What happened to getting married before having children?

Fang_3

property.advert wrote: »

From what I see of the UK in the 21st century, the idea of commitment has gone out of the window. In fact, I don't think some of the youngsters today are even taught the meaning of the word and I am sure that many could not spell it. The benefits culture gives you £80 for a baby and only £65 for yourself (if you are over 25 or so) which immediately makes having a child more "profitable".

Women are as much to blame as men for relationship break ups but where are these fathers who think nothing of just running away ? Go down the social scale and the fewer fathers actually care enough to stay or even support their kids but they have plenty of money for booze, cars, drugs and enjoying the single lifestyle. Like it or not, certain ethnic groups are almost always absent as fathers. I remember Waynetta Slop saying she wanted a "brown baby" and yet go look around and see how few fathers of mixed race children are ever around or ever help out financially. Not a lot. Yet the state steps in and provides way more than necessary and so another generation of permanent benefit claimants is born.

I don't have an answer. Though far too young for National Service I would welcome its introduction as it is obvious that the family unit is not doing the job it is supposed to in many cases. Marriage does not have to be a precursor to having children but a commitment to each other should be, accidents accepted. How I do not know but somehow we need to find a way of instilling a sense of responsibility in a generation, actually now multiple generations, who just don't care and who show no commitment at all, not even to the upbringing of their children.

Why would you punish the vast majority of young people for the actions of the few?

helzbelz_57

haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say that is the funniest OP i have read in a long time.

Oldernotwiser

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I don't have a man. I'm single

I meant "you" in the general sense, not personally.

Almo

property.advert wrote: »

From what I see of the UK in the 21st century, the idea of commitment has gone out of the window. In fact, I don't think some of the youngsters today are even taught the meaning of the word and I am sure that many could not spell it. The benefits culture gives you £80 for a baby and only £65 for yourself (if you are over 25 or so) which immediately makes having a child more "profitable".

Women are as much to blame as men for relationship break ups but where are these fathers who think nothing of just running away ? Go down the social scale and the fewer fathers actually care enough to stay or even support their kids but they have plenty of money for booze, cars, drugs and enjoying the single lifestyle. Like it or not, certain ethnic groups are almost always absent as fathers. I remember Waynetta Slop saying she wanted a "brown baby" and yet go look around and see how few fathers of mixed race children are ever around or ever help out financially. Not a lot. Yet the state steps in and provides way more than necessary and so another generation of permanent benefit claimants is born.

I don't have an answer. Though far too young for National Service I would welcome its introduction as it is obvious that the family unit is not doing the job it is supposed to in many cases. Marriage does not have to be a precursor to having children but a commitment to each other should be, accidents accepted. How I do not know but somehow we need to find a way of instilling a sense of responsibility in a generation, actually now multiple generations, who just don't care and who show no commitment at all, not even to the upbringing of their children.

Ouch. Come on, Waynetta Slob? You are seriously comparing young people today to a TV character? And as a white woman, in a relationship with a white man, who doesn't want a child of any colour, I think at the very least you ought to back that statement up with some evidence.

That said, I do agree that society is becoming increasingly promiscuous and amoral. I think it goes deeper than being an issue about marriage though. Two of my friends here really want to get married. Both are in long term relationships and one plans on getting married next year. Neither will ask their men to marry them, they're waiting for the proposal. Both have had multiple affairs and kept them secret from their partners. Marriage won't change them. To avoid the suggestion of bias, yes of course I also know people who don't want to get married who have cheated.

lindseykim13

Fang wrote: »

Why would you punish the vast majority of young people for the actions of the few?

Totally right i would say at 26 i am still young and certainly don't have the same morals as a lot of others my age. Many did just have babies and go on the social, became single mums and the dads f'ed off!
I consider myself lucky to be married with 3 childern but it was also a choice we made and i would say it also has a lot to do with the way we were brought up. Parenting has a lot to do with todays society.
We didn't get married until my first born was 18mths we were already engaged when i got pregnant and he was planned. We just couldn't get married sooner because the church we wanted was fully booked up until then!
It matters not if your married or you split up later etc just that your taught as a young girl to respect yourself and that you a special. As a lad to treat girls with respect and put something on the end of it as J kyle would say!
Too many girls grow up thinking nobody loves them 'i'll have a baby' and too many boys grow up thinking it's the 'done' thing to put it around. A lot more parent-child talking needs to go on. Not punishing all youngsters some still have some morals and respect for themselves and others.

NoAngel

property.advert wrote: »

Like it or not, certain ethnic groups are almost always absent as fathers. I remember Waynetta Slop saying she wanted a "brown baby" and yet go look around and see how few fathers of mixed race children are ever around or ever help out financially. Not a lot. .

When did it turn into a race thing? Pretty disgusting comment really; so white men all stick around?

Allegra

Fang wrote: »

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

I agree. However, I am having a bit of trouble making that statement rub along peacefully with this one:

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.

What if I want to set my own benchmarks firmly in the control area ? Hmmm ? Or does the above simply mean that one should set their own benchmarks as long as they conform to whatever the accepted standard of normality is in the country of their residence ?

Consequently, does that mean that, should I move to a country that does not recongise women as equal to men, yet my partner wanted to treat me as an equal, he should not be allowed to do so ?

Or what if I want to be the controlling one ? There is no flippin' country about that considers blokes the lesser species. Where the heck would I go ? No fair.

I think, in essence, that every contributor to this thread so far has agreed on one thing (and one thing only), and that is that a line should be drawn somewhere. The problem is - where ? And why ?

thatgirlsam

Allegra wrote: »

Ah, but that's the important distinction - importance of the role, not the importance of the person. If we move the issue away from the emotive relationship field to, say, that of the workplace - a big project, for instance. Every person working on that project is equal as a person, regardless whether they are the idea man, or the woman with the essential technical skills, or the work experience lad making the tea and doing the photocopying.

But could you really say that the role of the tea maker is as important as that of the expert whose skills will do the job ?

not sure you can compare a marriage to a workplace scenario

anyway, without the teamaker the experts would have to make drinks themselves, taking away the time from the work

once you start undervaluing jobs you undervalue the people that do them

a hospital cleaner has just an important job as a surgeon for example, and should be valued equally

Allegra

thatgirlsam wrote: »

a hospital cleaner has just an important job as a surgeon for example, and should be valued equally

In essence, yes. When it comes to a specific task or situation, no. If I need to be operated on, I would value the presence of a surgeon more than the presence of a cleaner. And if I puke all over the floor whilst waiting for my op, the cleaner's skills would be of more value at that particular moment.

Although, in all fairness, if I could only have one... I don't think I'd go for the cleaner, even if I could be certain that they are a wondefrul person with an amazing undiscovered artistic talent, a loving parent with a mean sideline in home-made jam; and the surgeon a misanthropic git suspected of cruelty to small furry animals. Much as I would agree, in essence, that the cleaner is probably a more valuable human being.... The surgeon's skills would be way too important to me at that time

thatgirlsam

Allegra wrote: »

In essence, yes. When it comes to a specific task or situation, no. If I need to be operated on, I would value the presence of a surgeon more than the presence of a cleaner. And if I puke all over the floor whilst waiting for my op, the cleaner's skills would be of more value at that particular moment.

Although, in all fairness, if I could only have one... I don't think I'd go for the cleaner, even if I could be certain that they are a wondefrul person with an amazing undiscovered artistic talent, a loving parent with a mean sideline in home-made jam; and the surgeon a misanthropic git suspected of cruelty to small furry animals. Much as I would agree, in essence, that the cleaner is probably a more valuable human being.... The surgeon's skills would be way too important to me at that time

you would probably die after wards from a horrible infection if you were operated on in an unclean theatre

btw , hospital cleaners are not allowed to clean up bodily fluids anyway