The following editoral was forwarded to me. It's about Elizabeth Gilbert's second book, "Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace With Marriage": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574389030071359044.html
I have not read either of Gilbert's books, but I would venture a guess that "Committed" is not about giving up feminist ideals to snag a man. It seems that Charlotte Hays perceives that getting married and being a feminist are mututally exclusive - an idea that our own Jessica has shown to be false. I would argue that getting married in and of itself is not antifeminist, but not taking the time to learn which parts of a wedding are patriarchal is. Taking the time to understand the history of weddings, and subverting or turning on their heads the patriarchal elements is in my opinion, a feminist thing to do. Also, getting married doesn't mean giving up sisterhood, as Hays seems to think. Women do not stop being feminists or believing in equality and sisterhood once they've found someone they want to share their lives with.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "A Feminist Icon Gets Her Man" - And?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15850
Though I am a man, I can say with certainty that whatever woman I choose to marry I desire a completely equal partnership. I hope to someday engage in a Quaker wedding ceremony, which for those who are interested can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_wedding
And I do understand why the awareness of all the ways Patriarchy has placed unfair, unnecessary, and controlling constraints on the lives of every woman can leave one reluctant to engage in any activity where its insidious hand has corrupted an otherwise spiritual, sacred ceremony. If we can look at the purity of marriage and can look beyond the ways that human hands perverted it, then we need not compromise our core beliefs and values in engaging in what has the potential to be a deeply moving, deeply important cultural ritual. It is easy to confuse the tarnish for the gold underneath it.
Is that comment a joke? The "purity" of marriage? WTH? Marriage is a social contract designed to transfer property, increase political connections, and strengthen familial class standing. There has been no perversion, that has been and continues to be the purpose of marriage. It is designed to reinforce social norms and hierarchy.
I do not believe in state-sanctioned marriage for a number of reasons, but don't really believe abstaing from them helps anyone. It only insures that that couple won't get certain rights and privileges, not that others will. I totally believe in fighting for the rights afforded in marriage to be afforded to all relationships. Also, as vehemently as I am against state-sanctioned marriage of any kind, if I were to find someone who I was willing to be monogamous with and commit too for a life time and they really wanted to be officially married, I do not think I would let that be a deal breaker for me (though I can't really see myself making that commitment to someone who didn't share my views on marriage, and their willingness to let it be a deal breaker would raise flags, I realize it is possible). That includes same-sex partners I might have who want marriage.
I honestly don't see same-sex marriages as any more progressive as hetero ones, they both involve state-sanctioned appropriate relationships and the nuclear family in the name of reinforcing inequality. But I don't think hetero couples not marrying helps further the cause for same-sex relationships, and people not supporting same sex marriage really doesn't help work towards the end of state-sanctioned marriage.
I am totally in favor of marriage (making some time of commitment to someone else) but if a person calls themselves a feminist but chooses to be legally married when a huge section of the population is denied that right I have to call bullshit. That is indulging in your privileged. "Oh, my more qualified female colleague I know that you should have gotten this promotion instead of my male self but what do you expect me to do? Not work to increase the power of the people who preside over the whole fucked-up system? Don't be silly. But I am totally rooting for you! And maybe next time you won't be up against a man."
I know a lot of people a who make a point to say how they changed the vows to be more feminist (great) and how they made a speech about how unfair it is that everyone can't get married (so sad for TEH GAYZ but don't I look so pretty in white?).
I call Bullshit. If you are really a feminist you can still have a ceremony and a party and a marriage but by choosing to be legally married you are basically a scab.
I know that the arguments why it is okay (for me to get married even when you can't):
It is so much cheaper. - Um yeah, that is why it is called privilege, it is better. "I know that restaurant doesn't serve people of color but the bread sticks are so good and it is really reasonably priced."
The Kids. - look around, tons of children have parents who are not legally married. "Mommy, why can't Suzy's Daddies pay for her to go to summer camp? Well Sweetie, because of all the extra cost of not being married. Thank god you have a Mommy and a Daddy."
I honestly don't care what people do, no one has to answer to me but please cool it with the "My super feminist Wedding" shit.
Not getting married will lyk totally help teh gayz. TOMGz. Also, by not getting arrested and imprisoned on false grounds, Jessica is engaging in white female privilege. She should try harder to draw police suspicion, in solidarity with groups that are oppressed by the legal system. Because no one should try to make a life for her or himself as long as there is injustice in this world.
If you get legally married (please note that I am talking about the legal, contractual relationship of marriage) you are strengthening the system. That is hurting the people who are being oppressed by that system.
Who says you can have a committed marriage without a legal contract?
You're so right, no one ever suffered from not having health insurance any more than from being able to play golf at an exclusive club. OMG YOu're SOO TEH SMARTZ.
If you get legally married (please note that I am talking about the legal, contractual relationship of marriage) you are strengthening the system. That is hurting the people who are being oppressed by that system.
Who says you can't have a committed marriage without a legal contract?
So what would you say to those of us who live someone where gay marriage is totally legal?
E.g., I live in Canada. It's legal here. Does that mean I'm allowed to get married?
Do you also refuse to eat because children in some parts of the world are starving?
Do you refuse to walk, because some people are in wheelchairs?
Do you refuse to get an abortion you want because abortions are illegal or inaccessible in some parts of the world?
Fact is, each of us exercise some kind of privilege each and everyday. The privilege of walking, the privilege of eating, the privilege of enjoying reproductive health services. What good does it do anyone to shot themselves in the foot? As long as the person getting married is aware that that ability is a form of privilege and fights for the rights of gays in enjoy the same, I say good for them. Why should they not get married to suit a political agenda when their marriage or lack therefore of will not affect the political situation in the slightest?
Joan
1) Yes, lots of organizations have fasts where you donate the money to help people who are starving. And most people understand that we should reduce our consumption so to make it better for people who have very little can have greater access.
2) Did you ever go to camp? You would spend of period of time blind folded or in a wheelchair to understand what other people go through. But still you are missing my point. By not being in a wheelchair am I actively empowering a system that forces people to be in wheelchairs? No. Think of it like joining a segregated country club, do you do it because it will be fun or do you not do it because it would be perpetuating a corrupt system?
3) Show me a person who died because they didn't become legal husband and wife? Then ask yourself if that is a fair comparison.
Sorry, fasting for a day is not equivalent to starving. Neither is being blindfolded at camp.
Well, I know couples who have married so one could get on the other's insurance, guaranteeing treatment for a life-threatening condition. But I'll admit that is rare. But if you are not wealthy, the tax breaks that come with marriage might allow a family to eat. If a spouse is in the military, being married is crucial to the couple to ensure the spouse who isn't in the military gets support. Now, I think it is a shame that gays and lesbians don't have access to those benefits. I organized prop 8 protests, I voted against prop 102 (in AZ) and I will continue to support everyone's right to marry the one they love. But I am failing to see how a straight couple's refusal to get married in any way helps the cause of gay marriage. Even if everyone was to 'boycott' marriage, would that ensure that gay folks have the right to marry? No. The only way to win the right for everyone to marry is to support legal action and participate in protests and vote.
Joan
If you're not lighting yourself on fire like a Tibetan monk every day until gay marriage reigns from sea to shining sea, you're a privileged harpy.
I would say I agree that not getting marreid isn't going to help further anyone's cause. however, the best analysis I've seen on not getting married comes from here - http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0601-10.htm
They make an excellent point about how continuing to fight for marriage rights in a way further entangles property rights/capitalistic ideals with the personal. they phrase it oh so well.
This is why I got married:
http://unmarriedestate.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/an-unlikely-bride/
" an idea that our own Jessica has shown to be false "
I would suggest that there's quite a few people out there that didn't wait for Jessica's magnificent enlightenment to understand that marriage is not necessarily sexist .