February 29th - that boring hackneyed old crap again

I say abolish Feb 29th.

I'd rather it not be abolished, given it's my birthday!

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that gay men are less likely to desire marriage than gay women because marriage implies some sort of monogamy, and men are less likely to desire/expect monogamy than women.

"You can interpret the data as "Womenz are desperate to be validated by a ring!" or, if you're feeling thoughtful and analytic about things, look at the fact that getting a wife is a great deal, whereas getting a husband is a terrible bargain. When offered the great deal, people go for it. When offered a terrible bargain, people don't. "

Fine, except that it's not true. You say marriage is a bad deal for women, yet our own eyes (and messages on Mumsnet, though possibly not the feminist section) tell us that women are eager to do it! As the NYT article said, that's not a straight versus gay thing, because where same-sex marriage is legal, women are more likely to do it than men.

Or maybe that's not true either, or not true everywhere:
www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/07/07/more-women-than-men-having-civil-partnerships/
They say, "According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, 49 per cent of last year’s ceremonies were held by men. In 2009, men held 51 per cent of all civil partnerships."

Which makes it sound as if in the UK, numbers are pretty much equal.

Yes, I've given that theory some thought - it seems to hold water, to me.

Personally I have very ambivalent feelings about marriage - hate it as an institution, love feeling like a 'team' with my spouse. Hate the idea that it's a woman's life goal, hate that it erases other (frankly more significant) achievements, hate that it's seen as the entry to adulthood for women, etc etc.

DH and I are rabid allies in the gay marriage equality movement over here, and we often say it's for selfish reasons. Marriage is a feminist issue because when marriage doesn't have 'gendered' roles, it won't have sexist expectations. If* we do want to reclaim marriage from the patriarchy or reform marriage into something that actually works for us, I think seeing lots and lots and lots of different kinds of marriage that work with equality and happiness for all is the only way. Little Timmy won't think it's odd that his friend Jenny's mother works while her dad stays at home, if he has TWO mothers, because he won't hang a work/sah expectation on a gender.

*And I'm not sure we do. hence the ambivalence

Thanks blackcurrants that's interesting. I imagine it's a combination of wives being more desirable than husbands and society drumming into women that marriage is the ultimate achievement.

I did also find a link here which says gay couples are often happier than straight ones because they don't have social convention to keep them together, so they have to work on their relationship rather than settle if they're unhappy.

Tei You can interpret the data as "Womenz are desperate to be validated by a ring!" or, if you're feeling thoughtful and analytic about things, look at the fact that getting a wife is a great deal, whereas getting a husband is a terrible bargain. When offered the great deal, people go for it. When offered a terrible bargain, people don't. :)

"Homosexual men were marrying each other MUCH LESS than homosexual women were. Because everyone perceives that a husband is a bloody drag."

Or it could be that women want to get married, and men are pretty indifferent to the idea?

Article from 2005 about lesbian versus gay couples:
www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/fashion/sundaystyles/08gay.html?pagewanted=all
"Even in Gay Circles, the Women Want the Ring"

Another big Rachel Maddow fan here

ARGH,
that should say "Men were marrying, but in far lower numbers."

GHomosexual men were marrying each other MUCH LESS than homosexual women were. Because everyone perceives that a husband is a bloody drag. :)

Ria I don't know the answer to that question but I do remember a study on the news over here in the US, in the states that allowed gay marriage.
Women were flocking to marry other women.
Men were marrying, but in much greater numbers.

The reporter did a really thoughtful piece about it (it's a lefty feminist news editorial show with a fabulous feminist lesbian genius presenter called Rachel Maddow) - the commentary wasn't a lot of joking about "well, of course everyone wants a wife" but noticing that structurally marriage is about women offering support to men, therefore women who marry other women expect to exchange support -whereas men don't want to marry other men, because they expect the other man to demand support from them, and be a drain.

As husbands are when women have them..

Bit rambly, I'm rather tired. But I thought it was fascinating!

Returning to 'single women are happier than married women' does single mean 'no dp whatsoever' or 'potentially long term relationship with kids and mortgage but no legal ceremony'?

And does anyone know whether this is true for gay marriage too? Wondering whether it's being married or being married to men specifically which is detrimental to women.

Women aren't fools. Men as a sex are exploitative of women.

That's fun, but does it fit most women's experiences? I think most women want to get married, and always have done, and not just because the alternative was even worse. Or maybe it's the case that the majority of women are fools, and they're waiting for someone who knows better to come along and tell them what they need to know! I suppose that's why I mentioned the thread on AIBU--what feminists are saying just doesn't seem to match other people's lives, and those people aren't idiots or slaves.

I saw a discussion on a different board, where the subject was whether marriage is bad for women. And the consensus was that yes, it's bad for women, but nevertheless a man who's willing to do it is better than one who isn't.

Love it SGB

Fantastic post SGB.

Feminist win of the week.

SGB, I think I love you. Best post ever!

Look, marriage was set up by men because it's advantageous to men (they get to control women's breeding potential and get a free, live-in domestic servant) And then men arranged things not so much that being married was good for women, but that not being married was awful. And then we had some feminism, and women started realising that actually being married is not all that, and quite a few stopped doing it, and quite a few more made it clear that if they were going to do it they were going to get benefits from doing it and if it wasn't good for them they'd walk away, and the patriarchy hive-mind went, OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!! and all the propaganda started about how marriage is women's destiny and dream* and yet it's also a privilege that they will only be allowed if they are sufficiently abject and self-denying and obedient and 'worthy'. So the idea of asking for marriage, the Great Goal, had to be forbidden to women as well except under Special Privilege Status. If you keep telling people that something's really wonderful but they can't have it unless they are permitted to have it, and the giving of it is in someone else's power then many of them will go beserk with wanting it without ever actually wanting to have a look at it in more detail.

Only because this bullshit is bullshit, it has to be reinforced continually in different ways. That's what this Leap Year Proposal shit is about. It's another way of going 'Look, it's a smelly cock but we've put a ribbon on it and you reeeeeaaaallly want that ribbon, don't you? Well today we've made the ribbon long enough for you to reach it.'

I got your point teitetua!

I must admit that I am as foxed about "the proposal" as I am about "being a princess for a day". Surely if you meet someone and you are both at that point in life where you are ready to settle down and / or you fall madly in love then you decide to get married between you. This whole "waiting for him to propose" and if he doesn't you're allowed, what, once every 4 years and if you do it that way the people who are traditional (ie you, frankly, if you have waited) are going to think it's not "proper" somehow anyway.

The whole thing is a load of old balls.

I think, judging by facebook today (!), that lots of women feel it's a step in the feminist direction that women 'get' to propose. I don't agree but I see where they're coming from - I don't recall it being such a 'tradition' when I was younger and my mum and dad reckon there was never any socially-sanctioned time when a woman could formally propose when they were at that stage - not even a day. So from that point of view I guess you can see positives.

I don't think the number of people posting on a thread tells you anything much about whether the activity described is a good one to imitate ... chaos's 'I Ciffed my Fanjo' thread was running into the 80s last I looked ...

My point? That this is a thing where lots of people, maybe mainly women, are enthusiastically not being feminists. Or maybe they actually think they are, as the women are doing the proposing. And even asking how they ought to do it, and getting serious replies. And maybe I was wondering if there's a right feminist view of this at all, and what does it show about people's outlook, where some are liking the tradition and others hating it. But really, I don't think there are any serious conclusions to be found!

What's your point TeiTetua?

Over on Am I Being Unreasonable, someone is asking:
--to not know the etiquette?

And the topic is
for asking my chap to marry me on 29th- do I get him a ring? But chaps don't generally have engagement rings? Do I get my own ring ( will only be a cheapy thing either way but more of a token I guess )

341 messages. That's a lot more than this thread, I'm afraid.