Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

[DontdoitKatie]

This is one of the times when you realise how very lonely seeing things through a feminist lens can make you.

Patriarchy in all its glory.

Dittany, your statement: It's patriarchal to try and put relationships into a legal contract. looks oddly naive. As I've, perhaps ineffectively, explained: I feel that a contract is wise & necessary for people who are joining their lives. My issue is with our current all-or-nothing choice (gross simplification.) I feel there are better ways to do it than to have the State determine one rule for everybody who marries.

Of course that isn't how it works in practice: our law is constantly modified by case tests, thank goodness. But I find this widespread reluctance to acknowledge the practical aspects of relationships very damaging; it's mostly women who fall into the trap, which makes it worse imo.

You are very obviously in deep denial about living in the past, dittany, but I am neither rude nor unpleasant to point it out to you. You clearly find it very uncomfortable that I do so, and try to refute it - understandably, since your whole life seemingly revolves around being a 1960s feminist, and you are clinging on to your outdated belief system for dear life since it would leave a gaping hole in your existence if you faced up to facts and admitted that the 2011 feminist agenda is quite different (and much more complex and sophisticated) than the one you embrace.

SGM, I googled "how many men have been convicted of raping their wives" and found this by Sue Lees, which says Since the Home Office do not categorise marital rape cases separately, we do not know how many convictions occur. We do however know that the number is tiny. In tracing the outcome of 100 cases of reported rape from three police stations between 1988-1990 no cases where the defendant and victim had had a previous sexual relationship resulted in a conviction

I think the paper's quite old, though.

Gosh, no wonder you find life difficult, dittany, if you think I am being rude here . You need to toughen up!

I think dittany is a dangerous stirrer of sexist propaganda and hatred and I think she should take a long, hard look at herself.

It's quite possible they don't think so! You know, there are wider issues to consider. Had they chosen to flout convention in a major fashion, it would have meant putting feminist politics before the people's expectations, before the Queen's status as head of church, before the pomp, ceremony & traditions, and before the tourist dollars. Sure, it would've been nice if they had, but I wouldn't blame them for compromising!

Good point, SBM. One of the above might have collected data.

When Kate reached the bottom of the aisle, I thought that was the only time she looked nervous - and she gripped her dads hand very tightly. At this point William and Harry were both looking her up and down - and William said to her that she looked beautiful.

My feelings were mixed. On the one hand it looked to me like she drew most comfort from her dad's presence and support. On the other hand I wondered if she felt intimidated at all. Come to think of it now it was very male orientated down there - flanked by those three men and also three powerful looking church men!

My thoughts were just - go-girl - don't feel intimidated.

Bonsoir, taking the past into consideration, especially the recent past, is simply the intelligent way to approach a subject like this. Particularly when people do most of these things for reasons of 'tradition'.
Very odd attitude.

Nobody with an ounce of sense would think that modern marriage is woman destroying or about ownership of the woman (although my own personal view of marriage is that you belong to each other in every sense of the word).

Marriage protects women and children, I don't understand why women would have children with men they aren't married to, given that they have no real legal protection without it.

On the other hand, I don't understand why women would have a relationship and children with someone from whom they weren't certain they mightn't need legal protection!

I wonder why there is little or no legal protection for women and children without marriage. Surely that aspect of the law continues to reinforce the idea of the man being the central character in the family and the woman's status dependent on her legal relationship to a man?

wrt taking the past into consideration -- surely the position of unmarried women was just as precarious in its own way, without the element of being owned by someone else but with the added element of being despised, called an 'old maid' if you had nothing to do with men and running the risk of all sorts of abuse if you consorted with men, with no assurance of legal protection in the case of rape.

In theory a man has obligation to his own child (not great at the moment but hopefully some improvement) but if a man and woman have chosen not to get married then I don't see why a either one of them needs to do anything for the other after a breakdown in their relationship.

That's why there should be a distinction in relationships some wish to share everything and make an active choice to do so others don't. And for those that don't then the only people that need protection is children.

The UK and the US are very unusual in affording a great deal of protection for spouses after divorce. Most of the world considers that divorced spouses go their own separate ways and owe each other nothing.

A friend of mine recently divorced in Paris after 23 years of marriage and two children - 23 years of being a SAHM. She got awarded the equivalent of £12,000 to cover her costs for the first year - after that she is on her own. Oh, and about £200 per month child support.

See the child support should always be there no matter the marital status by the non resident parent (if they are working) but I disagree that in the event of divorce they should just walk separate ways.

Because in marriage people make sacrifices, especially if children are invovled and those sacrifices can impact on the quality of life. Like being a SAHM for 5 years then having a divorce only to find you may have difficulty in the job market. And being a SAHP is a joint decision, why should only one suffer for it.

So I am for a split of assets earned during the marriage (things you got before marriage you should keep I feel) depending on the length of marriage.

But I know that France have a lot of childcare options which are also pretty cheap in comparison to UK so maybe they don't see that having a child should have major impact?

If I got divorced (and tbh I couldn't afford to even if I did want to) I would expect a 50/50 split of all assets and then any child support arrangements are separate. We have both contributed similar lump sums of cash to our life together (from property/inheritance etc) but my dh has contributed more to the household finances while I have contributed more labour as childcarer.

Bonsoir, was your friend's contribution to the marriage not recognised? You don't say how old the two children are but surely the time spent caring for them so the husband can earn the money is worth some recognition? Did she not contribute to his success?

What support you get in the US or UK depends entirely on what the working spouse can afford, despite lipservice being accorded the frugality and unpaid work of the SAHP in creating the home, raising the children. If you're divorcing someone who makes very little, then you will get very little. Different if course if your ex is in a high income bracket, but maybe more difficult to secure your rights.

I agree Straight2Extremes that the relative lack of elements such as affordable childcare in the UK and especially in the US (and the attitude of 'children are primarily the responsibility of the family from which that springs) make for a different approach.