Criticisms of marriage

[JosieRosie]

Since it's 29 Feb and all....

There's a very interesting thread open at the moment about all the patronising rubbish that goes with 29 Feb and women being 'allowed' to propose to men for one day only. There's quite a bit of anti-marriage feeling on that thread - most of which I share! - so just wanted to open it up a bit.

What bugs you about marriage? What makes you not want to be a part of it? What do you regret getting married/having been married?

Disclaimer - if you are married/getting married/hope to be married one day and are happy about it, good for you. I'm genuinely happy for you. However, not everyone shares this view and I would like to hear some different views on why marriage is a bad idea as far as some are concerned

Full disclosure - I am very pro civil partnerships and fully support the Equal Love campaign for civil marriage to be made available to gay couple and civil partnerships to be made open to hetero couples. I didn't mention that from the start on another thread and got flamed for it!

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with marriage, or right with it either, as a legal union I mean. I do, however, think there's a lot wrong with changing names, being given away by fathers and all that nonsense. I find all of that really odd and unambiguously misogynistic.

The marriage ceremony itself is one of the most heteronormative big events in society. The gender roles for men and women in the ceremony are still very traditional. Obviously you can choose for yours not to be, but that takes a concious effort to go outside the social norms, and is sometimes looked down upon as 'less romantic'.

I'm also uneasy about the importance placed on marriage in our society, from young girls being supposed to dream of their perfect wedding, to couples being expected to marry. It's all tied in with the way society places such huge importance on sexual, romantic relationships (usually straight ones: same-sex ones are starting to become more valued, but aren't there yet in terms of being the end of most fairy tales, the point of chick-flicks, the subject of most songs). It devalues friendships, which are seen as secondary and inferior to romance. Legal benefits to marriage disadvantage polyamorous people, aromantic asexual people and people who are single for other reasons. On top of all that, the pressure is sexist too, as relationships are portrayed as vital in womens lives, but less necessary for men to be viewed as successful.

Given all that, would I scrap marriage altogether? I don't know. Stability and commitment are a good base for raising children. And a public expression of love and commitment brings people a lot of joy. Hmm...

I am married and happy, but I hated being engaged. I kept my name, but did the white wedding thing (although nothing like the scale you see nowadays, which I find shocking, it was a ceremony and a very nice party really). I kept my own name, and Mrs (husbands name) is usually reserved for double glazing salesmen (and my nieces who seem to insist on getting my name wrong at their weddings).
I think modern marriage laws give women and children protection, and I always wanted kids.
I also got married as I am a Christian, so that side was important. Actually I know lots of Christians wanted Civil Partnerships to extend to everyone in a committed relationship; and lots don't mind Gay marriage (as long as those who object don't have to do it in their churches). If I was in the US I'd probably be making one of those videos for Youtube.

I've been married. The only thing it left me with was a deficit of about £35,000 and that was an amicable split.

I've also cohabited (with my DC's father). He tried to rip me off when we split but because we weren't married I was able to protect myself quite quickly (though he still managed to empty the bank account of one month's salary before I got that changed back to my name solely).

I won't be getting married again. Even if I chose to live with someone I would take a legal route to ensure fairness and protection in the event of one of our deaths, etc., but I would not be doing so through marriage as too much is automatic, could leave me at a disadvantage if we divorced, and I want my DC to benefit from my estate, not my partner.

I know what you mean Marmite and that's why I still feel uneasy about it. I hate almost all of what goes with it, but I was personally keen to take a step beyond living together with my partner and that seemd the way forward. Certainly, if there were still legal restrictions on me as a 'wife' I would not have. I suppose it's a bit like motherhood: a lot of what surrounds it is awful, but the actual state of it can be wonderful and not inherently sexist at all.

Interesting discussion - another happily married sceptic here.....

I think the advantage of opening up civil partnerships is that all sorts of people could choose which relationships they wanted to formalise.

For e.g., elderly sisters who wanted to live together, for example, could use it to indicate that they wanted each other to inherit the house, make medical decisions, act as PoA, and so on. If they could take advantage of the tax benefits of married couples, they could sell one of their houses and utilise both of their CGT allowances. A formal recognition of their relationship could remove all sorts of legal and financial hurdles and provide them with peace of mind.

So - for me, I think that marriage CAN work for the benefit of both spouses, but it seems ridiculous that romantic relationships should be the only form that gets special legal and financial recognition.

Assuming that you won't mind hearing from someone who is married, if you want to really get a full picture. I don't think there is too much to really moan about marriage as an institution in itself - I like being married. It provides a good family unit for my children, it is what I was brought up with and basically we want to spend our lives together. I have occasionally thought of divorce in theoretical terms and I know DH can leave me whether we are married or not (we are both products of divorcees).

I have got to the point now where I feel that you can call it what you want (CP or whatever) but if a couple have been together a certain length of time and have children whether they have the piece of paper or not they are essentially married - and this is what bugs me a little, they are so obsessed with not being conventional that they have become the most conventional people of all.

The only thing that bugs me is the fact that DH assumes I have a pyjama/sock radar and can instantly find anything.

I won't ever be getting married unless it's done in deepest secrecy and is solely on the understanding that it is only for the legal protection in the case of one of us becoming ill, or easing the process of moving abroad, etc.

Even then I'm not comfortable with the idea. I do see that feminists getting married and doing it their own way is a good thing - perhaps the institution will morph and change that way. The idea of the woman promising to obey has pretty much disappeared now, as has 'man' and wife - although the recent royal wedding kept that in

But, for me, marriage hasn't changed enough, and when combined with the wedding expectations I'm content to stay well out of it. Everyone always says 'do it your way!' - but then I think of my dad who would be extremely upset if I told him that he couldn't give me away, and would never, ever understand that it wasn't a rejection of him.

Urgh. The whole thing gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Interesting to hear from those of you who have decided to get married despite serious reservations about the whole business. It's worrying how ingrained the expectations of the 'wedding' are for a lot of people. I listened to 2 female colleagues recently discussing their upcoming weddings and both were anxiously talking about parts of the day that they were dreading - for one it was walking up the aisle in front of everyone (registry office), for the other it was 'the first dance' in front of everyone. When I suggested that they could omit/change parts of the day that didnt' suit them, it was a massive revelation - like they had just never considered the possibility that you could deviate from the script. Which makes me think a lot of the 'wedding' (and possibly 'marriage') is for many people all to do with what others expect, rather than something they truly want themselves.

Just to add, if anyone is interested, there is an Equal Love campaign which aims to overturn the twin bans on civil marriage/civil partnership and to make both open to gay and hetero couples. The case is currently going through the European Court of Human Rights and a judgement is expected in 2014. Apparently, in the Netherlands, over two-thirds of civil partnerships are hetero couples, and I would be interested to know if uptake would be the same here. Anyway, google 'Equal Love' if you would like to learn more

I like the ownership aspect of marriage, in that DH belongs to me and I belong to him, being a partner of just doesn't cut it for me, I'm his wife, he's my husband - how marriage was in the past has zero relevance to my life and my marriage, probably to most other people too.

One thing I do regret is getting married in a church, I've always been atheist, DH is sort of half and half. 27 years ago, Registry offices were very much for 2nd marriages though, so that's my excuse I was also 18 and wanted the whole shebang, our village church is also very beautiful, the religious wedding ceremony means absolutely nothing to me.
My 22 year old DD definitely wants to get married before having children , so I don't think that marriage is seen as an old fashioned thing at all, in fact I think it's more in fashion now than back in the 1980s, I know more couples of my age that didn't bother getting married than young couples today.

I might be really daft or really militant but I can't see what the difference is between marriage and civil partnerships for hetero couples.

I think it is an expectation and a need to conform that keeps marriage alive as an institution. I think girls are being brought up to both expect to get married but also we are left feeling that approval rests on whether we do. It's a little like female circumcision with the older women in the tribe being both the surgeon and the moral authority on all things "relationship"

My parents always said that they would neither pay for my wedding or "give me away" my mother was a feminist and my father in retrospect I think probably was too! according to him, no man was good enough for me, I could earn a living and be happy without a man, men were optional, children were a choice, marriage wasn't nessassary. I think because they didn't approve or disapprove they ended up with a Gobshite of a daughter who didn't seek approval only acceptance.

I will support Equal Love.

I think the idea that marriage provides stability for children is a false cultural assurance. One parent can walk away from their children at any time they like and never see them again. The maximum inconvenience to them for this is 20% of their net salary.

To me, that is really fucking scary stuff. Yet we as a nation never challenge it.

There are a heck of a lot of children being raised by lone parents.

minimathsmouse, you don't sound daft or militant to me! For me, the appeal of a CP is that it's a legal partnership with absolutely no baggage. How you choose to celebrate it, or not, is up to each couple. There's none of the 'mushy, or 'romantic' stuff that goes with marriage. Nothing about forsaking all others, til death do us part or even talk of 'forever' and no symbolism (rings, dresses, giving away, name-changing etc). It's a legal contract - as cold and clinical as any other legal contract - and can be dissolved if and when required. I probably sound like some joyless robot with that description! I actually love my DP a lot and like a bit of mushy stuff now and then but I feel that is something that each couple should enjoy in their own time and that the legal stuff should be kept separate.

Also, with CPs, there is no 'consummating' anything. I definitely think legal activities and bedroom activities should be kept separate! There's no 'husband' role or 'wife' role - just 2 partners who are each others equals by default. It feels like an inherently more fair and equal state of affairs to me and that's why I'm a fan.

Very good point about 'stability' for children in marriage and one that lots of people overlook IMO

Interesting linerunner.

To everyone really: how would you construct a society that could provide security and stability for children? Would this society still have marriage? Or marriage in a different form? Or no marriage at all, but other structures for ensuring children are supported?

Thanks JosieRosie, I was afraid it might be as you describe it. No I could not It's the legal stuff I object to.

When I was much younger I always thought it would be fun to get married in church (without the giving away, to obey etc) and then refuse to sign the register. I think declaring your commitment is lovely, making it legal is where I have a problem.

Oh well back to drawing board A friend got married in india without ever having a marriage cert, I thought that was nice.

'how would you construct a society that could provide security and stability for children?'

Really good question. For me, it has to start in schools. Children need much more detailed sex and relationships education, including how to recognise their own needs, how to ask for what they want, refuse what they don't want, be respectful of other people's boundaries, how to sort out conflict with another person in a productive way, negotiate, conduct a civil discussion with someone they may not like - as well as all the biological details of sex! I think this should start at a very young age and should continue throughout primary and secondary education, with no parents opt-outs. This would go some way toward ensuring that children grow into adults who are better able to manage their own lives, and feel happier about their choices, whether or not they become parents.

minimathsmouse, could you have a commitment ceremony/blessing ceremony followed by whatever sort of celebration you fancy? As it's not legal, you could have it carried out by anyone you like and could make the day 100% how you want it. It sounds like fun!

The Children's Society report was very clear that children do best when they have strong relationships with an increasing number of adults. The concluded that the type of relationship (e.g. father, mother, aunt, family friend) was irrelevant, what mattered was that the relationship be valid in its own right.

That's why I'd like to see much more fluid families, where they can change a lot more easily because the child has several important relationships and a step back in one simply becomes compensated for by an increase in another. Obviously some relationships will matter more than others in the sense that there is likely to be some whose input matters most (usually the mum, but not always) but I think the report shows how this doesn't have to be met through a long-term monogamous relationship and can be achieved in a variety of ways, from traditional extended families, to kibbutz.

I grew up in a large, semi-extended family (spent as much time, if not more so, with my GPs as my own parents). Looking back on it, had anything happened to my mother (and it nearly did as she had a chronic illness, though I wasn't aware of that much as a child) I would obviously have been devastated but I'm pretty sure I'd have actually been ok. The other relationships and stability provided by them would have carried me through. None of them were dependent on my mother and father being married though.

I don't want any more DC, but if I did, I think I'd actually be looking for the father in the same way I'd interview for a job. The qualities I want in a co-parent (and I'll use that term in the sense of 50/50 parenting for the sake of this argument) are not necessarily the same as the ones I want in a partner. The absence of a romantic relationship would also mean things could be kept much more businesslike and civil between the parents without manipulation and control games being played.

That will obviously make some people consider me a complete loon, but I can live with that. Given the appalling rates of divorce, separation, DV, child abuse and poverty, I don't think the current 'norm' can say it's been tried and tested with great success. I think it's great that more and more people are adopting less conventional approaches to relationships and child-rearing.

Very interesting sunshineandbooks. So society should encourage closer relationships with non-parent adults. Do you think it would be helpful to have formal structures for making a commitment to a child - like a secular 'god parent' type set-up? How far would you take it - for example if an aunt played a major role in a young child's life but then fell out with their parents, should they get 'contact' (assuming that the aunt is not behaving in ways detrimental to the child)? Or do you think it should be a totally informal thing?

I think whatever we do, we should not begin with the assumption that nuclear families are best for children. They might be, but they might not be. I don't know why people want to assume they must be as a starting point for any discussion about this. I know in my own circumstances, my dc would be deeply damaged by us breaking up, but that's because we are a happy, functional family and not because we are married or conventional. I was really shocked by the last chapter of Wifework where she goes on a pro-marriage rant after spending the whole book telling us how damaging it can be to women.

sunshineandbooks, I don't think that sounds loony at all. I work with young children and their familes and it's blinding obvious that what children desparately need are adults around them who have healthy, positive relationships with each other. It really doesn't seem to matter for the child whether those people are mum and dad, mum and nan, dad and auntie - whoever. I think the loony people are the ones who say that children need their fathers in their lives at all costs and that single mums are incapable of doing a good job for that reason

I don't know about formalising arrangements. I haven't made up my mind. I can see the sense in in, but it tends to assume that people are going to fall out acrimoniously. I don't honestly believe that people do that in the main. Obviously some do, but most people don't tend to use their children as pawns to hurt the person they've fallen out with because they recognise that it hurts the child more. Most people love their children with a passion that far exceeds the animosity they feel to another adult. It's the same with the age-old argument about mothers denying access to fathers, ironically enough.

I think that in the unlikely event that a mother would deny contact to the extended family member (e.g. an aunt) then each case should be considered on its individual merit. What's right for one family won't be right for another and there should never be a 'rule' as such.

A broader definition of family, and a move away from the nuclear family would actually benefit all those who care about children but are limited in contact because they are not the resident parent or don't have a legal basis for requesting more contact (e.g. grandparents).

Mothers are not the only ones to fall foul of the patriarchal/capitalist drive for the nuclear family; it's just that fathers only fall foul of it when the relationship breaks down.

I have told my eldest daughter that I will be disappointed if her future husband asks us for her hand in marriage. I also found it very very creepy, when everyone in the family knew my niece was going to be proposed to except her (and he was even using her not his grandmother's engagement ring). I was probably the only one hoping she'd say no. But they seem far more traditional than any of my friends were at their age, I just hope my kids don't follow their example.