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.

Aunt, I obviously don't have a monopoly on deciding who is a feminist and who is not. You may well decide that I am not because I shave my legs. For me the name change thing is more important, but that is just my opinion. I think the difference is that, a far as I recall, you did give the excuse that you didn't like your surname. I have to admit that really rubs me up the wrong way, because you can change your name to anything you want to, you don't have to take your husband's. It's the excuses I don't like.

It's not an 'excuse'. I'm not 'excusing' anything. I'm stating a fact. You seem intent on not believing me.

If I said, 'I'm not empowered by taking my husband's name but I went with the majority and did it anyway', would that be better? Except I didn't go with the majority per se, I took the 'easy' opportunity to change my name from something I didn't like to something I did. Now, years later, and having a kid, I'm not particularly happy at how traditionally my life is panning out on paper and how easy it is for it fall into that place. But it seems my name is the big issue and I'm not permitted to know my own mind on the matter.

Yes, I could have changed my name at any point. It just literally didn't occur to me. I've just now looked it up and it costs around £20. For much of my life, I needed that for rent and food. I also think some of my family would have had quite some problems with me changing my name 'just' because I wanted to, in a way they didn't when I got married - because that's societally sanctioned.

Like I said, we don't all suddenly become super-feminists when we hit the age of majority. Some of us take different amounts of time to get to different stages or points of feminism. It really does upset me that you look down on other women, and me, for doing these things. That's not my version of feminism at all.

"I've just now looked it up and it costs around £20. "

Doesn't it cost money to change your name on marriage as well, getting a new passport for example?

"It really does upset me that you look down on other women, and me, for doing these things."

I've said it over and over. I don't have a monopoly on saying who is a feminist, but I insist that I have a right to express my opinion on it. I never said I look down on you, just that I have little respect for the name change and the rationale (what I call excuses) for it.

cadno

a sort of fleeting partial eclipse of the patriarchy

I love this.

To Julie Bindel: My marriage may not be a feminist act, but that does not deter me from working to make my relationship with my spouse a sort of fleeting partial eclipse of the patriarchy.

I find it curious that marriage is ipso facto unequal due to its history, and wonder in what sense a limited liability partnership (a structure for setting up a business) is subject to the same assumptions about the distribution of power among the partners.

I think that the notion of a state-recognised relationship exists, yes, to protect the patriarchy, and also to protect the dependants born into that relationship. This is why marriage takes on a different meaning when there are no children to protect, and no plan nor possibility of any.

I wonder what will happen to state-recognised relationships when the church and state separate, which I hope will happen in my lifetime in this country but I am not sure how realistic this is.

I didn't mean you hated anybody gwen, it's a phrase.

And aunt, to be clear, the issue some of us have is you presenting your name change not as a feminist act, but as one no less feminist than keeping your own name.

Boner, OK let me address that point then. That's not the discussion I've been having.

In my opinion, surnames are traditionally patriarchal in and of themselves. The names per se are sometimes (often?) professions historically carried out by men and men's names (as in X-son, there are AFAIK close to zero X-daughter names), but of course many, many other variants exist. Nevertheless, surnames are traditionally passed down the male line, also to female children, but they traditionally and historically change them upon marriage to another male name line.

So, if we accept that marriage cannot be feminist and is at best neutral, due to its traditionally and historically female-oppressive and male-centred nature, why is it we accept traditionally and historically female-suppressive, male-centred naming conventions as feminist? Why aren't they themselves at best neutral?

I'm not always the most articulate, does that make sense?

I see the point about women owning their own names and I get that, but it's not what I'm talking about. If names were female-centred, if family lines were matriarchal, or each child was always given a choice, then yes, I'd totally agree. But that's not the current status quo. Both types of name are usually male-centred so neither is feminist in my personal opinion. You are free to disagree and I'm not going to respect you any less. I may also change my mind on this at some point, who knows?

This wasn't the rationale excuse I used when I changed my name on marriage, by the way. It's something that occurred to me on reading this thread that I thought was worth exploring. Again, you are of course free to disagree.

Gwen - no it doesn't cost money, banks, utilities etc. will do it for free. My own passport is still in my old name and will remain so until it's time to renew it anyway. And a wedding itself costs slightly more than £20, but this isn't a review of my personal finances.

You say you have much less respect for women calling themselves feminists but who make excuses for why they changed their name. Your assumption seems to be that there's only one way to be feminist, all or nothing. You don't leave any room for anyone to progress in their feminism. I don't have much time for women calling themselves feminists but who use their so-called feminism to disrespect other women making choices under patriarchy. So let's call that a draw.

I think the issue of name changing or not is a personal perspective and nobody should need to justify their reasons for doing it or not. When I got married I did feel aware that I was replacing my father's name with my husband's. It's not as if there was a 50/50 chance that I would have been given my mother's name, unless she'd been a single parent (I was born in the 70s, things do seem more flexible now). When my husband proposed, he promised that he would always provide for me and our family - this was /is something he seems hard-wired to do regardless. He even took it upon himself to ask my father for my hand in marriage (not quite sure how he phrased it or what went down in that particular meeting)!😆 Also the wedding was the traditional type.

Anyway, fast forward 14 years and 3 children later and I actually believe that, despite the patriarchal nature of weddings, being married has afforded me more choices than it has DH. He left the Marines shortly after we were married, not because he wanted to, but because he felt it would put too much stress on me when I was pregnant. Instead he got a job in the city which, looking back, was fairly soul-destroying for him, but it was a means to an end ie. it paid for the house and school fees for 3 kids out of bonuses.

I've been a stay at home mum since I had my first child, but this was a choice I made and it's worked for all of us. In different financial circumstances I would have to have made different choices, but this would have been the case married or not.

Interesting thread. I have previously looked into the legal consequences of marriage vs cohabitation and concluded that it seemed to make little difference, unless one partner was completely dependent on the other (and for example did not have joint ownership / tenancy of the home), or unless there were immigration issues or if inheritance tax was likely to be a concern. Of course a cohabiting couple would need to be more pro-active if they wanted exactly the same rules to apply on certain things (for example they would have to write wills).

Re financial support/compensation post-cohabitation: "You and your partner don’t automatically have a duty to maintain each other financially when the relationship ends, unless you have an agreement to do so. However, one partner can apply to court (within 1 year of the relationship ending) for a limited financial settlement from their former partner. As a result, a court may decide that one party should pay the other a capital sum or make a payment in recognition of the costs of caring for any child of the relationship under the age of 16. The court will consider whether, as a result of decisions the couple made during their relationship, one partner has been financially disadvantaged. For example, if a couple had decided that one partner would give up a career to look after their children, the court will look at the effect that decision had on the partner’s ability to earn money after the relationship ended." www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership-s/living-together-and-opposite-sex-marriage-legal-differences-s/

So I'm curious to know what protection marriage actually does offer? Is it just that there is more of a guarantee with marriage rather than "the court will look at it"?

Aunt I think you've been given a bit of a hard time here although I still fail to see why taking your father in law's surname is better than keeping your own.

It seems terribly defeatist to say "oh well, this name came from my great grandfather to the power of 10 so it's just a man's name not mine , so might as well be one man rather than any other".

My partner wants to get married because it's a cultural rite of passage and happy life event that he doesn't want to miss out on, and that will be somewhat expected in his big, close extended family. I have no issues with the concept of a celebration to mark the beginning of a shared life, but do have issues with the legal institution of marriage, the historical significance of marriage that Julie Bindel discusses, and the patriarchal symbolism in all of the traditions associated with weddings. I also don't believe in "vows" which seems to be a concept specific to the Christian tradition. I'm not sure if there's anything we could do that would fulfil his desire for a wedding that I would be comfortable with. Part of the "desire for a wedding" is, after all, a desire to follow a tradition that will be automatically understood by everyone else. On the other hand, maybe something very non-traditional would be an opportunity to make my values clear to everyone. Not sure...

Aunt, I see what you're saying and I agree that one's feminism can progress but the issue of children being named after their father rather than their mother is never going to change while so many mothers give up their own surname on marriage. If you believe you might as well change to your husbands name because yours is really only your father's not yours, your children will then be denied a choice of mother or father surname and the whole thing repeats.

Lass, I don't think it's better, I think it's much of a muchness within the current state of affairs.

WhoKnows, that's a fair point. Although I think to radically change the system to something fairer, we'd need all women to change their names to something of their own choice and start again, giving children the choice and so on.

Sorry, bit rushed, people coming over soon. Will be back later on.

"I think the issue of name changing or not is a personal perspective"

The personal is political. If we are not allowed to comment on personal matters then we shouldn't even be having this discussion about marriage.

Thank you for explaining further dotsie. But the problem with your argument is that it's wrong. Taking your husband's name is intrinsically less feminist than keeping your own, because one is an active choice to follow patriarchal tradition and one is not. The assumption that all women derive their surnames from their fathers is incorrect, and some surnames relate to female ancestors rather than male. And even for those of us who (probably) did, it's still actually a rather offensive concept. My name is mine. Full stop. It isn't any more or less mine because some male ancestors had it before me, and you clearly don't apply the same standards to men otherwise you wouldn't have taken your FILs name because after all, it's not DHs. You seem to be confusing not perfectly feminist with not more feminist.

Sandarella yes basically there are more guarantees with marriage. This matters to feminists because women are less likely to be the ones with the assets. Marriage gives cast iron rights in the event of death and (more theoretically) in the event of divorce. With cohabitation, you're reliant on your partner not deciding to alter their will and pension beneficiaries without telling you. It's not about being totally dependant on your partner either, many women earn some income but less than the man. Many feminists respond that women should instead ensure they're the ones with the financial clout, which maybe is true in an ideal world but is no help to those women who don't fit into that category and doesn't account for things like employment discrimination on the grounds of being perceived fertile. The classic example is of an unmarried woman who has SAH as part of a joint decision, perhaps done work for her DPs business or taken other actions allowing him to increase his earning capacity, then gets caught out when they separate years later and finds she's not entitled to anything other than child maintenance. If married, the starting point after such a long relationship would be that half of any assets are hers. MNers often counsel women not to get into this position which, whilst good advice, doesn't address the fact that plenty of women still do.

Don't the rights of cohabiting partners apply only to those with children?

Food for thought there, Boner, thank you!

I just don't empathise at all with the strength of feeling behind 'my name is mine'. Maybe I never had that because I always hated mine, I don't know. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone by saying it. I'll think on.

I've just had a terrible discussion about this video in Facebook. It's obviously touched a nerve with lots of people, I've been arguing on all fronts with people who've thought it was a offensive load of rubbish etc.
I agreed with the video and thought it was all well said.

However, one partner can apply to court (within 1 year of the relationship ending) for a limited financial settlement from their former partner.

I've not heard of this, it might be limited to Scotland.

In E&W, there is an application available under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, but that is for the benefit of the child(ren) so does not applies to those couples without children (together ?).

Right so it seems that the rights of cohabitees is only if there are children. Childless couples may also make financial decisions that could put one of them at a disadvantage e.g. one partner giving up their job to follow the other to another town or country so the lower earner in a childless partnership would be better off getting married as I understand it.

As far as I'm aware, marriage offers little in the way of anything over long term relationship until things go wrong. At that point there are clearly defined legal pathways for people to follow, whereas with a simple partnership there aren't.

That in itself might be patriarchal claptrap, however, until the feminist revolution, it pays to play the patriarchy at its own game (and yes, I am aware that I am stretching the metaphor to breaking point)

Sorry, its not correct for me to say 'couples' as such. Sch1 of the CA 89 applies to parents of children, whether or not they are in a relationship.

Essentially, cohabiting couples have no more legal rights it each others property than two people sharing a flat together - i.e. none

In marriage, the law in E&W is that the split of assets ought to be based on fairness - sometimes this is an equal split and sometimes not, such as when its a short marriage.

sandarella

Part of the "desire for a wedding" is, after all, a desire to follow a tradition that will be automatically understood by everyone else.

It might be part of the desire, but it might not be. I unashamedly wanted a massive party with all my family and friends. Our marriage ceremony was distinct from the party afterwards. If we were misunderstood, well, I am not married to the person who misunderstands. OTOH my mother did have to field some bizarre questions in the lead up.

On the other hand, maybe something very non-traditional would be an opportunity to make my values clear to everyone.

I would caution against making your wedding day about this; I would not have wanted my party to turn into a political rally. On the other hand I was in a somewhat similar situation to you and have no regrets about choosing to get married. I believe that tradition perpetuates stereotype and I was careful about those stereotypes I wanted to perpetuate at our wedding and in our marriage. I worked hard to remove from our ceremony the traditions in which I did not believe, and kept the rest. The requirements for legally marriage are minimal - in terms of the promises you have to make, you have to say that you are free to marry, and that you do.

FWIW we made no vows at our ceremony beyond the legal statements and the signing of the register.

One of the most painful and unexpected benefits of being married is that in conversation with men who I am meeting for the first time, if they are at all flirtatious or creepy, or even if they are intending to make conversation and be collegiate and I feel threatened, I drop a reference to my husband into the first three sentences of our exchange. They back right off. God forbid they touch another man's property .

PM me if you want to talk this through in terms of how we planned our wedding and how I handled conversations with people who did not understand nor approve of my choices, our choices.

Thanks, erinaceus, I would be very interested to hear about your wedding - will message you!