Should feminists marry?

[A Practical Wedding has the best information on marriage and wedding that is sane, true and balanced for a multitude of opinions and lifestyles. They are awesome. For many quality posts on feminism, check this out: 'feminism' keyword search]

My opinion on the institution of marriage has gone all over the place the last few years, from believing it is instituted by God with specific duties for husband and wife, to all but opposing it, and now I think I've settled on a final opinion.

This is important to talk about, because as modern-day feminists, we can feel like sell outs if we do decide we want to marry. And that's totally legitimate. I want to share why I think marriage is ok, even for the feminist.

A funny thing happens when you break away from religion--or at least the very negative parts of religions: freedom. You are free to investigate, learn and decide based on evidence and your own preferences. There's no one telling you what to do. You have to make your own decisions. It's very exciting, but scary because there's no cookie cutter road map of How to Live anymore.

Marriage has a rather disgusting history for the most part. The religious right currently likes to pretend that marriage is one man, one woman and has always been that way. But that's just not true.

Even when marriage is for one man and one woman, historically women were traded as property, a servant forever dependent on some man to provide for her. In any culture, before effective birth control came to be, a sexually active woman was guaranteed a life of housework and childrearing. How could there be any time for any further pursuit?

Thankfully, things have changed. Nowadays women can (in most modernized countries) do and be anything they want, for the most part. Unless, of course, fanatical politicians succeed in making abortion and birth control illegal, but let's set that aside as I am talking in huge generalities here.

My point being: in a free society, marriage is what YOU make of it. It can be a religious marriage. A childfree marriage. A same-sex marriage. A polygamous marriage. An "open" marriage. Whatever.

Marriage has been many things and will continue to be many more things because it evolves with people and their cultures. What it boils down to is that marriage is an agreement between 2 (or 3, 4, 10...) consenting adults, and each marriage is different because the people are different. What other people do in their marriage has no effect on you and yours, nor does what has happened in the past concerning marriage define yours. We are free to make our own rules. I think marriage is basically a legal and/or relational contract between consenting adults, and what that contract contains is up to them to define.

There are several aspects of marriage: legal, spiritual (if you're religious) and what I call relational (if you're not religious). Let's set aside spiritual marriage for obvious reasons. Relational marriage is defined by the individual relationship; for example, I feel and behave as if I am married, and I frequently call my partner "husband", because we completely share our lives together and are completely committed to being together. To me, that's my marriage. It's an agreement between ourselves and what makes us happy. I know several other couples like us, and I'm sure you do too. You don't have to be legally married to be married in your heart (i.e., emotionally). This relational marriage is what's most important, I think, as marriage really only takes place between the people in the relationship. I don't have to use the word married to describe my relationship, but sometimes I do, because that's what it feels like to us; we have reached that level of happiness and commitment and neither of us plans on going anywhere.

I also don't believe marriage is till death to us part, unless you want it to be. I will only stay married as long as I am happy and the relationship is healthy; if it ceases to be both of those things, I will no longer be committed to it for my own sake, and I extend the same courtesy to him if he is not happy and healthy. When I was at Catholic Pre Cana, the hostess said that, "Marriage is like this big, beautiful house that has all these really cool rooms... but once you go in, you can't ever leave that house." I beg to differ! I see no point in voluntarily suffering. When that house is rotting and unfixable, leave.

Legally, of course, can be the can of worms everyone is worried about. It is a risk, yes, and it's not for everyone. Personally, it's right in my situation because 1) I have a high level of trust and love for him, 2) I'm comfortable with this risk because of #1, and 3) I have a batshit crazy family and don't want them to have control over my assets should something happen to me. #3 is what is really behind my making my marriage legal. BTW, this is NOT to say that because someone doesn't get married that they don't love and trust their partner. It's just that because of my family, his fairly dangerous job, and our level of commitment, that I'm ok with making it legal.

Originally I was going to do all the necessary paperwork to make him my beneficiary, and medical power of attorney, etc, but when I looked into the legal forms it made my head spin. The laws are crazy, and they're so different for each state. I would have had to hire a lawyer to make sense of it all. And guys, I'm lazy. I realized that I was committed to spending the rest of my life with him anyway, and marriage is just easier because it does all that crap in one fell swoop and is recognized in all states. Plus, we get tax and health insurance benefits. That process gave me much more empathy with my same-sex brothers and sisters who are in my position, and are pointlessly denied their rights to do so.

For this feminist, marriage is a good choice. My partner and I get to define what marriage is to us, and we will not stay married if we are unhappy and so will never be trapped. It is an equal partnership and a mutually beneficial one. There are financial risks if things don't work out but I am well aware of them, and I'm comfortable making things legal because I strongly believe I know who he is and who I am and that we are a good fit for life. The benefits outweigh the risks. Obviously, it's taken years for me to get to this point with myself and with him, as it should. We are old enough to be settled into who we are and our beliefs and habits, and ready for one life partner.

After my first marriage, I vowed against being in a relationship ever again because they completely took away your freedom. And don't misunderstand--being single is awesome and you are more free single than you are in a relationship. But I've found someone who makes my life better when I'm with him than when I'm single, and I loved being single! It's a conscious choice that I made, and re make every day, to give up some freedom for the benefit of my life partner.

This has been incredibly long and for that I'm sorry, but I hope it helps my fellow feminists, or any person struggling with the question of marriage, see that marriage can be a good, and happy thing (officially legal or not!), when freely undertaken with someone right for you.

Love, Joy, Feminism

Last week I discovered a delightful and intelligent blog by a very brilliant, liberated woman Libby Anne: Love, Joy, Feminism.

Libby Anne describes her experience as from a happy Quiverfull home (isn't that an oxymoron?!), dedicated to her beliefs, but woefully unprepared for the diversity and critical thinking she began to discover in college. She is one of the lucky ones, but had to fight to get where she is.

Her story, and others like it, touch me deeply. I really feel for these women, and I am filled with hate at the patriarchal beliefs that rob young women of their potential. I relate very closely to many parts of her story... like her, I was completely well trained and thought I had all the answers; I didn't start to unravel until college. For me, and I think Libby Anne too, a large part of that was simply exposure to People Different From Us--gays, liberals, atheists, people with tattoos, people who have sex, etc.--that opened our eyes to seeing that all those Others are real people, and usually good people. Naiveté and brainwashing are unbelievably powerful things! The real world, critical thinking and scientific evidence tend to shoot holes in religious extremism pretty quickly, thankfully.

I encourage you to read her blog. Learn from it, and share!

--BadSec

SAHMs

Woohoo, I sense a highly offensive post!

I got an email yesterday forwarding me to this link, Sarah Palin Says Issue Of Wife/Mom Being Keeper Of The Home Is A “Petty Little Superficial Meaningless Thing”. Regardless what you think of Palin, I knew from the title that this was a lot of bogus bullshit. For one, that's not Palin's style--to be blatantly offensive to an innocent housewife; for another, if you actually read what she said, that's not what she said. But of course the religious hardly ever take time to study things, do they? Oh, and in the YouTube interview, Palin's hair is bitchin' awesome.

The excerpt quoted at the American View starts at 6:50 on the YouTube video, and Palin says, "There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things, like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children. All those type of things…I would so hope that at some point, those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern and a bit more understanding that, yes, women can accomplish much."

Ok, what is the issue here?? Palin is not saying that staying at home and caring for your children is a superficial, meaningless thing. What she's saying is that people who get hung up on the discussion of whether or not women can work and still have a family--that is what's so damn petty. And I totally, completely agree with her. Feminism is about CHOICE. If a woman chooses to stay at home to cook, clean and change diapers, fine. That's her choice. But if I woman chooses to have a family and have a career, fine. That's her choice. Palin's point is that obsessing over whether or not women should be allowed to do both is rather Neanderthalish, and she's completely right. I posted this very thought on the page under an alias... I'm sure it will be removed or I'll be cast into hell.

Anyhow, now that I've bitched out my little rant, I'm going to take this into a slightly different direction: my opinion on Stay At Home Moms and its relationship to feminism. And why, I personally, do abhor the activity of women staying at home to keep house and make babies.

First let me clarify a bit. Every situation is very unique and individual, so I am not condemning everyone across the board--I am not condemning anyone at all. Everyone has their own very personal reasons for what they do, and I'm not out to judge women who choose this lifestyle. But I do have the right to assert my opinion, and my opinion is that SAHMism is generally anti-women.

I said above that feminism is about choice. I stand by that. It's also about equality and respect and other things of that nature. If you are a woman who voluntarily chooses to not have a career, and to make housekeeping and childraising your sole pursuits, more power to you. To me, that lifestyle is totally repulsive. It feels like giving up. It feels like throwing all the progress back into the face of the the courageous women before you, who have shed blood and tears to ensure that you could make something of yourself.

So if feminism is about choice, and if a woman chooses to be a SAHM, it's all good, right? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that she freely chose that life (and being brainwashed into believing that if you're a woman, God's highest purpose for you is to be a wife/mom is not free choice). But ultimately, no. When a woman gives up her power and is dependent on someone else to provide for her, she has lost her choice, even if she made the choice initially. 99.9% of the time, that provider will be her husband. She doesn't make the money so her opinion on how it should be spent or saved means a lot less. Sure, there are men who let the little woman manage the finances, but if he loses his job, what kind of power does she have then? She's run out of other people's money to spend. Unfortunately most of the time, the moneymaker is going to assume authoritative control of the household; this behavior is directly encouraged by many biblical denominations.

If the provider loses his job, or if the provider decides to run off with that cute little 18 year-old, the wife is left powerless and penniless. Even if she gets a divorce with alimony, it's not going to be enough. She's going to have to work, but by now she's got all these mouths to feed, no resume, and no experience. My biggest problem with housewifery is that it makes the woman completely dependent on someone else, and I think that's a ridiculous risk. Even if the man treats her well, what if he suddenly dies or is too ill to work? These are very real possibilities and if a woman gives up her independence, she can find herself in one hell of a pickle one day. Not that said pickle can't be overcome, but why do this to yourself?

I think the loss of empowerment, even voluntary, is dangerous and stupid. Yes, stupid. In this context empowerment means a career, and that's no small thing. Why would you risk your financial future, your livelihood and sanity, your children's future just so that you can have time to drive them to soccer or be the privileged one to clean the toilet? I realize that there are undeniable advantages to being at home with your kids. Supposedly you can keep your house clean (though I've yet to meet a clean household maintained by a SAHM, and I've seen a lot). You're there for your kids, emotionally and physically, and enjoy greater ability to be involved in their education and recreational activities.

Being a mother isn't about cooking, and cleaning and chauffeuring your kids to their activities. Let's get real, honey: anyone can do those things, and if you think you are making a difference in your kids' lives just by "being there", you're deluding yourself. Being a mother means to be there spiritually and emotionally for your children; to guide them and inspire them in their life and life choices; to love them unconditionally and cheer them on; to build them up and create happy, productive little people. The cold, hard reality is that you can do those things and still have a career--and keep your independence. You might not have the house as clean, or as many homemade meals made, or be able to be there for every event in their life...but that's ok. Your kids aren't going to grow up deranged or hating you because you worked and they had to eat pizza more than what was ideal. Your husband will get over the pile of laundry. His lazy ass isn't helpless, you know.

I get supremely annoyed at two things: 1) the idea that women must be SAHMs just because they were born with a vagina, and 2) when SAHMs think they are so special and are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

The last one really gets me. Not to say that there isn't a ton of work involved in being a SAHM, because they're surely is. But putting a price tag on housekeeping and childbearing is a bit pompous. If that makes you feel good about yourself, yay for you. Definitely, someone should be paying you for all the grueling work you do. But they don't. Know why? Because you're an idiot who does this shit for free.

The bottom line is this: just because you have a vagina your fate should not be automatically dictated at birth to be a maid, wife and baby factory. You should be able to choose and design your own fate.

But please embrace your modern feminine power and don't be someone's slave by choice. I'm not a feminist from the 1960s who is trying to tell you that you can have it all and it will all be great! Whatever path you choose won't be easy, and there will be work involved. You can make it happen, if you set your mind to it, but you're going to have to delegate your efforts, and spend time on what's most important. If you are successful, and you view the sky as your limit, you can have money and independence, a family--and a clean house, too, because you can afford to pay a housekeeper.

A Religious Vagina: the Godly Clown Car

Lately I have found an interest in the Quiverfull movement. If you've not been living under a rock you've heard of the Duggar family and their litter of 19 spawn (which undoubtedly has doubled by the time I publish this post). My curiosity led me to research their religious beliefs, and discovered they are part of the "Full Quiver" movement.

Quiverfull as an unofficial movement is relatively new, but as a Christian ideal for some Christians it is, and always has been, their way of life. The movement gained strength in the mid-80s and has been growing ever since, though there are no actual counts of followers that I have found; as a guestimation, I will venture to say there are around several dozens of thousands. It's not a major movement, but it is significant enough to have its religious and social implications considered.

Something most interesting to me personally is that a major advocate of QF, Mrs. Mary Pride, is an acquaintance of my family's. As a kid I knew she was a holy roller home-schooling mom with a lot of kids and that she had written a lot of books, but it wasn't until this week that I've understood her impact and its significance. You can Google Pride if you're curious.

The heart of the QF movement is a maniacal attachment to Psalms 127:3-5 that says, "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court." Amazing how these few verses have inspired a whole movement. QFers don't see themselves as starting a new movement as much as going back to basics, returning to the Word of God. When early authors like Mary Pride and Rick and Jan Hess started to write about what we now call the QF movement, they were actually trying to explain why rejection of birth control and letting God decide how many children were born was biblical, and what everyone should have been doing all along.

If you've noticed, QF is a movement and not a religion. You can be any Bible-believing Christian and be a QF. In fact, traditional Catholics who reject birth control--especially the hardcore Catholics who also reject NFP and the Rhythm Method--are QF, or nearly QF, though they don't call themselves that. But QFers differ from Catholics and most other Protestants because of the extremes they go to, and because QF (like a lot of religion) is accompanied with good ol' fashioned patriarchy. What makes QF unique is the combination of extreme Christianity, total rejection of any birth control, a spiritually militant mission, strict patriarchy, all happening in the 21st century.

Another essential element of QF is that it is spiritually militant, that is, it isn't just a complete openness to pregnancy and children: it is creating children to be soldier's in God's army. I have so many problems with this I don't know where to begin! If you read QF websites you'll quickly see that they believe spiritual warfare is impending, so they are stocking up the ranks. QF believe God "opens and closes the womb" and that God should be allowed to be wholly responsible for family size. Don't worry about health or money, they say. God will provide. Predictably, spiritual entitlement ensues. Unspoken birthing contests take place between women. Since children are a gift from God, it follows that no children are a curse. If you're trying to be fruitful and multiply but you just can't get knocked up, then you must have done something to piss God off. If you are infertile you are obviously not holy and submissive enough, and will be looked down upon by fellow QFers.

You can imagine what I think about this movement. No? Well, let me spell it out for you.

Where is the foundation for this movement? Ohhh, yeah. In the Bible. The one that was written thousands of years ago, that's full of inconsistencies, that was written by humans, that has been translated and edited and picked to taste. That one. That's is, folks! I'm writing my own bible, and I'm calling it The Book of Purple Unicorn. *cue angelic chorus* And I will make up stores and tell people how they must worship his divine majesty the Purple Unicorn, and how the Purple Unicorn has all sorts of rules to follow, and how Purple Unicorn will run you through for disobedience. Then the Purple Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can have great battles in the sky for Best God rights until they finally call a truce, fall in love, and make babies that shit rainbow sparkles and tomato sauce. It's perfectly credible!

Patriarchy is abuse. QF women are commanded to be submissive and subservient to their fathers and husbands, and not speak unless spoken to. They receive only a high school homeschool education, aren't allowed to work outside the home, and taught that their highest calling is motherhood. Think about this for a minute. Think about what it would be like to be under that kind of control. If you were to drop my bitchy feminist self into this situation, do you know what would happen? I would have a hearty laugh at their ridiculous bullshit and hitchhike my way back into normal society. I would fight my way out, even if it killed me. No way, no how would I submit. Not this chick! But these women, especially the daughters, are brainwashed into thinking this is their duty before God. It is God's will that they not have their freedom, their personal sovereignty or any other life path than being barefoot and pregnant; and isn't God great to provide us stupid women with wise fathers and husbands to explain God's loving will to us?

And that's only one aspect of it. Consider the naturally selfish nature of humans. Now imagine if you raised a little boy and told him all his life that he could grow up to be whatever he wanted, get the education he wanted, follow his dreams and passions, and that he would have a "helpmeet" wife who would obey him, honor him, cook and clean for him, bear his children and provide sex on demand. Imagine if you taught that little boy that he is lord of his own house, that he is the sole decision maker, and that his wife is to do as he says, constantly and cheerfully and without hesitation, because he personally is endowed by almighty God to do so. Imagine if you taught this boy that you can and should control your wife with love, because for her to disagree with you is a sin, and that that love could include physical discipline. And when this boy is grown, what do you think you'd have? A narcissistic, controlling abuser. An asshole full of himself and his own righteous glory. A pathetic bully who believes he is special just because he has a penis. When you demolish that bubble of respect each human being deserves, and allow for total control under the pretense of God, you create in the mind of the controller that every little thing he does not like is a sin. How does he know this? Because God told him. Because he's the one with the testicles. Because the Bible said so.

What of the women? Women are the only ones who could think themselves out of this cult, but they're generally too brainwashed to do so. Men are allowed to think, but are too busy enjoying being worshipped to bother to change.

Women are never allowed to follow their dreams, or even have them. What's the point? A woman's highest calling, most important job--and only allowed job--is wifedom and motherhood. Like my mother once said, what's the point of girls going to college when all they are eve going to be is wives and mothers?

Children lose their individuality. Children are wanted, yes, but not for their sake; only because they are a new soul, a warm body unto God. A soldier. Girls never get a glimpse of freedom and are prepped to be babymakers from the day they're born. Boys are taught to be full of themselves and that they have dominion over the "lesser" sex. All the children are forced to be caretakers of the others because Mommy simply can't do it all. Some of this is good for them, but I argue that generally it deprives them from the innocence of childhood and the ability to dream and play and doodle--which, I believe, is what our adult dreams and professions are based on. What if a child needs his or her mother? She's too busy taking care of everyone to give children the one-on-one attention and emotional support that they may occasionally require.

I'm not claiming that every product of QF is bad, that every child loses their childhood, or that every man is abusive. But it's undeniable that these things are very present (and actively fostered) in religious extremism of all kinds. Two principles need to always be followed, 1) don't believe anything without evidence just because someone teaches it to you, and 2) respect others; your rights end where theirs begin. Unfortunately, religion throws both of these out the window with glee.

Check out Quiverfull.com and No Longer Quivering.

Women, why?

Why are women so utterly stupid when it comes to relationships? Haven't we progressed far enough in this country for women to realize they don't have to take shit from their men anymore?

Excuse the rant, but I'm so tired of it. So many otherwise intelligent women still see themselves through the "little woman" mentality. He cheated on me? Oh that's ok, we can work through it. He beat me? Oh that's ok, we can work through it.

My dear fellow women, why do you stay? Where is your backbone? I understand how an abusive relationship can mess up your head and your emotions and your self-esteem, but--and I'm going to be harsh--you need to get over it. Get out. Now. So you got a bad rap, but quit being a fucking victim and do something for yourself. The only women I feel sorry for in abusive relationships are the ones who physically cannot leave, as in, he has you hog-tied in a closet 24/7. Otherwise, if you're staying, you're only giving him permission to keep on keepin' on. And that is 100% on you.

I have seen too many of my friends go through this, and it angers the hell out of me. I feel bad for them, and I offer them all the support I can, even to the point of letting them live with me and paying their bills till they get on their feet, but they are always full of a million excuses of why they "can't" leave. None of these reasons is unchangeable. They are all just excuses. I'm not saying it won't take time to get out, especially if you don't have money, but where there is a will there is a way. The problem that I see is there is a lack of will, a lack of spine, and a lot of laziness. They would rather deal with the crappy situation that go through the upheaval of starting a new life--but oh boy, will they be happy to whine and cry on your shoulder about how miserable they are.

Women, it is time you grow a pair of balls and take responsibility for your own life. You will find a beautiful, exciting world out there that is full of support for you as long as you are willing to work for your freedom. I don't care if you have kids with the monster, or if you have no money. One step at a time, something can be done. Do not sit on your hands and wallow in your misery for any longer. Be a good example for your friends, sisters, and especially daughters.

There is just no excuse in this country for any woman to throw a pity party about her "permanent" loss of independence. Put on your big girl panties and go get it back.

--BadSec