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?

@TorringtonDean

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.

Yes, I'm sure widows are just over the moon at their husbands' deaths.

@TorringtonDean

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!

But surely that's the point of marriage and divorce - all assets acquired during marriage should be jointly split during a divorce.

Women, historically, have usually been the lower earning (or non-earning) partner so it has clearly been a safety net to ensure they are not left destitute. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. A lower earning (or non-earning) male partner should also have the same legal and financial protection. It doesn't matter (in the eyes of the law anyway) if the husband is a selfish arsehole, in the same way that it doesn't matter if the husband thinks his wife is a money grabbing (insert insult of choice) who is taking away his 'hard earned money'.

I would say I am a feminist. Marrying my abuser was one of the worst decisions I have ever made. But I know that lots of women are very happy being married, which stops me being anti marriage.

When asked, I just say don’t change your name, and explain how it makes life harder (having to drag out marriage certificate to prove your pre-marriage qualifications are yours, for example).

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

Why dodgy? Why should relationships be understood only through sexual and/or reproductive lenses?

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"

Not marrying - but why should we not be able to set up the same sort of financial, caring and legal relationships as those who have sexual relationships (with or without children)?

I agree which is why we had a civil partnership. We wanted to make a public and legal commitment to each other without the terminology, expectations and baggage of marriage. I never want to be a wife.

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.

3 people can be in a serious relationship.

It wouldn't be marriage. It would be a legal agreement. One type of legal agreement, doesn't impact the seriousness or meaning of another.

I don't believe (and haven't for a long time) believed that love and romance has to be the basis of people building a life together.

It wouldn't be marriage. It would be a legal agreement. One type of legal agreement, doesn't impact the seriousness or meaning of another

Exactly.

I never want to be a wife

Me neither!

As far as I'm concerned, the financial and legal protections should for any unit raising children. I think it's the most important job human beings do. It's also when one member of the unit, typically the mother, loses income and becomes more vulnerable.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

It wouldn't be marriage. It would be a legal agreement. One type of legal agreement, doesn't impact the seriousness or meaning of another

Exactly.

I never want to be a wife

Me neither!

There's nothing stopping you as long as it's you and one other unrelated adult. You can form a civil partnership.

Once you add more people in it starts going down the road of why have IHT at all.

3 people can be in a serious relationship

I've seen this happen and there is imo always one person subject to a certain amount of coercion. That's my experience, your mileage may vary.