't entirely due to gender though. It came down to the finances available for education and other considerations. Men were often very limited by society. My father was the first child in his family to go to university (60ish years ago), and he only got in because of the educational grants which were given to those who did all their studies in Irish. Without those grants, he would never have attended university... whereas my mothers family had more money, and she did attend university without any issues.

Of course not but this was never my point. I was the first in my family to go to University. I come from an agrarian background in Ulster.

My point was that getting married for women was different than for men. No man was ever compelled to choose between getting married and working. Money can overcome certain barriers as you've shown with your example but that isn't a route everyone can take.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure plenty of men would love to support their wives. That 'traditional' system is great for having total control. It's great for men.

Is it? You see, I don't get this push to paint all women as agentless creatures without any power or influence. On both sides of my family, my grandmothers ruled their households, with the husbands firmly under their watch. Throughout my extended family, I can't think of any examples where the woman is dominated by her husband, without input in how their family is run, or that the husband has complete freedom to do whatever he wishes.

Total control? More feminist BS. I doubt there's been much of that since the 50s and even then, in many relationships, the roles of control would have been reversed. Popular culture and literature is littered with examples of where the husband was afraid to cross his wife due to many "humorous" threats.

They get free childcare, their dinners cooked, houses cleaned, all for a fraction of the price they'd have to pay if they actually employed someone to do all these tasks, all while furthering their career and gaining more experience and more options in life. What do women get? No work experience, no work skills, little chance to have a life outside the home, depending on the husband to grant her disposable income. In the case of abuse or simply not being happy, she's now trapped, because she has no employable skills or work history, and no money of her own.

It's marriage. Give and take. Sacrifices are made for it to succeed... and you're projecting wants/desires on to everyone equally. I know women who don't want to work, and are content to be treated like a queen. The husband pays for a housekeeper, and the wife spends "their" money to ensure she looks great. Both of them are happy with such an arrangement. Is that representative of everyone? not even slightly, but it doesn't fit your idea of "traditional marriage".

And in my lifetime, there has been nothing stopping women from working if they so wish. Or are we still talking about our grandparents? when does all the legal and social changes within my lifetime start being taken into account?

Geez, I wonder why more women aren't rushing to sign up for this great deal? :rolleyes:

Thank you for proving my point. Excellent.

Only for poor little manbabies who blame women for failing at life.

So says the poster who has repeatedly made the comment that women can't win.. and you have posted such nonsense on other threads.

What 'supports' do women have that men don't have? Please list them and be specific.

Nah. Why bother? You'll dismiss the post as you've done before. I've done the groundwork before on other threads, where you ignored the information provided.

<snipped>

Actually, I had written a really long post (as I often do) with links to research and articles.. but.. I don't see the point. We've done this before, you and I. More than once.

Yes, how dare the little wimminz want to actually date someone on their level instead of just being happy to be chosen? The cheek of them.

You don't see the irony? Ok.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course not but this was never my point. I was the first in my family to go to University. I come from an agrarian background in Ulster.

My point was that getting married for women was different than for men. No man was ever compelled to choose between getting married and working. Money can overcome certain barriers as you've shown with your example but that isn't a route everyone can take.

Fair enough.

lainey_d_123

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it? You see, I don't get this push to paint all women as agentless creatures without any power or influence. On both sides of my family, my grandmothers ruled their households, with the husbands firmly under their watch. Throughout my extended family, I can't think of any examples where the woman is dominated by her husband, without input in how their family is run, or that the husband has complete freedom to do whatever he wishes.

Total control? More feminist BS. I doubt there's been much of that since the 50s and even then, in many relationships, the roles of control would have been reversed. Popular culture and literature is littered with examples of where the husband was afraid to cross his wife due to many "humorous" threats.

So what to all of this? Utterly meaningless anecdotes. The facts are there on paper, in black and white. Women simply did not have the choices men had. Nowhere near them. The woman appearing bossy didn't negate the fact that at the end of the day, women had very few choices and options outside of marriage and raising a family. How many women struggled with motherhood and felt trapped? How many women would have much preferred a career and some adventure? Men had options, women didn't.

It's marriage. Give and take. Sacrifices are made for it to succeed... and you're projecting wants/desires on to everyone equally. I know women who don't want to work, and are content to be treated like a queen. The husband pays for a housekeeper, and the wife spends "their" money to ensure she looks great. Both of them are happy with such an arrangement. Is that representative of everyone? not even slightly, but it doesn't fit your idea of "traditional marriage".

Yes, the point is that it's a choice. And there didn't use to be a choice. A woman in 2020 who chooses to marry for money and not work is making an informed and active choice to do so. There's still a high risk of abuse and power imbalance but now there are choices, options and resources to help women leave terrible situations. Or are these the great 'benefits' you mentioned about being a woman? Women's Aid and domestic violence victim shelters?

And in my lifetime, there has been nothing stopping women from working if they so wish. Or are we still talking about our grandparents? when does all the legal and social changes within my lifetime start being taken into account?

It's still far from equal. Women in general still earn far less than men. There's still work being done to correct the gender imbalance in many industries, and people like you are complaining that it isn't fair for MEN!

Thank you for proving my point. Excellent.

Yes, we can all see how much you'd love it if women still stayed at home and did the housework. It would benefit people like you.

So says the poster who has repeatedly made the comment that women can't win.. and you have posted such nonsense on other threads.

They can't, when it comes to dating and people's expectations. The difference is, klaz, that I actually don't give a fcuk. I'm not sitting here whining about how I deserve an amazing man, and how men should give me a chance. I understand that I'm not entitled to any relationship, and I'm more than happy to be alone than with some sap I can't stand or who treats me badly, just to have a husband. Yet men, and it is ALWAYS men, complain I'm too choosy. Just why do you think I should lower my standards? What's in it for me?

You don't see the irony? Ok.

There is no irony. Women who are intelligent, educated and attractive rightly expect a partner of a similar calibre, and if they can't find one, they'd rather be alone than settle. For some reason, this deeply offends some men.

One eyed Jack

witchgirl26 wrote: »

That is crap. I am a woman. I am in a relationship. I have a child. I also have a career that I love and was looking forward to getting back to after my maternity leave. Right now - I have it all and I am not utterly miserable. Neither are 90% of my female friends who are in similar positions to me. It's about choice though. Fair enough if someone, male or female, wants to be a stay at home parent. But their gender, marriage status or family status should not prohibit or be a barrier to employment.

And if we were solely talking about your circumstances, you’d absolutely have an irrefutable point that I couldn’t, and frankly wouldn’t care to argue with. We’re not solely talking about your circumstances though, I’m talking about overall trends in Irish society. I mean, I could say exactly the same as you from my position that I know plenty of women in employment who are at the peak of their careers in management positions, and they too are able to balance that with their home lives. I laughed years ago when one woman upon returning from maternity leave she joked that it was great to get back to work as it gave her a break away from the kids I knew exactly how she meant it - basically she was able to get back into a routine she was familiar with, and that’s what made her happy. Haven’t seen her in years but I have no doubt she and her family are still doing well. She was my boss at the time and she taught me a lot about organisation and time management.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

But does that state the reasons behind why women are being stay at home mothers than going out to work? Is it a case that the calculation of take-home pay after childcare versus stay at home works out in favour of one parent staying at home. And as wages are imbalanced between genders, it is generally the woman who earns less so ends up being the stay at home parent. Also comparing Ireland to the States is a tricky one as in a lot of places in the States it is very possible to have a nice house in a good location on one salary where it is much less so here.

It does, well, it’s quite lengthy, but it does offer some ideas as to why women are choosing to exit the labour market once they’re married and have children. It doesn’t offer any definitive reason, because there are a whole plethora of reasons, whether it be economic circumstances or simply preferring and prioritising one lifestyle choice over another. I know what you mean too about the geographic influences, but I would suggest that the difference between living in New York and Detroit is the equivalent of the differences between living in Dublin or Limerick here. It’s really not that tricky to draw a comparison.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I think it's been a while since we've been behind the States in terms of society. And I think that is a pile of poo to be honest - I don't know a single woman who doesn't agree with men and women being offered the same pay for the same job. Which doesn't happen in all areas. And that is borne out by figures from the CSO. Yes people want to take care of their families but woman also want equality.

Best example - my mam was a stay at home mother. She got married after the marriage bar had been lifted. She *choose* to be a stay at home mother but it was down to women's lib that she was able to make that choice. She still supported equal pay and equal rights for women and fought on a small scale for them. Being a stay at home mam & being in favour of equality are not mutually exclusive.

Aaand we’re back to talking about you again. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone should expect equal pay for the same job, and I’m not surprised it’s borne out by figures from the CSO that people aren’t paid equal pay for the same job. Consider if you will for a minute the number of women I mentioned earlier in this post who do the same job as I do, but they are better paid for numerous reasons which reflect their experience, education and the fact that they’re willing to drop everything and fly (when flying was a thing) to meet and greets with clients in other countries whereas frankly, I can’t be arsed. I can do the same job remotely from home as opposed to ever having to show up in the office which is only ten minutes walk away (I hate walking :pac: ), but you get the general idea - we’re all doing the same job, but they’re paid more, not solely because they’re willing to do more, but because they have more experience and more education and training qualifications.

To say it was down to women’s lib that your mother had those choices is to ignore the fact that it was due to her choice to get married and their choices they made together for the benefit of their family as a whole, that your mother had the opportunity not to enter the labour market, and instead choose a different role which suited your family arrangement. Their choices anyone makes as a family is always in their own direct best interests as opposed to any influence by any women’s lib movement. I do agree with you though that being a stay at home Mam and being in favour of equality are by no means mutually exclusive. I’m just not someone who believes in the notion of engineering all circumstances to be equally shìtty in the first place in the pursuit of an ideology, and I don’t imagine the vast majority of people care one way or the other about women’s lib either - they recognise that the various roles complement, rather than compete, with each other.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So what to all of this? Utterly meaningless anecdotes. The facts are there on paper, in black and white. Women simply did not have the choices men had. Nowhere near them. The woman appearing bossy didn't negate the fact that at the end of the day, women had very few choices and options outside of marriage and raising a family. How many women struggled with motherhood and felt trapped? How many women would have much preferred a career and some adventure? Men had options, women didn't.

You talk about facts, but what was reported and recorded as being important? Domestic abuse towards males has been under reported for decades both due to a reluctance by men to admit to it, and due to social pressure to focus on domestic abuse as being something only men did. Or we could use the example of rape claims by women, which were under reported, and/or dismissed from official sources.

You want to cherry pick facts regarding a very traditional time that constrained both genders. And I'm not denying that women had limited options in many areas of society.. men were also limited. By other men, and by society itself (of which women are a part of)

Yes, the point is that it's a choice. And there didn't use to be a choice. A woman in 2020 who chooses to marry for money and not work is making an informed and active choice to do so. There's still a high risk of abuse and power imbalance but now there are choices, options and resources to help women leave terrible situations. Or are these the great 'benefits' you mentioned about being a woman? Women's Aid and domestic violence victim shelters?

What high risk of abuse and power imbalance in 2020?

And yes, the shelters would be part of the benefits available to women.. since they receive State funding. How many centers are there exclusively for men? Ever consider the advertising about domestic abuse and the portrayal of both genders? Nah.. once more, we're repeating discussions that have been done before, and you considered the "facts" irrelevant.

It's still far from equal. Women in general still earn far less than men. There's still work being done to correct the gender imbalance in many industries, and people like you are complaining that it isn't fair for MEN!

Oh bloody hell.. gender wage gap. It's been debunked more times than just about anything... People choose what they want to believe. You talk about facts, and then dismiss them in the same post. The facts point to the very real differences and why they exist.

And... I didn't complain that it wasn't fair for men... I responded to your post about how difficult it was for women all the time.

Yes, we can all see how much you'd love it if women still stayed at home and did the housework. It would benefit people like you.

Hilarious. My mother was the ambitious one in my family, and my father worked less hours than she did (he earned less too). Both were teachers. It was my father that raised us while my mother was studying for her masters and two PHD's. Just as it was my father who did most of the housework and cooking of dinners. My mother only ever really cooked Christmas dinner, although enjoyed baking the odd time. Both were happy with the situation.

As for me.. I am perfectly happy with my partner working. Or doing whatever she wants to do. It's her choice. I've consistently paid housekeepers to come in twice a week to clean the house beyond my own cleaning. Still, I am unmarried.. my girlfriend has her own apartment and I have mine. She's not really the kind of woman to do housework anyway... which is fine.

And lastly, people like me? You really want to go there? I haven't made any comments about you personally... and I could. You really don't have a clue about what "kind" of person I am....

They can't, when it comes to dating and people's expectations. The difference is, klaz, that I actually don't give a fcuk.

As I said.. the eternal victim. And you are here complaining about how difficult it is for women.. both past and present (although you rarely want to make any distinction between them and the changes since)..

I'm not sitting here whining about how I deserve an amazing man, and how men should give me a chance. I understand that I'm not entitled to any relationship, and I'm more than happy to be alone than with some sap I can't stand or who treats me badly, just to have a husband. Yet men, and it is ALWAYS men, complain I'm too choosy. Just why do you think I should lower my standards? What's in it for me?

Now, that's a lot of bile. I'm not getting involved because it has nothing to do with the thread, or my posts. Ugh.

Whining... why introduce that word?

There is no irony. Women who are intelligent, educated and attractive rightly expect a partner of a similar calibre, and if they can't find one, they'd rather be alone than settle. For some reason, this deeply offends some men.

You missed the point completely, and I have no desire to explain it to you. Although you might want to try reversing the genders and consider how that would be.. hence the irony. Not to worry.. I don't really expect you to get the irony.

Nika Bolokov

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for arranged marriage. I know the trendys in Western culture laugh at it and look down at it, but the more you think about it and examine it as a route to finding a mate, the more it makes sense. Who better to find an appropriate match for you than your parents and wider aunts/uncles? They share your genes, know how you were brought up, know your likes and dislikes inside out, and have the wisdom of experience. They will be far more likely to recognise a chancer than you will. So at a minimum, the parents would choose your dates, and you would then decide whether you want to continue seeing them or not. Best of both worlds.

Jesus

El_Duderino 09

amdublin wrote: »

This "story" of your uncle's is insulting to women on lots of levels.

It portrays a time where the little womens were apparently at home only dying to spend their day opening the door to random men and making them.cups of tea.
Or worse, only dying to open their door to random callers in order to have sex (an affair) with them.

Your uncle sounds like an idiot.

Please don't ever tell this "story" again.

LOL. Relax.

It's a story he tells. I've no idea if it's true or not because I wasn't there. But I'm amused that you see the story as insulting to women. The story implied that both men and women were having affairs.

The story is also as relevant to this discussion because of all the rose tinted shyte talk that everyone was pure and chaste until very recently.

lainey_d_123

Deleted User wrote: »

You talk about facts, but what was reported and recorded as being important? Domestic abuse towards males has been under reported for decades both due to a reluctance by men to admit to it, and due to social pressure to focus on domestic abuse as being something only men did. Or we could use the example of rape claims by women, which were under reported, and/or dismissed from official sources.

You want to cherry pick facts regarding a very traditional time that constrained both genders. And I'm not denying that women had limited options in many areas of society.. men were also limited. By other men, and by society itself (of which women are a part of)

'Under reported' due due a social pressure from MEN. Due to MEN's reluctance to report it. And even then, it's a small percentage of all abuse cases, by anyone's measure. I'm not saying it isn't important, but you yourself are cherry picking examples of ways men are disadvantaged, and grasping at straws.

What high risk of abuse and power imbalance in 2020?

You're living on another planet. Plenty of women are still controlled and abused by their partners and feel unable to leave for financial reasons. Anyone with any psychology or therapy background will tell you that women should tread very carefully with a man who is proposing she stops working so he can pay for everything. It's a huge red flag for possible abuse. The fact you don't seem to think this is a thing is incredibly telling.

And yes, the shelters would be part of the benefits available to women.. since they receive State funding. How many centers are there exclusively for men? Ever consider the advertising about domestic abuse and the portrayal of both genders? Nah.. once more, we're repeating discussions that have been done before, and you considered the "facts" irrelevant.

Jesus Christ, you're something else. God, aren't we women so lucky to have domestic violence shelters so we can escape violent partners and sleep in a 6-bed dorm. What a benefit, alright.

Have you ever considered that maybe there aren't centres exclusively for men because men make up such a small percentage of domestic abuse cases? You can say men under report, but do you know when it's clear that someone is being abused? When they're murdered. And guess what, the overwhelming majority of people killed by abusive partners are women, killed by male partners. So despite your attempts to argue the contrary, it seems like women really don't have it so much better than men after all.

Oh bloody hell.. gender wage gap. It's been debunked more times than just about anything... People choose what they want to believe. You talk about facts, and then dismiss them in the same post. The facts point to the very real differences and why they exist.

And... I didn't complain that it wasn't fair for men... I responded to your post about how difficult it was for women all the time.

I was talking about how dating is difficult due to the constant contradictions people spout.

Hilarious. My mother was the ambitious one in my family, and my father worked less hours than she did (he earned less too). Both were teachers. It was my father that raised us while my mother was studying for her masters and two PHD's. Just as it was my father who did most of the housework and cooking of dinners. My mother only ever really cooked Christmas dinner, although enjoyed baking the odd time. Both were happy with the situation.

So what, though? We're not talking about your own family, we're talking about how the previous 'traditional' dynamic of the man working and the woman raising the family was a poor deal for women.

As for me.. I am perfectly happy with my partner working. Or doing whatever she wants to do. It's her choice. I've consistently paid housekeepers to come in twice a week to clean the house beyond my own cleaning. Still, I am unmarried.. my girlfriend has her own apartment and I have mine. She's not really the kind of woman to do housework anyway... which is fine.

And lastly, people like me? You really want to go there? I haven't made any comments about you personally... and I could. You really don't have a clue about what "kind" of person I am....

In fairness, that was uncalled for, and I apologise for the personal attack.

As I said.. the eternal victim. And you are here complaining about how difficult it is for women.. both past and present (although you rarely want to make any distinction between them and the changes since)..




Now, that's a lot of bile. I'm not getting involved because it has nothing to do with the thread, or my posts. Ugh.

It's not bile in the slightest, and calling it that is just dismissing my point, which is that women these days, unlike in the past, can afford to be choosy. I dislike apps as much as anyone else, probably moreso. I detest modern dating culture and how superficial and downright cruel it can be, but would I want to go back 70 years when things were supposedly so much better? Would I fcuk. No options, no agency, no choices, just having to get married to someone I might or might not actually fancy, and risk having a child every time we had sex, and not be able to pursue any of my own dreams or have any meaningful life outside the home. Yeah, no bloody thanks.

You missed the point completely, and I have no desire to explain it to you. Although you might want to try reversing the genders and consider how that would be.. hence the irony. Not to worry.. I don't really expect you to get the irony.

I don't think I did. You love to talk about irony where there isn't any, just like you love to say you don't want to answer a question when you know you can't provide any evidence that my point was wrong.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

'Under reported' due due a social pressure from MEN. Due to MEN's reluctance to report it. And even then, it's a small percentage of all abuse cases, by anyone's measure. I'm not saying it isn't important, but you yourself are cherry picking examples of ways men are disadvantaged, and grasping at straws.

You do realise that women work in many areas where such reports would be sent/organised? Women working in administration has been a thing for a very long time, as they were prevented from working in areas kept for men. Your viewpoint is so riddled with double standards, it's amazing that it stands up at all. Women are, and always have been, completely innocent for their part to play in shaping society, and maintaining of that society. You'll find that in many situations, it was women who were dismissive of the claims made by other women... but, sure, men are the enemy and as such they're responsible for everything negative throughout history.

And you're dismissing the potential of how much it occurs, a lot like society previously did about women's claims. Double standards, and all that...

You're living on another planet. Plenty of women are still controlled and abused by their partners and feel unable to leave for financial reasons. Anyone with any psychology or therapy background will tell you that women should tread very carefully with a man who is proposing she stops working so he can pay for everything. It's a huge red flag for possible abuse. The fact you don't seem to think this is a thing is incredibly telling.

I'm living on a different planet because I asked you to expand on your statement? Ok...

And I love all the little assumptions you're making about me. I have a Bachelor degree in Psychology. Hilarious. I did it in my 30s out of curiosity.. and you're making a lot of claims that aren't backed up by psychology. Sociology sure, but.. that's become a very soft 'science' in recent years with a big focus on feminist ideological thinking. Wasn't your own degree in Philosophy?

And more with the leading statements about me. Awesome. Loads of little digs throughout your posts.. And yes, I know plenty of reasons based in actual Psychology for your kind of attitude.

Jesus Christ, you're something else. God, aren't we women so lucky to have domestic violence shelters so we can escape violent partners and sleep in a 6-bed dorm. What a benefit, alright.

Ok. I'm done. You have gone out of your way to be rather insulting in your posting behavior, and I'm not going to stand being disrespected this way. You've repeatedly made leaps of logic, assigning points I didn't make, and then, making personal references about who I supposedly am, or believe in.

I can take the sarcasm, but the ignorance/rudeness is something else. Nah. It's a mistake I sometimes make... expecting a civil and reasonable conversation with a feminist. Meh. I'd love to tear you to shreds a little, but I shouldn't... both because you're a "victim" and never responsible for your behavior, and because I have little desire to be banned over you.

Done and done.

mariaalice

0lddog wrote: »

Exactly.

My parents, both sets of grand parents and at least one pair of great grand parents were in their 30's before they married.

There are other inaccuracies in the OP

Completely off topic psychologists have discover thing like that go down generations and familys can sometimes be unaware of them another one would be men that married women older than themselves and them discover that several of their ancestors has done the same.

The proportion of people who never married and the age at first marriage increased in rural Ireland after the famine (1845–1847). In 1851, 11% of the population were never married at 45–54 years and this percentage increased steadily over time to 34% for men and 25% for women in 1936.
https://link.springer.com/

I had grandparents who had an arranged marriage it was around 1920 they must have been the last generation to have arranged marriages.

lainey_d_123

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that women work in many areas where such reports would be sent/organised? Women working in administration has been a thing for a very long time, as they were prevented from working in areas kept for men. Your viewpoint is so riddled with double standards, it's amazing that it stands up at all. Women are, and always have been, completely innocent for their part to play in shaping society, and maintaining of that society. You'll find that in many situations, it was women who were dismissive of the claims made by other women... but, sure, men are the enemy and as such they're responsible for everything negative throughout history.

And you're dismissing the potential of how much it occurs, a lot like society previously did about women's claims. Double standards, and all that...

Now you're suggesting that women are making up the statistics because they're working in admin roles? Your logic is absolutely ludicrous. You love to pretend you're so intellectual, but you crumble as soon as you're asked for actual facts or statistics.

As I said, and as you ignored, deaths by domestic violence cannot be under-reported the way more minor incidents can. I've looked at statistics from all over the western world and have yet to find any where men made up more than a quarter (and often it was much, much less) of domestic violence murders. I'm not disagreeing with you that domestic violence against men is under reported and under funded, but you seem to be blaming women for it, rather than the patriarchal society which makes men feel embarrassed to admit they are victims.

I'm living on a different planet because I asked you to expand on your statement? Ok...

You're living on a different planet if you can't understand how a man being keen to control a woman's finances could lead to abuse, yes. Even a child could grasp that. It shouldn't need expanding.

And I love all the little assumptions you're making about me. I have a Bachelor degree in Psychology. Hilarious. I did it in my 30s out of curiosity.. and you're making a lot of claims that aren't backed up by psychology. Sociology sure, but.. that's become a very soft 'science' in recent years with a big focus on feminist ideological thinking. Wasn't your own degree in Philosophy?

And more with the leading statements about me. Awesome. Loads of little digs throughout your posts.. And yes, I know plenty of reasons based in actual Psychology for your kind of attitude.

They're all based on your posts. The poorly hidden misogyny, the belief that women are somehow responsible for any injustices you think men face. The lack of actual statistics to back up any of your points. The refusal to actually answer any valid questions.

Ok. I'm done. You have gone out of your way to be rather insulting in your posting behavior, and I'm not going to stand being disrespected this way. You've repeatedly made leaps of logic, assigning points I didn't make, and then, making personal references about who I supposedly am, or believe in.

I can take the sarcasm, but the ignorance/rudeness is something else. Nah. It's a mistake I sometimes make... expecting a civil and reasonable conversation with a feminist. Meh. I'd love to tear you to shreds a little, but I shouldn't... both because you're a "victim" and never responsible for your behavior, and because I have little desire to be banned over you.

Done and done.

Getting a little emotional there, aren't we? Of course you're done. You're simply unable to counter any of my points, because you have absolutely no evidence or statistics to prove otherwise. You can talk the talk about how educated and smart you are, but when it comes down to actually addressing points and backing up what you say, you can't. You've doled out insults to me but you can't take being talked back to in the same tone. And now you're resorting to saying you would love to 'tear me to shreds', as if I'd give a flying fcuk about your manipulative attempts to silence me with your creepy, threatening tone.

Look back to the first post of mine on this thread that you quoted. I wasn't bashing men in any way, shape or form, I was explaining the contradictions that exist in society and the mixed messages and how ridiculous it all is. It got quite a few thanks from other posters who obviously agreed with it. You chose to jump in and make it all about men, all about some gender battle, and all about you, and now here we are, talking about something totally different.

You are so transparent and you don't even realise it.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Now you're suggesting that women are making up the statistics because they're working in admin roles? Your logic is absolutely ludicrous. You love to pretend you're so intellectual, but you crumble as soon as you're asked for actual facts or statistics.

This is a perfect example of why I'm going to ignore you from now on.

I didn't say anything of the sort. You love to twist posts to match your own narrative so that you can be outraged.

And I've never claimed any position/authority as an "intellectual"... which is representative of most of your statements about me.

You make **** up

Silentcorner

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Getting a little emotional there, aren't we? Of course you're done. You're simply unable to counter any of my points, because you have absolutely no evidence or statistics to prove otherwise. You can talk the talk about how educated and smart you are, but when it comes down to actually addressing points and backing up what you say, you can't. You've doled out insults to me but you can't take being talked back to in the same tone. And now you're resorting to saying you would love to 'tear me to shreds', as if I'd give a flying fcuk about your manipulative attempts to silence me with your creepy, threatening tone.


You are so transparent and you don't even realise it.

We can all get a little hot headed from time to time, but this type of thing is just plain wrong....you know for a woman who is headed for single life bliss you certainly aren't selling the lifestyle!!!

El_Duderino 09

Nickel Futures wrote: »

I think the majority of married men are actually the victims of domestic abuse, most of them are bullied by their wives and controlled.

That's an interesting stat. What percentage of women are also victims of domestic abuse?