To wonder what happens when your boyfriend asks your father for your hand...

[PumpkinLatteMyArse]

And then he says no?

Do adults just not get married then?

Well, are you happy to accept the consequences if your marriage goes wrong?

Yes, but aside from divorce and emotional stuff. There werent any huge consquences. Because I was financially independent. We sold the family home, I bought my own home etc. The emotional stuff was significantly easier because I wasnt worried about the financial aspect. It reduced my stresses.

If I was working, the money wouid go into our family finances and in the scheme of things it would be negligible. So even as an “independent working woman”, I would have no hope of paying the our current mortgage whether I was working or not. I would be marginally less “vulnerable”, but frankly, in our situation, my salary would be neither here nor there in the event if a divorce.

Yes, but the point is that as I have a career, like your husband has one I had more options. So we sold the home and I bought a smaller one. Which I could easily do because of my salary. I could afford our mortgage on my own if I had to, but it would have been tight. I had options. Didnt make divorce easy. But did make it easier.

Its trotted out because it's the truth. Sahm arent dim and I never said they were. But lots find themseleves economically damaged by being a sahm which cause problems if they divorce.

You clearly did weigh up the pros and cons, made your decision, so what's the issue?

And how is what I said any more 'lacking understanding' than your 'when women work they dont have it better' comment?

I never said that “When women work they don’t have it better.” What does that even mean? What women? What work?

What I said was that, unfortunately and due to some men’s reluctance to step up and take on their fair share at home, the impact on women is that “having it all” can essentially just mean “doing it all.”

Not for women such as you because, as you have stated, your DH is naturally inclined to do his fair share outside of his job, but obviously not all women can claim have husbands of that mindset. This is hardly a revelation.

I actually only have one friend who has gone through a divorce. She used to be a teacher, but had been a SAHM for ten years. Her DH lost the plot, but she always knew she would as a minimum receive around £3 million from the house sale and that was before the settlement. Not exactly vulnerable. Ok, you may say this is an extreme example, but I’m using it to illustrate that when women decide to be long-term SAHMs, they do know where they stand more than you may think. In other words, they know they would not be worse off than if they had been working all those years. This is what I mean by a different context for decisions. If she’d been single and working for that ten years as a teacher, she wouldn’t be in her current financial situation. Nor would her children.

But your friend knew she could give up work and be ok in the event of a divorce.

Except, what sometimes happens is that the stbexh fuxks up all finances as well. Or drags out the sale, leaving less money that expected. That's why I prefer financial independence. As a sahm should, I looked at all the pro and cons and made my decision accepting the consequences. Why is it so upsetting to you that I would expect a sahm to do the same?

And for the record. I dont have a dh anymore. I have made it quite clear, I am divorced.

You used mn threads as examples of women who work and still do everything. Look on mn and find out how many sahms get fucked over. Or how many sahms have feckless husbands. Then say most know what they are doing. Because there are lot of women on here and RL cant believe how unfair it is when their dh pisses off and they are left in a no win situation. Unfortunately, lots of people do make decisions that damage them, because they love the other person and cant imagine them leaving them in the shit. But it happens.

What do you mean naturally inclined to his fair share? As I have told you before he was a shit. However, he did recognise the fact that the house and kids were half his responsibility. Just like women do everyday. He isnt a unicorn. He is an adult.

Sorry I meant your DP does his fair share.

Unless you go out and do a national survey of SAHM vulnerability, it’s impossible to generalise. Loads of people are financially vulnerable in dual income houses. All I can comment on is what I can see in my own daily life and experience. It’s one thing being a SAHM for a couple of years, when the kids are little. What I’m talking about, is longer-term SAHMs who may not return to paid work until the DC are leaving school, if at all. This is a different decision entirely. I live in an area where this is common, but I can’t think of one friend who would lose out financially in the case of a divorce. Yes men can hide money, etc but you can’t hide it all and you can’t hide your home. There are certain types of men who prefer to have SAHWs and I know quite a few of these and they would have no qualms in telling you that. It might not sound very PC, but I don’t worry about their wives getting f*ed over in the event if divorce because their overall finances are at a particular level where the wife would not have been better off if she had been working over the period when she’s been a SAHM. And no they are not gold-diggers either, because many of them married the DH’s before he made his millions or whatever and they have supported and facilitated him in doing so at the expense of their own career because they know that, if he is is in a position to make that kind if money, it gives your children different options and s different future, even if you divorce, so that’s why you do it. Nobody puts themselves at long-term financial risk, unless there are good reasons to.

Our future son in law sought our approval. He took my husband for a drink and said it was his intention to seek her hand nd he believed she would say yes but wanted our blessing too. It was nice.

They talked about the commitment we believe marriage is. The enduring nature of marriage and the need to share he good and the bad. My husband talked about the practical and emotional support we were able to offer them as a couple.

They talked about having a good conversation about shared core values and coping with differences. He suggested they talk about children, raising children and moral and behavioural expectations on them, finances, respect and equality, faithfulness, politics. All the usual stuff that any couple entering marriage should have discussed beforehand.

Pa1oma yes, some sahm are fine. Lots are not. Because the majority of the country are not wealthy.

That was my point. Look at your circumstances, then make your decision. As long as you understand the risks. Like I did when I went back to work.

Not sure why you have an issue with expecting women to do this. Working women should too.

You were the one that originally mentioned working women starting threads about feckless husbands. Why is it an issue when I bring up threads regarding sahm?

Very few women can divorce and then never worry about money again. Which is why they need to think about their circumstances and then decide, having the full picture.

I find that unbelievably paternalistic and Victorian that this happened in the absence of your adult daughter, Cherry, and that her father was behaving like a one-man pre-marriage course. Surely it’s irrelevant to her and her fiancé what your views of marital commitment are, and whether they plan to have children?

Sure lampshade. I don’t want to derail the thread any longer and I’m not sure how we got into the whole SAHM issue from proposals anyway

I just think that there are some types of “patriarchal behaviour” (if you can call it that) that don’t mean that you hate women (ie misogyny). You might “other” women, yes. You might treat them differently to men on certain aspects of life. But this does not have to imply hate or disrespect.

Equally you can get men who don’t display any “patriarchal” or “chauvinist” behaviours whatsoever, yet they despise women.

I just think that there are some types of “patriarchal behaviour” (if you can call it that) that don’t mean that you hate women (ie misogyny). You might “other” women, yes. You might treat them differently to men on certain aspects of life. But this does not have to imply hate or disrespect.

I agree. Which I said before. Though men displaying sexist behaviour may not hate women, they are still displaying sexist behaviour.

However, sexism comes from misogyny in its origins and the need for men to control women.

Though no one excuses racist behaviour on the grounds of 'yeah but they dont hate people of different races, it's just how they are'

Ok Pa1oma, let me try that with another group.

I just think that there are some types of “racism ” (if you can call it that) that don’t mean that you hate black people (ie racism ). You might “other” certain ethnicities yes. You might treat them differently to white People on certain aspects of life. But this does not have to imply hate or disrespect.

Nope doesn’t work. Ill try again

I just think that there are some types of “anti Semitic behaviour” (if you can call it that) that don’t mean that you hate Jews (ie anti semitism ). You might “other” Jewish people , yes. You might treat them differently to other religious communities on certain aspects of life. But this does not have to imply hate or disrespect.

Nope. I’m having trouble with this concept Pa1oma.

We had a builder recently who went “awol” for months and when he finally showed up, he said it was because he had t been able to get out of bed. He then proceeded to tell me the whole story of how he was dating this girl for about a month. Now she’s pregnant, He doesn’t want anything to do with “it” (ie the baby). He got his mother to ring her mother to say, “Don’t think you’ll get any cash out if my son.” This guy is 25 He was delighted that he managed to get his CSI payments down to under a tenner a week or something like that because he’s self-employed and fiddled his accounts.

I asked him what he would do if the child comes to find him when he or she is 16. He said, “Well I’ll tell “it” you’ve managed without me for 15 years, you can manage without my cash for another 15.”

I just thought to myself, if this is the attitude young men think it’s ok to adopt these days, god help us all.

Give me a man who at least has proper intentions and a sense of responsibility for his wife and family any day of the week over this kind of muppet.

Nigel - well what do you mean by sexism? Some women would call a man opening a door for a woman sexist. I would call it basic manners. Some people in here would call men who pay on dates “controlling” or sexist - I just think this is normal behaviour. It’s not done out of hate. I hope we’ve brought up our son to be a gent I’m thr way his dad is and I’m absolutely 100% certain as his mother that he doesn’t hate women or girls. It’s the exact opposite actually.

You can’t compare this kind of thing to racism, just as you can’t compare seeking approval from a father to racism either. It doesn’t stem from hate.

Pa1oma, I don’t understand what your anecdote about your ghastly builder (whom I assume you challenged, or at least asked why he felt you looked like a receptive audience for his account of his disgusting behaviour?) has to do with the issue. Do you think his behaviour somehow has some bearing on equality between the sexes, or has something to do with not opening doors or splitting the costs of dates?

Bulb - what I am saying is that where I come from it’s a more patriarchal culture, yes, and people on here would no doubt call it sexist and probably backward. Yet there is no way in hell a young man would get away with that. There is no way the mother would side with him. He wouidn’t even try it because he wouid know the pregnant girkfriends’s father and probably brothers : cousins whoever would deal with him. So patriarchal yes, but at least it prevents this kind of slimeball shirking all responsibility for anything and instils a sense of shame in men is that they don’t think this is acceptable.

Yes pa1oma, it's a sexist culture.

Who calls men sexist for opening doors? The only time I have seen that come up is if a man would insist a woman shouldnt open doors.

I dont believe for a second it doesnt happen in your culture. In most cultures these things do happen and they were hushed up. I am was born in Ireland. Lots of babies born out of wedlock, and the girls were sent to visit their 'aunts'. Lots if illegal abortions. My best friend is a Muslim and its known for happening in his community too.

That builder is a cunt. In your sexist society, that you think is great because you do ok out of, there are people who are also counts. Who cheat, abuse, marry women who dont want to marry them etc just like every culture.

And yet you seem to think you live in some sort of nirvana.

The men in your life are sexist. They may not hate women. But you wouldn't excuse casual racism down to culture. While some people may not intend to be racist or hate people of different races, they are racist if displaying casual racism.

The fact that you like your life, is your business. But the fact that you try and cover and pretend it's not really sexist, says you know that deep down. You are happy to accept it, because your life is good. But dont pretend that's the case for all or most women living in sexist cultures.

Again you’re taking 1 and 1 and making 4. I’m not saying I come from a “nirvana.” Far from it! I’m just saying life is not as clear cut as -

All patriarchy = hating women.
Removal of all patriarchal values = better deal for women.

The reality is far more complex. And I used the basic door example because although you and most people would deem that non-sexist, there are plenty on MN who would vehemently disagree - “it’s all stems from misogyny. - all on the same spectrum,” etc etc. Surely you’ve seen those threads?

If men open more doors for women than they do for men does that make them sexist?

Well, I’m not from the UK either, and my home country has frequently been viewed as backward and patriarchal, and I honestly cannot see it as an enviable situation where a woman impregnated by an irresponsible shit has her fate determined by male family members dealing with her impregnator, and where the irresponsible shit in question has to have be prevented from treating her as disposable purely by threats from other men.

It instrumentalists and infantilises the woman at best, and at worst, the shit is forced to marry her for fear the ‘honour’ of the family is compromised. Do her wishes even come into it? And that kind of patriarchal society tends to take an unhealthy interest in regulating the sex lives of women, demonises unmarried mothers etc.

I also can’t help noticing, Pa1oma, that lots of your anecdotes and examples, from the builder to paying on dates to your description of your marriage, involve equating men’s roles primarily with financial provision for women and children.

You describe yourself as a ‘facilitator to a high-earning man’ and you describe the idea of you having an independent career as ‘adding an unnecessary level of stress and complication to our lives’.

I honestly can’t imagine regarding my professional and economic life as just a nuisance to my husband’s career, or some unnecessary extra complication in family life, or as in any way less important than his work. It sounds to me as if your attitude to men and marriage is unbalanced by your association of men with money and responsibility.

Haven’t you ever enjoyed meaningful work outside the home, or viewed yourself as providing for your children?

If you imagine some catastrophe meant that all family money, assets and income sources were abruptly gone forever, and your husband was suddenly unable to work or generate income through illness or disability, what would happen to the dynamics of your household when he was no longer the provider?

All patriarchy = hating women.

I didn't say that. Some Men displaying sexism may not hate women. They are still sexist. The roots of sexism come from misogyny.

Removal of all patriarchal values = better deal for women.

I disagree. Removal of patriarchy doesnt mean you would have to work. And this seems to be what your argument comes down to. Your life is good. So it must be better to keep the patriarchy. Except the majority of women are not married to high earning men, will actually be better off, financially, divorced (as per your examples) and wouldn't never have to work again if they did divorce.

And lots of women dont want that. Not all women want to just facilitate to their husbands career. As you said, in your circles the men would be judged by their women working. Some women will feel like they cant because people will think badly of their husband. So the culture you are in, doesnt work. It works if you are happy with being in traditional roles. But if you decide you want your own career, there is some pressure not to. How can you think that's better.

I don’t think anything is necessarily better or worse. This is my whole point! I’m simply saying it may not be helpful to view the world through one lens and see everything as black and white.

So yes, again as an example, I know people in arranged marriages. Some of these marriages have worked and they’re very happy, where a lot of “free” choice marriages are not and end in divorce. Does that mean I therefore support arranged marriage? No I certainly do not, but if something works for these individuals, then who the hell am I who am I to tell them they should feel they are incorrect or “under thinking.”

There is theory and then there’s reality.

But without patriarchy, they could still have an arranged marriage if they wish. Though the fact that some locked out and was made to marry someone who turned out to be a good life partner, doesnt mean it's ok.

Lots of arranged marriages are miserable. Like alot of free choice marriages are.

You said you dont think getting rid of the patriarchy, would always equal a better deal for women. But failing to actually show why.

The rare occasion you mention of women being better off after divorce, how do you think getting rid of patriarchy would not be better for them. What would they lose exactly?

As has been stated, your builder is a cunt. Your culture wouldn't stop him being a cunt. It may end up that some poor girl ends up having to marry him, this massive cunt

As I said, patriarchy works for you. But not for the majority of women. It works against them. It also works against men who dont fit that mold.

The example of the builder was an example of the type of man who genuinely has no concept whatsoever of financially providing for his child, in any shape or form. You could say that the concept of “providing” and “protecting” a child and mother are values stemming from the patriarchy.

This builder displays the total opposite to “patriarchal” values which, rightly or wrongly (depending on how you look at it), instils these certain values in men.

There are men in both ends if the spectrum. But which one would you prefer you daughter to end up with? The man who spends his life avoiding CSI payments? Or someone with the “sexist” mentality that your child and the mother who may not be able to work because she is caring for your child are your financial responsibility, come what may? Which attitude puts women in the stronger position? In the first they are forced to rely on the state? In the second at least it’s the child’s father?

Or maybe there is a third choice.

A decent bloke who views her as an equal.

Not all men in your culture, step up and are good husbands. Not all men are in any culture. You have picked a good example from your own culture and a bad example from less patriarchal culture and compared the 2.

You seem to have low opinions of men, if you think they must be one or the other of your examples.

The job of a parent is to provide for their child. It's not the job of the man. A culture that says men are the providers financially and women are the carees, is not good for women or men.

As an adult and a parent, providing for your child and supporting your partner is part of your role. If you have agreed, as a couple one is a sahp and provides that way, that's up to you.

But a culture that says men must be the financial provider and if not, you will be looked down on isnt good.

It's worked for you and I hope it continues to do so. But it patriarchy does not work for most women.

I was using extreme examples here obviously. But what I’m trying to say is that the removal of all “patriarchy” will not, in my view, remove inequality. It’s not as simple as that. It might well mean that “sexism” as you define it is just replace it with other types of inequality. You can see this emerging in society already.

You are not talking extremes.

You are talking about one extreme vs your normal life and that of the culture you live in.