Comments on: Marriage and neurotic feminists

By: Steynian 349 | acorn 8

Steynian 349 | acorn 8 — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:34:13 +0000

[...] MARRIAGE & NEUROTIC FEMINISTS, by Andrea Mrozek: “How do you morph a centuries old traditional institution [...]

By: Steynian 349 | know thy congressman

Steynian 349 | know thy congressman — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:52:02 +0000

[...] MARRIAGE & NEUROTIC FEMINISTS, by Andrea Mrozek: “How do you morph a centuries old traditional institution into [...]

By: Matthew N

Matthew N — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:02:47 +0000

Thanks Mrs. Lu. The strange thing is, for some reason everyone who mistakes me, mistakes me for an Andrew. What’s up with that? This is the first time someone has done so who hasn’t seen me though.

By: Mrs.Lu

Mrs.Lu — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:41:56 +0000

Sorry,Matthew, I don’t know what fickle brain bubble made me call you Andrew!

By: Mrs.Lu

Mrs.Lu — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:15:08 +0000

Andrew, you are a thinker of great clarity.

By: Matthew N

Matthew N — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:28:29 +0000

If marriage is so wrought with sexism and inequality, then what benefit is there really in trying to “make it your own”? What even draws you to it? One can easily make up their own institutions surrounding the legal basis.

The fact that is peeking shyly behind the contempt in this person’s writing is that there is something good about marriage that some people are forced to hate (and mischaracterize) because of the philosophical positions they’ve taken. They think that they can still have the same thing, though they besmirch its purity.

I also find her desire to see this “institution of oppression” become more inclusive to be highly ironic.

I believe individual marriages fail because of the individuals, and succeed because of the requirements of the institution. If you believe marriages succeed because of the individuals and fail because of the requirements of the institution, then WHY do you want to be yoked under such an institution? The cognitive disonance is puzzling.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:53:40 +0000

Gee, I hope this person and her fiance will not think of owning a house or a car until people everywhere have the right to a house and a car.

By: SarahB

SarahB — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:27:09 +0000

Maurader, you said it well and I have only one thing to add: Andrea, I think you were supposed to write “womyn,” not “girl.”

By: El

El — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:44:43 +0000

Oh dear!

“There is no such thing as perfect when you are a feminist ~~getting married~~.”

Fixed.

By: Marauder

Marauder — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:13:19 +0000

I’m for gay marriage, and I think the whole “we won’t get married until gay people everywhere can get married” thing is dumb, dumb, dumb. It’s not like it accomplishes anything. No one’s going to exclaim, “Oh my God, Jessica Valenti and her boyfriend won’t get married until gay people can? We’ve got to change those laws right away, guys!”

People who think marriage is “an institution so wrought with sexism” shouldn’t bother getting married.