"The women of Bikini Kill let guitarist Billy Karren be in their feminist punk band, but only if he's willing to just "do some shit." Being a feminist dude is like that. We may ask you to "do some shit" for the band, but you don't get to be Kathleen Hannah."--@heatherurehere


Thursday, March 01, 2007

Marriage and Privilege

Looks like Lauren over at Faux Real (perhaps the best blog name ever), formerly of Feministe, is getting married. Before Lauren left Feministe, one of my favorite parts of that blog were Lauren's forays into parenting and other parts of her daily life. When she'd take a break from more traditional feminist blogging stuff and talk about her son, I would often find myself more interested in the feminism to be found in that day-to-day life. One only has to look at a picture of the kid rocking out, or of him in his superman suit, to know that it must be pretty neato to have somebody as smart and caring as his mom seems to be. As a man who was raised by a proto-feminist mom, it was really interesting to hear Lauren's ideas and feelings surrounding her son.

I also started to enjoy Faux Real more than Feministe on some levels, mostly because it did contain more of Lauren's personal story. Her writing is still infused with feminist concepts and ideals, of course, but sometimes less overt conceptual analysis is more interesting, and more useful. It's one thing to discuss what it means to be a feminist, and it's a different sort of thing to talk about one's life as a feminist. The two aren't mutually exclusive, of course, and each is important, but at times I find the latter more interesting and emotionally engaging. To paraphrase William James: give me lots of theory, yes, I can always use theory, but give me lots of practice, too, because I can always learn from practice. Lauren's newest project, Help Us Help Ourselves (or HUHO) is right along these lines, implicitly dealing with feminism right where it intersects class.

and yet, I'm afraid I'm having a pretty knee-jerk reaction to Lauren's announcement of her wedding plans, and to the outpouring of congratulations that have come from the announcement. Let me try to be very clear here: I think my negative reactions are knee-jerk and simplistic. I think that Lauren and Chef, who obviously work hard on their relationship and are very mindful about the ramifications of marriage to them and to Lauren's son, deserve The Happy Stuff. My reaction isn't about invalidating Lauren's feminist credentials--my reaction is an angry, bitter reaction to the fact that privilege is oftentimes mindlessly heaped on people who decide to (and are allowed to) marry. I think credit is due to Lauren to being explicitly aware of this privilege.

I don't think that pairing off under the auspices of marriage is some sort of anti-feminist act in any general way. But I do think that the blindly-following-tradition sort of pairing off of one man and one woman sometimes do can be something that either ignores or goes against some feminist principles. One way that this can happen is when people get married for reasons of gaining some privilege. This desire to gain privilege isn't an all or nothing sort of thing. It doesn't even have to be a conscious act. The fact is that when you announce you're getting married, you get lots and lots of praise, in the form of formal-ish sorts of congratulations, but also in all sorts of other forms--tax breaks and more readily available health care are two that come immediately to mind.

If the gain of privilege is unavoidable in whatever ways, how should that factor into a decision to get married, or to not get married, if one is a feminist? How does one deal with the uncomfortable-ness that may come from having such privilege heaped onto you when all you want is to mark your love for somebody with an event? Perhaps a non-traditional wedding? But how nontraditional? What about eschewing some privilege by asking that wedding guests donate to groups which are helping to support gay marriage? What else might be done to resist the sort of automatic privileging that comes from being married?

9 comments:

geo said...

I can relate to this one rather personally! My partner B, a bisexual woman's prior 10 year relationship with "wedding" and two kids (B birthed them)that they are the parents of now was with L., a lesbian.

We are a hetero (on the surface) couple and I'm moderately "straight" or at least "straightish" (I had male lovers years ago).

B - is constantly aware of the rainbow flags and bumper stickers nearby and wanting to not be only amongst "straight people".

At times my feelings interfere with my thoughts and say: "I'm straight and I don't care about Gayness" and in moments resent the "intrusions" that occur. The feeling is: "you should be with a lesbian and I with a het woman if anyone at all" which I am resistant to on a thought level.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

"How does one deal with the uncomfortable-ness that may come from having such privilege heaped onto you when all you want is to mark your love for somebody with an event? Perhaps a non-traditional wedding?"

how about not getting legally married (at least, until such rights are extended to those of us who cannot marry legally)? (like brad pitt and angelina jolie)

how about a commitment ceremony that acknowledges explicitly the acts of privilege and challenges the community participating to address their own participations in the deprivileging of non heterosexual couple shaped families? (like, for example, the photos that aren't on the family mantel of the lesbian triad).

lex

Orion said...

I hear you anonymous, but realistically, the financial benefits of marriage are substantial, and many families would have trouble getting by without them.

If it were easy to live life unmarried, why would gay marriage be such a big deal?

Refusing to marry is a nice gesture of solidarity, but shouldn't be presented as the only moral option for progressives. Otherwise, you've just made morality a luxury reserved for those who can afford it.

Jeff Pollet said...

Geo--
As a straight-ish fellow who has had romantic relationships with not-so-straight-ish women over the years, I think I can empathize with you. I think those feelings come from (in part) intense social pressures more than from some inherent part of ourselves--social pressures that doing things like being a straight-ish man in a relationship with a not-straight-ish woman will help change.

Jeff Pollet said...

how about not getting legally married (at least, until such rights are extended to those of us who cannot marry legally)? (like brad pitt and angelina jolie)
Are you suggesting I marry angelina jolie and brad pitt? If only I wanted children, I might think about it. Maybe I could get them to adopt me?

On a more serious note, I think there are pluses and minuses regarding this first option you put forward; up until recently I thought it was probably the best option in general. But I think there is a concern that for some people (i.e. people of means) giving marriage up in this way is easier than for others, and that puts more of a moral burden on the people who aren't so well-off (as was part of Malachi's point, below). But also, as Dan Savage (of all people) pointed out, straights not getting married gives right-wing wackos more ammunition in a twisted way, by actually beginning to undermine the institution of marriage.

Not that I have any real problem undermining that institution, by the way.

I love the idea of a ceremony that acknowledges explicitly the privilege going on. I like that very much. Would you say a legal marriage which has that sort of ceremony is better than not getting married at all?

Jeff Pollet said...

Malachi--
I think bringing class into this discussion is a good move, but I do want to point out that the 'gesture of solidarity' is in part a good gesture specifically because the benefits to getting married are so great...solidarity when you don't have to give much up doesn't carry as much weight as solidarity that costs you.

Still, I agree that this shouldn't be the only moral option (and I don't think that the way lex put things, she thinks that either, though I may be wrong). That's part of what I was aiming at in asking the questions.

Mollygrrl said...

Actually marriage isn't much of a financial benefit until you consider things like adoption rights, beneficiary information (which defaults to the spouse first, parents second and if you specify anyone you want), adding on to health benefits, car insurance, and sharing debt/finances. There is a miniature tax benefit as well, but that only holds if you file your taxes *together*, you get totally screwed if you file separately.

It also is very dependent on what state you get married in (some states getting married means you share *everything* while others it's more or less a piece of paper and you have to specify other stuff).

That said, I personally have issues with the institution of marriage above and beyond GLBTQ rights: I don't think the state should have *anything* to do with our personal lives. But that said, I had much the same reaction as jeffington Jeffness.

A few years back someone I was very serious with's parents asked us if we were planning to get married (we were at the time planning to move in together): we talked about it and I said flatly, Not until everyone can. Period. The kicker was the people we were saying this to were his parents; a retired ELCA (Lutheran) minister and his wife.

This turned into his currrent activism within the ELCA trying to educate the people in his parents parish on gay rights through discussion of beliefs instead of outright quoting Levicitus (which, btw, is thrown out with much of the rest of the old testament as soon as Jesus comes on the scene).

Beyond that, I think that we *do* need to take a political stance on this issue. But there are other problems: common law marriage, for example: if you live with someone for more than 3 years in most states, you're common law married (in Wisconsin, I believe its 7, but everywhere else that I've lived it's been 3). That has the same kinds of implications of marriage in that state, but excludes gay and lesbian relationships and other domestic partner arrangements (such as me and my roommate adele who has lived with me for nearly 4 years).

Its a can of worms, but for me it really boils down to privacy and making knowing decisions on who I will be a benefit/financial burden to. Its filling out the mountain of paperwork consciously: who is your beneficiary, who knows about your living will, etc. The state has a shorthand method for that which we call marriage, and since we exclude and have historically excluded many people from that (lower classes, specific sets of immigrants, not to mention african americans and gays) I personally want nothing to do with it.

-m

Dark Daughta said...

I appreciate this. As a queer woman who did relationships with wimmin for most of my adult life and as someone who has been in a cross gendered relationship for many years and who tried to build an intentional urban community as a way to resist coupled nuclearity I think you ask good questions. I commented a few days ago about encountering feminists who understand themselves as critical who gush about weddings and white dresses. I myself decided to garner some privilege and social camo by doing a city ceremony. There were no rings, there was no white, there were no family members because my partner and I understand our relationship and the affection we share to be really different from a public validation of compulsory heterosexuality in ritual form. Thank you for asking brave questions.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the words, dark daughta. I'd love to hear more about your decision to garner some privilege--it's pretty obvious that you hold some complex opinions, which I appreciate in a person. I'll look around your blog for some of that discussion, because my intuition tells me you've talked about that already!