Marriage and Feminism

Obviously "wedding" is not the same as "marriage" but still...

I really objected to some of the questions the (female) registrar asked when we applied for the marriage license - what my father did, for example? Why not my wife's? Why not my mother?

My wife has kept her name (ironically at my insistence), we wrote our own vows stressing equality, had a civil ceremony (no paternalistic religions for us!) with a female celebrant, had a best woman, our mother's both gave speeches, and we walked in together. So I feel we managed to strip out or negate the worst bits of marriage's history.

[I'd actually been completely against the idea of marriage, for much the same reason as the OP. Until I met my wife... then I knew I wanted to get married! ]

thanks HerBeX - I think that is what I am/was grappling with....

I understand Darlene's point in that in a context where women have very few rights, grabbing them where they can makes sense.

The problem is the context. If women didn't have very few rights, if they were operating on a level playing field with men, they wouldn't need to grab rights where they could, because they already have them.

The happiness hierarchy is mentioned in Wifework as well. She also states that women who see their marriage as fair or equal are usually those who feel their partner supports them emotionally.....

Darlene - I am having a problem with that statement, but can't work out why.....

HerBeX, Your happiness hierarchy is zero surprise to me. Nice to have scientific back-up, though.

Marriage tend to give women more rights so I see it as being quite a feminist thing to do.

No, it's not, I'm afraid, guyane. That's precisely why the government -if it is going to involve itself in 'nanny state' initiatives - would do well to stress the legal side of marriage via education campaigns.
There was one poster once on mn a while back who seemed incredulous that her spouse may be entitled to her house (at least a part of it) because they were married.
I think she honestly believed marriage was about hearts and flowers and romance and love (it is in part, but only in part because nobody needs to be married to love another so surely marriage is for other reasons like legalities). Her ignorance stunned me, to be honest.

Exactly. 'Null and void' would be a good option - but legally it's not, is it

But if one partner is refusing to work as a team, then the partnership (as a 'state') has broken down and therefore the contract should be IMO 'null and void'. One person has broken his/her promise to work together.

The whole point of a good relationship is that you both are always open minded and willing to be persuaded. If one partner is stubborn and refuses to hear the other person's thoughts and ideas, then it's not a true partnership IMO.

Late to the discussion here... I agree with the post about it being an agreement for a partnership till death... and (permit me to speak from personal perspective here) since I feel our marriage is no longer (and has never really been, TBH) a partnership, I want out. However, we are now coming up against more differences in our approach to coparenting - I can, he can't, basically because he sees no future in staying around if he can't get laid . So beware, is all I can say, that you're really sure that you're both coming to marriage from similar perspectives!

My mariage was, if I'm honest, a lazy way of making sure we had equal rights to all property and material wealth (for both of us). The marriage ceremony (it was a civil ceremony in a reg office) also conveniently acted as a public statement to our family and close frineds that we were shacking up together for the foreesable future.

There was no 'proposal'. We agreed we both wanted to get married (after 7 yrs together, and one child ).
I didn't wear white.
There was no engagement, diamond ring or any of that nonsense.
Our mothers were witnesses. My dad did not give me away or make a speech.
I made the only speech / toast at the meal afterwards.

So far, so good. We have been together 11 years, married 4 years, another child has arrived. We are a partnership, and try very hard to just be ourselves, not constrained by gender stereotypes (as far as that is possible in our society).

Marriage hasn't changed any of that.

Don't make me feel even sadder, Guildenstern!

Oh such cynicism...

FlamingoBingo I don't think there are enough good, equal relationships out there for a study. :)

Yes, in an ideal world the same number of women and men would be happy or unhappy with the single or married state, it would all come down to personal taste/ character, rather than systemic, inbuilt advantage to one partner.

So possibly in a feminist utopia the number of women who would prefer to be single might be far less, as there are far fewer shit men around.

Dunno, I guess they don't go into that sort of detail in these surveys...

But yes my guess is that most relationships are pretty unequal, which would explain why the more powerful class are happy with them...

Is that because of the number of dysfunctional marriages with usually are more pleasant for men than for women?

That's shit . Still, I think the statement "I still think women are generally happier single (and this means either living alone OR with partner who lives elsewhere) than anything else, though." really ought to be qualified by what you've just posted, becuase it does sound rather like 'women don't like being in relationships' which is very different from 'many women are in shit relationships and therefore prefer being single'.

Have there been similar studies about being in good, equal relationships vs. being single?

It is true overall though FB. Countless studies show when people are asked about how happy they are, the heirarchy of happiness goes like this:

1. Married men
2. Single women
3. Married women
4. Single men

So women prefer to be single than married overall, and men prefer to be married. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but that's the general picture.

Men are getting more out of marriage than women are currently. It makes them happier than it makes women. Women are responsible for the majority of divorce petitions.

"I still think women are generally happier single (and this means either living alone OR with partner who lives elsewhere) than anything else, though."

Wow! That's a bit of a generalisation, Wamster!? I don't think I'd be happier single - I love living with my husband! I'd really hate to be without him.

I see what you are saying, and think we actually mena the same thing - this is why my resistance to marriage suprises me. I do behave as anyone who is married does (I think ), after more years than I care to remember that is probably inevitable.

I am liking the idea of partner living elsewhere - shame we can't afford it :)

I still think women are generally happier single (and this means either living alone OR with partner who lives elsewhere) than anything else, though.

Blackduck, OK, apart from the legal differences, I see no difference between long-term cohabiting unions and marriage.
(Some would say that this should give cohabiting unions same rights as marriage: I say, 'No' because it has to be respected that not all cohabitees wish to have 'marital rights' and wish to live together on own terms.)

In my experience, women who cohabit in longterm unions do exactly same stuff as married ones when it comes to the everyday stuff of life- so I think, 'You may as well be married'.
Whether people do or not is up to them.

I don't think you can really compare state of marriage with that of cohabitation- marriage is where two people explicitly state they wish to be together for life, cohabitation relationships vary widely in their commitment levels. I think this is true.

But I would see no real difference in two long-term, stable relationships where the two unions were identical with the ONLY difference was that one had a marriage certificate in terms of how they behave.

Wamster you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. However, you can't argue long-term cohabiting unions (guess I have one of those) are marrigae in all but name, because, as you then point out cohabting itself has no legal rights to it. So they are NOT equal postions. Also peoples attitudes (its not just in my head), are different to the two states.