Marriage: Legalised Prostitution?

I have been moved to consider this topic by a thread on PP which invoked Germaine Greer and her views on marriage. Watch out: I'm about to get quote-happy:

I am a Bollywood romantic at heart, bt just saying while we all talk about forced marriages and arranged marriages and what have you - there is a view on marriage itself that’s worth chatting about when we want to discuss gender relations!

But yeah, I’ve seen too many relationships where men are still more dominant and once kids come into the equation - we go back to hunter/gatherer mode immediately . Unless society is structurally changed this will always be the case. This is what Greer meant perhaps when she says..we are still wondering whether women want to be equal with men in an unchanged world ( which is her idea of hell) , or whether to fundamentally to change the world. Unless we fundamentially change structures - we’re always going to find many marriages as legalised prostitution.

You know it was only recently that in UK law it was OK for a man to have forced sex with his wife and for it not t be considered rape. This is no longer the case- but the law changed in the last 10 years I recall (or something). This tells you something about marriage and men’s property rights to women!

Greer would also argue it’s women’s dependency and need for men that entails the prostitutions - not just the economics but the emotional need. Whereas most men don’t seem to be as dependent on women emotionally - or at least they can close off, box off from women until they meet the special someone. There’s a biological trick there somewhere i suppose, women might be able to do this until a certain point when they might want kiddies - and can’t be as emotinally carefree..

The really lovely thing is that I’ve grown up with the best role model men /brothers you can imagine - even with their idiosyncracies to want to ‘protect’ us .. so even with my friends who will say men are this and that , i am usually the one that will say - ah, but not all men, touch wood, i’ve been lucky to be influenced by good, strong male role models.

i guess greer would propose equal pay as the first option which we don’t have at the moment, and changing society’s expectations that women/mothers will be the primar nurturers. But i don’t know how far Greer went on this - i personally think as long as women face the reproductive challenge more, we’ll always face the same inequalities.. there’s a joke at work about some of my female colleagues, it goes like this: ‘what’s so and so doing these days with their career?’ and the answer will be, ’she’s on the baby - track’ not the career track - see what i mean? Having children takes women’s career’s back considerably but it doesn’t have the same impact on men, unless they are the primary carers and nurturers.

I think we’re looking at changing reproductive roles - or finding technogical leaps here, to get to where Greer might suggest we go. This is quite scary and radicaal - and not sure how far science would progress with this. Margerat Atwood has some interesting gothic fantasies on this sort of thing.

Most women when they have a child will go part time work, and if they haven’t gone part-time, they will most certainly do this by child number 2 - unless her partner assumes the primary carer role.

All cherry-picked from halima, one of the better commenters on the site (although there are many).

See, I agree with this, but not completely. The fact that I've found a wonderful man who has no objection to helping out with housework and no control-freak tendencies over how to approach housework, has made me less cynical about the prospect of finding someone 'marriageable' for me.

Confession time: I have never been particularly comfortable with the idea of marriage, on many levels. Firstly, because I believe that many, many people 'settle' rather than choosing somebody who they actually connect with fully (in all fairness, it's hard to tell, especially if your serious-relationship experience is limited). Looking at this from a common-sense perspective, this is disastrous because when they meet somebody who they DO connect with fully, the shit gon' hit the fan, one way or another. I am speaking from experience here...

Secondly, because I was brought up with a very Indian view of marriage, as having to submit completely to your husband's family. 'Nuff said...

Finally, because - strange though it might sound - I feel that marriage is somewhat unnatural. It feels to me like society's demand to scoop up individuals and place them on a little shelf of 'respectability', proclaiming them bound together forever, amen. Feelings change, and people fall out of love, and especially if they have 'settled' (remember, like I said, it's difficult to be sure sometimes!), marriage is going to exacerbate an already ugly situation, because then you have to get divorced.

This seems like inviting trouble to me - if you're happy with somebody, why do you have to make a show of it? Can't you just live together, or - if you really must - hit the registry office?

However, this feeling of mine is again tied very much to the Indian notion of marriage-as-a-spectacle. I have always felt that this turning of marriage into an exhibition was actually a tacit threat to the bride and groom: here you are, you're being made into an example of a success story and now you BETTER bloody well stay together. As if making a very public showcase and celebration of their togetherness will safeguard against potential marital problems. It's also often a sort of pay-off to the bride to compensate her for the fact that she's probably going to be pretty bloody unhappy for at least the first year of her marriage (if not longer), as she forces herself to adjust to the quirks of her groom and his family.

Though there may not be a dowry for most (hopefully all?) British Asian families nowadays, I have always had the sneaking suspicion that the tradition of the bride's family paying for the wedding is simply its modern equivalent. I really don't agree with it - if you really want to cling to tradition, have the bride's family pay for the religious ceremony and the groom's pay for the party. Ideally, it'd be an equal split.

'But the woman is going into the man's house,' traditionalists cry. 'They'll be looking after her for the rest of her life - why should they pay towards the wedding as well?'

Symbolism, darlings - it's all about the symbolism. The big, big, BIG problem for me is the way the process is STILL about the transfer of a woman as though she were property. We need to divest the process of all the signs of this and start letting it be what it should be: a union between two people which is occurring with the full awareness and consent of both.

So - no more of this 'passing from one family to another.' I find this one of the most ridiculous notions there is. Yesterday my mother wept at me, saying how I was the only daughter she still had any control over, because the other two were under the control of their husbands now. I managed to sufficiently unstiffen myself in her embrace, and barely resisted pointing out that she had repeated to both my sisters that they should follow the desires of their husbands and that they should spend time with their husbands' families because 'they are your family now.' It wasn't exactly a gentle dismissal - it was a rebuff, a rejection. I know she 'meant well' but this is proof that 'meaning well' is often fucking bullshit.

During the religious ceremony, you (the woman) have to follow your husband around the Holy Book and after it's all over, he comes to get you from your maternal home. There are also a couple of traditions where the (usually younger) female relatives of the bride demand money from him in return for letting him enter (when he first arrives for the religious ceremony) or for returning his shoes.

Though I might sound like a killjoy, I couldn't help seeing all this as further commodifying the bride, turning her into an expensive gift purchased from her family by the groom's family. When you consider that virtually all Asian marriages are engineered with some sort of social-climbing in mind for both families, it just makes it worse. I have taken part in this; I have laughed alongside as we demanded £50 each. It's not the worst aspect, but slotted in beside all the others, it doesn't look too guilt-free a pleasure either.

Let's kill the notion of big, elaborate weddings before anything else, I say. I have never seen the appeal of being woken at 5 and then paraded, exhausted and emotional, before the eyes of people I don't really know or care about, but who have been invited because they invited us to a wedding of theirs once, while being hissed at to 'watch your lehnga (skirt)' or 'pull your top up.'

I am really really cranky when I haven't slept enough. I'd end up being a nightmarish bride, giving people murderous looks as my blood-sugar levels crashed, scowling when they told me I looked beautiful, tripping over my lehnga as I followed my groom around the Guru Granth Sahib. As I bent to bow before the holy book and he smiled radiantly at me, I would be ludicrously intent on preventing any part of me getting caught on the rest of me, thinking (in a thick Scottish accent): 'YOU. It's yer fookin' falt I'm doin' this! Why do ye git off wit' wrapping some fabric round yer heid while I have to be a woman? And I want tae be the one carryin' the sword!'

(I would, you know).

I say all this, yet I know that I am going to be made to get married (I think that might be responsible for exponentially increasing my resentment...). Why? I'll tell you why - because it has suddenly got through to me recently that the 'life partner' of my choosing never will be (and never would have been) to my parents' preference. I mean, I've hardly turned out how I should've, so why on Earth is my partner going to be any better?

Blindingly obvious, you might say - not so! When one has no cause to think about these things, one doesn't. Insulated in a little cloud of denial, I la-la-ed along, but as of August, I am increasingly realistic about what my future might look like. Plus, I met and fell head-over-heels in love with a man who is even more 'wrong' than the previous one, but who treats me like a goddess and who I have actually found myself compromising with. See that? Not sacrificing - compromising. Bloody miracle, I thought.

Anyway, seeing as how I am going to make my parents unhappy no matter what, I am seeking to 'compromise' by letting them have their way on the marriage front. Also, I'm hoping to get money off of people in exchange for doing things the traditional way. I have however already specified to my mother that I do not want anything fancy and that no, I am not saving for it, because I don't want the damn thing. My parents will want to invite tons of pointless people, so THEY can cover the costs!

I agree with Greer and halima: there is no point in seeking equality in a world which remains weighted against women. You have to change people's habits and perceptions to make a difference. So I say:

- More paternity leave for dads. As well as this, employers should actively encourage fathers to take leave and care for their children. In the current system, it gets taken for granted that women will be the ones leaving for this reason, and so they become disposable in a way that men aren't. I say, FUCK DAT!

- A reassessment of the importance of parenthood. This will no doubt sound bizarre, especially after what I just said, but I'm trying to say that we should stop being so child-centred and encourage parents to have a bit of time on their own. I think young mothers really need this. Granted, you love your children and you get the protective, possessive instinct, but there has to be some perspective.

I think parenthood needs to be 'secularised' a bit more. You still get it being seen very much in a religious or divine light, and that's bad, because it's ultimately a human function that needs to be open to criticism like everything else.

Everyone probably wants kids at some point, but really, they're not the be-all and end-all of existence (you could always choose art instead!). The problem is that you are expected to become automatically selfless once you pop 'em out, but... individuals are individuals. We all need our own space and time alone. Giving yourself entirely to your children, especially if you're of an independent cast of mind, is disastrous. You're probably going to want them to be just like you, and fill all the opportunities you missed, and well... need I go any further? It'll all turn on itself ironically to the point where their existence is constantly undermined with guilt because they can see that you have given everything up for them and you're not happy. They're not stupid and yes, I do speak again from experience!

Of course, this is only possible if both parents are pulling their weight.

- A child should always have two parents. I'm not dissing single parents here, simply stating a fact: one parent is going to get utterly overwhelmed it's not fair. What I'm really trying to say is: let's have more gay couples adopting! People start carping on about gender role models and whatever; I say, if it's a boy with two mums, give him a godfather or uncle he can depend on and you're cool.

None of this 'There must a mother and a father' crap. It's not insurance against future troubles; if you want particularly painful proof of that, ask the daughters of the British Josef Fritzl. Those who try to claim that gender roles are somehow divinely enshrined might like to know that no, bitch, actually it's down to BIOLOGY. It's hardwired into us to find certain things attractive and others not so much. Like long hair on girls for men. Still, most people tend to think of themselves as more than a collection of dumb cells, so - NEXT!

- Split the housework fairly. Some women, like Carol McGiffin, will be happy to do a greater part and leave certain tasks that they don't enjoy to their partners. Others will want it to be equally split. I myself believe it should be equal. We tend to be creatures of habit, and if your husband gets used to doing less, you're going to have a fight on your hands in future when you want to take a break.

If both of you have your preferred tasks, then roll with it that way. I prefer to cook, for example, and my man prefers the washing up. Neither of us has a problem with the other's position, but we know what we prefer (and he does it so fast! Two plates and cutlery washed in two minutes). He also helps me chop things when I'm cooking, which saves us both time. :D

- Indian mothers, break the cycle. Stop asking your daughters to make sacrifices and start asking them to make compromises instead. For every girl who is supported to the hilt by her parents in this way, we have one less woman circulating in the 'abuser-abused' hell of post-marital relations.

Two things must change:

1) The age disrespect. In Indian culture, if you're younger, you have no authority to comment on things. Even if what you are saying is relevant and mature, you'll often be ignored because you don't have 'experience' (apparently being a bit older is all you need to make you au fait with the ways of the entire world). This creates a culture where debate is smothered, deference is idealised and abuse of authority is all too possible. When this is combined with the element of near-Freudian competition for the son between his wife and her mother-in-law, you get a situation where the same noxious traditions are perpetuated and one or two people can ruin the lives of an entire family.

No more! If you treat your children with respect, we can put a stop to the thinking that goes 'Now I'm an adult - my turn to treat younger people like crap.'

2) The idolising of male children. When I see this happening, it fills me with disgust. I want to slap fawning mothers around the face and cry: 'Look at your son. How DARE you be proud that he survived at university, when so many people's daughters have not only survived, but excelled themselves, cooking proper meals and managing to maintain basic standards of hygiene?'

People like my mother try and excuse what they do on the grounds of 'Boys are less mature than girls.' DEFEATIST BULLSHIT! Circulate a lie long enough, and it will become truth, as has happened here. My brother is studying to become a doctor and I have no idea what I'll end up as - maybe a teacher. However, he sponges off my parents, can't even feed himself and is incapable of realising even when he has to do chores for his own sake. I can cook, I always try to spend my own money and I respond to my mum's attempts to guilt me into doing more, by *gasp* doing more. It is manifestly unjust, but it is never going to change, because my mum will go on parroting the same crap at me.

It's pitiful actually, because when I point out the unpleasant truth to her, she looks at me and then starts asking ME to be authoritative. If she's smarting over him not calling home enough, I have to talk to him. Why? 'He listens to you.'

I have just realised how utterly ridiculous the situation has become. My parents have spoilt my brother so much and placed him above all of us girls so much, that he is now above the very female who gave birth to him. FAIL.

While it's true that women fulfill at least one function that their partners can't (breast-feeding), that should mean there is even more of a drive to balance out the inequality. Boys need their fathers. Not that girls don't, but we have seen the effects when boys don't have a stable father-figure to teach them respect for women. They trickle out into the sea of misogyny coursing through most cultures and societies, and get lost.

Let's have paternity/maternity leave turned into more of a 'lifestyle choice', please! ESPECIALLY for those with more than one child. The parents should take it in turns to spend time with the children, and hopefully they will have extended family on hand to give them couple time together.

I also feel that women should stop being forced to choose between their career and their kids. I agree with Lynn Barber who thinks that we shouldn't favour older mothers and for all the people collectively going 'Well, WTF?!' I think that maybe we should have a system like this:

Early childhood - Both parents present, but mother's presence greater (as is biologically required).

6+ - Both parents contribute in equal measure.

I propose we take Anna Ford's advice: stop being such ageist bastards and start having a slightly older workforce. I feel that husbands should take over as women get into, oh, I don't know, their 30s so that the women can go back to work and get back into a career first. Then the husband can follow. I mean, what's the problem? We're always being told how men improve with age (like George Clooney, for example), but somehow the same isn't applied to women. So why don't we take that as law, then, eh? If men really do improve with age, then they can go back into work later. Maybe have one partner work 3 days a week one week, and then swap it round the next? Why not?

Youth is overrated and I'm none too sure why on Earth we're all so obsessed with it these days. I mean, sure, fear of mortality and all that, but wtf is up with all this need for people to have 'achieved something' by the time they're 20 or whatever? Precocity needs the weight of experience, and that's why so much modern pop music isn't as good as it could be, for one. Indie bands in particular rarely seem to make it to a second album, and often even when they do, it's worse than the already-weak debut. Stop expecting classics at the drop of a hat, you impatient bastards! Classics take time! What really saddens me is that you don't even seem to get the 'great album/good-to-mediocre album' pattern any more; usually it's '65% good to 35% shit' and then '55% good to 45% wtf?!'.

The best performers tend to be those who've had time and freedom to develop. That's why, while the hype manufacturers crow about Adeles and Duffys and whoever-the-fuck-elses, I will wait quietly for another gem from Amy Winehouse (3 years between albums! And she's 25 now! SHOCK) or Róisín Murphy (two years AND SHE'S 35! Cue fainting fits).

We aren't idiots, us yoot, but we aren't visionaries either. TIME is the necessary ingredient as always. So please, popular media, stop writing us off and we'll get back to you.

Recommended Additional Reading.