Last night I posted a link to comment is free, to an article that itself links to the carnival of feminists. If you go and read around the blogs linked, you’ll (unsurprisingly) find some great posts. There are some relating to the recent Linda Hirschman(sp?) article I linked to a little while back.
You know, this stuff irritates me. It irritates me that someone calling herself a philosopher thinks she has the right to judge other ppl’s lifestyles just because they are female. (I did a philosophy degree. I think a lot. Can I call myself a philosopher and tell you all what to do?) It irritates me to be told I should find someone older than myself to shack up with. (I did long before she told me that. I didn’t choose him because he was older though, I chose him because of who and what he is.)
Tim just asked me what I’m writing. I told him I’m writing about feminism. I’m writing about the fact that it’s ridiculous to try to change the status quo just for women and expect it to work. That it’s silly to think you can pay women more just by paying men less. It’s daft to go on working 9 – 5.30 just because that’s how it used to work. Most of us don’t really need to work those hours to do our jobs, in fact some of us can’t work those hours. Can you really concentrate that long? I can’t. And we don’t need to work in offices, so why do we commute? It’s pointless, and only adds to global warming.
So if we change the world of work, what else would we change? How about school? What is the point nowadays of a system set up to train industrial drones – it’s a post industrial world? So let’s take that apart as well – instead of strapping extra hours on to it and calling it extended school, let’s make them into learning centres and have them available to everyone. Makes more sense to me.
Wow, I’m on a roll now. What else would I deconstruct? Marriage. Now, if you’re religious, fair enough. Not going to stand between you and your beliefs. But if you’re just doing it to wear a white dress and have a party, grow up. You can do that without the ceremony, and it’s downright hypocritical to make promises you don’t intend to keep, just because you know we’ve invented divorce. Instead, let’s have childrearing contracts – it’s important to look after children, probably the most important thing any of us will ever do. So focus on it, and write up contracts that safeguard the children.
There. That feels so much better now – been trying to write this post all night, and only really got going when I started ranting after a beer. So if it’s horribly incoherent, sorry and all that, but I’ve had enough. Ranting. not beer.
Interesting then Jax, because honestly, i never question co-habiting as a valid choice – i did it for 3 1/2 years and briefly as a parent; my sister does it, both my cousins did/do it, a variety of my friends do it. I know and respect as many cohabiting partnerships as i do married ones probably, albeit within my own generation, rather than the generation that role-modelled for me. Neither Max nor i harbour any expectations that our girls will marry; we do hope they will find love and security for themselves if that is what the wish. I’ll be delighted to be a mother in law, but just as happy to be a mother not in law.
On the other hand i’ve been attacked for apparently walking into marriage ‘blindly’ on a huge number of occasions, or betraying womankind by wearing a ring, or changing my surname. And i have to say, it annoys me greatly, because at least i’ve done both and i can therefore make a reasonable judgement on which suits ME best.
Regarding the white dress and party brigade, who are they exactly? Is the dismissal limited to people who get divorced within a limited amount of time, or people who spend x amount of money, have a frothy dress not a cream suit, say vows when one or both of them are unsure as to whether they truly believe in the deity they invoke? If i’m still married in 25 years will i have earned my right to have got married?
I had a cream dress and party and my dad, bless him, paid for it largely – but i did put in a huge amount of effort to plan it so it was as cheap and cost effective as it could be. All of the 80 people who attended had a lovely day, it is still talked about in my family as the most fun and original wedding to have happened amongst us and if 80 people had a great and feel good day, then it was a great party and worth having. That is before you add in the extra 100 or so who turned up bringing drinks, girlfriends, boyfriends, food and presents in the evening and celebrated my happiness and the birth of our daughter with us.
It would be wrong to say “don’t knock it till you’ve tried it” because that isn’t what i think, but i do think that people who choose to get married and stay married deserve credit for that committment, in just the same way that people who make a success of cohabitation do.
For what it is worth, i think if my marriage continues to be as good as it is now and Max and i stay together as i believe we will, then i will have done something in my own way for equality and feminism. My children will snort with derision at the idea that marriage puts a woman in the charge/care of a man or condemns them to second place. That much, i can be quite sure of. My children will grow up fully aware that men and women are equal in personal partnerships (but that the women are probably going to get their way
)
Marriage? Tried it once. Didn’t like it. Didn’t stick.
Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it again, although I do think that the ’til death bit, when 40% of weddings fail, is maybe a tad silly, and I do think think that something radical needs to be done to fix the utterly random, utterly grotesque, ridiculous unfairness which so often accompanies divorces. If that means that people end up choosing from a variety of forms of contract then that is fine by me.
Marriage may be great for most people (I am sure it is for quite a lot of people, for all sorts of reasons and in all sorts of ways), but trust me, divorce pretty much always really, really sucks and I do think something needs to be done to provide sense for the 40% of the time marriages end before the ‘contract term’ is up.
I doubt that 40% of couples stand making those vows knowing that they will be breaking them some time down the line. Do you really think it would be any less messy to break up a co-habiting relationship with children involved and dual ownerhip of property and other belongings?
And yeah, I must be in a radically different circle to you as I don’t know anyone who was only marrying for the dress and the party (let’s not forget the presents and the jewelry!
)
Oh and in conclusion:
Love and marriage, love and marriage
go together like a horse and carriage!
Well I only married Alison so I could ‘make lurve’ to her…..
It’s an institute you can’t disparage …
Top marks to old Frankie there for getting “disparage” into a song, quite impressive.
Time for bring Frankie into the noughties then?
Anyone?
Love and co-habitation, love and co-habitation
go together like online friends and IM conversation
this I tell you male sharing my genes
One without the other is simply obscene
Love and cohabitation, love and cohabitation
The perfect 21st century alternative to nuclear family situation
Every gets to keep their own last name
And sales of wedding cakes have never been the same
try, try, try and separate them
It’s an illusion
Try, try, try and you will only come
To this conclusion
Love and cohabitation, love and cohabitation
All the perks without the female degradation
Dad was told by Mother
Fuck you mate, you’re a generation too late, I’m not you wife I’m just your significant other!
_________________
‘Wot Merry Said’ really – seeing as she has pretty much said what I would have done. Helen had cream trouser suit, we had civil ceremony – with our own additions in a hotel to outselves- but we did have a great meal and party. It was a wonderful day, and we meant every single word of the vows we made.
What intrigues me, and this isn’t directed particulary to anyone here, is why those who are critcal of marriage care about us who are married.
It intrigues me that anyone would be uncritical, of marriage, or anything else, for that matter. I don’t know that anyone who has contributed here has expressed a view that marriage is perfect. If it is not perfect, that means that it is capable of improvement.
I think that marriage is part of the fabric of our society, as such it is important that it work to promote our collective happiness and wellbeing. I am interested in the new civil partnership as I believe it adds a new dimension.
What is important to me, and what I care about is my family, and that is defined not only by ties of blood but also by ties of marriage (and in some part by ‘informal’ relationships). So how marriage works is important to me, because it effects the people I care about, and when I see it work badly, I wonder how it could be improved.
Maybe I shouldn’t be concerned about the hurt and damage that is suffered by people whose marriages fail, or their children, or the cost in every sense to society, so perhaps I shouldn’t wonder whether there are not changes which could be made to help make those people suffer less and be happier. Maybe I shouldn’t care, Chris, I am sure you are right.
I dunno Tim, perhaps some people have got more important things to worry about?
Cohabitation isn’t perfect either – getting them to put two surnames on my council tax bill took, 3 years and even now they refer to me as Mr
Lol at Nic
But shouldn’t “when marriages fail” really be “when relationships fail”? Or do you truly believe Tim, that if you and Jax split up it will be far easier to deal with practically, and far less painful emotionally than if C and I split up? I just can’t see that mnyself, and I can’t see a contract helping either.
We got married because we wanted that whole public declaration bit. And we did it in my old college chapel because it’s a nice place – probably just as shallow a reason in many people’s eyes as wanting a white dress and a party. I’m no apologist for marriage, but I don’t think that insulting your readers is going to bring them round to your point of view
And Merry, lol, I’m Mrs on our Council Tax statements, despite never having referred to myself as Mrs in my life!
That would be Mrs Cooth i presume
“So how marriage works is important to me, because it effects the people I care about, and when I see it work badly, I wonder how it could be improved.”
I’d say the same about cohabitation too, btw. At the end of the day, married or partnered, relationships are about honesty, togetherness, mutual trust and responsibility, being able to talk and to listen, having fun, being happy, love, committment, trying to make it work beyond the point where it would be ‘easy’ to just walk away, honouring the other person so that what they want is valued, even if it isn’t so important to the other person and, if you choose to have children together, being committed to them long term and supporting each other as parents until those children are grown and whole, undamaged by whatever your relationship is or has been.
Personally taking the time out in my life to put those things into words, stood looking into one anothers eyes and meaning every word of it, with people who loved me witnessing that committment to one another, having put love and thought into making that day worth it was worth every penny and every ounce of us that it took. And it has never meant so much as it has recently, when we made terrible decisions about our future, ones that neither of us really wanted to have to make, but trusted one another that the love we had committed to was going to be enough. Had i not believed completely that Max was prepared to be with me in sickness and in health, had i not trusted those words and believed in his total determination to be here for us and for me, providing for us, caring for us and being part of whatever life brought for us, i couldn’t have got through it.
But that is us and i think that i have the same feelings about the partnership of marriage that many of my friends do, judging from the comments here – and so long as you and Jax have the same in your relationship then none of us have anything to apologise for or fret about. It isn’t the institution of marriage that damages lives, it’s each other.
Alison, I am divorced and my experience was that the mechanics of going through the divorce made everything much harder than it otherwise need have been. Yes, I definitely do believe that if Jax and I split up it will be practically easier and emotionally less painful than if we were married.
Oh Tim, but now aren’t you just playing into the hands of the right-wing conservative types who want everyone to be married because it’s easier to walk away from a relationship otherwise?
I dunno, I’ve not got experience of either with house-ownership and children involved, but given those two I would imagine both situations could be fairly complicated. And I don’t think not getting married because the divorce might be messy is really the logical option
I guess a divorce is as nasty as you both want it to be, I don’t remember my parents’ divorce as being a really big deal; all the major stress had been gone through months earlier when they separated.
Merry – talking of terrible times – obviously we didn’t have children then, but when C and I were really going through it just after we were married, I completely believe that if we weren’t married we would have split up. Things were just too difficult to think of anyone else, and I was very relieved that only days earlier C had promised to be there: it gave me a safety net, room to relax. I’m sure (and was sure then) that if we hadn’t been married, I would have asked him to go.
I guess *if* you and Jax split up you will be in the perfect position to compare and update us
Don’t unmarried fathers have less rights (wrongly imo) than married fathers unless there is a ‘Parental Responsibility’ agreement? If partners didn’t have one isn’t there the risk that those lack of rights make things worse and more painful?
In a divorce custody, care and control are awarded to one parent, joint custody has no real meaning except to make the other parent feel better.
In practice, we are mostly talking about mothers being awarded custody. In practice, if they choose to deny the (married or unmarried) fathers rights there is very little to prevent them succeeding.
I’m totally with you Alison. I know there have been times when it has been the thing that made me stop and think. There have been two occasions in our relationship when i have been at walking away point; once before marriage and once after. The first time only the fact that he came looking and apologised saved us, the second time it was a friend telling me very clearly that i believed in my marriage and would be a fool to walk away from something that was so good and that i was so committed to.
Fran had to be re-registered after we were married (it took us 5 years and 3 more children to get round to it!) during which time Max had no parental responsibility for her and couldn’t sign her operation consent forms. In fact, had i died, my parents could probably have fought him for custody of her if they had wanted to. Once there were other children who were legally bound to him it would have been less likely they’d have won, but while we just had her, they’d have had a case i believe.
Picking up on a few poinst here I think. I’m with Alison and that it’s really about the relationship rather than the marriage failing. I think you may be right Tim, in that it maybe be easier for a cohabiting couple to split up , than amarried one, but that isn’t necessarily a good thing. Ignoring the children side of things, the key difference seems to me to be that the law has somethign to say about a marriage splitting up (dividing assets etc.) where it doesn’t really for cohabiting couple. OK you can tinker with what the law exactly says, but in the end I don’t think the law should just let you walk away from a marriage – You enter into legal state when you get married and it’s right that the law says soemthing about what happens when it ends. If someone doesn’t want that then they are free not to get married.
Re the reamrks about ‘critical comments and caring’. If the critical coments I read about marriage were offering constructive ways of chnaging it then it would be fine (though not sure what thosw would be, as opposed to just not having the status of marriage). But that isn’t what I see. Generally criticisms are more along Jax’s line in her post – not just criticisng marriage, but criticizing those of use who choose to get married – and usualy offending me as well, since there is an assumption that we don’t me the vows we take, when I’ve never meant anything more storngly in my life. So what I really menat was why should people who don’t believe in marriage care about what I do, anymore than I should care about what someonen who decides to cohabit does – with the potential
We didn’t have to get married, we’d been together 9 years when we did, we could have just had a ‘DIY’ ceremony, but there seems to be more to it than that. There is something about standing up and signing up to the social institution of marriage as well that is important to some of us. The same desire is one of the reasons underlying the creation of Civil Partnerships surely?
Jax’s view on marriage and mine are different, so I can’t speak for her, although I don’t think she intended that her remarks be taken as a general criticism of everyone who gets married.
If everyone who got married stayed married, then I don’t think there would be much of an issue to discuss as any problems would be resolved, for good or ill between the parties. So in the end, I suppose my problem is not with marrriage at all, it is with divorce. But that is what happens, a lot of the time.
If you want some suggestions. First, I think the State and the Church elements need to be decoupled. We have an established Church and the current legal status of marriage is tied in with the current Anglican view of marriage. I think that in a multicultural, multi-faith society that is inappropriate.
I think that legal marriage should be nothing more than a contract between the two parties, and it seems to me that there is no reason why there could not be more than one legal form of marriage available for people to choose from. If people then wanted to make religious commitments as well, then that would be up to them, but they would have no legal effect. I can see no particular reason why the legal contract forms need require that parties be of different gender, nor any particular reason why there could not be more than two, it would after all be just a matter of law, not of morals.
The State would have plenty of scope to intervene by Statute, for example, by restricting tax breaks to contracts which complied with specific statutory guidelines. The State might well have things to say about age limits for contracting parties, rules on consanguinity and so on. But I see no reason why individuals should not be permitted to draw up contracts which suited them and their circumstances rather than having the current one size fits all approach.
At the same time, as with any other contract, you could write in terms specifying how the parties would behave in the event the contract be terminated. Notice periods, division of assets and so forth. Maybe you could include annual holidays and bonuses.
The tough bit, of course, is how you deal with children, what rights they have and what responsibilities adults who are their biological or legal parents have toward them.
Oh yes, one more thing about children. There has been a recent case where a couple had created embryos together and the father later withdrew his consent to their being used. I can’t see why there is not scope to have a range of specific legal forms which would have some but not all of the charaterisitics of a legal marriage, and which would specifically cover these sorts of issues. The reason I suggest this is that, in the case I have seen in the news, there did not appear to be any resolution which did not result in injustice to one or the other party.
72 comments. Is this an Otherwise record?
For me the problem with the suggestion of contracts is that it does assume possibility of ending the contract, particularly if you start putting in notice periods
. I would imagine that with a few very odd exceptions no one gets married with any intention of breaking the marriage. The fact that the statistics show they some people are wrong in that assumption is not enough of a reason to not do it in the first place.
Ady and I were together, with a shared mortgage for over six years before we got married. We had a variety of reasons for doing so but the key thing was that every single word we said in our vows was from the heart – said with meaning and abided by ever since. We both intend to forsake all others, to remain together in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer (particularly pertinant currently!
) til death do us part. I’m not saying I do so because I am marrried, I am saying I married because that’s what I intend to do. It was wonderful to have those thoughts witnessed by others at our wedding, to have family and friends celebrate the fact we loved each other deeply enough to make those vows afterwards and I personally frequently recall the words of the man who married us (he told us to never let our wedding rings only mean we were married, to every time we look at them to remember how much we loved each other on our wedding day, to always be best friends) and take great comfort, pleasure and enjoyment from being married. I wanted to take Ady’s name, I wanted our future children to have the same name as the two of us – I happily moved from being part of my parents family to being the beginning of my own but more than anything else saying those words to Ady and having him say them back will always be one of the most important things I ever did.
Nic, what you are talking about is a spiritual commitment between you. One which the law won’t enforce anyway. If what I suggest were done, there would be nothing to prevent you from going to church as before, and making any vows you fancied.
They would just have no legal force at all (same as now really). The legal contract would be something different and separate.
Except of course neither of us holds any religious beliefs whatsoever!
I guess I am a romantic really – I hate the idea of pre-nuptial agreements too. I am not giddy enough to not realise that relationships do break up and can get horribly sticky and painful particularly when trying to seperate assets and split all the sundries that go with a relationship, but I suppose never having been through a divorce, and hoping I never do I don’t give much headspace to the practicalities of one and whether society should put procedures in place to make disolutions of relationships more straightforward.
I am agnostic, but this is the view of marriage I was raised with and which is still embedded somewhere:
The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony
I’ve been married, divorced, co-habitated and now considering a Civil Partnership. Divorce isn’t pretty but then again as well as dealing with divorce every day in my work I also deal with almost as many separations of co-habitees. I can tell you that whilst some of those can be as ugly and as messy as divorce, generally even when children and jointly owned assets are involved, the parties seem far more able to be pleasant and resonable.
There is something about marriage – particularly those that last around 7 years or more and those where there are children that makes people behave horribly. Any solicitor will tell you that!
I prefer to deal with non-marriage separations because I know if I pick up a file where the parties were married, I can pretty much guarantee that most of my time will be spent reading their arguments that last on average 3 years!
Most other splits take around 12 – 18 months to resolve even with property and children involved.
Don’t get me started on the morons who fought for 8 years over the pet hamsters, horses and dogs! 8 years of public funds wasted imo. That was one hell of a file to deal with.
you have gone on about seperating church and state from marriage, but it is done already!
we had a CIVIL [in all senses!] marriage at a jacobean manor house
http://www.information-britain.co.uk/showPlace.cfm?Place_ID=1588
[unmoderat me please!!]
btw, loved your venuse alison.
we had no religion in it at all, meddled only marginally with wording. lovely music, 3 friends reading and that was that -2o mins max.
BUT we met the night before for a meal, and ghatted laughed and danced the whole day.
not a wisp of religion, but full of meaning
Helen, what I was trying to get across is that you may meddle with the wording, but you cannot escape the statutory legal framework within you say those words. If it is a marriage, then it is subject to the law, and the law is written from the perspective of the established Anglican church. Not RC, nor Muslim, nor Mormon, nor Jewish, – whichever faith ( or none ) you get married under, you are stuck with an Anglican law.
Unless you get married abroad surely?
No, any divorce would still be dealt with under English law if you live in England.