Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Bamboo Review: The Dark Knight Previous entry: Mirror, Mirror On The Wall…

Marriage: Because we need you all figured out

Courtney Martin has a moving piece up at the Prospect about how the legalization of gay marriage is making her rethink her own resistance to entering into straight marriage.  She concludes what I have in my life, which is that even though it’s important to cheer on gay marriage, for straight people, there’s still a major danger that the historical patriarchal institution will suck you in and destroy brain like a brain slug.  She says it nicer than me, though. Jesse Singal tries to argue her into getting married, thereby neatly proving the point that good, old-fashioned heterosexual marriage still functions largely as a way to pressure women into getting in line. There are just some things that a man can’t argue a woman into doing by saying it’s not sexist, and marriage is up there, along with boob jobs.  By exerting the pressure, you’re disproving your argument, really. 

The objections we spinsters have against marriage are hazily explained, but deeply felt.  Courtney describes it as such:

But I also respect the power of historical precedent and dominant culture—all of which perpetuate rigid ideas of gender roles within marriage. Even my most radical friends—even my very own radical parents (who, by the way, have been married since ‘69)—seem to gravitate toward the black hole of traditional gender roles, and I can’t help but blame the institution at least a little. Why not avoid the temptation to fall into a his-and-hers routine by never adopting the marriage label? I have a fantasy that, without the dominant culture’s definitions of husband and wife as default, my partner and I will be constantly pushed to reinvent our relationship, question our assumptions about who should do what, and stay honest and authentic.

Jesse’s objections fell right into the “who says that it has to be that way?” vein, and in theory, it doesn’t.  That’s why this conversation is so difficult.  In theory, it doesn’t.  It practice, if often does.  And to say that is to hang a big “EPIC FAIL” sign on your head because you personally can’t muster the stamina, brilliance, inventiveness, and energy to just reinvent the institution for yourself.  Perhaps the way to reply to that, if just in your head, is to say that you could, but why bother when you could put your sparklingly near-perfect personality into other avenues. 

The way that marriage is used to marshal couples into more traditional gender roles is through the death by a 1,000 papercuts.  It’s not like anyone wakes up one day and decides to get married and just changes everything.  It’s little things adding up. Courtney alludes to one way that has always stuck out for me (and I’ve written about it before)—-the assumption about who wants the marriage more than who.

I get little more than skeptical silence; people always suspect that the political argument is just a big cover up for my boyfriend’s frozen feet.

Personally speaking, this assumption—-marriage is something women want, and men have to be persuaded into—-makes me run in the other direction.  Once you wake up in the morning as the Girl Who Wants To Get Married Someday, you’re at the mercy of some brutal pressures.  If your boyfriend’s not asking, you begin to wonder if he really loves you.  If you find yourself having to ask, you confirm that you’re unwanted.  If he does actually ask you, you wonder if you guilted him into it.  Even if you escape that feeling, you’re still performing a patriarchal ritual where women wait and men act.  And that’s all long before you get into the wedding, with all its gendered pressures that put the housework wars to shame.  Age starts to weigh in, like if you aren’t married by the “sell-by date” prescribed by society, then you’re somehow less worthy.  The whole thing is structured in a way to put men in charge of determining whether or not any woman is valuable by whether or not she gets selected. 

Having a husband (if you’re straight) means you’re a wife, and the world treats you like a wife, with all the attendant social pressures and baggage.  If your special someone gets labeled alternately “boyfriend” or “partner”, people tiptoe around you, because they don’t what kind of crazy shit you’re up to, with your bohemian ways.  I personally like that.  People need to be guessing.  We are far too complacent about the belief that we’ve got someone figured out just because they’re married.  You hear so many stories from married couples trying to form non-traditional roles inside their marriage have other people just mow them down with their assumptions, like, to quote one I heard recently, that husbands automatically don’t know where their wives keep the diapers.  At my age, I run into a lot of people who think I’m married and relate to me in that way, but whose tone completely changes when they find out that I’m not.  As long as marriage has that special status, I’m wary of it.  I don’t want to in the tribe of married people, even though I like many of them and will be the first to say they’re a diverse group.  I know many awesome married people who express concerns that can only be described as resentment that their identity as an individual has been subsumed by the institution they entered into, even if the private meaning of getting married—-the deepening of intimacy, the commitment—-makes them happy. 

We like to think we’ve come so far as a society, but we really haven’t in so many ways.  Like the tradition of wedding presents.  Why is that still around?  Most couples who are marrying have lived on their own for years and have set up a household already, and probably together.  They don’t need you to buy them dishes.  Details like that make me suspicious that all the pressure to get married is about shoving square pegs into the round holes.  I think in no small part, that’s why I tend to soften up on the idea of marrying in middle age, because by then you’re past the point where you still have a chance to fit into a role where people get to feel they’ve got you all figured out.  That, and they won’t immediately start into the next line of inquiry about when you’re going to have kids. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:02 PM • (103) Comments

Sometimes, when people ask me if I have a boyfriend/partner/husband, I like to say, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” just to watch their eyes get big.

Also, I no longer get people wedding gifts (except for trashy lingerie)—I make donations in their name.  I can’t in good conscience buy more crap for people who already have tons of crap.

Comment #1: LauraB  on  07/23  at  07:14 PM

Laura, the version I happen to like is, “Why buy the pig when you can get the sausage for free?”

Comment #2: Nobody in Particular  on  07/23  at  07:19 PM

Laura, the version I happen to like is, “Why buy the pig when you can get the sausage for free?”

I’ll definitely keep that one in mind!  Thanks for the tip.

Comment #3: LauraB  on  07/23  at  07:23 PM

The thing is, I think you and Ms. Martin have demonstrated ably why marriage as a social construct (i.e., what conservatives in gay marriage debates like to call the “institution of marriage”) is such an awful, anti-feminist, patriarchal thing.

But I am not sure how much this should bear on any particular person’s decision to get married. For most modern cosmopolitan people, marriage is simply a decision one makes within the context of a preexisting relationship. It doesn’t change the relationship unless the partners want it to. Rather, it confers various tax and legal advantages.

So if one’s preexisting relationship is equal and feminist and non-patriarchal, I don’t think that is likely to change simply because one obtains a marriage license. (Indeed, as some have pointed out, there are even some pro-feminist aspects to marriage, such as the fact that the legal rules are more straightforward as to property division and responsibilities and rights re:  children in the event of a break-up.) And if one’s pre-existing relationship is unequal and anti-feminist and patriarchal, marriage isn’t the problem, the relationship is.

Comment #4: Dilan Esper  on  07/23  at  07:27 PM

I’m 49, straight, and never married.  Like just about everyone else my age or thereabouts, I always just assumed I would be some day.  Then one day I woke up in my mid-40’s and looked around and noted that it didn’t happen.

(I was close, twice.)

A few years ago I was doing some Jr. Achievement volunteering, and finally on the last day, after much working of the kids for their respect (these were all poor kids, 4 of 20 had no English) I got to sit in front of the class and just answer the questions the kids threw at me, which was truly fun.

One of them was, “Are you married?”  I was a little uncomfortable with how to answer to a bunch of 4th graders, so I finally stammered out the usual, how it just never happened, how I must not have met the right woman, blah blah blah, but my inner-beast got out and I said, in closing, “I guess it always seemed a little like jail to me.”

And then this little girl with whom I had developed a decent bond, said, loud enough for everyone to hear, dead serious, “That’s what my Mom says.”

The teacher (married) and I were laughing so hard the poor kids just didn’t get why.

In any case, my attitude has gone back and forth about it over the years, and I suspect that will be true of most people.  Unlike most, I’ve spent most of my life w/o SO, and that no doubt colors my attitude a bit, too.  I’m still sort of anti-marriage in principle, for many of the reasons Amanda so frequently details, but I still won’t rule it out.  Life has a way of changing in unexpected ways.

I have a lot more trouble understanding why a woman would want to get married.  In my experience of observation of just about everyone I know, married, the women get the lousier deal. 

*shrug*  It’s an awfully personal decision, and love is not only blind, but stupid, too.

Comment #5: John O  on  07/23  at  07:34 PM

I know in theory it doesn’t change the relationship if you don’t want it to.  In practice, I remain unconvinced.  The only couples I’ve seen really pull off the easy transition from a happy living-in-sin relationship to a marriage that isn’t really any different dated for 7-10 years before even considering tying the knot, i.e. so long that people gave up on trying to get them to conform.  Short of that, I don’t see how all the social expectations about what marriage means, especially in terms of power in the relationship (once you get married,  he has reasons to slack on being the feminist partner because it’s harder for you to get out), can’t infect your relationship unless you’re superhuman.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  07:34 PM

I’m with Dilan. If a M/F couple aren’t hewing to traditional gender lines when it comes to things like housework, getting a marriage license shouldn’t change that. If she’s already picking up after him and doing most of the housework before marriage, it’s not the marriage that’s to blame for that. And the traditional big wedding—that’s also optional.

Wedding presents are great. But I think my single friends should also be encouraged to have a big party, register for gifts, and outfit their homes with tons of nice crap.

Comment #7: Orange  on  07/23  at  07:34 PM

We like to think we’ve come so far as a society, but we really haven’t in so many ways.  Like the tradition of wedding presents.  Why is that still around?  Most couples who are marrying have lived on their own for years and have set up a household already, and probably together.

Oh yes. I’m getting married a month from tomorrow. We’ve been living together for two and a half years. Do you honestly think that if we wanted a waffle iron, we wouldn’t have been able to scrape together $35 to get one for ourselves?

Comment #8: pepito  on  07/23  at  07:38 PM

Laura, the version I happen to like is, “Why buy the pig when you can get the sausage for free?”

While I appreciate the humour, consider the objection about the original that referring to a woman as a cow is sexist. And then consider the comparison in this one.

Oink oink.

Comment #9: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/23  at  07:39 PM

Here’s the thing about the relationships that are great before the marriage, and in theory are great after.  If your relationship is going really well, why fuck with it by getting married?  If there’s nothing you’re protecting yourself against and nothing you’re trying to fix, then why?  I really do think a lot of unmarried couples never move on the question precisely because they sense that the only reason to get married is because other people want you to, and they want you to because they feel like you’re conforming to traditional gender roles if you do it.

If you really have found a way out of the conundrum, great. But let’s be honest—-couples who don’t have nothing wrong with them.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  07:41 PM

I understand what Amanda is saying, but that said not being married is such a pain in a lot of ways we ended up just doing it. For a list of the benefits and rights being married gives you check out some of the gay marriage advocacy sites. The fact is that if you are in a long term relationship or partnership its quite troublesome to not get married and requires a lot of hoops. Basically you have to go through all the legal mess that gay people in most states have to go through.

For us it became really clear that not be married was going to be a problem, so we did it.

That said, you can always get married and not tell anyone about it. All the benefits, none of the baggage. My wife and I don’t share a bank account and we don’t share names, but we do benefit from being married. Interestingly, the fact we don’t have a joint bank or the same name has caused a fair amount of consternation…

Comment #11: Stephen  on  07/23  at  07:47 PM

Amanda, many people get married to capture the legal benefits (tax, immigration, survivor, adoption, etc.). As I noted, there are even some benefits associated with divorce, i.e., some legally enforceable rights with respect to property division that can be of assistance to women leaving a relationship.

You are clearly right about the cultural regressiveness of the institution, though.

Comment #12: Dilan Esper  on  07/23  at  07:48 PM

I have a book sitting on my shelf called Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law, by Nancy Polikoff.  I actually haven’t had time yet to read it, and I’m afraid I no longer remember on which blog I saw it recommended, but a quick google shows it has its own; it may provide some less-hazy explanations, or at least an interesting read.

Comment #13: smadin  on  07/23  at  07:52 PM

If your relationship is going really well, why fuck with it by getting married?  If there’s nothing you’re protecting yourself against and nothing you’re trying to fix, then why?

Tax benefits? Hospital visitation rights? Any of the gazillion other things that same-sex couples want and which lead us to say that opposite-sex-only marriage laws are a significant injustice? I’ll be the last one to object if someone decides the risks of being pressured into patriarchal sex roles aren’t worth those benefits, but they do exist.

Comment #14: Stentor  on  07/23  at  07:52 PM

The benefits of divorce, as Dilan noted, are pretty significant. Just ask any gay couples that have had to go through breaking up without it! Anyway, the institution as it is sucks, but I think the legal concept is solid and necessary.

Marriage as a legal construct postdates marriage as a cultural institution. People tend to live together in couples, and they tend to own property and have children in that context. Civil marriage is (or should be) a legal construct to define how that agreement is managed in various cases. Probably the best thing to do is have a legal “civil union” that confers the legal structure associated with marriage without carrying any special cultural significance.

Comment #15: Stephen  on  07/23  at  07:52 PM

It’s funny. Having been raised by parents in a pretty damn egalitarian relationship (they split childcare equally (with the help of a lot of daycare workers, natch), my mom does almost all of the grocery shopping and probably 70% of the cooking, while my dad does 30% of the cooking and almost all of the cleaning, and most crucially, their jobs are equally important and schedules are as likely to be rearranged for one as for the other), marriage doesn’t make me viscerally nervous on these grounds.  (Not that I’m getting married any time soon, mind.)  But when I teach sociology of the family, I watch my female students from more “traditional” families getting nervous and, ultimately, hostile to the literature showing basically how badly women get screwed in marriage.  So you get these responses from women who seem really annoyed that they’d have to say anything so very basic, saying that sure maybe studies show that on average men benefit more in health and mortality and promotions from marriage than women do, and maybe studies show that women do ridiculously more housework, but—well, the but varies. Sometimes it’s a complete refusal to believe the studies. Other times it’s a “I’m not going to blame men for that,” as if I’d climbed on my desk wielding a labrys and demanded it of them. Other times it’s simply the belief that they are going to be the one to break this pattern. Anyway, they get really unhappy but in ways that persistently dodge the question of the overall system, I believe because that’s too scary to contemplate.

Frustrating.

Comment #16: MissLaura  on  07/23  at  07:57 PM

This is a tough one for me because my wife & I tried to be more aware of this issue but we do fall along gender lines in a lot of ways. In a lot of ways, we don’t, and it’s always been that way. I’ve always done all the cleaning & some cooking, but I also handle the yardwork & home repairs (the stuff I know how to do anyway) and my wife handles the shopping & most of the cooking, but also ALL of the finances (she is also the top earner). We were together a long time before getting married because neither of us saw it as a big deal and then one day about 8 years in we said “What the hell!” Thanks Las Vegas! 7 years later & all’s well.

Comment #17: Mark  on  07/23  at  07:57 PM

BTW, Pepito. Register for your honeymoon or do as LauraB suggested and have people make donations in your name. My mom’s best friend suggested the honeymoon thing for us saying “why not take a trip on everybody, you’ve already got all the stuff.”. We are also big time animal lovers so we had a lot of ASPCA donations made in our name.

Comment #18: Mark  on  07/23  at  08:00 PM

Any fan of Judge Judy can tell you that the number one reason to get married is so that you are protected by law in the event of a breakup, as Dilan points out.  Cohabiting couples of any stripe inevitably end up making purchases together, signing leases, sharing bill paying, etc., and if one half of the couple happens to have most of the receipts, etc., in her/his name and the other has no proof of ownership, that other half is so totally screwed.  The courts will not make any efforts toward an equitable division as they will do in the case of a married couple.

I also have to say that a wedding is not just about the couple—it is also an event for the couple’s parents, and, like all gift-giving occasions, a time of many meta-communications.  We received many gifts that really had nothing do to with us as the bride and groom, but were a chance for our friends and our parents’ friends to communicate how much they loved us and our parents themselves.  Gifts are a chance to express hopes and wishes for the future, affection, and gratitude for past events.  Don’t sneer at the gifts.

Comment #19: jfwlucy  on  07/23  at  08:01 PM

I’m with Amanda:  Don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.  It is founding life principle. 

I had this very conversation with a divorced with two kids, retired ex-military, current teacher around my age on the plane ride to Austin.  For several years after her divorce, she wanted to get married again.  Now she thinks it might be stupid, and will be unquestionably careful about it should she get the urge and the offer. 

We also got a hearty laugh out of one of my long-held beliefs that the ideal marriage included living next door to each other, or very close, but not in the same place.  I’ve said that for years, so was delighted when she was the one who mentioned it.

I’m happily single at least 51% of the time.  And I don’t have any divorces in my close circle of friends, (averaging ~20 years+ of marriage) and in my large family even most all of the divorces have been remarkably amicable, and all the ex’s are always welcome and embraced at the gatherings.

Anyway, these married people seem happy most of the time.  Or at least they’re resigned to their fate in a comfortable way.

What did Woody Allen say?  Marriage is the death of hope?  And then look at him.

Another thing I like to say about being married vs. single.  “It’s just a different set of problems.”

Comment #20: John O  on  07/23  at  08:01 PM

A whole heap of these issues emerges whenever straight couples desire something other than marriage to gain all the legal benefits - like the idea of offering domestic partnership or civil union to straight people.  “But straights can get married” is the comeback. 

Why?

Everything Amanda outlines here is why.  If straight couples could just go the civil union route, how many would just do that?  I suspect more than I can imagine.  That would undermine “marriage” because it would reframe the commitment and cut the church out of the game.

Comment #21: ms kate  on  07/23  at  08:03 PM

Marriage is a legal status indicating that at least some assets are merged, each has fiscal responsibility for the other, each can get legal right to determine the incapacitated other’s health care (Google Sharon Kowalski for what happens without this right), and so on.

Marriage provides a well-recognized simplification of the tax, probate, and immigration law.

Comment #22: NancyP  on  07/23  at  08:06 PM

One can get married by a judge, justice of the peace, or other secular individual listed in the state laws concerning marriage. It’s still marriage. Many straight couples get married by secular individuals. And you can still have a ceremony or a big party - or not, as you choose.

Comment #23: NancyP  on  07/23  at  08:14 PM

...old-fashioned heterosexual marriage still functions largely as a way to pressure women into getting in line.

My bf and I walked into Franklin County Probate Court this Monday. He giggled at something. I asked him what was funny but he refused, saying he’d tell me later for fear of offending those present. After we left he said he noticed women snapped their heads to the door with a stern, determined look on their faces as we stepped inside. He got the impression that they weren’t going to let anything get in the way of getting hitched.

We’re going through the justice of the peace. I’m a divorcee and firm believer that big weddings are a waste of a good weekend for all involved. I attribute my divorce status to being young and stupid. I felt pressure then. Can’t say I do now. I hate the religious baggage associated with matrimony and the fact that I have to go through the government to get the legal protections my bf insists I have since same-sex marriage hit the media’s radar. I wish I could get a civil union.

I’m keeping my name. He doesn’t care. I already do more of the housework than he does, though that may change with my work schedule. If a woman feels pressured into getting married there are few modern reasons to tie the knot. She can put it off for as long as she likes, or never do it. And if she decides she wants to get married I hope she doesn’t spend a dime on a meaningless ceremony.

Comment #24: Lesly  on  07/23  at  08:14 PM

My mother and father, and then my stepmother and father, played the traditional roles patriarchal stereotype to the hilt: which scared me straight into spinsterhood.

My parents married in the late 1940s, when my father’s borderline abusive behavior could still fall under the label of “Head of the Household,” (and the generation before, the still more abusive grandfather, could get away with real abuse under the same cover.)

Between the two abusive men in her life, and the Catholic church which forbade divorce and coerced birth, my mother opted out with suicide.

My stepmother’s deal was slightly better, she had a better hand going in—until she didn’t, and her financial dependency on my father made the last 20 years of their marriage a bickering and bullying hell.

All in all, I saw no marriages even in my widened family circle I’d want to be a part of, much prefer the Limbo of spinsterhood, to the inevitable hell or Purgatory of the patriarchal marriage.

Comment #25: judybrowni  on  07/23  at  08:15 PM

IMHO, nearly 18 years into marriage, I can honestly say that getting married wasn’t the start of dealing with sexist marriage norms creeping into the relationship.  That happened when we had kids, and I still have to work hard to fight against it - particularly when my husband goes through times of un- and under employment.  I have no trouble taking on the bulk of house and caregiving if I have no competing issues, and he has monumental issues accepting that role as his job. 

He can also get quite nasty with the levelling mechanisms when I have a steady job that pays well and he is between jobs or contracts.  Not that I listen or care - at this point, I just highlight it for what it is and move on with whatever it is that I need to do for my work.

Comment #26: O'nonymous  on  07/23  at  08:15 PM

Everything Amanda outlines here is why.  If straight couples could just go the civil union route, how many would just do that?  I suspect more than I can imagine.  That would undermine “marriage” because it would reframe the commitment and cut the church out of the game.

IIRC, this is happening in France:  civil unions that are slightly short of marriage are available to all couples, gay and straight, and a lot of straight couples have been registering for them.  They get some of the most necessary legal protections and many of them seem to feel that’s enough.

Personally, I’m starting to think that couples should be required to prove that they’ve lived together for a minimum of one year before a marriage license can be issued.  So many of these things fall apart under the pressure of day-to-day living that I think people need some time to get used to each other before they sign the legal forms.  If you need a religious ceremony, have one before you move in—it’s only the legal part that would be on hold, and you keep saying that the religious part is the important one, right?

Comment #27: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  08:24 PM

My husband and I had been living together 2 1/2 years or so before we got married. Rather than registering for stuff (which we already had plenty of!), we asked for donations to several charities, or contributions to the 20 mile walk I was doing that summer for suicide prevention. I’ll be honest, it made me feel really good to know that people weren’t wasting money buying crap we didn’t need anyway.

Oh, and for what the anecdata is worth, he does WAAAAAY more cleaning than me, and cooking in the summer (because he loves to grill). But I strongly suspect, though without any data to back me up, that having children pushes hetero couples much more strongly into the traditional stereotypes than not having them.

Comment #28: RedSonja  on  07/23  at  08:25 PM

Waaah, PiaToR.

Comment #29: Nobody in Particular  on  07/23  at  08:27 PM

I’m going to me-three on the having kids part—I’ve always heard that unless you are very conscious of it and expend a lot of effort, you will backslide into traditional gender roles.  So it may not be marriage per se so much as introducing kids into the relationship.

Comment #30: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  08:31 PM

This whole discussion began with the legalization of gay marriage.  Ann Pellegrini and Janet Jakobsen have a worthwhile book out called Love the Sin that looks at the legal and religious aspects of gay marriage.

Ouch big link, sorry:  http://books.google.com/books?id=tc24iAtdK0YC&dq=love+the+sin&pg=PP1&ots=TuPCwYyLZx&sig=PmtZjJT72SHRLhCI29j3eiTQ1eQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Having been married twice - they’re both good long stories, I don’t regret either - I find that our government is in great part responsible for the continuation of the traditional structure and expectations of marriage.  Our social policies are all set to encourage it: lower taxes, sharing of health benefits, etc.  Just look at car insurance:  if you’re married your rates are lower because it is assumed that you are more stable. 

Look at dying and long term care!  Without being married, couples run into all sorts of problems regarding health and end-of-life decisions.  (The gay community definitely suffers from these laws and restrictions.)

Europe gets it so much better than we do!  Benefits are not so directly tied to marital status but to, well, being a member of society on the whole.

Comment #31: Ann  on  07/23  at  08:32 PM

What I wanted to say over at Feministing about this but couldn’t because I’m too lazy to register for their comment system, is that it seems strange to me to reject marriage because of its institutional history as a tool of the patriarchy.  Because, you know, when does she leave the house?  Most every social institution has a history as a tool of the patriarchy.

The “death of a thousand cuts” argument that Amanda makes seems a lot more forceful to me, although from my own experience the redoubtable Mrs. Cliffy and I have shouting matches about these issues about as often now as we did during our five years of living in sin.

Beyond that, marriage is ginchy.

Comment #32: Cliffy  on  07/23  at  08:40 PM

I’m aware a lot of people get married for the legal benefits.  But right now, there’s legal drawbacks, as well, since you incur financial risk when you get married.  Obviously, that’s a case-by-case thing.

But in no way, shape, or form does “legal benefits” explain all the pressure to get married nor does it explain away the way marriage can erode the series of delicate compromises that you have to go through in order to have a functional, feminist relationship with one privileged person and one less privileged person.  I actually think that the number of benefits tied to marriage is part of the social pressure to get people to conform.  We should put our energy into untying as many privileges as possible from marriage.  Health insurance, rights of inheritance, etc. could be determined in ways that don’t require marriage and are more egalitarian.  (Say, what if you want a non-conjugal friend to be your legal family?  That should be a right.)

Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  08:49 PM

I’m getting married soon for legal reasons.  I want to life in the EEA with my fiancee, and have ever so many more rights as a married person.  True, there are some countries in the EEA that will recognize the civil partner routine, but not all of them.  So for freedom of travel and work, I’m willing to make the risk..
This said from a person who never wanted to get married but really really wants to live in Europe with her man.

Comment #34: Susan  on  07/23  at  08:49 PM

But fully agreed that the benefits tied to marriage explain why a lot of couples take the risk who otherwise might not.  I can’t blame them, but it bothers me more and more that the benefits of marriage are privileges, not rights, given to the married but not to the unmarried.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  08:51 PM

is that it seems strange to me to reject marriage because of its institutional history as a tool of the patriarchy.  Because, you know, when does she leave the house?  Most every social institution has a history as a tool of the patriarchy.

Yes, and the ones that come off as fully unredeemable (irredeemable?), we feminists work to abandon or break down wherever we can.  That’s a huge part of what feminism is about.  Having the freedom and/or the courage to say, “fuck this patriarchal nonsense, I don’t want to get married/wear makeup/do all the housework/join a sorority/work a pink collar job/go to a purity ball/whatever”. 

I would also add that I was having trouble coming up with common social institutions that have a strong history as tools of the patriarchy, up there.  So clearly it’s possible to leave the house without participating in them.

Comment #36: The Opoponax  on  07/23  at  09:02 PM

“IIRC, this is happening in France:  civil unions that are slightly short of marriage are available to all couples, gay and straight, and a lot of straight couples have been registering for them.”

It’s not quite like that.  France is one of those countries where you have to get civil-married for the government to recognize it and then religious-married by the clergy/sect/whatever of your choice if that’s your deal.  You can’t get the package deal like you can here, where a minister of a recognized faith can marry you in the eyes of the state as well as the eyes of the church.  What’s probably happening is that an increasing number of couples just aren’t bothering with any of the religious stuff.  I imagine that you’d see a lot more folks here just ditching the church wedding/big fancypants ceremony if they’d have to schlep down to the courthouse for a session with the justice of the peace anyway.  Big fancypants parties are an expensive pain in the ass, especially when they’re the sort of party where it’s half celebration and half performance.

Comment #37: preying mantis  on  07/23  at  09:15 PM

I feel like ignoring the healthcare decisions aspect of this is a huge blindspot. As the daughter of Jehovah’s Witness parents, I am so glad that if I’m in a terrible accident and can’t make medical decisions for myself my husband gets to do it and not my mom, because she would *never* agree to a blood transfusion and I don’t feel like dying for someone else’s religion.
Also, I can’t make text blocks, but when Amanda said “(once you get married, he has reasons to slack on being the feminist partner because it’s harder for you to get out)” I think this goes right back to the relationship being the problem and not the marriage. If that were to happen, it’s not because the legal status changed, but because the dude is a total douche.

Comment #38: Megan  on  07/23  at  09:15 PM

I must say that I got a lot out of marriage. I don’t share my bank ******* with my husband (although he shares his with me). I didn’t take his name (although our cats have hyphenated last names). I got a Green Card. He can apply for permanent residency in Canada one day if he wants.

All in all, I enjoy being married because it is comfortable, fun, and pretty handy. As a result of our being married, we can file taxes together, get on each other’s health care if we want to (although my school insurance is actually better in my opinion than his plan, so I kept it), etc…

But in general, it is nice to have someone to come home to, and someone you can trust. I really feel that if the world went to hell, my mate would still be there for me. So if you have that, then I don’t think it matters whether you are married or not. You’re just lucky. (Since you could be like Dmitri the Lover). smile

Comment #39: Foucault  on  07/23  at  09:15 PM

It’s not quite like that.

Nope, they do specifically have civil unions in France that are separate from marriage:  pacte civil de solidarite.  If you’re straight, you can either marry or get a civil union, but gay couples can only get a civil union.

You’re thinking of civil marriage where the legal wedding is done at the courthouse or registry office, which I think is the way most European countries do it these days.

Comment #40: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  09:24 PM

I didn’t take his name (although our cats have hyphenated last names).

Ohmigod, I have something in common with Foucault.

That scares me.

Comment #41: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  09:25 PM

ignoring the healthcare decisions aspect of this is a huge blindspot. As the daughter of Jehovah’s Witness parents, I am so glad that if I’m in a terrible accident and can’t make medical decisions for myself my husband gets to do it and not my mom, because she would *never* agree to a blood transfusion and I don’t feel like dying for someone else’s religion.

By this logic, all single people who can’t necessarily trust their parents’ decisions should go out and find someone who has identical ideas about medical ethics and marry them postehaste, just in case something ever happens.  I’m single, and happily so.  If I fall into a coma, I’m just going to have to trust that my parents would make humane decisions about my care, and that they’ll be cool enough to let my close friends and/or romantic partner(s) be involved.

Though I have to say I’ve wondered whether this wasn’t the reason Gloria Steinem finally caved.  She hasn’t always been the picture of health, and her partner died after a long bout with cancer not very long after they were married.  Them being married probably simplified things greatly.

Comment #42: The Opoponax  on  07/23  at  09:28 PM

Look, the idea that it’s easy to separate relationships into good ones where guys just do the right things unprompted and bad ones where they slack and hide behind male privilege is way too simplified to me.  A lot of good men do sexist stuff all the time—-blindness of privilege and all that.  In fact, if someone tries to pass off like her boyfriend or husband is a feminist exemplar who never fucks up, I’m skeptical.  Sexism is like all flaws in our partners—-you have to figure out where it gets to be too much or whether or not you can handle the flaw as a trade-off for other things. 

Darling, feminist, well-meaning, adorable, nearly perfect men are still susceptible to the corrupting nature of power.  Marriage, as it stands, gives men even more power in heterosexual relationships, and that’s true in an environment where men already have more power than women.  Even though I trust my particular boyfriend quite a bit, I don’t see justifying giving him more power over me than he already has by virtue of his gender.

Comment #43: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  09:29 PM

But in general, it is nice to have someone to come home to, and someone you can trust. I really feel that if the world went to hell, my mate would still be there for me.

Yeah, because, as a single woman I never have anyone to come home to, cannot ever trust anyone, and am pretty sure that if the world went to hell, I’d be SOL and all on my lonesome.

Comment #44: The Opoponax  on  07/23  at  09:36 PM

The Opponax,
i’m not saying everyone should immediately get married if their parents would make poor medical decisions, and i’m pretty sure i never implied that i wanted to apply my particular circumstance to everyone else who’s reading this. i feel that your reply is not in good faith. but my comment is an answer to the “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” argument. *an* answer, for me. not *the* answer, for everyone. i don’t pretend to speak for everyone.
also - congrats on having reasonable parents who would include a SO (or your own beliefs) in decisions. some of us aren’t so lucky. let’s remember that we’re not all in the same exact situation.

Comment #45: Megan  on  07/23  at  09:39 PM

I feel like ignoring the healthcare decisions aspect of this is a huge blindspot. As the daughter of Jehovah’s Witness parents, I am so glad that if I’m in a terrible accident and can’t make medical decisions for myself my husband gets to do it and not my mom, because she would *never* agree to a blood transfusion and I don’t feel like dying for someone else’s religion.

And what about when you were single?

this doesn’t seem like a good reason to get married. single ppl who don’t trust their parents should have just as much right as married ppl to choose who makes those decisions. why do married ppl deserve this more than others?

Comment #46: casey  on  07/23  at  09:41 PM

But in general, it is nice to have someone to come home to, and someone you can trust. I really feel that if the world went to hell, my mate would still be there for me.

you don’t really think this has to be related to marriage, do u?

Comment #47: casey  on  07/23  at  09:48 PM

I’m totally w/ Amanda on this one.  The answer is not simply to work w/in marriage (although of course that must happen), but to de-privilege marriage in society.  I’m in a LTR (10+ years) w/ a man, we’ve been registered as domestic partners in NYState for several years now so I could get on his health insurance.  Unless we need to move out of country for my job (a possibility, but not a very likely one), we might go down to the courthouse and screw around w/ the paperwork to marry, but otherwise, I see no benefit.

Granted, we have no kids and own nothing in common, so my situation is different than many others’.  Nonetheless, I’m only slightly annoyed to have to deal w/ additional legal paperwork re: next of kin, medical trusteeship, etc, if it means that I can do my small part to destroy marriage (a crucial part of the evil feminist conspiracy).

Comment #48: Wroth  on  07/23  at  09:48 PM

Obviously (hopefully) I think all public benefits bestowed to married people should be killed, unless they’re somehow mitigated by equivalent law that makes “alternative relationships” (single???!!!!) equally valuable financially. 

There isn’t any valid argument against the fact that marriage has financial benefits, and I, for one, am tired of it.

Yeah, yeah, there are all those nebulous “social” arguments for marriage, many of which I could debate on the side of, but when they start hitting me in the wallet it gets a little irritating.

Comment #49: John O  on  07/23  at  09:51 PM

My SO and I got married a year after we started dating. We’d only known each other for a couple of years before that. Our relationship didn’t change at all. We did get tax benefits and a lot of simplified accounting, though. It also allowed us some flexibility in healthcare arrangements.

It’s not my business whether you get married or not (whatever makes you both happy), but the only power anyone has over you is the power you give them. (In the context of a personal relationship.) Amanda, reading your last sentence @ 8:29 PM, it sounds like you’re working from a mindset of fear, which can’t be good for any relationship. Maybe I misunderstand.

Comment #50: Shaz  on  07/23  at  09:56 PM

i’m not saying everyone should immediately get married if their parents would make poor medical decisions, and i’m pretty sure i never implied that i wanted to apply my particular circumstance to everyone else who’s reading this.

It’s not that I got that you genuinely thought this, but that I think it’s really illogical as a reason people ought to get married.  You didn’t frame your comment as, “well this is one reason I got married”, you used the issue of medical decisions to promote marriage.  There are plenty of single people who can’t count on the decisions their parents would make in a medical emergency.  We’re doing ok, thanks.

i feel that your reply is not in good faith.

Do you know what good faith is?

my comment is an answer to the “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” argument. *an* answer, for me. not *the* answer, for everyone.

If your comment was an answer to an argument, then it’s obviously something you’re using to try to convince people that marriage is a good thing.  Again, you didn’t frame your comment as a personal story about why you chose to get married, you said that one reason marriage is good is because that way you have a proxy in medical decisions. 


also - congrats on having reasonable parents who would include a SO (or your own beliefs) in decisions. some of us aren’t so lucky. let’s remember that we’re not all in the same exact situation.

I never said that my parents are reasonable, or that they would do X in Y situation.  I said that, because I am happily single, I would have to trust them to do that.  Because I’m not going to run out and get married just in case. 

In fact, the main reason your example seems not to be a good reason people should get married is that it’s almost as difficult to know that your spouse would honor your wishes as it is that your parents would.  Plenty of spouses disagree on things like when to cut off life support and whether euthanasia is OK.  What happens if your husband hates your parents and refuses to allow them to visit you in the hospital?

Comment #51: The Opoponax  on  07/23  at  09:57 PM

It may be true that people expect that the “husband” doesn’t know where the diapers are. But when an unmarried man and woman, living together, have a child that they raise together, most people will expect that the male partner doesn’t know where the diapers are, too.

In either case: surprise them, guy!

I suspect that the only way to avoid cultural expectations of gender-based behavior within a heterosexual relationship is not to have a heterosexual relationship. Marriage ins’t the determining factor. YMMV.

Comment #52: Panask  on  07/23  at  10:03 PM

“Ohmigod, I have something in common with Foucault.

That scares me.”

You totally cracked me up, Mnemosyne. But it is sweet that you do the same thing. smile

Comment #53: Foucault  on  07/23  at  10:09 PM

“this doesn’t seem like a good reason to get married. single ppl who don’t trust their parents should have just as much right as married ppl to choose who makes those decisions. why do married ppl deserve this more than others?”

It’s not really a deserving thing so much as marriage is a short cut to it.  You can get most of the same rights that marriage confers without being married, but it takes a lawyer and the attendant fees.  Like if I was in Megan’s situation and unmarried, I might be stuck tooling around town with a legal notice on my person designating, say, my roommate as having the authority to make medical decisions for me in the event of incapacitation or that my parents’ wishes were in no uncertain terms to be disregarded if they were incompatible with accepted standards of care.  Because I’m married, I don’t need the piece of paper; my husband got that and a pack of other reciprocal rights with the one piece of paper whose terms are so widely understood and societally entrenched that you don’t need a list of what it gives you handy at all times. 

The best we could probably hope for legally is a federal domestic partnership status that has the same rights as marriage but doesn’t translate into “fuckbuddies 4 life.” Unfortunately, since much of the convenience of marriage comes from the fact that people don’t question “married” the way they might question, hesitate, or engage in CYA maneuvers with “civil unioned” or “partnered” or “power of attorneyed,” it’s going to take a while for whatever new iteration comes down the pike to sink in.

Comment #54: preying mantis  on  07/23  at  10:15 PM

Marriage or no marriage, equitable partnerships require us to overcome a lot of cultural baggage about gender roles.  It’s true that societal pressure pushes many people to sign the papers, buy the blood diamonds, have the party, etc., but that’s just trivial ceremony. 

Choosing not to label yourself as “husband” or “wife” doesn’t automatically immunize you from the pressure to adopt a specific role in a relationship, especially when your partnership is subject to the same family and public expectations as any legal marriage.  And especially when there are shared assets and kids.

Comment #55: charles  on  07/23  at  10:19 PM

Hang on.  Having a medical executor - someone who is assigned to make your medical decisions at the end of life or in case of your incapacity - requires signing a living will, not getting married.  I have one.  My Dad, single, died two years ago and I think everyone should have one.  But that’s not part of the marriage discussion.

Neither is having someone to come home to.  Single people have love in their lives too.  Geez.

Comment #56: Ann  on  07/23  at  10:20 PM

I happen to have a male partner and I’m still sure that if the shit hit the fan I’d be SOL and on my own. That’s just life.

Comment #57: Wicked Child  on  07/23  at  10:33 PM

Having kids pushes het couples into patriarchy-style arrangement in part because many/most men have no training in taking care of infants or kids. Can you imagine the reaction in lots of places to a teenage boy trying to get work as a babysitter? Even living in a fairly crunchy area, I’ve been looked at as pretty anomalous being out and about with an infant. But more than that, when I’m not with my offspring there’s a definite sense that my interest in other people’s toddlers is just a bit suspicious.

Boo effing Hoo, I know. Part of my job is to ignore that, just as I ignore the tradespeople who think that talking to me will get a different answer from talking to my spouse. But you can see the pressures all around.

Comment #58: paul  on  07/23  at  10:37 PM

Having a medical executor - someone who is assigned to make your medical decisions at the end of life or in case of your incapacity - requires signing a living will, not getting married.

If you’re single, yes.  If you’re married, your automatic medical executor is your spouse unless you specifically make other legal arrangements.  It’s part of the package and the reason why Terri Schiavo’s parents lost every single round in court.

Comment #59: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  10:45 PM

It may be true that people expect that the “husband” doesn’t know where the diapers are. But when an unmarried man and woman, living together, have a child that they raise together, most people will expect that the male partner doesn’t know where the diapers are, too.

I’ve gotta agree with Panask here.  You could even argue that unmarried fathers are often even further off the hook than married ones when it comes to their responsibilities as viewed by society.

I think the problems with marriage as an institution are symptoms of the larger problem with society.  If marriage were banned tomorrow, the same problems would still occur.

Now you’re all making me wish I’d finished reading Stephanie Coontz’ book.  I really should get back to it.

Comment #60: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  10:49 PM

Marriage, as it stands, gives men even more power in heterosexual relationships,

What do you mean by that? Are there some laws still on the book that I don’t know about?

Since I was a kid I’ve been repelled by the idea of marriage - as soon as I was old enough to realize that marriage was viewed that a trap that women set for men. And all the ugly stupid customs, jokes etc. that go along with that belief-system.

And of course all this at a time when in fact there WERE laws on the books that increased the husband’s   power over the wife.

But again, Amanda - what do you mean by the power comment?

Comment #61: Nancy  on  07/23  at  11:05 PM

“Most couples who are marrying have lived on their own for years and have set up a household already, and probably together.”

1) Guys can live for YEARS alone and lack all sorts of civilized appurtenances.*

2) Cite?

*man I hope I used that right….

Comment #62: Eric, Rejector of Memes  on  07/23  at  11:48 PM

I actually did get married, at least legally, because my parents were assholes.

Signing that paper with my then boyfriend, now husband (we had a real wedding a year and a half later, and count that as our actual marriage) allowed me to get health insurance, financial aid, and gave him next of kin status over me. Call me morbid, but as a 22 year old I was VERY concerned about what my parents would do with my body after I died, and now that’s not a fight.

And for the record, if you’re 19 and your parents decide that they don’t want you to go to college and therefore won’t fill out the FAFSA (let alone giving you any money whatsoever), you cannot apply for any government financial aid until you’re one or more of: a veteran, ward of the courts, married, have a child, 24, or in graduate school.

I chose married. For the years of trying to go to school prior to legal marriage, Sallie Mae owns me.

Comment #63: Ashley  on  07/23  at  11:50 PM

I’m married and happily so.  It’s not a completely egalitarian relationship, but it wasn’t before we got hitched, either.  However, he tries and I try and I call him on his shit when necessary and he’s mostly a good sport about it, so that’s always helpful. 

I do agree with Mnem and whoever else it was above who said that it isn’t the getting married that really reinforces the traditional gender roles so much as it’s the having kids.  And it isn’t necessarily the spouse that does that (mine is much better at taking care of the kids than he is at say, doing the laundry), but the outside expectation is that it’s the mom who is in charge of the kids and it’s the mom who loses her identity after having the children and becomes “the mom.”  But the dad still gets to be whoever he was before.  And while there may be slightly more pressure related to this to married couples, I don’t think that unmarried but together couples don’t experience it to some degree as well.

Comment #64: ks  on  07/23  at  11:55 PM

For me, marriage is just an extremely risky legal partnership—not worth entering into given the 50% chance of failure combined with the fact that’s it’s NOT business, but very personal. I’d actually feel a lot better about the concept of marriage if pre-nups were required as part of the process—a little up-front cynicism tends to keep everyone on their toes. Instead we have this overly-optimistic rosey approach where life-long success is presumed.

The only context in which marriage makes sense to me is if I would want to raise children with a woman and jointly confer the additional benefits (economic, legal, emotional) that kids have in a two-parent home—in other words transferring certain of the adult benefits to the minors.

I suppose there are also many legal benefits that would justify going to the courthouse and signing some papers, but I’m sure there are other legally-enforceable documents or a civil union that can be signed without going whole hog on a marriage partnership.

I guess I just don’t see why two independent people need to muddle things up by intimately involving the state and/or (*shudder*) church in their relationship. Not to say I haven’t seen some wonderful marriage partnerships, but they’re far outweighed by the divorces and the miserable or dysfunctional marriages.

All that being said, I still fully support the right of GLBT folks to have a chance at making the same catastrophic mistakes that heteros have enjoyed for millenia.

Comment #65: Gracchus  on  07/24  at  12:14 AM

I don’t think anyone has mentioned this yet, so I will.

To me, one of the most annoying aspects of marriage is the difficulty in leaving.  Compare a couple who cohabitate with one that is married - say for argument that neither has property or kids in common.  One member of the cohabitating couple can simply pick up and leave, and take his or her property along. The married couple must go through divorce, which is expensive and time-consuming even for this example of minimal comingling.  To hear marriage advocates tell it, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.  Given the people who tend to make this argument the most pointedly are the 1’s to 3’s on Amanda’s nifty Field Guide to Wingnuts, and given how they publicly desire to make it even harder to leave a marriage, I can’t help but be suspicious that there are big P reasons for it.  That, even though I can’t offhandedly name those reasons.  They want it to be a human roach motel - couples check in, but they don’t check out.

Comment #66: PostingWhileIntoxicated  on  07/24  at  12:50 AM

I’m chiming in to agree with the people who say that it isn’t marriage that re-inforces the patriarchy, it’s having kids, with one notable exception. My relationship with my wife didn’t change at all when we got married—but the exception is how other people perceive your relationship. You get a much different reaction if you introduce your spouse as “this is my wife, Name” than “this is my girlfriend, Name”. I think my wife got some pushback from more conservative friends and relatives as to How A Wife Should Act (which of course she ignored).

But there’s definitely a whole weight of expectations that crashes down upon mothers when they have kids. As a father I get points just for spending time with my kids or knowing how to change a diaper (thankfully in the past now that my two kids are both toilet-trained), so that the societal expectations for me are far lower than they are for my wife. Which is annoying, and it’s surprisingly easy to fall into the trap of letting the wife do more, which leads to frustration and resentment all around.

Comment #67: Norsecats  on  07/24  at  01:10 AM

It’s not my business whether you get married or not (whatever makes you both happy), but the only power anyone has over you is the power you give them. (In the context of a personal relationship.) Amanda, reading your last sentence @ 8:29 PM, it sounds like you’re working from a mindset of fear, which can’t be good for any relationship. Maybe I misunderstand.

This is incredibly presumptuous of you. I’d say that Amanda has outlined some very good reasons to be wary, even (yes) somewhat fearful of marriage. This is entirely reasonable of her, and it sounds to me like you are conflating, perhaps in bad faith, concern over an institution with fear within a relationship. The latter is indeed a bad sign, but your speculation that this is Amanda’s “problem,” is misplaced, I think. One of these things is not like the other! One could have the most wonderful, egalitarian relationship imaginable, without fear or dishonesty. And yet, the social power and pressures associated with the institution of marriage are so powerful that the fear that marriage might negatively transform that relationship is entirely reasonable. I find your defense of marriage, on the grounds of “it makes me and my partner happy and I think that you’re just afraid of [whatever],” to be presumptuous and unsettling. To me, your responses underlines Amanda’s criticism of marriage, rather than refuting it.

Comment #68: grolby  on  07/24  at  01:51 AM

I haven’t had time to read all comments, so I hope I won’t repeat what has already been said…

So if one’s preexisting relationship is equal and feminist and non-patriarchal, I don’t think that is likely to change simply because one obtains a marriage license. (Indeed, as some have pointed out, there are even some pro-feminist aspects to marriage, such as the fact that the legal rules are more straightforward as to property division and responsibilities and rights re:  children in the event of a break-up.) And if one’s pre-existing relationship is unequal and anti-feminist and patriarchal, marriage isn’t the problem, the relationship is.

I have to disagree with this—it is not that simple.  The gendered norms and values attached to the institution of marriage have been ingrained in all of us for too long and the identity of “wife” has so much psychological baggage that one can find themselves slowly slipping into the role without realizing it has happened. 1000 papercuts indeed. 

My husband and I had a very egalitarian relationship when we dated and we married 4.5 years into our relationship (living together for 4) because we intended to start a family (we could not think of any other reason why marriage was necessary).  It took another 7 years to get to the “family” part, but in the meantime, the pressure to be a “wife” wore down my ability to maintain that egalitarian relationship—much of it self-imposed by my own internalization of what it meant to be a “wife,” but much of it was externally imposed from his own ideas about what “husband” and “wife” are like.  A year after our son was born, I asked for a divorce because after 9 months of weekly marriage counseling I realized that there was no fixing an inherently broken identity such as “wife.”  When we reconciled, I told him that despite remaining married, I could never be his “wife” and I have not worn a wedding ring since as a symbol of my rejection of the identity.  We are re-establishing our egalitarian relationship, but it is a difficult process to transition from mentally being a “wife” to being a wife merely in the legal sense.

Comment #69: history_mom  on  07/24  at  02:06 AM

Norsecats:  I think my wife got some pushback from more conservative friends and relatives as to How A Wife Should Act (which of course she ignored).

My mother still glares at me every Thanksgiving and Christmas because I don’t wait on my husband hand and foot the way she waits on my father.  Now, waiting on him is what makes her happy, and he never takes it for granted, but she also has this idea in her head that that’s what a wife does, so I should be doing it because I’m a wife now.

Fortunately, though she’s been my (step)mother for 30 years, I somehow escaped the indoctrination she kept trying to dish out.

history_mom:  It took another 7 years to get to the “family” part, but in the meantime, the pressure to be a “wife” wore down my ability to maintain that egalitarian relationship—much of it self-imposed by my own internalization of what it meant to be a “wife,” but much of it was externally imposed from his own ideas about what “husband” and “wife” are like.

Oddly, the fact that my husband’s parents had a nasty divorce and neither of them has ever remarried has probably helped our marriage, because he saw from the inside how destructive those roles could be and how hard you have to work to not slide into those roles.  On my side, it helped that my dad told me from a young age, “Don’t get married,” which in retrospect took a huge burden off me since I didn’t have to spend all kinds of time internally evaluating my marriageability.  Of course, we’ve only been married for two years (together for eight) so there’s still plenty of time for us to fuck it up royally and for me to look like an ass if I re-read this a couple of years from now.

I like being married but I agree it shouldn’t be the default position for everyone.  For some people, having that legal status triggers subconscious parts of their brain that they didn’t even realize were there waiting for a chance to come out and they realize too late that they have very specific ideas of what a “wife” and a “husband” are supposed to be.

Comment #70: Mnemosyne  on  07/24  at  03:04 AM

(quoting paul on 07/23: Having kids pushes het couples into patriarchy-style arrangement in part because many/most men have no training in taking care of infants or kids.)

I never babysat as a kid. And I’m the youngest in my family.  I had no direct experience in caring for babies or children at all in my childhood or teenage years. You’re correct in the theory that there are far more girls and women who’ve had experience with caring for children than boys and men, but it’s hardly universal (I’m not the only woman I know who has never changed a diaper.) And while a teenage boy babysitting would raise some eyebrows - and he’d have a difficult time getting parents to trust him as a babysitter - there are as many boys with younger siblings and cousins as girls.

I’m a girl, so I’m somehow expected to not only be interested in children, but have some innate sense of how to deal with them. So, no, I don’t really feel a lot of empathy for fathers who are just clueless about childrearing and diaper changing. They can learn how to do it, just like new mothers do. But childcare involves a lot of shitwork, so I can see why they don’t bother to jump right in. As a woman, I’ve avoided the thankless drudgery aspects of having children by not having children. If I could be the “dad”, maybe I’d reconsider. But I know that it’s likely that I’d be the parent who have to remember if we needed more applesauce/diapers/whatever, and I’d be the one who juggled the schedules and made the domestic stuff work. It wouldn’t be because I’ve got inherent maternal instincts or have prior experience with children. It would be because childcare is women’s work. Because a lot of the day-to-day stuff isn’t that fun, but someone has to do it. A nice, liberal, pro-feminist friend of mine who became the default primary caretaker of his infant child because he was unemployed once said - “it’s just easier for women somehow.” The monotony and isolation of being at home with a small child is just easier for women, because we’re somehow biologically hardwired to perform the crappy domestic tasks, I guess.

Comment #71: ksms  on  07/24  at  06:11 AM

Waaah, PiaToR.

Help, help, I’m being oppressed.

As regards civil unions and marriages, we implemented a civil union law here in NZ - and relatively few people have used it, gay or straight.  I suspect this is because we’gve got reasonably good laws regarding defacto partnerships - it looks like a majority of couples are partnered without a marriage or civil union these days.

Given all the fuss the religious right made over it, it’s perhaps disappointing that about a thousand couples ended up using it.

Comment #72: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/24  at  07:35 AM

Re Paul and KSMS:  Not only that, but I have to say that I don’t think there’s nearly as much of a stigma against men developing childcare abilities as Paul seems to think there is.  I see men with their kids all the time, and not only have I never shot them a dirty look, I don’t know anyone who has and have never witnessed such a thing.  And, yes, I knew teenage boys who were babysitters and/or otherwise expected to participate in childcare. 

For the record: when I was a teen babysitter I very rarely was in charge of infants or very young toddlers who needed to be fed, changed, or any of the big stuff that a person might genuinely not know how to do.  It was much more about wrangling older kids, making sure they had dinner, got to bed at a decent hour, and the like.  It wasn’t babysitting that taught me to change a diaper, mix formula, bottle feed a baby, etc—most of that came from being the oldest of 4 kids, and having tons of younger cousins as well.  And I’ve never heard of any family where an older brother taking an interest in that sort of thing would be considered a potential pedophile. 

I’ll also say that even though I have a lot of experience with kids and feel comfortable doing some of the big stuff like holding a baby and changing a diaper, there are still a million things I don’t know shit about because they’re parental territory.  If I have kids, I’ll have to learn all of that along with everyone else, and as a woman I won’t have an excuse not to.

Comment #73: The Opoponax  on  07/24  at  08:31 AM

but the only power anyone has over you is the power you give them.

Oh, fucking bullshit.  And such bullshit that it’s clear that you don’t see the power and privilege you have over your wife well enough to even look at ways you can make your own relationship more equal.  It’s not time for me to do reckoning, but you.  By acknowledging that sexism is real and that male privilege is real, my boyfriend and I are at least in a place to work against it.  You deny it, and are likely walking all over your wife because of it.

Comment #74: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/24  at  10:38 AM

Nancy—-more power because it’s harder to dissolve the partnership if the man starts to take more advantage of his privilege.  Believe me; I was able to just up and walk out of a LTR because he started to ramp up the sexism until it was blatant mistreatment of me.  I have no idea what I’d have done if I had to get divorced—-probably suffered longer trying to make it work against all hope. 

None of this is a judgment on current boyfriend, who is smart and feminist and great.  In fact so much so that he doesn’t get all ruffly when I point out how marriage tends to make it easier for men to get away with shit because women have now got higher costs if they leave.  I showed him parts of this post before it went up, and he thought it was great.

Comment #75: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/24  at  10:44 AM

Or like Gracchus said, there’s something about a little upfront cynicism that keeps everyone on their toes.  Knowing that your partner has standards they can articulate up front and a door with which they can walk out is a powerful inducement to minding your manners.

Comment #76: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/24  at  10:46 AM

My view on this is a little less cynical.  Gracchus, first of all, the 50% figure is not true.  Never has been.  The highest the divorce rate has ever been was in the low 40’s, and it is currently about 1/3.

About walking away—sure, married people shouldn’t just walk away from eachother.  But on the other hand, there is something nice about choosing eachother permanently.  Saying to the person, you are the one I want.  (Yes, I realize that this may not be the same for poly folks/those in open relationships.  But it was important to me.) 

That said, I do not think that anyone should be pushed into marriage as a default.  We should define our relationships in the way it is best for us.  I also think some of the reason that marriage is privileged is because of its (purportedly) permanent nature.  When two people are together, it is hard for outsiders to know what that togetherness means.  (Which goes back to Amanda’s bit about putting people in boxes.)  About two years after they started dating, if not sooner, I knew that my older sister and her now-husband were permanent.  The only reason they got married (at least when they did) was due to pressure from my parents (and, I admit, some from me)* because they were about to have a kid.

*Yes, I know you can supposedly get almost all the rights to look after eachother and the kid without marriage if you fill out the right paperwork.  Problem is (as gay and lesbian families will tell you) this is expensive and the paperwork is not always honored.

Comment #77: Ismone  on  07/24  at  11:24 AM

But it was important to me.

I think this is the kicker in this whole discussion.

If there is something out there that is important to you and thus leads you to get married, then great.  But that doesn’t make it a good reason for the general population to get married. 

I don’t think any of the “marriage is kind of a mess and possibly not worth salvaging” folks here are trying to say that people who choose to get married are less feminist.  It’s just another choice to make, like any other.  For some people, the benefits handed out to married people will be important enough to make that choice over.  F Others will not need those benefits enough to go through with it, and still others don’t have access to the marriage option anyway, regardless of their need for simpler taxes or shared health insurance.

Comment #78: The Opoponax  on  07/24  at  11:55 AM

Opoponax:

I must have been unclear. When I’m with my kid (much more when he was an infant, less so now) I get looks and comments of approval in ways that are, imo, out of proportion to just being a parent with a kid. When I’m without him and interact with other kids his age (peering at the cute baby in a stroller, or saying hi to a toddler crossing my path on the sidewalk) is when I get the odd looks.

Comment #79: paul  on  07/24  at  12:02 PM

In my experience it’s absolutely not the state of being legally married that pushes patriarchy on people, it’s the state of having children together.

I got involved with a man who had two children. We couldn’t marry, at first because he had to wait to earn the cash for a divorce (even an uncontested divorce costs $1000 - $2000 in legal fees) after his wife left him, and then because both of us felt profoundly insecure about the entangling aspects of marriage. We didn’t marry until a month before we had a kid together, and it was entirely for health insurance reasons—at the time, I was unemployed, having been laid off while pregnant (a planned layoff, in the works for a year) and too exhausted by pregnancy to look for another job, so the health insurance that was covering my pregnancy was through him, and I had worked for insurance companies. I knew that when it came time to pay out on $24000 of hospital bills, we had damn well better be legally married or they’d ferret out that we weren’t and make us pay everything out of pocket.

When I met him he was experienced with small children and I wasn’t. By the time we actually got married, he diligently pretended he had no idea how to get kids up in the morning and get them ready for school. *Marriage* actually made me more secure, because now I have some legal rights vis-a-vis the older children, versus none whatsoever. But the patriarchal bullshit? That started, oh, about two months after he got custody of his kids (after his wife left him and them he gave them temporarily to his parents because he was homeless at the time.) I stayed because I thought it was an artifact of my having been unemployed when we got the kids, so I was the one who could be home for them, and then I stayed because they needed me, and then I stayed because I love them. I love him, too, but I would totally not have put up with this shit if it weren’t for the fact that I have no legal right to be with these children if I’m not with their biological father.

It’s not that he’s openly sexist. Absolutely none of his incompetence at child care is because he’s a man and can get away with it, oh no. It’s because he’s legally blind, and because he doesn’t understand my organizing system (what, you can’t open a drawer and see there are socks in it? He’s not *that* blind), and because he has a hard time waking up in the morning, and because he has to work to make money, except when he’s unemployed and then he has to work to get a new job, and because I never actually ask him to do any of this (does he ever ask *me*? Why can I just know that laundry needs to be done, and he has to be asked?), and so on. He’s actually not sexist so much as he’s selfish and blind to his own privilege, and a workaholic but that relates to privilege again, and makes more money than me but that relates to privilege again. But none of this was caused by getting married. It’s *all* due to raising kids together.

So no. I don’t think that if you are in a relationship with a good, feminist guy, and you get *married*, he will suddenly change into a privileged asshole. I do think it is very likely to happen if you have kids with him, but if you’re childfree by choice, marriage won’t change that. If you already share a domicile, chores, and money, you are basically married but have no legal rights vis-a-vis each other, so if one of you is dying in the hospital the other can’t get in to see you. (Which is bullshit, and I disapprove, but that’s the way it is.) So I do recommend marriage for people in a committed relationship that shares a residence and chores and money, whether either they don’t intend to have kids, or they have already had kids and still made it work. But I do not recommend having children with men. Even observing that they are committed single dads who are heavily involved with their kids and very capable of taking care of them does not mean he won’t dump the shit work on you just as soon as he can. In retrospect I might have been better off falling in love with a woman and using a goddamn turkey baster. (Note: my objection is not to having children—I have known I wanted children since a very early age and I would have felt empty without them. My objection is to having them with *men*.)

Comment #80: Alara Rogers  on  07/24  at  12:21 PM

Paul:

for what it’s worth, I’ve noticed that some women will shoot the stink eye at ANYONE who takes an interest in their young child.  I get dirty looks saying hi to toddlers, peeking in strollers, etc. all the time, and I’m a woman.  It might be different if I was a fellow mom, but I would guess that a dad with kids would get the same acceptance.

Comment #81: The Opoponax  on  07/24  at  12:44 PM

Opoponax,

I don’t disagree with you.  I would never encourage someone to get married who didn’t want to, and I think my next paragraph explains that.  I just wanted to make it clear that while Amanda and some of the others are listing the bad thigns about marriage, I think there are good things as well.

Alara,

I’m really sorry you’re having a tough time with the childrearing division of labor.  Have you thought about having some kind of list of chores you are each responsible for?  I know that is kind of mechanistic, and still puts you (somewhat) in the role of enforcer, but maybe it will help things somewhat.  Or not.  In any event, even if my unsolicited advice is totally worthless, I feel for you.  That must be frustrating.

Comment #82: Ismone  on  07/24  at  12:56 PM

I know in theory it doesn’t change the relationship if you don’t want it to.  In practice, I remain unconvinced.  The only couples I’ve seen really pull off the easy transition from a happy living-in-sin relationship to a marriage that isn’t really any different dated for 7-10 years before even considering tying the knot, i.e. so long that people gave up on trying to get them to conform.

The questions about why people marry are interesting, but your generalization of het married couples seems a bit short-sighted.  If you are worried about what will happen to your relationship if you get married, then marriage is not right for you (or perhaps with that person).  Saying I do does not fundamentaly change the way a couple operates. And FWIW, my husband and I knew each other for 4 months before we married and we have yet to succumb to traditional gender roles.

Comment #83: Olivia  on  07/24  at  01:34 PM

Saying I do does not fundamentaly change the way a couple operates.

It’s funny how, if a single person says they don’t want to get married because their relationship would be pretty much the same either way, marrieds will say that “Marriage Changes EVERYTHING!  Everything!”  If a single person says they don’t want to get married because they are happy with their relationship the way it is and don’t want it to change, marrieds will say that marriage changes nothing. 

I realize that different married people will obviously have different opinions of whether their relationship changed or not, but I do think it’s funny that married people who argue the virtues/benefits of marriage to single folks will pretty much say anything they have to say.

Comment #84: The Opoponax  on  07/24  at  02:02 PM

I realize that different married people will obviously have different opinions of whether their relationship changed or not, but I do think it’s funny that married people who argue the virtues/benefits of marriage to single folks will pretty much say anything they have to say.

Or maybe—and I know this is a bizarre concept—different married people have different perspectives on their relationships, so if you talk to five different couples, you’ll get five (or 10) different answers.

I know that sounds strange coming from a bunch of people who must all be exactly the same since they’re all married, but it’s true.  I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone that marriage changed anything for us, except that I hyphenated the cats’ last names.

Comment #85: Mnemosyne  on  07/24  at  02:22 PM

I have to disagree with this—it is not that simple.  The gendered norms and values attached to the institution of marriage have been ingrained in all of us for too long and the identity of “wife” has so much psychological baggage that one can find themselves slowly slipping into the role without realizing it has happened. 1000 papercuts indeed. My husband and I had a very egalitarian relationship when we dated and we married 4.5 years into our relationship (living together for 4) because we intended to start a family (we could not think of any other reason why marriage was necessary).  It took another 7 years to get to the “family” part, but in the meantime, the pressure to be a “wife” wore down my ability to maintain that egalitarian relationship—much of it self-imposed by my own internalization of what it meant to be a “wife,” but much of it was externally imposed from his own ideas about what “husband” and “wife” are like.

What I don’t get is that it would have been any different if you hadn’t married. “Girlfriend”, after all, is also a gendered concept attached to certain norms, many of which are heterosexist. And, obviously, there’s a whole bunch of sexist garbage that attaches to women who have children without marrying the father of the children.

I don’t deny any of the stuff that you or Amanda are claiming about the social construct of marriage. I just think that a rose, by any other name, smells the same. And it can’t simply be the label of “wife” that causes all the harms you are describing. Feminist women (and men) in any sort of a heterosexual relationship have to work very hard to avoid falling into patriarchal gender roles. That isn’t unique to marriages.

Comment #86: Dilan Esper  on  07/24  at  02:22 PM

I know that sounds strange coming from a bunch of people who must all be exactly the same since they’re all married, but it’s true.  I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone that marriage changed anything for us, except that I hyphenated the cats’ last names.

I think that’s the point I was trying to make, but you said it better.  I like being married for lots of reasons, but I don’t try to talk my single friends into it.  All the questioning over what may happen to people if they choose to marry is silly.  There’s no formula for what makes or breaks a good relationship.

Comment #87: Olivia  on  07/24  at  02:34 PM

As far as marriage not changing a relationship goes, I remember a study from last year (?) - and I’m guessing I read about it on this site - that discussed how marriage does make couples start adopting more traditional gender roles. I’ve been googling around for it and can’t seem to find it, but I know it exists. Anyone remember that?

I haven’t read all the comments, so perhaps someone already linked to it.

Comment #88: anony  on  07/24  at  02:37 PM

Amanda- I love you so much.
but the only power anyone has over you is the power you give them.

Oh, fucking bullshit.  And such bullshit that it’s clear that you don’t see the power and privilege you have over your wife well enough to even look at ways you can make your own relationship more equal.  It’s not time for me to do reckoning, but you.  By acknowledging that sexism is real and that male privilege is real, my boyfriend and I are at least in a place to work against it.  You deny it, and are likely walking all over your wife because of it.

Thank god someone else hates that bullshit platitude as much as I do. It’s pure victim blaming- much like telling a woman that she “shouldn’t dress like that or she gets what she deserves”... it’s putting all the blame on the victim and NONE (as usual) on the perpetrator of the emotional/physical abuse, sexism, rape, etc.

Comment #89: Danica Lefse Queen  on  07/24  at  02:42 PM

To prove your point, I recently decided, after essentially 12 months of being gainfully UNemployed, I will begin wearing engagement/wedding rings to job interviews… because society sees the lack thereof at my over-ripe old age (32) as a blaring mental, emotional, and social deficiency.

I’ll let you know if it works.

Comment #90: april  on  07/24  at  03:07 PM

different married people have different perspectives on their relationships, so if you talk to five different couples, you’ll get five (or 10) different answers.

I know that sounds strange coming from a bunch of people who must all be exactly the same since they’re all married, but it’s true.

Ummm, Mnemosyne, I said as much in the very sentence you quoted.

Comment #91: The Opoponax  on  07/24  at  03:39 PM

A hard dick doesn’t discriminate and I’m sure Amanda can get sex. Any woman can.

However, there is not a man alive that would marry her. And why would they? It would be a life of terrible blaming for all of her clinical psychological problems.

Comment #92: Robert_Zimmerman  on  07/24  at  04:34 PM

What I don’t get is that it would have been any different if you hadn’t married. “Girlfriend”, after all, is also a gendered concept attached to certain norms, many of which are heterosexist. And, obviously, there’s a whole bunch of sexist garbage that attaches to women who have children without marrying the father of the children.

Because “girlfriend” does not, in fact, carry the same social and psychological weight as “wife.”  A wife until pretty recently was legally the property of the husband, not so with a girlfriend.  The idea of a “girlfriend” is rather recent historically (though mistresses were common) and so is more easily manipulable to feminist ideals.  As a girlfriend I *knew* I was independent and I would not tolerate certain things in my relationship, he *knew* that he did not “have me” and it kept his behavior in check so that he did not abuse his gender privilege.  When asked what changed when we got married, we always replied nothing—and we were being sincere—because we could not see how our own internalization of sexism and the external pressures to conform were already changing how we related to each other.  It is so subtle you do not notice it but one day you just know something has gone terribly wrong, except you cannot put your finger on it. Being a feminist in and of itself is always a series of compromises with patriarchal forms: there are some things we easily reject as sexist, there are some things that we mostly reject because they are sexist, there are a lot more things we try to resist because they are sexist but often capitulate because our situation is too risky to oppose it (such as workplace issues), and finally there are some sexist things we simply concede because the social/psychological costs are just too high to fight it.  This is no less true with marriage.

Before I was married, I probably would have agreed with you that marriages that fall into typical gender dynamics indicate the relationship was flawed and that if “people just work hard enough” they can avoid the trap (which implies some sort of character flaw for those who do not succeed in maintaining the egalitarian structure of their relationship). I *THOUGHT* I was paying attention to our gender dynamics—I kept my own name, I maintained a separate bank account, I continued my education for my own interests and goals, I did not clean up after his mess (which meant an awfully messy house most of the time), etc.  I was wrong.  I was so busy working, finishing my undergrad, and starting grad school that I did not notice all the ways we started falling into gendered routines of me cooking all the time, caretaking him, and becoming the nagging wife to get him to help clean. Then came the total economic dependence and I completely lost whatever power I still maintained in the relationship (he brought in 70-90% of our income about 4 years into our marriage)—including the power to leave. When our son was born, I became the SAHM and it brought me to my epiphany of how far gone down the dark path we had gone. 

Our culture primes us for a mindset that enables the slip to happen virtually unnoticed—Amanda’s use of the phrase “death by a 1,000 papercuts” is not an accident, but you and others have studiously ignored this part of her post. Being so arrogant about your own snowflake specialness and super-feminist powers is a sure way to miss the signs that you too have fallen into the trap. I am nearly fourteen years into my relationship and generally happy in it, but one thing is certain: the longer I am married the less certain I am that it is an institution worth saving because I do not foresee the separation from its patriarchal moorings happening. YMMV.

Comment #93: history_mom  on  07/24  at  05:45 PM

My ladyfriend and I are going to shack up in the next couple of months, and while looking to rent an apartment in the SF Bay Area (Dear Disco Ball Help Me!) she’s decided to get a $10 fake engagement ring so we can pretend to be engaged and thus make ourselves more attractive to potential landlords. We’ll look like a more stable couple. This is all on her initiative so I don’t think I’m shoving patriarchy on her, but it’s a weird kind of thing to feel pressured to lie about.

However, we’re in our late 20s and it’s crazy marriage time amongst our peers, and I know we both feel the societal pressure in our own ways. For my part I just worry about not making enough money to provide for a family, and I know that the role of ‘Male Provider’ is one step shy of ‘High Priest in my Home’ in terms of partricarchal reinforcement, but I still feel pressured to be a good breadwinner.

Also, Weddings are a crazy waste of money. I flew accross the country to be a groomsdude for a buddy of mine, and the whole shebang was like $1200 out of my pocket, or rather, out of my credit providers pocket. But you go because it’s a big deal and you feel obliged. Stupid society.


Oh yeah, Fuck off Robert_Zimmerman nobody gives a shit what you think.

Comment #94: Ex Nice Guy(R)  on  07/24  at  05:51 PM

A lot of people have mentioned having kids as the likely cause of increasing traditional gender roles—there IS data on this!  Arlie Russell Hoschild’s book The Second Shift (1990) explored this exact thing, and also the ways that gendered behavior is perpetuated by social arrangements like marriage and especially childrearing.

Comment #95: ruviana  on  07/24  at  06:46 PM

Before I was married, I probably would have agreed with you that marriages that fall into typical gender dynamics indicate the relationship was flawed and that if “people just work hard enough” they can avoid the trap (which implies some sort of character flaw for those who do not succeed in maintaining the egalitarian structure of their relationship).

I think you are reading way too much into my statement. I didn’t say, and didn’t mean to say, that people who fall into gendered roles “aren’t working hard enough” at escaping them.

What I did say, and you misconstrued, is that in any relationship, including boyfriend-girlfriend as well as husband-wife, heterosexual couples who care about feminism have to continually fight an uphill battle to avoid falling into patriarchal gender roles.

Indeed, this literally starts from the first date, i.e., who picks up the check.

Comment #96: Dilan Esper  on  07/24  at  06:55 PM

Robert_Zimmerman, you wouldn’t sleep with Amanda because she’s a woman and you’re desperate. You’re attracted to her and you hate yourself for it, which is why you stalk her and leave nasty comments on her blog.

Comment #97: junk science  on  07/24  at  09:19 PM

My view on this is a little less cynical.  Gracchus, first of all, the 50% figure is not true.  Never has been.  The highest the divorce rate has ever been was in the low 40’s, and it is currently about 1/3.

Fair enough—the figures are all over the place, and I can accept that it’s likely not 50% in the U.S. But even a 2/3 success rate (and this defines “success” by the very low bar of staying together) is still not enough to justify the incredible level of optimism going into the contract.

About walking away—sure, married people shouldn’t just walk away from eachother.  But on the other hand, there is something nice about choosing eachother permanently

Married people can’t walk away easily as it stands—even the most amicable divorces are a traumatic mess. So planning up front for the 1/3 contingency that such a serious partnership could go pear-shaped makes a lot of sense. But just watch the reaction and drama when someone dares ask their fiance for a pre-nup.

And yes, there is something nice and lovely and romantic about making the choice to be together permanently. But one doesn’t need to step up in front of a judge or clergyman to make that choice, unless one is seeking a one-stop package deal of legal and economic benefits.

Comment #98: Gracchus  on  07/24  at  10:34 PM

“It’s funny how, if a single person says they don’t want to get married because their relationship would be pretty much the same either way, marrieds will say that “Marriage Changes EVERYTHING!  Everything!” If a single person says they don’t want to get married because they are happy with their relationship the way it is and don’t want it to change, marrieds will say that marriage changes nothing. .”

I know it sounds like a massive cop-out, but getting married simultaneously changed everything and nothing for us.  We’d been together nearly 8 years at that point, and living together for about six months, so the day to day stuff was pretty much the same.  Nothing objectively changed.  But subjectively, it felt very different—much more stable and secure.  Not because either of us was locked in now, because we were pretty much locked in by the emotional bonds long before, but because we had rights and protections of which I seriously felt the lack during the time leading up to the wedding.

Shacking up, for me, felt like this bizarre limbo between being married and not.  I had to deal with his mess full-time, because I had no apartment of my own to go to when he annoyed me, but if something awful were to happen to either of us, we had no standing to make decisions for one another.  This was something that kind of came to the forefront early for us, because I wound up in the emergency room about 2 months after we moved in together, and my legal next of kin was my parents, who were 3 states away.  It turned out to be nothing serious, but the feeling of powerlessness was scary as hell.

All that being said, being married isn’t for everybody.  There is nothing in this world that is right for everybody.  That’s the beauty and the pain in the ass of the world being full of individuals.

But I honestly don’t understand the arguments about increased power over a woman when she gets married.  The power to take advantage of his privilege sounds remarkably like the power to be an asshole to me, and that’s generally taken care of by *gasp* not marrying an asshole.  And it cuts both ways, really—it’s just as hard for him to leave because I’m being a castrating shrew as it is for me to leave because he’s being a misogynistic pig.  And if we’re equally free to be assholes, it sounds like a pretty equitable arrangement, really.

The part I really, really don’t get, though, is the talk about total economic dependence.  My husband makes probably 90+% of our annual income, as he’s a physician and I’m a vet assistant and crafter, but I’m certainly not dependent on him.  I’m an able-bodied adult, ffs; there is absolutely no barrier to me supporting myself and my pets.  My standard of living would take a huge hit, but I could take care of us.  Barring some sort of mental or physical disability, I’m having trouble picturing why a grown woman who presumably supported herself prior to marriage couldn’t do so again.

Comment #99: Tamara  on  07/25  at  10:52 AM

Tamara, well said.

Comment #100: Olivia  on  07/25  at  12:01 PM

But gracchus, it is not 50-50 (so no coin-flipping) and there is a difference between couples who get divorced and those who do not.  (Atheists have the lowest divorce rate, btw.)  I am fine with 67%.  People make mistakes and change, and the fact that the number is going down reflects that fewer people are getting married and more of those who make the choice are choosing to stay together. 

The only divorces I’ve seen (I used to work on a state appellate court) are the really bad ones.  Something like 90% (or more) settle without litigation.  I’m a big fan of the new collaborative divorce idea.

And yeah, it isn’t just about the commitment, (although that was important to me) it was also about the legal rights.  Particularly in my situation with my husband.

Comment #101: Ismone  on  07/25  at  07:37 PM

Opoponax -
Re entry from a while back about relating to other people’s children. You are correct in my experience. I have two daughters and when they were little and I was out with them, moms with children seemed to really treat me as a friend and one of the crowd.
Another interesting experience was that when I was out with one of my little girls and my wife was not with us, I got loads of smiles and warm looks and even offers of help from women (alone or with children). These did not seem to be any kind of signal that THEY were interested in me, just a compliment that seemed to always say how sweet they thought it was for a dad to be out having fun (or doing something like grocery shopping) with his little girl(s). Yes, I realize I was benefiting from my gender. Still, it was nice. For the record, I was never one of those men who wanted sons. My personality is far better suited to relating to daughters.
Greetings to all on this site. I’m usually just a “lurker” but once in a while put out a post.
Have a good weekend.

Comment #102: Doug  on  07/25  at  09:02 PM

Tamara: Seriously, you don’t know how that would be possible?

Here’s a scenario:
1) Couple met while still very young, quickly started living together and sharing household expenses working at their minimum wage jobs—apart they could not have afforded to live alone, together and with roommates they could live independent from parental units.
2) Couple gets married quite young, the woman still has minimum wage job in retail while the man starts consulting business; the consulting business takes several years to pick up, so they still require roommates to offset living expenses. Woman uses bonds she received as a child to help pay for college part-time.
3) Man’s business takes off so woman quits job to complete BA degree and start grad school.  TA position does not provide a living wage, but covers all school expenses and some bills.
4) Couple has baby; TAship contract ends with no possibility to renew; can’t afford daycare so woman stays home with zero income.  Should the relationship end, the woman has no family to live with and no friends with whom to become roommates, has applied for work at jobs ranging from minimum wage to those using her degree, but after a year still has not received a single interview because she is either a) overqualified, b) over-educated, c) lacks the requisite applied use of her degree (i.e. experience in her field), or d)gets hit with the mommy penalty due to a work gap and having a young child. With worsening economy, prospects are getting worse. Husband’s business takes a dive due to bad economy so family debt is increasing rapidly.

You’ll note from this story that at no point was I 100% supporting myself—I went straight from the family home to live-in boyfriend with roommates. Yes, I worked full-time and paid my way through school, but I certainly did not do it alone and I am not going to pretend that I did not have a lot of help. Judging from the experiences of my friends, family, former co-workers, and college acquaintances, my experience is not exceptional. Few early 20-somethings (when I got married) are totally independent. True, I could always sacrifice my son’s safety to live in a crappy neighborhood and find total strangers to room with, but really, that’s not exactly an improvement of the situation is it?

The thing is, it’s not that the relationship is irredeemable, but that the lack of a means to leave the relationship (no job, no place to live, a child to support, an increasing debt load) does not allow a woman who is totally economically dependent to truly evaluate the relationship or its salvageability.  In addition, the fact that I am at this huge disadvantage does give my husband a terrible power advantage when it comes to negotiating the terms of our relationship—I have much more to lose than he does and he knows it.  This is not an unusual circumstance, both historically and from what I know of the experiences of many other SAHMs. If he’s not an asshole,  he won’t abuse his position, but as a man with the blindness of his privilege he will not completely avoid pressing this advantage either.

But really, I hope you never experience the feeling of total dependence (no, seriously) and can continue to judge those of us who find ourselves in this position as somehow less than you. I’m glad to hear you have pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps and will never be in a position of economic dependence. I also note that you do not have children (and no, pets are not the same thing) and so can look down your nose at us grown women who are dependent on spouses and pat yourself on the back for your independence.  When it’s not just you that you have to worry about, the calculus changes considerably.

But hey, it’s so much more fun to blame individual women for systematic inequalities that make it more likely they will become economically dependent on their husbands. Didn’t this used to be a feminist forum?

Comment #103: history_mom  on  07/26  at  03:05 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.