feel like I’m turning into an anti-marriage feminist

[NewFem]

So, I’m new to feminism but I’ve been having some thoughts about marriage and how it relates to women as a whole.

Marriage, I think, turns women against each other. Everything from weddings (making other women feel bad by not choosing them to be your bridesmaid for some nonsensical reason), to marital life itself is about women competing with each other and using their marital status (i.e. their relationship with a man) to one up another woman. Married women are seen and treated better than single women societally. They are showered with gifts for their wedding, for example and everyone must stop and celebrate their special day. When a woman gets married, all other women are expected to uplift her for finding a man in her life.

Whereas you rarely see any of the above I mentioned between married men and single men. Married men’s title remains Mr just like single men, nearly all married men keep their last name. Married women are distinguished above single women.

Overall I feel like marriage is a tool that brings divide amongst women and the reason why you see so many women aspiring for marriage or refusing to let go of this patriarchal institution is because of the elevated status that marriage gives them over other women. There’s no other patriarchal creation that I can think of that women - including some who call themselves feminists - generally defend so strongly. I believe the status it gives them over other women is the reason why.

Thoughts?

Is there something cultural at play here OP? Especially with the idea that married women "out rank" unmarried?

I know from the experience of a very close Korean friend that she was put through the ringer for not getting married. It reflected on her entire extended family - or so they said. Others from other cultures too.

@Deliriumoftheendless

I don’t know if it sets women against women but there’s been studies that report marriage isn’t great for women’s mental health.

From a personal point of view I just have a deep horror at the thought of being a wife (which I can’t explain) although I have no problem with anyone else choosing marriage if that’s what they want.

The evidence was debunked almost as quickly as it was published. “The Guardian published an article quoting an economist from the London School of Economics, who claimed that single, childless women are the happiest subpopulation, saying, “If you are man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother.”

I have to admit that when I read this article, the academic in me said, “That statistic is not true!” but the voice of the single woman said, “That’s right—it’s not true. But it feels true.”

Researchers who are knowledgeable in this area and very familiar with how the data is used in this particular analysis—again not published in a peer-reviewed journal—quickly discredited this finding that single women are healthier and happier. Yet this story quickly went viral, appearing in hundreds of media outlets around the globe.”

“Are Married People Happier?

The cautious answer to this question is, yes: married people do appear to be happier than people who are not married, including people who are never married. And, in fact, contrary to the assertion made in The Guardian, marriage appears to make women happier than men.

But this is a difficult relationship to unpack, and not only because happiness is a hard concept to measure. That really is a small part of the problem since we can ask people subjective questions like “On a scale of one to 10, how satisfied are you with your life right now?”

The larger issue is that people who are happy with their lives are also more likely to get married.

But we can find ways to deal with this problem using data collected from the same individuals over multiple waves that track them from the years before they are married to the years after they are married. Evidence published by my colleague, John Helliwell (and Shawn Grover) in the Journal of Happiness Studies finds that marriage makes people happier and that they continue to be more satisfied years into the marriage.”

“Are Married People Healthier?

Again, here the answer appears to be yes. Married people appear to be healthier and live longer than those who are single, separated, divorced, or widowed. They have better mental health, fewer health conditions, and recover faster from illness.

In the past, studies found that marriage provided more health benefits to men than women, but that effect is disappearing, and more recent studies find pretty similar outcomes for men and women. ”

ifstudies.org/blog/does-marriage-really-make-us-healthier-and-happier

If you look, you may find that marriage has moved on a bit.

if you think that, more fool you. It is still traditonal to become your husband's property as soon as you sign on the dotted line; hence so many women taking their husbands's name, still, centuries later.

Competition for men is what’s behind most female to female bullying. The perceived (and also real) status that marriage gives a woman socially is what drives women to aspire for marriage in the first place.

Im sorry OP but this reads like the plot of a mindless Regency romance novel...or that Bridgerton show on Netflix.

It is still traditonal to become your husband's property as soon as you sign on the dotted line;

In some places, ie under Taliban rule. But not in the UK.

Being married doesn't make you better than anyone else.

For some women it gives financial protection they need, especially if they have children, low earnings or are a SAHM.

For me it doesn't protect me financially. I earn more than DH. I haven't changed my name and really it has very little benefit. However it does make things a lot easier for DH and the kids if I died.

Your comments about bridesmaids and best day ever are focused on the wedding, not the whole marriage.

As an aside OP, have you never heard of a housewarming party? Literally a celebration when someone buys/rents a house.

Competition for men? Really op?

Competition for men is what’s behind most female to female bullying. The perceived (and also real) status that marriage gives a woman socially is what drives women to aspire for marriage in the first place.

This describes literally no woman I have ever known.

I agree marriage is flawed and weddings are often full of pomp, but your depiction of women competing against eachother for the manprize is bizarre, and very anti-feminist.

I think «protection» on mn (ie women getting married for «protection» is another way of saying marrying for money

Weird thread. I know 2 couples who have lived with their partners for years and then decided to get married. I think it was to do with the legal protections as neither of them were bothered about the social status side but both sets were getting older and had over the years got joint assets. People thought of them no differently after marriage. No lording things over others or making it the most important day.

A report on the gender pay gap was published recently. I can share the link if anyone wants it. They found that although the gap has narrowed, this is almost entirely due to women becoming more educated. The UK has twice the gender pay gap of countries that report a more equal split of unpaid work in the home.

The personal is political!

If you look at the Relationship Board, its full of unmarried mothers screwed having given up their careers and opportunities for pensions, while the males run the fuck away from their children and any legal responsibility they would have had if they had been married.

Elavated status your arse. Who chooses to get married and who does not? Isn't it just a piece of paper....? No, as it turns out, it's an important legal contact.

@Shedmistress

If you look, you may find that marriage has moved on a bit.

if you think that, more fool you. It is still traditonal to become your husband's property as soon as you sign on the dotted line; hence so many women taking their husbands's name, still, centuries later.

It’s my experience, not a thought. And you don’t legally have to take anyone else’s name.

@Shedmistress

If you look, you may find that marriage has moved on a bit.

if you think that, more fool you. It is still traditonal to become your husband's property as soon as you sign on the dotted line; hence so many women taking their husbands's name, still, centuries later.

Seriously?

In the West - husbands property? I know everything is not perfect but we (society) have come a hell of a distance in the last 100 years. And property we ain't (women).

Not anymore.

It read to me like a rabbit home has been entered and opposing views need to read to gain a little perspective.

@NewFem I would be really interested if you are able to answer these question:

Do you consider marriage or civil partnership to be redundant?

Do you not think two people committing to each other long-term of any merit?

What are you arguing for, exactly, if you don't agree with marriage? What is it you are aiming for as a successful alternative of living one's life, apart from the usual mix of lifestyles and choices we are free to make for ourselves?

Because those are my thoughts as inspired by your comments, and I suspect I know the answers , although feminism doesn’t really come into it. At all.

Marriage is whatever you want it to be. You don’t have to do it the way other people do it.

I got married at 21 as a bit of joke that became quite serious. In the early years I had quite a panic about the conflict between marriage and feminism and how it might affect my freedom and sense of self as a woman etc. I’m not sure what happened but all that anxiety just sort of faded away over time. I don’t feel limited by it in any way. No more than I would in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. In fact I sometimes wonder if turning women against marriage in the name of feminism is just a way of fucking us over if/when relationships don’t work out and we’re left struggling with the kids and no job and no money and no home. Making us think we’re being independent when actually we’re putting ourselves in quite a precarious position if things don’t work out. At least marriage offers some security in terms of rights, at least in theory.

I totally understand what you’re saying because like I said I used to feel that way too but honestly I don’t regret getting married at all. I also note that many of my most vocal anti-marriage feminist friends ended up getting married themselves after giving me such a hard time about it!

@LadyFuHao

Competition for men? Really op?

I did once have a very drunk woman try to fight me because she was after my boyfriend at the time does that count?

Honestly if I needed to "compete' to either get or keep a man thank he probably isn't the right man for me.

That was not aimed at you LadyFu but the OP

Hook up culture seems to be dreadful for both women and children though, so I'm not sure what the alternative is? The acceptance of uncommitted relationships in our culture is contributing to unfulfilling short-term liaisons, anxious children and to child poverty.

Disclaimer: This is my conclusion for the broad class of women and/or children, individual results may vary.

I'm only on page two, but this is a very weird and kind of entertaining thread.

There's a strange denial or naivety about human nature in some posts. Heterosexuality and pair bonding are pretty fundamental aspects of the human ape. It predates all the modern spin that surrounds it. Pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood will always have a significant impact on women's lives and they take up huge resources, on an individual as well as collective level. These realities aren't going to disappear any time soon. Things like marriage, weddings, and various traditions and norms have developed over millennia around these constants of humans life.

Irrespective of cultural trappings, children do best when raised by two parents. This should also be seen within the context of a broad, supportive family network.
The isolated nuclear family is more a consequence of unchecked capitalism and globalisation. This negatively impacts women and children. It used to be normal to have interrelated family units living in close proximity to each other. Aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins etc lived in the same neighbourhood or town. Couples knew they could rely on their parents or cousins to look after the children if needed and children grew up with such an extended network. New mothers could turn to their mums or in-laws for advice and help, but it's harder these days when so many families are spread apart, sometimes dispersed across countries and continents.

Most women I know who have children, actually don't like the thought of leaving them with complete strangers. They might do it because they have to, but not because they want to. (and I would say this is a very normal maternal reaction. From an evolutionary perspective, it's 'safer' to leave one's offspring with those who are related to you as they at least have some biological investment to ensure the children are looked after and protected.) Commercial childcare is sort of an inadequate, but necessary fix to a very modern problem.

I support decent, subsidised childcare for those who need them, but I also think it's important to enable families to be able to make the arrangements they prefer - whether that means women preferring to look after their children themselves or broader social policies that makes it easier for people to find decent work and housing that doesn't mean they have to uproot themselves and move away from their familial networks.

I've thought this to:
In fact I sometimes wonder if turning women against marriage in the name of feminism is just a way of fucking us over if/when relationships don’t work out and we’re left struggling with the kids and no job and no money and no home. Making us think we’re being independent when actually we’re putting ourselves in quite a precarious position if things don’t work out.

In fact don't we all have friends who have kids yet their partner doesn't "believe" in marriage and usually days or will be fine cause "common law."

@HarryHarryHarry3

Marriage is whatever you want it to be. You don’t have to do it the way other people do it.

I got married at 21 as a bit of joke that became quite serious. In the early years I had quite a panic about the conflict between marriage and feminism and how it might affect my freedom and sense of self as a woman etc. I’m not sure what happened but all that anxiety just sort of faded away over time. I don’t feel limited by it in any way. No more than I would in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. In fact I sometimes wonder if turning women against marriage in the name of feminism is just a way of fucking us over if/when relationships don’t work out and we’re left struggling with the kids and no job and no money and no home. Making us think we’re being independent when actually we’re putting ourselves in quite a precarious position if things don’t work out. At least marriage offers some security in terms of rights, at least in theory.

I totally understand what you’re saying because like I said I used to feel that way too but honestly I don’t regret getting married at all. I also note that many of my most vocal anti-marriage feminist friends ended up getting married themselves after giving me such a hard time about it!

This idea that women need to get married for financial reasons is something I’ve only ever seen on MN . The idea that all men have money and all women don’t so marriage automatically protects all women is so peculiar to me

@NonnyMouse1337

I'm only on page two, but this is a very weird and kind of entertaining thread.

There's a strange denial or naivety about human nature in some posts. Heterosexuality and pair bonding are pretty fundamental aspects of the human ape. It predates all the modern spin that surrounds it. Pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood will always have a significant impact on women's lives and they take up huge resources, on an individual as well as collective level. These realities aren't going to disappear any time soon. Things like marriage, weddings, and various traditions and norms have developed over millennia around these constants of humans life.

Irrespective of cultural trappings, children do best when raised by two parents. This should also be seen within the context of a broad, supportive family network.
The isolated nuclear family is more a consequence of unchecked capitalism and globalisation. This negatively impacts women and children. It used to be normal to have interrelated family units living in close proximity to each other. Aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins etc lived in the same neighbourhood or town. Couples knew they could rely on their parents or cousins to look after the children if needed and children grew up with such an extended network. New mothers could turn to their mums or in-laws for advice and help, but it's harder these days when so many families are spread apart, sometimes dispersed across countries and continents.

Most women I know who have children, actually don't like the thought of leaving them with complete strangers. They might do it because they have to, but not because they want to. (and I would say this is a very normal maternal reaction. From an evolutionary perspective, it's 'safer' to leave one's offspring with those who are related to you as they at least have some biological investment to ensure the children are looked after and protected.) Commercial childcare is sort of an inadequate, but necessary fix to a very modern problem.

I support decent, subsidised childcare for those who need them, but I also think it's important to enable families to be able to make the arrangements they prefer - whether that means women preferring to look after their children themselves or broader social policies that makes it easier for people to find decent work and housing that doesn't mean they have to uproot themselves and move away from their familial networks.

There’s no rule that states that women have to be the ones that give up their careers to raise children. Fathers can easily do that too.

For a feminist board, there’re some really strange ideas about family life here.