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?

If you say so. Let's hope your partner doesn't lose a leg in an accident or you don't suffer horrible birth injuries if you have a child together. Presumably then you'd split up because you were no longer attractive enough to stay together. Still, I suppose you'd spoil another couple so at least you've got each other.

And how would that be any more prevented by being married?

Sorry I've just realised I mis-read post & they don't have DCs. Well then in your friend's case OP Id walk away now. They don't have the same views on a very fundamental thing. I don't get why "is she being unreasonable" is even a valid question, actually...?

Although I suppose if she stays with him knowing he doesn't want marriage and is complaining about him 10 years down the line/after DCs then at that point yes, it could be deemed that she is BU. But still, its a very personal thing and I don't think for a moment she should be viewed as wrong or silly for wanting marriage..somehow the tone of your post and even the asking whether she is being unreasonable, implies that...

I agree. Some women think its cool to agree with their men that 'marriage is a piece of paper' when they really do want to get married. If neither of you genuinely want to be married, fine. If one of you really wants to, but the other one is saying no because they don't see the point, from my experience, they are saying they don't want to be tied to you forever. If the OPs partner wanted to stay with her and cared enough about her to not make her utterly miserable, he'd marry her.

I must have been a malingerer then, took 6 months, then 5 months off. Exclusively BF both and can't begin to imagine whipping out my breast pump on the 90 min tube ride to/from work because baby fed every 3 hours and my boobs would have literally exploded if I couldn't express. or likewise nipping off to the loo to pump every 3 hours (there was nowhere else despite what the law says) I could whip my pump out in a open plan office but not sure letdown would have happened. I imagine that maternity leave rights have been extended because it gives opportunities for more babies to be BF and reduces the cost to the NHS of having very poorly young babies admitted to hospital because they've caught some awful virus and not benefited from the immunity in mums milk. Perhaps you should add a 4th category to your list Lotus, women who sacrifice their career and take more than 6 weeks off for their children's wellbeing. For sure lots of children are born poorly too. I gave up work because I was ill with a chronic condition brought about by pregnancy and also because my daughter was still having monthly medical appts to correct a birth injury nearly 3 years later. And when your sick child just wants mummy to be with her because she's petrified of doctors you tell me how you can go to work and feel all god like as daddy does the appt (but it's not him she wanted). One of us had to quit as we were both being tarred as a liability. I am aware I have sacrificed my own personal finances and career for my children. I was the higher earner (only just) but you know what having children has changed me completely, I couldn't give a fuck anymore about having a fancy high-stress career. To us marriage is not just a commitment to each other but the family as a whole, I could not imagine how you go through all the crap life could throw at you knowing if you are unmarried you partner could in theory leave you with no pot to piss in as you navigate one of life's cruel twists of fate.

"Why do people seem to get upset that some women choose to go back to work full time sooner than others?"

They don't. They just get upset when people like you imply that they are lazy when they stay at home to look after DC.

It is quite reasonable that women, once having gone through pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding etc, feel such a bond to their child that they want to stay at home. Fair enough you didn't want to do that but it's also not fair to consign others to the bottom of the career heap for what is quite a natural biological reaction for a lot of women.

Are you sure you're not Xenia btw?

I didn't say it would be. Your point is that you stay unmarried because if you did get married, you'd both get fat and unattractive so split up. I think that shows you're in a very superficial relationship, if it's based primarily on looks. Seems a shame to me, but whatever makes you happy.

I find the whole argument of women having to be the primary carer depressing. It is not naive for the op to think her friends could split childcare equally. Whatever the statistics plenty of people do (like us)/ have the man as primary carer. And once again reference to a man who does as 'good', he isn't a fecking dog.

Lotus has a point also, it is a choice re the length of maternity leave although we dont all want or need to be high fliers. For me personally where I work everyone is pretty much expected to take a year, so having 9 months off really not a big deal. Self employed though, you may not find it so easy depending on the field.

But overall op your friend inbu if she wants marriage. You also describe her as materialistic - do you actually like her?

That's the interesting point. i did not say they were lazy but those at home say that is "implied" presumably because they are over sensitive about the issue. As I said going back to work full time at 2 weeks is a rest for most women who don't have servants or mother at home then I am not saying it is lazy to be home with a baby. In fact it's hard manual labour paid just about nothing in our society because so many people find it boring and instead whether male or female prefer the balance of a job and a child.

I said some people are lazy whether they have children or not - we see them all over and it is not necessarily a moral wrong. Remember and those lilies of the field who neither sow or reap and sit around and God provides. I always thought that unlikely to get you fed in most cases but there are heaps of people into the Slow Movement and the like and even my own criteria for happiness of being outside, eating well, loads of sleep some might put into a lazier category. I also said some are home because they are too ill to work.

Anyway men or women content to work or content to be home are lucky to have choices and as a free market libertarian I don't want to go around removing choice. I also have always support women employees getting 6 weeks at 90% pay and men just about nothing at that level as that reflects most people's basic recovery time after a birth.

"As I said going back to work full time at 2 weeks is a rest for most women who don't have servants or mother at home then I am not saying it is lazy to be home with a baby. In fact it's hard manual labour paid just about nothing "

I don't understand what point you are trying to make at all. Are you suggesting that women (or anyone) get paid a lot of money (enough to support five children) for doing very little?

Have you noticed that the vast majority of cleaners in your god-lair/office are women? Do you think cleaning is "a rest" and not as tough as being at home with the kids? Do you think all women do floaty undemanding jobs that just require them to sit staring into space? Maybe they all design envelopes or name clouds or something? They don't. They do all sorts of jobs - whatever job they bloody well wish in fact (I hope).

Even jobs that are basically cerebral are hard - I don't do any manual labour but my job still makes me tired. It's just a different sort of tired.

"even my own criteria for happiness of being outside" - how do you manage this as well as sitting in an office being fed peeled grapes then?

So, to summarise, you have five children, no help at home, you are a lawyer, you like being outside, you are treated like a god at work, you went back to work immediately, women who take full extended maternity leave do that by choice and you think work is a rest compared to being at home [not just for you, you seem to be suggesting that is the case for all women].

Who looks after these five kids then?

I agree with captain as well - it was important to me to bf for the health benefits. I can't express. Therefore, I'm the carer, end of - even if there weren't also other health issues impacting my decision. I do enjoy it but there is little 'active choice' in my year long mat leave.

I asked about childcare earlier Melon. All this talk about hired help - surely those with hired help are those with both parents working full time?

But first I accept that bfing is important to you, but its still a choice. The right choice for your family and an easy one for you to make obviously. Of course depending on what the op's friend does she may be able to bf while working, if she is doing freelance stuff at home for example.

I don't agree that it's a free choice Toby, not with the extensive benefits to a child from breastfeeding.

It is a choice. It may be one that for you requires zero thought but that doesn't mean there isn't an alternative even if it's one you personally wouldn't consider.

I went back to work 10w after DC3 - precisely because I work short hours and from home so it had zero effect on him even though he was EBF. It would have been sooner but the Christmas/New Year shut down got in the way.

But I agree that in many cases it's Hobson's Choice: in my experience women either can't afford to work or can't afford not to work depending on their circumstances, and it's a rare family that actually gets to bring other factors into the decision at all.

I have never bottle fed a baby (personally) and I could express at work. It is harder than feeding directly and with the twins I worked from home by then when not in meetings and our nanny could bring me to them when they needed a feed and that was easier but that the start aged 22 forging a career expressing at work was a reasonable compromise.

Some people don't seem very happy on this thread. Life is fun.

"So, to summarise, you have five children, no help at home, you are a lawyer, you like being outside, you are treated like a god at work, you went back to work immediately, women who take full extended maternity leave do that by choice and you think work is a rest compared to being at home [not just for you, you seem to be suggesting that is the case for all women].

Who looks after these five kids then?"

We had a daily nanny who came when I left for work and left around 6pm when their father came home.

I find it worrying that the maternity rights women have worked so hard for are being so readily dismissed on this thread.

Yes of course some women want to go back quickly, some want to formula feed, etc. But to imply that these are the choices of the many, or desirable choices for the many for that matter, must surely be false - otherwise, I repeat, why would individuals, pressure groups and our legislature have bothered with year long mat leave rights, SMP (which is not insignificant to many of us) etc at all?

I work in accountancy. It was one of the first professions to reach 50/50 staff recruitment at junior / entry level. There is still an imbalance at the top of course but it is a damn sight 'fairer' than most professions with many women in senior posts. Maternity leave entitlement is very good in accounting firms (compared to other professions) and is ranked as one of the top factors people in accounting look for when moving jobs.

To imply that most women are happy to go back after a few weeks when that is clearly not the case when women are given a fair(ish) professional playing field and a genuinely free or 'active' choice must be wrong - I can't see any other interpretation.

Unless all accountants are malingering layabouts, I suppose.

The problem is people are bandying around the word "imply" on the thread. More women than not take 6 months to 12 months off if they can afford it. Now that might well be a long term mistake and be shooting themselves and families in the foot but that is what they regard as their "choice". Now that men can take 6 months and women 6 months from about this year we might well see a massive sea change with fathers wanting the second 6 months at home and women back after 6 months which would do wonders for equality. So it's all very good - how things are improving to bring more equality into family life.

Also I do not say that being home is malingering unless you have servants in spades at home. Being at home is hard boring manual labour of the dullest kind which plenty of women and men choose to avoid by going back to full time work.

We just need to remember that the bird in the hand of a long even if mostly very low paid maternity leave might seem a wonderful boon but if it shoots to pieces at 30 year future career then it might be a poisoned chalice you are foolish to be seduced by. Given that more people are self employe as I am and have few of thes rights anyway it's become less and less relevant for many actually and perhaps that might perversely work to women's advantage in ensuring parity at home with men and fairness in terms of who does the dull cleaning and endless childcare.

So, Lotus - you had a nanny, but earlier you said something about 'women who have help at home, which I never did'?

OP, so you wanted to be married and did so, yet your 'friend' who wants to be married is unreasonable.

How does that work?

'Endless' childcare - but yet you choose to have 5 kids (well, 4 pregnancies given that you had a set of twins).

Why have so many kids if they are so dull and you were so desperate to get back to work?

You seem to be working from a premise that most women are happy putting their children in childcare but often they are not - I can't imagine leaving my baby with anyone else.

I'm not disputing that some women need 12 months mat leave re breastfeeding and it is something I would march on the streets for.....

In my experience taking 12 months mat leave is pretty much expected. A couple of years down the line no one has any idea how long you took anyway. I don't buy it damages careers. It is difficult for some employers, yes, but what damages careers imo is taking 5 years out, now that is tricky.

But it is a choice, there are other ways. There are people on this thread who are insisting that it is unrealistic for men to be equal parents. It isn't, is the point I'm making.

I'm pretty consistent on-line. 30 years ago we found a daily nanny for the first baby. She came each day. She stayed for 10 years and ultimately brought first her first baby and then her second to work with her. We both worked full time. I referred to women who were ill above (the very few who are ill) and some have or need full time help at home whilst they are home with the child but too ill to care for it.

I adore babies and pregnancy and breastfeeding and I adore my career and money and success. I have both and it's wonderful and so much do I love babies I have spread them so far over 30 years.

We don't any longer need a daily nanny as the twins are teenagers although even today I have taken one to school for about an hour and then collected him (post GCSE exams) but it certainly easier for men and women once children are teenagers. Just because you are very maternal and love birth and breastfeeding does not mean you don't also have and enjoy a long wonderful career. The two go hand in hand. in fact perhaps those better with children tend to be those better with work too as those who are successful in life then do be best at most things and those not so good at things may be worse at being a parent and worse at their careers. Who knows. it's all good fun.

toby I think most people insisting it's unrealistic for men to be equal are the ones - like me - who suffered significant health problems as a direct result of pregnancy/birth and needed long maternity leaves.

Men are highly unlikely to be rendered incapable of working due to having children. Women might be (temporarily normally). In that situation there is no choice.

Obviously if you breeze through pregnancy / birth there is a choice, but it is foolish to assume this will be the case IMO