is modern marriage sexist?

OP I think you've described a traditional wedding not a modern marriage

Modern wedding to me = whatever ceremony you choose, could just be a town hall quickie. No white dress, no being given away, no name change. The wording of the civil ceremony isn't sexist. Even the religious ceremony wording isn't sexist once the "obey" is taken out.

Modern marriage = no presumptions about who does what based on gender (well except pregnancy I guess), all is worked out between the couple according to what suits them both. Equal rights/say in relation to everything especially money, property, religion, upbringing of DC etc.

Chunderella I agree with you - I think marriage is (in general) much more advantageous for women than a long term partnership without marriage. Especially if there are children involved.

Lottapianos, about the people wanting their fiances to ask their dad for permission - have you heard that a lot? I did hear it once from 2 unbelievably stupid unthinking trivial-minded total fools and could not believe it. Fumed about it for the rest of the week, and - 5 years on - never forgot...

Oi you idiots! Anyone who thinks that! Do you not bloody realise that the next step after asking dad permission to wed is him saying 'no' to the one you want - and then him saying 'yes' to someone you don't want - and then him just auctioning you off to the highest bidder as soon as he can! Aaarrrggghhh can't believe how imbecilic some people are!

Newsflash - women's rights are not automatic and women will always, always need to fight for their right to be considered human.

My father did walk me down the aisle. It mattered to him, but he didn't demand it. He's been a fantastic Dad and I didn't want to do something that would imply otherwise - family and his generation would have wondered. In the end, it was lovely to do it with him, he always made time for me as a child and we did lots of stuff, just us back then, too.

Also if you want to immigrate with a spouse visa

All the handy legal stuff with non of the baggage. Also in other countries (I'm American) people get their insurance through their employers or their spouse's employers. So being married is very important if you no access to decent health care in your own right.

it's only really in recent years that i've noticed boxes on forms that say "domestic partnership" or similar, rather than just "single, married, divorced", so it's possibly just not been used as a category in data collection for that long. presumably also lesbian women might have counted as single (i have no idea how it was conducted btw, just speculating)

Past marriage yes....but we can change it and get rid of the sexism over time. I don't know anyone who has the whole obey thing and I know quite a lot of women who call themselves anti feminists

Initially, I was strongly against marriage. My mother/father were in an arranged marriage, and although my stepfather and her were more than in love (something she ultimately sacrificed her relationship with her parents/siblings for), that left a strong impression on me.

Just because it used to be sexist doesn't mean it has to be. I married in a library wearing a dress...it was blue. No one gave me away, no promising to obey, no religion involved. What's the point in a civil partnership?

Sorry missed that that single/unmarried thing was mentioned already.

Bit tired..

Really- research shows that single women are healthier than married women.

Yes but not married doesn't equal single. I always thought those statistics were for women who weren't in a relationship. (could be wrong though)

I haven't read wife work, but I'd be surprised if it was marriage that changes the nature of long term (like years) relationships and not children, which frequently occur after marriage.

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of marriage entirely and quite like the idea of everyone having a legal CP and if you want a marriage have an additional ceremony in a house of worship

Did you know that our dear PM has said no to extending CPs to opposite sex couples? For absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

I didn't know, and that's fucking ridiculous, what possible justification can there be? I can't see our 'delightful' new minister for equalities and women bothering her arse, she doesn't think gay people should be allowed to have them either.

nothing of which you speak is in the registry office marriage ceremony. And name changing has always been optional.

don't recall any society pressure either.

non-problem.

'I think civil partnerships should be available to all though to get round this. All the legal protection with none of the anti-woman baggage'

Did you know that our dear PM has said no to extending CPs to opposite sex couples? For absolutely no good reason whatsoever. Hopefully Labour will sort this out if when they take over next year. Yvette Cooper at least has said she is all for it.

Petula, that's a really good question - people aren't just 'married' or 'single' anymore. DP and I have been together 9 years so I'm sure as hell not single but not married either.

Petula- I don't know!

I've been with my dp for 22 years (how did that happen?!). We talked about marriage a bit in the early days, but could only really see the attraction as a convenience thing, and that never felt like a strong enough driver to actually do it.

I think my objection to marriage is less that it is sexist (some of the historical aspects do concern me, but I think it's possible to create a modern version of marriage) and more that promising to stay with someone for ever when half of all marriages break down (is that stat right? some high percentage, anyway) seems a bit, well, odd. When I've said that to people, the response is often 'well, what I'm doing is saying that I HOPE to be with that person for ever', but that's not what the ceremony actually says, is it?

I like to kid myself that I wake up each morning and make a conscious decision that I want to be with my dp, but given the two kids, shared mortgage and large amounts of shared crap we seem to have acquired over the years, I'm not sure how valid an argument that really is

weatherall how does that related to women who aren't single but aren't married?

Really- research shows that single women are healthier than married women.

If you read 'wifework' the author discusses how previously 'non sexist' relationships change after a wedding.

I guess a marriage is only as good as the person you're married to.

Bloody autocorrect!

My father gave me away, that should say.

I got married at 23. My father have never away because that was what the minister said had to be done. With hindsight, I'm not happy about that, but it's too late now. At my pre wedding rehearsal, 48 hours before the ceremony, the minister suddenly sprung it on me that I'd be expected to obey. It was only when I held firm and told him that I wouldn't be proceeding if that was the case that he agreed on different wording. But tbh, if he had insisted I probably would have gritted my teeth and said it because the alternative was having to spend 48 hours tracking down all our guests and telling them not to come, plus losing out on the money paid for the reception, and having to organise the whole thing again.

I'm in my late 30s now and still happily married. Our actual marriage has not been sexist or detrimental to me, because my husband is not sexist and I wouldn't have married him if he was. But yes, our ceremony was sexist and I find that annoying. But if I hadn't been so young I'd have had more confidence to question things.

The name thing though, I don't see that women are under much pressure to change their names these days. I changed my name because I wanted to, not because I felt it was compulsory. People do assume a name change but I think that assuming you've changed names and thinking it's wrong not to change your name are not the same thing. Most of the time (although clearly not always) if you say to someone 'actually I'm still xx xx name' they will accept that.

From one PoV the only reason to get married is if you have children. It protects certain legal rights for both parties.

I think civil partnerships should be available to all though to get round this. All the legal protection with none of the anti-woman baggage.

Most of what you're taking about is a wedding, not marriage; very different.

I do understand though not being able to get past the history surrounding marriage. It is something that bothers me too