is she being unreasonable about marriage?

[spillyobeans]

Dont fully know where i stand on this but:

Mutual friends of me and dh have been together for 8 years, they live together, share financial responcability etc and have no kids. She keeps saying she wants a ring/to be asked to be married etc where he is adament he doesnt want to but obviously wants to stay together.

I think she is getting quite down about it, but is she being unreasonable to keep pushing him?

Im married to dh and it was a nice thing we both wanted - didnt need, as personally for us nothing 'changed' but just something we wanted to do.

So whos if any is unreasonable?

I know lots of women who can't express any substantial amounts. It is not uncommon and it is a barrier to returning to work.

I know lots of women who, like me, took a lot longer than 6 weeks to recover. I wonder what proportion of women don't meet the 'average' time (how is this determined btw) and feel like a failure for not bouncing back?

Also breastfeeding is hormonally regulated until 6m. Those hormones can have a significant impact on mood. Again this is something I didn't realise until I was in the midst of it and was reassured that it was 'perfectly normal' to suffer horrendous mood swings for the first six months.

If the mother is EBF and unable to express/baby refuses bottle she will suffer much worse sleep deprivation than the father.

Caring for a toddler is harder than sitting behind a desk, yes, but then toddlers don't care if you're still in your pyjamas trailing blood down the hall. I don't get treated like God at work and failure to have had a shower wouldn't have gone down well.

Women like me who experience one or all of the above are not outliers. In my experience chatting to other mums, women who bounce back quickly, can express easily, baby takes the bottle no dramas etc are the unusual ones.

It helps no one to go into something as major as having a baby pretending it is all under your control whether it is 'fair' or 'shared equally' - often this just isn't possible. The repercussions are usually much more significant for the woman than the man.

I don't think the legal protections are exactly the same for civil partnerships actually - aren't there differences in pension entitlement for a surviving partner, for example?

Yup, my friends where the partner died weren't married - my typo. She ended up losing the house, all very unpleasant.

I think any couple who decides they want to be together forever and have children needs to think about the practicalities. And the BIGGEST thing they need to think about is the fact that Change Will Happen. No-one knows what those changes will be. Illness, early death, disability, redundancy, unemployment, promotion, inheritance, career change, relationship break-up. All these things can happen and do happen to thousands of people every day.

It is ridiculous to think that going into a relationship financially 'equal' means that in thirty years time you will necessarily be in the same position. All sorts of things can and will affect it.

Doesn't mean you have to get married. You can make your own arrangements. But it is naive not to think about it very carefully.

Assuming that someone is 'a mug' for taking on caring responsibilities is insulting and absurdly reductionist. The fact that children need care and either parent (if there are two parents available) can take on these responsibilities is not altered by the fact that usually it is a woman. Instead of insulting people it is better to enable choice by increasing opportunity for flexibility in the working life / career breaks/ that would enable families to organise their life equitably which is still impossible in many situations.

I have taken time out from work to care for my kids, returning to work is complex due to the needs of the children (one has ASD diagnosis). People are difficult to categorise just because on the surface it appears they made choices you disagree with ... It is easy to dismiss instead of understanding the complexities. I have no doubt I will work for a wage again but my years out have still been productive. Not wasted.

Sorry op off topic rant

I've only read the opening post. She is quite right. What she needs to do now, if she's serious and he won't marry, is move on.

And the BIGGEST thing they need to think about is the fact that Change Will Happen. No-one knows what those changes will be. Illness, early death, disability, redundancy, unemployment, promotion, inheritance, career change, relationship break-up. All these things can happen and do happen to thousands of people every day.

Well said.

It also damages children too because you end up with not enough money for the children if you dont' work full time or take massively long maternity leaves. These are all active choices we make.

Lotus, this 'choices' claim you keep making is absolute, steaming bollocks. You must be aware of the fact that some women are ill in pregnancy and afterwards. Sometimes too ill to work. You would have to be as thick as pigshit, which I know you're not, to think this was a choice. I was unwell in my second pregnancy and was unable to carry on working after about halfway through. This was not a choice. I also needed an EMCS and, thanks to this and the pre-birth issues, am not well enough to work yet either. This is not something I opted for either. Nor was it something I could've got DH to do instead. I reckon I might be ok to do part time in a couple of months, which will mean I've had a year off from the workplace. Quite a long ML, and more than I had with my first where I did actually get a choice and was able to keep working until late in the day and go back sooner than most.

So tell me again, how have I made an active choice to have a massively long maternity leave? Note: your response needs to focus on me, rather than the fact that you were cycling at the beginning of one of your labours and taking phone calls the next day. Either you agree that time out is not necessarily a choice, or you think that pre-eclampsia, placental issues, SPD, haemmhorages during birth, infections etc do not actually exist. It's one of the two. And you're going to need to back up that six weeks is sufficient recovery time comment too.

I did from midwives that 6 weeks is the average time for lochia to last. And generally people can drive again 5/6 weeks after a section. I guess there is also the post birth '6 week check'.
Lotus is not alone in thinking 6 weeks should be sufficient recovery time - heck midwives seem to think so too - I've just met very few actual mothers who would describe themselves as recovered at 6weeks. Makes me wonder who sets the parameters for what constitutes 'recovered'.

I did hear that should say

Six weeks if anything seems a long time for lochia, or maybe I've been lucky, and I don't drive anyway. Still wouldn't have been anything close to fit for return at that point, though.

Bit hopeful that you'll get the response you want, I reckon Chicken - you're more likely to be told that you clearly weren't trying hard enough!

Probably. Lotus, I know you've posted since I asked you my question at 13.37. Are you going to tell me whether you believe in the existence of incapacitating, work preventing conditions due to pregnancy and birth?

The worst thing is that Lotus is a boss...from her style of typing she could actually be my boss! No wonder women feel intimidated going back into the workplace after a long ML

I think she wants marriage just for the 'fairytale' wedding/ring/day thing (as she does seem a bit materialistic - but i am speculating here)

OP, she deserves to have a special wedding day, a beautiful ring, and a white lace dress with a long train carried by her attendants just as any other woman, if she likes. It doesn't mean she's materialistic, where are you coming from with that? You say they are contemplating children, as you are, and if they marry, that will likely strengthen their desire to begin a family. You should be happy for them, and for her. Be a good friend to her.

Quite simply, it's not your call and not your business, other than supporting her very reasonable view of getting married. What would you think if she meddled in your relationship?

A lot of women deep down want marriage for the security, but that's not seen as romantic enough, so they tell themselves/everyone it's about the fairytale, and then they're materialistic. sigh

If someone is ill, just like if a man is seriously ill, then of course they can't work. It is of course much much easier to sit at a desk in an office than mind a baby and toddler and do house cleaning, even if you've got incontinence pads on.

Most women however are not ill in that way. Yes most of the lochia clears up in 2 ro 3 weeks for most of us and during that period we are heaving toddlers around, wielding the hoover, lugging the baby up and down stairs and all the domestic stuff which is much harder work and more boring than sitting at desks being treated like a God. I know which I prefer.

Lotus which century do you work in where you are 'treated like a God' at work?

It's an odd description ...

So do you accept that, contrary to your previous claim, it isn't necessarily a choice to take lengthy MLs, then? And that this is something specific to women, that men won't ever have to deal with? Plus I don't know why you think everyone's minding a baby, toddler and doing house cleaning whilst their lochia is still flowing. Plenty of us don't have to lift a finger during this period. Which, for the thousands of women who lose their jobs due to pregnancy every year, would be considerably better treatment than they'd get if they rocked up at work a couple of weeks post partum. You do realise there's something of an overlap between the two groups, no?

For the vast majority of women it is a choice to take lengthy maternity leaves. It is a modern indulgence which does them and their families no good at all.

Of course some women are ill when pregnant and after giving birth but not most of them and of course some just make a massive song and dance about being ill when they really aren't but want the attention - we all know the types - and they ruin things for the few women with really nasty illness relating to pregnancy as the crying wolf types always do.

Obviously they are pretty well off women on the thread who do not have to life a finger when on maternity leave. I don't know many women like that or ven who have a servant at home when they have a baby or their mother can rush round to help but clearly they exist, lucky them. that is not normality for most.

And yes high paid lawyers get a lot more good treatment at their desk than a mother at home with a screaming toddler and crying baby and the house to manage which is no one's idea of a relaxed time. It is much easier and better all round if you go quickly back to work.

The fact not everyone agrees is absolutely find but let us not invent a myth that most mothers need a year at home for medical reasons which is completely untrue for most. It also damages women for them to be seduced and conditioned into believing a long maternity leave is a must. Go back quickily if you prefer. For many of us it is an active and the right choice.

Like Lotus - I am often guilty of cutting other women no slack, because if I can do it, so should they!

This is in part because I have a low opinion of myself. ie - if I can do it and I am the loser I know myself to be, what on earth is the excuse of all these amazing competent women?

It's all a bit nouveau feminist - getting confused between "equal to" and "same as a" man. As much as the equal=same crowd may feel that the physical parts of pregnancy birth and post natal should not trouble you excessively if you just tough it out like a woman, it is inescapable that this something only women can do. Depending on education, background and plain old Opportunity.

People cannot be judged with reference to a single anecdote of oneself, but to the successes and limitations of a population.

lotus and I have a similar job and I took very short maternity leaves. But I don't feel great about it. On some level I am proud for beating the system - on another I am sad my relationship with the children is not supported financially by their father.

Maybe there is a case for 'true' equality. Stepping on other women who haven't done as well as you (even if a misguided attempt at motivation) is surely not the way.

Marriage protects women-shouldn't be necessary-but until societal shift, it really rather is.

This is a yes or no question Lotus. Do you accept that a long ML is not, as you claimed, necessarily a choice?

To address some of your other points: lawyers sometimes get treated like shit when they get pregnant and have DC. I know, because I am one and it happened to me, to the extent that I don't have a job to go back to now. I can assure you my work would have been deeply unhappy to see me two weeks postpartum, even assuming for the sake of argument that I could have got through the commute without requiring hospitalisation. Having familial help is, far from being the preserve of the rich, rather common amongst working class women. Try spending some time on a council estate sometime. It's how we roll. Also, paid paternity leave is a thing now. Some of the more progressive companies even let a bloke tag some AL on after the two weeks. Thus covering much of the bleeding period.

Lastly, I'd love to hear more about these women who, in your considered medical opinion, are not really ill but make a massive song and dance about it. I presume you've seen such women in a clinical capacity, or you'd be making bullshit claims based on fuck all. Given your lack of medical qualifications, may I ask how you persuaded them to consent to examination?

Can't lie though. I love the 6 cups of tea made for me a day. Especially the one on my desk when I get in. Sad times when the paralegal leaves I tell you.

Obviously some women get upset when they hear some women prefer to go back to work quickly. that's fine but it does seem to be an over the top reaction. We choose to. We want to and it works out best.

On the physical health issue I stand by my comment - most women are fit enough to return in a month or two. I have never said on this thread or anywhere that that is the case for all women just as I would not say all men will always never be ill.

As for there being 3 types of us - women who go back quickly are fit and like to be back soon and it work well (me), those who are so ill they coudl not go back and a third category of utter malinger who is constantly sighing at work, wants everyone rushing around after her, repeated pats her tummy in that irritating way and not surprisingly ruins her career -the latter gets everything she deserves which might well be a life as a housewife- something I would not wish on my worst enemy although often the life of choice for many.

Let us continue to live in a world of choices and let men also now we have the 6 month transferable leave has as much choice as their wives. let the choice to return to work in 2 weeks which by the way is allowed unless you are a factory worker in which case it is 4 weeks (or self employed as I am in which case it perfectly feasibly to be back within a day as just about was with the twins)

On the physical health issue I stand by my comment - most women are fit enough to return in a month or two. I have never said on this thread or anywhere that that is the case for all women just as I would not say all men will always never be ill.

Fraid not. You said at 11.17, the following:

'It also damages children too because you end up with not enough money for the children if you dont' work full time or take massively long maternity leaves. These are all active choices we make.'

So, you said taking long ML was an active choice. This was an absolute statement, with no exceptions. It was a pretty silly thing to say, which I assume is why you now backtrack so furiously. 'We' do not all make this active choice you speak of.

As for there being 3 types of us - women who go back quickly are fit and like to be back soon and it work well (me), those who are so ill they coudl not go back and a third category of utter malinger who is constantly sighing at work, wants everyone rushing around after her, repeated pats her tummy in that irritating way and not surprisingly ruins her career -the latter gets everything she deserves which might well be a life as a housewife- something I would not wish on my worst enemy although often the life of choice for many.

Once again, what is your basis for claiming there are all these malingering pregnant women? How on earth would you know, since you have no medical qualifications whatsoever and (I fondly hope) have yet to clinically examine a pregnant or postpartum woman? Either you've been moonlighting as a midwife or you're making this up off the top of your head. But I'll be kind and assume you've some evidential basis for your views. So you need to share it. You sound like you're slagging off some woman/women you actually know. What qualifies you to decide they were malingering? Did you hide in their midwife appointments, steal their notes?