Rite of Passage.

Oct 19, 2008 09:22

Let's talk shit about marriage.

In advance: Appy-polly-logies to those of y'all who have been there, done that, while I armchair critique sans experience. I sympathize that it must be heavily obnoxious to read my disjointed musings about a general Fact of Life(TM), but this will only take a moment ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

cruelbitch October 20 2008, 04:25:07 UTC
What bothers me most is the outright denial, although I'll grant that my opinions extend into "why perpetuate this if you acknowledge it's sexist, isn't that pretty imbecilic?". However, I'm not idealist enough to believe my opinions alone will influence The Way That It Is, so I'll focus on the self-deception for now.

As to granting ownership that didn't exist previously, I'm inclined to agree -- perpetuating a minor sexist tradition isn't indicative that the marriage itself is sexist or imbalanced, although I'd wager that the general patterns that encompass marital relationships can be rather skewed in favor of the husband, so perhaps the name/aisle predicament is merely symptomatic. I'm not sure if it harbors a residual effect on the individual, but in the aggregate it's really fucking bad to kowtow to a tradition that's so aimless. I also worry that the assigned entitlement will trickle into other aspects of the partnership: the same self-important rage that fuels the "What? Are you too good to give up your name for me?" may transit into other "wifely duties".

Which leads to another point: The frequent hand-waving of it's roots. Well, it's argued, the roots generally aren't applicable to the contemporary practice, so why does the origin matter? My answer is that if the purpose is obsolete, then the practice should subsequently become obsolete. If the subscribing is devoid of meaning, then how does it simultaneously... have meaning? Why continue to humor it?

Reply

ex_lost_kit October 20 2008, 07:20:16 UTC
What bothers me most is the outright denial, although I'll grant that my opinions extend into "why perpetuate this if you acknowledge it's sexist, isn't that pretty imbecilic?".

Well, my entire point was that the denial largely stems from how reflexively bad we consider even innocuous acts of sexism. I think that if people actually lived according to the principles they espouse, they'd find live much less enjoyable than they think. Thus while I agree that you can go around calling people bigots for not being bisexual, it's just not a very pragmatic thing to do. We're all bigots to some extent by the strictest imaginable definition.. and while we should never be too complacent with that, constant self-flagellation tends to be an unproductive way of dealing with these problems.

Reply

cruelbitch October 20 2008, 14:04:29 UTC
Perhaps. But how would adhering to principles in this case offer less enjoyment? It seems easier to legally maintain your identity, though it's been mentioned elsewhere that you're predisposed to getting bludgeoned with a number of problems for not succumbing to peer pressure, based on your region. I'm just babbling sans experience, as I've disclaimed, but it seems easier to not succumb and just be, and even if it's considerably difficult now to fight the wedlock ocean, perhaps if enough people say "uh-uh" it will eventually become easier for people. Just a quaint idealist theory.

Also, I never suggested constant self-flagellation. :P

Reply


Leave a comment

Up