Current trends on the institution of Marriage

donaghs

Couldn't help noticing recently with the big movements at the moment in many developed Western Countries, for equal marriage for homosexual couples, the debate on the concept of "marriage" has in turn swung towards pro-marriage in groups who previously took a dimmer view of it.

Back in the 90s certainly, in "arts" university departments and among many liberal journalists I can recall an enormous amount of criticism of marriage as an inherently, patriarchal, sexist, heterosexist, oppressive insitution, which was basically beyond saving. It didn't seem to stop people getting married, but there was an air of dismissiveness.

Apologies if I cant find articles from time, but I'm referring to the general trend in parts of "liberal" opinion. e.g. an older example would be the US feminist Sheila Cronin in the 70s saying women's freedom couldnt be won without the abolition of marriage. Similarly Andrea Dworkin.

Article here about 70s Gay Activists who happened to dismiss Marriage as "oppression".
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100201727/the-gay-radicals-of-the-past-didnt-want-equality-they-wanted-liberation-and-thought-marriage-was-oppression/

I wonder will the eventual acceptance of gay marriage in the developed world, continue to silence these critiques of marriage? Perhaps once in place, it open a wider debate on what exactly marriage is, and why (if?) it is needed.

zeffabelli

donaghs wrote: »

Couldn't help noticing recently with the big movements at the moment in many developed Western Countries, for equal marriage for homosexual couples, the debate on the concept of "marriage" has in turn swung towards pro-marriage in groups who previously took a dimmer view of it.

Back in the 90s certainly, in "arts" university departments and among many liberal journalists I can recall an enormous amount of criticism of marriage as an inherently, patriarchal, sexist, heterosexist, oppressive insitution, which was basically beyond saving. It didn't seem to stop people getting married, but there was an air of dismissiveness.

Apologies if I cant find articles from time, but I'm referring to the general trend in parts of "liberal" opinion. e.g. an older example would be the US feminist Sheila Cronin in the 70s saying women's freedom couldnt be won without the abolition of marriage. Similarly Andrea Dworkin.

Article here about 70s Gay Activists who happened to dismiss Marriage as "oppression".
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100201727/the-gay-radicals-of-the-past-didnt-want-equality-they-wanted-liberation-and-thought-marriage-was-oppression/

I wonder will the eventual acceptance of gay marriage in the developed world, continue to silence these critiques of marriage? Perhaps once in place, it open a wider debate on what exactly marriage is, and why (if?) it is needed.

Yes Marriage used to be a force of patriarchal oppression.

It is also a place of privalege. It privaleges the children born in wedlock, the tax system benefits it, it connects with the community, it legitimses your romantic partnership.

It offers the illusion of certainty. It's weight can only be measured in comparison with the ease of divorce.

It is also state regulation of your family.....either side has a valid debate on whehter this state regulation is good or not.

PopePalpatine

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yes Marriage used to be a force of patriarchal oppression.

It is also a place of privalege. It privaleges the children born in wedlock, the tax system benefits it, it connects with the community, it legitimses your romantic partnership.

It offers the illusion of certainty. It's weight can only be measured in comparison with the ease of divorce.

It is also state regulation of your family.....either side has a valid debate on whehter this state regulation is good or not.

Key words there: used to be. Society has grown more accepting of stay-at-home fathers while the mother goes out to work, women don't have to give up jobs upon becoming married, women aren't being treated as their husbands' servants any more, and unmarried mothers don't have to fear their family collaborating in having them locked up in what was essentially a labour camp.

zeffabelli

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Key words there: used to be. Society has grown more accepting of stay-at-home fathers while the mother goes out to work, women don't have to give up jobs upon becoming married, women aren't being treated as their husbands' servants any more, and unmarried mothers don't have to fear their family collaborating in having them locked up in what was essentially a labour camp.

Ha ha you'd be surprised!

Plus ca change.....

Torakx

I have noticed a lot of men and women still have less respect for stay at home fathers.
It's more of a stigma than being homosexual I would imagine.
Men on the whole, have a lot more stigma staying at home looking after the family, than women do, going out making money for the family.
often the men are seen as under achievers and the women as achievers.
Which says a whole lot about societies warped view on what is important in bringing up a family. The same can be seen with the roles reversed, but I think still the traditional roles are slightly less stigmatized and more so undervalued(women at home).
But I would say this warped view is thanks to the many movies and tv shows that have been aired since televisions crept into every home.
I find them very sinister when the outside world can so easily infect the family unit and culture.

Peregrinus

Marriage is a fairly durable social institution. SFAIK, we don't know of any society ever that hasn't practiced some form of marriage. Not just practised it, in fact, but has made it a fairly foundational social structure - more fundamental that any state or church.

Marriage is also adaptable. It can be polygamous or monogamous. It can be almost indissoluble, or relatively easily dissolved. It can be heterosexual only, or gender-neutral. It can be co-opted by the state or the church, and yet survive both.

A utilitarian would say that marriage is, basically, useful. It provides support and recognition for intimate relationships without which, as relational beings, most of us cannot be happy. It provides a supportive environment for the raising of children which, for us as a species, is a considerable challenge, because of the very slow maturing and long dependency period of our young. As a result, it's more in our interests to adapt marriage to our changing needs than to abandon it entirely. The result is that even if a radical critique of marriage is substantially justified, the outcome is not likely to be a withering away of the institution of marriage, but its adaptation to address its own deficiencies.

barretsimpson

its a fairly outdate concept if you want to be modern about it

Torakx

Could we say that marriage in it's many forms, only came about with the advent of farming?
I say advent, because the changes farming brought to the planet earth has been dramatic and far reaching in it's effects.

Peregrinus

Torakx wrote: »

Could we say that marriage in it's many forms, only came about with the advent of farming?
I say advent, because the changes farming brought to the planet earth has been dramatic and far reaching in it's effects.

No, I don't think we can, since we know that hunger-gatherer societies also practice marriage.

I agree that the advent of farming radically changes society and, marriage being the flexible institution that it is, marriage adapts to the new social realities and acquires new signficance. So, once you have farming, you have land occupation and ownership, and in most societies you have the idea of the individual, or the family, owning a particular plot of land, and pretty soone you have marriage as a mechanism by which ownership of land is pooled, transferred and transmitted over the generations.

But even before all that comes along you still have marriage. Basically, humans are challenged by child-rearing. Human infants are much, much more depedent that the young of other primates - it's at least a year before they can walk more than a few steps, and it's many years before they can do any useful hunting or gathering. So specialisation offers advantages, and marriage provides a structure for this. One spouse nurses infants, cares for the young and undertakes their early education while the other hunts and gathers.