I'm so glad younger people are largely abandoning the "wife bad" garbage. Maybe it's not so bad to, you know, openly enjoy being with someone you love without having to make a joke about it.
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
764 points (97.5% liked)
196
16704 readers
2330 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No one has to "get married by 23 and if they ever get divorced they're massive failures" anymore.
Depends on the part of the world you live in. I'm that age and coworkers (!) constantly joke about having to find me a wife and find it a bit odd that I'm not even in a long-time relationship yet.
I had this colleague a few years back who was 28-29 at the time, and people were bad-mouthing him because he wasn't married, saying that something must be wrong with him. Societal pressure is very strong here.
You wouldn't believe this is happening in the EU, right?
Depends on how religious you are.
It's so bizarre. My models for a successful marriage growing up were my grandparents, and they adored each other. Comfortable enough to tease each other, but I couldn't imagine them ever doing something like using a wedding or an anniversary to make these kinds of weird "Wife bad" jokes.
The biggest reason for declining marriages is that people can actually make choices now and people don't want to be shackled to someone they hate their whole lives.
People had radically different attitudes about marriage in olden times, when marriage equaled survival in many ways, and survival of your family, your connections, your career and your status, which was held through generations. It wasn't thought of normally in terms of love and that's a very modern view of marriage.
Romance and marriage for love certainly existed, but that was usually considered fantasy or stageplay.
When I married my wife almost 15 years ago my mother-in-law gave me a shirt that said game over with a happy bride stick figure and a very sad groom figure so I took that shirt and I wrote a :-) over the guy's :-( and I wore that shit under my tuxedo and as soon as the wedding was over I opened my jacket and walked around with that shirt proudly for the rest of the night. Yeah game over, I won.
Well, not really game over but ng+13 now
Just putting off that Kolmi fight so kiddo can have a dog
Feeling pressured into marriage is a common issue for aromantics dating an alloromantic, regardless of sexuality.
Is alloromantic the opposite of aromantic? I tried to understand this by reading online definitions but am not sure at all.
The prefix Allo just means other, so when you have a pair of things the other one will normally become Allo-thing. Because we don't make words the culturally accepted default position until there is something to contrast it with, most instances of Allo will describe the culturally accepted default.
Aromantic - Alloromantic
Asexual - Allosexual
Autistic - Allistic
Asocial - Allosocial
Aplatonic - Alloplatonic
Afamilial - Allofamilial
Asaurus - Allosaurus?
🤣 That's my brother's favorite dino
The prefix seems unnecessary and doesn’t even make sense with your last example. Why is it needed when the a- prefix works perfectly fine to contrast with the existing word as-is?
Aautistic doesn't follow English's rules for making words, we don't do double vowl startings unless they are from very specific loan words that were popular enough to break the rules.
Same was alloistic doesn't work without a hyphen because when you have an o from a prefix and I from a suffix you need to drop one of them to make the word work.
Basically English has illegal parrings of letters you can't make and when they would come up you need to hyphen them together or drop letters.
See eject, which is ex-ject but we can't have xj so we drop the x.
Or attend, which is ad-tend but we can't do dt so make it tt instead.
Wading should be wade-ing but ei, so we drop the e.
Etc
I don’t think there needs to be a word that describes the negative of a condition. You just don’t need a descriptor at all. There’s no value add.
Inject vs eject? Am I being trolled here?
You're not being trolled this is literally how the English language works: https://www.google.com/search?q=eject%20etymology%20&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
So would you propose we just say autistic people and normal people? Doesn't that seem kind of cruel and bothering?
Should we also say asexual people and normal people, or aromantic people and normal people, trans people and normal people?
Where do you draw the line?
autistic/non-autistic, asexual/sexual, aromantic/romantic, trans/cis
asexual and aromantic are already based on being the negative, adding another term to reverse that just makes a double negative
I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.
I'm not going to argue with you on words that have already become accepted by the people whom they affect, or that most of the things you are saying are othering to the people affected and work to say that there is something wrong with them for being different / have been used to actively dehumanize marginalized groups.
I will say you are on the wrong Lemmy if this is the fight you want to make.
Oh but there is an implied value - superiority. When you give a group of people a descriptive property with no inverse you are basically creating a construct of "assumed default". This comes with other issues of those falling outside the default having no way to effectively talk about people of the assumed default group without using words that have value judgements baked in. Like if I am calling you "a normal person" the implicit value judgement is that I am an abnormal person. I am "othered".
This sort of denial of language assumes that a group that you are given tools to talk about never and should never talk about your group back utilizing those same tools.
yup!
How does an aromantic even get to the point of being pressured into a marriage (at least in a society without arranged marriage)? Why are they dating in the first place? Am I misunderstanding how that works?
Same ways gay people get 'straight married'.
Could be family pressure. Could be internalized hetreonormativity making them feel like they 'should' do this. Could be they haven't really realized, come to terms with, or accepted their own identity.
I mean, think of a 'stereotypical' aromantic guy. He's interested in women, and sleeps around a lot, but despite not getting feelings, might 'settle down' with one partner because its 'normal, respectable', even if it's not something that makes him happy. Probably won't make the wife happy either, but that's it's own issue, why she might marry a guy that 'doesn't do romance'.
Mainly social expectations and lack of awareness of aromanticism. I know in the US that's common in the deep south (where I'm from), but I'm sure you'll find it anywhere that's socially conservative.
I had a low opinion of marriage even as a kid but [then] the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints invested millions (in 2008 money) to back Prop 8, to enshrine in the Constitution of California a ban on same-sex marriage. The amendment is still there.
It was interpreted by the California Supreme Court to outlaw the act of marrying two same-sex persons, but same-sex marriages from outside the state are still respected for accommodations purposes. That was a little relief.
At that point I decided that marriage is just a state thing, a license I'd get to acquire benefits, or not, and is meaningless outside the boundaries of state or federal law.
I have a wife and she has me, and just had our eleven year anniversary, but we are not married according to any nation or state, because fuck 'em.
Just be careful that you’re both designating each other as a beneficiary on any insurance, 401K/other retirement vehicles, or other assets (stocks, bonds, housing, accounts etc). If she’s not legally your spouse, she’s not going to be automatically entitled to any assets if she’s widowed or vice versa.
You both may also want to have a will or power of attorney clause given to each other in case of medical issues which prevent someone from communicating their own will. Family members get the right to act on behalf of their family, but they can’t do anything to help or protect if they’re not legally related in some way. Some places have clauses for common law spouses, but not all do, and not for all circumstances.
Does that not hurt you on your taxes/government forms? For instance, for a period of time, my wife was making far less than me and that helped us with our taxes by giving us deductions since our combined income was under a certain threshold. I believe it helps with other things as well.
Just trying to call you out, just curious because I saw this as a net benefit overall.
We're among those households for whom the combined reporting rate actually costs us more.
Huh, TIL. Thank you :)
Marriage exists because:
- Tax reasons
- Convenience, various
- Benefits sharing
- Maintain thousands of otherwise useless careers
- Some people like feeling extra special
- Religious stupidity
- Cake
Marriage exists because of the patriarchy.
Seriously. It was a business transaction between men.
“Sir, I would like to bang your daughter, please accept these goats and barrels of ale in exchange”
Ahh back in the good ol' days i could go mike tyson on that bitch but nowadays everythings too woke
Btw satire please dont take this seriously
WE ARE NOT OKAY
PLEASE SEND HELP
FABULOUS HELP
I'm in this picture and I don't like it
It's just a joke