Interesting point of view - thanks for posting.

I actually look at marriage differently. There is no religion in my personal marriage. In my life, it is a legal contract that confers certain rights and responsibilities to each of the involved partners. I see it as a useful function for that purpose. I don't think that marriage makes a church the arbiter of my relationships - especially since I didn't invite them ;)

If it were up to me, when a child is born, one individual would be put in charge of it, with sole custody (and there are a whole plethora of ways to choose that individual that would be workable. Perhaps the mother who used her body to make it could get first dibs, but after that, biological relations should be irrelevant). That idividual should have to prove that they ar e financially able to meet the needs of the child (all by themself without any dependence on a relationship), and that their lifestyle allows them to meet parental responsibilities. These things shoukd be re-check through out the childs life. failure to meet these conditions should result in the child automatically being removed.

That is... harsh. If I became pregnant and someone told me that as soon as the child was born I would lose custody because I'm a student and not financially independent... wow, I'd have a thing or two to say about that. Plus, in your scenario you'd still need judges and visitation supervisors and counselors - arguably you'd need more of them since you propose checking up on every child's guardian periodically and removing custody if they're deemed lacking by your standards.

When I read the first paragraph, I thought I was going to agree with you, but for the most part, I don't. Your rant about child custody would exist with or without legal marriage. And like rhowan said, you'd still have third parties heavily involved in the kid's life.

Marriage isn't a strictly religious institution. Anyone can have their marriage recognized by their religious institution. But legal marriage and a religious ceremony making it official in the eyes of a higher power shouldn't be so closely related. The only marriages that count in this country are the ones that could be recognized in a religion. That's not a problem with religion but a problem in our government.

I think you put too much emphasis on individualism, as if only doing your own thing is healthy (I would say it's very unhealthy. Maybe not for that person, but for everyone else). Nearly everyone has relationships with other people, and we are all shaped by other people, and they are shaped by us. The only exceptions are those who isolate themselves from others. You have to take into consideration the feelings and well-being of the people around you when making most decisions; it's all but impossible not to.

Finally, strict individualism is a uniquely Western concept that the vast majority of the world does not adhere to, so your point of view is extremely ethnocentric and would be almost impossible for most people to comprehend.

I think you are forgetting something very important: the thousands of legal rights that come along with marriage.

To state that having children is a hobby, akin to stamp collecting and fixing old cars, because people choose to have them, completely degrades the challenges and responsibilities involved in bringing up a child/children. No, it is not a paid job outside of the home, but that does not mean that it is therefore not a worthwhile and positive path to take in life. Why does human endeavour, in any form, have to be judged by material benefits? In fact, you are incorrect in your assertion that having children has no material benefits to anyone. If people stopped having children tomorrow, our economy would collapse, because it is based on continued consumption and a sufficient labour force.

I am confused by the contradictory nature of your proposals. You claim that the state and religion have no role in people's relationships, yet advocate a system whereby one person would be put in charge of a child at birth, and that this person would be chosen by "a whole plethora of ways which would be workable". Unfortunately you do not offer any examples of these ways. Who would these people be who have the power to decide between those who would make a good parent and those who don't? What would be the criteria and from where would they come? ANY criteria would not occur in a moral vacuum and would be based on some value system. You advocate regular checks to make sure that people are "living up" to these standards imposed on them from outside. Then you propose AUTOMATIC removal of the child if they are not met. What about the effects on the child of removal? Surely offering support to struggling families is preferable to punishing them for their perceived failure?

Your "system" speaks to me of a degree of outside interference in the structure of family units and how they operate, which goes far beyond what you criticize the state and religion for. Your system would create a set of rules by which all would be judged and to which all would have to conform, or risk losing their child. In the current political climate, people are fighting for the right for alternative family structures to be accepted along with the stereotypical nuclear family of mum, dad and kids. Your proposal that one person should be deemed to have sole custody of a child, while rejecting the nuclear family stereotype, is still imposing on others what YOU feel is the ideal family structure, and denying the validity of alternatives.

You have every right to your views, but hey, don't advocate for me and others how we should structure our families either. If a person wishes to bring up a child within a relationship with another, that is their right. Your proposal is that a person should have to PROVE to some decision-making body that they can care for a child financially and have a lifestyle that allows them to take on parental responsibilities ALL BY THEMSELVES. The reality is that for most this is not possible, and being in a relationship where these responsibilities can be shared is actually positive and workable.

However, what really disturbs me is the assertion that biological parents' rights should be overridden and the child given to a person your system deems as most suited to bring up the child. Some acknowledgement is made of the biological mother, but the father doesn't get a look in. The onus would be on a person to prove that they fulfill the criteria of your decision-makers in that they would make a satisfactory parent. Scary stuff.

I cannot reconcile your claims of feeling sick at the intrusion of state and religion into personal decisions regarding what one does with one's own body, with your proposed system of outside interference from people given the right to decide who makes a good parent, what constitutes a good family and the ever-present threat of losing one's child if criteria are not met. In such a system there is only the one way to be a parent and structure one's family, and the concept of choice is completely absent.

Marriage wasn't always a religious institution, either. We just happen to live in a country with a Christian majority, and Christianity in the long distant past was happy to co-opt marriage as something under its rule. I can see an argument that marriage can be religious or if not, it's about a contract between men over rights to sexual access to a woman. There's plenty of fodder there for critique. But FYI, it's just not historically true that marriage is "purely a religious ceremony." Some non-Christian religions want nothing to do with it.

Wow, I am going to have to disagree with you here.

First of all, marriage is a legal institution in many ways, and you do not have to have a religious officiate. In fact, if you get married with a religious officiate and do not have the application and then get the license, you are not married. Ask any gay couple in most of the states if they can get married in a religious ceremony and be married in almost all of the layers of our society.

I also think legislating parenthood is ridiculous and fascist. I think means testing for parenthood is also almost genocide, considering the ethnic and racial breakdowns of poverty in our society. There was forced sterilization of women of color in our country just a generation ago. Taking control of women's reproductive rights is wrong, no matter how justified you think your reasons are. Are these poor women going to be sterilized?

And saying biological relationships should be irrelevant after some sort of "first dibs" is frightening. How do you propose finding the "best" parents, other than income testing? We have a hard enough time finding parents for the multitudes of foster children and other displaced children in our society. Biological moms already have "first dibs" on their children or can choose to give them up, so you are just talking about encouraging adoption and discouraging trying to keep biological families together if there is some sort of hardship. I think most sociology experts would disagree with the benefits of this. They even work with abusers and addicts to try to rehabilitate them and make good parents out of them. Displacing children does not bode well for their future, even if the home life sucks.

Open up any tabloid and it should be pretty apparent that money doesn't guarantee good parenting. I grew up in an affluent area and belonged to two country clubs as a child, and my mother teaches at a super fancy private school. The parents in these high income areas are addicts, have affairs, leave their families, beat their kids, and go to jail, just like the rest of us. They just have a safety net so they don't end up homeless if someone in the house gets seriously ill, among other risks associated with living under a living wage.

Why don't we work to empower all parents (check out Momsrising if you are as passionate about this as you seem) and see how you can help.

I'd like to begin by saying, please do not assign your mothers personal opinion strictly to her age group.
I'm in my 40's.
She does not represent all of us or all women in their 50's.
I am not a fan of the institution of marriage. I believe anyone who chooses to get married deserves the right to give it a go. But, I don't see think it's a good idea for women. Many atheists get married. It is not a religious institution per se, it is a legally binding contract that one can get out of.

Now that I've already raised children without a spouse, I can't imagine how I would benefit from the institution. There are other ways to get around paying higher taxes.
Oh, it would be great to have health insurance,
but, getting into that institution just for insurance wouldn't make sense, would it?

Honestly, I don't see how it benefits the woman. I do witness many benefits for men who are married. Many suddenly have a personal assistant, even those who marry a career woman.
What's the benefit for a woman who is strong and independent?
I suppose some feel it gives closure to all other relations and makes a bold statement that they will be with that partner for ever. Unfortunately, we are all aware that marriage does not make love forever a guarantee. Ease of dissolution varies from marriage to marriage, but generally, after a 6 month separation and approx $200, a marriage contract can be dissolved .

As for what is family.
I have spirit sisters and spirit brothers, children that I assisted in raising who are my god children or spirit children. I don't have paper contracts with them, nothing binding me legally. In many ways my spirit family is closer to me than my biological family. I am connected to my bio family and love them, but, I am not only connected to family members by biology.

If you live in a country that allows you to define family for yourself and choose the relationships that work for you best, title them your own way, etc.
Exercise that right.

Honestly, I don't see how it benefits the woman. I do witness many benefits for men who are married. Many suddenly have a personal assistant, even those who marry a career woman.
What's the benefit for a woman who is strong and independent?

That's my same gripe with marriage. And when you add kids to the mix, marriage is even less beneficial for women. I tried to explain this to a group of people (two of whom were women married either very young or unhappily), and they just didn't get it.

Honestly, I don't see how it benefits the woman. I do witness many benefits for men who are married. Many suddenly have a personal assistant, even those who marry a career woman.
What's the benefit for a woman who is strong and independent?

I can only say from my point of view, but I didn't get married for insurance or religion or anything like that. I got married because we wanted to legal rights to be each others next of kin so that we could see each other if we were in the hospital or anything like that. We both already had great lives, jobs, benefits - this was so that we would never have those moments within our lives where we are refused access to each other because we are not married or officially recognized family members.

We still each lead our lives and support each other. Given, marriage isn't for everyone, but for some of us the legal benefits are important. If something happens to me, I never want my partner to be denied inheritance or access - both of which I have seen happen to couples that were together long term with other forms of legal documentation.

To each their own - the power of choice is the best part of being a feminist to me.

mahjani
In the states, a Last Will & Testament can take care of those concerns- you don't have to get married.
Also, a discussion with you doctor, insurance provider and or just telling the folks at the hospital that you are family, by adoption or choice, works in many cases.
I have visited under "family only" restrictions when my spirit brother, spirit sister, and god children were in the hospital.
That may have more to do with my gumption than anything else, but, be assured, you can also have a legal document written up for your S.O.'s insuring the legal right to visitation and certain choices. In my paperwork, it states that if I am incapacitated, the decision to "pull the plug" or not is given to my most logical friend.

Yes, to each her own and thank goodness for choices!
I was part of the first real divorce generation. Women had a way out (of abuse and inequality) and were getting out of it more often.
So, the best thing about a marriage, in my opinion, is that it can be dissolved.

As others have pointed out marriage is not just a religious institute. Marriage is something that has been done, in one form or another, in every culture from the start. Mine was legalized at the courthouse.
The rest of your argument has to do with children. Why do you equate children with marriage? There are a lot of happy childless couples out there. One does not automatically lead to the other and yes while some parts of society may look down on that I have friends who have chosen to remain childless and they are not being persecuted for it.

From Hara : Honestly, I don't see how it benefits the woman. I do witness many benefits for men who are married. Many suddenly have a personal assistant, even those who marry a career woman.

There are more benefits to marriage than taxes and insurance (which is nothing to sneeze at by the way). I am in no way shape or form a personal assistant to my husband. My husband is just as much a feminist as I am and we strive everyday to make sure that our marriage is one of equality and not a burden to the other. If both partners are in agreement, meaning you don't marry a conservative christian who expects his wife to stay home with the kids, then marriage is really what you make of it.

Why as feminist do we constantly "buck" the system then say things like "marriage has no benefit for women" when all we have to do to make sure marriage does have benefits for women is to continue bucking the system? When I choose to get marriage I didn't turn in my feminist card. I didn't change my last name, I don't do his laundry, he wants to be a stay at home dad when the kids arrive, I'm working on my PhD. There is nothing "traditional" about our marriage and we upset some people but so bloody what! Isn't the point that we can live our lives the way we want to? Then why do we disregard or avoid a system, like marriage and kids, just because we don't like the way it works. I love being marriage but only within the way my husband and I have decided to live out our marriage.

Change the system!

Marriage is not, in any sense a religious institution. Until the 14th Century, the church didn't even perform marriages, but left them entirely to civil authorities. In modern America, a marriage is a legal contract between two people, and while you can have someone in a silly hat perform the ceremony, doing so makes you no more or less married than having a judge marry you in a courthouse.

Of course, if the legal ramifications of marriage are meaningless to you (as they are to many people), then that's up to you. But claiming that you're opposed to marriage because it's a religious ceremony is like claiming you're a teetotaller because Catholics drink wine to represent the blood of Jesus.

Hi Hara,

I appreciate your comment.I know about living wills, last will and testaments, and the other legal documents and have them as well. However, I have personally seen what can happen when that is contested and the ruling goes against the partners. I have been denied entrance to the intensive care unit for non-family members and have sat in the hospital myself scared and alone because of those same rules keeping my partner and friends outside. For me, the protections and additional legal weight of state-recognized marriage give me the peace of mind that those things are less likely to happen now.

(and, just to be clear in case anyone is wondering - I have avoided the children part of this discussion because I am child-free and plan to remain so, so only the marriage question is really pertinent to my own experiences)

I got married for the health insurance and never had a wedding (something I am ecstatic about). To me, the legal bond does feel like it creates a stronger commitment, which may just be the feeling of fulfilling society's expectations, but I have a hard time believing this is exploitative of women specifically when gay couples frequently cite the same effect as another reason for legalizing gay marriage nationwide. The current expansion of gay rights to include marriage has really made this an exciting time, I think, for America to look at how marriage is defined and explore all the alternative relationships that are possible within and without it. I personally think that married couples receive a lot of benefits that are frankly unfair for single couples to miss out on. Hopefully this opportunity for marriage to become something other than "a man and a woman" will lead to new social arrangements -- maybe some legal benefits of marriage being provided to long-time friends, or things like that. But if I were in a relationship with someone who ended up treating me unfairly after marriage, I think the institution itself would be the wrong thing to blame ...

That should be "single people," not "single couples"!

I think that the way that we get married in this country is odd. Because of "family values" only heterosexual couples can marry in most states despite religious affiliation (ie athiests can still marry) and call "marriage." I think every couple should have to get a civil union through their state so they can be legally recognized to receive the 1000+ rights that come with it. Aside from that, if a couple wants to have religious ceremony, then they can do that in addition to their civil union. That way, religious groups have no say what couples deserve rights under marriage, but they can decide for themselves what couples they wish to recognize in their own churches.

andromeda posted at September 14, 2008, at 08:03PM : "Marriage is purely a religious ceremony, and since I'm an absolute athiest it has no meaning what so ever to me. It is a permit for sex issued by the church."

Hey! Not all religion is "the church." It's OK, you don't need to forget that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, etc. exist in order to stay atheist.

:)

AliCat commented at September 15, 2008 1:19 AM; "Your system would create a set of rules by which all would be judged and to which all would have to conform, or risk losing their child....You advocate regular checks to make sure that people are 'living up' to these standards imposed on them from outside. Then you propose AUTOMATIC removal of the child if they are not met. "

IRL, such a set of rules and outside standards already exist and noone has the ability to keep raising a child no matter what she or he does or doesn't do. This happens even without a third party consciously imposing those standards.

For example, there's the body temperature standard. A human child's body needs to be within a certain temperature range. If you have a child in your custody and fail to meet this standard then the child will die and you won't get to raise that child anymore (unless leaving teddy bears and flowers near the tombstone or candy and bowls of rice near the urn counts as childrearing?). The biological limits of cells in bodies do not know or care if you and your sympathizers think "society makes parenting too stressful," "all you need is love, not other stuff like heat," "s/he only meant to leave the child in the hot car for a minute," "home heating is expensive and poor people have a right to children too," "I almost baked my child too and anyone can make mistakes," "s/he's suffered enough," etc. Those biological limits will automatically take your child away if you don't do something to meet their standards.

Hilary commented at September 15, 2008 11:08 AM: "I think means testing for parenthood is also almost genocide, considering the ethnic and racial breakdowns of poverty in our society."

OTOH, means testing for parenthood is also practically unavoidable. Children's cells needing energy, and being unable to photosynthesize to get that energy, is definitely a form of means testing for keeping those children. If you fail to have and use some means to give your child's cells enough energy (whether buying food, bartering for food, growing food, getting food from welfare, getting food from charity, sending the child to relatives and/or friends who do have food to spare, or whatever) then you will basically fail the test. Your child will die and you won't get to raise her or him anymore. Is it almost genocidal for children to need to eat something?

Hilary commented at September 15, 2008 11:08 AM: "Displacing children does not bode well for their future, even if the home life sucks."

Now that depends on how much their life sucks and who's making it suck. For example, is displacing an 8-year-old rape victim from the husband her parents choose for her while raising her really that bad for her future?

Hara commented on September 15, 2008 11:33 AM: "Honestly, I don't see how it benefits the woman. I do witness many benefits for men who are married."

What about when everyone in the marriage is a woman and there's no husband in there reaping a benefit?

"The rest of your argument has to do with children. Why do you equate children with marriage? There are a lot of happy childless couples out there."

Very good point!

"I know about living wills, last will and testaments, and the other legal documents and have them as well. However, I have personally seen what can happen when that is contested and the ruling goes against the partners."

Sadly, I've heard of cases like that too.

I'm opposed to having marriage linked to religion as well, and think that marriage is generally not a good thing. Especially for women.

But your view of child-rearing is super paternalistic, and inconsistent with your view on why the church shouldn't be issuing permits to have sex. Paternalism is paternalism, whether it comes from the church or the gov't. I personally oppose both, and think that my partner should have an equal say on what happens with our child. We don't always agree, but having to work it out is good for us and for her. In addition, I have a stepdaughter, who now has 3 parental units in her life. We work really hard to get along and maintain a consistent world for her. It helps that we all 3 (her mom, my partner, me) like each other. So in this case, marriage (her parents failed marriage, and now our refusal to marry) hasn't benefited or hurt her - she just has a bigger family with a different format than the right-wing fantasy. She's flourishing, so who cares what they say? Most of the ideas in our culture surrounding marriage and family are antiquated and impractical, and will eventually die out. Just be patient and consistently show the world how wrong these ideas are. That's how you get your revenge.

AnUnfunnyFeminist

"Finally, strict individualism is a uniquely Western concept that the vast majority of the world does not adhere to, so your point of view is extremely ethnocentric and would be almost impossible for most people to comprehend."

I respectfully disagree. People in the eastern world have implemented policies much closer to what I describe than most westerners. For example, In China under Mao Zedong, there was a time in which children were taken from their parents at birth and raised by the state regardless of the individual that had the baby. I fully understand the evils of the dictator Mao, and his regime, but this policy was a step further than what I described, and was comprehended and applied across all of China.

Secondly, communism, which most people everywhere in the world can comprehend as history shows, though it has been implemented in very oppressive ways by some nations, is very individualist as Karl Marx intended for it to be. It puts all individuals in the same plane. The only reason it looks non-individualist to most is because it gives property to the whole of society, not to an individual, but that is intended to elevate the vast majority of Individuals. The largest social class, the working class, is theoretically put in charge specifically because it contains the greatest number of individuals. People would seek communism because they know that the vast majority of people in a capitalist society have no chance of ever reaching their individualist goals of being in the upper class on their own, so they work together to raise all individuals including themselves to that level. (I understand why communism as it is generally practiced fails to do this, but that way of thinking has merit, and is ultimately individualist.)

This way of addressing individualism is not ethnocentric, and certainly not impossible to comprehend. I don't support all of the policies of communism, but marriage and child raising are handled better with that way of going about ones individual goals than the way we use in the U.S.

I am with the other posters who are happily married feminist women. Both my husband and I are feminist, childless, and have an equal partnership. We got married for a number of reasons. The first being we love each other, we were with each other for many years and both have grown as individuals and changed over time, so we thought (still do) that we can be together during our lifetime happily in a committed relationship. We decided to legally marry in a nonreligious ceremony (both atheist). There are numerous benefits to being married. Hara seems to think the legal aspect is easier to fix w/o marriage than it actually is. We want to have the safeguard that we won't have to jump through ridiculous hoops if something were to happen to one of us. I have first-hand experience in this. For a number of years I have been the executor of my grandmother's estate and her POA. I have the legal documentation (living will, poa paperwork, estate and trust paperwork). This has not changed the fact that when she had a stroke and has been deemed incompetent that I (and my family) have gone through hell obtaining medical records, dealing with the hospitals, handling her finances, ect. Saying I’m family and even supplying the paperwork doesn’t make things easier. Eventually I’m able to get things done but it is hell doing so. If my grandfather, her husband, were still alive he would be able to do all the things I had to pull teeth for w/o question. Besides this, I now have many other benefits that come with my husband’s job that includes medical insurance. This isn’t anything to scoff at because I am a grad student and I have prescriptions and other medical expenses that I would not have been able to afford w/o insurance. I am not anyone’s assistant either. My husband supports me fully in my academics and has helped me achieve milestones.

Your view of marriage is very narrow. It is not strictly religious and has nothing do with sex for me. Given there are some people who view marriage as bond that finally allows them to have sex, but this is just a small population. And not all religious marriage is legal. There are age limits and polygamy is against the law.

Your view on children and custody baffles the mind. For someone who’s against marriage because you think it’s an excuse for religion to be in control of individuals, you have a fascist view on custody. I don’t think two parents are necessary, in some cases it’s much better to have the one, but if two people choose to have a child together and both want the child, there should be some legal backing for this. Sure this results in custody battles but your thoughts on paternity/maternity would bring the state more in than a custody battle. I am in favor of parental rights especially in cases of gay parents. Just because one person adopts/carries the child doesn’t mean the other parent should have no rights. In most states the other partner has limited/no rights if the couple separates. I don’t agree with this. I think both parents should have rights. And what if both parents have sufficient means? And if someone is poor, but they love their child and care for them shouldn't get custody? This would bring the state way into people's lives.

In addition, both parents, if they agree to be the parents, should have medical rights over the child.

Hello Mina--

You responded to my original post with:

"IRL, such a set of rules and outside standards already exist and no one has the ability to keep raising a child no matter what she or he does or doesn't do. This happens even without a third party consciously imposing those standards."

You then go on to use the basic biological requirements of staying alive, even down to the cellular level as an illustration of this. The requirement to provide what is necessary for life is a given in that without it a child will die,(or anyone for that matter), and yes, no third party is imposing this (unless you believe in a higher power as some people do).

My argument did not deny that there are existing standards for raising children necessary for actual survival, or deemed necessary on social/moral grounds. In fact, I mentioned them. Nor did I imply that anybody has the ability (or right) to raise a child "no matter what she or he does or doesn't do".

I am questioning the logic of a person who is so against the intrusion of state/religion into their life re marriage, yet where having children is concerned, proposes a system of rules, regulations and compliance which goes far beyond any set of standards already in existence.

The author of the post proposes the introduction of a screening system whereby prospective parents are deemed as suitable or not. Successful persons would then be subjected to regular checks to ensure that these (undefined by the author) criteria are met. This level of intrusion goes well beyond the judgement of whether basic biological needs are being met.

As Hilary has pointed out, such a system would seriously disadvantage racial and ethnic groups who are at the bottom of the heap with regards to economic advantage. In such a system, no questions are asked regarding why such disadvantages exist, or action initiated to do something about it. There would be built in preference for prospective and existing parents who already belong to privileged groups within society.

Nor is the reality taken into account of whether there is a large number of people willing to take on the biological children of those deemed as unsuitable. This is even more difficult for older children, where even now, finding foster homes and/or people prepared to adopt is difficult.

Hilary also makes a valid point about supporting families in difficulty rather than punishing them and removing children. I work in a profession which is mandated to report child abuse and/or neglect, and I have done so on two occasions. Each time, the agencies involved worked with the family to keep the children with their parent/s by offering support, but placed obligations on the parent/s as well. Removal of a child is only done in extreme cases, and as a last resort.

However, the above scenario should only ever occur when children are known to be at risk. "Checks" by an outside agency being deemed as routine for all families is an incredible invasion of privacy and threatens the freedom of families to exist according to their own values and choices.

In fact, such a level of checking would be unworkable. Even now, child welfare agencies are stretched to the limit, (and beyond it), investigating and acting on cases where abuse/neglect is actually suspected. They would never have the resources to routinely check every family on a regular basis.

Also, families circumstances can change. What if a parent becomes ill, or unemployed? Should the changed financial circumstances mean a loved child should be removed, rather than having in place the means to support the family through their hardship?

I am not questioning whether bringing up a child involves important and necessary responsibilities and obligations on the part of the parent/s (I most certainly believe it does), or that sets of criteria do not already exist, rightly or wrongly. If certain people are having difficulty with parenting, examining the causes and offering support is the answer, not victim-blaming and threats. The scenario proposed by the author completely disregards the diversity of situations and values held by people, and seeks to impose a rigid set of criteria on those who wish to become parents, the consequence of non-conformity being removal of the child. How would anyone dare to question such a system, once in place, if they could lose their child for doing so? Like I said before - scary stuff...

Re Andromeda 10:08 PM September 15

Firstly, the eastern world, as you describe it, does not consist wholly of China, nor Communist countries. AnUnfunnyFeminist is correct in asserting that your views are highly ethnocentric and would be incomprehensible in many cultures.

With regards to China itself, I find it incredible that you hold this country up as a champion of individualism because of your theoretical views of Communism, when the reality of this country's human rights record speaks for itself. This is a country in which the state exerts extraordinary control over the lives, as well as the reproductive capacity of its citizens. Women can be forced to have abortions. Fines are imposed on those who have more children than the one-child policy permits. Because of the cultural bias towards having sons, female foetuses are terminated or baby girls abandoned or left in orphanages. This is already beginning to skew the population so that there are more young men than there are young women. China justifies its one-child policy as a means of controlling its population growth. The morality of this is another debate, but such state control over people's lives and reproductive choices can hardly be seen as an example of promoting individualism!

Going beyond reproductive rights, there is no freedom of speech or even freedom of movement within China. Try speaking out against the regime and its myriad of petty officials, and "individuals" are very swiftly silenced. Why is it that the Dalai Lama lives in exile and cannot return to Tibet?

As for many other cultures in the east, the family is considered the central and most important institution. Individualism is not seen as positive if the good of the family as a whole is not taken into account. In fact people regard loyalty to their family as being of supreme importance. In such cultures, the removal of children from their biological parents by the state would not be any more acceptable than it is in the west. Nor is adoption held in such a positive light in many eastern cultures, from the point of view of both adopters and adoptees.

Trying to justify your point of view regarding marriage and custody of children with a theoretical view of Communism in the context of a culture so completely different from what we experience in the west is nonsensical. The reality is that we live in the west, and that dictates the social and cultural parameters in which we live.

Increased state jurisdiction in matters of marriage, reproductive rights, parenthood and child custody are not generally seen as positive. How can you advocate individualism when you would allow the state to interfere in that most fundamental of human relationships, being that of a mother and her biological child, seeing it as the state's right to take her child if she doesn't measure up to their criteria? Not only are the mother's individual rights ignored, but so are those of her child.

unfunnyfeminist, you took the words right out of my mouth... even though many of my relatives live in the US this concept would be hard to understand (we're latin@s, more specifically, indigenous, which is a totally different thing than being a light skinned person of european/spanish descent), i agree that the concept described is americancentric

I believe there exists a tribal society in the world which doesn't recognize the father as a primary caregiver (can't remember the name for the life of me). The child stays with the mother and the mother's brother is co-guardian. Families have taken quite a variety of forms throughout human history. Some societies had group/clan marriages, etc.

The main point is this: In any societal configuration, there must be a structure in place to ensure the safety and care of the next generation. In our society, it happens to be the nuclear family. Yes, this is related to religion to a certain extent, but religion is not the source of the nuclear family as far as I know.

You are right in terms of saying that the (broken) nuclear family is hardly the perfect structure, in fact, at times it can be the worst structure for child-rearing. However, the alternatives to it in modern society are not particularly compelling, i.e. state controlled or conditional parenting privileges, etc. As people say about democracy, perhaps the same is true of the nuclear family: It's the least evil of all systems but still not that great. Until someone comes up with a much better, equitable, just, rights-honoring system to rear children better, we're stuck with what we have now.

As for marriage... I agree that marriage and religion can be separated. I don't agree that marriage can be reduced to a simple set of rights (in that case, some "special" rights might even be discriminatory against single people, wouldn't they?). Marriage might have had bad, patriarchal beginnings, but there's nothing stopping us from evolving the idea. Lesbians, especially, have taken the concept/meaning of marriage to new levels, I think, by renegotiating what it means to be married and the roles each person has. Surely, this renegotiation cannot be swept away by your argument against religion.

Your argument seems to equate the oppression of organized religion with the oppression of marriage, and this seems to me to be an oversimplification. Personally, I am not a supporter of marriage, but issues of religion and child-rearing are not adequate arguments against marriage when taken on their own merits. This is because they do not take into account all different kinds and types of marriages.

I strongly disagree with much of your post. However, I will first note that I believe marriage CAN be a sexist institution ... but, I do not believe it is inherently so. A marriage is the product of the individuals involved -- if they're sexist, then the marriage will be sexist. If not, then it likely won't. However, it is a voluntary institution -- so I'm not sure why you'd expend so much energy railing against an institution that you can simply elect not to participate in.

Additionally, as some have said, marriage is not solely a religious institution. But, even in those cases where the married individuals based their marriage on the religious aspects, it wouldn't be a Constitutional violation. The separation of church and state deals primarily with mandatory or coercive involvement (for instance, Christmas programs at schools, creationism, etc.), not mere governmental recognition. I see no conflict with government recognition of the results of voluntary religious marriages -- i.e. the recognition that marriage creates a single financial unit for the purposes of taxation, intestacy, parental custody, etc.

However, I think it is this quote that I disagree with most ...

"As for raising children that is a hobbie project. no one is obligated to have children, raise children, or do anything with children. It provides no material benefits to anyone. It's great if someone wants to, but it changes nothing about their other obligations or other freedoms, and is not a job, anymore that collecting stamps, or fixing old cars, or any other personal projects anyone might have."

This is absolutely ridiculous. You are certainly correct that no one is required to have children. But, once you do have them, you ARE required to raise them (or allow someone else to do so). Children aren't a mere "hobby project" -- they're individual human beings that depend on their parents or guardians for survival, protection and acclamation to society. "Material benefit" is entirely irrelevant. It changes the ENTIRETY of a person's obligations -- as their first obligation is now the well-being (financial and emotional) of their son or daughter. Children certainly require a higher obligation than stamp collecting or fixing cars ... and, I'll venture to say that anyone who treats parenting as a hobby akin to stamp collecting is absolutely self-absorbed.

I was further horrified to see that you suggest that all children become immediate wards of the State -- to be taken away if the child's mother or father doesn't meet certain financial standards, with further checks throughout their life where the child can be siezed for financial hardship. Furthermore, under your suggestions, parents would have no rights whatsoever with regard to their children ... with the mother only having "first dibs", and no relational connection for the father whatsoever.

Sounds horrifyingly authoritarian to me. You spoke of the Constitutionality of marriage -- I see no Constitutional justification for the government to seize so much authority over child-rearing.

I agree with some of your premises ... but overall, that was a bunch of nonsense.

kbz

>> Finally, strict individualism is a uniquely Western concept that the vast majority of the world does not adhere to, so your point of view is extremely ethnocentric and would be almost impossible for most people to comprehend.

I don't think this has much to do with ethnocentric thought. Sure, most people outside the U.S. will find the prevailing opinions of the writer appalling ... but so would most people inside the U.S.

I agree that "rugged individualism" is uniquely American -- but I'd venture to say you won't find many Americans buying into these nonsensical ideas. I think most "rugged individualists" would be equally appalled at the idea that child rearing is akin to "stamp collecting".

kbz