Wall of sound

Readers respond -- big time -- to our package on feminism and marriage.

Editor's note: We received many, many letters in response to our package on feminism and marriage, which included Amy Benfer's story, "I Do -- Kind Of," about feminists battling over what it means to walk down the aisle; and Jennifer Foote Sweeney's essay, called "None of Your Beeswax," in which she insists that feminists have better things to do than judge each other's feminist credentials. A selection of missives follow.

Aug. 24, 2001 | Oh boy!

A bunch of "feminists" ranting on the validity of marriage. As if their opinions and pronouncements actually meant something. When will they get it? No one is listening anymore. Get married, don't get married, hey, knock yourselves out. The real issue here, and a tragedy it is, is that millions of women and men actually gave the scribblings and rantings of these misanthropes any credibility in the first place. Millions of good relationships suffered for it. Of course, that was the point, wasn't it?

The simple fact is that today, feminism has about as much meaning to thinking people as restarting the Know-Nothing Party. And it has about the same future.

Equality is the key, and feminism was never about equality. It was always about power and politicizing every aspect of life.

Disagree? OK, if feminism is about equality, then what would you think of a movement officially known as "masculinism"?

Kinda turns the stomach huh?

When one opens their eyes, feminism produces the same reaction.

I think we are finally becoming free of the need for Steinem's or Faludi's or even Hillary's approval. We are learning that love, commitment, marriage and, yes, even kindness regularly triumph over identity politics, a fact that I am sure pisses off a lot of feminists.

Good.

Equality, not feminism, is at the heart of it.

-- Don Cicchetti

So this tiny group of self-styled cultural vanguards living on the Upper West Side of New York, in Boston and in the San Francisco Bay area -- legends in their own minds and in the minds of their favorite publishers -- actually work themselves into a frenzy talking about whether it's OK to get married. (Gloria Steinem is excepted in this group -- She IS a bona-fide legend.)

But away from this rarefied group, millions of American women are not only getting married -- they're taking their husbands' names! I'd like to know what the hell THAT is all about! Why are so many women still willing to literally throw away their identity and adopt their husbands' when they say "I do"?

This is the American reality -- not the precious opinions of Geller, Benfer and the people she is quoting.

-- Larry Letich

I am a feminist and I am married. I really enjoyed Amy Benfer's article -- and thought that I would explain my justification for marriage. There are many reasons why a "handshake deal" isn't a sensible way to run a business partnership, and most people understand why people wish to document their business deals. Marriages are not just about romantic relationships but also about buying property and raising children. The standard marriage contract can be regarded as the "standard form" for a heterosexal life partnership. Like many "standard form" contracts it has its weaknesses and increasingly people choose to vary the contract through pre-nuptial agreements.

For me, it seems prudent before investing a lot of time and effort in a relationship to ensure that both parties have similar expectations about how the relationship will be conducted, and what will happen if it fails.

-- Ingrid King

Any way you slice it, a wedding is an "orgy of female narcissism," as author Matthew Fitzgerald puts it. This characteristic is abundantly evident in Benfer's piece, as men are so nearly absent there as to come across as being merely the ultimate in fashion accessories.

The original feminist critique of marriage was that it was the social institution that oppressed women above all others. The campaign for equal treatment in the public sphere (i.e., work) was largely based on the notion that only through economic independence could women be free of the confines of marriage.

Well, the criticisms of marriage -- from a female point of view at least -- have all been dealt with over the last 30 or 40 years, to the point where marriage no longer places any obligations on the woman whatsoever. Marriage is now little more than "notarized dating" from the woman's viewpoint, as Brian Willats put it. So it's little wonder that supposedly liberated women can now enthusiastically embrace it, and wear white even if not entitled, so largely risk-free has marriage become for women. But female autonomy and self-indulgence are not the same thing.

The state no longer enforces the "contract" (except that many of the man's obligations are irrevocable, while he receives no rights in return) and allows one of the parties to abrogate the deal pretty much on a whim without any penalties and even with possible rewards. "Til unhappiness or a better deal do we stay together"...

Next page: Why marry a feminist and accept a life of certain misery?