10 Questions to consider..

[visionary]

When you start thinking that he/she may be the one, make sure you ask these ten questions before you tie the knot.

#1: Do We Care about Each Other as Good Friends Do?

#2: Are We Emotionally Honest and Vulnerable with Each Other?

#3: Do We Consistently Reach Win/Win Resolutions To Our Problems?

#4: Do We Take Care of Each Other’s Needs?

#5: Do We Admire And Respect Each Other?

#6: For rhe Man: Are You Ready to Take Responsibility for a Wife and Family?

#7: For the Woman: Do You Believe in Him, do you believe him?

#8: Do I Trust This Person Completely?

#9: Do We Want the Same Things Out of Life?

#10: Do I Have Peace of Mind About This Decision?

May this help you make up your mind..

 

[Tamara224]

#6: For rhe Man: Are You Ready to Take Responsibility for a Wife and Family?

Why is this "for the man" only?

Women have responsibilities in marriage and family too.

Also, I think if a woman is expecting a man to take responsibility for her, she's not ready to get married. If she isn't able to be responsible for herself, how can she be responsible for raising children?

What about women who are considering marrying men with children? I think it's vital for such women to ask themselves if they are ready to take on the responsibility of caring for step-children.

#7: For the Woman: Do You Believe in Him, do you believe him?

So... men don't need to believe in God?

What does that second part mean? Is 'him' God or the potential husband?

 

[iambren]

Originally Posted by visionary

#6: For rhe Man: Are You Ready to Take Responsibility for a Wife and Family?
Why is this "for the man" only?



Because men are hunters.

 

[Tamara224]

Originally Posted by visionary

#6: For rhe Man: Are You Ready to Take Responsibility for a Wife and Family?
Why is this "for the man" only?



Because men are hunters.

First: Not all of them are.

Second: So? What does being a hunter have to do with "taking responsibility for wife and family"?

Third: Come to Wyoming and say that again. But be careful, cuz the women-folk with rifles may decide to point them at you.

(Also, statistically, women are generally better at shooting than men.)

 

[Luther073082]

I'm wondering what is ment "are you ready to be responsible for a wife and family?"

What does that mean?

Because what I hear it means is "Are you able to provide for them all by yourself?? Because God forbid the wife have to actually work.

Guess I'm a crappy husband because my wife works and we need the both of us to work to really do ok.

 

[Tamara224]

Or God forbid the wife may actually want to work. Or makes more than her husband.

 

[Luther073082]

Or God forbid the wife may actually want to work. Or makes more than her husband.

That would be truely horrible. . . Don't they know that their role to stay in the home was given to them by God in the 1950's?

 

[iambren]

Historically, and not to long ago, when a man spoke with his wife-to-be father for her hand in marriage he would ask---Do you have means to support her? I still think in his gut most men feel this calling more on them, thus I see the question properly one of the ten.

 

[Luther073082]

Historically, and not to long ago, when a man spoke with his wife-to-be father for her hand in marriage he would ask---Do you have means to support her? I still think in his gut most men feel this calling more on them, thus I see the question properly one of the ten.

I think you seriously overestimate that number.

While there is sometimes need for someone to take time off of work to take care of the children, I don't know many guys other then a few on here with ultra romantic notions of the 1950's that want to work to support a dependent wife with no children at home.

Children do create an exception where it can be good to have a parent at home all of the time when they are young.

Really only small groups of Christians who think the 1950's was the best time ever really belive that our natural desire is man work, woman home.

 

[Tamara224]

Really only small groups of Christians who think the 1950's was the best time ever really belive that our natural desire is man work, woman home.

Exactly. And they have a ridiculously un-informed view of history.

 

[iambren]

I went to my prospective father-in-law and asked for her hand. He could have asked me anything including how I was financially going to meet our needs starting out as a new family. I know this is an old tradition and it's paternalism probably drives some women up the wall but I like it. I have two sons but if I had a daughter I would be giving him some of the Focker treatment.

I mean, don't we still have in the wedding ceremony the "Who giveth this woman?" line? The father is to protect her; he has a say and I believe that a man must be responsible enough to hold down a job to support them ie the question stays on the list IMHO.

 

[GrumpGrump]

I went to my prospective father-in-law and asked for her hand. He could have asked me anything including how I was financially going to meet our needs starting out as a new family. I know this is an old tradition and it's paternalism probably drives some women up the wall but I like it. I have two sons but if I had a daughter I would be giving him some of the Focker treatment.

I mean, don't we still have in the wedding ceremony the "Who giveth this woman?" line? The father is to protect her; he has a say and I believe that a man must be responsible enough to hold down a job to support them ie the question stays on the list IMHO.

Gracious, a dude likes paternalism? Color me surprised.

Perhaps the "Who giveth this woman?" line stays in a traditional ceremony, but tradition doesn't vouch for the moral correctness of any practice. Perhaps her mother protects her (or, shockingly, perhaps she doesn't need protection). Perhaps she does not appreciate being "given" from one man to another. But I mean, if we're buying into paternalism, I suppose we don't need to actually ask-- or even listen to-- her at all.

 

[iambren]

Nah, just shove her out the door, maybe she'll be picked up by a bad-boy who will impregnate her then leave her to return home and burden her parents or live alone on a very poor socio-economical level. The kids will grow up without a daddy and moms influence leading to poorer performance. We wouldn't want ANY paternalism to stop that,would we!!! Oh and I'm sure everybody knows those by sheer determination overcame...but how about those who DON'T?

Yesterday, I examined two gals age 25, 20. They were home schooled and raised in a strong Christ-centered home and home church. I was in awe. Their virtue and morals reeked in comparison to other gals I had examined. We talked of courting where parents were more involved. I'll bet parental approval will play heavily prior to their marrying.

I find it interesting that THIS point is so debatable on a 10-list to find a mate. It would seem wise to seek the blessing of those who have known you all your life and can chime in if you have the resources to go there. Only makes sense to me.

 

[Luther073082]

I went to my prospective father-in-law and asked for her hand. He could have asked me anything including how I was financially going to meet our needs starting out as a new family. I know this is an old tradition and it's paternalism probably drives some women up the wall but I like it. I have two sons but if I had a daughter I would be giving him some of the Focker treatment.

I mean, don't we still have in the wedding ceremony the "Who giveth this woman?" line? The father is to protect her; he has a say and I believe that a man must be responsible enough to hold down a job to support them ie the question stays on the list IMHO.

Don't get me wrong I think the father/husband acting as a sort of protector of the family is somewhat natural.

However the provider thing is not natural at all, it arose over time based on what was convient and worked the best.

Back when we where an agriculturally based economy women and girls worked on the farm as well helping wherever they can where physical strength wasn't an absolute necessity. They would help harvest, milk cows, tend to livestock etc. That is providing for the family . . .

Yes men performed most of the few non agriculutural professions there where. But these still often involved or required physical strength. Law enforcement, construction, etc. Its also important to note that women often took up jobs of teaching school... These women of course where providing an income for their family. Men didn't ever really become terribly common in the teaching profession until it started to become important that most kids obtain schooling past the 8th grade.

It wasn't until the beginning of the industrial revolution that you start seeing this men work, women home dynamic. And that is because in factories, mines and the like physical strength is still very important. And because of this men would be more productive. Also the jobs where still somewhat dangerous and reality shows that even to this day men take the more dangerous jobs. I suspect that this may be natural as our ancestors certainly must have recognized 10 women and 1 man can reproduce a lot faster then 10 men and 1 woman. (If you don't belive me look up the percentage of workplace casualties that are men and those that are women.)

Now that we've moved into the information age as a result women have been going into the work place. This at first seems new but not really. . . these women where working outside of the home back when most people survived by farming helping out around the farm. PROVIDING for the FAMILY.

Its only Christians who regularly romanticize the 1950's that ask for the father's permission to marry the girl. This may not be new, but its origins go back to a time where marriages where contracted between the father and prospective husband. Over time the woman being married got more choice in this. Prior to the Industrial revolution a father looking at a prospective husband for his daughter might be concerned about if the man's family had a farm (On which both the husband and wife could work)

Look if you want to live your life trying to carry on the values of the 50's, thats great, more power to you, thats your choice. But the reality of the situation is that

A. Most western men overall really don't have a great desire to take care of a woman at home with no kids.

B. The man: work, woman: home dynamic did not even prevail for 100 years. The vast majority of the time it was Man: Farm, Woman: Farm

C. The asking the father about it all is not really as common as you might think. My FIL didn't ask his FIL for permission. . . and my MIL was 17 when she got married!!

 

[GrumpGrump]

Nah, just shove her out the door, maybe she'll be picked up by a bad-boy who will impregnate her then leave her to return home and burden her parents or live alone on a very poor socio-economical level. The kids will grow up without a daddy and moms influence leading to poorer performance. We wouldn't want ANY paternalism to stop that,would we!!! Oh and I'm sure everybody knows those by sheer determination overcame...but how about those who DON'T?

This would be an example of the straw man fallacy, because you are misconstruing my argument to make it easier to refute. In your previous comment, you were talking about (1.) a woman, who was (2.) old enough to be married, yet was (3.) being treated differently from her brothers, (4.) by her father. We are not talking about the parenting of children. Parenting of children, both male and female, done equally by both mother and father? A gender-neutral dispensation of authority and a gender-neutral receiving of discipline? Got no qualms with you, at least if they are children and not adults. Special "protection" bestowed upon an adult daughter by a father? Sure, cute fairytales romanticize this situation, but fairytales are notoriously problematic.

Yesterday, I examined two gals age 25, 20. They were home schooled and raised in a strong Christ-centered home and home church. I was in awe. Their virtue and morals reeked in comparison to other gals I had examined. We talked of courting where parents were more involved. I'll bet parental approval will play heavily prior to their marrying.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. "Home-schooling can be a great way to raise Christ-centered daughters who accept parental authority"? Sure. "Sometimes women themselves LIKE paternalism"? Sure.

I find it interesting that THIS point is so debatable on a 10-list to find a mate. It would seem wise to seek the blessing of those who have known you all your life and can chime in if you have the resources to go there. Only makes sense to me.

I agree that a person of either sex ought to be attuned to the opinions of loved ones. They often see things that people in love are willfully blinding themselves to, and they serve as counsel when needed. However, it doesn't need to be a gendered thing (unless you want to claim that women are less capable of making decisions for themselves, in which case, you and I will have a disagreement).

THIS point is debatable because many women don't appreciate old traditions that undermine their attempts to be considered intellectual, social, and professional equals of men. We want to be equal partners in our romantic relationships, which means both parties equally responsible for (or at least, equally allowed to choose responsibility for) the financial burdens. Perpetuating the image of husband-as-breadwinner, wife-as-dependent insidiously hinders how seriously we are taken are professionals. [And, in my opinion (though I realize that here I will probably encounter more resistance), so do the matrimonial traditions that involve "giving" the woman from father to husband, the asking of the father for her hand, etc.]

Construing a relationship of dependence or "possession" as romantic and desirable is very common, but completely at odds with the goal of equality for women.

 

[iambren]

You know, if we're all the same, equally capable in all that life requires, individualism triumphs over intergenerativity then why have marriage at all? Just have people live with whoever they want, banish the romance of tradition.

 

[GrumpGrump]

You know, if we're all the same, equally capable in all that life requires, individualism triumphs over intergenerativity then why have marriage at all? Just have people live with whoever they want, banish the romance of tradition.

(I am choosing to ignore how you are, once again, misconstruing my position. I did not say anything about equal capability, but was rather talking about equal social standing and equal economic opportunity which is undermined by certain traditional perspectives and ceremonies. But the fact that and the manner in which you have misconstrued it is very, very interesting to me. I find it fascinating that you equate my position on equality of opportunity with some argument about how we're all the same.)

I find it a little sad that you think equal capability destroys romance and marriage. Romance doesn't have to be predicated upon the satisfaction of a need that one cannot fulfill without the help of another. Romance can, in fact, derive from a relationship between equal partners, and in fact, a study on feminist relationships a few years ago made some waves. (I hate dropping the f-bomb, because it's such a polarizing word, but it's the most concise way to encapsulate the perspective of equality within relationships.)

Contrary to the trope that feminists are unattractive man-haters, it seems that feminists actually tend to have more stable, more emotionally (and sexually) fulfilling relationships, even with men who do not identify as feminist.

[The original study is here: SpringerLink - Sex Roles, Volume 57, Numbers 11-12
The science reporting (which is distilled and accessible to those who don't have university library access) is here: http://www.livescience.com/1964-feminists-fun.html]

Whether or not one identifies as feminist, one can desire an egalitarian relationship and actually find a deep satisfaction in it. One does not have to "need" the other for protection or economic benefits. (But again, such relationships cannot be achieved when we are constantly characterizing women as dependents to be transferred from one "responsible" party to another.)

Relationships between equals who accompany each other in the pursuit of their life goals, reciprocally providing emotional, intellectual, financial, and social support-- I dunno, that's pretty much the most romantic thing I can think of.

 

[iambren]

"I find it a little sad that you think equal capability destroys romance and marriage. Romance doesn't have to be predicated upon the satisfaction of a need that one cannot fulfill without the help of another. Romance can, in fact, derive from a relationship between equal partners"

Not true, Eve was created to help Adam, to fulfill a NEED that he could not fulfill on his own.

"Relationships between equals who accompany each other in the pursuit of their life goals, reciprocally providing emotional, intellectual, financial, and social support-- I dunno, that's pretty much the most romantic thing I can think of."

You can do that with a same-sex friend. Doesn't sound very "romantic" to me!

 

[The Nihilist]

"Relationships between equals who accompany each other in the pursuit of their life goals, reciprocally providing emotional, intellectual, financial, and social support-- I dunno, that's pretty much the most romantic thing I can think of."

You can do that with a same-sex friend. Doesn't sound very "romantic" to me!

Bren, I'm going to be honest here. Saying you can engage in the same kind of intimate emotional relationship that GrumpGrump outlined with a same sex friend as with a romantic partner sounds, well, really gay.

 

[iambren]

"Bren, I'm going to be honest here. Saying you can engage in the same kind of intimate emotional relationship that GrumpGrump outlined with a same sex friend as with a romantic partner sounds, well, really gay."


EXACTLY!!!


Who needs difference; we're all the same. Why, stating that men should have a stronger urge to be a protector/provider simply destroys our "social equality"!!!

What has this thinking led to: men who would rather stay at home playing with their XBox rather than get off their butt to get a job, they impregnate their girlfriend then skip town, they divorce the wife and children then fail to pay child support leaving women and children in povery, bereft of the better upbringing they could have, guys sucking off their mommy/daddy well into their 30s. I would THINK that a woman, even a feminist, would move in favor of a man taking a greater financial conscience. Oh, I forgot, we're all equal.