Author Green Posted March 12, 2010 Author Posted March 12, 2010 I guess I was just frustrated when I started this thread. I don't know why I always expect things to be fair. Life isn't fair. I like being romantic and getting lost in the moment, I shouldn't let my fears of the future get to me.
New Again Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 In Canada, men have an almost equal number of weeks for paternity leave. Most turn it down, so the woman absorbs the additional weeks into her maternity leave. Some countries are so incredibly far ahead of the US in regards to things like this...years ago I read about this kind of thing in a European country...can't remember which right now, but I believe it was a Scandanavian country.
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Some countries are so incredibly far ahead of the US in regards to things like this...years ago I read about this kind of thing in a European country...can't remember which right now, but I believe it was a Scandanavian country.Take a look at the charts in this wiki link. Even many African countries have pat leave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
Taramere Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 (edited) I would think that as with so many other situations, the most demanding and assertive party in the marriage is the one who gets the most benefits during the marriage. They're also the one who is most likely to end up being served with a divorce writ. I don't suppose there are many people wish to wake up to the sight of Management's slumbering body every morning, and get that sense of being in the office before they've even had a chance to crawl out of bed and have their first coffee of the day. Addendum....before any resident members of the Angry Men's Movement leap at my throat. This can apply to women as well as men. A female acquaintance of mine still can't understand why her ex husband doesn't realise he'll never get better than her. However, she's a controlling person...with her sisters, her mother, her friends, everyone really. I can recall that throughout their marriage, she always carried a self congratulatory air of being the alpha half of the couple. Edited March 12, 2010 by Taramere
Ross PK Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The wedding day does seem like it's mainly a woman's thing really. As for marriage in general, that too seems like it's mainly for women, but not as much as the wedding day.
blind_otter Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I'm a woman and I sure hope it's not a girl thing! If that's the case, we will all have to become lesbians Green, what about marriage seems to favor women to you? I find this black and white thinking to be absurd. Oh woe is me, I have a vagina and must legally contract a penis to be bound to my vagina, whether or not I actually indulge in sexual intercourse with said penis. You can live and have relationships and sex with men, and not get married. You can even - GASP - have children! Apparently most unmarried women are under the assumption that they will be old and lonely, or wither up and die, if they don't wear a big puffy white dress and get a lot of presents and spend the equivalent of the cost of a new car on a single day. BLECH. I've been married. I had the big white wedding. It was not worth it. Marriage does nothing to a relationship. It does not magically grant some kind of endurance to the couple, or endow their relationship with a vague ability to "withstand the test of time." The divorce rate is clearly contradictory to that line of thinking. And children? Well, I've seen a man leave his wife and 6 month old daughter for another woman, so it's not like being married can protect you from infidelity, STDs, or loneliness. What is the point?
meerkat stew Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Some countries are so incredibly far ahead of the US in regards to things like this... Or behind, depending on whether one believes in and subscribes to good, or in evil ideologies. Paid maternity leave is welfare. Welfare is socialism. There is no need for any centralized social engineering to maintain a healthy birthrate in any country I'm aware of. It is pure political manipulation and redistribution of wealth. Is marriage only for women? Don't know, but have never heard a wedding day described as "his" or "their" big day, only "her" big day. Government, though, at least in the U.S., is currently only for women.
grogster Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 (edited) Is marriage mostly for the sake of women? It some times seems like men benefit more from just dating. These days you might even be expected to help pay for the wedding as well as an expensive ring. I personally do want to get married one day, but it some times seems like a one sided thing in favor of women. As opposed to the dating model which doesn’t sway the power. As for dating, middle-aged women tell me about their online dating experiences where most attractive men want to serially date while the women are looking for that perfect soulmate with whom they can bond for what's left of their lives. There's a clash of expectations. As for weddings, my 26 year old niece is getting married this summer and listening to her (mostly female) friends talk, the wedding is for the bride while the groom is an afterthought--a prop. Weddings today embody first level gender narcissism seasoned with adroit marketing and peer group pressure (keeping up with one's bridezilla frinds). The Wedding-Industrial Complex is all the rage. As for marriage, it lasts for some and not for others. It's great for raising kids but not for whetting one's sexual appetite. Marriage domesticates the id--at least for awhile. Edited March 12, 2010 by grogster
stillafool Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I find this black and white thinking to be absurd. Oh woe is me, I have a vagina and must legally contract a penis to be bound to my vagina, whether or not I actually indulge in sexual intercourse with said penis. You can live and have relationships and sex with men, and not get married. You can even - GASP - have children! Apparently most unmarried women are under the assumption that they will be old and lonely, or wither up and die, if they don't wear a big puffy white dress and get a lot of presents and spend the equivalent of the cost of a new car on a single day. BLECH. I've been married. I had the big white wedding. It was not worth it. Marriage does nothing to a relationship. It does not magically grant some kind of endurance to the couple, or endow their relationship with a vague ability to "withstand the test of time." The divorce rate is clearly contradictory to that line of thinking. And children? Well, I've seen a man leave his wife and 6 month old daughter for another woman, so it's not like being married can protect you from infidelity, STDs, or loneliness. What is the point? I absolutely agree with this even though I am married. I think more young women should consider the above before they go begging "why won't he marry me?"
blind_otter Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 what if there were no marriage? What if people just partnered up with someone that they wanted to be with, and stayed with them, for no other reason - other than that they want to stay. What if we all just had a big fun party when people decided to "step over that threshold" - and that was it? Would the world end? Would society collapse? Would our tax system be terminally befuddled?
carhill Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I was cognizant of the significant legal, financial and social considerations of signing a marriage license with the intention of forming a family and found them to be acceptable and advantageous to what I wanted. Spending a few bucks and signing one simple document, under current societal law and convention, conferred sweeping rights and responsibilities I would not have enjoyed as a single, committed, non-married person. We could have very well contracted and legally established most or all of the legal and financial stuff and ignored social conventions (or not found value in them) but chose to follow the marital path. From the 'wedding' standpoint, I can see how marriage could be perceived to be only for women. Men seem like an afterthought. Our wedding wasn't like that, but I accept that many are. Marriage, though, is for both individuals, IMO. Both gain from the relationship. I can say that even going through a divorce. I know what I gained. It wasn't inconsequential. Had we had children, that gain would have been more pronounced. Had we not been married, IMO, neither of us would've grown as much as we did. It would've been too easy to quit. Even with endings, there is growth. That's positive
meerkat stew Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Bottom line, what I'm seeing here is a lot of male members who don't really want equality in a marriage, they want to be taken care of, rule the roost, without any effort from themselves. And yet, when you present to them how they do benefit more, they're determined to ignore it. Don't know what thread you are reading to come up with the above, certainly not this one, or perhaps you would cite where men have indicated the above in this thread? Thought not, you made it up.
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 When it comes to the wedding, fiscal responsibility should always be considered. It's one day out of your entire life and while the reception can be fun if you're not stressed to the max, the ceremony is what counts, where you vow before higher powers and loved ones, that you're committed to each other for life. Each couple has to decide whether they feel this ceremony is meaningful to them. If not, they don't get married. If so, they do. But, IMO, I still strongly believe in the institution of marriage and have no regrets about taking the plunge the second time around. As well, without the first time, I wouldn't be with my H. today, which would be a far greater shame.
Stockalone Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Is marriage mostly for the sake of women? It some times seems like men benefit more from just dating. These days you might even be expected to help pay for the wedding as well as an expensive ring. Personally, I think that marriage would benefit me greatly, but I also think that the woman I would marry would benefit also. A team working together can be, and IMO is, the better option compared to trying to achieve the same things alone. So, I really think that marriage can be beneficial for the husband and the wife. It just depends on what each individual wants and needs.
xxoo Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Marriage does nothing to a relationship. It does not magically grant some kind of endurance to the couple, or endow their relationship with a vague ability to "withstand the test of time." The divorce rate is clearly contradictory to that line of thinking. And children? Well, I've seen a man leave his wife and 6 month old daughter for another woman, so it's not like being married can protect you from infidelity, STDs, or loneliness. What is the point? The point is making a public, social promise, surrounded by friends and family that would ideally support you in keeping that promise to each other. Unfortunately, that isn't how most people approach marriage and weddings, either as participant or witness.
blind_otter Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The point is making a public, social promise, surrounded by friends and family that would ideally support you in keeping that promise to each other. Unfortunately, that isn't how most people approach marriage and weddings, either as participant or witness. This explanation is inadequate. Friends and family can't support you in keeping your marital vows. They aren't married to you. Hell, most of the people that get invited to weddings don't even see the couple on a regular basis. Based on my experience, of course. When I got married we had my exH's minister marry us - the one he grew up with, had holiday dinners with, etc. I suppose this guy could count as family and friend. Then the minister got divorced like 5 months after I got married. Made his sermon sound all hollow and dumb.
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 This explanation is inadequate. Friends and family can't support you in keeping your marital vows. They aren't married to you. Hell, most of the people that get invited to weddings don't even see the couple on a regular basis. Based on my experience, of course. When I got married we had my exH's minister marry us - the one he grew up with, had holiday dinners with, etc. I suppose this guy could count as family and friend. Then the minister got divorced like 5 months after I got married. Made his sermon sound all hollow and dumb.I agree that you shouldn't be relying on friends and family to support your marital vows. But loved ones coming to witness vows spoken between two individuals committed to being together for life, is a pretty special moment, for both loved ones, as well as the couple. As for the minister, he's purportedly acting on behalf of a higher power. What he does with his life, doesn't really matter.
silic0ntoad Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I agree that you shouldn't be relying on friends and family to support your marital vows. But loved ones coming to witness vows spoken between two individuals committed to being together for life, is a pretty special moment, for both loved ones, as well as the couple. As for the minister, he's purportedly acting on behalf of a higher power. What he does with his life, doesn't really matter. While I agree with everything stated above, I don't think socially our society is mature enough to handle marriage and it's true meaning, the union of two, thus becoming one. When you grow, I grow. When you stagnate, I stagnate. When you hurt, I hurt. At least, that's what I view marriage as. I mean, I guess I could understand how that "certification" could be important, but, like I said, if 50% is the divorce rate, clearly, half of all people getting married shouldn't, they should grow and mature so they can make the right decisions. ANything less is a wreckless, wanton destruction of family ties, and breaking hearts. It's nothing less then criminal in my mind. I view marriage as a once and done thing... once I get married, that's it. Until I find someone with the same mindset, I'll not bother with it. Until then, who knows?
stillafool Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The point is making a public, social promise, surrounded by friends and family that would ideally support you in keeping that promise to each other. Unfortunately, that isn't how most people approach marriage and weddings, either as participant or witness. I would probably want my friends and family to mind their own business when it comes to my marriage.
Stung Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 My "minister" was my cousin who joined the Universal Life Ministry over the Internet for about $15 USD. While he conducts his life quite successfully and has been happily married for many years, what mattered to me was not the state of his romantic life or his representation of any celestial power, as all parties involved in my wedding were agnostics or atheists. We just wanted to be married by someone who loved us and genuinely wished us and our union well, rather than a stranger. Everything at my casual little outdoors wedding was very personal...and inexpensive . No princess dress, for those of you who believe that's most women's primary marital motivation. I don't know that anyone can answer this for anyone else. I saw reasons to marry that seem valid for me and my husband saw reasons to marry for reasons that seem valid to him, but perhaps they wouldn't resonate strongly with Blind Otter or Green. I do feel that the marriage has added an extra protective layer and a meaningful symbolic element to my partnership with my husband, but I know we had a solid and important partnership before we married as well. I think working as a team can have immeasurable benefits for both parties throughout their lives, but I cheerfully acknowledge that not everybody needs to be married to be a good team. I believe that marriage should be available to any two people who want to take on the responsibility for each other in that way, but I also think a lot of people marry too quickly to people they shouldn't. There are social, emotional, financial, domestic and health benefits to both myself and my husband in our marriage, but we had at least most of those benefits anyway when we became partners. Also, he is the kind of man who prefers intimate relationships to casual dating and he loves and wanted his children so his baseline is different from many of the male posters around here to start with. I guess the hard line is, we do play by some different rules now when it comes to taxes, insurance, financial matters. Some of them are better than they were before, some of them are just...different.
Ms. Joolie Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The benefit of marriage is a relationship; if we see no value in a relationship, than we will get no value from marriage. Relationships between people are, needless to say, the backbone of society. As for a marriage relationship, it is agreed (committed to) that two people will be there for each other. Yes, I know, divorce happens, and the commitment is broken. We don't value commitment much either, it seems. But if we can commit to relationships together, real working relationships, we gain the benefits of having someone (or groups of people) there for us. So the benefit of marriage is a relationship, it is that someone there for you. Men or women who cannot see the value of marriage, cannot see the value of having a partner in life. And that's okay. Living single isn't bad, wrong or worse.... as long as one isn't lonely.
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 While I agree with everything stated above, I don't think socially our society is mature enough to handle marriage and it's true meaning, the union of two, thus becoming one. When you grow, I grow. When you stagnate, I stagnate. When you hurt, I hurt. At least, that's what I view marriage as. I mean, I guess I could understand how that "certification" could be important, but, like I said, if 50% is the divorce rate, clearly, half of all people getting married shouldn't, they should grow and mature so they can make the right decisions. ANything less is a wreckless, wanton destruction of family ties, and breaking hearts. It's nothing less then criminal in my mind. I view marriage as a once and done thing... once I get married, that's it. Until I find someone with the same mindset, I'll not bother with it. Until then, who knows?It's not possible for two people to change at the identical rate and time, in the identical way. This doesn't relate to maturity level. But if this is necessary in order for you to get married, then yes, you're going to have to keep on looking. You have every right to want any kind of marriage. It's finding someone who meets your terms, which might be impossible, based on your wants.
Ms. Joolie Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 what if there were no marriage? What if people just partnered up with someone that they wanted to be with, and stayed with them, for no other reason - other than that they want to stay. What if we all just had a big fun party when people decided to "step over that threshold" - and that was it? Would the world end? Would society collapse? Would our tax system be terminally befuddled? When we declare something about ourselves, it is worth more than if we don't declare it. If I declare that from here on out I am vegan, if that's how I sign my papers, that is who I am. Everyday I write out my name, Ms. Vegan. (lol) This creates that purpose and that intention that I need to live as a vegan. I don't have to declare it, but there is power in that declaration. Declaring that you are committed in marriage to someone gives strength to the relationship. It's also just a basic agreement, that both people are committed to making the relationship work.
Twenty-ten Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Judging by the amount of women whom I've seen make comments in a flaunting matter about getting married, almost like they believe their worth as a human being is only realized once they marry, I would say marriage is for the women. To make themselves feel worthy, from a social stand point. Worthy of what and in who's eyes I'll never understand but yeah, mostly women need the reassurance I think guys can take it either way.
New Again Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Or behind, depending on whether one believes in and subscribes to good, or in evil ideologies. Paid maternity leave is welfare. Welfare is socialism. There is no need for any centralized social engineering to maintain a healthy birthrate in any country I'm aware of. It is pure political manipulation and redistribution of wealth. Is marriage only for women? Don't know, but have never heard a wedding day described as "his" or "their" big day, only "her" big day. Government, though, at least in the U.S., is currently only for women. Do you hate public education too?? Juuuuuust kidding!
Recommended Posts