Marriage in 2009? What is going on!

[Sarabande]

Yes, of course. But again, does this point us to anything, when peoples’ natural capabilities and their inclinations get “out of sync”?

I honestly don’t know. Perhaps we can say because of breakthroughs and improvements in science and medicine, along with an increase in education has brought us to where we are as a society. For example, It was extremely important in the past (even if you weren’t Catholic) to have as many children as possible, mainly because over half the children you might have would die before they reached adulthood. It wasn’t unusual if you had 6 children and maybe one or two would reach adulthood. And this went on until the mid-20th century. In the farming community where I spent half my childhood, my father remembers how various families in that area buried many children mainly because of a lack of medical care. I can walk in the graveyard of the church up there and see all the little graves. Although children are still loved and cherished today, I think families in the past cherished their babies and children even more so because of the fear of death looming at the door.

And the other fact is that people lived much shorter lives. I believe the average lifespan for man in the 18th century was in his 30s. We think how short of a life Mozart lived since he died at the age of 36, but that actually wasn’t unusual. 40s was considered very old and that it was a blessing they were still living, and if you passed your 40s and into your 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. that was a miracle. So, things had to be faster. People had to grow up faster, start families sooner. If you didn’t, you might miss out on life. And it seemed that humans’ bodies were made to mimic that way of life.

In terms of education, people didn’t have to go to high school or university in order to make a living. Girls and young women were lucky if they were even taught to read and write. Most were reared to know how to cook, sew and clean and be good mothers. If you were an aristocrat or of royal/noble blood, you might have some education (although even wealthy men didn’t even get much of an education), but you were often very easily married off at the age of 11 or 12 or when you began to menstruate to some prince or duke in another part of the world you’ve never seen.

And often young girls would marry older men who were already established in life in order to support them. Men, if they aren’t infertile, can continue to produce good sperm until they die. They marry young, very fertile girls and it is very easy to start producing children. He might pass away by the time she was 20 or so (if she hasn’t died in childbirth - many men went through at least two wives) and she is still young enough to marry again and have more children.

I think education is a very valuable gift any person should have. (I honestly would not have wanted to be stuck in that kind of society where I’d see my brother be educated and me never learning how to read or write.) But I think in the way that education is administered today, it could have somewhat of an effect on society, especially in terms of marriage and children. The idea that everyone has to go to college and get a degree in order to have a job which pays a livable wage is something I have not agreed with since being in college. There are many people who don’t want to be there and don’t care about higher learning and intellectual enhancement. They just want that piece of paper to make money. There isn’t anything wrong with that, per say, but why should they be forced to pay thousands of dollars to earn a degree which could easily be learned through apprenticeships? And now, many positions require people to have their masters degrees and PhDs. An undergrad degree is no longer enough. When will it end?

So, when people could start marriages and families right out of high school not even 20-30 years ago, today, young adults are basically forced to hold off until they are finished their college educations.

Then there is the question of materialism. Look at how our society’s standard of living has grown exponentially. Houses continue to get larger and larger (when people are having less and less children), people are buying and owning more things than ever before, etc. The cost of living is extremely high so that it makes it very difficult for a family who wants to have one parent at home with the children. Both parents are thus forced to work just to survive. Although, I guess that isn’t any different from the past. My grandfather worked 2-3 jobs to support 6 children and a wife. He didn’t want my grandmother to have to work, so he sacrificed. They lived extremely simple lives and very frugally. He was a blue-collar worker and felt like a failure if my grandmother had to work since it was rare that married women would work back then. Today, though, I think many wives wouldn’t want to put their husbands through work like that especially now that they are often times equally educated and can get a good job.

Then you have families who have spent way beyond their means and thus dug their own graves in terms of being both forced to work in order to make ends meet. They don’t want to give up anything. They want their cake and eat it too. And I think, too, there is this expectation, especially among Americans, that your children have to do better in life than you did. Often times, that is meant financially and education-wise. There is pressure on young adults today that they have to have a huge house and lots of things.

And then, so many parents and grandparents are constantly telling their married children, “Don’t have kids right away. Enjoy yourselves because once you have children, you won’t be able to do anything or afford anything.” and “You can barely support yourselves now. How do you think you’ll be able to support a child. They’re money drains.” Although they mean well, they are really frightening their children from wanting to start a family immediately, even if that may be what they truly want. They respect their family and their advice and many times will look to them for help in these issues.

So, this kind of thing perpetuates a practice of holding off on marriage and even on children.

 

[whatevergirl]

I meant the army literally…

Oh. Oops.

 

[Sillara]

If you’re sane, you aren’t a 50/50 compromiser, aren’t politically liberal and ethically rights-based, you’re just not gonna have it with people, no matter what your people skills are. Most people just can’t navigate an ethical system that is not based on individual rights, most people don’t care to create value instead of splitting the cake, they think an inch more for you is an inch less for them, they’re indoctrinated with political correctness and corporate propaganda. Sigh. Just why don’t I have the health to join the army?

Well, I’m so old-fashioned that I’m nearer the Medieval Model in terms of my worldview than the modern view of “rights”.

Marriage is for life, no matter what.

ABC is right out. I’m having none of it.

The point of life is not happiness. The point of life is learning to be good. (By which I mean all that is stated and implied in the Catholic ideal: sainthood.)

Yes, I’m quirky. I like things many girls don’t, up to and including sci-fi, fantasy, CRPGs, and other things of that nature. I read history for fun. The First Crusade is what I’m interested in lately (interested enough to set my current novel-in-progress in the period). I also think that, if possible, I ought to stay home with the children, and, no, I don’t consider my MA in Shakespeare to be wasted by doing that.

There are girls out there, chevalier, girls of the kind you want and need. You just have to look for them. (Or wait 'til my daughters grow up. The oldest is discerning a vocation to the religious life, though, so you’d have to wait for the second one. )

On the other hand, perhaps you have a different vocation yourself?

 

[Sarabande]

I read history for fun. The First Crusade is what I’m interested in lately (interested enough to set my current novel-in-progress in the period).

Oooo… have you read “The First Crusade - A New History - The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam” by Thomas Asbridge? My husband is also very interested in the Crusades as well, and this was the first book he read on it which got him hooked. I’m more interested in Tudor history and stories of historical women throughout the centuries. If you haven’t already, I suggest “Eleanor of Aquitaine - A Life” by Alison Weir. I became interested in her after I saw “Lion in the Winter”. My husband bought me the book for Christmas. It’s very interesting and engaging. It’s amazing how she travelled to Jerusalem during the Crusades. Funny you say that you read history for fun. When I was reading the Elinor of Aquitaine book, these two middle-aged women interrupted me and asked me why I was reading that book. They apparently were flabberghasted that I was reading that. I said, “Because I’m really interested in history.” They asked me what it was about. When I told them, one of the ladies said, “Gosh that sounds like a boring college text book. I thought you were reading it for school.” It really isn’t boring at all, but I’m a dork, too. (I like to dress up in frumpy 18th c. camp follower clothes and reenact the American Revolution with my husband with our reenactment group. If that is not a “dorky” thing to do, I don’t know what is. But we love it! )

Anyway, sorry to get off topic. I get excited when I meet people who like similar things.

 

[Ailina]

I keep running into women who are divorced. With many, I ask what led to it, and it seems like they opted out due to having issues that could have been worked out, that they are simply not willing to work through the hardships, like the vow they took was only temporary and quite conditional.

These times we live in, total contrast with the trends as to how it should be. I feel like an outsider here, thankfully so to a degree, yet tread through muddy waters on the dating scene when it comes down to it. I’ve never been married and this is entirely because I believe it’s something you only do for life. I take it very seriously, so sharp contrast, and I have no desire to get involved with someone that’s taken it so lightly in the past.

Heh, I’m one of those divorced women. I thought marriage was for life, but my ex made marital conditions so difficult as to make it impossible to live with. I told him that I could not live that way, and that he had to make a choice. In our no-fault part of the country, he chose to leave. And then he filed for divorce. So now I am one of “those” divorcees. Never ever did I think I would find myself here, but there you go. Never say never.

I facilitate a support group for separated and divorced people through my church. There is a broad range of people who divorce, from young to old, and all of them hurting, angry and bewildered. The current group mostly consists of people who have been married for more than 16 years, people who have toughed it out in some very difficult situations. Some of those people should have left their marriages years ago, because things never ever got better for them, but usually much worse. I hate to say it, but sometimes people should not stay together, particularly when unresolved addictions are present.

In the end, I think none of us should be judging, because you would be shocked at what goes on behind closed doors. You don’t usually hear the whole sordid details because that is private and none of your business.

 

[prodigalson12]

Heh, I’m one of those divorced women. I thought marriage was for life, but my ex made marital conditions so difficult as to make it impossible to live with. I told him that I could not live that way, and that he had to make a choice. In our no-fault part of the country, he chose to leave. And then he filed for divorce. So now I am one of “those” divorcees. Never ever did I think I would find myself here, but there you go. Never say never.

I facilitate a support group for separated and divorced people through my church. There is a broad range of people who divorce, from young to old, and all of them hurting, angry and bewildered. The current group mostly consists of people who have been married for more than 16 years, people who have toughed it out in some very difficult situations. Some of those people should have left their marriages years ago, because things never ever got better for them, but usually much worse. I hate to say it, but sometimes people should not stay together, particularly when unresolved addictions are present.

In the end, I think none of us should be judging, because you would be shocked at what goes on behind closed doors. You don’t usually hear the whole sordid details because that is private and none of your business.

You know, I think your post should have me define something along my personal view of valid reasons for a divorce, things I don’t hold against these people that are forced to leave their spouse. Biblically, sexual immorality, this of course includes a spouse that is cheating, it’s not to say you should not try to work it out, but I know once that bond is broken, it’s very hard to impossible to get it back, that same reason covers a vast amount of sordid elements I care not to discuss here, but all valid for a divorce non the less. Another is physical abuse, there is zero excuse for it ever. I know, the bible doesn’t cover that element directly, so I have to elaborate it here with mine. There are many ways to discuss differences, there is no reason to get violent over it and I’m talking about both sexes here so just know, nobody is blameless here…

My stance here outside of what I just described, their husband/wife have some issues to work out, well, this is going to take some real work to keep this marriage together, ohh look, the grass is greener over there… That’s what I’m facing predominantly, why on earth would I want to be with someone that doesn’t stand beside you during tribulation, why inddeed? Take note of the vows themselves, they themselves speak well unto themselves within the obligation and contract.

 

[Sillara]

Oooo… have you read “The First Crusade - A New History - The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam” by Thomas Asbridge? My husband is also very interested in the Crusades as well, and this was the first book he read on it which got him hooked. I’m more interested in Tudor history and stories of historical women throughout the centuries. If you haven’t already, I suggest “Eleanor of Aquitaine - A Life” by Alison Weir. I became interested in her after I saw “Lion in the Winter”. My husband bought me the book for Christmas. It’s very interesting and engaging. It’s amazing how she travelled to Jerusalem during the Crusades. Funny you say that you read history for fun. When I was reading the Elinor of Aquitaine book, these two middle-aged women interrupted me and asked me why I was reading that book. They apparently were flabberghasted that I was reading that. I said, “Because I’m really interested in history.” They asked me what it was about. When I told them, one of the ladies said, “Gosh that sounds like a boring college text book. I thought you were reading it for school.” It really isn’t boring at all, but I’m a dork, too. (I like to dress up in frumpy 18th c. camp follower clothes and reenact the American Revolution with my husband with our reenactment group. If that is not a “dorky” thing to do, I don’t know what is. But we love it! )

Anyway, sorry to get off topic. I get excited when I meet people who like similar things.

Ok, not the Thomas Asbridge one. I haven’t read that. I’ve been reading Regine Pernoud’s The Crusaders. Regine Pernoud was an archivist at the French National Archives. She was absolutely brilliant!

It’s odd you should mention Tudor history and Alison Weir. Eleanor of Aquitaine is one of hers that I don’t have. I have The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Queen Isabella (about the life of the wife of Edward II), The Wars of the Roses, The Children of Henry VIII, and even her historical fiction Innocent Traitor about Lady Jane Grey.

Umm, there’s a lot I could say about this stuff. Maybe you could PM me? My husband loves history, too.

To be on-topic:

One of my friends divorced due to adultery on his wife’s part. I cannot blame him. As a then-Protestant, I thought that he was even justified in remarrying. I regret now that I ever encouraged him in his “moving on” to find a new wife. I do realize, however, that he was no longer obligated to continue to live with his wife. It is in the remarriage that he would have difficulty.

I sympathize greatly with those who are abandoned or those who have no choice but flee for their own safety. It is in the remarriage that there is likely to be an issue. After all, most marriages ought to be valid. Invalid marriages are rare.

 

[Ridgerunner]

While I agree with most of what you said, allow me to dissent in part.
It was extremely important in the past (even if you weren’t Catholic) to have as many children as possible, mainly because over half the children you might have would die before they reached adulthood. ** Perhaps so, and that would have been matching the fertility to the need. But today, there is no need to cause the population to collapse. Something else is at work.**

And the other fact is that people lived much shorter lives. I believe the average lifespan for man in the 18th century was in his 30s. ** Yet, the Bible tells us each man has a lifetime of “three score and ten”, not far from what it is today. I think the “shorter lives” was an average which was lowered by early death from many causes; war and famine being not the least among them. But the “normal human life span” was very little different from what it is today, and if you read the histories of various historical figures, you see that it was, unless cut off early by war, famine, assassination or something like plague. The real difference now is that MORE people live to achieve a “normal life span” than was previously the case.**

In terms of education, people didn’t have to go to high school or university in order to make a living. Girls and young women were lucky if they were even taught to read and write. Most were reared to know how to cook, sew and clean and be good mothers. If you were an aristocrat or of royal/noble blood, you might have some education I’m not sure what period you’re talking about, but certainly in this country, from about the mid 19th century on, it was the reverse. If you were an aristocrat, your education was on “womanly skills” (embroidery, etc), protocol and “good manners”. If you were not, your education was on very practical things.

And often young girls would marry older men who were already established in life in order to support them. Men, if they aren’t infertile, can continue to produce good sperm until they die. They marry young, very fertile girls ** I don’t know that you can make a generalization about that. Peasants of both sexes married early during most of history. Aristocrats often at least became “betrothed” early. Others often deferred marriage for a variety of reasons. For example, I recall reading that after the Potato Famine in Ireland, the average age of marriage for men had advanced ten years from what it was before the famine. Men simply couldn’t support families during those times, knew it, and didn’t marry until much later, if they did at all.**

I think education is a very valuable gift any person should have. (I honestly would not have wanted to be stuck in that kind of society where I’d see my brother be educated and me never learning how to read or write.) But I think in the way that education is administered today, it could have somewhat of an effect on society, especially in terms of marriage and children. The idea that everyone has to go to college and get a degree in order to have a job which pays a livable wage is something I have not agreed with since being in college. There are many people who don’t want to be there and don’t care about higher learning and intellectual enhancement. They just want that piece of paper to make money. There isn’t anything wrong with that, per say, but why should they be forced to pay thousands of dollars to earn a degree which could easily be learned through apprenticeships? And now, many positions require people to have their masters degrees and PhDs. An undergrad degree is no longer enough. When will it end? ** I don’t know, but a whole lot of them would be better off going to “Walmart University”. Yes, there really is one, but it teaches marketing skills, HR skills, management skills, etc. Very effective too, even if you don’t become a “Walmart lifer”. A neighbor of mine is an exotic metals welder and makes greatly more money than the average college graduate. Computer programers at a software company here start at $70,000/year with an associate’s degree in programming.**

So, when people could start marriages and families right out of high school not even 20-30 years ago, today, young adults are basically forced to hold off until they are finished their college educations. ** But they’re still only 22 or 23 at that point.**

Then there is the question of materialism. Look at how our society’s standard of living has grown exponentially. Houses continue to get larger and larger (when people are having less and less children), people are buying and owning more things than ever before, etc. The cost of living is extremely high so that it makes it very difficult for a family who wants to have one parent at home with the children. Both parents are thus forced to work just to survive. . ** For whatever reason, I come from a long line of working women who still had sizeable families. But I think you have touched on a part of the story. Peoples’ material expectations are, in my opinion, unreasonably high, which is also why people in this country have horribly high debt levels.**

Then you have families who have spent way beyond their means and thus dug their own graves in terms of being both forced to work in order to make ends meet. They don’t want to give up anything. They want their cake and eat it too. And I think, too, there is this expectation, especially among Americans, that your children have to do better in life than you did. Often times, that is meant financially and education-wise. There is pressure on young adults today that they have to have a huge house and lots of things. ** Agreed. See above.**

And then, so many parents and grandparents are constantly telling their married children, “Don’t have kids right away. Enjoy yourselves because once you have children, you won’t be able to do anything or afford anything.” and "You can barely support yourselves now. How do you think you’ll be able to support a child. ** My guess is that these may be the same kinds of parents who buy $100,000 RVs at retirement and gleefully put those stickers reading “I’m spending my childrens’ inheritance” on the bumper. In my view, we have a number of things backward in this society. At one time, older people were both the source of “seed money” for young families and were the child care alternatives as well. I never said this situation is anything but “multi-generational”, and I think it is.**

So, this kind of thing perpetuates a practice of holding off on marriage and even on children.

Pardon my editing your post, but the result, after the responses, was so long, I had to do it.

 

[AnotherChance]

IAnd then, so many parents and grandparents are constantly telling their married children, “Don’t have kids right away. Enjoy yourselves because once you have children, you won’t be able to do anything or afford anything.” and “You can barely support yourselves now. How do you think you’ll be able to support a child. They’re money drains.” Although they mean well, they are really frightening their children from wanting to start a family immediately, even if that may be what they truly want. They respect their family and their advice and many times will look to them for help in these issues.

So, this kind of thing perpetuates a practice of holding off on marriage and even on children.

It’s funny that you say this. When we just announced the impending arrival of #4, my father-in-law’s response was “So did you win the lottery?”, implying that how could we possibly “afford” another one. This kind of attitude of his family used to really bother me, and in fact resulted in us waiting almost five months to tell them (to prevent them from involuntarily signing me up for Weight Watchers ). But surprisingly, this time it didn’t bother me. I just feel sorry for them, if they really see children as red ink on a budget. I am happy that my husband and I are on the same page and know we will find a way to manage all of God’s blessings. I also know our children will never feel like they have to fear a negative reaction from us when they announce in the future that we can expect more grandchildren. I agree that this negative attitude toward children is prevalent, but I hope that more families just decide to ignore the attitude and do what God wants instead.

 

[Sarabande]

Perhaps so, and that would have been matching the fertility to the need. But today, there is no need to cause the population to collapse. Something else is at work.

I agree with you on that. But I think the decrease in infant mortality and early death has had some part in the way we look at family size today.

Yet, the Bible tells us each man has a lifetime of “three score and ten”, not far from what it is today. I think the “shorter lives” was an average which was lowered by early death from many causes; war and famine being not the least among them. But the “normal human life span” was very little different from what it is today, and if you read the histories of various historical figures, you see that it was, unless cut off early by war, famine, assassination or something like plague. The real difference now is that MORE people live to achieve a “normal life span” than was previously the case.

I’m a history nut, so I do read a lot of history and in particular of individual people. What you say is true to a point, but I’ve also read enough history about the lives of average people to know that the majority didn’t live the “normal life span”. There are actual quotes of people I’ve read from early centuries talking about an old man or woman who was in their 30s and 40s. So, although there were a few who made it to the “normal life span”, that was the average age to die. The common problems that could be easily remedied today could be a death sentence for people in the past. It is true that more people live to achieve that “normal life span” today, but it is overwhelmingly more so than previously. My father is a physician and he can even see a difference in the life span of people today from over 30 years ago when he first started his practice. People eat better and live better and have better medicine than in the past.

I don’t know that you can make a generalization about that. Peasants of both sexes married early during most of history.

I think I can generalise on this a bit. Of course there are exceptions throughout history. And of course, it is true that peasants would marry early. But for higher classes from the middle class (when there was a middle class) to upper class, aristrocrats etc., it was often the case that young girls (15-18) married older men. Older men in those times could be mean in their late 20s, 30s, 40s and so forth.

Aristocrats often at least became “betrothed” early.

That is true. My grandmother was betrothed to a wealthy business man but eloped with a “peasant farmer” at the age of 14 and gave up her wealth since her father disowned her. Often times, they were betrothed as babies and in earlier times at a certain age the girls were sent to live in the nation and country where they would be married and live. This happened to Catherine of Aragon when she was betrothed to the older brother of Henry VIII. Here she learned English and grew to be a mother figure to Henry. When his older brother died shortly after the marriage, Henry VII’s father couldn’t decide what to do with her - send her back or keep her in England. They then made another plan to marry her to Henry who at the time was very eager to do this. He loved her and cared for her like a mother because she was good to him. In earlier centuries, it wasn’t unusual to send your daughter to be married at 11 or 12 as they were looked at as women at that point and old enough to bear children. Proxy marriages were also not uncommon among nobility. One such case was the marriage between Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. They had that first, then had another wedding when she came to France at 15.

Others often deferred marriage for a variety of reasons. For example, I recall reading that after the Potato Famine in Ireland, the average age of marriage for men had advanced ten years from what it was before the famine.Men simply couldn’t support families during those times, knew it, and didn’t marry until much later, if they did at all.

Of course. That’s my whole point. Men didn’t marry until they were ready to properly support a wife and they married younger women for various reasons.

I’m not sure what period you’re talking about, but certainly in this country, from about the mid 19th century on, it was the reverse. If you were an aristocrat, your education was on “womanly skills” (embroidery, etc), protocol and “good manners”. If you were not, your education was on very practical things.

I was actually speaking of earlier centuries. It was the end of the 18th and into and throughout 19th century when education became more accessible to a vast number of people, including women. But at the same time, those upper class 19th century women, were not only educated in the womanly skills, but also on reading and writing and arithmetic - same as someone from a lower class. Prior to that it was very rare for people of both sexes to receive much of an education at all. St. Thomas Moore was actually one who really focused on the women in his family to be educated. He raised his daughter with an education that a man of his class would receive, being literate, taught in philosophy, Latin, Greek, etc. He tried teaching his wife, but she just couldn’t learn. The majority of women of that time from all ranks were pretty much illiterate. Elizabeth I and Mary I both had excellent educations fit for a man of the time due to their father also believing that an education for the daughters of a king (whether or not they were pronounced bastard in one breath and legitimate in another) was important. But again, that was rare.

I don’t know, but a whole lot of them would be better off going to “Walmart University”. Yes, there really is one, but it teaches marketing skills, HR skills, management skills, etc. Very effective too, even if you don’t become a “Walmart lifer”. A neighbor of mine is an exotic metals welder and makes greatly more money than the average college graduate. Computer programers at a software company here start at $70,000/year with an associate’s degree in programming.

I agree with you.

 

[Sarabande]

But they’re still only 22 or 23 at that point.

That’s old by some standards, but again, many of my peers and friends went on to receive masters degrees (including my husband) and a couple PhDs. They put marriage on hold because of schooling. And even if they don’t go on to receive higher degrees, some are encouraged to try to pay off more of their student loans before getting married.

For whatever reason, I come from a long line of working women who still had sizeable families. But I think you have touched on a part of the story. Peoples’ material expectations are, in my opinion, unreasonably high, which is also why people in this country have horribly high debt levels.

I agree.

My guess is that these may be the same kinds of parents who buy $100,000 RVs at retirement and gleefully put those stickers reading “I’m spending my childrens’ inheritance” on the bumper. In my view, we have a number of things backward in this society. At one time, older people were both the source of “seed money” for young families and were the child care alternatives as well. I never said this situation is anything but “multi-generational”, and I think it is.

I think you may be right. I wonder how much of this attitude was perpetuated by the “golden era” during the 1950s and 60s. It was the first time that almost everyone could have a “piece of the rock” so to speak and had much more freedom with life due to new technologies, more time, more money. My dad and uncles laugh when they think about how their father had 6 week paid vacations working as a blue collar machinist at Westinghouse. Unknown before or since. There is nothing bad in that idea per say, but I wonder how much of it caused a shift in thinking. I could be totally off-base. I’m just throwing out thoughts.

It’s been fun talking with you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s funny that you say this. When we just announced the impending arrival of #4, my father-in-law’s response was “So did you win the lottery?”, implying that how could we possibly “afford” another one. This kind of attitude of his family used to really bother me, and in fact resulted in us waiting almost five months to tell them (to prevent them from involuntarily signing me up for Weight Watchers ). But surprisingly, this time it didn’t bother me. I just feel sorry for them, if they really see children as red ink on a budget. I am happy that my husband and I are on the same page and know we will find a way to manage all of God’s blessings. I also know our children will never feel like they have to fear a negative reaction from us when they announce in the future that we can expect more grandchildren. I agree that this negative attitude toward children is prevalent, but I hope that more families just decide to ignore the attitude and do what God wants instead.

I can’t generalize, and know nothing about your father-in-law’s financial condition. But why did he not, instead, say “Oh, hey, will you let us at least pay the deductibles? C’mon, it’s the least we can do.?” (or a significant portion of the bill if you don’t have insurance) Older people generally have more money than young families, and what are older people going to do? Take it to their graves? My oldest daughter and her husband didn’t have insurance for their first child, and my wife and I paid every dime and were PROUD to do it.

Better to remember, (as I often do) that line from Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”

“Full fathom five thy father lies,
And of his bones are coral made.
Those are pearls that were his eyes.
Nothing of him but doth change
Into something rich and strange.”

And so, when I am put in my grave, maybe that oldest child of our oldest child, will be told by someone: “Hey, you know, he paid for your delivery, the old rascal. He sure did. And your grandmother, buried there, bought your first bed.”

But I have been paid back. This last Christmas, that oldest child and the younger ones gave us a Christmas present. She (age 13, and the organizer) and the younger ones (all ages, down to 5) learned and sang for us “Riu, Riu Chiu”, an old Spanish carol, in harmonious round, and in Spanish. I was floored! (Google it. It will knock you out.) All the gold in Fort Knox would not have pleased us more.

“Full fathom five thy father lies,
And of his bones are coral made”

Sounds like you and your husband know what to do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with you on that. But I think the decrease in infant mortality and early death has had some part in the way we look at family size today.

I’m a history nut, so I do read a lot of history and in particular of individual people. What you say is true to a point, but I’ve also read enough history about the lives of average people to know that the majority didn’t live the “normal life span”. There are actual quotes of people I’ve read from early centuries talking about an old man or woman who was in their 30s and 40s. So, although there were a few who made it to the “normal life span”, that was the average age to die. The common problems that could be easily remedied today could be a death sentence for people in the past. It is true that more people live to achieve that “normal life span” today, but it is overwhelmingly more so than previously. My father is a physician and he can even see a difference in the life span of people today from over 30 years ago when he first started his practice. People eat better and live better and have better medicine than in the past.

I think I can generalise on this a bit. Of course there are exceptions throughout history. And of course, it is true that peasants would marry early. But for higher classes from the middle class (when there was a middle class) to upper class, aristrocrats etc., it was often the case that young girls (15-18) married older men. Older men in those times could be mean in their late 20s, 30s, 40s and so forth.

That is true. My grandmother was betrothed to a wealthy business man but eloped with a “peasant farmer” at the age of 14 and gave up her wealth since her father disowned her. Often times, they were betrothed as babies and in earlier times at a certain age the girls were sent to live in the nation and country where they would be married and live. This happened to Catherine of Aragon when she was betrothed to the older brother of Henry VIII. Here she learned English and grew to be a mother figure to Henry. When his older brother died shortly after the marriage, Henry VII’s father couldn’t decide what to do with her - send her back or keep her in England. They then made another plan to marry her to Henry who at the time was very eager to do this. He loved her and cared for her like a mother because she was good to him. In earlier centuries, it wasn’t unusual to send your daughter to be married at 11 or 12 as they were looked at as women at that point and old enough to bear children. Proxy marriages were also not uncommon among nobility. One such case was the marriage between Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. They had that first, then had another wedding when she came to France at 15.

Of course. That’s my whole point. Men didn’t marry until they were ready to properly support a wife and they married younger women for various reasons. But Irish peasants prior to the famine were as poor as dirt. The one thing they had was the means of subsistence, thanks to the potato. It wasn’t inconvenience or “building a career” that caused post-famine men to marry later. It was the near impossibility of keeping a family alive, and the memory of those who died all around them. It’s a different thing now.

I was actually speaking of earlier centuries. It was the end of the 18th and into and throughout 19th century when education became more accessible to a vast number of people, including women. But at the same time, those upper class 19th century women, were not only educated in the womanly skills, but also on reading and writing and arithmetic - same as someone from a lower class. Prior to that it was very rare for people of both sexes to receive much of an education at all. St. Thomas Moore was actually one who really focused on the women in his family to be educated. He raised his daughter with an education that a man of his class would receive, being literate, taught in philosophy, Latin, Greek, etc. He tried teaching his wife, but she just couldn’t learn. The majority of women of that time from all ranks were pretty much illiterate. Elizabeth I and Mary I both had excellent educations fit for a man of the time due to their father also believing that an education for the daughters of a king (whether or not they were pronounced bastard in one breath and legitimate in another) was important. But again, that was rare. A bit off topic, but my son graduated from a Catholic law school two years ago. A very talented wife of a classmate (there were a fair number of married ones) who then had two children, composed a hymn for the Baccalaureate Mass from one of St. Thomas Moore’s last letters to his daughter. It was, to say the very least, touching and inspiring.

I agree with you.

I’ll grant that my understanding of womens’ educations and roles is colored by the history of my own family. The women were workers, and were not illiterate. I recall my maternal grandfather’s recounting how, in his family (they were from Italy) every one played a musical instrument, and they composed chorales of their own devising, as well as published numbers. They were not well schooled, but they read a lot, could read music quite well, and knew a lot more than we often think they did. I realize it isn’t math, but they were well read to a point that not many people today could shame them in the knowledge of literature. And they were farmers, recently “off the boat” from the Alps. My great grandfather raised enough money from working in the deep mines to buy a farm, then more land. As an old man, my great-grandfather gave each of his sons part of his land, and gave each of his daughters cash. (An old model, but it made sense.) He and his wife were the “child care” for their childrens’ children while they worked. I realize that’s not responsive to your post, but I added it because I really do think people have a messed up idea now about the proper role of generations.

The other side of my family, which was Irish, was similar in the way they did things, intergenerationally (is that a real word?). My wife’s people (Alsatian) were the same way.

None of them were wealthy, but the older generations “made room” for the younger ones, and saw their roles as supporting the younger generations’ efforts at family formation.

It’s really different now, but I don’t see any compelling reason to believe the “newer” intergenerational model is any better than the older ones, or that the latter could not be of service today.

 

[Galnextdoor]

To the op:

It’s easy to judge people who are divorced. At one time our nation was more homogenous in its values. It was taken for granted that when a man married, he would be the primary bread winner, he would be a father to his children, he would instruct his children about the difference between right and wrong, and he wouldn’t abandon his family. If a man left his wife, he was considered a loser. Now days, if a man leaves his wife, there is another woman waiting in line to take her place.

I read the other day that 47% of households in the U.S. are lead by single mothers. If a man doesn’t want any responsibilities anymore, he can walk away. Words like responsibilities are considered in a negative light. It used to be that part of being a man was having responsibilities.

At one point, Catholicism was taught in such a watered down version, that it all centered around feelings. Many men bought into the idea if it didn’t feel good, then they didn’t do it.
I think almost every woman I have known has felt like they don’t have a husband, they have another child. Only this other child can blow money in the bank account. He can buy some new electronic gadget, while the woman ends up going down to the local food pantry to beg for food. Women talk about having to make schedules for their husband and children to share the Game Box and the computer. Otherwise the husband would ignore the children and the children would never have a chance to use those items.

Many men can’t hold a job, because they sat in front of the television all afternoon and evening while they were growing up. They look as sex as a game. They talk to their wives in a degrading manner. They look at children as little balls and chains. If there is a difficulty in the workplace, they don’t try to work it out. They just quit. Life to them is all about having fun.

Instead of looking at divorced women as people who just didn’t take their vows seriously, why not try to see what they have been subjected to? Many women become bitter. They weren’t looking for a White Knight to come and rescue them, they were looking for a helpmate. They were looking for someone to be a role model to their future children. They were looking for someone who would treat them with respect and dignity. They were looking for someone who would share the burdens that sometimes come at them in life. They were looking for someone who would stand up for them when they had been taken advantage of, not laugh at them and tell them how stupid they are. They were looking for someone who would extend the same courtesy to a wife that they would a friend or a boss.

These are some of the most common reasons for divorce. Just because a woman hasn’t been hit in the face or her husband isn’t addicted to anything, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a good reason for divorce.

Maybe it’s partly the woman’s fault for marrying someone who is so immature, but the women were young when they married. They grew up quickly and expected the guy they married to do the same. When they ended up with men who acted like children, siphoning resources away from the actual children, should they have just stuck it out? Should they stay with a man who would drop $100 dollars on a pair of boots while his child wore shoes with holes in them?

Don’t point fingers at people who are divorced. I’ve heard of women who have acted the same way only worse. It takes two people to make a marriage; it takes only one to create a divorce.

 

[prodigalson12]

To the op:

It’s easy to judge people who are divorced. At one time our nation was more homogenous in its values. It was taken for granted that when a man married, he would be the primary bread winner, he would be a father to his children, he would instruct his children about the difference between right and wrong, and he wouldn’t abandon his family. If a man left his wife, he was considered a loser. Now days, if a man leaves his wife, there is another woman waiting in line to take her place.

I read the other day that 47% of households in the U.S. are lead by single mothers. If a man doesn’t want any responsibilities anymore, he can walk away. Words like responsibilities are considered in a negative light. It used to be that part of being a man was having responsibilities.

At one point, Catholicism was taught in such a watered down version, that it all centered around feelings. Many men bought into the idea if it didn’t feel good, then they didn’t do it.
I think almost every woman I have known has felt like they don’t have a husband, they have another child. Only this other child can blow money in the bank account. He can buy some new electronic gadget, while the woman ends up going down to the local food pantry to beg for food. Women talk about having to make schedules for their husband and children to share the Game Box and the computer. Otherwise the husband would ignore the children and the children would never have a chance to use those items.

Many men can’t hold a job, because they sat in front of the television all afternoon and evening while they were growing up. They look as sex as a game. They talk to their wives in a degrading manner. They look at children as little balls and chains. If there is a difficulty in the workplace, they don’t try to work it out. They just quit. Life to them is all about having fun.

Instead of looking at divorced women as people who just didn’t take their vows seriously, why not try to see what they have been subjected to? Many women become bitter. They weren’t looking for a White Knight to come and rescue them, they were looking for a helpmate. They were looking for someone to be a role model to their future children. They were looking for someone who would treat them with respect and dignity. They were looking for someone who would share the burdens that sometimes come at them in life. They were looking for someone who would stand up for them when they had been taken advantage of, not laugh at them and tell them how stupid they are. They were looking for someone who would extend the same courtesy to a wife that they would a friend or a boss.

These are some of the most common reasons for divorce. Just because a woman hasn’t been hit in the face or her husband isn’t addicted to anything, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a good reason for divorce.

Maybe it’s partly the woman’s fault for marrying someone who is so immature, but the women were young when they married. They grew up quickly and expected the guy they married to do the same. When they ended up with men who acted like children, siphoning resources away from the actual children, should they have just stuck it out? Should they stay with a man who would drop $100 dollars on a pair of boots while his child wore shoes with holes in them?

Don’t point fingers at people who are divorced. I’ve heard of women who have acted the same way only worse. It takes two people to make a marriage; it takes only one to create a divorce.

so, in a nutshell, you are saying if he’s not financially responsible, this is a reason to divorce? Stuff like this is why people have to take a step back, really get to know who you are committing to before making that commitment. If they immature they are immature, bottom line and you know full well what you are getting into.

I do agree with your points along the behavior not being something anybody should approve of, yet still, things like this can be worked out within the marriage itself.

 

[Galnextdoor]

so, in a nutshell, you are saying if he’s not financially responsible, this is a reason to divorce? Stuff like this is why people have to take a step back, really get to know who you are committing to before making that commitment. If they immature they are immature, bottom line and you know full well what you are getting into.

I do agree with your points along the behavior not being something anybody should approve of, yet still, things like this can be worked out within the marriage itself.

In a nutshell, you’ve never been married and had children. There is no way to know whether a person is going to be incapable of love while you are dating them. They are on their best behavior and show you only what they want you to see.
If a man loved his children, he wouldn’t use the grocery money to buy some electronic gadget. If he loved his children, instead of using the last of the money to buy a pair of $100 boots for himself (just because he wanted them), he would buy shoes for his son who had holey shoes. If a man loved his family, he wouldn’t insist on new name brand clothes for himself while the rest of his family shopped at thriftshops. If a man loves his family, he doesn’t stay out with his friends half the night while his wife worries about where he is, especially when he is 49 years old. If a man loves his family, he doesn’t insist that his children attend his award ceremonies while he ignores theirs. If a man loves his family, he doesn’t make fun of their religious beliefs. If a man loves his wife, he doesn’t refuse to have sex with her in her thirties because she has gotten older and no longer has the looks of an 18 year old. If a man loves his wife, he doesn’t calmly tell her that he is sick of her and doesn’t want responsibilities anymore. If you marry someone in your early twenties, how are you to know that the person you marry will never mature beyond their early twenties?

Some people stay in marriages like this for 20 years, because they don’t want to hear people like you say it wasn’t that bad, they should have worked it out.

In a nutshell, it takes two people to create a marriage; it takes only one to destroy it. Don’t point your finger at people who are divorced, until you have been married yourself and had to beg for food or money to feed and clothe your children.

 

[Sarabande]

I’ll grant that my understanding of womens’ educations and roles is colored by the history of my own family. The women were workers, and were not illiterate. I recall my maternal grandfather’s recounting how, in his family (they were from Italy) every one played a musical instrument, and they composed chorales of their own devising, as well as published numbers. They were not well schooled, but they read a lot, could read music quite well, and knew a lot more than we often think they did. I realize it isn’t math, but they were well read to a point that not many people today could shame them in the knowledge of literature. And they were farmers, recently “off the boat” from the Alps.

Again, they were products of the 19th/early 20th century. Fortunately, they had lived in a time when more people were being educated and it empowered the lower classes to realize that they were much more than just dirt and they could accomplish more and be more as humans. It might have been a different story had it been a century or more earlier. It’s also wonderful that your family were musicians. Musicianship was always important throughout the centuries. One couldn’t put on a record or a cd for musical entertainment. You had to be able to know how to play. It would not have been unusual for families to have at least one or two people know how to play an instrument. Although literacy and musical literacy often went hand in hand, it wasn’t always the case.

He and his wife were the “child care” for their childrens’ children while they worked. I realize that’s not responsive to your post, but I added it because I really do think people have a messed up idea now about the proper role of generations.

There is truth in this. You see many grandparents today running off to other parts of the country away from their children and grandchildren. In a way, I can understand it. After their entire lives giving, they may want some time to themselves. Or, they are just too old to properly care for the grandchildren - especially if the grandchildren are the younger ones. My sibs and I were the older grandchildren, so we were often watched by our grandparents, but I don’t know if I’d want my grandmother watch my younger cousins or my cousins’ children today. They are in their 80s/90s now. We should be caring for them now.

None of them were wealthy, but the older generations “made room” for the younger ones, and saw their roles as supporting the younger generations’ efforts at family formation.

It’s really different now, but I don’t see any compelling reason to believe the “newer” intergenerational model is any better than the older ones, or that the latter could not be of service today.

Actually, I think it has always been the case (even today) that for families which aren’t wealthy they do tend to depend on each other for help. The way some wealthier people care for their children isn’t any different as it was generations/centuries ago. They always passed their children off to nannies, nurses, etc. So, as much as I’d like to, we can’t really paint a rosy picture that this attitude is something new. The difference is that there are more people with more money to be able to do this kind of thing, and you no longer have to be wealthy to be able to afford it.

Again, always nice to discuss with you.

 

[Sarabande]

Galnextdoor - You make some excellent points. Sometimes we all look at the past as something better than what it is now. But people don’t change. Of course, all of the things that have been discussed in this thread is true. There are major changes in attitudes towards families and marriage. There are people who divorce at the drop of the hat without really trying to make it work. At the same time, there are woman and men who came from really horrible marriages, where one person refuses to make it work. It takes two to make a marriage.

I think we also have to remember that in the past there were very bad, abusive (verbal or physical) marriages that stayed in tact because of the fear of scandal, the fear of not being able to support oneself or the children, the fear of being outcast by society, etc. My grandmother’s best friend lived in a marriage that was emotionally and verbally abusive. They had children. He controlled everything. He wouldn’t even give her enough money to buy food for the children. During that time, you didn’t divorce no matter how horrible the situation was and no matter if the husband didn’t want to make it work. You obeyed the husband and that was that. She eventually left him, but it was after the children were grown and they had to grow up in that environment. And who knows what kind of model a father like that is for a son.

In one of my books on Tudor history, there is a quote from a contemporary lamenting the coming days when a husband couldn’t even beat his wife. It was common to do that back then. My teacher, who is in her 70s, grew up in a very conservative household where she and her siblings were beaten every day of their lives while they lived in that house. The mother was typically submissive in that time period and she allowed it because that was what the husband demanded and there would be no where for her to go to if she left. This teacher left home at 15 and eloped to escape the abuse only to marry another man who began to beat her and their son a few years later. (He wasn’t like this when they met or even a couple years after they were married.) He wouldn’t stop and wouldn’t change and she had to protect her son and also she didn’t want him to learn the behaviour. Was it wrong to divorce him? In these situations, it isn’t for me to decide. I do know it is definite that I cannot and will not judge her actions. I haven’t walked in her shoes and lived the kind of life she was forced into from the time she was a baby, with no real support system and anyone to truly help her. It’s between she and God.

So, basically, although, yes, there is a lot of selfish divorces going on, there are some who have real reasons to do it. It’s just that back in the day these women or men endured it (when they probably should have left, but had no choice) and today they can leave without putting themselves or their children through more abuse.

I will note, I am not in favor of divorce. I hate seeing it, and encourage that everything should try to be done to salvage it before leading to divorce. But I cannot judge a woman or man who does it to protect their family from further abuse - whether physical or emotional

 

[whatevergirl]

Some of this thread’s posts seem to have a very judgemental tone. As Catholics, we should not be passing judgement on situations we know nothing about.

 

[whatevergirl]

***Some of this thread’s posts seem to have a very judgemental tone. As Catholics, we should not be passing judgement on situations we know nothing about. ***