As we argue about marriage, gay marriage, and issues about marriage, some people are already taking the next step: let’s just get rid of marriage altogether. So writes Australian columnist Catherine Deveny:
I AM against gay marriage. I’m against straight marriage. I’m against marriage full stop. Why are we hanging on to this relic of an anachronistic system (which still reeks of misogyny and bigotry), established so men could own women to ensure their estates and titles were passed on to their kids – sorry, their sons? Time to ditch it.
Marriage doesn’t work. For evidence, see the divorce rate climbing closer to 50 per cent with every click on the rsvp.com.au website. The waving of the magic wedding wand is no guarantee of a successful marriage or a happy family. No amount of confetti, profiteroles and $10,000 photo shoots will counteract the dismantling of religious oppression, social taboo and financial constraint that is making far more options acceptable, despite the beige majority’s fixation on fairytale endings that don’t exist and never have.
Weddings and marriage are spin-doctoring propaganda to maintain social order. Which is code for ”making sure the blokes are running the joint while women are oppressed and conned into doing the majority of the unpaid domestic and emotional heavy lifting” (and a hefty whack of the income earning as well). Married men live longer than single ones. Unmarried women live longer than wives. Girls, read the fine print and ask yourself: ”What’s in it for me?”
I’m all for love, intimacy, sex, companionship and growing into wiser, more beautiful and compassionate human beings through sharing parts of your journey with others. And I quite like going to weddings. I just prefer funerals – the chat’s more earthy, you hear more secrets, you don’t have to buy a present and there’s no group on the balcony muttering: ”I give it three months, tops.”
Funerals mark something that actually happened.
Celebrating 20 years of being together and not killing each other makes far more sense than a ceremony that celebrates something that hasn’t even started. Love needs no public statement, no witnesses. The stage-managed perfection of a wedding is the antithesis of the hard yakka of surviving a long-term relationship. Weddings are an advertisement for something that only exists in the imaginations of seven-year-old girls. . . .
As for ”it’s just a piece of paper”, it’s so much more than that. It’s the reinforcement of unrealistic expectations, outdated gender stereotypes and proof we’re still being sucked in to happily-ever-after endings. It’s also a scathing indictment of our lack of cultural maturity and spiritual imagination. And proof we’re emotionally medieval.
I guess without the “medieval” worldview and “conservative” values that she derides with such uncomprehending hostility, there isn’t much of a basis for marriage anymore. Having babies is also medieval and conservative. By this reasoning, we ought to just let ourselves die out. This, though, I daresay, is where our culture is headed.
HT: Adam Hensley
{ 1 trackback }
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
ALso in the Middle ages,,Marriage was a JOB/CLASS,and raping 2 LORDs and DUKEs was a SPORT,,only a fine,paid on the SPOT.Only The Morals of each person controlled itself.the palegue of the TIME wiped out 70-80% of people.and MORALS were re-Learn.. ,,in the ROMANs times,,many people thought the men were losing BRAINS matter.
Yikes! Looks like Eve continues to be tempted…..”You shall be like God.” But this is a false view of God as personal power to use against others. The ‘heavy-lifting’ in a good marriage is always done by the husband, who protects and provides for his wife and children. A little appreciation for his effort and sacrifice goes a long way.
“It’s also a scathing indictment of our lack of cultural maturity…”
Yeah, the hooked-up non-publicly-declared-and-witnessed cohabitation model does SUCH a good job at inculcating maturity. To the contrary, marriage is precisely one of humanity’s very best hopes for anything resembling maturity. As Peter De Vries said, “The value of marriage is not that adults produce children but that children produce adults.”
“Funerals mark something that actually happened. [...]a ceremony that celebrates something that hasn’t even started. [...] Weddings are an advertisement for something that only exists in the imaginations of seven-year-old girls.”
Is the author’s real complaint against MARRIAGE or just WEDDINGS and the romantic heresies that tend to center on and be most visibly displayed at weddings and are in fact the deadly enemies of true marriage?
She should read a book called Love in the Western World by Denis de Rougemont, which explains that being in love with loving is much poorer foundation for marriage than loving one’s neighbor. Marriage creates a neighborhood.
But on the deepest level, of course, marriage is not about maturity or stability or any of its benefits but about Jesus and what he has done and continues to do.
I’m reminded of a joke I heard in college; if marriage were banned, only outlaws would have in-laws.
But to the point, there are any number of sound counterarguments. Tickletext gives the most important, IMO: marriage speaks to God’s grace to man.
On a more earthly level, while married people often aren’t doing it right, the statistics make pretty darned clear that there is something more than “just a piece of paper going on” in marriage–everything from domestic violence stats to breakup of relationships, and for the kids, whether they become productive members of society, or whether they end up on welfare or in jail.
And from government’s point of view, if we value kids, we value marriage. If we are content to let them suffer and starve in a Dickensian world, well, we can ignore it.
hmm… I wonder why my posts aren’t showing up.
Well, that one did, but try as I might, the one I actually want to make isn’t working.
“I’m all for love, intimacy, sex, companionship and growing into wiser, more beautiful and compassionate human beings through sharing parts of your journey with others. And I quite like going to weddings. I just prefer funerals – the chat’s more earthy, you hear more secrets, you don’t have to buy a present and there’s no group on the balcony muttering: ‘I give it three months, tops.’”
I’d agree with the first sentence. The second? She apparently hasn’t met too many Bridezillas and their mothers. As for funerals, sure, one doesn’t have to buy a gift, and most people would love to hear “I give it three months, tops,” said about the deceased–at least the deceased would.
This paragraph, however, shows the flaw in her and society’s perceptions. It ISN’T about the person or the wedding hoopla. That’s incidental. It IS about “love, intimacy, sex, companionship and growing into wiser, more beautiful and compassionate human beings” but it is through sharing one’s journey with that one other person to whom you have vowed to “love, honor, and cherish, forsaking all others.” It’s not about selfish gain, but about the service of a wife to her husband and a husband to her wife even when “happily ever after” gets a little tarnished by a down economy or termites in the basement or an obstinate child. That’s the point that is missed. It’s termed as a labor of love for a reason.
In one of her other columns, Deveny, an athiest, explains why she believes that God has a narcissistic personality disorder.
Deveny’s writing is based on her “constant need to question and expose maladaptive behaviour.” If so, Deveny’s autobiography should be a doozy; maybe she can write it on a roll of soft paper so it can serve another use.
This journalist is scorned. This is my guess. She has been seeing some bloke, who has been test driving her for five years, but won’t committ. Last week she went to a friends wedding, and on the way home stopped by her moms. Her mon asked when she is getting married. To cover up the fact that she has been scorned, she writes this peace explaining that she doesn’t agree with marriage, because the marriage that hasn’t happened is hers.
A comment made to me yesterday by a 54-years married man: “I am the absolute ruler of my house, and I have my wife’s permission to say so!”
Just had to throw that in.
The lady’s point is being made, it seems to me, by the 40% of babies being born in this country out of wedlock. We have a niece who has four kids, lives with the father, but refuses to marry. Her parents went through a nasty divorce, so the institution is tainted. She fails to note that, should she split with her boyfriend, the divorce would be just as nasty.
Now on the more serious side. If there is any redeaming factor in marriage, it is that it protects the woman. This journalist doesn’t think very much if she thinks women would be better off without marriage. But with the recent erosian of marriage, it has become an undesirable state for men, far from keeping them in control it hog ties them. A guy marrying a girl to day is like a man putting half his income on red.
And with or with out state recognized marriage, men would always feel they own the woman, or women they are with. Putting an end to marriage would not put an end to that. Just as women tend to thingk they own the man they are with, want to see jeolousy? go talk to a different girl while your on a date. No, its fun try it!
I am a big supporter of marriage, but on the other hand I can see her point. For women, marriage and raising children does shorten our lives. The work of a mother, as I am now experiencing, is hard and without much reward. It’s financially, physically, mentally and emotionally draining. It’s lonely. It’s repeatative and monotonous. It confers no social benefits such as respect or social status. It’s dirty, my house is dirty, I’m a complete mess. It’s no wonder why more women than men suffer from mental health problems. And I have an exceptionally helpful and wonderful husband.
That being said, living alone wasn’t much fun either. Being sucessful in my career wasn’t fulfilling. I had more time to myself, though. And more social respect. Much of my work was more enjoyable. But it wasn’t ultimately fulfilling.
The problem with feminists of this stripe is that they make GOOD observations about the lives of women, but make dreadful conclusions and solutions.
Sarah (#13): Thanks for the perspective. For us guys who hear from our wives exactly the same things you’ve said (and I bet it’s the vast majority of us family guys), what advice do you have to help us help our better half? (Not that I worry that my sweety would ever draw a scorched-earth conclusion like this jilted feminazi author.)
I think a post like that should evoke a couple of responses. One is a desire to present Special Revelation to Christians arguing the case for marriage based on God’s plan for man and woman. But the other is to make the case for it within the culture, which means doing so in terms it can follow. I think this is a different task now than it would have been at another stage. First off, I think we would need to engage the terms of that argument. Does marriage benefit women? Can we make a strong case? Is the big wedding something we want to fight for? Does it help marriage? (Maybe the big 20 year anniversary party has something to commend it.) Is the author’s case of how marriage came about well argued? I fear that sometimes we accept the presuppositions of arguments like this and then just say, “Suck it up.” We have an “In the beginning it was not so,” to take into consideration. But we cannot let this collapse into “Whatever came from the past must be worth preserving as such.” If all we had were guesses as to where marriage came from and no divine revelation, I’d probably be on her side.
tODD, I think we need you to repost Kent Brockman. A lone writer in Australia speaks out against marraige, causing “our culture” to lope even more speedily to the ashheap of history. I’ve never heard of Denevy before, but her powers are utterly fantastic.
Sarah @ 13: God bless you for what you are doing! What I hate most about our society today is how much it has devalued motherhood. Everything we do out in the world of commerce will turn to dust, and quickly. You, on the other hand, are raising an immortal soul, and ensuring that the human race will continue on at least one more generation.
How did we ever get this confused and mixed up? The illogic of our society is proof positive of the existence and power of Satan in this world.
I sincerely doubt that getting rid of marriage would suddenly make women happier and longer lived. So… marriage no longer exists. Clearly loose, commitment-free relationships still happen in the author’s ideal world. What about children? Who is going to take care of the kids after a such a relationship breaks up? The only way that women end up in a better position w/o marriage is if there are also no children (and even this could be disputed, but we’ll go with it). Granted, that may be how the author envisions things. However, it would be ruinous for civilization as a whole.
To repeat myself: None of us really marry the person we thought we were marrying. Marriage is perhaps God’s way of helping us to get past the romance, past the sexual attraction that brought us together, so that we have the opportunity to learn how really to love the whole person that we married–the good, the bad, and all the in-between. Of course, if we are not looking for or at least open to that sort of opportunity, we shouldn’t be surprised when the marriage ends. Real marriage requires real work–not the work of changing our spouse, but the more difficult feat of changing ourselves.
She sounds like a jilted lady… wonder if she was left at the altar.
Isn’t it funny (I guess more ironic) that despite the author’s claim of unmarried women living longer than married, yet it’s the men who stereotypically won’t commit. I have some female friends who are widowed or divorced and would really like another husband, despite the fact that their “happily ever after” turned into “single motherhood”.
Regarding the devaluation of motherhood or of “women’s work,” the fact of the matter is that it has never had value. Not in the West. Women have always been devalued.
Part of the problem, as far as I see it, is modern isolation. I am with my daughter one-on-one most of the time. Like I said, I have a wonderful husband, but the reality is that he is at work most of the day. He does what he can. If we lived in communities and worked together, perhaps it would be better. “It is not good for man to be alone.” I don’t think that just was about marriage, but about community. Mom shouldn’t be left alone either.
Not to idealize pre-industrial cultures, but from what I understand they tend not to devalue women. For if they did, everyone would starve to death
From personal experience, I got a lot more respect when I told people I was an “artist” than now when I tell people that I’m a “stay-at-home-mom.”
Sarah, you have both my respect and admiration. Hopefully, it is a comfort to you that your status as both a Christian and a stay-at-home mom are reviled by large segments of earthly society, but most highly prized in the kingdom of heaven.
Oh come on, J (@16). No one here is saying the author is causative, but rather that she is indicative of our culture’s problems. Surely there’s nothing wrong with responding to a column inasmuch as it represents an actual subset of people out there?
For what it’s worth, I think Rick (@15) has the right reaction. Which was far better than the doofuses making ignorant guesses about the author’s personal life.
tODD, Veith cites an obscure foreign newspaper columnist whose recommendation is over the top – in this case, abolish marriage. He then says, citing no evidence whatever, that the column describes, prophet-like, “where our culture is headed,” and the regulars dutifully line up to express their agreement that “our culture” is indeed doomed, now citing the columnist as evdience.
Sarah-I found that Christians were the most critical of my choice to stay at home w/ my off-spring-
I Homeschooled my off-spring…
I would get this question all of the time when I would meet Christians in a new setting,”What do you do?”
My answer,”I Homeschool my ____, manage my home, and volunteer.”
Response, “Oh, so you don’t WORK!!!”
Funny-I never got that response from my Jewish or atheist acquaintances…
C-CS
Catherine Deveny is a lapsed Catholic and rabid atheist and the paper which she writes for, THE AGE here in Melbourne,is the better of the two papers we have. J I would hope that she is obscure in general ,and whilst a foreigner like you does not have to put up with her,i am afraid that she is given full billing as a comedian at our annual Comedy festival.
I read this article again and this time thought more about her objection to the wedding itself. A wedding is a big celebration because it is a rite of passage and because our culture no longer has much consideration for rites of passage, she sees it as medieval. It is, in fact, medieval, which isn’t to say it’s bad. In fact, I think that marriage as a rite of passage strengthens it. Nowadays an unmarried couple can participate in anything a married couple can (ie sex, a home, finances, children, etc.) without much social penalty, if any.
Marriage is a paradox. It does protect women financially and emotionally. (As in, most women desire their sexual partners to be faithful, both for their own emotional well-being and for the care and nurture of children.) Marriage can also be very negative for women. Married women don’t live as long as women who’ve never married. Why is that? Because rearing a family is taxing! Also, women iniciate upwards around 80% of divorces. I think women feel burdened by their roles and want to get out. Sadly, being alone isn’t so great either.
We live in a fallen world. We are living in ways that are against our nature, such as lives in relative isolation.
My wife’s favorite reponse to the question, “So what do you do?” especially to other women who “work” outside the home is: “I am a full-time mother who loves her family dearly and is completely devoted to their well-being.” It immediately puts the working women and their husbands on the defensive instead of the other way around!
Do married women who don’t have kids also die younger? Or is it the child-bearing and raising that causes early death? Do single, never-married moms also die younger? Maybe it’s not marriage that causes women to die earlier?
Sorry tODD,
Being one of those doofuses commenting on the author’s personal life. (I admit a do read between the lines with a bit of tongue in cheek here.) I think this lady wants to get rid of marriage, the same way my wife doesn’t want a bigger house. She protesteth too much.