My thoughts on Marriage

This post is in response to articles I read for a class that I'm taking. I have linked the articles mentioned.

When I read the articles for class, I couldn’t help but examine my own beliefs and thoughts about marriage. Before I discuss the readings, I will first state several of my beliefs. First and foremost, I believe marriage is a conscious decision made by two individuals. It is a decision that should not be based solely on “love.” It is a financial decision as well as a decision about motherhood/fatherhood. I believe marriage is not necessarily for everyone and should not be believed to last forever. With that being said, I do agree with statistics that indicate that the more educated a person is and the older a person is when he/she marries, the more likely he/she will remain married to the same person for many years and will probably never go through a divorce. Marriage is about sharing and communicating with your spouse. I think a lack of communication between partners is more likely to be the root of a problem than whether or not your husband does his share of the laundry or childcare. I also don’t see marriage as an institution dependent upon submission. It’s about mutual responsibility.

I agree with some of the assertions made by Melissa Harris-Lacewell in her article “Reflections on Marriage.” Marriage is definitely an institution drenched in “a troubling cultural mythology,” but it is not static. As Harris-Lacewell suggests, it can and needs to change. Judy Syfers piece, “Why I Want a Wife,” not only made me think of a similar sarcastic piece, but it also brings to light several of the assumptions many people had (and currently have) about what it means to be married. Several of the duties Syfers lists, like being cognziant of one’s spouse’s sexual needs, are still relevant today. A couple that does not discuss both partners’ needs will probably cause angst. In “Once Political, Now Just Practical,” Sara Saraohn criticizes Syfers work for being reductionistic. Personally, I think Syfers use of humor (satire particularly) is perfectly acceptable since it makes sense to be reductionist about an issue that essentializes and reduces the roles of men and women within a marriage.

I enjoyed Meghan O’Rourke’s stance on romantic love in “Has Marriage Become the Sacred Cow of Feminism?.” I agree with O’Rourke when she argues that our society’s notion of marriage is rooted in our ideas about romantic love. The media tells kids that men and women are different and have different goals in life. The media, especially Disney movies, tell young children that romantic love and marriage are idealistic images. It assumes and reinforces the notion that women want Prince Charming to rescue them from their neglectful and perhaps evil families. Lastly, the article “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” saddened me even though I understood Sandra Loh’s predicament. This article saddened me mostly because Loh refused to acknowledge that even though many people reject marriage, it doesn’t mean that these people don’t need people. I am proud that Loh takes a stance on what she believes, but I would’ve liked her to acknowledge that even though her own needs, which include having a companion, being comforted by another person, etc. will be sidelined until her children are out of school.

In class, Sarah Schuetez mentioned that marriage is an institution that reinforces other institutions, like religion, and I completely agree with this. This is probably one reason why divorce rates in the U.S. are as high as they are. I also think that many people don’t discuss what it means to be married with others. For example, my parents never talked to me about decisions they made (financial, educational or otherwise) that affected the family and their marriage. The trip to the alter is what many people think about or focus on, not what to do when there is an unexpected pregnancy. Today, I find out more about my marriage and my friends’ marriages because we initiate conversation. If I want to know at what point should my husband and I have life insurance, I’ll talk to my peers and find out what they did and hopefully learn from them. As society changes and progresses, hopefully more people will be able to openly talk about the complexities of marriage.

Stuff White Feminists Like Response

One of my friends recently sent me a link to this article from My World in Shambles and I thought some of the entries moderately interesting. A brief list of the top ten things white feminists like are:

10. Crafts

9. Roller derby

8. bell hooks and Audre Lorde

7. Funky or thick framed glasses

6. Bettie Page

5. dabbling in vegetarianism

4. The Vagina Monologues

3. Johnny Depp

2. Take Back the Nights Rallies

1. Cats

Well, I understand crafts being on the list in part because many feminists (if not all) wish to be self-reliant and make things they or their families need. I find the fact that Roller Derby on here slightly surprising, but not entirely. I would've thought women's rugby over roller derby or even women's sports (especially team sports) in general. bell hooks and Audre Lorde, I can definitely agree with, but think this category could be slightly broader especially to include other works by women of color and sexual orientation that embrace and investigate the interrelatedness of being a woman of color, lesbian/bisexual, and/or womanhood itself. I think the funky or thick rimmed glasses is a little stereotypical and not very realistic. I think most women don't want glasses that take away from or hide their faces.

Now, Bettie Page.... I'll be honest, I had to look up who she specifically was in order for me to critique this making the list. First, since I had to look it up and I consider myself very well versed in feminist issues (past and present), I think this shouldn't have made the list. This image also brings up mixed feelings for me. I believe women should embrace the bodies they have and should not be shy about who they are, but I also believe in common decency. I also believe in female empowerment and if a woman wishes to show off her body and exert power over men by stripping (and therefore taking money (i.e. power) from men) more power to her.

Dabbling in vegetarianism.... I almost think this is applicable to many people, not just feminists. I think people who are more concerned about the ethical treatment of beings (human beings as well as other "animals") are more inclined to be vegetarians or at least buy meat from companies that stress the ethical treatment of its products. When I do eat or buy meat, I ask or look for information about whether the chickens or the cows were fed vegetarian diets, did not receive antibiotics and hormones, and were free-range beings.

I love The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler, so that's one text that deserves to be on this list. Johnny Depp definitely deserves to be listed as well. I love the slightly androgynous Depp. He's funny and sexy. I agree that Take Back the Nights Rallies should be on here as well even though I have never been to one of these meetings. Women need a safe place to go to interact without fear of any type of intrusive male presence.

Cats!! Yeah for cats being on the list! I love my kitties and they are great companions in life. They are there when you need to cry, enjoy petting, and show affection.

Things or items that I would've liked on the list: Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own --classic staple in any gender and women's studies class and something every feminist has read at one point. Childcare--yes, I know crafts are important, but so is proper childcare. Many women struggle with having children and maintaining a career, and adequate childcare allows women to do both while not sacrificing their relationships with their children. Last and certainly not least, every woman needs comfortable shoes and is a staple in many feminists wardrobes.

"Property"

Recently one of my favorite bands, Say Anything, released a new album. This album has one blatantly satirical song entitled "Property" that I find very interesting. If you haven't heard it you should. Check it out here. I find it extremely funny since they satirize the roles of women, especially when it comes to loving relationships. I love satire and believe it is hard to do well and believe that it is a great way of understanding how we view the world around us.

Kudos to you Phyrangula!

Yesterday, PZ Myers, or "Phyrangula" as you might know him, made a post about the bill pending in the Bahama's which seeks to outlaw marital rape. In this post, Phyrangula briefly discusses why some Bahamian men disagree with the bill, which is because they see their women as property acquired and that they see their wives as a part of their own flesh (due to their religious beliefs). Phyrangula suggests that women should be treated as partners, not as property. J.S. Mill would be sad that this problem still exists in our world, but probably would be happy that people, like Phyrangula and myself, advocate for equal treatment of men and women. It makes me so happy to know that there are male feminists out there (even if he doesn't label himself as such) keeping feminism alive.

Why Feminism Today Matters

This post is a response to Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil by Satoshi Kanazawa and Why Anti-Feminism is Illogical, Unnecessary, Evil, and Incredibly Unsexy by Gina Barreca

Kanazawa suggests that feminists believe that men and women are “identical” and “are” or “should” be treated as such. First and foremost, I don’t think any woman in her right mind who has experienced childbirth, menstruation, or menopause would argue that men and women are “identical.” I don’t and will never know what an erection physiologically feels like because I do not have a penis. I do believe most feminists like myself would like to be treated the same as men. Kanazawa also notes that feminists believe that women have always had it worse than men, which he seemly refutes when he compares power to shoes, but what he doesn’t realize or acknowledge is that women, like many other minorities, have been worse off because the opportunity for development, self-exploration, and emancipation have been denied to them. Today’s current society caters so much towards men and the penis that we have found the cure for erectal dysfunction years before we’ve developed a vaccine for female specific diseases like cervical cancer. I’m sorry Kanazawa, but dying of cervical cancer seems slightly more important than making sure grandpa can still get it up.

Kanazawa also suggests that men and boys are more likely to suffer physically and psychologically than women and girls. I contend that there might be a relationship between boys conditioning including being told, “boys don’t cry” and that they are “girly” if they complain too much. Research has shown that when emotions are not dealt with and are therefore bottled up, physiological problems arise. Because girls are not necessarily afraid of appearing “girly” since it would be like denying biological fact, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, they don’t suffer from the psychological and physiological problems that plague men, which in turn makes them die younger than women.

Kanazawa also notes that men need power in order to obtain women and that women don’t necessarily “need” power because men have it, which is utter bologna. This argument is making the “Compulsory Heterosexuality” assumption that heterosexuality is mandatory and preferred to homosexuality.

Kanazawa also notes that less women are happy when given the opportunity to acquire power. Now, are women less “fulfilled” because of the power they’ve acquired? Probably not. For example, research has shown that martial happiness declines when couples have children and this doesn’t rebound until children are out of the nest. Does this mean that married couples need to stop having children if they want to be happy? Not necessarily. Married couples who have children, like women who have acquired power, might be more fulfilled because of their accomplishments and still might be less happy than couples without children and women without power. Again, does this mean that women should stop seeking positions of power because of they will be less happy than if they don’t? Definitely not.

Lastly, it appears to this researcher that Kanazawa prescribes to the same dogma of John Gray author of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Both seem to reinforce the idea that men and women are inherently and completely different, when in fact this is false. Kanazawa’s argument that men and women are inherently different is greatly flawed. I would personally contend that women and men are relatively different because of biological reasons, but they are perhaps more similar than dissimilar. Men and women have been raised in the same environments, exposed to similar stimuli, and have similar desires and beliefs. Society, including one’s parents, indirectly and even directly at times constructs what it means to be a man, which suggests the need for masculine characteristics, and what it means to be a woman, which suggests the need for feminine characteristics. Over the past forty years, many of the systematic and embedded means of reproducing the male/female and masculine/feminine binaries have been and are currently being deconstructed. For example, even though women still bear much of the family/house burden, things are slowly changing. Today, more men are comfortable staying home and taking care of the kids because their wives have become the breadwinners in the family than ever before.

I am in no way suggesting that feminism today is unnecessary. Although change is happening, women are still underrepresented in positions of power in the United States and the world, women are still paid less than men for comparable work, women are indirectly and directly punished for having children, and many still believe that feminism is a man hating dogma. Besides, feminism needs to survive, if for no other reason than to save women from eating disorders, plastic surgery, and submitting to sexist ideals.

Unfortunately, this is not what is conveyed in Dr. Barreca’s rebuttal of Kanazawa’s post. Instead, she relies upon anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which is valid and important, yet it provides no hard evidence regarding the need for feminism today. She suggests that if women had power there would be no war and no slave camps among other things, but I contend that there is no way to know that if women had power that they would end war or slave camps. Female constituents, for example, could vote male politicians who support war and slave camps out of these positions. Overall, Dr. Barreca’s rebuttal could’ve benefited greatly from hard evidence rather than anecdotal evidence.

Last, but certainly not least, I recommend that Kanazawa read John Stuart Mill’s On The Subjection of Women (1869). Even though this text is over a hundred years old, women today are still dealing with some of the same issues Mill discusses. Women need the same opportunities and rights of man because a democratic society should seek to utilize fifty one percent of its population rather than believe they don’t exist.