Originally posted by Huia:
Arabella, excuse my ignorance, but I didn't realise there was a difference in the legal protections.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
I think that's iniquitous.Thank goodness you now have the option of getting married should you wish to do so.
Huia
quote:I feel much as you do about living together. But I suspect there's little to be gained by pointing it out to your kids. In any event, I'm guessing they already know you don't approve-- no need to rub their faces in it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The religious and traditional issues aside, one problem with living together is that while it may well meet needs of the two people within the relationship, but it doesn't involve anyone else. Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?
quote:If that's what you mean, and you are a parent, you are entitled to say it.
Originally posted by St Deird:
I am not someone who would live with a partner outside of marriage. But, putting myself in that position, if I was living with my partner and someone asked "So, are you guys planning to get married?", I think I'd feel like they thought my relationship didn't "count" yet, and I'd be rather hurt.
quote:That's delightfully condescending of you. I'm reasonably content that in the first 10 years of our marriage (and we've still almost another 20 years to go until hitting 50) my wife and I have more than demonstrated our ability to love and cherish each other despite mental illness, self harm, unemployment, financial difficulties, work related stress, moving multiple times, Asperger's syndrome, endometriosis, nerve problems, suspected infertility, suspected miscarriage and on and on and on.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I've come to the view that no one should marry under the age of 50. Sure, you can do all the cohabiting and raising of weans you like beforehand. But if, after that, you're still prepared to love and cherish, then you have the real thing.
quote:If you really want to offend people, ask the question that immediately springs into my attorney brain: if one member of the couple dies, is the other expecting to get any money the deceased party happened to have saved up?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage?
quote:For the sake of clarity this is what the Government of Canada has the say on the subject:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In Canada, the income tax people consider a couple equivalent to married after living together for a year, common-law is recognized to a degree otherwise province to province with various nuances and rules about property, medical care advice etc.
quote:Emphasis in the original.
What does the Government of Canada consider to be a common-law relationship?
You may apply to sponsor a common-law partner, of the opposite sex or the same sex. If so, you have to prove you have been living with your partner for at least 12 consecutive months in a relationship like a marriage.
That means living together for one year without any long periods where you did not see each other. Either partner may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. However, that separation must have been temporary and short.
A common-law relationship ends when at least one partner does not intend to continue it.
quote:It's debatable as to whether such a couple really counts as "unmarried" in the vernacular sense of the term. On the one hand there's the lack of legal formalism and documentation associated with the modern understanding of marriage. On the other hand the common-law relationship is based on the "conjugal" nature of the relationship and would be recognized as marriage by many less bureaucratic societies (e.g. early Christians and their Roman contemporaries). To me it seems that the "common-law relationship" in Canada is simply an adaptation of common-law marriage coupled with the availability of what is effectively common-law divorce.
Common-law partner
This applies to a person who is not your spouse, with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she:
a. has been living with you in a conjugal relationship, and this current relationship has lasted at least 12 continuous months;
Note
In this definition, 12 continuous months includes any period you were separated for less than 90 days because of a breakdown in the relationship.
b. is the parent of your child by birth or adoption; or
c. has custody and control of your child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and your child is wholly dependent on that person for support.
quote:Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The religious and traditional issues aside, one problem with living together is that while it may well meet needs of the two people within the relationship, but it doesn't involve anyone else. Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
quote:Assuming that by the time we reach 50 (I'm past that) we've wised up enough to see how foolish and shallow that all is, and how little it has to do with the actual business of marriage.
Originally posted by Firenze:
But otoh the over-50 rule does cut down the inflated business of hen/stag nights/weekends, destination weddings, bridezillas, and the whole industry devoted to elevating one day over - and to the possible destruction of - the actual marriage.
quote:It's not the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the law. It is the social definition, and, even if someone doesn't think that the parents have any standing and individualism and choice and stay out of it etc have anything to do with it (not saying this is you), it matters to me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?
quote:I have friends who refer to the parents of their long-term non-spouse as "outlaws"
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Except that you claim your social definition is dependent upon the legal status of your children's conjugal partnerships. In at least that sense it has something to do with the law.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:It's not the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the law. It is the social definition, and, even if someone doesn't think that the parents have any standing and individualism and choice and stay out of it etc have anything to do with it (not saying this is you), it matters to me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?
quote:I get that. Even though the precise issue was different, I was (and still am) very very much in the same place you are-- where my adult daughter's choices caused me much sadness/ disappointment. I totally understand the feelings of helplessness and regret. I should have spent more time expressing that before rushing to give you advise (the advise being to not give advise-- yes, the irony/hypocrasy is not lost on me).
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:It's not the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the law. It is the social definition, and, even if someone doesn't think that the parents have any standing and individualism and choice and stay out of it etc have anything to do with it (not saying this is you), it matters to me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:So does not having any money when you get married and having a sense that the marriage is far more important than the wedding.
Originally posted by Firenze:
But otoh the over-50 rule does cut down the inflated business of hen/stag nights/weekends, destination weddings, bridezillas, and the whole industry devoted to elevating one day over - and to the possible destruction of - the actual marriage.
quote:As a step-in-law (my husband has two adult offspring who have never lived with us but who I've known since they were 6 and 8) I'd say we have always treated their various partners as if they were part of the family. I suppose it makes a difference that since they were teenagers we have lived hundreds of miles from their various homes so things had to be quite serious for us to meet significant others, but I'm not sure what difference the permanance of the relationship makes. We treat the loved ones of our loved ones with grace and generosity of spirit. Anything further is about the relationship with the specific individual, and in that respect it is possible to be very close to the best friend of a child, or very distant from their spouse of 20 years.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do we need a public declaration of permanence? Does it matter whether John and Katie intend to share their lives indefinitely, or just share a bed for the next few months?
I think it does if you're John's family. The question you're asking is "is Katie now part of the family?" If she's a permanent fixture, then the answer would be "yes". If you're sharing a home and bed, but will split up in a year when one of you gets offered a job the other side of the country, it's a "no".
quote:It may be rooted in patriarchy, but many men do not want to act as patriarchs, and many women are reluctant to marry men who want to be patriarchs.
Originally posted by leo:
Those people who know who cohabit do so because the institution of marriage is rooted in patriarchy.
quote:I think you're confusing the money needed to stage a wedding with the money needed to maintain a marriage. While a couple may have the ability to support their cohabitation now, they may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person. Given that marriage is often seen as a badge of independent adulthood it can also be coupled with a reduced willingness of parents to provide support for their offspring.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need -- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by leo:
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.
quote:Most of my acquaintances whose offspring are partnered off refer to the person as their son-in-law or daughter-in-law. In effect, they follow the provinces' view that the couple is married by common law (Québec, bien sûr & quelle surprise, is different and there is no common law status there). However, if the offspring is still in or just out of university and co-habiting, the individual is generally called the partner (which to my mind brings forth visions of law firms or bridge games); so perhaps there is a fuzzy understanding of different stages of life.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In Canada, the income tax people consider a couple equivalent to married after living together for a year, common-law is recognized to a degree otherwise province to province with various nuances and rules about property, medical care advice etc. I know in some jurisdictions common-law couples are not recognized, but they are here. Regardless, there is a new normal in living together/marriage optional.
*snip* Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?
quote:This is happening in the context of a broader conversation with the couple when it's quite clear that the issue is, in fact, the expense the couple feels is essential to staging a wedding, and not the cost of maintaining a household.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think you're confusing the money needed to stage a wedding with the money needed to maintain a marriage. While a couple may have the ability to support their cohabitation now, they may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person. Given that marriage is often seen as a badge of independent adulthood it can also be coupled with a reduced willingness of parents to provide support for their offspring.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need -- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels.
Yes, there are some who will feel that a wedding must have the proper ritual and rigamarole to be "real", but that is far from the only reason someone might regard economic barriers as an impediment to marriage.
quote:‘your big day’ as if women’s purpose is to marry or can’t be fulfilled otherwise, the whole ‘happy after’ myth of romantic love
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by leo:
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.
quote:All very true and patriarchal, but again, is confusing the wedding with the marriage. One can get legally married without having any of those things happen.
Originally posted by leo:
‘your big day’ as if women’s purpose is to marry or can’t be fulfilled otherwise, the whole ‘happy after’ myth of romantic love
white - symbolising the bride’s virginity – now ‘stolen goods’ – women as property
walked down the aisle while groom waits – she is giving herself to him – what about he to her?
the father “giving away” the bride – men own women so she is passed from one owner to the next
the vow to obey the husband;
(where this happens, though it isn’t in official liturgies) “you may now kiss the bride” – why should the officiant, rather than the bride herself give permission or initiate
quote:This must be a cross-pond difference. In the US today, very few couples include "obey" in the vows, and haven't for decades. In the US, the custom is for both the maid of honor and the best man to give speeches/toasts. It would seem very odd here if only men spoke at the reception.
Originally posted by leo:
the vow to obey the husband;
the reception - all the speeches are given by men
tax and benefits – you get less as part of a couple than as individuals – so the state passes all its responsibility to the nuclear family
quote:For most of us, the recession beat that little vestige of sexism out of us. While women still make less then men for the same work, throughout most of the recession (not sure if this is the case) women were the higher wage earners in a slight majority of households in the US (in part due to higher unemployment among men). But I'm not sure how income inequality equals loss of independence-- for whom? Income inequality is a b****, but it's not created by marriage, and lack of marriage doesn't resolve it. Once you account for "mommy track" career disruptions, unmarried and married women make pretty much the same amount. So how does the wage gap equal "less independence"?
Originally posted by leo:
women tend to earn less and the man is expected to be ‘the breadwinner’ – loss of independence
quote:Absolutely. That, by definition, is the deal you are making when you enter into a marriage. Which might be a reason why some couples choose not to marry. But I'm not really sure what that has to do with patriarchy-- both partners are making the same deal, and have the same cost/benefit analysis in doing so.
Originally posted by leo:
loss of independence
loss of autonomy
quote:Sorry to break it to you Leo, but in this century and in the western world none -- that's NONE -- of these things are required, and in many places are no longer usual parts of a marriage ceremony.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:‘your big day’ as if women’s purpose is to marry or can’t be fulfilled otherwise, the whole ‘happy after’ myth of romantic love
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by leo:
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.
white - symbolising the bride’s virginity – now ‘stolen goods’ – women as property
walked down the aisle while groom waits – she is giving herself to him – what about he to her?
the father “giving away” the bride – men own women so she is passed from one owner to the next
the vow to obey the husband;
(where this happens, though it isn’t in official liturgies) “you may now kiss the bride” – why should the officiant, rather than the bride herself give permission or initiate
the reception - all the speeches are given by men
the wife gives up her own name and takes her husband’s
groom carrying his bride over the threshold - a woman can only enter his property, not own her own property
tax and benefits – you get less as part of a couple than as individuals – so the state passes all its responsibility to the nuclear family
women tend to earn less and the man is expected to be ‘the breadwinner’ – loss of independence
man in charge of woman’s body – conjugal rights
loss of autonomy
quote:women live longer if not married
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, leo, according to you, it's a mistake for a woman ever to marry a man? If not, under what circumstances would it meet with your approval?
quote:Most weddings our team of churches do the couple are living together and have joint finances and mortgage already worked out and are in that lo ng term committment. And truly when they say they can't afford to get married they mean they can't afford the wedding that they want.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think you're confusing the money needed to stage a wedding with the money needed to maintain a marriage. While a couple may have the ability to support their cohabitation now, they may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person. Given that marriage is often seen as a badge of independent adulthood it can also be coupled with a reduced willingness of parents to provide support for their offspring.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need -- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels.
Yes, there are some who will feel that a wedding must have the proper ritual and rigamarole to be "real", but that is far from the only reason someone might regard economic barriers as an impediment to marriage.
quote:Why does it seem offensive? - Bluntly it's none of anyone's business but theirs. It's interfering, controlling and as nasty as keeping providing baby things "for your bottom drawer" can be (my partner's agony many years ago) - particularly if they choose not to tell you that they don't want/can't have kids.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:If you really want to offend people, ask the question that immediately springs into my attorney brain: if one member of the couple dies, is the other expecting to get any money the deceased party happened to have saved up?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage?
Common law marriage isn't about trapping people into a surprise marriage, it is about protecting the widow when the family shows up and says "they were never married, this is just some hussy who was leaching off him, get her out of here, we get the farm."
So I guess my answer is that I don't care if you live together without making it official, as long as there is some system out there to protect the rights that both parties to the relationship expect to have based on their unique relationship (right to receive property when the other dies, right to visit the other in the hospital and make important medical decisions, right to raise young children, etc.).
quote:I'm almost 60 and can't remember a time when wedding toasts (we don't tend to make speeches) weren't evenly divided between men and women, even in the most conservative of settings. Must be a cross-pond thing.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It also isn't unusual to have women making a speech at a wedding reception. I attended a wedding twenty five years ago at which a woman made a speech and it was regarded as quite a novelty, but it is has become increasingly common.
quote:The myth of romantic love dates to the late middle ages. Marriage has been around a hell of a lot longer than that.
Originally posted by leo:
But the ceremony and the institution are still based on the myth of romantic love.
quote:If this is meant to be a syllogism it's ridiculous. The conclusion does not in any way follow from the premises. It may have something to say about the advisability of marriage, although that is questionable without more data. But about the origins it says absolutely nothing.
Originally posted by leo:
women live longer if not married
men live shorter if not married
so marriage was made by man - and he he got God to approve it
quote:Or rites of passage. Which seems to be a universal human need.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The display and need of ceremony is quite a powerful thing. Don't know how much of this is cultural or an individual's need for attention and approval.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Yes and no - it was also to avoid awkward family issues (some members disapproving of SSM) and to avoid needing to decide who to ask and who to omit from the guest list. (I've known this in hetero marriage too),
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Las Vegas is a long way to go to satisfy a British legal requirement, so I suspect that there was also an element of 'celebration' involved there.
quote:You may well be right - I don't know.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
SSM seems to benefit from a different dynamic. If heterosexual marriage is patriarchal, old-fashioned, or conservative, SSM is about breaking down barriers, subverting norms, defying conventions.
Some cynics have said that SSM activists have basically saddled themselves with a dying, anachronistic institution.
quote:More than that: churches want to promote marriage, and don't stop to ask if "proper weddings" need to be the concomitant.
Originally posted by Gwai:
The problem is that generally/reputedly church people are not traditionally counter-cultural in other ways either.
quote:In some British (and also French, etc.) circles, such questions wouldn't be unknown.
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
quote:Some do. I do. But it often feels like swimming upstream.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ministers could perhaps try to promote the religious wedding as something counter-cultural, something that doesn't have to involve lots of faff and expense. But do they ever try to do that?
quote:Because we wanted to affirm with family, not just ourselves, that we committed to each other. And the idea that there was something beyond ourselves also involved, i e God.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
quote:In your OP you set aside religious and traditional issues. With respect, I'd say that's what you've cited here. If family isn't tradition, nothing is.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Because we wanted to affirm with family, not just ourselves, that we committed to each other. And the idea that there was something beyond ourselves also involved, i e God.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
Additionally for me, my father's family had been all war killed. Everyone. 12 families of cousins and others more distant. (We located 1 cousin born in 1943 in 2005, but it didn't change the feelings about family.) We exist because my grandfather fled in 1938 from Germany and then in 1942 from Hong Kong via Manila. Family was a central thing, even as my father's trauma was passed along.
quote:That's already happened to me a few times. I would never ask someone when or if they were going to get married. I would consider that bad manners as well as none of my business, but I have had friends who were in living-together relationships say, in front of long married us, "We don't need a piece of paper to tell us we love each other."
Originally posted by RuthW:
The assumption behind the OP is that marriage is the default choice, and living together is odd, uncomfortable for other family members, and second-best. I don't know about Canada, Britain, and other places shipmates live, but in the US, unmarried adults now outnumber married adults. People who do marry are delaying marriage until later in life, and increasing numbers of people never marry.
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
quote:I think I've mentioned before that I've been at a C of E wedding that took place in the normal Sunday service. B&G were both young, wore the best clothes they owned, and all the parishioners brought a dish to a lunch afterwards.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've helped at a CofE religious wedding with 20 guests in a side chapel, no hymns or organ, CD for entrance, signing of registers and exit, simple summer dress for the bride, lounge suit for the groom, no verger in costume.
quote:I'm only somewhat in no prophet's flag's camp, in that I am a big fan of commitment, but would never ask anyone whether they were going to marry or even think committed people need to do so. I am asked that sometimes though, and I am totally okay with that. On the flip side, when my sister and her wife thought they would not ever want to formally get married, I asked whether they were on that level of commitment (yes) and asking if they had a name for their relationship (no). I told her cheerfully that I totally respected that, and being a person who needs words and a boring old fart, I was going to privately think of them as married unless they developed a new word. She said that was fine, and they did eventually decide marriage was right for them, so I guess they agreed on some level.
Originally posted by RuthW:
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
quote:I'd feel it was a perfectly understandable question given the current situation in the United States vis-a-vis marriage. I feel like you want me to say I'd be offended or annoyed. But I would not.
Originally posted by RuthW:
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
quote:Family history isn't tradition. Traditions are things passed along, culturally and by habit within a group. I don't consider family history as tradition. I think you have conflated personal experience into history.
Originally posted by RuthW:
In your OP you set aside religious and traditional issues. With respect, I'd say that's what you've cited here. If family isn't tradition, nothing is.
quote:"In a way that questions your choices..." is the thing that I was trying to remove from no prophet's question. If you go in to any discussion with the assumption that the other person's choices are all wrong, then it's unlikely to go well, whatever the subject matter.
Originally posted by RuthW:
So let's flip this around and take not getting married as the default. no prophet's flag is set so... and others with sympathy to his point of view, how would you feel if you were periodically asked, in a way that questions your choices and judgements in life, "Why did you feel like you needed to marry? Why did you need that validation for your relationship?"
I think that's iniquitous.quote:I'm sorry but this comment seems way out of touch with the wedding venue industry in this country. My son got married 2 weeks ago in such a place, complete with all the trimmings (and more) that you would expect in a church wedding (bar the religious bit of course) and it certainly was lavish and 'lovely' - I'm still reeling from the several thousand pound contribution that was required of me - brides parents and grooms parents put in about £10,000 between them, and the couple themselves put in nearly as much, as far as I can work out.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
quote:Sorry, I didn't write it well - there isn't a difference BTW civil unions and marriages. Don't be alarmed.
Originally posted by Huia:
Arabella, excuse my ignorance, but I didn't realise there was a difference in the legal protections.
Thank goodness you now have the option of getting married should you wish to do so.
Huia
It was the reason we civilly united but there's no real reason to get married.
quote:I'm wondering about this. Does it mean you think you can't be both a wife and a feminist or do you find the condition of being a wife submissive in all cases?
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
But then, we're both feminists and hate it when anyone refers to either of us as the other's wife.
quote:There certainly are lots of different sorts of impressive (and impressively expensive) wedding venues available. The problem I think Svitlana is highlighting, though, is that in this whole hyped up wedding mania is that the church just becomes one more hyped-up venue, no different from a plush hotel. It's chosen not because of it's religious significance, but because of wholly other factors-- the beauty, the sense of "tradition" (in a vague way disconnected from what the tradition is about), how it will look in photos, etc. There's then a huge disconnect between the expectations of the couple and those of the clergy.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:I'm sorry but this comment seems way out of touch with the wedding venue industry in this country. My son got married 2 weeks ago in such a place, complete with all the trimmings (and more) that you would expect in a church wedding (bar the religious bit of course) and it certainly was lavish and 'lovely' - I'm still reeling from the several thousand pound contribution that was required of me - brides parents and grooms parents put in about £10,000 between them, and the couple themselves put in nearly as much, as far as I can work out.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
quote:How do you tell the difference between "symbolically investing in the ceremony" and "ostentatious display"? It seems like "ostentatious display" is when someone else decides to "symbolically invest". Is it another one of those irregular verbs?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
On the one hand, spending a sizable sum of money on a wedding marks the significance of the event -- you are symbolically investing in the ceremony. . . .
. . . But I think for many, we've long since passed that point. We're at the point where the amount of money spent is far more than just a symbolic token of significance. Where instead in some cases it seems more about consumerism and ostentatious display than it is about honoring a commitment.
quote:Absolutely. It exists on a continuum, with a high degree of subjectivity and relativity. It's impossible to tell what's in my own heart much less someone else's, and motives are always mixed and change from one day to the next.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:How do you tell the difference between "symbolically investing in the ceremony" and "ostentatious display"? It seems like "ostentatious display" is when someone else decides to "symbolically invest". Is it another one of those irregular verbs?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
On the one hand, spending a sizable sum of money on a wedding marks the significance of the event -- you are symbolically investing in the ceremony. . . .
. . . But I think for many, we've long since passed that point. We're at the point where the amount of money spent is far more than just a symbolic token of significance. Where instead in some cases it seems more about consumerism and ostentatious display than it is about honoring a commitment.
I am symbolically investing
You are engaging in consumerism
They are ostentatious displaying
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely. It exists on a continuum, with a high degree of subjectivity and relativity. It's impossible to tell what's in my own heart much less someone else's, and motives are always mixed and change from one day to the next.
But the fact that something is subjective and relative and impossible to nail down does not mean it's not a real issue that needs to be identified.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If it's "impossible to nail down" but the distinction between "symbolically investing" and "ostentatious display" is something that "needs to be identified", how do you proceed in the face of that impossibility? And why does the distinction need to be be nailed down? Can't whatever actions you're going to take or not take based on the determination tolerate the ambiguity?
quote:Reread the part you quoted. I didn't say the distinction needs to be identified, I said the issue needs to be identified. Those are two different things.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely. It exists on a continuum, with a high degree of subjectivity and relativity. It's impossible to tell what's in my own heart much less someone else's, and motives are always mixed and change from one day to the next.
But the fact that something is subjective and relative and impossible to nail down does not mean it's not a real issue that needs to be identified.
quote:To be a wife has been, for much of human history, to be submissive. So, for some, it carries that connotation even in situations where there is no such intent.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I'm wondering about this. Does it mean you think you can't be both a wife and a feminist or do you find the condition of being a wife submissive in all cases?
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
But then, we're both feminists and hate it when anyone refers to either of us as the other's wife.
quote:And "partner" is not a bad term, as it seems to imply an equality of sorts. Although in business terms you can talk about a "majority partner" and a "minority partner." So the word is not universally seen as implying equality.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, this is why, in some of the circles with which I associate, partner is the preferred term no matter what the gender mix or legal title of the union.
quote:ISTM, this is partly generational.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Although it seems to me in social contexts, at least those I frequent, "partner" implies "not married."
quote:Because spouse implies marriage. Using partner eliminates any hierarchy of relationship descriptions.
ETA: thought that just occurred to me: What's wrong with "spouse" if the problem is the power imbalance of "husband" and "wife"?
quote:That could be. Most of the social circles I frequent are people of my own generation (Jones), or close thereunto. Although I have learned heaps about relationships and privilege from my (sadly too few) Millennial friends.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, this is partly generational.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Although it seems to me in social contexts, at least those I frequent, "partner" implies "not married."
quote:Okay, I can see that. We had been talking about hierarchy within a relationship, but now are broadening the context to hierarchy between types of relationships, within which context this makes a good bit of sense.
[S]pouse implies marriage. Using partner eliminates any hierarchy of relationship descriptions.
quote:Yes, that's right. I wasn't saying that civil weddings are inevitably cheaper than church weddings, but that those who are very keen to have a low cost wedding are probably unlikely to marry at church.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:There certainly are lots of different sorts of impressive (and impressively expensive) wedding venues available. The problem I think Svitlana is highlighting, though, is that in this whole hyped up wedding mania is that the church just becomes one more hyped-up venue, no different from a plush hotel. It's chosen not because of it's religious significance, but because of wholly other factors-- the beauty, the sense of "tradition" (in a vague way disconnected from what the tradition is about), how it will look in photos, etc. There's then a huge disconnect between the expectations of the couple and those of the clergy.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:I'm sorry but this comment seems way out of touch with the wedding venue industry in this country. My son got married 2 weeks ago in such a place, complete with all the trimmings (and more) that you would expect in a church wedding (bar the religious bit of course) and it certainly was lavish and 'lovely' - I'm still reeling from the several thousand pound contribution that was required of me - brides parents and grooms parents put in about £10,000 between them, and the couple themselves put in nearly as much, as far as I can work out.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
quote:I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I think I've mentioned before that I've been at a C of E wedding that took place in the normal Sunday service. B&G were both young, wore the best clothes they owned, and all the parishioners brought a dish to a lunch afterwards.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've helped at a CofE religious wedding with 20 guests in a side chapel, no hymns or organ, CD for entrance, signing of registers and exit, simple summer dress for the bride, lounge suit for the groom, no verger in costume.
quote:I'm not sure what region you're referring to as "secular West"? UK? Canada? Both?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It was interesting to read cliffdweller's post about low key Mormon weddings. I wonder if religious people in the secular West generally spend less on getting married than other people do?
quote:Its got nothing to do with certificates, I think.
Originally posted by orfeo:
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.
It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.
quote:I don't think it's a good idea in general. In this particular case, it worked, as the young couple were regular parishioners, and the guests were the assembled congregation plus maybe half a dozen of their friends.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
quote:Why wouldn't it be a good idea in general? It seems like a lovely custom-- if the couple is a part of the congregation, known and loved. I suppose if it caught on it could become unwieldy if it was happening all the time. Another option might be to do it right after the worship service, so those who don't want to stay can leave, and non-church wedding-goers could arrive after the service.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't think it's a good idea in general. In this particular case, it worked, as the young couple were regular parishioners, and the guests were the assembled congregation plus maybe half a dozen of their friends.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
And everyone was invited to the bring-and-share lunch afterwards.
But these were unusual circumstances.
quote:It's more that the people decided they wanted certain benefits to accrue to married people, developed the government system of keeping track of who is and isn't married in order to apportion those benefits. For a time society as a whole frowned on people who shacked up but didn't register their shackification with the government. That's declining.
Originally posted by orfeo:
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.
It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.
quote:We have had 2 weddings during the 10 am Eucharist (our main for the day). In the first, each had been widowed, one twice. The couple was 80 (one a week before the wedding, the other a week after). There were children and grandchildren, and lots of family difficulties. The couple was grateful to the parish for support during the previous bereavements and also in their courtship. So after the sermon, they came forward and were married. Then bubbly, cakes, wedding cake in the hall afterwards. She died some 6 years later, but he's still alive.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't think it's a good idea in general. In this particular case, it worked, as the young couple were regular parishioners, and the guests were the assembled congregation plus maybe half a dozen of their friends.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.
And everyone was invited to the bring-and-share lunch afterwards.
But these were unusual circumstances.
quote:Less of a stigma, greater mobility, higher employment levels for women, therefore lesser dependence on men
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
These days, moving in doesn't always carry the same implications of permanence.
quote:I'm not sure how much of a factor that was in the 1700s when it happened, at least in any sense of public benefits. Though perhaps there was a general sense that more and more people were owning property which could be squabbled over at their death.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It's more that the people decided they wanted certain benefits to accrue to married people, developed the government system of keeping track of who is and isn't married in order to apportion those benefits.
Originally posted by orfeo:
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.
It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.
quote:You are aware of a concept called 'feminism', yes? The patriarchy is a concept within feminism, not some arbitrary concept of men protecting women and children that you have come up with. The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too. It is not composed of individual men being mean to (or protecting) women, but rather those things are symptoms of patriarchy.
Originally posted by Twilight:
People always talk about the Eveel Patriarchy as though it represents thousands of years of men conspiring to boss women around and make them do all the dusting. I think it, as well as marriage, was primarily about protecting children. Before any sort of welfare and when having food and shelter required the physical strength to farm and hunt, a husbandless woman and her children were likely to starve. My husband's grandmother had twelve children on a farm in Minnesota. Given the choice of staying inside cooking and cleaning or going out in freezing blizzards to feed animals, farm and hunt, I expect she was grateful to have the inside work. Whether agricultural work or coal mining, marriage protected the women and children.
Even now, if people put a fear of patriarchy above the interests of their children it seems rather selfish thinking to me. No woman today is suddenly forced to quit her job and do more housework just because the couple decided to get married.
Not marrying means a much greater statistic chance of the couple splitting up and that's if the father was ever in the picture in the first place. Even with social programs in place a pregnant or nursing woman is still in an economically vulnerable position where a legal husband is usually a nice thing to have.
Another thing I hear young people say that I don't understand is, "My parents divorced and it was awful so I'll never marry." Do they think the split up of the parents is easier on the children if the parents weren't married? I imagine it's about the same amount of misery and it's more likely to happen.
quote:The Quakers seem to have cornered the market on small, informal, offbeat religious weddings. No aisle to walk down either.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That can only happen if a marriage becomes important for its own sake, rather than just being one way among others for a couple to organise their lives together.
The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.
Last week my cousin in London got married in pink trousers with a neckerchief and dark jacket, rather than a traditional suit. Would that have looked acceptable at a church wedding? If I got married in a simple blouse and skirt would that be completely out of place in my parish church? Do I really have to 'walk up the aisle? If I only want 10 guests won't a 200-seater church feel incredibly empty?
Ministers could perhaps try to promote the religious wedding as something counter-cultural, something that doesn't have to involve lots of faff and expense. But do they ever try to do that?
quote:Apologies. No, I was responding to LC's comment that living together is not considered with the same level of permanency it once was. When women were more dependent on men, they might stay in a relationship longer, especially if they were sharing a residence. So more jobs open to women and higher wages means they feel more free to move on.
Originally posted by M.:
lilBuddha, I rarely understand you, so usually scroll past, but this caught my eye.
Are you saying that moving in with someone rather than marrying them results in higher employment levels for women? If I've got that right, I'm interested in knowing why - thanks.
M.
quote:Not cornered the market (see remarks upthread re LDS weddings) but definitely another good example of how one can buck the trend in meaningful ways.
Originally posted by Pomona:
The Quakers seem to have cornered the market on small, informal, offbeat religious weddings. No aisle to walk down either.
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
You are aware of a concept called 'feminism', yes? The patriarchy is a concept within feminism, not some arbitrary concept of men protecting women and children that you have come up with. The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too. It is not composed of individual men being mean to (or protecting) women, but rather those things are symptoms of patriarchy.
quote:I'm assuming nothing. We're talking about reasons for and against marriage. Raising children is one reason that some people might wish to get married. (You seem to be assuming LGBT people don't want children.) I'm not required to list every possible reason for every person. I'm currently in a marriage where we agreed before hand not to have children and I don't think we're irrelevant.
Also, you do seem to be assuming that everyone is straight and everyone wants children. What about those women who don't want children or husbands? I guess they are just irrelevant.
quote:I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.
quote:Cliffdweller meet Pomona:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.
quote:
The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too.
quote:I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?
quote:So? How does that equate to "hating every man who existed in a patriarchal society"??? If anything, the statement seems to be stating that men are harmed by patriarchy as well.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Cliffdweller meet Pomona:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.quote:
The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too.
quote:And women know how to take advantage of existing power structures just as much as men do. Ever be the new girl in an office with only one or two other women in it? Welcome to Hell.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst I think it inaccurate to say patriarchy was created to oppress women, that is its natural result. Anytime one group is favoured, others will be disadvantaged.
quote:While I don't buy into the "women can't work together w/o being bitchy" stereotype (I've worked with lots of women in all sorts of configurations and outcomes-- as I have with men), I would agree that power imbalances tend to be addressed in some sort of way. Anytime one group is suppressed you will see the oppressed seeking to regain power/control-- often in subversive, covert ways. Marabel Morgan's Total Woman was a classic at this-- in the same breath in which she'd advocate for "traditional" hierarchical, rigid gender roles with the husband as "boss" (excuse me, head) she would give all these tips for how to subversively manipulate your man into doing your bidding-- while thinking it was his idea the whole time. Which is one among many reasons we should advocate for a more egalitarian society-- because these sorts of subversive, hidden power plays do not foster healthy relationships.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:And women know how to take advantage of existing power structures just as much as men do. Ever be the new girl in an office with only one or two other women in it? Welcome to Hell.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst I think it inaccurate to say patriarchy was created to oppress women, that is its natural result. Anytime one group is favoured, others will be disadvantaged.
quote:No worries
Originally posted by M.:
lilBuddha, thank you, that makes sense.
M.
quote:I never said that I hate men (I don't) and hating men is not a requirement of feminism. My comment did not mention hating men. Please kindly retract that falsehood about me, please.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Cliffdweller meet Pomona:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.quote:
The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too.
quote:First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?
quote:Thank you so much for that link, it was so you, Pomona, I wonder if that's actually you in the video. I've always thought I was a feminist because I believed in equality for women, equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, etc. I was a charter member of the first chapter of NOW in my town and volunteered many hours on a task force that effected some major changes in the local school system. But now that I've been schooled by your video I realize I was wrong and I am not a feminist per today's definition and won't call myself one anymore.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?
What part of my comment was difficult to understand? I brought up not having heard of feminism because the patriarchy being institutional systems designed to oppress women is a cornerstone of feminist thought; it did not seem unreasonable that you did not know of it given your misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is.
And yes, as I said, the patriarchy harms men and other genders too, and as I also said, patriarchy is not about individual men oppressing individual women. It is a system. While it is men who benefit from the patriarchy and the oppression of women, men and other non-female genders are also harmed by it, and women can use internalised misogyny to harm other women (which is what Kelly is talking about). It might be wise in future to not make such assumptions.
I would recommend Everyday Feminism's
Feminism 101 and the website in general for more information.
quote:In what way is it 'my' video
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Thank you so much for that link, it was so you, Pomona, I wonder if that's actually you in the video. I've always thought I was a feminist because I believed in equality for women, equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, etc. I was a charter member of the first chapter of NOW in my town and volunteered many hours on a task force that effected some major changes in the local school system. But now that I've been schooled by your video I realize I was wrong and I am not a feminist per today's definition and won't call myself one anymore.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?
What part of my comment was difficult to understand? I brought up not having heard of feminism because the patriarchy being institutional systems designed to oppress women is a cornerstone of feminist thought; it did not seem unreasonable that you did not know of it given your misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is.
And yes, as I said, the patriarchy harms men and other genders too, and as I also said, patriarchy is not about individual men oppressing individual women. It is a system. While it is men who benefit from the patriarchy and the oppression of women, men and other non-female genders are also harmed by it, and women can use internalised misogyny to harm other women (which is what Kelly is talking about). It might be wise in future to not make such assumptions.
I would recommend Everyday Feminism's
Feminism 101 and the website in general for more information.
It's not me in the video, I would have said so if it was? I simply linked you to a resource which I thought you might find helpful, that's all. It was meant kindly. I realised that you may not be au fait with current language and thought this may help you out. So there is no need for such an unkind response.quote:If you're not getting an apology for a perceived slight you have two options:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?
quote:I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
Originally posted by Pomona:
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?
quote:I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women. I do agree that it was oppressive in many ways, but I also think, particularly to poor people, that it may have meant shelter, food and survival to many women.
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
quote:Why have you suddenly started talking about me in the third person?
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
Originally posted by Pomona:
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?quote:I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women. I do agree that it was oppressive in many ways, but I also think, particularly to poor people, that it may have meant shelter, food and survival to many women.
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
I'm sure wealthy, aristocratic women, wives of plantation owners and landed gentry would have liked more say in their own lives, more interesting things to do, more power, more chance to use their brains, but those women were part of what we call the one percent today and of little interest to me.
For the wives of slaves, coal miners and farmers I expect they were more concerned with how to keep their children alive through the winter and grateful that their husbands had not abandoned them, because they knew that very few of them had the physical strength to do the work the men did. If someone had told them they were oppressed because their husbands were considered the head of the family, I expect they would have been confused, because they thought it was the rich people, the aristocrats, the plantation owners and their wives, who were oppressing them.
I expect you to disagree with me but please don't consider my difference of opinion as "unkind."
If you still think I have given the impression that you hate men then I apologize for that.
I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.
quote:It feels like it is inherently part of the topic, though, unless those who never marry for feminist reasons are not allowed to be discussed.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If we're asking questions now, might I ask that those keen on discussing feminism consider starting another thread?
quote:Male headship? As opposed to Headship which in my head is about complementarianism/egalitarianism debates.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.
quote:You're quibbling about things I do not intend to quibble about. I am distinguishing between what you were telling Twilight not to flip back and forth between. Nothing more. If those are two separate things in your mind, then you can fully understand giving one of them one name, and the other one another name. That I have not described them perfectly is beyond irrelevant.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Male headship? As opposed to Headship which in my head is about complementarianism/egalitarianism debates.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.
quote:Wait, what? I'm not quibbling about anything
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You're quibbling about things I do not intend to quibble about. I am distinguishing between what you were telling Twilight not to flip back and forth between. Nothing more. If those are two separate things in your mind, then you can fully understand giving one of them one name, and the other one another name. That I have not described them perfectly is beyond irrelevant.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Male headship? As opposed to Headship which in my head is about complementarianism/egalitarianism debates.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.
I wasn't making any comment on how you've described anything, I was simply suggesting that male headship could also be used instead of 'patriarchy'. I was actually agreeing with you....?
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Why have you suddenly started talking about me in the third person?
I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.
quote:
I am baffled by the idea that because wealthy women are wealthy, they are not oppressed by men liberating all women, or do some women not deserve feminism? I think to suggest that feminism for wealthy women only involves things like academic and social pursuits is naïve.
quote:Sorry, when I referenced the third person I meant you not talking to me directly, but as if you were talking about me to someone else (the 'I am not acquainted with Pomona' bit) - not the pronoun use. It was just a bit confusing but never mind. Thank you for the correct pronoun use though.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Why have you suddenly started talking about me in the third person?
I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.
Because you asked me to when you said this:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.quote:
I am baffled by the idea that because wealthy women are wealthy, they are not oppressed by men liberating all women, or do some women not deserve feminism? I think to suggest that feminism for wealthy women only involves things like academic and social pursuits is naïve.
I would be baffled by that idea, too. I did not suggest any such thing. I actually pointed out that The Patriarchy was probably worse for them than for poor women who had more pressing concerns. Also, examples should never be read as "only."
quote:It is not that I disagree with what you are saying, but I can see why the terminology being used could feel threatening to the average straight folks. At least in the UK/US.
Originally posted by Pomona:
To make it more on topic - as a queer person I feel uncomfortable with aping heteronormative marriage and family norms, because the nuclear family has been a force for oppression.
quote:no pun intended?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Helps me keep it straight.
quote:I appreciate that, and think it's a viable, if debatable, position-- but it's not at all what you said in the part you quoted that Pomona is responding to. I don't see how in the world you get "I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society" as equivalent to "disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive." I DO see where Pomona interprets that as suggesting she hates all men-- or at least all men in patriarchal societies (which would be pretty much all men).
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?quote:I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women.
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
quote:Do you mean 'queer'? It has been reclaimed by LGBT people for some time. However, I'm not sure why it's threatening - uncomfortable, maybe, but why threatening?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It is not that I disagree with what you are saying, but I can see why the terminology being used could feel threatening to the average straight folks. At least in the UK/US.
Originally posted by Pomona:
To make it more on topic - as a queer person I feel uncomfortable with aping heteronormative marriage and family norms, because the nuclear family has been a force for oppression.
quote:
a force for oppression
quote:My subconscious is far funnier than my conscious mind.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:no pun intended?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Helps me keep it straight.
quote:I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
quote:Not only are the risks not different, I suspect they would actually be *greater* for a woman who didn't have the legal protections of marriage (in the past, I mean, not so much today).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
quote:I made a post defending the Patriarchy as not all bad. (I was thinking of my amazing grandfather, born 1880, hard working farmer, mercilessly henpecked by his domineering wife.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I appreciate that, and think it's a viable, if debatable, position-- but it's not at all what you said in the part you quoted that Pomona is responding to. I don't see how in the world you get "I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society" as equivalent to "disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive." I DO see where Pomona interprets that as suggesting she hates all men-- or at least all men in patriarchal societies (which would be pretty much all men).
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?quote:I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women.
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
Of course, that may very well not be what you intended. But it is very much the more obvious interpretation of what you wrote-- whereas your paraphrase seems to be something else entirely.
quote:I don't want anything from you and there's nothing I "can't get over." I simply was offering my 2 cents that your post read to me exactly as it did for Pomona. In my post I did quote exactly what I was referring to: the reference to "not hating men" which was interpreted by Pomona and myself as being about "not hating men." Of course, you very well may not have meant "not hating men" when you said "not hating men." I just don't think it was an outlandish interpretation.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know what you want from me here, Cliffdweller. You'll have to quote exactly what I said that you just can't get over, because I can't apologize for whatever dark interpretation of my posts you have landed on until I understand it better.
quote:Note the use of 'were'. I was specifically talking about the risks of marriage to women in the past, when marriage was the only form of relationship acceptably available to them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
quote:Threatening, really?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
If they're really upset by it then maybe they should make it not a force for oppression rather than blaming people who are oppressed by it. I suppose it's no different to white people being threatened by blackness etc though.
quote:I think you miss the point. This is equivalent to the following exchange:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Threatening, really?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
quote:Threatening, really?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
There are cishet people in relationships other than the nuclear family, so why would they feel threatened?
quote:Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think you miss the point. This is equivalent to the following exchange:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Threatening, really?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
A: You suck.
B: I'm offended by that.
A: Then maybe you should suck less.
quote:It's true that there are more forms of socially-acceptable relationships now, but that's irrelevant to the issue of the risks a person is taking when entering one unless you're asserting that some forms of relationship are inherently less risky than others.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Note the use of 'were'. I was specifically talking about the risks of marriage to women in the past, when marriage was the only form of relationship acceptably available to them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
quote:Again you miss the point. It isn't about the concept, but they way you choose to express it.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think you miss the point. This is equivalent to the following exchange:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Threatening, really?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
A: You suck.
B: I'm offended by that.
A: Then maybe you should suck less.
quote:"Cishet." What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone, sometimes with old labels sometimes with brand new ones, all based on what their naked bodies look like and what they do with them in the privacy of their own homes. Why does it matter?
Originally posted by Pomona:
]Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
quote:You're a librisomnisexual.
Originally posted by Twilight:
All I've done in bed for the last twenty years is sleep and read. Label that.
quote:Labels matter because most people have no clue to the variety of gender identity types. It is the first step in educating the "norms".
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Cishet." What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone, sometimes with old labels sometimes with brand new ones, all based on what their naked bodies look like and what they do with them in the privacy of their own homes. Why does it matter?
quote:Twilight, did you not bother to read Eliab's hostly warning here?
Originally posted by Twilight:
What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Interestingly, I've also seen research which says domestic violence is more likely to occur in cohabiting than in married relationships, so just living together isn't always the more liberating option.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is research that says both men and women benefit with marriage, both in regard to physical and mental health, in addition to that which says marriage is harmful to women. The research that seems to clarify the nature of the relationships seems to be more enlightening than the blanket "all marriage bad/oppressive" view. Which simply is not true. Some marriages are oppressive, many are not.
quote:Of, bloody, course it is. Societal attitudes will also have had a major effect.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some say the difference is due to the demographics
quote:I believe that's referred to as an "unmarked category". To white people, race is something other people have. To straight folks sexual orientation is a bunch of categories for other people. Unmarked categories are typically adopted as "normal" and everything else is judged by the degree to which it differs.
Originally posted by mousethief:
People whose group is the dominant group in a society can afford to not think about groups. This goes for race, sexuality, gender, religion, or whatever. As a white male, I can believe that everything is good and well as regards sex and race in America, and I can say "let's all be color-blind and not care about what race or sex someone is!" because power differentials in those areas don't impinge upon my safety or ability to live my life as I choose. People of color and people who are not male don't have that luxury. It is part of what is being referred to when people talk about "privilege."
quote:Yes. Other common usages being " African American" and "Person of color".
I believe that's referred to as an "unmarked category". To white people, race is something other people have. To straight folks sexual orientation is a bunch of categories for other people. Unmarked categories are typically adopted as "normal" and everything else is judged by the degree to which it differs.
quote:I can't speak for other people but "race," has always been something I have. From childhood I've had to fill out forms where boxes are checked as to race and I learned that I was supposed to check "white." I was surprised to learn that when someone lumps all white people together and says negative things about them, that didn't come under what I had learned to call racism, but was either "reverse racism," or not racism at all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I believe that's referred to as an "unmarked category". To white people, race is something other people have. To straight folks sexual orientation is a bunch of categories for other people. Unmarked categories are typically adopted as "normal" and everything else is judged by the degree to which it differs.
Originally posted by mousethief:
People whose group is the dominant group in a society can afford to not think about groups. This goes for race, sexuality, gender, religion, or whatever. As a white male, I can believe that everything is good and well as regards sex and race in America, and I can say "let's all be color-blind and not care about what race or sex someone is!" because power differentials in those areas don't impinge upon my safety or ability to live my life as I choose. People of color and people who are not male don't have that luxury. It is part of what is being referred to when people talk about "privilege."
quote:I'd suggest that ceasing to collect data on problems like police profiling or employment discrimination is more along the lines of "hiding" the problem rather than "helping" it. It's kind of like the way police brutality suddenly came into existence when everyone started carrying around smart phones with video cameras. If your solution to the problem that everyone given a speeding ticket in Ferguson, MO (to take one not at all random example) has a box marked "Black/African-American" checked off on the police report and your solution is to simply eliminate that box from the form, then perhaps you're not seeing the same "problem" others are.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I can't speak for other people but "race," has always been something I have. From childhood I've had to fill out forms where boxes are checked as to race and I learned that I was supposed to check "white." . . .
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well," it could also mean that we are well aware of the problems, but think that there might be improvement in things like equal hiring practices, if we leave the boxes off applications. Problems like police profiling don't seem to be helped by greater awareness of race, but by more of an attempt at color blindness.
quote:Like Twilight, that is not my experience. (And like Twilight, I can only speak to my experience, of course.)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To white people, race is something other people have.
quote:It is simply racism. The "reverse", IMO, is a clumsy way of expressing the direction.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I was surprised to learn that when someone lumps all white people together and says negative things about them, that didn't come under what I had learned to call racism, but was either "reverse racism," or not racism at all.
quote:It doesn't have to mean this. IME, its most common use is by those who wish to end affirmative action programmes. Some with good intent, some with ill.
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well,"
quote:IME, the greatest gains are made by forcing the police to treat people of colour by the same standards they treat white people.
Problems like police profiling don't seem to be helped by greater awareness of race, but by more of an attempt at color blindness.
quote:I halfway agree. What has helped the LGB part of LGBT is exactly what you say. As out people become part of a community and are seen to be the same as everyone else, they are more likely to be accepted as such.
and partly because I think nothing promotes acceptance and understanding among people better than knowing the person first and the labels later.
quote:This one can be hilarious. White Americans are so afraid of saying black, that they will apply this to anyone who is black, regardless of origin. Including people from the UK, West Indies and even Africans.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
" African American"
quote:Some white Americans, yes. But we're not all that stupid. And "black" still gets used a great deal, both by whites and by blacks.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This one can be hilarious. White Americans are so afraid of saying black, that they will apply this to anyone who is black, regardless of origin. Including people from the UK, West Indies and even Africans.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
" African American"
quote:Actually asexual people are included within queer/LGBTIA.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:"Cishet." What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone, sometimes with old labels sometimes with brand new ones, all based on what their naked bodies look like and what they do with them in the privacy of their own homes. Why does it matter?
Originally posted by Pomona:
]Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
How is this working toward an open minded inclusive society? How does this contribute to seeing people as full individuals with talents and brains and not as purely sexual objects?
You do realize that your labels are never going to include everyone don't you? Will you be dissatisfied if someone says something about marriage between lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgenders, and queers and leaves out asexuals, AIS women, uni-testicular masochistic men in relationships with post menopausal women who like to be spanked? What does any of that have to do with whether marriage or living together is preferable?
We all should have the same rights, so why have the labels? Transgendered people who have gone through the time, money and pain to become another sex actually then deserve to be considered as that sex. They then actually ARE men or women not trans-anything. That's all anyone needs to know because the rest is history.
Surely people are more than these things. Surely what you do in your bedroom is only a part of who you are. If your whole identity is wrapped up in what you like to do in bed then life is probably going to seem meaningless at some point. All I've done in bed for the last twenty years is sleep and read. Label that.
quote:I
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It doesn't have to mean this. IME, its most common use is by those who wish to end affirmative action programmes. Some with good intent, some with ill.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well,"
quote:The best example of this I've heard of was the article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal about Russian culture, which proclaimed that Pushkin, the poet laureate of Russian literature, was African American.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Some white Americans, yes.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This one can be hilarious. White Americans are so afraid of saying black, that they will apply this to anyone who is black, regardless of origin. Including people from the UK, West Indies and even Africans.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
" African American"
quote:I am torn between the genuine sorrow I feel for your reaction and the wish to put things into proper perspective. When you feel up to it, I would appreciate your participation here. It is not out of anger I post the continuation there, but I would like to address you personally, but where others can perhaps benefit.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Right now I don't care about your labels because you've just made me sob in my front room at such vicious transphobia and have triggered my gender dysphoria which has literally made me throw up. So thanks for that. How Christian.
quote:Though I tend to like the conclusion of the article which suggests that descriptions can be to help others understand others, or to put a label on them, but "If you're coming from a place of love, I can feel that." (which is RuPaul Charle's analysis)
[In the past] Pride Toronto — went with LGBTTIQQ2SA: "a broad array of identities such as, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning, two-spirited, and allies." This year, organizers appear to have eschewed the acronym in promotional materials, which instead tout "the history, courage, diversity and future of Toronto's Pride community."
quote:And the sound of rolling eyes could be heard from Vancouver to Halifax.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
LGBTTIQQ2SA
quote:'This' - meaning the discussion including feminism, gender identity, and social power - applies because they are part of the social changes of "live together, never marry."
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...: I'm still wondering how this applies to the topic "live together, never marry?"
quote:No, you don't. Sorry. It is a loss to you to not have a term and role expectations, as the new ones are still emerging. It seems society has decided on a cost-benefit analysis that the cost to you of blurry-line relationships (lack of clarity of expectations, personal longing for a clear term and role) is offset by the benefit of fewer hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships.
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
quote:As previously noted, because it indicates that you think their blurry-line relationship is inferior. That tends to make people bristle.
Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage?
quote:Why marry? is the better question. Sometimes a wedding is viewed as a kind of spackle for a crumbling relationship. Like spackle, it doesn't bear the load very well.
If you're ready to live together, why not marry?
quote:OK, so here is the thing. LGBT+ or LGBTQ covers everyone and directly references the vast majority of humanity. However it does miss many of the subtleties within those specific letters and rolls up many different identities within the Q. So people feel left out, and this is bad in groups that have a high rate of suicide and other harm.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And the sound of rolling eyes could be heard from Vancouver to Halifax.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
LGBTTIQQ2SA
quote:Do you really think most people who decide to live together WBOC really think in such terms? It sounds like projecting the thoughts of the more self-conscious patriarchy-fighters onto plain old people just doing what seems best to them at the time.
Originally posted by Leaf:
So, to address more directly the questions of the OP:quote:No, you don't. Sorry. It is a loss to you to not have a term and role expectations, as the new ones are still emerging. It seems society has decided on a cost-benefit analysis that the cost to you of blurry-line relationships (lack of clarity of expectations, personal longing for a clear term and role) is offset by the benefit of fewer hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships.
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
quote:The problem is manifold, but here are some thoughts.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I kind of agree with you on the alphabet soup approach. It seems tailor-made to be mis-typed or misspoken and then offend someone. And it is awkward as hell.
quote:Don't care about this. For me, it's not at all about whatever relationship society thinks I ought to have with the person (or people?) who is currently shagging one of my children, it's about the expectations that my children have.
Originally posted by Leaf:
So, to address more directly the questions of the OP:quote:No, you don't. Sorry. It is a loss to you to not have a term and role expectations, as the new ones are still emerging.
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
quote:This is answerable, though, I think. It's a question for your child - do your child and his or her partner(s) intend the arrangement to be permanent? If so, then it's functionally marriage, whatever names they choose to use to describe their relationship, and whatever baggage they think those names import. Otherwise, it's not.
In some ways I'm sympathetic to the angst: What are my expectations and responsibilities to my adult child's partner? Should I loan them money? etc.
quote:Well, then, it's not really about marriage v. co-habitating then. Because even if they married, the clearer social definitions of their status would not answer your question re what their expectations of your relationship to your adult child's partner. If this thread has shown us anything, it's how much diversity there is in how people view what being "married" means.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For me, it's not at all about whatever relationship society thinks I ought to have with the person (or people?) who is currently shagging one of my children, it's about the expectations that my children have.
quote:Ok, I need help with this one, please. How is "the vast majority of humanity" covered by that? Is your thinking that most people aren't straight?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, so here is the thing. LGBT+ or LGBTQ covers everyone and directly references the vast majority of humanity.
quote:From across the pond, what surprises me is that American Christians should even want more people to get married in the face of the country's high divorce rate. Something needs to be done about the socio-cultural appeal of divorce before more people are encouraged to enter the institution of marriage.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Of, bloody, course it is. Societal attitudes will also have had a major effect.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some say the difference is due to the demographics
quote:No, of course not. It is simply that many people do not bother to try.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is the ability to think outside of one's own 'box" thought to be lacking in the straightish just because they are straightish?
quote:You are a far wiser person than I, but this statement is problematic. There are two main problems that come to mind. One: No matter how many issues a person might face, it is human nature to still lack insight into issues others might face. (See racism in feminism, misogyny amongst gays, etc.) These are major issues with major obstacles and people facing them fail to see, understand or care for obstacles others face. Not everyone mind, but it isn't a rare thing.
Most of us are in the minority over something and most of us will have experienced some form of prejudice about us over that minority membership. Those experiences at least give us some sort of a clue about what it feels like to be on the receiving end of any prejudice.
quote:This is true and it does no cause any good to assume those outside of it are blind.
But that doesn't give us the right to presume that any member of a majority must be prejudiced, ignorant, or unfeeling simply because some are.
quote:Cognitive dissonance for starters. Though this is hardly a unique trait.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
From across the pond, what surprises me is that American Christians should even want more people to get married in the face of the country's high divorce rate.
quote:ISTM, it is not the appeal of divorce, but a lessening of the taboo against it.
Something needs to be done about the socio-cultural appeal of divorce before more people are encouraged to enter the institution of marriage.
quote:This. Divorce doesn't need any socio-cultural appeal. The only appeal it needs is the fact that it's the exit from a hellish situation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, it is not the appeal of divorce, but a lessening of the taboo against it.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Something needs to be done about the socio-cultural appeal of divorce before more people are encouraged to enter the institution of marriage.
quote:Not just Hellish conditions. Many marriages are ended because they were not what was envisioned, have become boring or not exciting enough, etc.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This. Divorce doesn't need any socio-cultural appeal. The only appeal it needs is the fact that it's the exit from a hellish situation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, it is not the appeal of divorce, but a lessening of the taboo against it.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Something needs to be done about the socio-cultural appeal of divorce before more people are encouraged to enter the institution of marriage.
quote:You are confusing "couples*" (which I did not say) with "society" (which I did). Of course I do not think the majority of couples* think in those terms. That's why I didn't say it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Do you really think most people who decide to live together WBOC really think in such terms?
Originally posted by Leaf:
It seems society has decided on a cost-benefit analysis that the cost to you of blurry-line relationships (lack of clarity of expectations, personal longing for a clear term and role) is offset by the benefit of fewer hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships.
quote:I did what?
But the syllable soup you introduced is not even on the horizon of their thought. (Nor need it be.)
quote:If (over) half of all marriages in a culture are 'hellish', then it's a certainty that far fewer of its inhabitants should be getting married. It makes no sense to utter marriage vows in such conditions.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Divorce doesn't need any socio-cultural appeal. The only appeal it needs is the fact that it's the exit from a hellish situation.
quote:Point taken.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not just Hellish conditions. Many marriages are ended because they were not what was envisioned, have become boring or not exciting enough, etc.
The only thing divorce needs is to be an acceptable option.
quote:Who are these people to whom you give the sobriquet "society"? Do you think even a tithe of our society thinks in such terms? "Oppressive bright-line relationships"? Really?
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:You are confusing "couples*" (which I did not say) with "society" (which I did). Of course I do not think the majority of couples* think in those terms. That's why I didn't say it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Do you really think most people who decide to live together WBOC really think in such terms?
Originally posted by Leaf:
It seems society has decided on a cost-benefit analysis that the cost to you of blurry-line relationships (lack of clarity of expectations, personal longing for a clear term and role) is offset by the benefit of fewer hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships.
quote:Societal change may have resulted in an outcome that could be described in such terms. Perhaps. But society decided no such thing. The analogy is beyond broken here.
I did say "society has decided", using the analogy of individual decision-making in describing this social change.
quote:You created a long string of letters, in the form of words, to describe an outcome which nobody but nobody who brought about that outcome ever before strung together or probably even thought about in whole or in part.
quote:I did what?
But the syllable soup you introduced is not even on the horizon of their thought. (Nor need it be.)
quote:That much-bandied-about statistic is outdated.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If (over) half of all marriages in a culture are 'hellish', then it's a certainty that far fewer of its inhabitants should be getting married. It makes no sense to utter marriage vows in such conditions.
quote:Do you think it makes Orthodox marriages less binding?
Actually, I was interested to read what you said previously about the Orthodox wedding service having no vows. This is something that the Western world in general ought to consider adopting. It's a more realistic approach to the modern marriage, whether secular or religious.
quote:I don't see it that way. Knowing there's an "out" (as we all do) doesn't mean you sincerely want God to bless this relationship and hope to shout you never have to use the "out".
Regarding religious ceremonies, it no longer makes sense to co-opt God into the pretence that our marriages are going to last forever when we and our wedding guests all believe that divorce is acceptable.
quote:We can start here, if you like. Skip down to the part about contemporary usage.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who are these people to whom you give the sobriquet "society"?
quote:No, I don't think individuals think in those terms.
Do you think even a tithe of our society thinks in such terms?
quote:I am not sure what your problem is with this. I am in one of those bright-line relationships, in a legally and civilly recognized marriage. I entered this particular form of relationship (in part) because I believed that the bright lines of defined roles would benefit me more than blurry lines of other forms. Obviously other people assess their own situations differently.
"Oppressive bright-line relationships"? Really?
quote:You don't like my analogy? Okay.
The analogy is beyond broken here.
quote:I did what?
But the syllable soup you introduced is not even on the horizon of their thought. (Nor need it be.)
quote:I take it you didn't like my post. I'm okay with that.
You created a long string of letters, in the form of words, to describe an outcome which nobody but nobody who brought about that outcome ever before strung together or probably even thought about in whole or in part.
quote:ISTM, this would make no difference. If one considers divorce "bad", the best strategy to avoid it is to have a realistic understanding of what marriage entails.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the Orthodox wedding service having no vows. This is something that the Western world in general ought to consider adopting. It's a more realistic approach to the modern marriage, whether secular or religious.
quote:Can you keep both? As much as I would like to see an updated pic, I love the current one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ lilBuddha
I did enjoy the James Bond allusions. The photo dates back to when I joined the Ship. These days it's really much more Uncle Albert from "Only Fools and Horses"! I really must update that photo.
quote:That would be great, of course.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, this would make no difference. If one considers divorce "bad", the best strategy to avoid it is to have a realistic understanding of what marriage entails.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the Orthodox wedding service having no vows. This is something that the Western world in general ought to consider adopting. It's a more realistic approach to the modern marriage, whether secular or religious.
quote:And to provide support at a horizontal level to young married couples. Marriage can be hard, especially in the early bits, but some realistic expectations and realistic, non-judgmental help from friends and family can help people get through rough patches, unless something is more seriously wrong in the relationship (abusive spouse, substance abuse, mental disorder for example).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, this would make no difference. If one considers divorce "bad", the best strategy to avoid it is to have a realistic understanding of what marriage entails.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the Orthodox wedding service having no vows. This is something that the Western world in general ought to consider adopting. It's a more realistic approach to the modern marriage, whether secular or religious.
quote:ISTM, individualism is a substitution for selfish.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We all want to live 'happily ever after' with our sweetheart, even if our individualistic culture and our long lives make this very hard to achieve with one other person.
quote:PCUSA requires premarital counseling. Usually it's done by the pastor, but I think having it done by a licensed marriage therapist is more helpful. At my last position, I was able to arrange to have a trusted therapist provide 6 sessions for $300 (about 1/2 the usual cost). I made that part of the "package" that was presented to couples as what you do if you want to get married at our church-- not an optional extra, it's part of the deal. Many would gasp at the price and tell me they "couldn't afford it." I let them know that I had funds available to subsidize the cost-- so they could pay for the counseling the exact same amount that they were spending on flowers (which after all will be thrown out the next day). In 15 years at that church, I only had one couple that was spending less than $300 on flowers. I gladly covered their costs.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mousethief
I've often thought there should be more marriage preparation guidance available - but who would provide it?
In the British case the state would have no money for it and no cultural mandate.
The faith groups don't have much money either - unless you're talking about the kinds of groups whose beliefs about marriage aren't terribly fashionable. And again, I don't think British couples would feel comfortable with religious groups.
Families can and do help, but what made the marriage of Great Aunt Maude successful may not be entirely relevant or possible for a much younger couple facing different challenges. Expectations of marriage have changed. And many families by now have experienced divorce or unmarried parenthood in multiple generations, so there's no guarantee that a given family would be able to provide much advice.
quote:28 years later, we still refer back to that counseling and what we learned about ourselves, each other, communication, families and marriage. There were definitely bumps we hit that might have been bigger bumps if we hadn't been able to say "this is exactly what we talked about in premarital counseling," and then been able to draw on what we had said about it.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
PCUSA requires premarital counseling. Usually it's done by the pastor, but I think having it done by a licensed marriage therapist is more helpful.
quote:Nowadays they mandate mediation if you want to divorce, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility it could be made a condition of a marriage license.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mousethief
I've often thought there should be more marriage preparation guidance available - but who would provide it?
In the British case the state would have no money for it and no cultural mandate.
The faith groups don't have much money either - unless you're talking about the kinds of groups whose beliefs about marriage aren't terribly fashionable. And again, I don't think British couples would feel comfortable with religious groups.
Families can and do help, but what made the marriage of Great Aunt Maude successful may not be entirely relevant or possible for a much younger couple facing different challenges. Expectations of marriage have changed. And many families by now have experienced divorce or unmarried parenthood in multiple generations, so there's no guarantee that a given family would be able to provide much advice.
quote:My ex had me go through that -- not because he cared about the marriage, but because he wanted to delay the divorce to make my life more difficult. It was the biggest waste of time and lost pay. Our pre-marriage "counseling" with a clergyman was equally worthless.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nowadays they mandate mediation if you want to divorce, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility it could be made a condition of a marriage license.
quote:I can't see compulsory marriage preparation ever being acceptable in the UK.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nowadays they mandate mediation if you want to divorce, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility it could be made a condition of a marriage license.
quote:While I would agree with you that a state-required marriage preparation wouldn't get much popular support at first, the (Canadian) RCs have mandated marriage prep here for over 30 years-- exceptions (usually of very mature or widowed candidates) are normally given at the bishop level. Friends of mine who have been through it speak highly of the process.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I can't see compulsory marriage preparation ever being acceptable in the UK.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nowadays they mandate mediation if you want to divorce, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility it could be made a condition of a marriage license.
quote:[Tangent] Well yes. I think I was nearly banned after asking a question in the Q & A part of the course. My question was very simple - they kept going on about "discomfort" so my question was "By discomfort do you mean pain?"
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My experience of NHS ante-natal classes makes me doubt the efficacy of any form of government marriage preparation class.
quote:I used to get asked that when I worked with married couples, and I usually said that one could expect quite a lot of discomfort, but then as one got older, one got numb to it.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:[Tangent] Well yes. I think I was nearly banned after asking a question in the Q & A part of the course. My question was very simple - they kept going on about "discomfort" so my question was "By discomfort do you mean pain?"
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My experience of NHS ante-natal classes makes me doubt the efficacy of any form of government marriage preparation class.
quote:I read this more carefully and realised that you were talking about Canadian RCs specifically. (For some reason, I thought you were talking about Canadians in general!)
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I would agree with you that a state-required marriage preparation wouldn't get much popular support at first, the (Canadian) RCs have mandated marriage prep here for over 30 years-- exceptions (usually of very mature or widowed candidates) are normally given at the bishop level. Friends of mine who have been through it speak highly of the process.
quote:It's not a matter of being willing to take up the offer, at least not in my denomination or, I think, the RCC. (I think as in Canada, all American Catholic dioceses require premarital counseling of some kind.) For us, it's a condition of the minister presiding at the wedding. No premarital counseling, and no comfort level on the part of the minister that the couple are prepared, then no church wedding and no participation by the minister (if the wedding is somewhere other than the church).
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Naturally, members of a religious group are likely to be more willing to take up their church's offer of such counselling, although in communities where the religious allegiance is far more cultural than spiritual I suspect there would be more resistance.
quote:This was 22 years ago, but yes, under-resourced and badly taught. E.g. the teacher had a plastic pelvis and plastic baby doll from different sets. The "baby" was too big to go through the pelvis and the teacher's attempts to force it through resulted in its head coming off...
If prenatal (antenatal) classes are poor where you are, then they are taught badly.
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...
quote:This was 22 years ago, but yes, under-resourced and badly taught. E.g. the teacher had a plastic pelvis and plastic baby doll from different sets. The "baby" was too big to go through the pelvis and the teacher's attempts to force it through resulted in its head coming off... .
If prenatal (antenatal) classes are poor where you are, then they are taught badly.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Just what you want when you're feeling anxious and nervous! Although perhaps the hilarity of what sounds like a Monty Python sketch would relieve the tension...
quote:IME NCT were middle class earth mothers drinking raspberry leaf tea. Since we lived on a council estate they pointedly ignored us
Originally posted by L'organist:
Where my step-daughter lives there are no NHS pre-natal classes. Expectant mothers are given a list of NCT classes and told to contact them. The only pre-natal stuff available from the NHS is all medical, other than a briefing that you should take into hospital sufficient nappies for your newborn, otherwise you'll be charged for them (40p each in 2007).
Our experience of NCT was entirely negative: it was run by a coven of pain-is-all-in-the-mind, and in any case labour isn't 'real' of you don't experience pain preachers: when they discovered our twins were going to arrive by C section they were spectacularly nasty, even though there were very good medical reasons for the C section. Needless to say we gave them a wide berth after that.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:When I trained to be a marriage & family therapist, one of my profs said he had never had a couple postpone or cancel their marriage, even when he was quite sure they were headed down the wrong path. It just doesn't happen-- at that point, there's just too much stardust in their eyes.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Marriage preparation courses are not at all about counselling. At least the best aren't. The aim is education.
One of the success markers of a good marriage preparation course is that a few couples actually postpone or cancel their marriages, because of what they discover.
quote:FTR, our marriage prep course was:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As far as marriage prep goes, we didn't do a course, but we did get hold of a marriage prep book produced by Relate (the Marriage Guidance Council as was) and worked through it, which was useful.
Neither of us would have been comfortable being invited to do any of that in front of one or more third parties.
quote:Is the pastor not a person? I rather thought that they usually were.
Originally posted by St Deird:
3) Each couple meets with the pastor and discusses any issues that come up.
but, for the most part, it was very private, and couldn't really be described as "in front of" anyone.
quote:Hence "for the most part".
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Is the pastor not a person? I rather thought that they usually were.
Originally posted by St Deird:
3) Each couple meets with the pastor and discusses any issues that come up.
but, for the most part, it was very private, and couldn't really be described as "in front of" anyone.
