Uh oh. Just what we need to give fuel to the anti-feminist fire:
A new political party in Sweden says it will abolish marriage if it gets into power.The Feminist Initiative, which expects more than 20% of the vote in next year's election, claims marriage "is not about love, but about ownership".
FI founder Tiina Rosenberg, said: "Instead of marriage we want to promote a co-habitation law that ignores gender and allows more than two people in a partnership."Huh. Clearly there are many problems with the institution of marriage--namely its history of misogyny, and here in the U.S. its unavailability to same-sex couples--but is this really the way to go? People want to get married; we’re frigging wedding obsessed!
I can just see the MensNewsDaily headlines now...sigh.
Any thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Swedish political party wants to ban marriage.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/2587
9 Comments
Leave a comment
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Just a thought-
There's a big difference between "ban" and "abolish"
there is a solution to this entire problem that I NEVER hear discussed. Take marriage out of the hands of the state. Make it such that it is not a privilege, but rather a private contract between two parties, that must be created using the same standards (disclosure, consideration, etc) as any normal contract.
This alteration would make the entire "same sex" issue, and many other problems with regards to marriage, dissapear.
personally, i think this is awesome - it takes marriage (as jjs said) out of the hands of the state and lets people get married religiously as much as they would like. it seems like so many marriage benefits, at least in the u.s., are given without really needing to be limited to a marriage relationship, such as the ability to own joint property or hospital/prison visiting issues. these benefits could be reassigned to reflect the reality of many people's lives and complex relationships. now maybe we can all form "queer kin" and make our own families not structured around some nuclear ideal... ah well, i can dream, right? (for more, check out "the trouble with normal" by michael warner, as i'm loosely cribbing his argument and definitely not doing it justice)
I think the thing is, it should not be considered as the abolishment of marriage. but the fact is, as epi said, there is no freaking reason why marriage should be the only contractual way for people to create the legal bonds and benefits that go with marriage. Marriage, in many ways is a religious doctorine. Let catholics define marriage as they see fit. let fundamentalists have their marriage. Let athiest lesbians form a union that is legally recognized that is right for them. Af for this last union, the fact is a fundamentalist christian will never call that a marriage... which means that a large part of the usa population will never consider it a marriage. who gives a flying fyck?? What matters is that people are able to make the choices about their own lives and enter into the relationships, legal or otherwize, that they choose to be apart of.
The crazyness about calling it "marriage" or whatever, is really in my opinion just a cultural superstition.
I don't have a problem with it - it has been functioning as ownership. The Mosuo of China don't have marriage, and they do just fine.
The state needs to either get into marriage fairly or get out altogether. I'd be in favor of a "statement of familial intent" where you designate whom you choose as a spouse and whom you will consider your legal children, whom will have inheritance rights, etc. It combines marriage and adoption, it could be completely fair and open to anyone, in any combination.
I'm also in favor of getting rid of all of the advantages given to married people. Have everyone file individual tax returns, keep credit records etc. separate. Then, if people want the "sacrament" of marriage, that's up to them and their religion, but the state gives no preference for it.
I think the real problem here is the use of the term feminist in the name of the party. Whatever you think of marriage -- whether it acts as a pure partnership or an owner/property arrangement or something in between -- it is an important concept to a lot of people. What people are going to see here is not FI's argument, but "Oh, no. Would you look at those wacky feminists? Now they want to get rid of marriage."
As has been discussed on Feministing before, feminism doesn't need more of a bad rap. Remember the Adam Ash debacle? Even some people who are actually feminists won't call themselves feminists because they're scared of the word.
In Sweden they.....How little I care, it's their business!
In the US.
All the tax,property, medical, child, "advantages" cited by Homosexuals as a catylist supporting same sex marriage recognition are currently available to anyone, INCLUDING MULTIPLE PARTNERS.
All these same "pitfalls" of marriage, often cited by feminists, can be nullified by anyone involved.WITHOUT CIVIL COURT.
The main problem in these legal resolutions is they rely on a modicum of TRUST between contract assignees.
Any student with ONE YEAR of contract/civil law behind them that can't manage these WITHOUT A LICENSE to practice law(for about US$500) might reconsider their investment in their current course of study.*sheesh*
I think there is a big problem anytime progressive movements react to perceptions of themselves, rather than advocating what they know is right. Of course image can be important, but compromising on issues of substance in order to make sure feminism doesn't appear to radical, sucks the lifeblood out of the struggle. Feminists fear of being marginalized keeps big ideas from circulating, keeps movements from progressing.
In terms of marriage, I am opposed to it. Although I see gay marriage as strategic, I'm opposed to it. I took an exceprt of Matilda's(Matt Berstein) interview from last summer's Bitch magazine, where he talks about why s/he's opposed to gay marriage and marriage in general.
He says "And people ask all the time, "Can't marriage be a stepping-stone, a beginning?" My answer, of course, is no: Becoming part of a violent system that despises you is just a stepping stone to suicide and cultural erasure. If those are the goals, sure, marriage will get us there."
see the rest:
http://thetangential.blogspot.com/2005/08/real-marriage-debate.html
hey, y'all... ain't nothing wrong with radicalism.
i mean, really... there is a degree of truth to what these folks are saying... the nuclear family is the cornerstone of socioeconomic control for the ruling class - and it has been for a while. there is a whole library of criticism aimed at classic heterosexual relationships and the property values and violence subconsciously infused throughout the concept of marriage.
certainly, marriage is an important concept to a lot people, but then so is drinking alcohol... don't mean it's a good thing.
further, radical feminists should not have to feel guilty for stating their views clearly because more moderate feminists feel that all feminists will be labeled 'wackos' as a result.
so fucking what? people should silence themselves so that liberal feminists can feel more comfortable in their reformatory position within the dominant society?
i don't think so.
did the black panthers cool their heels so that the naacp could get on with less 'wacko' work? no. did they face harsh consequences? yes. did amazing changes come of their work? yes. that last part is the most important part.
if we're to move as a movement, we've got to embrace all aspects of the struggle, regardless of whether we agree or not. silencing other feminists is not productive or forward thinking.
who cares if feminism doesn't need more of a bad rap? sure, that's true, but should feminists (or anyone) be defining their agenda by what they think is right or by what their opponents think is right?
on a calmer note, Olympiada, their proposal does not in any way suggest the abolishon of committed relationships. they state clearly that they want to open up the concept of a state-recognized committed relationship, so your marriage that is still out there would still fall under their guidelines... the only difference is that they would take away the state's right to decide what is a 'valid' committed relationship and what is an 'invalid' one.
aight? nuff said.
peace and blessings.