Feminist Perspectives On Marriage

Again, it depends on where you are and the laws under which you are married. Where I am (Ontario, Canada) a la care marriages are possible due to domestic contracts. If there is no domestic contract, then the terms of the marriage (which is of course a contract) default to the government statutes.

Note that the government statutes already pick and chose what one gets from marriage. For example, in my jurisdiction, a married person upon separation will get half the family home and half the net family assets, but will not get any of what the spouse had prior to the marriage, or during the marriage received by way of gifts or inheritances or personal damage awards. If a person wanted something different than this (for example, if they wanted to share everything as ladyfoxfyre suggests), then they would have to make an a la carte domstic contract.

With the greatest respect, and with no intention to be harsh, I would like to suggest that folks who believe that marriage means a total merging should take a close look at precisely what the statutory terms of marriage, separation and divorce are in their jurisdiction, for I would expect that in most jurisdictions (and certainly in mine), marriage is clearly not a complete merging, but rather is a default standard of terms which has emerged out of a selection of the most societally acceptabale divisions of property upon maritial breakdown.

I’m getting married soon, probably in September or October. She will be taking my name. I am pleased that she chose to take my name when we marry, as it was my preference. Had she chosen to keep her father’s family name, I would not have objected to that, either. It was her choice. When we have children, they will get our family name–hers and mine.

She wants to finish her college education, and then be a housewife. I make enough money to support the family, although it will mean a tighter budget when we have children. I am happy that I am able to provide the family with enough income that she is able to make this choice. My personal preference would be that she find a job after she finishes college, because it would provide us with a financial cushion. But a higher priority than a financial cushion is that she be able to make the choice that will make her happy, and right now that choice is to be a housewife and mommy.

In short, we have decided to adopt traditional roles in our marriage, or more accurately, she chose the role of the traditional wife, and I support her making the choice that makes her happy.

We are aware of the legal obligations that will occur when we get married–she is Filipino, and the legal hoops we have to jump through so that she can come to the US and marry me have made us very aware of exactly what this means.

But the legal aspects are tertiary. For us, the emotional bond that comes with getting married is of much greater importance than the money and legal stuff. But even the emotional aspect is of secondary importance. For us, it is the spiritual connection that we will have that makes getting married a profoundly important thing for us to do. I was a complete person without her. She was a complete person without me. But with her, I am more than I was without her.

We both beileve that a woman with the same qualifications and experience doing the same job should get the same pay. We both believe that no job should be denied a person because of their sex. We both believe that men and women should have equal status before the law. We beleive that women should have the same opportunities that have often been reserved for men. Based on these beleifs, I think of my self as feminist. She would consider the term an insult.

To embrace marriage as an institution in ignorance of what it means is foolish. I think it also foolish to criticise others who do choose to marry and adopt traditional roles just because it disagrees with one’s political ideology. I bear no animosity towards those women who reject the idea of marriage for themselves as a practical matter or out of loyalty to their particual brand of feminism, or for whatever reason. That is an individual choice. Wwhen they choose to criticise those who do choose marriage merely because such a choice is different from the one they have chosen, they are indirectly attacking the woman I love, and I find that insulting.

This is a textbook “True Scotsman” argument:

A: No feminist would subjugate herself to marriage.
B: Many feminists have chosen to get married.
A: Well, no true feminist would get married.

I appreciate the responses given to my question. They have helped me to understand the variety of perspectives different people have regarding marriage as both a sacred act of companionate promise and a legally enforceable social contract.

Thank you all.

Hmmm…

In a jurisdiction where civil divorce still HAS to have one of the parties incur in “fault”, I can see that being so…

But if the jurisdiction recognizes “mutual-consent” divorce, then “the law” marks nobody as having “broken” the contract – more like the venture just failed, hey, stuff happens, right?

Unless, of course, the “mark” is that it be on-the-record that the marriage had to be dissolved – in which case it’s really a question of social mores and of whether the individuals feel they lived up to their own standards – not “the law” . If a business venture fails and has to be liquidated, people will talk about bad management even if it was just dumb-luck bad timing – but that’s just gossip. The principals know they did nothing wrong.

HOWEVER, I believe that in official documentation and records, there should NOT be a separate “single” and “divorced” classification. Who cares? Persons not currently in a marriage or civil union should just be able to leave it at that.