The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Women and Marriage
Brown Eyes:
In the Proposition 8 thread a discussion has come up about the traditional understanding of marriage out of a very interesting article posted by MaineWriter. Here is a link to her post of the article: http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,29984.msg449249.html#msg449249
The article is about the gay marriage debate in Iowa and was posted in the NYT (by Kirk Johnson,
Iowa Justices Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case)
This is the part from the article that I think is very interesting for women in general (gay or straight) to consider.
--- Quote ---An assistant attorney for Polk County, Roger J. Kuhle, said the core of marriage, historically, was about children and creating stable systems for procreation.
“The essential factor of marriage, which is procreation, which is raising children, which is replenishing society, has never changed,” Mr. Kuhle told the court.
Justice David S. Wiggins then pointed out that society’s notion of what was acceptable in marriage had evolved over time.
--- End quote ---
This was my own reply in the Prop 8 thread to the whole notion of procreation being the basis for marriage by some definitions:
http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,29984.msg449298.html#msg449298
--- Quote ---The one point that kept coming up in the article/ the discussions that annoys me is the issue of "procreation." If they're worried about the original societal function of marriage... it was about procreation (yes), men exchanging women (a father giving his daughter to another man), and the exchange of land/ property/money (between men, using women). There's nothing romantic about the original societal function of marriage. The idea of marrying someone you like (or love) is very modern. And, the idea that people can pick their own partners is also very modern.
I mean, a strict understanding of the histocial, societal function of marriage is very yucky. Especially for women.
Anyway, another annoying thing about the procreation issue... is straight people marry all the time with no intention of having kids. They don't have to sign a pledge promising to have kids in order to get married.
--- End quote ---
So, I think here there is a wider question for women about marriage as an institution. What do women see as beneficial about marriage to them? Do you think that marriage as an institution really has evolved for women?
When I think about the gay marriage debate (as a woman and a gay person) I find it to be a complex issue. Of course, I wholeheartedly support gay marriage if that's what people want. As a woman, I find the history of marriage to be very, very troubling. I personally would be very uncomfortable entering into such a heavily patriarchal institution (historically speaking). And, I also wonder about the urge to impose that type of institution on a lesbian relationship specifically. For some gay people, avoiding this type of societal structure is a core aspect of a gay relationship. But, clearly for others there's a strong desire to follow traditional models of family structures.
I'd be really curious to here how other women feel about marriage... as an institution I mean.
Also, if you'd like to discuss personal experiences of marriage or issues like feeling pressured (by parents, partners, etc.) over the issue of marriage, this could be a great venue too.
delalluvia:
Your reply was excellent atz. The original function of marriage wasn't procreation. It was economic. The transfer of goods/services and the binding of two family groups for whatever reason in a patriarchal type society.
Children and love had little if nothing to do with it originally. Now a man's desire for descendants would finally come into it, since he had to keep the family holdings in the family, but since he could sire children in and out of marriage, what did the marriage partner being fertile have anything to do with it?
The man wanted to keep his goods in his family. But he had to make sure his children were his own. The woman was always sure her children were hers, but her partner could not be. But since in patriarchal societies, a woman's lineage wasn't the important one, that the child was definitely hers didn't really count.
So basically, the procreation of children was a subset reason for marriage, but only because the transfer of goods from one generation to another was what was important.
And then this was only important in families that had substantial goods to transfer. Sex was had and children were born in and out of marriage for the poorer folks so marriage wasn't as big a deal, well, up until the religious aspects came into things, which really then put the thumb down on women.
As for modern times. I'm not a big believer in marriage. The only benefits I see are economic ones - tax breaks, etc. With the high divorce rate, providing a stable home for children is no longer something that can be strictly attributed to marriage.
But what marriage does do is protect the rights of each partner in the marriage, so if one spouse is lost to death or the partnership does end, each partner can expect the law and society to respect their rights to the deceased, the children and to the property shared to be considered.
Brown Eyes:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on December 10, 2008, 01:35:25 pm ---The man wanted to keep his goods in his family. But he had to make sure his children were his own. The woman was always sure her children were hers, but her partner could not be. But since in patriarchal societies, a woman's lineage wasn't the important one, that the child was definitely hers didn't really count.
--- End quote ---
Thanks delalluvia! I think your post is really, really interesting.
About this point here... I always wonder if what you explained here is why children routinely are given their father's last name (in most or many cultures)? I mean, putting his name on the child was one of the only tangible ways to establish a link to the child.
You're right that it's easy for the mother to claim the child since her role in reproduction is so physical while the father's role is so abstract.
I'm editing this to add a personal example here.
One of my best friends had her first child last year. She kept her name at the time of her marriage. So, she and her husband have two totally separate last names. But the child only has the father's last name.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: atz75 on December 10, 2008, 01:51:40 pm ---Thanks delalluvia! I think your post is really, really interesting.
About this point here...I always wonder if what you explained here is why children routinely are given their father's last name (in most or many cultures)? I mean, putting his name on the child was one of the only tangible ways to establish a link to the child.
You're right that it's easy for the mother to claim the child since her role in reproduction is so physical while the father's role is so abstract.
--- End quote ---
IMO, the reason is because women were property. Her name wasn't important. His name was. That's why in a traditional western marriage ceremony, the father "gives away" the bride to the new man in his daughter's life. She is being transferred as goods from one man to another. And the father is asked and he has to state this publically.
She is traditionally veiled, to show her modesty and hide from the prying eyes of the public, but the husband-to-be has the right to inspect the bride, make sure he is getting the right woman, and he does this by lifting her veil to look before the ceremony is concluded.
She used to have her father's name going into the ceremony, then after, she has her husband's name.
Years ago, women were known as Mrs. Thomas Jones. She didn't even use her first name.
One of the saddest monuments I read about was an early east coast settler in the U.S. He and his wife's gravestone was set in the corner of the church. It read (I forget the real names) Mr. John Smith and wife.
Who was his wife? Her name? We'll never know.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: atz75 on December 10, 2008, 01:51:40 pm ---I'm editing this to add a personal example here.
One of my best friends had her first child last year. She kept her name at the time of her marriage. So, she and her husband have two totally separate last names. But the child only has the father's last name.
--- End quote ---
Interestingly, I'd like to know why she made this decision. On average, the woman will spend more time in housekeeping and childrearing, so if anything, it makes more sense for the child to take her name.
But likely, I suspect it has something to do with making her husband feel like he has some interest in the family group.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version