Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

eviltwin · 05-05-2020 02:24PM

How about we just let people live the life they want without telling them what's best for them.

Wanderer78 · 05-05-2020 02:26PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How about we just let people live the life they want without telling them what's best for them.

you may need to leave the planet, as that probably wont happen, we re all great for the advice, but we probably dont like receiving it

Sorry about that · 05-05-2020 02:27PM

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

Not in our house. The father made the money and the rules, and yes, scared the crap out of us. There was nowhere for my mother to go, even if she'd had the courage. And nobody had a clue. Women these days are making money, and it's not shameful to leave if the s**t does hit the fan. Better times for sure.

Incidentally, just a few weeks ago, my mother laughed when I expressed surprise at her stories of affairs in our small town in the 1980's. I honestly don't know anyone who's having an affair (not denying it happens), but she had a handful of examples from back then.

Silentcorner · 05-05-2020 02:37PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

I think the issue is that this "imbalance" is it impossible to correct, The Scandanavian countries have tried, The people in the Kibbutz in Israel have tried, eventually mother nature wins....the only countries who have succeeded are the Chinese...we are living with the consequences of people's freedom of choice, we either respect those choices and accept those perceived imbalances or we don't.

In the meantime, in terms of access to all the important things in ordinary life, health services, education and justice, you'll find a different kind of imbalance

lainey_d_123 · 05-05-2020 02:38PM

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Not that previous generations had it right exactly, but there seems to have been actual regression over the last 15 years.
An awful lot of people seem to me to think they are younger than they are and have little interest in a serious relationship or starting a family until their late thirties. Career and ‘experiences’ seem to rank higher. No doubt some people are happier with that kind of life, but doubt if most will be, particularly women who leave it too late to have kids.

Good God, women generally do NOT 'leave it too late' to have kids. This myth that women somehow don't realise there's a biological clock is ridiculous.

I don't think I've ever met a woman who purposely waited past her mid thirties to try to start a family. Some simply didn't meet a suitable partner before then, some were dumped early to mid thirties after a decade-long relationship, or even marriage, some weren't in a financial position to have children. In many cases they were being responsible and unselfish rather than going ahead and having kids in a bad situation. Not one of them thought 'ya know, I'll wait until I'm 40 for sh*ts and giggles'.

I love how a woman working and supporting herself is 'being obsessed with her career' or being a 'career woman'. How else exactly are we supposed to pay our rent and bills? I certainly would rather not work, but then how do I live? Shall I tell men I date that I don't work and expect to be supported? Yeah, that'll go down really well. I'm sure men will love to pay for everything and not label me a gold digger. Or maybe I should take up a little hobby job so I can live in poverty, unable to ever take a holiday, buy anything nice or have a decent lifestyle. Or maybe, you know, I'll just get a good job with prospects like men do, without anyone accusing them of being 'career men', and I'll enjoy living my life.

It's actually a joke for women these days. You literally cannot win. Ever. You have to be interesting and have a life, but not too busy to have time for dating. You have to be independent and have your own money, but you can't be a career girl and spend too much time at work.

It's exhausting.

Fred Cryton · 05-05-2020 02:38PM

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.

ancapailldorcha · 05-05-2020 02:52PM

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for arranged marriage.

No, there isn't.

Silentcorner · 05-05-2020 03:02PM

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Good God, women generally do NOT 'leave it too late' to have kids. This myth that women somehow don't realise there's a biological clock is ridiculous.

I don't think I've ever met a woman who purposely waited past her mid thirties to try to start a family. Some simply didn't meet a suitable partner before then, some were dumped early to mid thirties after a decade-long relationship, or even marriage, some weren't in a financial position to have children. In many cases they were being responsible and unselfish rather than going ahead and having kids in a bad situation. Not one of them thought 'ya know, I'll wait until I'm 40 for sh*ts and giggles'.

I love how a woman working and supporting herself is 'being obsessed with her career' or being a 'career woman'. How else exactly are we supposed to pay our rent and bills? I certainly would rather not work, but then how do I live? Shall I tell men I date that I don't work and expect to be supported? Yeah, that'll go down really well. I'm sure men will love to pay for everything and not label me a gold digger. Or maybe I should take up a little hobby job so I can live in poverty, unable to ever take a holiday, buy anything nice or have a decent lifestyle. Or maybe, you know, I'll just get a good job with prospects like men do, without anyone accusing them of being 'career men', and I'll enjoy living my life.

It's actually a joke for women these days. You literally cannot win. Ever. You have to be interesting and have a life, but not too busy to have time for dating. You have to be independent and have your own money, but you can't be a career girl and spend too much time at work.

It's exhausting.

Do you think women would be better off if we somehow managed to convince young men to start families much earlier?

Gynoid · 05-05-2020 03:03PM

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.

it might have worked in different times or places. I would not advise it for headstrong modern people.
My family would have picked my husband at the point of a gun only, they literally loathed him, did not come to the wedding, ignored us completely for many years (thank God!

), only pausing from their ignoring to do a spot of abusing and haranguing, but now 35 years later the way they coo and fawn over him you'd swear they conjured him up by magic themselves. People, huh.

05-05-2020 03:16PM

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I love how a woman working and supporting herself is 'being obsessed with her career' or being a 'career woman'. How else exactly are we supposed to pay our rent and bills? I certainly would rather not work, but then how do I live? Shall I tell men I date that I don't work and expect to be supported? Yeah, that'll go down really well. I'm sure men will love to pay for everything and not label me a gold digger. Or maybe I should take up a little hobby job so I can live in poverty, unable to ever take a holiday, buy anything nice or have a decent lifestyle. Or maybe, you know, I'll just get a good job with prospects like men do, without anyone accusing them of being 'career men', and I'll enjoy living my life.

For all your love of referring to studies, you seem to miss a lot of them that concern men.

Many of the studies in the last two decades have mentioned how many men want to be to main provider in a marriage, and are willing to support their wife while she raises the children. It's a traditional system that appeals to men. It simply doesn't appeal to feminists. The funny thing is that I know quite a few men who would be happy to stay at home with the kids, while their wife supports the family. Except that there are extremely few supports in society for men to do such a thing, and it makes more financial sense for the woman to do it.

It's actually a joke for women these days. You literally cannot win. Ever.

It's turned into a bit of a joke for men too. Well, let's see. Women have more supports (financial/social/legal) in society than men. Gain access to sponsorship in education as women, that men don't have. Women do better in school, but "need" further support to excel. Women won't be treated as harshly in law as men for similar crimes. Hell, let's do away with competition entirely and encourage quotas for everything.

The list goes on and on... but women are the victims. Always. In every situation, between the genders, it is the woman that is the victim and needs support.

But sure, women can't win. ever. right. Yup. Oh life is sooo hard!

You have to be interesting and have a life, but not too busy to have time for dating. You have to be independent and have your own money, but you can't be a career girl and spend too much time at work.

It's exhausting.

This kind of BS is exhausting too.

Ever heard of the women who complain about "dating down" because there are so few guys available that earn as much as them or are as educated as them. Yup. It's out there. For pretty much every aspect of modern life that you want to complain about, I can point to something equally bad for men.

The difference is that we're not really encouraged to moan about it. Man up, everyone! Yay. :rolleyes:

Fred Cryton · 05-05-2020 03:21PM

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's actually a joke for women these days. You literally cannot win. Ever. You have to be interesting and have a life, but not too busy to have time for dating. You have to be independent and have your own money, but you can't be a career girl and spend too much time at work.

It's exhausting.

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.

One eyed Jack · 05-05-2020 03:21PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

No war between the sexes, but a gender imbalance that’s slowly being corrected despite the dismaying consternation of some people...

I’ve thought about what you’re trying to say here and I’m missing the distinction tbh.

Apart from that, there was no gender imbalance in society, it was just both men and women had different roles, the vast majority still do with 98% of parents in Ireland who work in the home being women - women are the primary caregivers of children, men are the primary breadwinners, both roles make up the vast majority of households in Irish society.

As for the OP, there’s all sorts of cherry picking going on there and as someone else said earlier in the thread - far away hills are greener type stuff going on. There’s no such thing as a whole society or a whole generation being better or worse than the preceding or proceeding one. There were people on the pigs back then, as there are people on the pigs back now, and the corollary of that is also true - there were people who suffered terribly then, as there are people who suffer terribly now.

Gender and socioeconomic status really doesn’t have a whole lot to do with anything, never mind attempting to “correct” a cherry picked perceived “gender imbalance” that never existed in the first place. Futile attempts to address an issue as perceived by a minority of idealogues only causes themselves dismaying consternation. Most people don’t actually care about these things one way or another, they’re quite happy to maintain the status quo while it’s working to their advantage.

ancapailldorcha · 05-05-2020 03:36PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apart from that, there was no gender imbalance in society, it was just both men and women had different roles, the vast majority still do with 98% of parents in Ireland who work in the home being women - women are the primary caregivers of children, men are the primary breadwinners, both roles make up the vast majority of households in Irish society.

That's ridiculous. Women's role was to be the mother and wife. Men had the opportunity to go out and work. Obviously, plenty of women did as well but they were expected to shelf their careers once it came to having children.

05-05-2020 03:37PM

Its fundamentally about love.

Quarantine
by Eavan Boland

In the worst hour of the worst season
of the worst year of a whole people
a man set out from the workhouse with his wife.
He was walking — they were both walking — north.

She was sick with famine fever and could not keep up.
He lifted her and put her on his back.
He walked like that west and west and north.
Until at nightfall under freezing stars they arrived.

In the morning they were both found dead.
Of cold. Of hunger. Of the toxins of a whole history.
But her feet were held against his breastbone.
The last heat of his flesh was his last gift to her.

Let no love poem ever come to this threshold.
There is no place here for the inexact
praise of the easy graces and sensuality of the body.
There is only time for this merciless inventory:

Their death together in the winter of 1847.
Also what they suffered. How they lived.
And what there is between a man and woman.
And in which darkness it can best be proved.

eviltwin · 05-05-2020 03:40PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Women's role was to be the mother and wife. Men had the opportunity to go out and work. Obviously, plenty of women did as well but they were expected to shelf their careers once it came to having children.

Mens roles have been pretty rigid too. With the change in roles for women, we've had a lot of older women talking about how they would have liked to work, not have kids or as many kids. The world has opened up for women and those who go the more traditional route tend to do it out of choice. Men's roles are still largely unchanged, okay we have more hands on men in the home and with kids but there is still an expectation that men go to work. Stay at home dads are still a bit of a novelty.

ancapailldorcha · 05-05-2020 03:42PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Mens roles have been pretty rigid too. With the change in roles for women, we've had a lot of older women talking about how they would have liked to work, not have kids or as many kids. The world has opened up for women and those who go the more traditional route tend to do it out of choice. Men's roles are still largely unchanged, okay we have more hands on men in the home and with kids but there is still an expectation that men go to work. Stay at home dads are still a bit of a novelty.

True but the people who complain constantly seem only interested in complaining and nothing else.

05-05-2020 03:52PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Mens roles have been pretty rigid too. With the change in roles for women, we've had a lot of older women talking about how they would have liked to work, not have kids or as many kids. The world has opened up for women and those who go the more traditional route tend to do it out of choice. Men's roles are still largely unchanged, okay we have more hands on men in the home and with kids but there is still an expectation that men go to work. Stay at home dads are still a bit of a novelty.

Any stay at home dad I know of it was not a case of them choosing to give up well-paid careers to become a stay at home parent, it came about because they they had a lesser paying job, or had dropped out of college and never really has a job or mooched around doing bit and pieces, or has some long term condition.

What has happened to women as far as I can see their work just expanded, while their partners do share the housework and parenting a lot if not all the thinking planning and organising of the home life and children's life falls to the mother for some reason?

One eyed Jack · 05-05-2020 03:59PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Women's role was to be the mother and wife. Men had the opportunity to go out and work. Obviously, plenty of women did as well but they were expected to shelf their careers once it came to having children.

What’s ridiculous about it though? Your argument seems to be based upon the premise that women who wanted to work couldn’t, whereas men could. You’re ignoring the fact that many women simply don’t want to enter the labour market and would rather be at home raising children and taking care of their families while their husbands provide the family income. Women didn’t have to shelve their careers at all, and many didn’t. Also some people here are ignoring the fact that agriculture and farming were of much greater importance in Irish society than they are today, and the family farm was a thing where both the husband and wife engaged in back breaking manual labour, the children provided cheap labour, and the local oddballs who were single while everyone else was out “courting” as the OP would say, were enlisted to help out their local farmers.

Talk to enough of women of that era and many of them will tell you themselves they were no shrinking violets -

Opinion: 'In the 1950s, I fought the marriage ban and continued teaching with no pay'

ancapailldorcha · 05-05-2020 04:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s ridiculous about it though? Your argument seems to be based upon the premise that women who wanted to work couldn’t, whereas men could. You’re ignoring the fact that many women simply don’t want to enter the labour market and would rather be at home raising children and taking care of their families while their husbands provide the family income. Women didn’t have to shelve their careers at all, and many didn’t. Also some people here are ignoring the fact that agriculture and farming were of much greater importance in Irish society than they are today, and the family farm was a thing where both the husband and wife engaged in back breaking manual labour, the children provided cheap labour, and the local oddballs who were single while everyone else was out “courting” as the OP would say, were enlisted to help out their local farmers.

Talk to enough of women of that era and many of them will tell you themselves they were no shrinking violets -

Opinion: 'In the 1950s, I fought the marriage ban and continued teaching with no pay'

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.

Silentcorner · 05-05-2020 04:19PM

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 Labour market was significantly limited for most, hence our prolific emigration since the state was founded.

You've made a few outlandish claims yourself!

wench · 05-05-2020 04:34PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

The Labour market was significantly limited for most, hence our prolific emigration since the state was founded.

You've made a few outlandish claims yourself!

And you don't think having a Marriage Bar until the 1970s limited women's employment opportunities more than men's?

ancapailldorcha · 05-05-2020 04:36PM

wench wrote: »

And you don't think having a Marriage Bar until the 1970s limited women's employment opportunities more than men's?

It's weird that we're being told that marriage was equal for both and entailed no limits while this was an actual part of Irish society.

lainey_d_123 · 05-05-2020 04:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

For all your love of referring to studies, you seem to miss a lot of them that concern men.

Many of the studies in the last two decades have mentioned how many men want to be to main provider in a marriage, and are willing to support their wife while she raises the children. It's a traditional system that appeals to men. It simply doesn't appeal to feminists. The funny thing is that I know quite a few men who would be happy to stay at home with the kids, while their wife supports the family. Except that there are extremely few supports in society for men to do such a thing, and it makes more financial sense for the woman to do it.

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. 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.

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

It's turned into a bit of a joke for men too. Well, let's see. Women have more supports (financial/social/legal) in society than men. Gain access to sponsorship in education as women, that men don't have. Women do better in school, but "need" further support to excel. Women won't be treated as harshly in law as men for similar crimes. Hell, let's do away with competition entirely and encourage quotas for everything.

The list goes on and on... but women are the victims. Always. In every situation, between the genders, it is the woman that is the victim and needs support.

But sure, women can't win. ever. right. Yup. Oh life is sooo hard!

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

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

There are some women only grants and sponsorships in a select few fields which have a severe shortage of women. I'm sure you weren't rushing to complain about inequality when it was in YOUR favour. Which has been, and still is, almost always.

Yes, girls do better at school. What further 'supports' do they need to excel? I'm certainly not aware of them. I was top of my class at school and top of my class in college. Because of this thing called 'hard work'. Far more male students than female have grinds, in my experience working for a tutoring agency, so what is all this extra support for girls?

It's easy to claim women are given leniency for serious crimes when almost all serious crimes are actually committed by men. Yes, women actually are almost always the victims, actually, yes. Of rape, abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence, discrimination and harassment at work, the list goes on. And when men are the victims, men are almost always the perpetrators as well. The percentage of serious crimes committed against men by women is so tiny as to be almost laughable, and then people like you pick out random, rare examples of where a woman might have gotten away with something, completely disregarding the fact that the vast majority of male rape and sexual abuse perpetrators are never punished at all.

Ever heard of the women who complain about "dating down" because there are so few guys available that earn as much as them or are as educated as them. Yup. It's out there. For pretty much every aspect of modern life that you want to complain about, I can point to something equally bad for men.

The difference is that we're not really encouraged to moan about it. Man up, everyone! Yay. :rolleyes:

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.

lainey_d_123 · 05-05-2020 04:56PM

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.

What you really mean by 'choosy' is that women have options. And for some reason, a lot of men still haven't got their heads around that. Men used to benefit from women having a far lower earning capacity, or not being able to work at all. Women in those times had very little power to improve their own lives. Any husband at all was better than no husband and being left penniless, so there was an incentive for them to put up with all sorts of undesirable or downright awful traits and behaviour.

Now, those constraints are nowhere near as big as they used to be and so the incentive for women to marry just anybody has gone. If you have a job, a home, a wide social circle, a good life, then why on earth would you NOT be choosy? A man is no longer a necessity, but an option. Plenty of women would simply prefer to be alone than settle for someone who isn't right for them. And why would they not?

Gynoid · 05-05-2020 04:59PM

One of the main things for a potentially happy (heterosexual) relationship/ marriage as a woman - I reckon - is that one has to actually LIKE men.

El_Duderino 09 · 05-05-2020 05:03PM

Sorry about that wrote: »

Incidentally, just a few weeks ago, my mother laughed when I expressed surprise at her stories of affairs in our small town in the 1980's. I honestly don't know anyone who's having an affair (not denying it happens), but she had a handful of examples from back then.

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.

One eyed Jack · 05-05-2020 05:05PM

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 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.

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.

Silentcorner · 05-05-2020 05:08PM

wench wrote: »

And you don't think having a Marriage Bar until the 1970s limited women's employment opportunities more than men's?

I don't think that is what I said...

I said the labour market was limited for most, plenty of young men were denied education to enter the workforce at 12 and 13 restricting them reaching their potential as well.

Living in an insular backwater didn't serve too many people too well.

wench · 05-05-2020 05:17PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't think that is what I said...

I said the labour market was limited for most, plenty of young men were denied education to enter the workforce at 12 and 13 restricting them reaching their potential as well.

Living in an insular backwater didn't serve too many people too well.

Leaving school with just a primary education was common across the board, but for those women who managed to better their lot and get a job in the civil service, banks etc, it was then summarily snatched away for the crime of getting married.
You weren't even allowed to stay on the playing field, never mind have it level.

witchgirl26 · 05-05-2020 05:17PM

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.

Not always the case. My grandmother had a career before settling down and didn't get married till she was in her early 30's. This was in 1940's Ireland. She wasn't settling for just anyone either - she did say that she wouldn't have gotten married to anyone except my grandad.

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

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.

Completely not my experience having talked to my grandmother when I was younger. She wanted a good life & didn't want loads of kids (had 3). She didn't base her decision to marry on some calculation on if it would last. They worked at it and she married solely for love. She was already supporting herself and living alone.

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

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 one thing I've learned about a lot of things is the more you chase this notion of "perfect", the more you will never achieve it and I think this is happening to people. They have complete rose tinted glasses as to what relationships are or should be. Or they constantly believe that they can do better, thus they sabotage themselves.
I have a friend who had met someone and dated briefly. They were fantastic together and he adored her. But there was always a niggle that he'd gone out with hotter or wealthier women before and maybe he could again. Nothing to do with personality or actual real feelings. He dumped the girl because he thought he could do better (again not personality match or anything, looks & money) and regrets it now a couple of years later so much.

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

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.

The sexual revolution is not to blame here. Individuals are. We're great at pushing responsibility for our own actions, or inactions, to something else like the sexual revolution. Realistically the sexual revolution in the 1960's started the road to some level of gender equality when it comes to work and choices in life which is not something we should be wishing didn't happen.

You can settle for someone just as much now as you could then to have the house, marriage and 2.5 children if you really want.

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Being a young parent really only suits those with no real career aspirations, or those content to live on welfare.

Ah here that's not true. I know quite a few women who had their kids young & went to college after having them and have careers now.

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

whatever about dating, one thing I think they got right was regards having kids.

I've only one regret about my kids, and that was that I didn't have them sooner (and even then, in my friends group, we were the first to have them, aged 30). One of my friends is having their first now, and the idea of getting up in the middle of the night aged 42 is off putting to say the leat.

This is probably going to offend people, but I do wonder if theres a correlation between the (seemingly) increased numbers of kids with Autisim or other conditions and the fact that people seem to be having their kids later in life or the number of couples who increasingly have to turn to fertility treatments to have kids.

There isn't - autism is genetic. The difference now is that there isn't this huge stigma around autism or being on the spectrum whereas there was before so people wouldn't get their kids diagnosed as they didn't want them to be the weird ones. Also teachers are trained now to look for signs and recommend children be tested.
My cousin's son was tested for autism as a young child and when reading the literature we realised it described his dad to a T. His dad was just never tested nor was it even thought about. And his dad isn't that old - late 30's.

Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

Comments