I Do or I Don't - Marriage

[Blue]

Does marriage serve any domestic purpose in this 21st century?  - The standard vows sound awfully suspect to me, "to love, honour and obey as long as both shall live"..."Til death do us part"...what do such phrases mean in real world application?  Is the institution of marriage even relevant anymore?

[Louise]

The institution of marriage can be very oppressive to women as the majority of women are required to be submissive to their husbands. Some may argue that this is no longer the case as women, (whose role was traditionally to be the nurturer and home maker), are more career oriented and independent. Some may term such women as feminists . However, I know of women who are independent and career orientated but don't mind being submissive as they have been socialized to be that way  by the social institutions- family and religion.

My opinion of marriage is, that it is an institution that prostitutes women. Yes, I know a very radical perspective. Let me explain. Sex and money are the major elements in most relationships.  Thus, marriage is not only a "holy union" or a symbolism of a couple's undying love but it also has an economic side.

In a traditional marriage, which is  much sought after , the woman - whether she is career orientated or not- is expected to take up her traditional role. The expectations of a woman are high as she is expected keep a clean house, do the laundry, give sex to her male companion at his request ( she really does not have a say about sex because when she signed the marriage license, it is like she signed away her rights to her body to her husband) and the pressure is on to bear children. She can do all this as a career woman or a house wife, once she knows her place! As a house wife and/ or a  career woman, she is rewarded by having a roof over her head, perhaps access to the car and bank account. Now let's be clear, I know that the aforementioned is not applicable to all married women, as there are married women who are very independent of their husbands financially and materialistically but are very dependent on their spouses emotionally. 

I have a female friend, who has been married for 15 years. She is submissive in every way possible and she is rewarded by the occasional infidelity, and the "special occasional" gifts. She is not given money, as her husband pays all of their bills personally and accompanies her to the grocery and market- now that is what I call male domination!

Okay, back to the relevance of sex and money in marriages. Wives are expected to always readily provide sex for their husbands, whether they ( the wives) are in a sexual mood or not. When the wife performs her sexual duties it is seen as a form of gratitude for all that her husband has done for her, that is, provide her with the basic necessities. If the wife decides to withhold sex from her husband, she is seen as ungrateful and inconsiderate of her husbands needs. Thus, once sex is not occurring between the couple, then the relationship takes a turn for the worse, especially if the woman is the dependent party and she signed a prenuptial. As such, the wife can "kiss her privileges good bye".

In this way, in my opinion, marriage is an institution of prostitution because once sex not " passing" all that the woman is privileged to, that is, her basic needs and perhaps access to his accounts and cars, is stopped.  The same way prostitutes  sell their body for money, so to do wives. The only difference is, a married women sleeps with one man ( the one she "loves" unless it is an arranged marriage) while a prostitute sleeps with more than one men - although, there have been cases where men have prostituted their wives.

Thus, marriage is a mechanism used to control women in a patriarchal society. It is used to keep us (women) delusional, that is, we need the protection of men. It is used to make independent women feel unaccomplished and incomplete once they are not married. Such an oppressive institution has no relevance in modern society.

[Blue]

Hmm...well you've mentioned many things Louise.  Certainly you've given me food for thought.  Personally I find it severely limiting to say that marriage is about sex, money and female oppression though they are most certainly themes that occur in many marriages, as in many relationships for that matter.  I can't agree with you that marriage prostitutes women though, that's a bit of a stretch.  I think that any woman (or man) who has sex with someone as a means towards gaining something is doing nothing strange, unusual or necessarily unethical.  What's wrong with that for the record?  If I sex with someone, its because I want something...physical pleasure for example...that may not be tangible but who am I to judge those who want something more material from the interaction?  I figure that if an adult is having sex for things, to gain something and she (to use your gender example) is resentful/hateful because of her own aforementioned activities, then clearly there is something that has yet to develop in said lady in the way of self empowerment.  I wouldn't blame the marriage or the other party for one individual's bad choices.  If your friend is submitting herself to varying forms of humiliation/submission because she feels she has to for whatever reason, then she's clearly the problem in her own life...why call it male domination if she wants to be like that, actively participates and subjugates her own will in favour of someone else's?  No one is putting a knife to her throat and forcing her to give up her own autonomy are they?

Labelling someone a prostitute sounds elitist and the title bugs me a bit because I don't see anything wrong with anyone wanting to be a prostitute.  What's wrong with providing a service for money?  No different to any other trade really.  

I've never thought of marriage as a symbol of anything much (my own cynicism prevents me there), maybe as a status symbol in some circles but I'd quicker think of it as a state of being...a pact towards maintaining a dual existence, very often leading the parties to treat themselves as part/half of someone else, all a part of transitioning to the glamorised and socially 'exalted' state of becoming  that single celled organism, the fabled "Married Couple".  

I guess traditionally, it HAS been treated as a form of protection by women or by the society for women but in today's more gender emancipated community, women are empowered towards coordinating their own lives, they raise their families in single parent units when necessary and make their own decisions autonomously.  Women AND men hold jobs whether married or single, so the idea that in today's western based society, marriage is deemed as a form of female control is a hard for me to comprehend.  I can't see that.  I don't see the majority of women retiring themselves in favour of being housewives/housepets as implied.  The married hordes around me prefer their own autonomy where their fiscal independence is concerned, be they male or female so I'm having difficulty understanding your point.

I also don't understand what is meant when you say marriage is not only a "holy union" - What is that?  Is there such a thing?  I also don't get what you mean by referring to marriage as a symbolism of "undying love"...what that be?

Also, I'm trying to figure out if you consider marriage to be exclusively oppressive to the female gender?  What of the men?  Can you elaborate a bit more?

[baseman]

Most people are conditioned to believe that marriage completes them. A lot of religious pressure is exerted on people to get married. It is also how people extend their financial empires as many wealthy people make business deals to merge their families. Also, society gives financial and other social benefits to marriages. It means security for many females and a sexual object to possess together with a housekeeper for many males.

If we remove the idea of making people whole and the insecurities most people have then traditional marriages become useless.

[Louise]

If I sex with someone, its because I want something...physical pleasure for example...that may not be tangible but who am I to judge those who want something more material from the interaction?  

Nothing is wrong with both the husband and wife seeking pleasure from each other. However, there are instances where the wife maybe verbally, mentally or physically abused or all of the aforementioned and is still expected to give her husband sex no matter how she feels. Her feelings, and at times her pleasure may be neglected by her egotistic husband. Additionally,  she maybe treated as a possession and not as a human being. For example, when a wife decides to leave her husband, at times, it may end disastrously, as the husband may seriously harm her physically or kill her, as he is of the view " if I can't have her, no one can have her". Also, there have been instances where wives have been raped by their husbands, but the husbands do not see it as rape, because they think that  marriage entitles them automatically to sex from their wives, whether or not they ( the wives)  want to have sex.

why call it male domination

What do you consider to be male domination?

Labelling someone a prostitute sounds elitist and the title bugs me a bit because I don't see anything wrong with anyone wanting to be a prostitute.  What's wrong with providing a service for money?  No different to any other trade really.

I did not  mean for it to come across as elitist. I have no qualms about prostitution, as you have rightly said, "No different from any trade". However,  prostitution becomes hazardous when women become victims of pimps and human trafficking. Thus, they no longer have "decision making" rights to their body, as such they are abused.

Additionally, perhaps I was too radical to term marriage as an institution of prostitution. However, I do believe that there is some merit to it. I made the comparison of marriage to prostitution, as there have been instances where women who became wives, believe that they are above prostitution,  but if they were to look at their own circumstances, they would see, that perhaps, they are worse off than prostitutes, in that, prostitutes may have more privilege  and freedom than them ( the wives).

I guess traditionally, it HAS been treated as a form of protection by women or by the society for women but in today's more gender emancipated community, women are empowered towards coordinating their own lives, they raise their families in single parent units when necessary and make their own decisions autonomously.  Women AND men hold jobs whether married or single, so the idea that in today's western based society, marriage is deemed as a form of female control is a hard for me to comprehend.  I can't see that.  I don't see the majority of women retiring themselves in favour of being housewives/housepets as implied.  The married hordes around me prefer their own autonomy where their fiscal independence is concerned, be they male or female so I'm having difficulty understanding your point.

There are situations where women are accomplished in every aspect of their lives, but through their religious conditioning, they assume their submissive roles within the relationship. I am not dismissing the fact that there are women who behave autonomously. However, women like these are far and in between.

I also don't understand what is meant when you say marriage is not only a "holy union" - What is that?  Is there such a thing?  I also don't get what you mean by referring to marriage as a symbolism of "undying love"...what that be?

Also, I'm trying to figure out if you consider marriage to be exclusively oppressive to the female gender?  What of the men?  Can you elaborate a bit more?

When I speak of " holy union", I speak of it in terms of Christianity (I can only speak of Christianity as I am not familiar with any other religion). In Christianity, it is considered to be blasphemous to have sex before marriage. Christian women are taught that their virginity is sacred, as such, it should be kept for their husband. However, in modern society, this happens minimally. Marriage in Christianity, is seen as sacred and a covenant made unto God that should be honored and should not be broken, thus, a "holy union".  

Like Baseman rightly said "most people are conditioned to believe that marriage completes them". As such, marriage is considered to be the symbol of their "undying love". This is illustrated through, vows such as "till death do us part" (like you mentioned). Also, marriage is "considered" to be a life long commitment, thus, this is considered to be an honour and privilege.

I can't say that I can speak on behalf of men, but I do know of males who felt pressured into getting married. I also know of men who willing entered marriages, either for the perks  they would gain from their jobs or because they were/ are of the view that they  met their "soulmate"

[Blue]

I agree Baseman...hence my query.  There is a myth floating in the mass media and in the cultural mainstream - life is about seeking out one's "soulmate" or one's "other half"...ergo implying that one is merely a half until finding completion in the union with this other individual.  Society panders to this interpretation by providing legally protected status to unions within the legal definition which in fact serves no other purpose but to control the status quo.  There IS a history of gender discrimination coded within said union but in today's society, that legally sanctioned discrimination has been largely removed with the advent of women's rights and the progression of the feminist movement throughout the western world over the last 30-40 years.

I can't support the idea that one is merely a half, not even a whole unless united with someone else.  It just translates to me as social pressure to deactivate my personal responsibility to develop myself as an empowered individual, part of the dumbing down movement geared towards creating efficient worker bees.  I can see no purpose to marriage at this juncture.  It seems a shallow pose but to what end?  Social control?  Interference by various religions in individual autonomy via state control and use of state resources?  The intellectual paraphernalia out there supporting this mind-set is beyond quantification (my opinion!) and begs the question - At what point will people stop buying this fairy tale of external completion and focus on internal construction with a view to self completion?  And again...I'm left pondering...what personal/self developmental benefit is there for marriage in today's society?

Forgive me Louise, I'm a feminist and the circles I run in do not have many women who settle in the role of dumb, female submission, so what you describe is hard for me to accept as the general rule and sounds wildly skewed in favour of painting most women/wives, of being total victims within the roles they themselves have chosen to play or accept.  I don't like the idea of absolving anyone entirely of personal accountability for the choices she makes.  If a woman is opting out on the appropriate exercise of her own autonomy and she's following the status quo (whatever that may be in whatever circle, be it religious or cultural, that she's in), then I'm not going to say that she's completely un-responsible for the consequences...she still has the free will to make the decision she's making (ie- to submit) even if she's not manifesting mental sophistication or emotional intelligence in how she makes said choice.  I don't know what the statistics are with regard to the abuses you describe but I've yet to witness the general/mass societal subjugation of women that you describe.  

Equally, to portray women as exclusive victims and men as the exclusive abusers within the sphere of marriage is prejudiced and inaccurate.  I can bear personal witness to cases of men being abused by wives.  It has been a "hidden" trend which slowly started coming to light when it was reported some years ago via media reports that many men cannot seek redress via the local courts on account of the faulty male stereotypes being perpetuated by the society...so much so that they are victimised twice over, once by the spouse and the other by the system.  There have been reports of men being laughed at and chased out of the police stations when they attempt to seek redress.  Just something to note here.
See https://guardian.co.tt/news/2012-03-15/aspire-talks-new-police-statistics-more-men-reporting-domestic-abuse

My own experience has not shown me that female submission is the general rule though it does exist in many forms.  I'm uncomfortable with your commentary because you're using a few examples to perpetuate a flawed stereotype of men AND women as husbands and wives and in so doing, generalising inconsistencies.  If a woman is choosing to remain in an abusive situation, then why award exclusive blame to her husband?  Where does her own personal accountability come in?  When does it begin?  To my mind, even in distress...no matter how extreme, she has no exemption from individual responsibility with regard to her decisions.  Neither would he.  Children may be offered mitigations in life with regard to individual responsibility but adults are very, very rarely given that leeway.

In response to your query, male domination (to me) is the practice of a man exercising control over a woman via his conviction of his gender superiority.  Female submission is the acceptance of male domination in whatever guise the woman assumes to justify her own choice...be it cultural, religious or personal.

[Kurious Rose]

All posters have raised valid points thus far.

While marriage may not hold the same weight as it did some years ago, it is still one that many regard as an important ritual. Yes, people must ultimately be held accountable for their actions, but that does not negate the argument that females, generally speaking, are subservient to males in marriage and in other male-female relationships. If people adhere to religious doctrines including Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism, (and even if they don’t), then it is not surprising that  females, often willingly, take on subservient roles. Even in the Rastafarian  faith, females, as glorified as they may be in song, are taught their place.

Females are generally perceived as the weaker sex and are still less favored than males in society.  They, females, are still deemed less intelligent than their male counterparts, sex objects and in need of constant validation and protection by males. This is evident even within academic circles where male voices often dominate over female contributions.

Even with the advent of feminism, which is not yet a done deal, gender inequality in favor of males has  not been eradicated. Females still have a token presence in the top brass, including politics. Just because a few tokens have been given a pass does not translate into the rest of the sex reaping major benefits. And it certainly does not mean that attitudes within the marriage framework have significantly altered either.

In my experience, many females who may appear not to be dumb or submissive on the surface - some, self-proclaimed feminists - on deeper reflection, are quite dumb and submissive. They still give in, one way or the other and in more ways than one, to male-based societal pressures. They are often quite insecure beneath their bravado. Additionally, the model of strength and dominance is still very much male and so many females who adopt such demonstrate anti-female attitudes towards others and themselves also.

The subjugation of females within marriage is quite common and manifested in several ways including how they engage sexually.

Although I agree that especially in today's society that females should be held responsible for their actions, this still does not nullify the argument that they, as well as males, have generally not shifted from long-standing prejudices which favors males above them.

[Nakandi]

I think the attached article (link) has some valid points to consider.

In many African communities, you had economic systems that empowered women. With the 'introduction' of capitalism, these sister-networks were broken. Hence, the following quote holds true to some women I have interacted with. 

"Taking a stand against patriarchy is much easier if you're well-educated, have a stable income, and live in a community where you could theoretically find an educated, employed man to marry. For poor, uneducated women, especially those who have kids, the question of whether to get married looks a lot different: It's the choice between raising children on one or two incomes, between having someone to help with household chores and child-rearing alone while working multiple jobs."

Full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/wealthy-women-can-afford-to-reject-marriage-but-poor-women-cant/283097/


And if we can go back, what was the role of marriage in your societies?

[Makini]

Yes, I also see truths in the opposing views of Blue and Louise regarding marriage and how women are viewed in these relationships and expectations of them. Like Kurious Rose, I also do not think females who chose to call themselves feminists, are ‘over’ these issues by taking certain positions. Additionally, they operate in a society that is still very patriarchal and treats with them in that way, and this thus still affects the course of their lives. Conversely, I think a lot of males are abused in many ways in relationships. That angle should not be left out of discussions on marriage with reasons about them often being the abusers or because the abuse they face is less often violent.

About the article KiwNak posted, I also think that marriage is not a solution to economic woes. Society is set up in a way that favours marriage over being single.  For instance, you gain advantages in mortgages and other loans if you have the income of two compared to one. As one of the commenters – anewleaf - said

“When I was not interested in mixing my romance with my domestic stability, I found the lack of options for adult co-housing surprising. We have a strong cultural message that being a fresh college graduate and being married are the only reasons you should be living with other people. And it's remarkably cost-effective to split bills: one land-line phone, one cable bill, one set of utilities, 1/2 of a larger rent.”

Marriage is perceived as being more “stable” than being single, and is considered an advantage in many instances despite the fact that many marriages are unhealthy and destructive.
 
Also, the article talks about “educated women” being free from economic woes, but even “educated women” pass on patriarchal attitudes to their children. And marriage, while in ways frees up economic pressures, adds its new dimensions of financial expectations. People have more children, and children and families can be fuel for consumerism and debt.

The role of marriage in my society, for me, is to make one's family or other people ‘happy’, for one to be accepted and as stated previously, feel part of a "whole"… Marriage is not about me, it’s about what people think, want for me, a way of defining me, completely apart from my personal interest. From my experience if you don’t seem to want to be married, or you don’t have it as some plan, even if distant, you are viewed as either “promiscuous”, having “commitment issues” or “shunning society’s gift – children”. So these are not really reasons outside of being emotional distortions. So far, there does not seem to be any functional role or superior value for marriage over being single that is not biased in some discriminatory or repressive way.

This short video is quite popular right now, it is anecdotal to this topic:

'Female Freedom Has an Expiration Date' - Being 35 and Single

[Blue]

Makini I agree with you, marriage DOES have a lot to do with the expectations of others and leans heavily on the axis of societal perception.  Economic benefits (which are tangible and substantive) aside, it is generally treated as being more socially stable and the community framework does much to shore up that idea.

However as I read the thread I realize that there is a strong undercurrent of female dissatisfaction with regard to marriage, its purpose and its outcome.  I wonder what men make of marriage by today's standards?  It would be interesting to view the other side of the coin and learn from an alternate gender perspective.