I recently read an article in the news portion of salon.com titled GAY MARRIAGE and found some interesting points that the author of the article had to say. I had never began to think about the origins of marriage as a practice, but Laurie Essig tells her readers that as much as we may enjoy thinking about marriage as being a natural and universal practice, it is just an invention to maintain women oppression. She implies that it is merely a way to justify for women's labor being "confined and unpaid." I do not necessarily agree with Essig on this point completely because there are many successful, married women that do not fit the stereotipical image of the "household wife" doing all the labor at home and letting the man get paid and bring home the money.
Another idea that I found particularly interesting about this article is how Essig talks about freedom to do as one pleases. She says, "In the past, we queers have had to beg, cheat, steal and lie in order to create our families. But it's exactly this lack of state and societal recognition that gave us the freedom to organize our lives according to desire rather than convention." She actually thinks on the opposite end arguing that it is best not to have state recognition because it take away some power to live how they please rather than how the state and public believe they should live. She makes an interesting comment at the end of her article that she does not want the state in her bedroom, family, and neither should you. This article was extremely interesting to me, especially because of how much of a strong-minded person Essig is. I recomend that people take a quik look at it.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2000/07/10/marriage/index.html?CP=USE&DN=310
I think that is pretty interesting she does not want recognition. I have always wondered what the ratio of gay people who want recognition to those who don't is. It seems like a good article.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Essig's stereotype on the motives behind marriage are incorrect, many women continue to feel empowered and independent after they get married. That line was an extreme generalization and seems slightly outdated. I feel as though Essig had a bitterness in her tone throughout this section of the article.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny how people tend to suggest that marriage is the only legal form of slavery still around. In this article, Essig seems to follow that concept that women lose their independence when they marry. I disagree with Essig's point, women can still be independent after marriage; men aren't the only ones who can wear the pants in a family!
ReplyDelete