Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

Gynoid wrote: »

A lot of happy marriage is good luck. One haplessly hit upon the person out of all the many thousands who is funny, sexy and kind and willing to tolerate ones imperfections and eccentricities and vice versa for them. Damn lucky is all. It is not skill.

It's not all luck. That's simply untrue. We're not all equally "funny, sexy and kind and willing to tolerate ones imperfections and eccentricities and vice versa". Some people are much less funny, sexy and kind and willing to tolerate ones imperfections and eccentricities, than others. And those people will have a much harder time finding a partner who wants to be with them.

Some people are much better at reading their partner's moods and find it easy to show their partner a nice time. Simple example is knowing when to offer support/advice and when to say now't and make them a cup of tea instead. Those people will find it easier to find a partner.

Some people are unpleasant to be around and they will find it harder to find a partner.

lozenges

I'm not sure about this. I went through a fair number of people in my early- mid 20s. Good times had by all. I'm now settled down in a long term relationship which started in my late 20s.

I think though that if i had ended up in the same relationship 5, 6, 7 years earlier I would be much less happy. I would be wondering what I might have missed out on. Because I had those experiences earlier on I have fond memories I can look back on, I don't feel that I missed out on anything and yet I have a good, stable, loving relationship.

Church on Tuesday

wench wrote: »

A five year wait is a quick fix?

That's not what I meant though, in a lot of cases it's an easy out rather than work through any problems.

Church on Tuesday

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lads, at some point we need to ease off on the nostalgia. If people were so great back then, there wouldn't have been so much crime, for example.

I really wish people would have a think before they speak about this stuff. If you presume these qualities applied to everyone back in olden times, then you're just saying "far away hills are greener".

Simply not true.

Gynoid

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Some people are unpleasant to be around and they will find it harder to find a partner.

Uh. Well obviously.
(It is just so hard to qualify ones little posteens on boards with every single get out clause and exception that could be pounced upon by the discerning and critical reader.)
But yeah Dude, if one is unkind and an arsehole an extra effort is going to be needed.
It also does not preclude it from being true that kind funny sexy people who do all the right things may not find someone to love them. They may not get lucky. Yet.

Billgirlylegs

Wanderer78 wrote: »

would be an interesting study, unsure if it exists though, from my own experiences, autism is probably largely genetic

Is it down to better detection.
I knew a few "odd" people growing up.

In reply to the OP, I think my grandparents generation (those that did 1916 and The Civil War) and their behaviour did untold damage to this country.
Unthinking blind obedience to the Church, Fianna Fail and the GAA are directly responsible for years of Child Abuse, economic stagnation and sporting stagnation respectively.

morebabies wrote: »

I agree with the OP, of course not every marriage back then was perfect, but these days lasting marriages seem to be a rarity.
Dating in your early twenties now would normally mean not looking for a future husband or wife which is kind of sad, since on a practical level, marrying later brings with it various health risks and fertility issues for women if couples decide they want children.
It may sound anti feminist, but speaking as a woman, I think there's a huge hole in modern health education systems, in that women are not being told that having babies after age 35 brings with it several increased risks to both mothers and babies.
I'm not suggesting marrying young for "practical" reasons, but are younger women today aware of the risks of our current dating models? I certainly wasn't, and when I realised the biological reality I faced, I wished I had known sooner. I'm very lucky to have healthy children, but friends of mine have faced expensive IVF journeys while others are now in their forties, wanted to wait to have children, but are now childless and heartbroken that they will never have families.

I've a friend going through this at the minute, people of both genders are leaving it way too late, I think a lot of women drank from the poison chalice of feminism and are finding out that the high flying career is just a normal oul job..

ArchXStanton wrote: »

I've a friend going through this at the minute, people of both genders are leaving it way too late, I think a lot of women drank from the poison chalice of feminism and are finding out that the high flying career is just a normal oul job..

I don't think that's fair. The price of housing now is so absurd that it takes two salaries and a lot more time to get on the ladder.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think that's fair. The price of housing now is so absurd that it takes two salaries and a lot more time to get on the ladder.

People used to raise kids, feed them and pay for a house on one salary, now both parents have to work. I seen it a lot in the states, kids coming home to an empty house and money on top of the fridge for a McDonald's for dinner, latch key kids as they call them over there

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Simply not true.

It is true. If all those qualities the poster outlined were really ubiquitous, then crime would have been reduced.

It's even interesting to see the way people talk about crime. I know a woman who bemoans the crime in her city nowadays. Then it turns out that when she was young, she and her siblings took it in turns to sleep in the kitchen to frighten off burglars. That's how common burglary was in her community.

So if people had such an amazing sense of community and respect for each other, how was there ever crime? People help their neighbours now, they give to local and international charities, they donate to crowdfunding sites for all sorts of people with all sorts of problem. They just don't go on about it, but they do have to listen to old folks go on and on about how much better they were. They tell they young people how sh1t they are while relying on those young people to pay their pensions and keep the health care system funded so it's there when the old folks need to clog it up. And young people dont even expect to be thanked for all their hard work and sacrificed tax money. That's how used young people are to being abused by the modern old people.

Think of all the events that celebrate old people, from Captain Moore doing laps of his garden, to the fact that were currently in lockdown to save the vulnerable (most of whom are old people). How often do you see celebrations of young people and all the things they provide for the country? It's very rare by comparison

Nope. If you're being honest you'll admit that what you said was just rose tinted guff. Old people are just people and the old people of today are extremely entitled and closed off from even acknowledging the wonderful things young people do for them and the country as a whole. I doubt it even occurs to old people to thank young people.

Gynoid wrote: »

Uh. Well obviously.
(It is just so hard to qualify ones little posteens on boards with every single get out clause and exception that could be pounced upon by the discerning and critical reader.)
But yeah Dude, if one is unkind and an arsehole an extra effort is going to be needed.
It also does not preclude it from being true that kind funny sexy people who do all the right things may not find someone to love them. They may not get lucky. Yet.

It's not just down to luck then. Some people are just better at finding a partner and are more attractive (as a whole package) than others.

Some of those qualities are down to luck, others are the result of introspection and deciding what kind of person one wants to be.

ArchXStanton wrote: »

People used to raise kids, feed them and pay for a house on one salary, now both parents have to work. I seen it a lot in the states, kids coming home to an empty house and money on top of the fridge for a McDonald's for dinner, latch key kids as they call them over there

Yeah, people say that but they also pine for the days when children had free reign to leave the house in the morning and frolick in the meadows until nightime.

People say parents parent too much these days.

ArchXStanton wrote: »

People used to raise kids, feed them and pay for a house on one salary, now both parents have to work. I seen it a lot in the states, kids coming home to an empty house and money on top of the fridge for a McDonald's for dinner, latch key kids as they call them over there

Exactly. Child rearing is hugely demanding. If both parents are working then that's a lot of stress and that's once the property threshold is removed.

morebabies

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think that's fair. The price of housing now is so absurd that it takes two salaries and a lot more time to get on the ladder.

Yes, but friends of mine have it all career wise, the job, the house, etc., but now are pouring their money into expensive fertility treatments, it's all they talk about. One has been told it's too late, and even though she is financially well off, she's feeling like it wasn't worth it, all those years up skilling to get to a managerial level and now she has a glittering career and nothing else.

Before I get jumped on, I know marriage, lifelong partner, children, etc. aren't for everyone, we all find our happiness on different pathways. But I do think those young people who want to "eventually" settle down and have kids need to know now that it may not be possible when they decide the time is right.

But realistically, yes, money is a factor to consider - I would love to see way more secure work from home opportunities available, so people could earn a viable salary and have the family they perhaps delayed at an earlier age.

seamus

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

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.

You'd know this was written by a man tbh.

Ultimately the lament here is that once you have married a woman, you no longer have any guarantee that she'll stay with you. In the past, people had less choice and therefore settled more readily, and you consider that to be a good thing.

Women who did not want "plenty of children" had no choice. This "quiet, happy life" is fine for the husband who comes home to a meal on the table and a bunch of children who are scared sh1tless of him. You think women had quiet, happy lives with 10 kids running around them?

This is not a personal attack on you btw. I can identify your thoughts in myself as a younger man.

Functionally it all boils down to, "My life would be a whole lot easier if women were still treated as second-class citizens". Old attitudes of marriage for life, were shackles for women, but not for men. Men had control of the finances, and control of the children. A woman who might stray was risking it all; her family, her finances. A man who might stray wasn't. His wife was never going to leave him and she had no power to throw him out.

Some of us grew up with feet in both camps - our parents and/or grandparents had relationships where the balance of power rested with the man, but our own relationships have a more equal balance of power.

Thus, there's a disconnect for us between the "model" or expected relationship, and the reality. And this is upsetting.

seamus wrote: »

You'd know this was written by a man tbh.

Ultimately the lament here is that once you have married a woman, you no longer have any guarantee that she'll stay with you. In the past, people had less choice and therefore settled more readily, and you consider that to be a good thing.

Women who did not want "plenty of children" had no choice. This "quiet, happy life" is fine for the husband who comes home to a meal on the table and a bunch of children who are scared sh1tless of him. You think women had quiet, happy lives with 10 kids running around them?

This is not a personal attack on you btw. I can identify your thoughts in myself as a younger man.

Functionally it all boils down to, "My life would be a whole lot easier if women were still treated as second-class citizens". Old attitudes of marriage for life, were shackles for women, but not for men. Men had control of the finances, and control of the children. A woman who might stray was risking it all; her family, her finances. A man who might stray wasn't. His wife was never going to leave him and she had no power to throw him out.

Some of us grew up with feet in both camps - our parents and/or grandparents had relationships where the balance of power rested with the man, but our own relationships have a more equal balance of power.

Thus, there's a disconnect for us between the "model" or expected relationship, and the reality. And this is upsetting.

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

Millionaire only not

Life was simple back then , I’m in my forties but my father and mother had simple way of life . No grandeur lucky to have one bathroom , was self sufficient in everything from garden to fuel for the winter like most houses of that era.

Now en-suite , no garden , fuel delivered to your garage . Gyms and diets there was no need back then they worked and it kept them fit . There marriages were probably more stable no internet , no phones . Kinda of a lockdown - lol

I guess they knew no deferent so they were reasonably happy a lot more than the generations that exist now . Were a generation obsessed with money and greed and no work if possible but have everything.

Nika Bolokov

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.

Gynoid

seamus wrote: »

You'd know this was written by a man tbh.

Ultimately the lament here is that once you have married a woman, you no longer have any guarantee that she'll stay with you. In the past, people had less choice and therefore settled more readily, and you consider that to be a good thing.

Women who did not want "plenty of children" had no choice. This "quiet, happy life" is fine for the husband who comes home to a meal on the table and a bunch of children who are scared sh1tless of him. You think women had quiet, happy lives with 10 kids running around them?

This is not a personal attack on you btw. I can identify your thoughts in myself as a younger man.

Functionally it all boils down to, "My life would be a whole lot easier if women were still treated as second-class citizens". Old attitudes of marriage for life, were shackles for women, but not for men. Men had control of the finances, and control of the children. A woman who might stray was risking it all; her family, her finances. A man who might stray wasn't. His wife was never going to leave him and she had no power to throw him out.

Some of us grew up with feet in both camps - our parents and/or grandparents had relationships where the balance of power rested with the man, but our own relationships have a more equal balance of power.

Thus, there's a disconnect for us between the "model" or expected relationship, and the reality. And this is upsetting.

Very cliche-laden post. Almost a chick lit level of performative feminism.
People used to manage to get their hands on contraception a good 50 years ago if not more. Not all women helplessly had 10 children. Fathers by and large loved their children, just like they do now. Mothers did not sit home amid their broken dreams and gaggle of brats helplessly gnawing their finger nails. And children were not commonly scared ****less of their fathers. Most has solid loving relationships with them and would give a lot to see them again, alive. Women worked. My grandmothers both worked, and that ain't in any recent decade. Women often had a very tight hold on the family finances. Home making was widely considered a valid life choice with considerable social, emotional and economic benefit to society.

This historical caricature of the heavy looming husband controlling his wife and children with an iron rod is a tad bizarre. People loved and respected each other then as much as any other time, love and respect is not maintained between couples and families now merely by force of law. If you think it is, that is deeply misanthropic. Nasty people of both sexes existed then and now. Of course there are gruesome tales of way back when. But in the present day I know of a spouse who turns off the heat and electricity when they leave the house so the other is kept in a hellish condition - no need to time travel to find monsters. No need to invent a political parody of the past.

wench wrote: »

I think you have a very rose tinted view of the past.

Not all husbands were kind and hard working. Many were abusive arseholes.
Divorce was not an option and marital rape wasn't a crime.

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.

Wanderer78

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Is it down to better detection.
I knew a few "odd" people growing up.

better understanding and different thinking id say, female autism research is becoming very interesting, as most of our knowledge and assessment systems are designed for males with autism

Gynoid wrote: »

Very cliche-laden post. Almost a chick lit level of performative feminism.
People used to manage to get their hands on contraception a good 50 years ago if not more. Not all women helplessly had 10 children. Fathers by and large loved their children, just like they do now. Mothers did not sit home amid their broken dreams and gaggle of brats helplessly gnawing their finger nails. And children were not commonly scared ****less of their fathers. Most has solid loving relationships with them and would give a lot to see them again, alive. Women worked. My grandmothers both worked, and that ain't in any recent decade. Women often had a very tight hold on the family finances. Home making was widely considered a valid life choice with considerable social, emotional and economic benefit to society.

This historical caricature of the heavy looming husband controlling his wife and children with an iron rod is a tad bizarre. People loved and respected each other then as much as any other time, love and respect is not maintained between couples and families now merely by force of law. If you think it is, that is deeply misanthropic. Nasty people of both sexes existed then and now. Of course there are gruesome tales of way back when. But in the present day I know of a spouse who turns off the heat and electricity when they leave the house so the other is kept in a hellish condition - no need to time travel to find monsters. No need to invent a political parody of the past.

The life of the average man wasn't no walk in the park back then either, usually in a low paid back breaking job, not at home cracking the whip at his subservient wife...

Gynoid wrote: »

Very cliche-laden post. Almost a chick lit level of performative feminism.
People used to manage to get their hands on contraception a good 50 years ago if not more. Not all women helplessly had 10 children. Fathers by and large loved their children, just like they do now. Mothers did not sit home amid their broken dreams and gaggle of brats helplessly gnawing their finger nails. And children were not commonly scared ****less of their fathers. Most has solid loving relationships with them and would give a lot to see them again, alive. Women worked. My grandmothers both worked, and that ain't in any recent decade. Women often had a very tight hold on the family finances. Home making was widely considered a valid life choice with considerable social, emotional and economic benefit to society.

This historical caricature of the heavy looming husband controlling his wife and children with an iron rod is a tad bizarre. People loved and respected each other then as much as any other time, love and respect is not maintained between couples and families now merely by force of law. If you think it is, that is deeply misanthropic. Nasty people of both sexes existed then and now. Of course there are gruesome tales of way back when. But in the present day I know of a spouse who turns off the heat and electricity when they leave the house so the other is kept in a hellish condition - no need to time travel to find monsters. No need to invent a political parody of the past.

You're painting an idealised view of how previous generations established and ran families. Many tropes have a basis in reality. The nagging wife and the overbearing and abusive father are tropes for a reason.

The point is that women were ultimately second class citizens. You can dress it up with all the rose tinted imagery you like but that was the foundation for familes for every generation prior to this one. Heck, some would reasonably include this one as well.

wench

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're painting an idealised view of how previous generations established and ran families. Many tropes have a basis in reality. The nagging wife and the overbearing and abusive father are tropes for a reason.

The point is that women were ultimately second class citizens. You can dress it up with all the rose tinted imagery you like but that was the foundation for familes for every generation prior to this one. Heck, some would reasonably include this one as well.

State organisations reinforced that second class situation.
Where a woman had worked and had her own RSI number (the precursor to a PPSN, for the young folks), upon marriage it was taken from her, and she was allocates a "Level W" number, ie her husband's number with a W at the end.
She was no longer a full person in her own right in the eyes of the state.

Gynoid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're painting an idealised view of how previous generations established and ran families. Many tropes have a basis in reality. The nagging wife and the overbearing and abusive father are tropes for a reason.

The point is that women were ultimately second class citizens. You can dress it up with all the rose tinted imagery you like but that was the foundation for familes for every generation prior to this one. Heck, some would reasonably include this one as well.

I am not. I am contradicting the false caricature previously outlined.
A trope can be an exageration also. It can be a magnification of a minority. There are equally popular tropes contradictory to the ones you mention. The subservient dogsbody. The cuckolded wimp. For examples.

The war between the sexes has been a good diversion from the war between the classes for a long old time now. Both women and men were second class citizens compared to those with power and money. Still are.

Leg End Reject wrote: »

It's not a dig, but it's very difficult for a young working couple to afford housing, childcare, utilities, groceries etc. early in their working lives when they're on the lower end of their potential salary starting out.

There's a reason many leave having children to later in life.

I have worked with a woman who was married and had 3 children by her late twenties and has a career the same with my cousins daughter and with my sisters inlaws. It is more of a rural thing though possible to do with the cost of housing and just maybe to do with narrower lifestyles.

Gynoid wrote: »

I am not. I am contradicting the false caricature previously outlined.
A trope can be an exageration also. It can be a magnification of a minority. There are equally popular tropes contradictory to the ones you mention. The subservient dogsbody. The cuckolded wimp. For examples.

The war between the sexes has been a good diversion from the war between the classes for a long old time now. Both women and men were second class citizens compared to those with power and money. Still are.

That's pretty much exactly what you did.

There is no war between the sexes. There's a gender imbalance that is slowly being corrected despite the dismaying consternation of some people.

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

I have worked with a woman who was married and had 3 children by her late twenties and has a career the same with my cousins daughter and with my sisters inlaws. It is more of a rural thing though possible to do with the cost of housing and just maybe to do with narrower lifestyles.

if i was that woman, i would have had at minimum a breakdown, i respect people that have done this, its just something i could never do. we re not all the same with the same abilities and opportunities in life

Gynoid wrote: »

I am not. I am contradicting the false caricature previously outlined.
A trope can be an exageration also. It can be a magnification of a minority. There are equally popular tropes contradictory to the ones you mention. The subservient dogsbody. The cuckolded wimp. For examples.

The war between the sexes has been a good diversion from the war between the classes for a long old time now. Both women and men were second class citizens compared to those with power and money. Still are.

Abuse, unhappiness is always going to make the headlines because a story of how they got married had 6 children were content with each other and proud of their children, like to keep the garden nice, grew old and died is not very exiting.