Um, I think it was a much bigger story when Gloria Steinem got married.  Married to a younger man at that, and late in life!

Getting married means you agree to a legal contract and a committed relationship.  The rest is how you cook it.  It doesn’t have to come with all the trappings and trimmings of heteronormativity and male-dominated stupidity.  Which is why all of these losers have to spin it as capitulation with the patriarchy - they desperately fear feminists getting married for the same reasons they fear gay people getting married.  They simply cannot envision a personal household corporation working without all the bullshit that they themselves have bought into.

One more thing - they clearly resent the existence of guys like Andrew - guys that not only treat women as human, but are rewarded with female attention and committment for it!

I believe Jessica Valenti entered her marriage with both eyes open.  She made a personal decision, and she’s always supported every other woman’s right to make her own personal decisions.  That’s what feminism is all about.

It’s pointless to try to stir up internal conflict among feminists by pretending that there’s some raging cat-fight between the pro-marriage Jessica Valentis and the anti-marriage Amanda Marcottes.  There is no “You must be like Jessica!” faction, and there is no “You must be like Amanda!” faction.  Here is what feminism recommends: Discover what is in your own true self interest, and then act upon it.  This is what freedom is.  As long as you’re still trying to be like somebody else, you’re not yet free.

We aren’t born free.  We’re born as helpless babies, soft, ignorant, clumsy, speechless, and completely dependent upon adults for our survival.  Then we grow up.  The more we discover about who we are and what we need and what we desire, and the more we learn how to take care of our own needs and to fulfill our own desires, the freer we become.  Freedom is a thing that has to be learned.

I am willing to believe that Jessica Valenti chose freely to marry - that’s what I meant by saying she had “both eyes open.”  If it should happen that she separates or gets divorced, I am willing to believe that she will do this freely, too - maybe even more freely, because she will have gained more hindsight and insight into herself.

Whatever else freedom may be, it is not a prescription.  It is a thing that you gain gradually, after a long journey of self-discovery.

I can’t believe they’re still using the anti-feminist playbook from the Sixties. It never ceases to amaze.

Ginmar, if they had any imagination, they would be more open-minded.  And if they were more open-minded, they wouldn’t be so tied to their miserable view of the world.

There is no “You must be like Jessica!” faction, and there is no “You must be like Amanda!” faction.

Well, dang.  And I’d already printed up the t-shirts.

i might be slightly less opposed to the binary if the choice was amanda or jessica.

There’s something so NYT about the phrase “simple gold bands bought in Rome.”  I’m sure I’d love Jessica’s rings, and I have nice jewelry bought in exotic locals myself, but the New York Times can’t point that kind of detail out without sounding like a bunch of pretentious douchebags.

On the topic of Steinem, I gather that some of the criticism she drew in the early days was in the form of “Why does she need to be a feminist? She’s good looking.”

That’s why all these altruistic arguments for political and moral reform are just so much blah-blah-blah. What we need is a book called, “How to Get Feminists to Sleep With You.” Feminists aren’t just frigid librarians anymore. There’s a whole new universe of pecking orders to be explored.

All I can say is, lucky fella.

FFS, I remember how stressed and emotional I was around my wedding; I can’t even imagine how much worse it would have been to have the woman-hating media falling all over themselves to talk shit about me and mr. biscuit.

Also, what’s up with the swipe about the whether or not the bride wears white?  Jessica’s dress looks as near to white as makes no difference to me, and the wedding-industrial complex’s offers of off-white dresses or color trims is hardly coming from feminist motives.

That NYT article was terribly written even aside from any “swipes” or whatever.

I have to say I’m not entirely sure I see the homophobia, but the fish comment jumped right out at me.

Anyway, don’t forget, we’re actually dealing with two mentalities—not just the “uppity bitch” thing, but also the idea that liberals in general are supposed to be trying to tear down society and its institutions. When someone so strident and outspoken as Jessica Valenti does something, y’know, *normal*, people conditioned to think of liberals through the right-wing filter get knocked for a loop—they can’t process the idea that when you get right down to it, most people on the left are jes’ folks like they are. There may be a charitable explanation for this based on Hanlon’s Razor, but considering how pervasive right-wing rhetoric is in modern American society, it’s hard to give it a pass.

(As an aside, is it pointless to hope that Playboy may move just a little forward in its organizational approach towards women when the old man kicks the bucket?)

Jessica just looks so damn happy in that picture that it wipes away any of the crap that the Times and Playboy is spouting.

The narrative of our world is apparently written by people who think that being grown-up requires conformity to rigid social norms and the bitterness that accompanies enforced conformity. Anyone who deviates must be punished - it’s just their way of sharing the pain. Thanks, guys!

So any taker on the bet that the next reference to Valenti in the NYT is as “Mrs Golis”?

I would be thrilled if we could see scathing coverage like this anytime one of those reprehensible ‘family values’ Republicans files for divorce.

(As an aside, is it pointless to hope that Playboy may move just a little forward in its organizational approach towards women when the old man kicks the bucket?)

Five bucks says that, if anything, they’ll only get worse.

Reminds me of nothing so much as the right wingnut response to any wealthy political lefty who also promotes fairness for the poor: in their minds that’s “hypocritical.”

In other words, anyone moving outside the rigid box they’ve arranged in their minds is a hypocrite.

I remember some of the same spiteful nastiness when Gloria Steinem wed, which pointedly ignored one very practical reason for that marriage: her husband was deathly ill, and they wanted to be sure she’d be able to oversee his healthcare.

You want to know who obsesses about other people’s weddings even more than “bridezillas”? Sexist men who claim to be too macho to be interested in weddings. Sorry, fellows, but your insecurity is showing.

Also, it’s a bit silly to call this a “feminist wedding.” Beyond the fact that the bride and groom publicly identify as feminists, it sounds more like a typical small, tasteful wedding where no-one is interested in creating useless drama. The only feminist aspect seems to be that they didn’t do an engagement ring or formal proposal—how transgressive and edgy of them to give the (bare) finger to De Beers and Harry Winston (both major NYT advertisers, I’m sure)!

I assumed Valenti “softened a bit” on the idea that prospective brides can get a little crazy during the planning process not because she suddenly saw the benefits of making the wedding “princess’s perfect day,” but because the actual experience involved dealing with vendors and tradespeople and relatives who don’t bloody listen to simple requests. We’ve all been there in other circumstances, but if you’re a woman getting married then of course you’re automatically an unreasonable nutcase from the get-go.

The NYT “Vows” piece, including the requisite “HeWentToHarvard (DidYouGoToHarvard? IWentToHarvard)” reference, is standard-issue UES provincial. As with most pieces in that section, it’s more concerned about providing the reader and the author (and the newspaper that brought them together) with an opportunity for self-congratulation than with genuinely congratulating the couple in question.

Personally, I don’t see much point beyond state-issued benefits in getting married, and little point in a wedding beyond providing an excuse for a fun party and family event. But I’m not gonna call Jessica Valenti a “traitor” or “sell-out” because she wants to enjoy both without turning either into a tasteless spectacle.

The narrative of our world is apparently written by people who think that being grown-up requires conformity to rigid social norms and the bitterness that accompanies enforced conformity.

The good news is, if one decides to be an actual grown-up, one stops giving a damn about those people’s opinions. And while it’s a glacial process, our system does allow us to combat the formalisation of that narrative by those people.

So any taker on the bet that the next reference to Valenti in the NYT is as “Mrs Golis”?

They’re not that stupid. However, I’m confident that the trolls who infest Valenti’s blog are that stupid.

After turning this joke over a couple of times in my mind, I think that it’s both a misogynist “fish” joke and a homophobic slur, with the implication being that the only kind of man who would marry a feminist is a closeted gay man.

Sounds like the sad moans of a guy not getting any.  Nothing says “gay” like getting married to a young, cute, blogger in a low-cut wedding dress, after all.  Honestly, I read it less as “gay” and more as “whipped” with the ceviche story implying Jessica would be “the one on top”.

So clearly, one of the best weapons in the feminist arsenal is being visibly successful and/or happy.  Who knew it would be so easy?

The best revenge is living well?

What we need is a book called, “How to Get Feminists to Sleep With You.”

It’s so easy; I don’t know if we need a whole book about it.  Here’s the summary:

1) Treat women like people.

2) If a woman doesn’t want to sleep with you, respect her decision and find someone else.

the actual experience involved dealing with vendors and tradespeople and relatives who don’t bloody listen to simple requests.

A little off topic, but, anecdotally, I’d say that fuck ups in wedding planning are a feature not a bug.  There are some players in weddings who have to provide good service (I’m thinking hotels, caterers, florists) lest they lose future business due to gross mistakes, but any service provider that handles weddings exclusively (especially bridal wear, in my experience) don’t have to bother with even basic competence.  Ideally, a wedding is a once-in-a-lifetime event, so what are the consequences if the bridesmaids dresses are the wrong color (as happened at my sister’s wedding)?  Absolutely none, especially since there’s rarely enough time to correct the mistake.

I like how the groom is blurred in the picture. That’s the subtle NYT touch I always appreciate.

#23, Catgirl:

See, your second point just won’t sell books.

To both the male and female mysogynists (I am particularly thinking about K-Lo), marriage is the shiny trinket reward that men only give to women when they act like proper, self-hating doormats.  That a woman could be rewarded in such a way while requiring that her partner treat her like a human being drives these people nuts. 
What also bothered me was the comments on Salon that declared this as somehow a class issue.  So what if it was in the New York times?  She’s somewhat well-known.  Both my sisters had nice small, ceremonies that sound similar to what Valenti had, and neither had to save that long for them.
Finally, how in anyway does this effect my decision to never get married? I am pretty sure that Valenti would support my decision to cat around long into old age.

#23:

I think the problem is that we’re in this creepy interstitial period in America where people can still exploit the weak point between accepting the concept of gender equity and actually having that concept be internalized. If people were convinced that feminism was going to be a social constant, the sexual mores of our culture would by necessity have to change. But America is still in its awkward, teenage years.

Personally, I don’t see much point beyond state-issued benefits in getting married, and little point in a wedding beyond providing an excuse for a fun party and family event.

As someone who’s married, you’ve pretty much got it.  We’re not religious, so we felt no need to dress things up in “God loves us more!” clothing.*  It was pretty much an excuse to get both of our families gathered together in one place and feed them a nice meal so they could talk to each other.  Oh, and I had a chance to dress up pretty and have professionals do my hair and makeup and take pictures of me that actually look pretty good, given that I’m the opposite of photogenic (look fine in real life, hideous in pictures).  It wasn’t a big political announcement, except in that we made a point of getting married in a church that had a big rainbowed “We Support the Freedom to Marry” banner out front.  Well, that and a cute little chapel, a Greene & Greene house as the rectory, and a small stand of redwoods.

* We did have a religious ceremony, in that Unitarian Universalism is an actual religion, but they don’t need you to declare that you believe in anything to do your ceremony.

One other thing:  pretty much the only occasions on which you can demand your extended family show up are weddings and funerals and, while Irish wakes are fun, I did like the idea of continuing the tradition of having people gather for happy occasions and not just because someone died.

Mnem, I’m going to a friend’s thirtieth birthday party next month; it’s an all-family, strictly RSVP, black-tie formal event in a nice hotel with catering and a band.

And no mother in law to ruin the day.

Perfect.

Not Completely White Wedding Gowns is nothing new or, for that matter, especially “feminist.”

Back in 1971 my cousin married in an empire white wedding gown with a pink ribbon beneath the bust—and my aunt, her mother, owned the bridal salon.

When questioned by customers why she’d allow her daughther to marry in less than all white, my aunt would reply tongue-in-cheek, “Well, she wasn’t completely pure, if you get my drift…”

Loved the shocked looks.

My aunt had a great sense of humor, the Bridezilla thing was a business for her and not a calling, and she even hung a photo in her shop of me in a wedding gown being “married” to a propmaster friend who wore a giant insect roach mask.

To shocked customers, my aunt would say, “Well, she was getting older and couldn’t be too picky about who she married.”

It’s so easy; I don’t know if we need a whole book about it.  Here’s the summary:

1) Treat women like people.

2) If a woman doesn’t want to sleep with you, respect her decision and find someone else.

I’m afraid some young men might need an entire book just elaborating point 1). Nevermind 2).

Incidently, I had a project of writing an anti-PUA book entitled something like

“Ur Doing it Wrong: A feminist man’s guide to having great sex, without the misogyny”

Title still under consideration.

Think there’s a market?

Feminists aren’t just frigid librarians anymore.

Silly stereotypes, do not want, k thx bye.

I haven’t noticed librarians as being particularly frigid, although many of them are feminists.

Phoenician,

It was sarcasm.

Think there’s a market?
Depends on who you write it to, maybe, maybe. 1 & 2 may be worthwhile questions, but I think you’d have to answer the question “If treating men like people has never resulted in me having a relationship with a man, why would the results be any different with women?” if you want to reach the audience that might buy it.

Ms. Kate, I think they’re actually afraid—-of complexity, of complications, of the intricacies of life. How do you decide with all these people who are suddenly people? Aside from, you know, white guys. But if you treat them like human beings, men don’t get to do what they want! And that’s what it comes down. They feel that as a loss, and realistically, they’re right—-they don’t get to do what they want now.

I don’t know if anyone commented on this, but that is a really sweet photo.

I’m afraid BlackBloc, that the market is small. Most of your would-be audience either doesn’t need it, or doesn’t read. And yeah, that’s an unfair sweeping generalization. Oh well.

And mazel tov to the happy couple. That is indeed a great photo, Iam - I agree.

#23, Catgirl:

See, your second point just won’t sell books.

Or allow creeps like “Mystery” to be creepy as shit and get on TV.
Or shows like Tool Academy to be on the air.
etc. etc.

I think that this is kind of the companion to gay marriage panic: anything that presents an alternative version of marriage undermines and threatens what it’s really about, which is the extraction of free labour and social capital out of people (in practice usually women) under the guise of tradition or even nature. It’s effectively capitalist tythes. Which means perhaps Jessica is being a heap more revolutionary and subversive than even she thought, who knows…

Incidently, I had a project of writing an anti-PUA book entitled something like

“Ur Doing it Wrong: A feminist man’s guide to having great sex, without the misogyny”

Title still under consideration.

Think there’s a market?

Yes. Seriously, that would be a really entertaining book, and would beat out all the navel-gazing “Feminism for men” zines and books I’ve seen while still getting the point across.

Phoenician, you’re a librarian, right?  I’m not but I cheer for that profession every chance I get.  More than any other occupational group, librarians rose up against a piece of work that called itself the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.  The word appropriate alone should be hauled out and shot.  Not to mention tools. 

Best wishes to the couple.  Blurring Andrew Golis’s face presumably on purpose—well, Vows sucks rocks.

And no mother in law to ruin the day.

See, now, you’ve managed to hit on one of my pet peeves, because I think that mother-in-law hate is a really insidious form of misogyny.  Not to mention untrue:  not only do I love my mother-in-law, but my mother (as in, G’s mother-in-law) absolutely adores him.  I think she likes him better than she likes me sometimes. 

Yes, there are some mothers-in-law who are assholes, just as there are fathers-in-law, mothers, and fathers who are assholes.  But somehow only the mother-in-law is the hideous harridan who always takes her daughter’s side and torments the poor, innocent husband, or who infantilizes her son, forcing her poor, innocent daughter-in-law to be the adult.  The mother-in-law is the Controlling Wife to the nth degree who’s not content to only control her husband’s every action—she has to control her child’s and her child’s spouse’s every action, too.

Mnemosyne:

It’s sad because it’s so often made necessary. Less so now that women are marrying later and can organize their own weddings (and get stigmatized as “Bridezilla” for doing it). But in the old days, when married women were expected to do all the social things that needed to be done to hold families and communities together, somebody had to be the frontline customer-relations manager. Now I sometimes wonder whether it stay that way because the women filling the role have seen it filled on stage and screen and in real life so many times that they think that’s the way they have to act.

You’re right Mnemosyne, it’s a hateful stereotype and I shouldn’t have used it.

In my defense, my own (ex) mother in law didn’t actually come to my wedding reception. She had accused me of being a lying scheming bitch who was only after a British passport, told me that my father-in-law (against all evidence) didn’t like me because I was Jewish, had countless screaming arguments with her son about marrying me etc., so I guess she felt awkward (not).

So I’m a little more ready with the MIL jokes than I ought to be due to painful personal history. I will try to overcome my shortcomings.

I’m certainly not going to read the Playboy story, but I thought the NY Times one was pretty sweet actually.  And that’s a great picture. 

I really don’t care about all of this marriage stuff either way, though I have to say I absolutely had to smile when the article mentioned that both of their parents were active liberals - Jessica’s mom bringing her to her first feminist march in DC when she was 10 - and both were happily married for decades.

Just kinda throws yet another wrench into the conservative narrative.

#45, Jenawesome:

Oh, I agree. I was commenting on the irony of the turnaround, which has occurred in a short period of time - that is, not long ago a common attitude was bafflement that attractive women would want to be feminists. Or, of course, that only ugly girls would need to seek haven in feminist ideology. Now that times are gradually changing and we are recognizing that many people are feminists, and people are something you can have sex with, I wonder if that will necessitate a peculiar support. I sometimes get frustrated and think that it’s pointless to appeal to people’s reason and compassion when you can just manipulate their sex drive to get the same results. (I mean, not really, but ... damn, people are depressing.)

That said, the librarian crack was just pointing out old skool perceptions of the feminist archetype, and was meant sarcastically. And I’ve now said archetype. In public. So I think that should be enough penance.

In my defense, my own (ex) mother in law didn’t actually come to my wedding reception. She had accused me of being a lying scheming bitch who was only after a British passport, told me that my father-in-law (against all evidence) didn’t like me because I was Jewish, had countless screaming arguments with her son about marrying me etc., so I guess she felt awkward (not).

In a weird way, it’s something that people can hide behind to cover up the fact that they are, in fact, total assholes.  After all, since she was your mother-in-law, she was “supposed” to hate you, so she had some social approval for being a complete jerk and not nearly as many consequences as she should have had.  If she had behaved similarly during, say, her son’s graduation, people would have been appalled, but since it was a wedding, she got cut an extra break for fulfilling her part of the stereotype instead of having people tell her what an asshole she was being and that she needed to behave herself.  Which is another reason the stereotype bugs me.

I actually like my partner’s mother (my MIL if we were married) better than my own mother.

Judibrowni, are you confusing Steinem’s marriage with Dworkin’s?

Oh, nevermind.  Dworkin was sickly, and it may have been a motivation to marry.  Bale was not ill, just overstayed on his visa, when he married Steinem, but he died about three years later of brain cancer.

Just kinda throws yet another wrench into the conservative narrative.

Yep.  Kind of like the fact that its conservatives in Red States who are making a mess of marriage and splitting the sheets at much higher rates than the liberal libertines in Blue States.

“More than any other occupational group, librarians rose up against a piece of work that called itself the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001”

yeah
they deserve more praise then they’ve gotten for that

Librarians ought to be regarded as heroes, standing between the books and the book burners the way they do. I always thought Giles needed his own show.

  And who knew that believing other people are human beings and not your unpaid staff would lead to greater happiness in marriage?! The hell you say! What next?!

2) If a woman doesn’t want to sleep with you, respect her decision and find someone else.
If you reframe this as “2) There are women out there who would want to sleep with you; stop trying to convince those who don’t, which is assholeish and doesn’t work anyways; go find one who’d want to.”, You could sell a lot of books, actually.  The - uh - underlying idea is the same, only what you assume about your audience chages.

I’d have more respect for them if they’d said, “No, thanks, New York Times Vows column, please fuck off,” but that’s just a matter of personal taste/grumbly class warfare against the Times and all it represents, as opposed to anything against Valenti and Golis.

And even if Valenti had been Amandaing on against marriage and then changed her mind, so fucking what? People do that, sometimes. If you want people to be shining exemplars of this or that, then you’re a child who wants to hear about George Washington and cherry trees.

It’s like when the family values brigade ineveitably gets caught screwing meth-addled hookers, their staffers or whoever. It’s amusing to point out that they’re hypocrites, but that kinda implies that they’d be okay if they’d managed not screw the nice lady from Argentina. The fact is, they’re shitheels because they’re ideas are shitty, based on how well they live up to them or not.

Same for Valenti. If you like what she preaches, like it, not how well she practices it.

Of those I talk to, the ones (women) who hate their MILs generally do so because their MILs are overbearing and treat them as if they can’t do anything right.  Maybe the MIL thinks she’s being helpful, but the DIL thinks she’s criticizing her.  Also, here in Asia you get a lot of the “sons are precious” attitude, and the “I want to marry my mom” thing (not literally), so a wife is like ... direct competition.  She’s his new mom now. 

It also doesn’t help that sons like to do an Everybody Loves Raymond here and either move in with their parents or move across the street or into a property his parents own or some bullcrap, so his new wife (who probably quit her job, as wives often do here) has to deal with his mommy all the damn time.  And more so if she has kids.  One woman said she realized her MIL was lonely, but really she just wanted SOME time away from her.  And she was getting none. 

Anyway, that’s anecdotal/observational and not in America.  But it’s one reason the MIL stuff persists on this side of the globe.  I’ve also learned in classes I took in college that in “Asia” (east) MILs treat DILs badly because it’s generally the one person they have more social power than.  Unless the DIL has some granddaughters.  But not the grandsons.  I think that’s a bit more historically true (learned about it in the context of filial piety), maybe subconsciously true now.  And maybe true elsewhere.  It seems like it makes sense. 

Also, I would feel really bad for anyone who ended up with my mom as a MIL.  She’s the “you can’t do anything right” type.  She’s wrenched implements out of my hands because I wasn’t stirring cake batter “correctly.”  (Correctly is “her way.”)  She already whinges enough about how my dad does everything “wrong.”  So, good luck to my brother’s nonexistent wife.  D:

Librarians ought to be regarded as heroes, standing between the books and the book burners the way they do.

Except for the Ayn Rand.  Go right ahead. 

I’ll bring marshmellows even.

Maybe the MIL thinks she’s being helpful, but the DIL thinks she’s criticizing her.  Also, here in Asia you get a lot of the “sons are precious” attitude, and the “I want to marry my mom” thing (not literally), so a wife is like ... direct competition.  She’s his new mom now.

My father pointed out to me one time that my grandmother Monk suffered under her own MIL, but after “Abu” passed away, she was herself something of a MIL burden on him, in other words, she perpetrated what she used to suffer from herself having learned nothing from her experience.

She’s the “you can’t do anything right” type.  She’s wrenched implements out of my hands because I wasn’t stirring cake batter “correctly.” (Correctly is “her way.”) She already whinges enough about how my dad does everything “wrong.” So, good luck to my brother’s nonexistent wife.  D:

I have an aunt like that, she kicked my uncle in the shins at their wedding reception because he didn’t like the way he was slicing the cake.

In my family, the elders sometimes learned new skills late in life, my grandmother Monk once callled Mother Avenger long-distance to tell her that she had successfully prepared a dish we used to call “Portuguese mince”, which is basically a form of stir-fry hamburger with soy sauce and wine, or as I like to think of it, “Eurasian Hamburger Helper”.

read “she” for the first “he”.

I think the bad taste in my mouth has to do with the classism of the New York Times, and how embracing that aspect gives the impression that Valenti’s feminism is (like so many before her) by, for and about upper class white people.

As for the feminist dating guide, I’ve considered trying to write one multiple times, but figured nobody would want to buy a book that acknowledges that there aren’t any guarantees rather than making outrageous claims about getting the partner(s) of your dreams.

Because a happy, smiling feminist in a wedding dress drives sexists absolutely fucking nuts, because it deprives them of their favorite delusion, which is that feminism is the last resort for bitter, lonely women.

Related?

Sometimes your best weapon is just being yourself, I guess.

I wish the NYT would write about my wedding.