Please excuse me for making the personal a blog post, but lately I’ve been intrigued by Feminist and Queer responses to marriage. Specifically to the wedding-industrial complex. My previous post regarding Julie Goldman’s hilarious video Commitment Ceremony was of course meant to amuse, but it does bring up an interesting point of debate. Should feminists and the queer community support and participate in marriage? Mattilda, aka Matt Bernstein Sycamore, one of my personal heroes (and for fair disclosure editor of the anthology I was in, Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity) says no and says it well:
“Mattilda, aka Matt Bernstein Sycamore, editor of That’s Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation find it “ironic that the central sign of straight conformity is seen as the pre-eminent goal of the gay rights movement.” For radicals like Mattilda, marriage is a signifier of class privilege, a way of dividing a particular version of gay identity from the larger queer community.” (Clamor Magazine, May/June 2005)
In an interview with another hero, writer and activist Helen Boyd (who herself is married to her trangender “husband Betty”) Mattilda had this to say:
HB: Queer people occasionally love that Betty and I are legally married, and identify as queer, but I get the feeling your thoughts on that might be different. Tell me about marriage and gay marriage.
MBS: “Oh, no — marriage! Well, as we know from decades of feminist activism and scholarship, and from growing up in scary families of origin, marriage is still that central institution through which violence against women, queers, transpeople and children takes place. I don’t think we can reform marriage any more than we can reform other scary institutions of power (like the military, for example) — we’ve got to get rid of it!”
Marriage is a big ol’ mess of an argument in the feminist and queer community: if marriage is now an equitable partnership, why shouldn’t we participate and fight for it and our rights to it? Is marriage even an equitable partnership? Why fight for something based in patriarchy? Now that weddings are entrenched in capitalism, isn’t it our responsibility to reject them? If marriage is about “purity” and “property exchange” why would we even want to be part of that? (There’s also an interesting post on RaceWire today about how “capitalism intersect(s) with wedding rituals in cultures other than mainstream white culture.”)
Now here’s my confession: I want to get married. I want a big girlie wedding and I feel the guilt and discomfort over this every day. In fact I want to get married to my current partner, who, for all of the reasons listed above does not. He believes that marriage is a sexist affront to feminist and queer values and that it is completely unnecessary (if not offensive,) having no bearing on the value or quality of our relationship, or any relationship for that matter.
So my question to you is whether or not marriage and feminism, or marriage and queer politics, are in direct opposition? What are your feelings on marriage and will you participate in the Wedding-Industrial Complex?
I leave you with Anna’s recommendation: A live performance of the Hidden Camera’s “Ban Marriage.”
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
17 comments
Alternatively, why should we allow the stereotypes and the insitutionalism behind marriage to regulate how you and your partner express your love for each other?
Posted by Hannah
July 18, 2007, 10:43 AM
Okay, my thoughts are a bit half-formed, but i'm going to post them as a beginning.
Marriage has problematic origins to be sure, and is the setting for a lot of violence and ugliness. But renouncing marriage outright doesn't make the patriarchy disappear. Straight, queer, official and legally recognised partnerships all run into tension over gender roles.
Marriage also comes with some protection, now - a stake in joint property, for instance - which could make some women less, not more, vulnerable.
This single-minded focus on gay marriage has been a bit much though - all sorts of more important issues have been neglected. And I think it's a silly moral judgement to design tax systems that benefit married couples - whether we all pair up is none of the government's business.
Posted by allison
July 18, 2007, 11:41 AM
I'm getting married in October. And patriarchy or purity or property exchange (or capitalism or religion) have no part in it. If it wasn't an equitable partnership, I wouldn't be in it.
I disagree that there is a conflict between being a feminist and getting married. The point is that you are free and entitled to make choices, whether 'most' feminists would make that same choice or not.
I'm getting married because I am with someone with whom I want to make a public commitment, because this relationship is a very significant part of my life and because I want to take the time to articulate and celebrate it with family and friends.
Lots of people like rituals. They're part of how we mark times, events and places of importance. But rituals (and institutions) are a product of us, and we can re-produce them to make them better reflect who and where we are now.
If there is something about weddings/marriage that you value and want to work with, then I think you should be supported in that. The same way as I would support anyone trying to reform other "scary institutions".
Posted by catherine
July 18, 2007, 4:56 PM
...marriage is still that central institution through which violence against women, queers, transpeople and children takes place.
Religion is still that central institution through which violence against people of marginalized faiths takes place. Therefore, ban religion.
Government is still that central institution through which violence against personal freedoms takes place. Therefore, ban government.
Civilization is still that central institution through which violence against nature takes place. Therefore, ban civilization.
Just as religion isn't necessarily about killing people who don't agree with you, government isn't necessarily about taking away individual liberties, and civilization isn't necessarily about destroying the planet, marriage is not necessarily about perpetrating crimes against women, children, and alternative sexualities. There are some symbolic gestures that originate in hatred and are indivisible from hatred, but I don't believe marriage is one of them.
If you can't separate the idea of marriage from that of patriarchal domination, then yes, you probably shouldn't get married. But society has reinvented traditions time and again over the centuries to better fit new social realities, as Catherine said above. I don't think the concept of marriage is completely without merit; there's a core idea there about the union of two loving individuals that I believe is worth saving in some form.
Posted by Wesley
July 18, 2007, 5:29 PM
This is a pretty big ball o' wax you've opened here; it's also something I've been thinking about a lot myself, as a number of my friends (not a huge number, but enough) are recently married or soon-to-be. I've had many conversations in which I've heard marriage described (and in some cases described it myself) as an excuse for a good party, a sweet celebration of love, a festival of hegemonic heterosexual monogamy, an important ritual, a friendship recognized by the police, and other things. While personally I don't have a lot of interest in it (my parents got married at city hall, with six people in attendance, seven if you count me-as-a-fetus. My mom wore a purple suit. Maybe that has something to do with it.), politically it gets a bit trickier.
One of the best conversations I had about it was with a friend who got married last summer. I pulled my usual foot-in-mouth trick and made some offhand comment about how I really like how most couples in Quebec reject marriage and live common-law (decades of Catholic rule equals serious backlash), and immediately felt like a heel. But she had some pretty interesting things to say, one of which was that, for her, standing up in front of all her family and friends and declaring her commitment to someone (1) recognized the community's part in bringing them together and (2) in some ways made them accountable to that community, meaning that if they did in the end split up, it was after they had tried absolutely everything they could to stay together, to honour the faith their family and friends have in their relationship. Pretty sweet, really. And given that their church was a part of their lives, it made sense to have their union recognized by it.
But it's sticky, for many reasons that people have already pointed out that I don't need to repeat here. Hence my wish to see dialogue between Julie Goldman and the Hidden Cameras (or at least their respective points of view). What really gets my goat is how sometimes it seems like there's only room for one queer and/or feminist position - it sucks how groups on the margin are expected to present themselves monolithically, when really they couldn't be more diverse.
What I like most about the Hidden Cameras song is that, if I interpret correctly, they're not asking us to ban an institution they think is unfair or corrupt, but asking us to reconsider (and maybe reject) the whole idea of coupledom itself as an institution. Now that's a kettle of fish worth overturning, I think. But I've used up my word limit for the day. Maybe tomorrow...
Posted by Anna
July 18, 2007, 8:51 PM
Ah, the culture and tyranny of coupledom. That's a very related rant to go on.
Posted by Stacey May
July 19, 2007, 7:39 AM
Yes, I am trying to put together something intelligible to post on that. Soon.
Posted by Anna
July 19, 2007, 12:09 PM
I tried to post this yesterday but my internet connection was suddenly sabotaged (must be those overzealous pro-marriage lobbyists).
I'm really glad that you posted about this Stacey May. I should say: 1) I want to get married. I don't want to wear white and have my father give me away to my husband or have some sort of consumerist frenzy, but I do want to have a party and share my commitment with my community. 2) I still think that as feminists, this is a topic that we should take seriously, and really ponder our reasons for supporting (or not supporting marriage.) Because there's so much fuzz around us dragging us in either direction, (Heteronormative Guilt! Cosmo Magazine! Base capitalist urges! 1000s of years of patriarchal oppression!) it can be hard to make a choice that's truly informed by ourselves.
I do totally understand the wrath some people hold for marriage. And I think all of us might feel differently about this if we lived in a country where it was still illegal for non-heteros to get married. And since in general I reject almost everything the state stands for, it does seem strange to request its approval of my relationship.
There is one thing that I don't understand though: are anti-marriage lobbyists against the lifetime partnership of two people and possible offspring altogether? Or are they just against the church/state-sanctioned type?
Is it only when marriage is state or church sanctioned that it creates violence against women, queers, transpeople and children, or is it a unit composed of two people and their biological or otherwise offspring that is fundamentally violent? Because I disagree that there's something inherently wrong with two people who want to have a family and a life together.
Maybe this is the topic that you were going to tackle Anna: Having given polyamory a whirl which resulted in full-on emotional breakdown for everyone involved, I'm pretty sure that it's not for me - just because it's not the way I'm built. I do admire deeply anyone who can make a polyamorous lifestyle work, especially in our environment which is staunchly anti-polyamorous. AND I also think that people need to be allowed to choose what form they want their relationships to take - whether that means they want to date fifteen people who sexually identify in fifteen different ways, or if they want to be with one person for the next 70 years.
The whole "let's get the state to approve us" thing is pretty problematic, but so is saying that no one should pair up with one other person for life, if they want to. Because, in the end, isn't feminism about creating a world where women can choose whatever they heck they want to?
I have to say though, I'd sorta fallen into a meh-,-I'll-get-married-if-I-want-to state of mind, but this whole debate has made me wonder if I should put more thought into it...
Posted by Thea
July 19, 2007, 3:21 PM
I forgot to say:
1) Whoohoo! Ban goverment!!
2) Hahahaha, friendship recognised by the police...
Posted by Thea
July 19, 2007, 3:25 PM
Just randomly I stumbled across this article by Ariel Levy of Female Chauvinist Pigs fame. It's about her big gay wedding, and her feelings on feminism and marriage: http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/s...
Posted by Thea
July 19, 2007, 7:44 PM
What a lovely conversation!
Posted by mattilda
July 20, 2007, 3:43 AM
This is the best: (Heteronormative Guilt! Cosmo Magazine! Base capitalist urges! 1000s of years of patriarchal oppression!)
I am a victim of the heteronormative guilt complex, and often feel my desires for marriage and the capitalist tropes/traps that accompany that are base and vile. Is it even possible to participate in the tradition without falling into that? To show the community a committment of your love to another without buying the community dinner and having the community buy you toasters? And why do I often feel like my desire to wed is based on a desire to be "protected." Legally protected from being left in the lurch with kids and bills should I ever be betrayed? In many ways marriage does offer women equality, but why do we need a legal document for that equality and safety?
Posted by Stacey May
July 20, 2007, 9:08 AM
I agree completely with the need to fully examine your desires and inclinations around weddings and marriage. Not to mention all the associated issues (e.g. what happens to your last name).
In this discussion though, I feel like I'm off to the sidelines with a confused look on my face, because I do not think of weddings and marriage as necessarily defined by... well much of anything really.
It's honestly never occurred to me that my wedding would be about state-sanctionedness or consumption. Though I don't think all consumption is bad (e.g. mindful, responsible consumption). And any participation of the "state" in my wedding is up to our discretion. I'm going to let the state be there, and know that we're doing this, but only as a sort of civic courtesy (the same way as I expect the government to issue a birth certificate). I don't really have a problem with using legal documents to enforce equality and safety; that's a significant component in how we build equality as a society full-stop.
I also try not to muddle the terms: a wedding is a very different beast than a marriage (and here I'm mostly just talking about weddings). But I think they have in common that they exist however you choose for them to exist. Neither are fully-formed fully-inflexible arrangements that you have to accept wholesale. You have almost absolute say over how the wedding and the marriage unfold, if you choose to assert it.
It is true that there is a norm wedding concept out there that is feminist unfriendly. Good god and how. It is also true that the Wedding Industry is calibrated to churn out those sorts of weddings. But you don't have to settle for Wedding Package C.
You can wear whatever you want to your wedding. You can have your wedding wherever you want. You can have a gift-free wedding. You can have a potluck wedding. You can not be given away, or work into the ceremony an explanation of what "being given away" means to you. You can make your vows whatever you want. The officiant can make the ceremony whatever you want. It takes more work to reshape any cookie-cutter formula, but that is a choice which we (fortunately) have.
The wedding we've worked extremely hard to construct is eco-friendly, low-key, religion-free, equitable and centered around our relationship and what it means to us. We are buying everyone dinner. But we've chosen a venue that is using local, seasonal produce and "happy" meat (also, of course, offering a fantastic veggie option). We're registered for gifts, but organic fair-trade household necessities like sheets and towels. It has taken longer to put our wedding together, because we're not just throwing money at it, but in the end it means we've handcrafted a celebration that we are proud of, and that reflects our values.
Posted by catherine
July 20, 2007, 11:13 AM
Hi Catherine - I know what you mean when you say that weddings and marriages aren't fully-inflexible. I have often thought that it would be nice to have a potluck wedding - except of course for the fact that my parents would disown me. And I don't think that you're the lone "Marriage is Ok!" blogger!
You mentioned that you don't think that weddings or marriage are necessarily defined by anything. I'm not into banning marriage myself, and I think would like to get married one day (and probably with the state involved, if only for simplifying our tax filing). But weddings and marriages, as you pointed out, are cultural rituals. They come out of the culture and so they are defined by the culture. I think it's hard for us to start to reform them without first recognising that.
Your celebration sounds really lovely. I hope you guys have a great time!
Posted by Thea
July 21, 2007, 12 PM
While I admit that I haven't read all of them, I think that many people have made good points here. Society as a whole, after all, is the source of a great deal of racism, sexism, classism, etc., but abandoning that society altogether won't solve those problems. As Judith Butler says - and I'm taking some liberties here - if we define the marginal with respect to (that is, in opposition to) the central, the marginal then depend upon the center for their existence, and they're just as restrictive as what they seek to reject. Instead, I want to broadcast, for instance, that I'm a Christian so that people see that "Christian" does not have to equal "hateful patriarchal evangelical anti-abortion anti-contraception homophobe." I want to broadcast that I'm married and didn't change my name so that people learn that you can do that. And we'll know that we've made it when people can choose to marry, or not, without having to wonder whether by doing so they're buying into some problematic social or governmental institution, as I discuss here. That's my new goal. Thanks.
Posted by Jessica B. Burstrem
July 25, 2007, 5:41 PM
I'm sure we've made lots of disownable decisions about our wedding -- we just decided early on that we were either going to have the wedding we wanted or try for the impossible goal of making everyone else happy. :)
There certainly are wedding and marriage cultural norms and expectations. But I think it gives too much credit (and power) to think of culture as "the" culture. I'm in there too, and participating while making different decisions and setting different priorities than the current expectations is one of the best ways to create new norms and options.
Posted by catherine
August 3, 2007, 9:38 AM
This debate has rightly challenged state/religious/culturally-sanctioned rituals, but has meanwhile condoned the idea of a lifetime commitment between two people.
This to me is the most problematic aspect of the Wedding-Industrial Complex, bred by capitalist notions of scarcity and insecurity. I also regret that Stacey May's August post on the Open Marriage alternative earned such brief, phobic comments.
The concept of a "marriage out of love" is a new and rather failed experiment; over a century of post-arranged, nuclear style Western marriage with a dismal and declining success rate. And why not. A life-long vow to a future that you can't conceive of, is unrealistic and unhealthy.
There must be better ways to love someone than a permanent obligation. As long as you can maintain a good relationship together do it, and when you can't, quit.
I applaud the unanimous rejection of a state-sanctioned property contract. Let's dismantle the rest of the capital myth and its practice of conditional love.
Posted by Elisha Lim
February 3, 2008, 9:03 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.