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?

I also think it’s unfair that you can leave your stuff to a spouse free if iht but not to a sibling or friend. To me we should be able to choose how we live and who is dear to us. One size doesn’t fit all

I totally agree!

FWIW, I agree with Floisme - young mothers are often shocked by their feelings about leaving their infants...... Feminism has really neglected this issue, to the point where if you want to explore it, you have to look to conservative women's organisations, the kind feminist organisations look down their noses at.

Thanks Lobster I also like Nonnymouse's post, including this:
The mother-baby bond is pretty strong among mammals and I've come across women who are genuinely surprised at how strong this bond is

I read reports of the number of mothers of small children in full time work climbing ever higher, always presented as a sign of progress, and my first thoughts are always about new mothers crying for their babies in the office toilets (seen it, done it).

I used to think better financial support for mothers from the state was the answer. But now I look at growing state authoritarianism around the world, and it doesn't feel like such a great solution any more.

However when I said I'd never seen feminism really engage with this, I forgot about Mary Harrington. To my shame, I've only recently discovered her.

@CheeseMmmm I think you have a point that maybe ‘burden’ wasn’t the best word for me to use. I don’t regret having children and don’t see my DC themselves as a burden. It’s the expectations and rules of society that are the burden on women.

What I more mean is that an important aim of feminism should be (and I think is) the promotion of shared responsibility between both parents for both childcare and economic activity in whichever proportion is preferred by both parents.

I also agree with whoever it was said earlier that socialism is vital to feminism. Child rearing should be recognised as an activity which can be exchanged for other goods and services. IMO the best way to do this would be a universal basic income for the child rearing parent.

@Darkpheonix

the institution is there because of the consequences of reproduction. If we did not reproduce sexually, there would be no need for marriage, even if for some reason we still had some sort of pair bonding

Yes that's one of the reasons marriage was created. Doesn't mean calling it prenatal agreement is right.

I do agree that there should be some way of having similar agreements, between say friends. That would be something new. My best friend is also my dps sisters and we have talked about it. As much as we love out respective partners, we do feel that life would be happier and easier if it was us that lived together. Especially for her as her husband is a bit shit.

But that's not what I was talking about. This is the first time I have discussed that sort change, outside me and my friend and seeing a video on tiktok where 2 women, had got married. Not because they were in love or in a relationship. But as 2 single parents to raise their kids. I support that. But that wouldn't be changing marriage. That would be the creation of something new.

The vast majority of the time this conversation is around creating something identical to marriage but still revolves around love and romance. It's always marriage between 2 romantic partners. It usually involves marriage by default, to benefit people who didn't get married and now regret it.

Yes, I agree with you, often people talk about changing just the name, and it's kind of irrelevant. I mean, go to a non-English speaking country and they call marriage something different, but we still understand it as the same phenomena. Some English speaking countries recognize common law marriage while others don't, and so on.

Usually in these cases you mention people don't want the baggage they feel is attached to the idea of marriage, even though they see the utility of it. It's like it has a bad image.

Where I live we do actually have that kind of arrangement that you can have very similar rights to marriage but with no expectation that it is a sexual or reproductive arrangements (though that isn't precluded.) Originally it was created in response to the desire for a way for gay and lesbian couples to access those same kinds of rights and protections like pension benefits, next of kin rights, and so on, though due to other changes in law that aspect is no longer very relevant.

But in general there is a lot of confusion around this because people tend to assume their specific cultural baggage is more universal than is the case, and also because many are uncomfortable with the idea that it's so closely intertwined with reproductive role.

@Floisme

FWIW, I agree with Floisme - young mothers are often shocked by their feelings about leaving their infants...... Feminism has really neglected this issue, to the point where if you want to explore it, you have to look to conservative women's organisations, the kind feminist organisations look down their noses at.

Thanks Lobster I also like Nonnymouse's post, including this:
The mother-baby bond is pretty strong among mammals and I've come across women who are genuinely surprised at how strong this bond is

I read reports of the number of mothers of small children in full time work climbing ever higher, always presented as a sign of progress, and my first thoughts are always about new mothers crying for their babies in the office toilets (seen it, done it).

I used to think better financial support for mothers from the state was the answer. But now I look at growing state authoritarianism around the world, and it doesn't feel like such a great solution any more.

However when I said I'd never seen feminism really engage with this, I forgot about Mary Harrington. To my shame, I've only recently discovered her.

Yes, Mary Harrington is great.

Something that always strikes me though is that a lot of her ideas aren't new. (Not to put her down at all, she is very systemic in her thinking and an articulate writer.) It's just that it's new to see them discussed in a feminist setting.

I have had similar thoughts about authoritarianism. I used to think UBI might be a good solution, but now I tend to think that it could be dangerous, at least as the main element of a solution. In general I'm much more inclined to see state solutions as likely to undermine low level social structures that are ultimately more robust, flexible, and practical. Marriage laws that see the family as a self-supporting unit with obligations that continue even when the marriage breaks down should be part of it too, however.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I also think it’s unfair that you can leave your stuff to a spouse free if iht but not to a sibling or friend. To me we should be able to choose how we live and who is dear to us. One size doesn’t fit all

I totally agree!

This thread has been really odd. But I've seen a few posters commenting that they should be allowed to marry their sister or their best mate and I have to say that as a lesbian I find this really offensive. It smacks of "they let anyone get married now so I'm marrying my brother".

I remember when civil partnerships were made law, it was fucking momentous, and Boris said he might as well marry his dog.

We had no way to get married or have a civil partnership for centuries, gay people died and their families swooped in and claimed the house, chucking the partner out. Lesbians had their kids taken away by the courts.
The "domestic bliss" that isn't always rosy just wasn't available to us because we were seen as filthy perverts, a danger to children, and a menace to society. Don't cheapen it by using all the same shitty arguments Norman fucking Tebbit used back in the day.

If you want to get married, get married. If you don't, don't. If you get fucked over because your boyfriend convinced you that common law was a thing then I'm sorry, but you've been had.

Also if you're a Muslim woman in an unrecognised religious marriage, maybe his second or third, you've been had.

But getting married makes sense in most cases where there are kids involved. I think it costs about £150. No reason to not do it.

No, and I think discouraging women from marrying is potentially detrimental to women.

Marriage isn't about presents and dresses it is a legal contract that has benefits and protections that benefit many women. If a woman wishes to have children with a man then being married first is beneficial to her due to the legal protections. It isn't about being rescued or relying upon a man, it is about formalising your partnership, women can and should be equal partners within a marriage (fuck that obey bullshit).

This thread has been really odd. But I've seen a few posters commenting that they should be allowed to marry their sister or their best mate and I have to say that as a lesbian I find this really offensive.
It smacks of "they let anyone get married now so I'm marrying my brother".

I don't think that's quite the implication.

It's more that some of the legal elements associated with marriage, like defining next of kin, inheritance, taxes, etc, could also be things that would make sense for households that have other kinds or relationships that anchor them.

I used to know an elderly lady and gay man who had lived together for years, they were officially in a common law relationship, which meant they filed taxes as a couple and also there were other administrative provisions that made sense to them. It was a bit dodgy though, obviously they were not having kids or any kind of sexual relationship.

Similarly, if my husband were to die, I would probably form a household with my sister, but it would function as just that - a permanent household, not a roommate situation.

People form these kinds of households already, if there is a need for some kind of legal institution to facilitate it, it's not an offence against anyone.

I don't think that's quite the implication.

It's more that some of the legal elements associated with marriage, like defining next of kin, inheritance, taxes, etc, could also be things that would make sense for households that have other kinds or relationships that anchor them.

Who's making this argument though? I thought the straight couple determined to have a civil partnership were quite odd, but they fought and fought and won in the end, so fair play to them.

Where are the groups of single mothers crowdfunding to take this to court? Or the elderly siblings, or whoever?

It's just hot air, because they believe marriage has already been watered down and therefore should be again. I don't believe many of these people are serious.

It is really offensive. Marriage does also represent the public celebration of a relationship as well as being a legal contract. I know there are couples who get married for the tax breaks but they are still couples. People who marry solely for immigration reasons for example are often investigated. It doesn't have the same social status, people refer to them as sham marriages.

I get that people might want to save tax or have a legal next of kin who isn't the existing one etc. But if what we call marriage is opened up to flatsharers or work colleagues or siblings and ceases to be a signifier of a serious relationship, why not three people, why not twenty? Marry all of So Solid Crew, there were a few hundred of them.

I'm not seeing any genuine attempt by these people to try to form legal unions or legally recognised families or signing cohabitation contracts or writing their mates into wills. It's just a cheap comment about marriage.

I've never seen any place where such arrangements are called marriages. Generally they are something like "registered partnerships" which is not exactly catchy.

I'm not sure why you think, because some people think it might be a good idea, that people need to be out protesting about it? Lots of policy ideas are made and followed up without crowdfunding and protests and such. Thank goodness.

There are laws that allow for this kind of arrangement in other places besides the UK. And they are used and some people find them useful. Somehow that's not ok because - why?

It's true that in some places that have these laws, they are used for same sex couple partnerships rather than marriage as such. Generally the argument is that the issue isn't sexual activity in the relationship, per se, but one is formed around the needs of reproductive roles while the other isn't. While plenty of people disagree with that, that's hardly the same as it being offensive.

It’s the joint asset split which robbed me of my life savings as the higher earning wife when we divorced - don’t kid yourself it will always reward you for the sacrifices of childbearing and rearing. From my point of view marriage was the most foolish decision I ever made.

I’d like to leave my stuff to my kids IHT free. I care about them the most!

There are laws that allow for this kind of arrangement in other places besides the UK.

Are there? Where?

Where can I marry my sister or my housemate to save money?

It's true that in some places that have these laws, they are used for same sex couple partnerships rather than marriage as such. Generally the argument is that the issue isn't sexual activity in the relationship, per se, but one is formed around the needs of reproductive roles while the other isn't. While plenty of people disagree with that, that's hardly the same as it being offensive.

Mm and that was the difference between civil partnership and marriage, which I personally didn't have a problem with. (Aside from some pension loopholes). Not the same as marrying an elderly sibling.

I got married to avoid IHT, simples.

@CayrolBaaaskin

I also think it’s unfair that you can leave your stuff to a spouse free if iht but not to a sibling or friend. To me we should be able to choose how we live and who is dear to us. One size doesn’t fit all.

You could enter a civil partnership with a friend if there was someone you felt close enough to.

A general dispensation to leaving it to a friend would not be reasonable.

There's an argument to be had where a sibling is financially dependent on another sibling or they live in a house owned by them or one of them, but otherwise a general dispensation for all siblings wouldn't be reasonable. There's no exemption for children beyond the IHT threshold.

I used to know an elderly lady and gay man who had lived together for years, they were officially in a common law relationship, which meant they filed taxes as a couple and also there were other administrative provisions that made sense to them. It was a bit dodgy though, obviously they were not having kids or any kind of sexual relationship

In the UK?

There's no such thing in any UK jurisdiction as an "official common law relationship" Couples don't file taxes as a couple- husbands and wives are taxed separately and each has their own tax allowances.

@FinallyHere

I got married to avoid IHT, simples.

Yes but not to the postman or your cousin or the guy who runs the corner shop, right? Presumably it was to someone you were in a relationship with and cohabiting with?

@FlyingOink

There are laws that allow for this kind of arrangement in other places besides the UK.

Are there? Where?

Where can I marry my sister or my housemate to save money?

Parts of Canada, for example, I think these are usually called Adult Interdependent Agreements. You basically have to function as a single household for a period of time, and it's exclusive, and involves explicitly signing an agreement.

Suggesting it's just to save money seems reductive, it's intended for use where household is functioning as a unit which is rather different than people just living together as roommates.

I don't know if they have something similar elsewhere but I can easily see why it could be useful.

Why should a spouse be exempt from IHT and not anyone else in your family. My kids are 18 and 22 and live at home. If I died then for the moment they would need to stay there to get on their feet, not be turfed out by the taxman. It’s time the tax system removed the bias towards marriage because not all marriages are a good thing!

@FlyingOink, in France you can do that.
Well not a marriage but a partnership and everyine including brother and sister can do it.
When the government introduced the law, some people jumped at the opportunity
Eg two single brothers running the family farm together
Two women living together in old age etc…

The idea was to ensure that they could leave their ‘half’ easily to the other when they died.

FWIW in France a lot of younger people are choosing a civil partnership rather than marriage.
It IS seen as an equivalent to a marriage by a lot of people and by the institutions. So if by being marriage you have an advantage for XXX, you will also get it for a partnership.

Whilst I totally agree with your rhetoric about women being divided by the patriarchal institute of marriage and how damaging it can be to women and for men it doesn't seem to matter around actually getting married.

I can't help but consider the fact that men are shown through research to be happier married and women are happier single in later life. Twice as many men milk themselves as women and being single places them at much higher risk.

Those divided female relationships early on seem to somehow protect in later life

Oh my gosh kill themselves not
Milk themselves

Personally OP, I can't relate to what you have said and thinks it's a load of rubbish

Marriage is for people who want to get married (excluding forced marriages) that's it

Women are happier single later in life because then they only have to cook for themselves and clean up after themselves, they can starfish in bed and there is no snoring to keep them awake at night. No grumpy old man cluttering up the house. Bliss! Men want servants, of course. But we women are sick of the servitude.