Marriage - yay or nay?

[JosieRosie]

This old chestnut again! DP and I have been together for 6 and a half years. I have many problems with marriage - patriarchal history, the wisdom and plausibility of promising to be together forever, the fact that many people still view a wife as a husband's 'property', wife legally a husband's sex slave until a mere 20 years ago. The traditional wedding ceremony (engagement ring, white dress, giving away the bride) sends me into a right frothy but I know all those things are optional these days!

Anyway, I have always been staunchly against marriage, but recently I have been thinking how nice it would be to have a day where you celebrate your relationship, and where you make your relationship more 'formal'. I'm not religious and not remotely interested in a big celebrity-type 'bash', and we're not close to our families, and are not planning any children, so I'm not sure what it is exactly that I'm finding attractive about the idea of marriage but something has got me thinking!

Please share your feeling and experiences, positive or negative, about marriage from a feminist point of view
Thanks

I'm hard as nails so I don't cry, but they can be a good day out and an opportunity to meet new people and nice food and all that.
I used to be a bit po-faced about weddings, but as one wise poster pointed out to me: 'Come on, it's an excuse to get out of the trackie bottoms and there's free food and booze!'
Nothing wrong with occasions -they mark out life. But the thought of being a 'bride' has never appealed to me. I really am one of those people who would have got married in jeans. I dragged myself to the shops a few days before to buy something a bit smarter.

Josie - I much prefer the word partner to wife. Maybe it's a linguistic issue, like the way my mum calls black people 'coloured' still. If I'm honest I loathe the word. So if I could have the legal benefits of marriage but with no wifey stuff or wedding or ownership associations then possibly I would have that option. It is probably just in my head but it is so ingrained ( the property and ownership associations of marriage I mean). Sorry rather rambling.

I'd quite enjoy having a wedding. A frock, a party, lots of people making a fuss...what's not to like?

Marriage, on the other hand, does not fry my onion at all.

I'm the other way round. If I could wake up tomorrow and be married to my partner, I'd be perfectly fine with that. The thought of being trussed up in a white dress and pretending to be a virgin for the day and having to be the centre of attention and be photographed constantly doesn't appeal. Vegas, anyone?

TooMuch, not rambling at all, I feel exactly the same Good point about your mum using a word you never would in that context. Language DOES matter!

'Marriage, on the other hand, does not fry my onion at all'

I like this turn of phrase motherinferior

Other way round here too, wanted the marriage but not the wedding, would have quite happily just eloped, but made do with a small quiet wedding. Lots of fuss is SO not me!

I can't stand the word 'partner' personally, it sounds so right-on and PC that it grates on me. It's also vague: 'partner' in what exactly?

Haven't you made up your mind yet, JosieRosie? There's realistically only three options, you know:
1, Leave things as they are between you and your other half
2, Get married
3, Sort things out legally for yourselves

I remember a discussion on another board a while ago, where the topic was "Is marriage bad for women?" The consensus was that yes, marriage is a bad deal for women. But nevertheless, a man who is willing to do it is better than one who isn't.

Glad you're still here wamster You're obviously having a lovely time. Thanks for laying out my 'options' for me yet again. Where on earth would I be without you?

ah josie - don't fret! wamster has a friend in REAL LIFE that she disagrees with just as much, if you check out her AIBU post...

i shall give you a cause you're much politer than i would be! and personally i would be tempted to go for the fourth option of sorting things out legally and then throwing a non-wedding party! my wedding wsa the best party i've ever been to

gratefully accepted skrumle Believe me I've been biting my tongue! And yes I did notice the other thread too

Glad you enjoyed your wedding! I'm not sure how many people do enjoy their own weddings - I think lots of people get totally hung up on having the 'perfect' day (whatever that means!) and are too exhausted /stressed to actually party at their own wedding - sad

I don't know where you'd be, JosieRosie, still labouring under the illusion that civil partnerships were legally different to marriage, perhaps?

You don't get it, do you? People like yourself will do women no favours at all by expressing the opinion that civil partnerships (as they stand) are somehow different to marriage. (This is the feminist forum, remember, not a general 'AIBU' thread.
I am being reasonable to point this out here).

They are not. An abused woman in a civil partnership will find it equally hard to leave as a married one. A divorce will still have to be sought, only it will be called a 'dissolution'.
In fact, it will be worse for women as adultery is not a valid reason to leave a civil partnership. More money and time will perhaps have to be spent convincing the court that adultery is unreasonable behaviour.
Because in the vast majority of relationships (of whatever legal standing) cheating is not acceptable and people will still wish to split because of unfaithfulness.

A woman in a civil partnership will be treated the same by authorities and the rest of society as a married one (it's not even as though society treats cohabitees as being different to married people any more, so why on earth would they treat those in civil partnerships any differently?)

So sorry to be still on your thread, but it's kind of important that women realise that your precious civil partnerships (as they stand in the UK) may not be that great for them if the option were to become available to them. Which I doubt.

Soooo bored of this wamster - why don't you google 'Equal Love Campaign', it may help to open your tiny mind. And no I don't get it - I don't get why you have been so personally insulting to me over the issue of civil partnerships and why you keep banging on and on like a broken record. If you're trying to 'change my mind', then A+ for effort but you just sound like a bully. Go and get it all out of your system on the other thread you have started about this issue - I see not many people over there understand your problem with other people's opinions of marriage either.

The only person with a tiny mind here is you JosieRosie, do you honestly not realise that civil partnerships were invented to give gay people the same legal rights as heterosexual people had with marriage, therefore to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual is ludicrous because they have access to them (via marriage) anyway!

Are you really so naive that you think civil partnerships will make a difference to how women are treated by the state? .

Do you honestly think that civil partnerships will be less oppressive of women? The government loves to put people into 'couple' boxes- it saves them money. A woman who -mistakenly- believes that a civil partnership won't put her in this box needs to be told the truth.
In brief, the government will use it as an excuse to keep her as downtrodden as any married woman.

Remember, there is no legal difference. Every single company, authority, law, in this land will treat her as if she had actually got married. Why because it is discrimination to treat civil partners as different from married ones.

I have told you nothing different to what I would tell a friend about this issue from a feminist perspective. That is, that civil partnerships are EXACTLY the same as marriage for women and no better or no worse.

It beggars belief that you take reasonable points about the subject as personal insults.

Honest to goodness. Open your eyes. Civil partnerships will be no great leap forward for women. It's only a name and, in time, will be analogous to wife.

The only way to avoid state-sponsored oppression of women as far as relationships go, is not to even live with another person.

With respect, get over yourself
Your campaign is just nonsense
I think you need to grow up about this issue
You don't get it, do you?

All of the above are quotes from you and all sound pretty personal and downright nasty to me. And there was another delightful comment about me (which I can't be arsed to fine) 'deceiving' people with the title of the thread. For the love of sanity, just leave it now.

Wamster, those may be your opinions but I've got to say, it's really really really boring to read them reiterated over and over and over again in the same thread and tbh I've started skipping reading your posts on this thread as I feel like you're becoming a bit of a broken record and it's closing down an otherwise really interesting debate. You've got your considered opinions, and they are interesting to consider as a contribution to the debate the first time, but become irrelevant if you just keep repeating your points. Some people don't agree with you, but you can't prove yourself right by repeating your argument ad infinitum. If there's anyone who appears to have a campaign, it's you, because you don't seem able to agree to disagree and allow that some people don't hold with your analysis. .

They're not my opinions, Quodlibet. It is a fact that civil partnerships and marriage are the same legally. But you are right, no mention about civil partnerships from me here.

I have been pondering this for a couple of days and I think there are two issues here.
First, is the, for want of a better word, emotional commitment, the 'look we love each other, want to be together' bit. That could be done anywhere, anytime, any how, in front of people, in a field, on a beach, whatever floats your boat. The second, is the, again for want of a better word, practical/legal commitment, i.e. being someones NoK, inheritance tax issues, joint ownership of property/assets/debt, parental responsibility etc. For me I would like to be able to just declare somewhere that I am committed to the person I live with in regard to this second set of issues so that the state in its infinate wisdom could deal with us as a couple for the tax/practical stuff. Now, yes, you can do most of the stuff on my second list yourself, but not all (inheritance tax being the biggie). The trouble is marriage conflats the two.

I can see your point, Blackduck, but you can keep the public declaration aspect to a bare minimum if you want to - I think the bits of the civil ceremony that you actually have to have take about 5 minutes, and it's essentially just a declaration that you intend to marry each other and you don't know of any reason why you shouldn't. (Disclaimer: my knowledge may be out of date.)

Thank you Quodlibet

TDI - but its still marriage - thats the point. Two things are being conflated that don't necessarily have to be, but that would take a radical shift in policy and perspective I see that!
It is a fascinating issue though. Maybe run away, do it and not tell anyone is the answer :)

Yes, nothing says you have to tell anyone that you're married or call yourself a wife!

Out of interest, what would the system you want look like? Some of the aspects of a civil marriage are there to protect people (e.g. having to turn up in person to give the notice and then again to get married helps to spot people who are underage or being coerced).

The civil marriage at at the register office is as 'basic' as it can possibly be.
The legal requirement to 'give notice' is to check out that it is legal for the couple to marry within the UK. There's no getting around this-it simply has to be done.
The legal requirement is that a few words must be spoken. The registrar has, after all, got to be sure in his/her own mind that people are not being forced into the arrangement. Can't see any valid reason to disagree with this.
Also, it is essential that two people witness the marriage.

The vows were along the lines of: 'do you take (name) to be lawful wedded husband/wife' No mention of religion at all; in fact it is forbidden to have religious aspects at all in a register office. I don't really see how any feminist could agree with these very straightforward words. No mention of 'obey' or anything.

The registrar will hand a certificate over to the couple at the end (asking which name the woman wishes to be known by in her future life. No obligation to change name at all).

I just fail to see how it could possibly be made any more straightforward and simple. I think I was in there for about 20 minutes.

Is it me, or is there an echo in here?

No it's just you, Blackduck, I've told the opening poster that I won't mention civil partnerships again and I won't. But, look, I have had to repeat the word 'civil partnerships' again. Oops. Didn't really want to.