It's for these and many other reasons that the real critique of marriage these days is coming almost exclusively from the men's lib movement, not from any flavor of feminism. The Internet is awash in men's rights Web sites, many of which urge males not to marry or have children. Political science professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University says that men victimized by marriage (and family law generally) constitute "the most massive civil rights abuse of our time." Men have no protection.
So if the marriage rate is way down it might be because the supply of ready-and-willing chumps is declining, not because of the dubious influence on women or feminists who've hardly had an original idea in 20 years and are today nearly totally oblivious to what's really happening out there.
After hearing from women for years about all the things they aren't going to do for men anymore, and adding up all the demands for "more" from women, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that, for a lot of men, women and marriage simply aren't worth it or the accompanying risk. Without male participation, marriage is merely a theoretical proposition that women can debate back and forth among themselves until after all the party guests have long left to go on to other things.
-- Chris Wetherill
An amusing article, but an even more amusing one would be on men who marry feminists. Are any of them sane? Why would any man subject himself to such torture? Marriage to a nonfeminist sweet girl is so full of risks for any man, that it probably makes no sense for any man to do it, but why marry a feminist and accept a life of certain misery?
-- taipei
Other than the romantic part, the purpose of marriage is for socio-economic union and to provide a stable environment to raise children. If women have an instinct to have and to raise children, wouldn't it be better to be in a relationship with a man who has promised to stay committed until death? The latest studies show that children are much better off having their fathers around and children do much better in a stable environment. The article did not at all explore this side of the question of marriage for feminists. This is a serious omission. Or perhaps the question of children and their need of fathers does not enter into the minds of feminists?
-- Richard W.D. Ganton
From the time I was 11, I was raised primarily by my lesbian mother and her lover. I was told at many turns that "all heterosexual sex is rape by definition," and "why can't you find a nice girl?" whenever I had boy trouble. I was an angry, confused teenager who thought any compliment a guy paid me was a covert insult, or the precursor to sexual assault -- as if a 16-year-old boy is premeditating his standing in the patriarchy, and just waiting to disparage my twisted sense of "feminism."
Marriage is not a political act. The idea that getting married will turn you into -- or cancel out -- your feminism is ridiculous. Marriage is personal. If a woman feels like marriage will turn her relationship into her mother's bad life, then she needs to take another look at whom she's marrying.
A "white wedding" is an aesthetic choice and always has been. Truth be told, big, elaborate weddings make me nervous, but I just don't like the pressure of being in a wedding party: I'm not judging my friend's commitment to feminism. I think they're a waste of money, but not if you have the money to spend! Personally, I'd rather have a research grant, but I'm a product of a seriously broken home, and in my mind marriage is a waste of time. I don't need the state to validate my commitment to my boyfriend. I don't need my former-separatist mother to take a newfound interest in my love- and sex life. It's not political, and it's not even familial. It's personal.
-- Jennifer Rennet
Amy Benfer gave a great summation of the feminist ambivalence toward marriage. I am 26, bisexual and just married a man. Benfer notes the way that the fight for gay marriage has freed us from gender roles in marriage. I have to agree. And the gay marriage issue has also crystallized much more for me.
My whole life, I have not known whether I would "marry" (become life partners, legally or not) a man or a woman. I have focused as much as possible on finding a good life partner. When it turned out to be a man, I had a moment of guilt. I wanted to marry to secure our rights as a couple for the same reasons I continue to fight for gay marriage: I think everyone should have the right to have a protected coupledom with the partner of her or his choosing.
When I told one of my ex-girlfriends, a lesbian and feminist, of my plan to marry, she encouraged me: "I would do the same thing if I could. Of course you want to protect your rights. Who wouldn't?" So, rather than deny myself and my partner that protection for some martyr-esque reason, I choose to avail myself of my rights and protections and to continue to fight for all human beings to have equal and full access to the protections of marriage. Marriage should be a basic human and civil right.
-- Johanna Bates
Next page: Amy Benfer's bourgeois, privileged musing made me holler with delight