'... an institute you can't disparage'*

It would be something to raise children in a world that has no need for feminism. But since that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime (the world without feminism bit, not the children bit), I shall consider myself a success if I have raised my son to be a feminist.

In the meantime, I take heart from the fact that there are men like this woman's fiancé. He identifies himself as a feminist ... how many men do you see doing that, on any given day?

The article ties together two of my favourite topics for debate: marriage and feminism. It's going to be a long post, bear with me.

It shall have to begin with what the author states shortly into her article, '... there is no such thing as perfect when you are a feminist getting married.'

She's referring to the reactions of family, friends, colleagues, fellow-bloggers and feminists when they hear of her unconventional wedding plans (Among other things, no proposal, no ring, no white wedding gown).

From non-feminist acquaintances, the reaction has been one of utter bewilderment. Compounded on hearing that she intends to keep her last name (and here I was, thinking it had become more common and accepted). In a society where the rock-on-a-gold-rope and a white dress are the symbols of marriage and every girl is brought up to dream of being given versions of these two items for her very own, it is perhaps ... understandable, why they may react so.

After all, it's very hard for the Indian society to calmly accept a woman who does not choose to wear a mangalsutra or changer her last name when she gets married. As a feminist however, the questions that arise are the ones that I am asking when I read about such reactions: What is the need for symbols of marriage? And why does the onus of sporting them fall upon the woman? (I am also wondering why a diamond is the stone of choice for an engagement ring here. Anyone knows where the tradition comes from?)

Valenti goes on to talk about 'the misogynistic traditions that accompany marriage'. " have always thought of marriage as involving the loss of a certain amount of autonomy ... plenty of issues that continued to make me question marriage: the father "giving" the bride away, women taking their husband's last name, the white dress, the vows promising to "obey" the groom. And that only covers the wedding." she says.

Described that way, marriage does seem misogynistic. When the burden of keeping house and rearing children falls onto the woman alone, yes. But that is akin to saying parenting is misogynistic if you take into account that traditionally daughters have not had the opportunities and liberties that sons have been given. The way society has come to interpret marriage is, unfortunately, the way marriage is being defined these days.

Which is why there are feminists who voice disappointment at Valenti's wedding announcement for "seem[ing] to find flaws with patriarchy, but fail[ing] to find a way to bring it down".
And this is where I find myself parting ways with this sort of a feminist. I do not see marriage as a product of patriarchy. True, patriarchy has managed to assert itself in a manner that influences marriage. But marriage in itself was never a concept that was meant to cage women, in my very humble opinion at least. Marriage is about two people making a committment to each other. How they divide duties and responsibilities is therefore a product of their union, unique and very much their own. It is unfortunate that it has become the norm for the women to be the inferior partner in this institution while having to do the donkey's share. But it does not take away from marriage the chance that it can be different.

And that is why I am amazed at feminists who think of marriage as being patriarchal, misogynistic and anti-feminist. Feminism has always been about equality. About having choices and the freedom to choose. Feminism gave women the right to vote and the right to own property. It does not necessarily mean that every woman must/will vote (if you think voting is bounden duty, please read this), must/will own property, then it isn't so. Because both of those are still choices. A right, any right, is still a choice (Again, if anything is a must, it becomes restrictive itself, even if aiming to free). Therefore I do not see how marriage is an anti-feminist institution. It is a choice. To be made by an individual. Being married does not take away from the fact that one is a woman and/or a feminist. The two are not related, in my view.

Vetoing marriage in effect negates feminism. It is taking away the very essence of that ideology and taking women back to square one albeit by giving them a different set of must-dos.

The repercussions are that both marriage and feminism/feminists invite criticism. In trying to be independent, ambitious and emancipated, living up to the impossible ideals set by fanatic feminists, women might choose to be rigid and walk out of marriages which could well have been saved, bitter about the concept of marriage itself .


On the other hand, feminists (and here I am loosely grouping staunch feminists as well as those open-minded, liberal, independent and ambitious women who do not choose to identify themselves as feminists), are viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage. In reality, neither of them are mutually exclusive.

I am a feminist and I am most certainly going to get married. I won't need an alter-ego or a body double to juggle those roles.

*From Frank Sinatra's 'Love and Marriage', I rather think the line describes both feminism and marriage.