Why marriage, and not partnership? Wedding presents! Nobody ever gets "partnership presents". :)

I actually thought it was cool that Jessica is giving her wedding a feminist makeover. She's keeping her own name, ditching the sexist traditions, and making it her own. Nothing wrong with that!

I think marriage has a lot to do with making somebody part of your family. Our partners are the only people we can choose to be part of our families. some people can be happy just feeling that connection, but others want it more official.

The word "wife" doesn't have to be something cringe-worthy. It is a word that has a specific meaning: the woman a man is married to. The negative connotations associated with the word have nothing to do with the actual definition. Any negative or positive connotations are the responsibility of the person using/hearing it.

I seriously doubt we can throw out marriage, create a new alternative, and find ourselves completely free of the problems that marriage holds right now.

Inequality in marriage, or the way other people treat an equitable marriage in an unequal way, are symptoms of a larger problem.

Should long-term partnerships replace marriage as the norm, I wouldn't doubt that the female partner in a heterosexual partnership will be treated by others exactly the same as a wife is now. And therefore, I support participating in marriage (for those who think it's right of them, of course) and working to eradicate the negative implications.

"I guess I really struggle to understand why any feminist would want to participate in an institution defined by a history of sexism"

By the same logic, why would feminists try to participate in historically sexist institutions such as the U.S. Senate? To change them.

While I too am skeptical of marriage as we know it today, I'm hopeful that feminists who choose to participate in it (such as Jessica) are leading the movement to change it into a non-patriarchal institution.

"By the same logic, why would feminists try to participate in historically sexist institutions such as the U.S. Senate? To change them."

I thought of this example -- or comparable examples -- as well, but I think there's something different about women gaining access to the U.S. Senate.

The Senate is an institution that historically kept women out. Once granted access to the Senate, women became the equals of their male colleagues. Female senators and male senators are identified by the same term of respect: "senator." There's no distinction made between female and male senators in terms of the way we identify them. There's no term that means "female senator."

With marriage, on the other hand, women can never gain access to the traditional (and broadly understood) position of power within the marriage: women can never become "husband," they must always be "wife." Of course, many couples choose to replace these gender- and power-laden terms with a term like "partner," but why not step outside the semiotics of marriage entirely and not identify as "married" in the first place?

Sorry, my above comment should have been posted as a response to dangerfield.

In the US at least, marriage provides thousands (yes, thousands) of benefits not available any other way, including through powers of attorney or domestic partnership. These have real financial, legal and social benefits for the people involved. Read more here:
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm

Saying that marriage is sexist and that feminists shouldn't get married is like saying that Christmas is a religious holiday, and the atheists shouldn't celebrate it.

Marriage is rooted in patriarchy, but for the last century or so it has been more about love than anything else. Christmas is the mass of Christ, but who do you see more of in December Santa Claus or Jesus? The meaning of Christmas has more to do with family togetherness than spirituality. They same way marriage's character has changed dramatically over the centuries.

My Soci102 class taught me that it was around the 1920s that marriage shifted from a practical contract arranged by the parents of the soon to be wed, to being something couples do out of love.

Also, there's the question of what would happen is he feminist movement tried to establish "partnerships" as an alternative to marriage. Would feminist women become partners and non-feminist women become wives? Would partnership replace marriage? Then what exactly would the difference be between a partnership and a modern love based marriage?

I think it would be much better and easier to simple continue the evolution of marriage away from patriarchy. The feminist movement shouldn't try to obliterate marriage, but rather change it.

To me marriage is simply when two people who love each other decide to spend the rest of their lives together. (Hah! finally managed to get the sign in to work, apparently waiting too long to answer the confirmation messes things up badly)

For some reason when I think about feminists getting married I just think "Feminism Lite! Better and easier for everyone to digest."

i'm also of the thought that hardly any institution is inherently oppressive and inherently patriarchal. institutions are oppressive when they are run by oppressive people, and egalitarian when managed by egalitarian folks. when ignorant people run the country, they make "government" look bad, yet government won't change unless we partake in democracy.

i think resisting an oppressive system and redefining an oppressive system through subversive means are BOTH valuable and necessary feminist activisms. i'm sure you partake in many institutions/activities which have become available/enjoyable because of feminist redefining.

I'm a feminist and I'm getting married.

Why not just stay together and not get married? Well, lots of reasons. Legally, it's the way to go. By legally consolidating our assets, managing those assets will be a hell of a lot easier. Also, I want to be able to visit him in the hospital and vice-versa, and other such things.

Secondly, we're already in an equitable relationship, and I highly, highly doubt that will change once we sign a little piece of paper, get dressed up, and eat expensive cake.

All that's really happening here is signing a license and having a party. That's it. I don't see how that has to be inherently feminist.

Feminism claims to be about freely making choices. But apparently it only counts when those choices are popular with the majority of feminists at the time. No one would criticize me if I decided to be a SAHM, which is also traditionally oppressive to women. But...apparently marriage is currently on the "unapproved" list. *sigh*

It's ridiculously patronizing to suggest that women who consider themselves feminist "can't escape the clutches of the patriarchy" in spite of themselves. They are making a choice to try to fix the system from the inside, being independent and defining marriage the way they and their partners see fit. Aren't you just legitimizing the patriarchy if you suggest that marriage is unsalvageable? You would instead choose a policy of superior non-involvement, an admittedly momentarily fulfilling but in general, futile gesture?

Liberation means all the choices are open and any choice is okay. Dominant Housewife, submissive CEO, or anything in between. The only time the personal should become political is when someone interferes with the personal for political reasons. Otherwise, don't tell women (and everyone else for that matter) how to live their lives.

Well technically I can't get married in my state...so to answer your question, unless I marry the gender that my government says I must marry (a man), which would not happen in like a bazillion years, I'm not getting married anytime soon...However, if I were to get married (I dunno in MA or something) I don't think that I would necessarily feel some of the same patriarchal pressures that married heterosexual couples feel...

So all that said, (and I swear, there is a reason for me mentioning all that)...you know how all these right wing groups are always harping about how "Teh gays want to "redefine" (scare quotes) marriage!"...well I think that marriage DOES need to be redefined...So maybe if same sex marriage was allowed, it might help make the institution a little less patriarch-ical (if that's a word). It's interesting how connected homophobia and misogyny is, isn't it? (heck, all of the -isms are connected)

...Although, there is also the other argument that we would just be buying into this sexist/patriarchal institution, and then that's maybe an argument to just get rid of the idea of government marriage altogether and just have everyone get civil unions (and let the religions do marriage ceremonies if couples wish).

I want to respond to a series of points, so bear with me

I really agree with you, meeneecat. I was just thinking, in fact, that all the current discussion surrounding gay marriage might provide a really useful opportunity to redefine marriage or present an alternative to marriage all together.

And to respond to dangerfield, I don't think we should abandon marriage just because "why not?" -- quite the contrary. I think that marriage could be productively resisted by women and men who want to separate themselves from an inherently sexist institution and/or call attention to the ways in which marriage is sexist.

And I can tell from the above posts that this is a controversial opinion, but I do think that marriage is an inherently sexist institution. Unlike the US government, marriage was never premised on egalitarian ideals. Marriage, in its original conception, is based on inequality and the protection of that inequality. In the case of the US government -- or comparable examples -- an egalitarian system was conceived of, but for a long time failed to be practiced or executed in a manner consistent with the ideals on which the system was premised. Marriage has no such egalitarian premise.

To me, this seems worth pointing out, here in this forum and more broadly in our society. When we call attention to sexism, I think we have a better chance of combating and eradicating it. I think there's a kind of danger in marriage being whatever we want it to be: it ignores its deep connections to religion and to a long tradition of sexism. If there were an alternative to marriage, I at least would feel less torn between my hope for a more egalitarian society (and hence reluctance to participate in marriage) and my desire to be officially, legally, publicly connected to my partner.

I agree with Boswell that marriage is an inherently sexist institution. To make matters worse, unlike the U.S. Constitution, which essentially codified racism (before un-codifying it, or rather, codifying anti-racism), there is no external governing organization for marriage (unless you count the National Organization for Marriage -- and I hope you don't!) to which we can appeal to make marriage no longer sexist. It's one thing to be able to pass a legally binding amendment that prohibits racism, and it's quite another thing to try to alter the thousands-year-old course of a social institution. Marriage is a cultural force that hundreds of millions of people participate in. Sexism is not codified, but it is deeply coded into the institution of marriage. We cannot pass an anti-sexism amendment for the Marriage Constitution (heck, we can't even pass one for the U.S. Constitution [e.g. the failure of the ERA]), and so I fear that the sexism endemic to marriage will persist until an alternative emerges.

Indeed, those who wish to subvert the traditional patriarchal structures of marriage will still always be treated like any other husband and wife. For example, I think a married couple keeping their own names is great, but will that stop people from referring to them as Mr. and Mrs. Husband's-last-name? Much as individual couples can define their relationship to themselves (and to those with whom they most frequently interact), by participating in the social institution of marriage, married couples inevitably invite themselves to be treated like any other married couple, diminishing their ability to undermine and transform the institution.

But aren't couples who are in a committed partnership open themselves up to being treated like any other married couple? Even if you are in an equitable partnership (married or otherwise) and others are treating you like any other married couple, it wouldn't be a problem to speak up and correct them. It isn't hard, for instance, to correct people when they address you as Mrs. his-last-name. In fact isn't this a great way to begin to change the way society as a whole views marriage?

Just because the institution of marriage was originally based on sexist grounds doesn't mean that it's a lost cause. There are a lot of amazing, useful things about marriage--just ask any gay individual who has been banned from it. And I think questioning how someone can be both feminist and a "wife" isn't helping anything. Feminism, to me, is a lot like religion--yes there are certain general "rules" or whatever, but for the most part you just do what feels right in your heart. Marriage can (and should) be a very equitable form of a partnership. If we find a man or woman we love and want to share the rest of our life with and we want the legal benefits of a marriage, why is that so bad?

I'm a feminist and I'm married.

I agree that marriage has a long history of oppression and patriarchal power over women. Honestly, I could have been fine NOT being married and just being within a lasting partnership with my significant other for the rest of my life.

But I realized that how he and I interacted, we have an egalitarian relationship, wouldn't change based on whether we had signed a piece of paper or not. My relationship with my SO didn't change because we got married. It's just that now we get all of these neat legal benefits.

I think this will be true for ALL individuals. Marriage will not change how men and women interact. Women raised in patriarchal societies will often enter into unequal partnerships with men, no matter if there is a state-sanctioned process for recognizing that partnership or not.

I see marriage as being inherently neutral. However, since history has been defined by patriarchy and suppression of women, so has marriage. Any other partnership between men and women would have had that same definition.

My partnership with my SO is equal. I'm not buying into the patriarchy or falling under its spell. I've got my eyes wide open. I'm hoping that friends and family will see another egalitarian marriage and understand that patriarchy has no hold over me or my SO and that historically oppressive institutions can be made equal.

I think we're talking about similar things, just calling them by different names. And for me, the politics is largely in the nomenclature.

I'm not saying that ritualized partnership or legalized union are inherently sexist institutions, I'm saying that marriage, as a particular kind of ritualized partnership, is sexist. Words come with political baggage, which is why we've chosen to designate any number of words as "pejorative terms." But marriage is more that a word, it's a whole system, that comes with its own vocabulary, traditions, and history. I guess I could say that I see marriage as a pejorative system, for women at least.

I think we should create a new incarnation of ritualized partnership, a more egalitarian one. Is this staring to sound too Utopian? Yeah, maybe. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that this will ever surface on the political agenda. But as dangerfield says, "the state should create a basic template for domestic partnerships and then get out of the way." Yes! I totally agree. And I guess what I'm wondering is, if this basic template existed, and it weren't called marriage, but marriage still existed, wouldn't a lot of you be eager to take advantage of that?

If the answer is yes, then there you have it! A reason not to get married. Because maybe if we don't, there will be a reason down the line for a reconceptualization of legal union on the part of the government. And a precedent for official, public partnership that doesn't have all the historical, religious, sexist baggage of marriage.

I'm glad you're trying to understand our side of it, and I think it simply comes down to the fact that most of us don't have the same emotional reaction you do to the words "marriage" and "wife". Or "husband" for that matter.

The work of building a family with my wife has been the most fulfilling thing I've ever done, and it's deepened my feminism immeasurably. As a result, those words give me nothing but fuzzy, warm feelings. And that is why I'm glad to have gotten married.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I am a heterosexual woman and i don't think I will get married until gay marriage is legalized in every state. I just don't want to participate in an institution which denies rights to different groups of people. However, I have given a lot of thought to what a feminist wedding would look like and I really admire Jessica for disregarding sexist tradition and really making this personal.

If I ever do get married, the purpose will be to celebrate the love I have found and to tell the people who are important to me in my life that I have found someone with whom I want to spend the rest of my life. That is why I don't think that a marriage is necessary. But if and when I do find a person to whom I am willing to commit, I will want to celebrate that in some way.

No offense but since when was any partnership equal?

People are good at different things and they need to compliment each other. I personally feel marriage is the search for someone who compliments you rather than someone who is going to be in an "equal" relationship. My fiance happens to be better at fixing things, I happen to be better at cleaning and keeping things tidy.
We will just have different roles and rely on one another for different things.

So just because when we get married and Ill tend to do more feminine tasks and he does more masculine tasks that we are unequal and patriarchial? I need him to do tasks that require more muscle like open my rusty old window efficiently, he needs my small hands to reach in the small-diameter can to grab a pringle for him lol.

What matters is that were both pulling our own weight, giving one another respect and compromising on most every issue. And treating each other accordingly. I am much better at bio and reading people and i could always goto him for physics help.

My mother happens to be better at balancing a check-book while my father is much better at providing for the family financially being that his degree is higher than hers.

Does that mean they are in an unequal and negative relationship?

Not at all. The problem is when people dont think for themselves and feel pressured to be a certain way. When females feel pressured to be good "housewives" and when males feel pressured to provide for the family.

I think marriage is about compromise and respecting one another equally. Yet the roles that people take in a marriage are different, not necessarily equal.

I am a feminist who will be getting married shortly to a wonderful fellow who actually came from a very patriarchal family.

We already take pride in showing our friends and families how equal a relationship can be when you work at it. Working at it means just that. It has taken us a lot of reading, thinking, and conversations about sexism in order to create the awareness of it that we need in order to change our sexist behaviours. We fully expect the process to be ongoing. It requires us to constantly challenge ourselves to be better.

We will also take pride in showing people how equal and how happy our marriage will be. Perhaps we will influence someone else to try the same thing.

Marriage, in and of itself, is a valuable social institution. It confers both legal rights (and the accompanying legal responsibilities) and social recognition of the creation/extention of a family. Though it began that way, it need not continue to be patriarchal in nature. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that many of the same-sex marriages in my community are patriarchal at all.

Marriage has always been a little weird to me. The costumes the weird looking cake. The whole thing has always creeped me out.

I think it is interesting that so many people think that the construct of marriage cannot involve a feminist man. My relationship is definitely equitable and getting married wouldn't make me less of a feminist or anti-feminist, just as my man who washes the dishes and does the laundry wouldn't turn into chauvinistic ass with the words, "I do"

My SO and I also have talked about how marriage isn't exactly liberating for men either. All of the sudden they feel obligated to provide for the family or wife and if they can't do that they are an absolute failure. Of course as feminists we know that patriarchy hurts everyone, but I wanted to bring it up.

One way or another, I seriously doubt someone like Jessica Valenti would even contemplate marriage unless she had someone who was free of sexist and patriarchal assumptions. It is tempting to say “Well if he thinks X then he’s got another thing coming!” but really, if the guy has made it this far I doubt he is the sort who would actually ever think ‘X’. I’m certain that this person is themselves a prime example of a feminist; otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about this.

Marriage is a social institution that is defined by human beings. Without human beings there would be no marriage. Its existence is completely dependant on the people who believe in it and practice it. So if there is no one who believes wives should do Y and husbands should do X, and none of the actual wives do Y and none of the actual husbands do X, then what is the difference?

Boswell, I want your utopia too, the difference is that I would call that ideal ritualized partnership ‘marriage’. I don’t see anything wrong with the words themselves once the definitions and connotations have been changed. They’re just series of sounds and letters without the social constructs and agreed meanings, which are completely dependant on the people using them. Such a utopia is achievable. We just need to tell our children “Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two equal people who love each other”. We need to give the next generation a different definition of marriage than what we received.

Cutekokori, just to be clear equality doesn’t mean you don’t compliment each other in some way. Equality simply means that you have the same relative power, the same control over the nature of your relationship, and an overall equal amount of responsibility. Of course two different people will have different personal qualities and skills, often even those appropriate to conventional femininity and masculinity. Your marriage is equal because you have equal say in what your roles are, not because your roles are identical.

I know several couples who have been have been married happily for decades. Never have I seen any indication that either partner was restricted by their spouse, or by societal pressures, or ever suffered any abuse, or really suffered in any way, even when the man and women fill out traditional gender roles, including my parents. It would be interesting to ask these people about their marriages, how they view their roles, what their beliefs are, etc. Ultimately though, the reason I can’t help but defend marriage is because of these examples.

I got married because I wanted to make a promise to stay with my lover for the rest of our lives. I wanted it to be a public promise to share it with our friends and family and get support from our community. I wanted to celebrate our relationship.

I did not like the word "wife," but I did like the tradition of marriage and weddings within my faith community.

We didn't do it for the legal and financial benefits, but over the years, we have found that there are many. At the time, I probably thought why not make it legal for the sake of kids later on.

Being married is not what makes it hard to have an equal, feminist relationship. Before we were married we had to work at it because of the way we were brought up. Marriage didn't change anything. Seven years later, kids changed us much more than marriage ever did. We are equals and no one is being oppressed, but we no longer have the same roles.