Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

ohnonotgmail

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Or maybe they lasted more because there was a willingness to make things work?

That was my original point. Obviously divorce is a good thing and a safety mechanism for both parties; I would even go as far to say that pre nup agreements are essentially for today.

It was less of a throwaway society back then, I know some here seem to have a hard idea getting their heads around that - I mean, one poster here even maintains crime was far worse in our grandparents time.
.

being forced to stick out a marriage because you dont have an alternative is not a positive, no matter what way you try to put it.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The fact is that every generation (esp us millennials) thinks they have it worse than the previous before them. If that is your viewpoint then fine but lets not totally disregard the positive values (namely resilience and quiet determination) our grandparents had just because it now seems old hat in the disposable society we now have.

i'm far too old to be a millenial so i have no idea what this means.

Church on Tuesday

[QUOTE=ohnonotgmail;113359793]being forced to stick out a marriage because you dont have an alternative is not a positive, no matter what way you try to put it.


i'm far too old to be a millenial so i have no idea what this means.[/QUOTE]

Once again that is not what I said.

lainey_d_123

Hector Savage wrote: »

two opening posts have both very good points, I wanted to thank both!

But this generation seem to have unrealistic high expectations from people, like in the US the massive divorce rate, as soon as some problem comes along - just divorce, take the easy way out, life is not a hollywood movie!

People say this, but I literally don't know anyone who left their marriage for no good reason. I don't think the expense and trauma of divorce is 'taking the easy way out' at all. It actually takes quite a lot of courage to leave a bad marriage. Do you think people should feel forced to work through infidelity, poor treatment, etc.?

Fred Cryton wrote: »

How did men "benefit" from women earning less? Would have thought the opposite. Only if you assume all men were motivated by wanting to control the woman, which is a really low view you have of men there.



Is it so far fetched that maybe the woman liked being a stay at home mother etc? The alternative of working in some dirty factory is hardly appealing either. Even today let's remember the alternative to working in the home is generally some monotonous job that you hate. This idea that you'll have some glam career is i'm afraid a fantasy. You'll be a worker slave like the rest of us.

I didn't say all men were. I said some did, and do (still today) use it as a form of control.

The entire point is that for women back then, the choice was stay at home with the kids or do a crappy, low paying menial job. Women had few options then compared to now.

Are you actually trying to tell me, a 35-year-old woman, what work is like? Do you not think that's a bit patronising? I really enjoy my job, thanks. My work is varied and interesting, I get on really well with my colleagues, have travelled to some new places for work and conferences and have money to enjoy going out at night, holidays and whatever else I want to do. I'm currently stuck in London in a place that was meant to be temporary but at least I can save money for when this is over. Maybe even get closer to having a flat deposit. If you think I'd rather be dependent on a husband for money and stuck at home all day with 3 kids, you're very wrong.

LiquidZeb

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

As a lad and it isn't great to say this but lads from 25 to 35 are a lot less comfortable with responsibility than their fathers and a hell of a lot softer.

It takes two to Tango and no woman is going to settle down with a 28 year old who has never not lived with Mammy and spends all their money on clothes.

That's very true but on the flip side a lot of women act like bitchy overgrown 16 year olds who were never told to kop on. For both genders it's about separating the gombeens from the good ones.

ArchXStanton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

How did men "benefit" from women earning less? Would have thought the opposite. Only if you assume all men were motivated by wanting to control the woman, which is a really low view you have of men there.



Is it so far fetched that maybe the woman liked being a stay at home mother etc? The alternative of working in some dirty factory is hardly appealing either. Even today let's remember the alternative to working in the home is generally some monotonous job that you hate. This idea that you'll have some glam career is i'm afraid a fantasy. You'll be a worker slave like the rest of us.

Amazing almost spooky what pops up in your recommended videos some days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1Uu-VTXfRE

One eyed Jack

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Roles do complement each other but I firmly believe that just because I'm a woman & someone else is a man that we should be shoehorned into certain roles based solely on our gender. The same way that men were often ridiculed about being nurses or primary school teachers or indeed childcare providers as they were traditionally "female" roles. That's still wrong. It's not about women's lib now but equality to pursue the career and life you want regardless of gender or "traditional" jobs and roles.

I pretty much get the rest of where you’re coming from, even when you’re saying that people shouldn’t be shoehorned or I suppose I would add they shouldn’t feel pressured to take on roles which they feel they aren’t suited to or they feel isn’t right for them. I don’t believe in equality though. I believe in encouraging everyone regardless of any arbitrary traits like gender or whatever to be whatever they want. At the same time, I know that comes with a cost, or a trade-off - by all means I say do what you want, I figure if they’re that passionate about something, they’re aware of say for example in primary school teaching that the hours are long and the conditions of employment are crap - low pay, bureaucracy, expectations that they double job as unpaid social workers, y’know, all the reasons which are unattractive, but it happens that more women see the same job differently than I do - they’re imagining all the positives. Women just don’t appear to care about the pay and conditions as much as men do. The careers and roles you mentioned above are primarily dominated by women not because men feel they would be ridiculed (and if that’s the way a man feels about a career where they have to put other people before themselves, then they’re definitely not suited to teaching, nursing, social care, etc), but simply because the pay is generally crap, the rewards definitely aren’t financial (and childcare is another good example), but one of the things I hear constantly over and over again is how they love working with children (paediatric care being the exception, that’s a tough one).

The problem as I see it for people who believe in equality, is that nobody else does! Yes of course everyone says they believe in equality and all the rest of it, and they’ll argue that circumstances today are the way they are because of the marriage ban that hasn’t existed for the last 50 years, but it’s an inescapable fact that the marriage ban hasn’t influenced society to such a degree where 98% of parents who choose to stay at home and raise their children, are women. That’s not an insignificant number of women either - half a million. The other 2%, or less than 10,000, are men. Not only do women believe they are more suited to raising children, men do too, and it’s simply not the case that the vast majority of people feel they actually are shoehorned into one role or another that they haven’t chosen to take on themselves. The equal opportunities are there, the Government assistance is there, the employers willingness is there, and it’s simply the case that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink!

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Or maybe they lasted more because there was a willingness to make things work?

That was my original point. Obviously divorce is a good thing and a safety mechanism for both parties; I would even go as far to say that pre nup agreements are essentially for today.

It was less of a throwaway society back then, I know some here seem to have a hard idea getting their heads around that - I mean, one poster here even maintains crime was far worse in our grandparents time.

The fact is that every generation (esp us millennials) thinks they have it worse than the previous before them. If that is your viewpoint then fine but lets not totally disregard the positive values (namely resilience and quiet determination) our grandparents had just because it now seems old hat in the disposable society we now have.

The but in bold is funny. Let's not dismiss these, he says while dismissing millennials doing those things.

Do you know when you're giving into these stereotypes as you do it or are you oblivious?

Resilience and determination aren't qualities that people are born with, fully formed. They're developed as they're practiced over time. So you arrive as a youngster and look at the old people and see they have great resilience compared to you and they brag about how much more resilient they are than the young people today. They don't acknowledge that they used to be less resilient because they were young, and you swallow it whole!

Maybe some day you'll slag off younger generations because they are less resilient than you and maybe, if they're similarly credulous, they'll believe you too.

You've sold yourself the narrative that things were better in the olden days.

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

What are you on about lad? neighbors looked out for one another more than they do now, kids were better mannered and encouraged to roam free, people were resilient because they had too and marriages lasted more. A lot of the time because there was a practical willingness to make things work and because, y'know, they were in love.

I think that Hollywood, and social programming has a lot of answer for promoting the idea of "love" far beyond what it used to mean. There's almost an expectation that love will conquer all, and everything will be just grand because people are in love. Reality though suggests otherwise.

The truth is that people married for all manner of reasons. In most relationships there is an exchange taking place, and traditionally speaking, "love" wasn't one of the primary reasons for marriage. Security was, Security in terms of finance, social standing, etc. The world used to be a much harsher place, and the modern idea of love wasn't quite as common.

I do agree that there was a greater sense of community... and that would have encouraged people to behave more appropriately. It's hard to cheat, or mess about when your neighbors know you every move. Just as it's harder to commit crime, when you're essentially stuck within a limited community... People didn't tend to travel far beyond their local areas, except in times of extremes. And Religion, for all of it's ills, or abuses, was a strong influence on peoples behavior..

Ireland in our granparents time had a **** ton of problems as long as your arm. My view of that time is not of Dev talking of comely maidens dancing at the crossroads or whatever ****e he was on about in that address to the nation.

Well, yes, I'd agree with you there too. Most of the stories I've heard from my grandparents, and parents told of a hard life with limited options. Between the censorship by the State or Church, and the economic burdens, people had to make do with what they had, and appreciate the small things. Few had any strong expectations of being successful, happy, or "falling in love". People were far more practical and pragmatic. It's probably why common sense has been so much in decline in recent decades.

El_Duderino 09

Just for context to all this talk of how the young people today are so much worse than previous generations in terms of manners and dedication.

Here's a quote sometimes attributed to Socrates about 400BCE:
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

In short, these see just things old people say about the young people.

Either children have had no respect for over 2000 years or it just something old people use to bash young people in every generation. You don't have to fall for it.

Church on Tuesday

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that Hollywood, and social programming has a lot of answer for promoting the idea of "love" far beyond what it used to mean. There's almost an expectation that love will conquer all, and everything will be just grand because people are in love. Reality though suggests otherwise.

The truth is that people married for all manner of reasons. In most relationships there is an exchange taking place, and traditionally speaking, "love" wasn't one of the primary reasons for marriage. Security was, Security in terms of finance, social standing, etc. The world used to be a much harsher place, and the modern idea of love wasn't quite as common.

I do agree that there was a greater sense of community... and that would have encouraged people to behave more appropriately. It's hard to cheat, or mess about when your neighbors know you every move. Just as it's harder to commit crime, when you're essentially stuck within a limited community... People didn't tend to travel far beyond their local areas, except in times of extremes. And Religion, for all of it's ills, or abuses, was a strong influence on peoples behavior..



Well, yes, I'd agree with you there too. Most of the stories I've heard from my grandparents, and parents told of a hard life with limited options. Between the censorship by the State or Church, and the economic burdens, people had to make do with what they had, and appreciate the small things. Few had any strong expectations of being successful, happy, or "falling in love". People were far more practical and pragmatic. It's probably why common sense has been so much in decline in recent decades.

I take your points, but I think there certainly was love. It wasn't all Angela's Ashes either lets be fair.

Security in terms of finance and social standing is still a big big thing for people even today; love in and of itself is not enough, it's merely a building block.

Yes, people were certainly more pragmatic and practical; things were not thrown away, they were fixed. That's probably more for another thread but there was less of a disposable vibe right across the board in our grandparents time than there is now and that's coming from a 32 year old man. I reckon some of that pragmatism would stand people today in good stead TBH.

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I take your points, but I think there certainly was love. It wasn't all Angela's Ashes either lets be fair.

I'm not suggesting that there wasn't love.... but being in love at the start of a marriage wasn't as common. It was more common that love developed after a marriage, as the couple came to know and trust each other. That there was love prior to marriage is something that definitely happened.. but I wouldn't be equating it with the way love is considered nowadays.

Everything else you said, I agree completely.

markodaly

ArchXStanton wrote: »

I don't know what kind of a house you grew up in, I know mine and a few friends were it was the mother that ruled the house, the father was bringing the money in alright but how it was spent ultimately was decided by the mother

I have to agree with a lot of this. Ireland was a bit odd as the Ireland of old was not a woman's friend, but then the women ruled the house in much of Ireland. It was a weird duality.

skooterblue2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just for context to all this talk of how the young people today are so much worse than previous generations in terms of manners and dedication.

Here's a quote sometimes attributed to Socrates about 400BCE:
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

In short, these see just things old people say about the young people.

Either children have had no respect for over 2000 years or it just something old people use to bash young people in every generation. You don't have to fall for it.

That is usually what happens before a society falls like Greece and Rome. Every Generation has to have a struggle. If your struggle is to get through the Spainish flu and world war one that is tough, If your struggle is to get through world war 2 and not get killed is another, If your is a cultural revolution in the 1960's that is another with automation and social upheaval. In the 1980's just getting a job was enough. Today it is moving out of your parent house and being able to get decent WiFi.
There are markers for the collapse of a society. We have many of them. When a society becomes lazy, another society comes in, beats them up and kicks them out. Documented in history many times.

El_Duderino 09

markodaly wrote: »

I have to agree with a lot of this. Ireland was a bit odd as the Ireland of old was not a woman's friend, but then the women ruled the house in much of Ireland. It was a weird duality.

The hen-pecked, abused husband is as bad a scenario as the abused wife. Often times I imagine they were mutually abusive and had no option to end t g e narrate. The only option was to grin and bare it and raise thru children in that situation.

Yet done people seem to think it was automatically better back then under the "things were getter in the olden days" clause.

El_Duderino 09

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is usually what happens before a society falls like Greece and Rome. Every Generation has to have a struggle. If your struggle is to get through the Spainish flu and world war one that is tough, If your struggle is to get through world war 2 and not get killed is another, If your is a cultural revolution in the 1960's that is another with automation and social upheaval. In the 1980's just getting a job was enough. Today it is moving out of your parent house and being able to get decent WiFi.
There are markers for the collapse of a society. We have many of them. When a society becomes lazy, another society comes in, beats them up and kicks them out. Documented in history many times.

LOL. Do just to be clear, the children were dreadful 2000 years ago and they're still dreadful now but they weren't dreadful until right now.

Just as a matter of interest, are you and your generation also terrible lazy people who are an indication of the fall of civilian, or is it just the younger people?

So for example, we're your grandparents lazy and decadent compared to your great grandparents? Or is it just the young people now who are dreadful creatures?

the.red.baron

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

Just thinking about this recently, but did our grandparents have something great that the younger generations are missing?

The 'older folks' were married fairly young to a person who ticked a few basic boxes - had to be kind and hard working; health wise, without any major malfunctions. When they married, they married for life.

Dating was more along the lines of courting: basically, the two people discerned if marriage with the other person was feasible and would last.

Their expectations of each other were not sky high. A quiet, happy life with plenty of children was just about right.

When I look at a lot of people my age (late 20s), it seems like they are going through an endless cycle of dates. Tinder, online dating etc. 99% of these dates do not seem to go anywhere. Many of these folks are quite inward looking - they will go on these dates to satisfy some shallow craving, for example to get a confidence boost or a free meal (yes, I have personally heard that one!) Meanwhile, life goes on, said people become more disillusioned and unhappy. I think it gets especially tough for women, because of the biological clock and because they will have to compete with younger women for the better men. I have a female friend (late 30s) who will regularly burst into tears over not having a family, kids etc. It's heart-breaking.

The bottom line: has the sexual revolution of the 1960s been a good thing? It seems like a lot of people have basically been left without the love, security and comfort that comes with having a spouse (not to mention the joy of having children).

Now I know that there are some generalisations going on here, but nevertheless I think I have decent argument.

no is the answer

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The hen-pecked, abused husband is as bad a scenario as the abused wife. Often times I imagine they were mutually abusive and had no option to end t g e narrate. The only option was to grin and bare it and raise thru children in that situation.

Yet done people seem to think it was automatically better back then under the "things were getter in the olden days" clause.

Well I never said things were better, you are taking my few words on the matter out of context and going on some pseudo soliloquy.

Put simply, life was different then. Simpler perhaps because there wasn't as much choice as today which had its pros and cons, harder also because of grinding poverty, state/church control over morality, and fewer opportunities to excel.

Life today is both better and harder. People's expectations of what they want from life is huge, and sometimes totally unattainable, hence why there are so much anxiety and depression. Its all well and good to go to college to do some degree that one has barely a passing interest in, go do some travel and then... get married and have some kids, yet so many people are miserable still.

The century of the self, by Adam Curtis probes this a bit more.

lainey_d_123

markodaly wrote: »

Well I never said things were better, you are taking my few words on the matter out of context and going on some pseudo soliloquy.

Put simply, life was different then. Simpler perhaps because there wasn't as much choice as today which had its pros and cons, harder also because of grinding poverty, state/church control over morality, and fewer opportunities to excel.

Life today is both better and harder. People's expectations of what they want from life is huge, and sometimes totally unattainable, hence why there are so much anxiety and depression. Its all well and good to go to college to do some degree that one has barely a passing interest in, go do some travel and then... get married and have some kids, yet so many people are miserable still.

The century of the self, by Adam Curtis probes this a bit more.

I'd say this bit is true. People seem to expect far too much from life nowadays, in general, and it doesn't seem to make them happy. Society prizes Type A personalities and overachievers, yet they all seem miserable as sin, striving to get to the next rung on the ladder. For what? Money is supposed to make your life better and easier, not more stressful.

dresden8

At one stage didn't married women need their husbands permission to open a bank account? Or am I mis-remembering that?

Snails pace

It was a different time then. People grew up fast, married by their mid twenties, raise a family and so on. As some posters said, a lot of marriages were far from perfect. Luckily for me, my grandparents on my mothers side both had a happy life right up to the end, raised a family who loved them and they both worked hard for their family and contributed to the local community.

Todays generation mature a lot slower amd than are more preoccupied about their Instagram followers and twitter than giving time to their partner.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

At one stage didn't married women need their husbands permission to open a bank account? Or am I mis-remembering that?

Depending on the culture, sure. Same with owning property. ie. Needing to retain the property through the name of her husband. The further you go back, you can find all kinds of notions that we would consider ridiculous today.

Sommer507

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'd say this bit is true. People seem to expect far too much from life nowadays, in general, and it doesn't seem to make them happy. Society prizes Type A personalities and overachievers, yet they all seem miserable as sin, striving to get to the next rung on the ladder. For what? Money is supposed to make your life better and easier, not more stressful.

Happiness comes from within, it is being present. It is avoiding seeking instant pleasure from the likes of food, alcohol, drugs, porn and social validation. These things often lead to misery, anxiety and depression because they desensitize your dopamine receptors.

Your relationship with the present moment is paramount when bringing out your happiness, the only moment that ever exists is now. Furthermore, short term pain can lead to long term joy. Cold showers, high intensity exercise, intermittent fasting, leaving your comfort zone. These are all painful, but they bring joy.

eviltwin

dresden8 wrote: »

At one stage didn't married women need their husbands permission to open a bank account? Or am I mis-remembering that?

Ireland was very slow to bring in women's rights and many were forced on us as part of joining the EEC.

vibege

So while I see what you're saying, I think that in general we have it better now.

Just because it was the norm to get married earlier, there would still have been people who didn't find a spouse. And waiting a bit longer to figure out who you are and what you want from a relationship is a good thing.

Women have a lot more freedom to explore what they want from a relationship, and who they want to spend their life with, with the freedom of knowing I won't be sent to a laundry or be the talk of the town for it.

Deebles McBeebles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just for context to all this talk of how the young people today are so much worse than previous generations in terms of manners and dedication.

Here's a quote sometimes attributed to Socrates about 400BCE:
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

In short, these see just things old people say about the young people.

Either children have had no respect for over 2000 years or it just something old people use to bash young people in every generation. You don't have to fall for it.

That quote is from 1907, so more like 113 years. I'm not saying you don't have a point, just that its not been a thing for 2000 years.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave/

QI has determined that the author of the quote is not someone famous or ancient.
It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907. Freeman did not claim that the passage under analysis was a direct quotation of anyone; instead, he was presenting his own summary of the complaints directed against young people in ancient times.

Interesting thread though.

Sommer507

I think a lot of the complaints of older people about younger people is driven by status insecurity or fear of their own mortality.

ohnonotgmail

dresden8 wrote: »

At one stage didn't married women need their husbands permission to open a bank account? Or am I mis-remembering that?

that was certainly the case in ireland up until the early 70s i think.

Sommer507

Sommer507 wrote: »

I think a lot of the complaints of older people about younger people is driven by status insecurity or fear of their own mortality.

Maybe, although I can {somewhat} understand where they're coming from. I'm only reaching my mid 40s and I often feel that I have very little in common with younger generations. While I'm comfortable with computers and some aspects of the internet, I have zero interest in social media and find the whole fascination with twitter or similar apps really superficial. It's the same when I talk to my brother/sisters kids. There is a definite gap between their upbringing and my own.

So, I do think there is more to it all... and it's something that happens each generation as they get older/experienced.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Depending on the culture, sure. Same with owning property. ie. Needing to retain the property through the name of her husband. The further you go back, you can find all kinds of notions that we would consider ridiculous today.

if you are mid 40s then the property thing only changed in your lifetime.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you are mid 40s then the property thing only changed in your lifetime.

Huh? You think women couldn't own property within my lifetime? Err... I seriously doubt that's the case. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that's something from way back.

Quick google.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history

Interesting read