LOOK: Turks Lock Lips To Protest Public Kissing Law
Should Parents Whine Less? Or Should Everyone Else At Work Whine More?
Feministing founder Jessica Valenti approached her impending nuptials determined to avoid the sexist traditions so often associated with marriage. But she was surprised by the strong reactions from her friends, fans and anonymous commenters who called her a "ball-cutting cybersuccubus."Some think Valenti is trying to have her (wedding) cake and eat it, too, while others say, "What, feminists can't get married?" In fact, our own staff agrees to disagree. After the jump, two Lemondroppers present their cases.
Julie, Associate Editor: As a hardcore feminist, I'm often on the extreme (extreme!) left on issues (pro-choice, anti-gun -- you get the idea). But when it comes to marriage, not so much.
Yes, marriage is a hetero-sexist tradition fraught with tons of sexist ideals (women having to "obey" their husbands, for one, and losing their personhood into the terminology of "man and wife" for another). But! That doesn't mean that it's a tradition completely without merit. The deep bond and commitment that marriage signifies is deeply appealing.
I believe that feminism should be less about developing stringent rules for women and more about honoring women's freedom to choose how you want to live your life. If traditional marriage makes you happy, then you shouldn't have to worry about losing entry into the feminist party. Feminism should be multifaceted enough to welcome women who want to marry, and those who don't without judging or punishing anyone.
Emily, Contributing Editor: Look, I believe in the kind of kinder, gentler feminism that allows for happy homemaking and kinky sex practices, but I'm not sure there's any such thing as a sexism-free wedding.
Even if you manage to eliminate all the overtly sexist traditions like promising to "obey" and taking your husband's last name, you can't escape the fact that the institution itself was created and built on inequality. You can scrub away the part of the wedding where the bride's father "gives her away" to the groom, but you can't change the history of the institution.
And today, studies show marriage is still less beneficial for women, who report poorer mental and physical health in marriage than men, and continue to take on the lion's share of housework and parenting duties in the marital home. Whether you wear a white dress or not, it won't change the fact that marriage doesn't exist in society to benefit women -- it's set up to benefit men.
For those reasons, I'm afraid "feminist wedding" is still an oxymoron.
Tell us! Are wedding inherently sexist?
Amelia at The Frisky has some strong feelings on Jessica's situation, too: "Jessica, this is your wedding, not the feminist movement's wedding. You're getting married. You have nothing to be sorry for. Your wedding is about you, and him, and your family and friends, and you're fighting an uphill battle..." click here to read the rest.
Comments:
Add a comment
Monday 27 April
By Jonathan
To Julie:
Since marriage is instituted by God in Genesis, I'll use the Bible as support for my comments. Women are commanded to obey their husbands, and husbands are commanded to love their wives "as Christ loved the Church." If anyone got the raw end of that deal it's men. Have you ever loved someone perfectly? That's what men are supposed to do. It's a high call, and sadly men fail at it. Some don't try. But to argue the order of authority in marriage is sexist bc of the failure of some is poor reasoning.
How do women lose their personhood? Part of loving your wife means respecting her as a person created by God. It doesn't get much more personal than being created by God. You mention several things that you view as reminiscent of patriarchal society. We are not perfect. God even told Eve that because of sin, Adam would now "rule over you." Sin changed the dynamic from being like a partnership to one in which one ruled over the other. (By the way, God also says that woman's desire "will be for him" meaning her husband's authority, that she would want to usurp it, and so sin implanted a conflict for authority between husband and wife).
Finally, you're correct that we can't change what people have done with marriage, but we can change what we do with it. I can choose to love my wife (when I find her) as Christ does. And she can choose to obey me. Neither of us will do these things perfectly, but with perseverence and grace, we can model the relationship that God intended for Adam and Eve, one of love, respect, and friendship.
Reply
Monday 27 April
By Julie Gerstein
annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd jonathan after reading your comments, i'm about to revoke mine. i have to say, that one of the most deeply troubling aspects of the traditional marriage paradigm is the notion that a woman must "obey" her husband -- as a one-way-street. as you may or may not know, all of this marriage business started not out of some religious significance, but as a kinship ritual, in order to create community and societal bonds between families. and this notion of a woman "obeying" a man is just another example of woman-as-chattle that should be, but isn't, gone by now.
Tuesday 28 April
By Peter
I've seen plenty of marriages where the woman more or less "wears the pants" in the family... such as my folks. I'm glad to know my parents are going to hell.
Part of the problem with marriage is the religious rubbish surrounding it. The fact is that humans bonded for life long before religion, long before law, and long before marriage as we currently know it existed. It must serve a human purpose. And yes, it might not be completely equal.
Wednesday 29 April
By Emily
I agree with you Jonathan and that is what I would/am looking for in a man. Men who follow Christ example are going to be the ones able to lead and have the wife's best interest at heart.
Well put.
Saturday 02 May
By angelmischa
Actually, Jonathon, women are traded, between men, as a way of solidfying male relationships. That's why a father "gives away" his daughter. Go read some Engels, Marx, or Rubin. Women are TRADED through the marriage system. That's why we still see arranged marriages, for example. Hence, it is very right to say that the institution of marriage dehumanises women, strips them of their personhood, and, yes, treats them like cattle.
Monday 27 April
By Jonathan
My apologies, I didn't notice the two names were two writers, so I didn't separate my comment into two responses. I hope my comments will be received nonetheless.
Reply
Saturday 02 May
By Lindsey
Jonathon, laws have authority over me. My boss has authority over me. My grandparents have authority over me. Sometimes even my dog and 1-year-old niece have authority over me. My husband will never have authority over me just as I will never have authority over him. A marriage is a partnership, not a "Manager/worker" relationship -- a wife is not "support staff" no matter how much love there is in the relationship. I recently had dinner with one of my friends from college and her fiance. My friend is now in medical school, her future-husband works full time and has a bachelors degree. I asked how the 2 planned to juggle marriage, children, and home with her medical residency and she said, "I expect my husband to stay home more than I do." She explained the reasoning was he could work from home at times, he had a set 40 hour a week schedule, but she would be putting in over 80 hours a week as a resident in the hospital. So, does that mean my friend -- who has more education, a more stressful job, and who will be earning more money than her future husband -- should yield authority to him simply because he's a man? Or should she have been a proper woman to begin with and asked her fiance for permission to attend medical school in the first place (because, let's face it, her becoming a doctor is a very obvious disruption to his life right now)? The last statement, of course, is not serious.
Monday 27 April
By Jonathan
I disagree with your statement that a wife obeying her husband reduces her to being like cattle. By having an order of authority in marriage, you reduce the chance of conflict. The military has people in charge so that men aren't arguing about which course of action to take all the time. A general in charge has the final say, however, they are often wise enough to take advice from the officers below them. In the same way, a husband has authority over his wife, but should love her (as Christ does) and work to take her opinions and needs into account. When love is incorporated in marriage, marriage becomes very egalitarian in practice. In fact, I think the only reason God set man as the head of the household is because people are sinful, and He wanted to cut off the chance of arguments fracturing the marriage and family, so He gave the husband the authority to eliminate that possibility.
Reply
Monday 27 April
By PJ
Again, why should the man have the authority to eliminate anything? Man isn't all knowing, nor is he naturally the problem solver. A man could be just as imperfect at settling an argument as a woman. In the relationship with my fiancee, we make choices together. When I am right, we follow my wishes, when he is right we follow his. Never is he the mediator or the authority because he isn't over me. He's beside me (like all men.). This authority chatter is really pathetic. Men have no authority over women. You're weren't born head of anything just because of what's between your legs. Sometimes I feel that if men took a step back sometimes and watched their wives, girlfriends, the women in their lives lead, then that would make their lives easier. And the Bible is meant for interpretation. The way you interpret the Bible may be totally different than someone else. I see sexism in the Bible. But then again keep in mind, the Bible wasn't written by GOD, it was written my sexist, pig-headed men. Of course everything in the Bible will be in favor of men.
Monday 27 April
By coco
Since marriage is instituted by Zeus in Greek Mythology, i will use Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" as support for my comments. Basically, as a married couple, the husband should first obviously be the wife's brother. She should be insanely jealous, and he should occasionally descend to Earth in the form of a bull or swan to rape/seduce princesses, anonymous mortal women and beautiful male indentured water-bearers. Before you think, hold up! Women are getting the raw end of the deal on this one, think about how difficult it is for the husband to carry out all of his transmogrifying/sexual coercion under the constant watch of his wife's loyal thousand-eyed manservant? Now, that's difficult.
Reply
Monday 27 April
By Julie Gerstein
coco i love you.
Reply
Tuesday 28 April
By mythago
No, feminism isn't simply about 'whatever, it's your choice'; it's also about examining those choices, why we make them and what influences us to make those choices.
Reply
Tuesday 28 April
By John
Wow, pretty cunty discussion. I hope her husband gets out while he can.
Reply
Wednesday 03 June
By Ralph Malph
Nice mouth- shows your total disrespect for women.
Thursday 30 April
By jessica kirby
here is my perspective as a wife, scientist, and human.
Marriage didn't originate for any religious purpose. otherwise, why would virtually all cultures have an institution of marriage? it's because of sociobiology. (i.e. Evolutions influence on culture.) marriage at first was arguably mutually beneficial depending on the culture. generally, the man benefits from help in the household and assurance that his children are indeed his genetically, and the woman benefits because she has parental care from the husband, and increased resources. this results in more, healthy biological children, and this is why marriage prevails!
for more on this interesting subject, read E.O. Wilson's 'Sociobiology'.
Relgion, when it originated along with agriculture, complicated the issue. tensions between the wants of men and women resulted in religious ideas that pit them against each other; men generally want to spread their seed with as many women as possible (subconsciously of course) and tend to wander. women want their man's parental care and resources all to herself and to no other, so religion was used as a tool for men to take the upper hand in marriage. Why men took the upper hand remains a mystery, I would guess it was because of their physical differences and division of labor.
So I don't believe that marriage is the problem, i believe that it is literal translation of religious texts. Data shows that marriages in which the man and women share authority are happier and more successful. you can't argue with data!!!
Before anyone starts "praying for me" please note that I am christian, as well as an advocate of sexual equality. I Simply don't take everything in the bible literally. if religious translations that gave men authority were ever relevant, it was in biblical times. in this day and age, it's obvious that for most people, equality is best. my husband and I are equal partners and have been tremendously happy for six years now, in harmony with god, science, and each other.
Reply
Friday 12 June
By Adri
Jessica, I'm a little confused by your declaration as a Christian. If you never really went to medical school, then you're not really a doctor.....if you never went through the police academy, then you're not really a police officer...............if you don't believe the Bible in it's entirety as the innerrant Word of God, then you're not really a Christian. A Christian is one who follows....follows is an action............not just picks and chooses parts to believe & other parts....mmmmm, not so much! It's an all or nothing faith. If it's not all true, then why waste your time or efforts? Do you see what I mean?
For everyone else: Everyone thinks they have the REAL source of the beginning of the institution of marriage. We will all disagree because none of us will hold each other's reliable sources as credible sources with merit. We will all try to find the holes in each other's definitive origins. For myself, with respect, though disagreeance to all other viewpoints, I choose to stand on the Biblical foundations as they have been proven throughout time by science & history to be accurate.
Jesus was one of the biggest feminists of all. He walked the earth at a time & in a culture when women were regarded as third-class citizens not worthy of much. He defied those cultural boundaries constantly. Seriously, you should read the Bible & see. Proverbs 31 talks about the perfect woman mentioning that she makes business decisions & financial decisions, & has the utmost respect from her husband & children. Jesus stopped to talk to a woman who was the "lowest of the low" in Samaria, in the book of John, because of her "been around" reputation. He didn't care about what others thought, He cared about her. Again in the book of John, when a woman who had an illness of constant bleeding, a woman that was regarded as unclean by others, touched Him & was healed, He showed great love & compassion to her, even when some commanded her to get away from Him. At a time when adultery led to being stoned to death, only the woman was brought out (where was the guy?). Jesus saved her life by telling those ready to stone her, all men, that whichever of them were without sin, cast the first stone. Obviously none were. He addressed her gently after that. When He died a horrific death on the cross, & rose from the dead on the third day, it wasn't a man He revealed Himself to first........................it was a WOMAN! She got to be the first to see Him & go & tell everyone! God has this very undeserved reputation for being against women. SO NOT TRUE!!! The scripture that talks about "obeying" isn't saying "obey me, woman!" You have to read it in it's entirety to be accurate. Ephesians 5:25 says, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her ." Do you see that? As Christ gave Himself up for her, the man is supposed to be like that towards his wife.....ready to lay down his life for her. If anything, they've got the raw end of the deal. One person put it like this: "Submitting to your husband is like ducking to let God slap him one." The husband gets held accountable for not keeping his wife feeling loved & honored. All feminists should be rejoicing over that! It's not AT ALL saying that women are "chattle". Does that sound like "men spreading their seed"? God holds women in very high regards and demands that men do the same. That's why, as a conservative feminist, I'm secure enough in my femininity that I'm not threatened by the order God calls for in scripture because I know He has my best at heart. That's why I follow Him. Most other religions still treat women as second & third rate. I am first rate by Jesus' standards. That's feminist enough for me! :)
Friday 01 May
By Kate
I was married in the Episcopal church, and nowhere in our vows was the word, "obey" mentioned. The minister stressed equality and support, and that neither partner is of higher standing than the other. He also called us "husband and wife," not "man and wife." Apparently this is the norm for Epicopalian wedding services. He did announce us as "Mr. and Mrs..." but this is only after he asked us what we preferred.
That being said, if someone is so concerned about being trampled on as a result of getting married it seems to me that there are deeper issues. I consider myself a feminist, but I also trust my husband will not expect me to 'obey' him. I also know that before I even agreed to marry him I was sure that he considered me an equal. That's enough for me, and no matter what the church says, that's how we will live our lives. To me, feminism is something too important to be trivialized by concern over what is said. "Actions speak louder than words." I mean, come on, who cares if you are called "man and wife," or "Mr. and Mrs.?" Obviously you love the man, and that's all that should matter.
Reply
Friday 01 May
By Kate
I also want to add that I do not consider myself religious and would not have been married in a church had my husband's family not insisted on it. My previous comment sounded like a plug for the Episcopal church, and that was not how it was meant. It was purely to show that people have options if they don't want "obey" to be included in their vows, as I didn't.
Reply
Friday 01 May
By james
I hate to upset every one but here goes . Jonathan got it part right when He talked about the chain of comand in the army . God didn't put man in charge
of the woman because of original sin but as a result of it. It wasn't a punishment it was a necessity brought about by their punishmnet which was
the ejection from the garden of eden where there was no danger of conflict
between man and beast. or other men. god put man in charge of protecting their wives well being in every way and like a general with his army there will
be times where instant obetiance is required for survival. If the wife is not in the practice of following orders she won't follow them when it could mean her or his life . Look religious beleifs aside no matter how you look at it men and
women are not equal in order for then to be eqaul they would have to be the same with the same strengths and weaknesses and as anybody with eyes can see men and women are very different from each other. They were design ed( or evolved ) to fill different niches in society based on there inherent strengths and weaknesses. failure to accept that reality is a sign of an unbalanced mind . which means that someone should be given athourity
over you for your own protection because you don't see reality as it and
may fail to recognize danger when it comes
Reply
Saturday 02 May
By Kate
Jonathan and James, are you married? Because, wow, I'm certain if my husband every demanded "instant obedience" from me, he would no longer be my husband. James, apparently your supposed "superiority" to women simply because you're a man includes an inability to spell? You make yourself look like an ignorant, religious bigot. You must realize that most people (and many religious denominations) do not consider women inferior. Oh, and we don't see reality as it is? Come on, how do you explain the female politicians, doctors, lawyers, and other female professionals who obviously have a more productive role in society than you? It's reality. I would like to pull you out of the 1950's and welcome you to 2009. You and your entries, gentlemen, are appalling.
Reply