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?

Honestly, I don't think she's lying.

I'm most definitely not from an evangelical background and always related the expression to a farming context, as I mentioned in a previous post. However, it's not an expression that I hear nowadays - I did hear it a lot in the '60s and '70s (in Fife).

My late husband was from rural Aberdeenshire, and I recall hearing it around there too.

ETA I'd also hear my DH's generation talking about 'getting yoket [sic]' when talking about starting on a task or work.

Aha. I haven't gone insane. I've looked up the online Scots dictionary:

2. tr. or intr. To link, join, unite: (1) specif. in marriage (Ork., Cai., Ags., Per., Ayr. 1974). Rare or obs. in Eng. Hence ill-yokit, ill-matched in marriage (ne.Sc. 1974).Sc. 1765 Corresp. Boswell and Johnston (Walker 1966) 167:
At any rate I shall be in no hurry to yoke as my Father calls it.Lnk. a.1779 D. Graham Writings (1883) II. 13:
Deed Maggy ye'll no be ill youkit wi' him.Sc. 1789 A. Steele Shepherd's Wedding 13:
Commend that lassie for a wife, Wi' her I'd calmly yoke for life.Per. a.1837 R. Nicoll Poems (1877) 199:
We twa are geyan young yet An' if glaikitly we yokit We wad aye be toilin' sair.Abd. 1932 D. Campbell Bamboozled 15:
Meg'll be yokit tae the wrang man.

https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/yoke

Does it really matter whether other people are familiar with it being used in this context?

It's a metaphor.

It doesn't even matter if the OP is coming at it from an evangelical religious perspective. If other people don't share that perspective, they won't be responding to it from that perspective.

We really are going to struggle as a society if people can only only understand metaphors if they are used in agreed and familiar contexts!

It probably is, because AI draws its sources from a vast amount of human-generated content. AI doesn't invent new words or phrases out of the blue; and AI most certainly didn't exist over 400 years ago when this phrase first entered the commonly-understood English vocabulary.

Entered the commonly used English vocabulary as a negative thing if applied to humans

As is your absolute right: nobody should ever be pressured into marrying or getting into a relationship with anybody unless they actively choose to.

I am going to ignore the strange use off yoked, and associated negative Christian fundamentalist connotations...

But of we consider if it's better to have a relationship with someone with whom you are well matched in terms of circumstance, then yes, absolutely. You don't have to be identical, but balanced and reciprocal.

I have a modest income, own my own home, and don't have to worry about an unexpected bill or repair, and can buy anything I need, travel a lot, go to the theatre, can afford to eat out etc etc. It makes sense to be in a relationship with someone with a similar level of security and disposable income. I wouldn't want to be with someone who can never afford to go out, or travel, or lives in unstable housing as we wouldn't be able to lead the same lifestyle. Similarly, I wouldn't be able to afford to do the things someone who has a lot more disposable income than me would be able to do. I can't afford to spend £200 on a theatre ticket or a meal, or stay in luxury spa type hotels every time I go away.

I don't think level of education needs to be exactly the same, especially if you are at doctorate level, as that makes the dating pool small, but certainly matched in terms of general intelligence, moral values, and just engagement with the world.

Hobbies don't have to be identical. You don't have to both love cross-stitch, but it helps if generally they are aligned, e.g one with wanderlust and one who doesn't own a passport are unlikely to be compatible.

Fitness and lifestyle need to be compatible though. A toned size 10 lady with a pilates body or a ripped man who lifts weights at the gym is unlikely to be compatible with someone who is morbidly obese, doesn't exercise and eats take aways all the time. It's not about looks, it's about lifestyle.

It was first commonly used over 400 years ago in the King James Bible, which was translated and produced in England 165 years before the USA even existed as a country.

It's absolutely fine if it's never entered your personal sphere, but it's far from exclusively American religious fundamentalists who know and use the term. You may as well describe eating bread as a thing that is done by American religious fundamentalists, which is true... but they're only a very tiny percentage of all of the people who regularly do so.

“How to derail your own thread by using obscure language”.

Spot on!

@ThisLimeMoose

Would you propose this same philosophy to a man?

Should I urge my sons to only date women who are in the same 'earnings bracket' or have the same earnings potential as they have? Should I advise them to never date a woman with children?

Or does this apply only to women?

yokit tae the wrang man.

That was definitely me! Love the olde language!

I mean it actually means two oxen being equally paired when yoked to the plough. Originally.

It is not a well established expression
don’t be so disingenuous

@ThisLimeMoose
Thanks for your "advice"
Which one assumes you've followed thoroughly yourself
And have therefore met your immaculate match?
But if its a case of not at the moment and you're still available and waiting to be "yoked"
(Such an elegant romantic expression that)
Let the rest of us know when you meet and how it's going for you
With your "never put a foot wrong" perfect partner in tow

What an odd phrase. I did not understand it.
You could have said "women should choose partners who are the same as them" but that just sounds basic.

It was probably much more familiar in the past. We are losing our common literary references (especially biblical ones) which is a shame.

I don’t disagree with your post OP, this is what everyone (women and men) should aspire for in a partner. The only problem is, and like with most posts on MN, it’s very generalised and it’s based on the assumption that the woman possesses those traits herself, and she is well put together as a person. Not every woman is a ‘catch’.

It’s not a popular opinion on here as any criticism of women it’s labelled misogyny a lot of the time, but I don’t defy what I see with my own eyes on a regular basis. I know of many women in real life who are financially irresponsible, lack maturity, are not a reasonable person to deal with, don’t lead ideal lifestyles, lack ambition, and don’t conduct themselves well in general. Do you think men who hold the qualities you’ve mentioned would choose a woman like this if he has choices? When you read posts of women complaining about their partner’s behaviour/life circumstances, there’s every chance they are mirrored in some way. I’m aware there are some instances of unluckiness, where someone who is actually a well rounded person ends up deceived and stuck with someone less than ideal when it’s too late. But in most cases I believe you get what you put out.

As a gym rat, I read “yoked” and thought, yes absolutely both people in the relationship should encourage each others’ gains. Then I realised you weren’t talking about muscles.

Financial stability is not fixed and can be taken away through no fault of our own. I’d be much more concerned with being evenly matched in terms of work ethic. Us both working hard towards shared goals is
much more important than whether we materially contribute a bit more or less. In my relationship we’ve both been primary earner at different times while the other was primary home maker for want of a better term!

I respectfully disagree.

Where were you 20 years ago eh? No use to me now! 😂

If I had my time again I’d so live by this. Love is not enough. And those butterflies are not love either. And if they show you who they are early in and it’s not great - go!! Don’t stick around to try and fix it.

Yes, in the context of being unequally yoked. Most things that are unequal are, naturally, negative.

Just like with oxen, if you yoked a little ox with a big one (or indeed a hard-working one with a lazy one), neither of them would enjoy the experience, and the ploughing wouldn't be very successful.

Really, over 400 years? At what point do you think that Shakespeare will come to be considered an established playwright?!