Julie Bindel in the Guardian. Marriage can never be feminist.

[MardyBra]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/may/25/women-face-it-marriage-can-never-be-feminist-video

What a load of tosh. Just because traditionally a woman had to be a virgin/get given away/take her husband's name/could be raped legally in marriage, doesn't mean that these things apply now.

She might get married in white because she likes that fashion, get given away because she wants her beloved father to hold her arm. She doesn't have to change her name at all. And rape is marriage is now illegal in this country.

In fact, doesn't marriage offer women protection to family assets in the event of a split in a way that cohabiting doesn't.

And anyway, I don't know anyone who got married to "reclaim" it or as a subversive act.

Julie Binder does not say that feminists can't be married. She says that marriage is not a feminist act. There's a difference.

Hoovering the living room is not a feminist act, but that doesn't mean feminists can't do it.

I get frustrated by the symbolism and tradition arguments being used to convince women to eschew an institution that is currently highly likely to be in their best financial interest.

@Bugger: Yeah, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? That's the institution of marriage. Conservatives fight against any attempt to remove those privileges. They are certainly using marriage as a tool to oppress women and force us into heterosexual relationships. (I could be a non-working wife of a rich man and would have exactly as much money ... not entirely controlled by myself in that case, as it would be his saved tax money, but ... it sure would be tempting if I had any rich men interested in marrying me and was trusting enough to think they'd let me have control at least over the money I help them save.)

I think for many women getting married protects them financially and as a feminist I often recommend that women marry.

Still doesn't make the institution of marriage feminist.

If a woman gets her leg caught in a bear trap while she's hiking through the wilderness, miles away from any village or even frequented trekking path, with no means to contact anyone for help, I would perhaps recommend to cut the leg off with a knife rather than starve to death.
Does that mean amputating body parts is, in general, a good idea? Of course not.

As feminist, you are concerned about women's wellbeing, so you take a look at the options, and recommend the best one. That in itself is feminist, yes, but the actions you recommend are not necessarily so.

The above example would be completely different if the woman had a mobile phone with which to call help. I would never recommend to cut off her leg in that situation!

Likewise, if we did not live under patriarchy, it would be very unlikely that marriage would be the best option for a woman.

Marriage before children is only a good idea because:

• men get to have power over the children and by association the woman regardless of marriage, so not marrying doesn't spare you any trouble

• the unpaid work women do in raising children is not measured, thus not paid, and the only way to get any compensation for this work is to marry before doing it.

• most women earn less money than most men, so it is likely you have less money even before the marriage, and will earn less than him when you return to work after having children. Moreover, it is assumed that you will stay at home to raise the children for more than the time that is absolutely necessary to recover from giving birth.

• the existing laws are thusly that you get money after a divorce in the first place (also not the case everywhere.)

This is all heavily influenced by the fact that we live in a patriarchy.

It is smart to marry (under specific circumstances) before getting pregnant, but is it feminist? I don't think so.

I do not feel remotely oppressed, I feel valued, loved and supported.

Me too, I took the name and everything. Doesn't stop me understanding that marriage is one of the backbones of a culture that oppresses women.

Lot's of things can work on an individual level that are a fucking terrible idea on a structural level.

They are certainly using marriage as a tool to oppress women and force us into heterosexual relationships.
Same-sex marriage is legal in the UK (with the exception of Northern Ireland). I guess this isn't the case in Germany?

Likewise, if we did not live under patriarchy, it would be very unlikely that marriage would be the best option for a woman.

Exactly.

And I don't see why she gets to tell me what is or isn't a feminist act.

How about "if a woman wants a choice she should have that choice?"

I don't agree with that, but if I did it would seem to give Julie Bindel the right to tell you whatever she chooses.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the UK

There are some gay rights activists who actively opposed gay marriage because they reject the idea that gay people should aim to validate their relationships through heterosexual norms.

I get where they are coming from. Marriage is viewed as the ideal despite the fact it clearly doesn't work and perpetuates oppression.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the UK (with the exception of Northern Ireland). I guess this isn't the case in Germany?

Not sure it actually is, or whether we are still at the "like marriage, but without the tax privilege" stage.

But that's not the point - I couldn't marry one of my female friends for saving taxes because ... my female friends do not earn enough money to make it worthwhile.
Also, I have no aromantic, asexual friends who will, guaranteed, never be in love with a man and want to marry him.

As I am not lesbian, and most lesbians do not want to marry a straight woman for tax reasons, the hypothetical option I have to marry a woman is not really there. Even if I could find a woman who earns enough money to make it worthwhile.

The hypothetical option to make a certain choice does not mean much if there are so many obstacles to making this choice. I, as individual, could perhaps still make it, but the majority of women won't.

And I don't see why she gets to tell me what is or isn't a feminist act.

Something doesn't become a feminist act simply because a feminist is doing if.

A feminist act is one that furthers / promotes the aims of feminism in some way. Marriage is, at best, neutral in that regard. In many ways it is not neutral, it is counter feminist.

I totally agree that it is a good idea for women to marry before children, but that is because of issues that arise from living under patriarchy, not because marriage is intrinsically feminist.

I think that now that we no longer need civil partnerships as a different name for same sex marriage that we should think about what types of legal partnerships we would like to make possible between citizens.

The debate about marriage equality really highlighted for me how weird it was that we had a system for recognising partnerships but only if they were sexual.

Very far from marriage equality saying "what happens in the bedroom is private", it made very clear that what happened in the bedroom was pretty much public.

Are you living together and fucking? Then you can have a sticker.

So why are so many feminists trying to reclaim the tradition as a subversive act?

As a genuine question, does anyone know of a feminist who tried to reclaim the tradition of marriage as a subversive act?

I don't think most people would know feminists who say this. Julie Bindel must encounter a lot of women who are more involved with feminist politics of different types than most of us. I haven't personally encountered this but it wouldn't surprise me given some other nonsense some women have tried to claim are feminist acts.

I've argued this since I was a teenager. She's absolutely right, imo.

Others have mentioned that civil partnerships are more equal. Did anyone see on the news a few months ago, there was a hetero couple who wanted a civil partnership as they felt marriage was sexist and outdated, but the court wouldn't allow them? Will try and find a link.

Seems it's Jessica Vslenti going on about feminist marriage. No surprise there

FloraFox

I don't think most people would know feminists who say this. Julie Bindel must encounter a lot of women who are more involved with feminist politics of different types than most of us.

That is helpful. Thanks.

I haven't personally encountered this but it wouldn't surprise me given some other nonsense some women have tried to claim are feminist acts.

Can you give an example?

The other thing is, I differentiate a wedding and marriage. How you celebrate or do not celebrate the act of getting married (as in, a wedding) is quite different to what a marriage is. In the video, Julie conflates the two. Whether or not not wearing a white dress, or not being given away by your father, are feminist acts or not, they are on a different scale to choosing to be or not be married at all.

Can a marriage between two feminists be a feminist act? What about between two women, both feminists? Does the history of marriage define marriage in the present?

I'm perfectly capable of understanding that marriage and/or a wedding are not feminist acts, whilst also planning to get married myself. This is because, in our imperfect world, something that has a seriously unpleasant history in terms of women's oppression also provides me personally with legal protection in my current situation

erin other examples would be pole dancing, burlesque and "slut".

I don't think she's conflating weddings and marriage. She's using wedding symbolism to illustrate her point about the institution of marriage but her points are about the institution. She's not talking about individual marriages but marriage as an institution.

Sorry to be clear, JB is not saying that individual marriages can be feminist because marriage itself is not feminist.

Perfectly reasonable to suggest marriage can't be feminist because of the connotations, but the problem with Bindel's argument as with all other permutations of this is that it doesn't really address the alternative. In our society, most women will still live with a man for at least some time, plus bear children and suffer some disadvantage from this. And the majority of them will be the poorer party. Marriage, whilst imperfect in this regard, is protection for the poorer of the two against the weaker. There's nothing remotely feminist about a woman availing herself of what is, in her scenario, the superior legal contract rather than putting herself at risk without the security of one. If you think getting married can't be a feminist act, taking on many of the risks involved with it via cohabitation without any of the legal and financial positives must be even less so. It would be lunacy to suggest that's the more feminist act of the two. Personally I'm leaning towards the idea that what's feminist is choosing which of the (both flawed) options is better protection for an individual woman.

In terms of the feminist act/can't be feminist thing, I understood it to be a point in the same vein as the surname one. Clearly changing one's name on marriage is the opposite of feminist, and doesn't even have the justification of economic and legal benefits, but equally clearly there are individual feminists such as Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst and Mrs Shirley Williams who have done it. None of us entirely escape patriarchal influence in every decision we make.

As for CPs, I had long supported them but I read a point on here the other week from a gay woman that made me think. People rightly object to marriage because of the history and connotations, but in the UK civil partnership came about as something many gay people found othering, 'separate but equal'. To my shame this hadn't occurred to me. CPs don't necessarily have a happy history in our society either, and this is something we need to acknowledge when we point that out about marriage.

Firstly, can I just point out that gay woman is a phrase I don't like given that it tends to subsume gay women under the gay banner, what is wrong with the female specific lesbian? Actually this is a similar point, we have L and G in the ever lengthening umbrella acronym, just as we now have civil partnerships ( gay only), and marriage (gay or straight). We decided to convert because so many people thought we shouldn't be able to but should remain separate. I can see no reason why both options should not be available to all. A civil marriage still hasn't broken the institution of marriage, maybe straight civil partnerships would do more? Although I suspect what would happen is that civil partnerships would just come to be seen as just not proper, not as serious or real as marriage for straight couples if it were allowed. Any reports from countries where other alternatives are available for straight couples?

I have seen women use both terms to describe themselves and as such have taken their lead in using both, but please accept my apologies and read my post above to say lesbian if you feel that would be the more appropriate term.

For the rest, I've generally agreed with the position you articulate re everyone having the choice. I'm opposed to cohabitation automatically turning into something that acquires some/all of the legal ramifications of marriage after a certain period because this shits on people who want to live together without those ramifications and have specifically chosen to avoid marriage because of that. But universal CP, yes. However the roots of it bother me and this isn't something the pro CP lobby, which I guess I'm a part of, articulate properly. Shouldn't be swept under the carpet.