What happened to getting married before having children?

Fang_3

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Cant wait to see the reply to that one!!

Take a valium now!

thatgirlsam

Allegra wrote: »

Perhaps the self esteem of this person is high enough not to be affected by accepting that the role the other person plays in the relationship could be of higher importance ?



Or dad, I would hope - I don't think this is necessarily gender limited.



I guess I should point out here that I do not mean - or condone - an abusive relationship, be it one with an overbearing partner or manipulative "downtrodden" one. It's ust that sometimes things are not what they might seem on the surface !

sorry but i don't buy that

if your self esteem is high i don't think you would ever consider yourself less important than your partner

agree on the gender issue

Allegra

Fang wrote: »

First and foremost, and then the state.;)

You'll have to do much better than that.

Oh c'mon, that was quite good for a first go, I thought. Give me a chance to warm up :j

In the meantime, there's something that bugs me here -

Fang wrote:
If it's two consenting adults then as far as I'm concerned they can move to a country where it is acceptable.

What did you actually mean by that ? It reads as though you think that UK is a country where anything that deviates from the straight-down-the-middle norm is unacceptable.

Surely this is not the case ?

Allegra

thatgirlsam wrote: »

sorry but i don't buy that

if your self esteem is high i don't think you would ever consider yourself less important than your partner

Yeah, I am having a bit of trouble working that angle :think:

Okay, how's about - when people say that they consider the role of the provider to be the more important one in the relationship, they do not necessarily mean that the person fulfilling that role at that point in time is a more important person than the person fulfilling the less important - yet still necessary - role of the supporter.

And this is where the self-esteem comes in - you'd have to have it high in order to accept the support role without any dent to your sense of self-value.

Fang_3

Allegra wrote: »

Oh c'mon, that was quite good for a first go, I thought. Give me a chance to warm up :j

In the meantime, there's something that bugs me here -



What did you actually mean by that ? It reads as though you think that UK is a country where anything that deviates from the straight-down-the-middle norm is unacceptable.

Surely this is not the case ?

Not that, I think that in the case of people who wish to live in a society where women are treated as second class citizens, then there are plenty of countries in the world where that is the norm.

The UK is not one of these countries, and it is my experience that those who think like that are often obsessively 'patriotic' and wish for a return of the 'good old days'. In fact they can have that return, but not here.

This is a country where equality rules and if you wish to try and control someone else, then frig off to wherever that is acceptable.

dizzyblonde82

My and my husband wanted to get married in 2003 but my parents thought at 21 there was no rush and that we should wait - we thought about it lots and decided to wait a while.

At 19 I was told that I couldn't have children but at 23 I fell pregnant My nan took me to one side and said "I have some money put away if you want to get married" but we thought that people would think we were only marrying due to the pregnancy.

We got married in 2007 when our child was 18 months old and we don't regret not getting married before our child was born.

Imp

thatgirlsam wrote: »

i don't beleive they are truly happy, thats what they say they are but, deep down they must want to be valued as an equal

What's all this clap trap about equallity between the roles in a relationship?

My wife and I are different people who carry out separate roles within the relationship. You can't take us, put us on a set of scales and try and make us equal. We are not. We are different. The same goes for our roles; they are different.

Within a healthy relationship, the two halves work together and rely on each other. I have seen elderly relatives who have been widowed. When my grandpa died, my grandmother couldn't manage the finances. Throughout the relationship, my grandpa had looked after the finances, and took on that responsibility. Similarly I have seen men who have lost their wives, and been unable to keep a house or look after themselves.

When the roles were more clearly split, it is completely obvious that both halves of the relationship rely on the other. They aren't equal; they are different.

Why is the traditional female role of looking after physical needs of the family seen as inferior to the traditional male role of providing income for the family and ensuring security? I have only ever hear women suggest this, and I suspect it is women who undermine their own achievements (different from men's achievements) far more than men.

Women don't have to measure their achievements against the benchmarks set by men. They should be setting their own benchmarks at what they excel at, ignore the men. After all, men will ignore the achievements of women in women's fields because it just doesn't interest them.

Fang_3

Imp wrote: »

What's all this clap trap about equallity between the roles in a relationship?

My wife and I are different people who carry out separate roles within the relationship. You can't take us, put us on a set of scales and try and make us equal. We are not. We are different. The same goes for our roles; they are different.

Within a healthy relationship, the two halves work together and rely on each other. I have seen elderly relatives who have been widowed. When my grandpa died, my grandmother couldn't manage the finances. Throughout the relationship, my grandpa had looked after the finances, and took on that responsibility. Similarly I have seen men who have lost their wives, and been unable to keep a house or look after themselves.

When the roles were more clearly split, it is completely obvious that both halves of the relationship rely on the other. They aren't equal; they are different.

Why is the traditional female role of looking after physical needs of the family seen as inferior to the traditional male role of providing income for the family and ensuring security? I have only ever hear women suggest this, and I suspect it is women who undermine their own achievements (different from men's achievements) far more than men.

Women don't have to measure their achievements against the benchmarks set by men. They should be setting their own benchmarks at what they excel at, ignore the men. After all, men will ignore the achievements of women in women's fields because it just doesn't interest them.

You haven't grasped the point of equality. It's not about being the same, it's being valued as an equal partner. Not in purely monetary terms, or in child rearing ways.

It's not about what each partner does, but in how each partner is viewed and treated. When one person in that partnership thinks that they are more important than the other, then it is toxic.

thatgirlsam

Imp wrote: »

What's all this clap trap about equallity between the roles in a relationship?

My wife and I are different people who carry out separate roles within the relationship. You can't take us, put us on a set of scales and try and make us equal. We are not. We are different. The same goes for our roles; they are different.

Within a healthy relationship, the two halves work together and rely on each other. I have seen elderly relatives who have been widowed. When my grandpa died, my grandmother couldn't manage the finances. Throughout the relationship, my grandpa had looked after the finances, and took on that responsibility. Similarly I have seen men who have lost their wives, and been unable to keep a house or look after themselves.

When the roles were more clearly split, it is completely obvious that both halves of the relationship rely on the other. They aren't equal; they are different.

Why is the traditional female role of looking after physical needs of the family seen as inferior to the traditional male role of providing income for the family and ensuring security? I have only ever hear women suggest this, and I suspect it is women who undermine their own achievements (different from men's achievements) far more than men.

Women don't have to measure their achievements against the benchmarks set by men. They should be setting their own benchmarks at what they excel at, ignore the men. After all, men will ignore the achievements of women in women's fields because it just doesn't interest them.

totally agree with this bit in red

can i ask if one of you sees themselves as more important, or having a more important role than the other?

Fang_3

thatgirlsam wrote: »

totally agree with this

can i ask if one of you sees themselves as more important, or having a more important role than the other?

I don't. I think people should set their own benchmarks, and ignore wide variables such as gender.