Courtney Martin’s Weak Anti-Marriage Argument
By Jesse Singal - Jul 21st, 2008 at 11:37 amI’m all for creative arguments against getting married, but Courtney Martin’s doesn’t make much sense:
I’ve spent more time than I’d like to remember in the past three or four years explaining to family, friends, and perfect strangers why I’m not dying to walk down the aisle (note: he has spent at least half as much time doing so, an incredibly irritating discrepancy). Usually my answer goes something like this: 1) I don’t want to participate in an institution that’s been historically sexist and currently discriminates against my gay friends, especially considering that my partner and I couldn’t have been married in some states just 40 years ago (we’re miscegenators), and 2) I’m uncomfortable with the “till death do us part” rhetoric that seems to suggest that two people parting ways is an inherent failure, rather than, as is so often the case, a necessary moment of growth and change.
The first point is really three points: Martin says she doesn’t want to get married because marriage a) has been “historically sexist,” b) discriminates against gay folks, and c) was previously racist.
Later in the piece Martin explains (a) by saying that “historical precedent and dominant culture… perpetuate rigid ideas of gender roles within marriage.” But I don’t see how a couple becomes any more susceptible to these inevitable influences simply by getting married. Everyone is influenced by the gender assumptions woven into our culture; those who are most resilient at overcoming them will certainly bring this resilience into their marriages, if they choose to get married. (And if Martin doesn’t want to participate in institutions that have in the past exacerbated gender inequality, she isn’t going to be left with many options.)
As for (b), should heterosexual folks who want to gain from the numerous benefits conferred by the federal and state governments upon married couples abstain because these benefits haven’t been extended to gay couples? This is a noble sentiment, but it’s unrealistic. It doesn’t make sense to ask people to give up these potentially life-altering legal protections as a means of (let’s face it, completely ineffectual) political protest.
(c) makes the least sense. Martin doesn’t want to get married because in the past marriage was an explicitly racist institution. Anti-miscegenation laws were a disgrace, of course, but now that they’re gone what is gained by saying “I’m not going to get married because these laws used to exist”?
On to Martin’s final argument: she is “uncomfortable with the ’till death do us part’ rhetoric” of marriage because it “seems to suggest that two people parting ways is an inherent failure, rather than, as is so often the case, a necessary moment of growth and change.”
It’s 2008. We’re not getting married by priests in the village square. If you want to simply sign some forms down at City Hall, you can. “Till death do us part” is optional–where did Martin get the idea if she wanted to get married her marriage would have to include this very phrase? Plenty of other people are managing to take realistic, pragmatic approaches to marriage; if they weren’t, prenuptial agreements wouldn’t exist.
There’s a fundamental contradiction that undermines Martin’s whole piece. On the one hand, she is speaking from the point of view of an accomplished young feminist who is willing to rewrite old, tired rules–which she is. But on the other hand, she is acting completely helpless in the face of the many accouterments–many of them sexist and/or simply stupid–that accompany marriage as it is understood by many Americans. But no one said marriage had to include “till death do us part” or that “wifey” had to stay home and cook. It’s certainly possible to take advantage of the benefits of marriage while making a conscious effort to avoid its sexist, lame trappings.
The popular conception of marriage is extremely skewed and unrealistic, and there are solid arguments against getting married. But this one is particularly weak.
I tend to think that marriage still drips of these historical problems. We can never fully escape the chains of our past. I get the spirit of Courtney’s argument and think that I myself have been really reluctant to the institution of marriage mostly because even if you and your partner can escape the ingrained gender roles in your relationship, there are still a lot of people out there that will insist on calling you Mrs. So-and-so, ask you when you’re going to quit working and stay at home with the kids, and be astonished you’re disinterested in making sure dinner is on the table when your husband gets home. That said, Courtney is talking about a very specific period of stereotypes about marriage. As Stephanie Coontz says in her history of marriage, there are societies throughout history that have bucked nearly every social convention we hold today about marriage.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pmI agree with Kay.
There are a great many practical legal reasons to get married, but I have to admit that I share some of Courtney Martin’s fears about the connotation of marriage beyond a set of legal benefits. I still have this knee-jerk response that get married would wind up causing me to change my name, quit my job, and start spitting out babies. Maybe it’s an irrational fear–no one’s forcing me to do anything–but it seems like women are still pressured into following that pattern. There is still widely-accepted public condemnation of women who have both careers and children, or women who are not otherwise sufficiently domestic. I fear being trapped in that way–maybe Martin does too.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm[...] but sometimes arguments are just plain stupid, as this one is. Jesse Singal seems to agree with me, and offers a smart (if overly patient) reply. He makes the obvious point that there [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pmThere’s something surreal—always—about a man trying to bully a woman into getting married like a good girl, which basically proves Courtney’s point.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:47 pmEven if a chick who gets married tries her damndest to not fall into stereotypical wife behavior, even if her husband does the same thing, that doesn’t eliminate the entire damn culture telling her and him that they have to fit into the little boxes that we call “marriage.”
For example: if she gets married, she will have to argue with all and sundry about whether or not she changes her name. If she doesn’t change it, she will get no end of crap from most people, who will insist that she change it, insist on calling her “Mrs. Hisname,” write checks to Herfirst Hislast, etc. and generally insisting that she conform to marital expectations. If the thank-you notes don’t get out on time, she will be the one blamed for it, not her husband, even if he was the one writing them all by himself. She will get crap if she doesn’t go into the kitchen to do all the cleanup after dinner parties with the rest of the girls while the husbands sit around watching “the game.” If the house is a mess, it’s HER fault alone, nothing to do with him. Society expects Wives to act a certain way, and people get really ticked when you do not act as expected. You take on the title, by god, you HAVE to take on the job, and here are the requirements of it. Even the most egalitarian folks have had trouble with this. Heck, that’s why Oprah won’t marry Steadman.
To some degree, it doesn’t matter how hard you fight. People EXPECT that you act like that. Courtney’s darned right to be sure that people will expect differently of her if she caves in.
Now, gay folks may have more hope than this, because they (to some degree, anyway) get to blaze their own trail. With two husbands or two wives, the gender expectations are thrown off. Heteros trying to change the status quo, on the other hand, have to fight many, many years of Tradition(TM), uphill.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm[...] Jesse Singal’s response to Martin’s spiel. [...]
July 27th, 2008 at 1:25 am