To think women should prioritise being equally yoked when choosing a partner?

[ThisLimeMoose]

As a woman, I firmly believe that if you don’t have children, you should prioritise dating a man who doesn’t have children. If you’re financially stable, you should be looking for a man who is equally financially stable. The same applies to emotional maturity, ambition, lifestyle and general circumstances.

I think far too many women enter relationships where they’re taking on responsibilities, complications or burdens that they wouldn’t otherwise have, simply because they’ve been encouraged to believe that love should be enough. Stay equally yoked in all things and I genuinely believe you’d avoid a significant proportion of the relationship problems we regularly see discussed on here.

AIBU?

Different race, culture, social class, education, religion, fitness/physique, politics, work

All of those things are superficial. They are not what makes or breaks a marriage. They are not values.
With the possible exception of politics, but even then politics is only a signpost to underlying values and beliefs such as generosity, work ethic, etc.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoked

Hmme, I don't know if I 100% agree. Dh wanted kids and initially i didn't. So i wasn't driving the 'lets have kids convo'. I had no biological urge and my reticence was a lot to do with watching what happened to women post kids (and some shitty family stuff). Becoming the default parent even outside of 'working hours' being marginalised, loosing careers, being financially vulnerable and then often becoming boring to the 'bread winner' as wife and mother roles were less fun than young go getting co-worker. So so so many shitty examples.

What this meant was i stress tested the hell out of all possible scenarios with dh. Asking in detail about how we would deal with x, what would he do in y scenario. I would do this randomly in the moment rather than 'a big planned conversation', so he couldn't rehearse responses. So we'd be in a cafe on a Sunday morning and I'd be like "hey dh, see that young family over there, what do you make of what's going on?". Said mum dad and small kids were having Sunday am brunch, but dad was reading the paper whilst mum was coralling the toddler and five year old and entertaining them whilst trying to respond to husband pontifications on would affairs. I'd ask him what he thought about close family set ups, worst case scenarios etc.

To be fair I did drive him a bit nuts and after a while he would say 'I'm not like that'. But I'd say 'sure babe but there are structural problems that drive some of this shit'. I get maternity of months you get 2 weeks (back in the day). Mums get some support to part time working, dad's (mostly) requests would be dismissed out if hand....
Most people I know did no where near the level of detailed discussion of who would do what, what the career, money, roles etc implications would be for both partners. Most people I know have put more (subsequent) thought into getting a dog than they did having children.
And the only reason I can think of for this is that they really wanted kids. That the biological drive overruled the more practical questions. So so many people then later admit "well it was more me that was driving it". Being a good father and good husband to a fellow parent takes a shit load more stuff than being a good partner. Men who can do that are also kicking the stereotypes, saying fuck you to the patriarchy and not leveraging their sex based privileges. Now everyone tells me how lucky i am to have dh, because you know he's not like that (x,yz thing their dh is crap about). It's a bit of luck but also a lot of 'well fucking show me how 'supportive' your prepared to be then, or I'm off mate'

So can we really really know before kids. No, of course not. But quite a lot of people could test the ground with a lot more vigour....

It's a term used in the US by religious fundamentalists. I haven't heard it used by anyone else in regards to marriage.

Most people I know have put more (subsequent) thought into getting a dog than they did having children.

Too true.

It certainly isn't a well-established expression in this context

I don't know how realistic it is to say people can/should walk away from a love relationship.
I'm not saying that's OK, but that does tend to be how it is.
I have a few friends who had certain things planned or at least dreamed of certain things in life, then met and fell for someone and didn't want to walk away, so have had/are having to rethink and find another way to be happy. I think it's very common.

I'd very much recommend a Christian doesn't marry a non- Christian, it often doesn't go well. Some people also seem to misunderstand yoke and yolk. I don't think pulling together for a common purpose is a bad thing. It doesn't say you are chained together in the Bible.

Mostly, you only get to see who someone really is after you are already in a relationship with them.

People reveal themselves over time, yes, but all too often women disregard early indicators that he’s not aligned. For example the “we’ve been together for 6 weeks and he insists I pay half of absolutely everything”, so it’s reasonable to think he’s not going to support you earning less, or will leave you short in the name of paying your way. Or his communication style differs so I never know where I stand with him, or he prioritised seeing his friends when I needed support at a critical health appointment.

The early days of a relationship are about learning who he is, what he places importance on. Women too often doubt themselves, or accept behaviours that aren’t inherently wrong, but don’t align with how she connects with others or wants to be treated. You don’t wake up one morning “in a relationship” and it’s a done deal - it’s a gradual process and part of that process should be testing alignment of values, world view and character.

The premise is sound as a starting point for dating - to not take on a project thinking you can change them - but I'd question sticking firm to it in the long-term.

Some of those are not things you can determine for life. People's circumstances change, their finances change, their ambition changes, the desires for their lifestyle change. Continuing compatibility often comes through being able to discuss those things to an agreement to work towards rather than a starting point or current point.

Even emotional maturity, which I can agree should have a shared baseline to start with, can fluctuate with grief, stress, and other circumstance changes, and being able to talk it out even when an emotional mess has worked far more than the idea of needing to remain emotionally mature or being as emotionally as my husband who has 95%+ of the time has been far more emotionally mature than me.

Yes, equally yoked. It’s a fairly well-established expression meaning compatible or appropriately matched. What’s confusing about it?

It's confusing because it's not well-established in that way or any secular way. It's referring to Bible references about believers not marrying nonbelievers and well-established to be discussing that or not marrying those whose devotion to God is far weaker and/or instable. There is very common Christian advice to women to not date a man that they'll need to drag to church.

In recent years, it's been moved to discuss having similar views on major life decisions like raising children, handling finances, to be pulling together in the same direction as yoked oxen would, but it's still through the lens often used by certain American Christian evangelical groups - who are more likely to be Christian nationalists - that all of those should be in a particular Biblical bend.

Even in the attempts to secularise it where it's more shared worldview or goals -- those often change over the lifetime. I'm an entirely different faith, my worldview has drastically changed, and many of the goals I had when I was dating many years ago I've chosen to put down. That's part of life. Part of a solid marriage is being able to work through that as people change, not keeping things entirely equal between spouses.

The only other point I'd make - which was visible at the get-go and which we should have given more consideration to - is that if you are committed to living in the UK maybe don't marry a Russian/Australian/Japanese/Canadian person with strong ties back home. But I'm sure younger me wouldn't have listened anyway.

Its one view.

But the other is that two people of very similar outlook have limited growth space.

Put a financially stable and an unstable person together and you could both learn from each other, for instance.

Similarly the at-home and gregarious personalities.

It’s more about the love, initially. I think if you’re a well educated woman who has a good job then you’re more likely to be around, meeting etc people of a similar ilk, so often it’s quite a natural situation. I met my DH at university, we’ve had different degrees and I’ve always earned more but that’s fine, we can talk about things on a similar level, we share the money and house chores etc and looking after our children. I’ve usually earned getting on for double what he earns, but that’s ok, not a big issue IMO.
saying that, before university I dated a few guys who had jobs that didn’t require much training / didn’t go to university, and I know I’d have struggled to find common interests / ability to have conversations about similar interests as we really didn’t have any

No, because we're not cattle. Haven't you ever heard of love?

I don't necessarily disagree with you but met and fell for someone and didn't want to walk away, so have had/are having to rethink and find another way to be happy is the choice.

No. No one on here has ever heard of love 🙄

People can fall in love with anyone at any time. That doesn't mean they have to build or share a life or have children with them. That's just an odd romantic notion along with some people assuming that the more difficult and incompatible a relationship is the more it was 'meant to be'.

I can't think of many healthy relationships that are sustained by, "But I love him..." and nothing else.

There's nothing more likely to quash any feelings of love for me than having to drag someone along with me or tie myself up in knots to accept someone because their values don't align with mine etc.

That’s an interesting opinion. I would say that they are huge differences and “work ethic”and “generosity” are rather tied to the descriptors I mentioned. As I said imo you definitely don’t need some weird matchy-matchy spouse. In my experience.

Going to university / being intelligent has no correlation to sharing money and household chores. Sounds like you got lucky there.

Nothing to do with luck — surely that poster just declined to be in relationships with people who laboured under the delusion that people with vaginas have a natural affinity for childcare and housework. I was very clear even in my university days that I wouldn’t be stepping back from my career under any circumstances, and that cooking and housework weren’t priorities.

If you're suggesting people choose partners who have a similar outlook and similar values, I'd have said it was bleeding obvious. Given some of the threads on mumsnet, not everyone got that memo. I think some people (men and women) are just desperate to be in a relationship.

Never herd the term 'yoke' used regarding relationships and I'm pretty well read.

Exactly.

I was around 15 when I told my mum and her friend I had no.intention of ironing a man's.clothes, doing a man's laundry or cooking a man's food etc.

Be an equal and active part in the household? yes. But do it all/be responsible for organising it because I was a girl? No.

I still remember how they looked at each other and laughed in that way adults do when children have innocently said something amusing because they dont know any better yet.

And, yet, here I am at 52. The housework has never been my responsibility, nor have I ever written a list for a man, not have I ever had to 'train' one or teach one how to use the washing machine, nor been at the end of the phone if he goes shopping in case he can't find something or choose between two options, nor packed for one to go on holiday etc. All things I know a lot of women do from MN.

No, while it's important to discuss things, it can be great when you have very different types of jobs (pay/type etc) and when one partner is very strong in one area, and the other not. Both of you are likely to change and develop a lot as life goes on anyway.
Same with friends-mixing with people who are very different can be a positive thing.

Yuck. I’m originally from that evangelical world; the OP is lying about not meaning it in a religious context. She’s trying to get tradwife dogma in through the back door. But she’s not clever enough.

Curious that age and physical attractiveness are not on the list.

Despite the somewhat odd terminology, I don't disagree that life is likely to be easier if you marry someone who has the same values as you, considers the same things to be important, has a similar cultural background (in the wider sense, not the sense of where your Grandparents were born), and is not to dissimilar to you in terms of levels of education and also what financial position your are both in BUT life isn't so black and white as that.

You fall for the person you fall for.
But also people change.

I do think it makes a LOT of sense to really get to know a person before you make any commitment to them - be tht moving in, buying property, getting married, but especially having dc with them. You need to know how they react / cope / respond when things aren't going well. How you resolve things when you disagree, and so forth. I do think far too many people rush into things without going through the 'getting to know one another' time.

That obviously applies to men, as well as women.