AIBU to be annoyed at 'girl' judging our family dynamics.

[madchocolatemum48]

A group of friends of a neighbour and I were chatting at a party over the weekend.
We were getting acquainted with the usual "What do you do?" "How many children?".......etc etc.
I said dh & i have been married nearly 20 years, 2 children, I'm a SAHM. Ended with saying "You know, the usual traditional family"
A young woman who had already stated she had 3 kids by 3 fathers, never married, pipes up " Fuc#ing hell, didn't know people still did that old b¤llsh!t stuff"

Is it 'old-fashioned' to be a traditional family now? Maybe she just made me feel old, but I wouldn't have made a derogatory comment about her family dynamics.

The points about inference and context are valid but as no-one seems to disagree that calling a woman in her 20s who is the mother of 3 children a "girl" there's an inference the OP was doing a bit of point scoring.

If I were meeting new people at a party I'd simply say "hi I'm Phaedra , this is [insert Phaedra's bloke's name]. Should the conversation move on to children I might refer to our son if the context was appropriate. If everyone was talking about toddlers I can't see any reason for jumping in and telling them all about my 23 year. If they were talking about feckless 23 year olds that would be different in neither situation would I think it necessary to state explicitly what my marital status is.

Marianne I think your version is probably the more accurate.

Being as we disagree on everything Phaedra that is not a surprise. I have also explained previously why I disagree with the criticism of OP for using term girl.

I completely agree with isit. I do find the detailed analytical criticism of casual conversation, or hurried posts, quite, well, pointless. It is a casual chat, not a work of great literature.

Justpickagodamname do we disagree on everything?I must have made more of an impression on you than you have on me then.

Well of course, you have posted more than me, duh! I have been following the thread though and disagree with everything you say. Especially your strange apparent view that people should keep quiet about their marital status. I think people are entitled to construct their own identities and to communicate what is important to them about their identities, particular in conversations where people are invited to introduce themselves. Whether people define themselves by their job, hobbies, relationship status, politics, race, nationality, sexuality, favourite mountain or favourite book or whatever is up to them.

I have not said people should keep quiet about their marital status; I have said I don't understand the need to make a song and dance about it. If someone does it makes me think either the woman actually does have a chip on her shoulder about not having status by reason of being employed and/or they probably vote UKIP.

I can't imagine anyone I know using the expression the OP used and therefore I'm sorry but I'd question mentally what her point was.

Well I guess that is where our difference lies. I don't see stating one's relationship status as making a song or dance and I certainly wouldn't draw the conclusions you do, and I can't agree that these are reasonable conclusions to draw.

She could have responded better, it sounds as if she was put on the spot and felt you were having a dig at her. Personally I'd have responded to you with "oh so really boring then."

But seriously. You're extremely patronising. She is a woman, not a girl. It has nothing to do with you or anyone how somebody chooses to conduct their personal life. You chose the conventional route, she didn't. Your 'usual traditional family' isn't so common in the 21st century, we've now moved on and sometimes people don't want to get married or instead of remaining in a miserable relationship they actually are allowed to leave it now and move on. It's also acceptable for a woman to do what she wants with her life- even if that means having children at a young age. Oh oh and just to reaaalllly stamp on your 'usual family' even gay couples can have children! The horror

I once had a conversation with a young woman in a pub, who was at a small Christmas drinks do.

It went as follows.
Me: Hello, I don't think we've met before.
Young Woman: I'm Mark's girlfriend.
Me: I am sure you're a person in your own right as well.

Oh how dreary and right on of you.talk about looking for reason to be nippy

Oh we had a pleasant enough conversation after that. I just wasn't terrribly interested in who she was going out with. Why should I be?

That's a regular low level social dialogue amongst strangers,1st meeting
Digging her up saying she mark girlfriend is boorish.
It's no different to school events,folk say I'm Lisa mum,not expecting to be rebuked with I'm sure there more to you than Lisa

"Hello, I don't think we've met before." can be interpreted as "Hello. Are you a gatecrasher?" which would make "I'm Mark's girlfriend." the appropriate response (even if you are a gatecrasher, although in that case you may need to adjust to "Paul's girlfriend" or "Tom's girlfriend" depending on the age range you're targeting).

Oh you lot are funny.

I posted a snappy comment she could have said in childish angry retaliation to a childish confrontation which was what I kinda thought she was looking for. And you all acted as if I was at the BBQ with her and actually said it or that it might actually be my own opinion of the situation! Sorry to disappoint but it really doesn't reflect my personal views at all.

Marianne, I agree with tortoise and Scottish mummy. Our social relations are important. Pointing out who you are connected to in a social occasion is perfectly normal, and most people are interested in having these relations explained to them. Say it was a works do and she was attending as the girlfriend of an employee. Saying, I am Mark's girlfriend would simply be explaining the context within which she was there. It doesn't mean she doesn't regard herself as having no other identity. Just that is the identity which brought her to the party. Which makes perfect sense, especially if someone comes up and says, we have not met before.

Sorry, one to many doesn'ts in that penultimate sentence.

"it's the goal isn't it (when you have kids).. two married parents, everyone with the same surname, no messy access arrangements with numerous non resident fathers? Of course life doesn't always work out peachy like that, but there's a gold standard for everything. "

Er, no, it's not the goal for those of us who haven't swallowed the patriarchal line that women cannot raise children without men and who understand that the outcomes for children are far more dependent on parental income and education than any other factor including number of parents. And did you mean to sound quite so crass by referring to a "gold standard"? Gold standard for what? For parenting? For living? For constructing a family? Because that makes you sound like you believe that double parent families are better than everyone else's. What's a single parent family? Silver? Who gets bronze? And perish the thought, who are the parents who don't get any medals at all, or even get over the finish line?

I mean, really.

I was brought up in a 'gold standard' nuclear family. Parents with mental health difficulties. Physical violence towards children. Emotional abuse of one partner by another. Extra-marital affair. Not pretty. Not happy

Now with someone who has two children from previous marriage. Kept my name. We had another child together. Much peachier.

I have to agree with everyone else as well Marianne - I've been many places where I've introduced myself as any of my dcs Mum's or as dh's wife - it helps to either explain what it is you are doing there, or just remind people who you are - it does annoy me when people ring up, say "it's Paul" and expect you to know who you are talking to. Doesn't in anyway suggest you are defining your life by that relationship, just puts the context of that meeting out there.
OP you do sound like you were judging others by the fact you made a point of saying about traditional families, but I wouldn't socialise for long with anyone who couldn't open their mouth without using language like that - so, IMO there was fault on both sides.

Sorry but I am taking real offence at the "gold standard" comment.

What have I then? The booby prize?

I am doing as good a job of rearing my kids now as I was when I was in that "goal" "gold standard" family.

And I firmly believe in a lot of ways I'm doing a better job - I'm showing them what their mother can achieve as a person in her own right, I'm showing them how to conduct relationships that are equal, showing them what is and isn't acceptable, in a much more robust way than staying with their father would ever have done.

They may disagree, since they have to cook, do the washing up and pull their weight a lot more, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Ivory, I think it is good for kids to help out around the home. I was never asked to do anything and was completely bloody useless when I left home. No idea how to cook, change a lightbulb or make a bed. In fact I didn't even realise that bed sheets should be washed. Your kids will be much better prepared.

gosh, some very touchy people.
Obviously it's better when children are raised by two happily married parents who love and support each other. Sue me for daring to say that it's something to aspire to. Of course it is.
Obviously there are numerous wonderful single parent families doing a tough job brilliantly and alone. But it's not ideal. And the vast majority wouldn't have chosen it.
Im laughing at the nonsense that it's somehow a 'patriarchal ideal' this airy fairy notion of 2 parent families. So last century darling.
I was raised from the age of nine onwards by a single Mother. It was pretty shitty.

Numpties can you tell me WHY it is betterfor children to be raised by two happily married parents than by a single mother or by a grandmother with help from an involved father, or by two mothers, or two fathers or any one of the myriad of other family combinations? Why?