Criticism of marriage

Critics of marriage argue that it is an institution which contributes to the maintaining of traditional gender roles, thus preventing women from achieving social equality, and reinforcing the idea that women exist to serve men, which in turn increases the abuse of women. They argue that marriage reinforces the traditional paradigm of male-female interaction: subordination of the woman to the man in exchange for subsistence. According to Sheila Jeffreys "the traditional elements of marriage have not completely disappeared in western societies, even in the case of employed, highly educated and well paid professional women."[16] She argues that even such women remain in abusive marriages out of fear of leaving and out of duty. Even in Western countries, married women "feel they have no choice but to stay and endure and may be 'loving to survive.'"[16]

Some commentators criticize government authorities for promotion of marriage. They also criticize the romanticized image that marriage is given in films and romance novels. Over 40% of books sold in America were romance novels.[17]

Some critics argue that people cannot form an objective image of what marriage is if they are from early childhood indoctrinated into believing marriage is desirable and necessary.[18][19]

Critics of marriage argue that this institution represents a form of state sponsored discrimination, in a generalized way against people who do not marry, and in a particular way against certain racial or ethnic groups who are less likely to marry and more likely to have children outside marriage, such as African Americans in the US - by stigmatizing such individuals, presenting their lifestyle as abnormal and denying them rights.[20] Dean Spade and Craig Willse write that:[20]

The idea that married families and their children are superior was and remains a key tool of anti-Black racism. Black families have consistently been portrayed as pathological and criminal in academic research and social policy based on marriage rates, most famously in the Moynihan Report.

A criticism of marriage is that it may lead to the social isolation of a person, who is often expected to diminish other relations with friends, relatives or colleagues, in order to be fully dedicated to their spouse. Julie Bindel writes that: "Maybe those at the most risk of ending up alone are not the folk who never marry, but rather the people who chuck all their eggs in one basket. [...] During their marriage, believing as they did that they only needed each other, both parties would have neglected friendships, or indeed, failed to cultivate new ones".[22]

Some critics assert that marriage will always remain a symbolic institution signifying the subordination of women to men. Clare Chambers points to the sexist traditions surrounding marriage and weddings; she writes:[23]

Symbolically, the white wedding asserts that women's ultimate dream and purpose is to marry, and remains replete with sexist imagery: the white dress denoting the bride's virginity (and emphasising the importance of her appearance); the minister telling the husband "you may now kiss the bride" (rather than the bride herself giving permission, or indeed initiating or at least equally participating in the act of kissing); the reception at which, traditionally, all the speeches are given by men; the wife surrendering her own name and taking her husband's.

The history of marriage in relation to women makes it an institution that some critics argue cannot and should not be accepted in the 21st century; to do so would mean to trivialize the abuses it was responsible for. Some critics argue that it is impossible to dissociate marriage from its past. Clare Chambers argues that:

(...) it is impossible to escape the history of the institution. Its status as a tradition ties its current meaning to its past".[23] Past abuses of marriage are sometimes depicted in documentaries. A documentary in Ireland presented the story of elderly women who described their experiences with repeated acts of rape in marriage and the children born from these rapes, during the time when marital rape was not criminalized, contraception, abortion and divorce were all illegal, and the marriage bar restricting married women's employment outside the home was in force. Marital rape in Ireland was made illegal in 1990, and divorce was legalized in 1996.[24]

Violence related to female virginity is considered a problem. In many parts of the world, it is socially expected for the bride to be a virgin; if the husband has sex with his wife after marriage and she does not bleed (it is common for a woman to not bleed when she has sex for the first time [25]), this can end in extreme violence, including an honor killing.[26][27]

The common view of marital life as "private" and outside the sphere of public intervention allows violence to flourish. Elizabeth Brake writes that "privacy" protects unequal divisions of domestic labor, domestic violence, and exclusion of health coverage for abortion and contraception."[28] Mary Lyndon Shanley writes that police often "ignore complaints of domestic violence because they do not want to "intrude" on the private realm of the married couple."[29]

Marriage has been criticized in its complicity of wives' economic dependence on husbands due to the gendered division of labour and that women's work typically pays less than men's work. Women are more likely to downgrade or drop out of their careers to assist in child rearing or when their career conflicts with their husband's. Absent a career, women become dependent on legally granted marriage benefits such as a husband's health insurance, and are thus increasingly dependent on their husband. This dependence can facilitate abuse because the marriage becomes economically difficult to leave.[30]

In some conservative cultures, married women are not allowed to leave home without the consent of the husband - a prohibition that is supported by the law itself in many of these countries. For instance, in Yemen, marriage regulations state that a wife must obey her husband and must not leave home without his permission.[31]

Historically, in many cultures marriage has been used to regulate sexuality, rather than consent regulating it. That is, non-marital sex was banned regardless of consent, while marital sex was an enforceable obligation. From the mid-20th century onward, changing social norms have led to, among other things, the decriminalization of consensual non-marital sex and the criminalization of marital rape. These changes are not universal around the world, and in many countries they have not occurred.[32] One of the concerns about marriage is that it may contradict the notion of sexual self-determination, due to cultural, religious, and in many countries also legal norms. For instance, sex outside marriage is still punishable by death in some jurisdictions. In 2014, Amnesty International's Secretary General stated that "It is unbelievable that in the twenty-first century some countries are condoning child marriage and marital rape while others are outlawing abortion, sex outside marriage and same-sex sexual activity – even punishable by death."[33]

In various places, men have sexual authority over their wives, in law and in practice. The men decide when and where to have sex, and wives have no power to stop unwanted sex. In certain countries marital rape is legal, and even where it is illegal it is infrequently reported or prosecuted. Often, married women also cannot stop unwanted pregnancy, because in various countries modern contraception is not available, and in some countries married women need legal permission from their husband to use contraception (and even in countries where the husband's consent is not legally required in practice it is asked for), and abortion is illegal or restricted, and in some countries married women need the consent of their husband for abortion. Therefore, marriage leads to a situation which allows not only forced sex, but also forced pregnancy, and in some of these countries pregnancy and childbirth remain dangerous because of lack of adequate medical care. The effects of sexual violence inside marriage are exacerbated by the practice of child marriage; in 2013 an 8-year-old Yemeni girl died from internal bleeding after she was raped by her 40-year-old new husband.[34] Sheila Jeffreys argues that the very institution of marriage is based on the idea that heterosexual sex is the absolute right of the man and the absolute duty of the woman; that men are entitled to demand sex on their terms and to coerce sex, and women are not allowed to ever refuse it. Lack of economic opportunity means that wives have no choice but to "allow sexual access to their bodies in return for subsistence".[16]

Another issue is the question of why relations that are (or are believed to be) sexual are favored in law with regard to legal protections and promotion, and those that are not (or are believed not to be) are not. This is especially the case as marriage rates are quite low in many Western countries, and the state has been criticized for ignoring other living arrangements that are not sexual relations; and there have been increased objections to legal concepts such as consummation or adultery that critics argue do not belong in modern law.[35][36] It is argued that with regard to family life, the state should regulate the parental rights and responsibilities of parents, not focus on whether there is an ongoing sexual/romantic relation between the parents.[35]

A criticism of marriage is that it gives the state undue power and control over the private lives of the citizens. The statutes governing marriage are drafted by the state, and not by the couples who marry under those laws. The laws may, at any time, be changed by the state without the consent (or even knowledge) of the married people. The terms derived from the principles of institutionalized marriage represent the interests of the governments.[37][38] Proponents of marriage privatization argue that private marriage prevents said state's undue power and control. For example, Michael Kinsley emphasizes marriage privatization's potential to end the controversy over same-sex marriage, as well as create equality between same-sex and straight marriage by removing official government sanctions for both.[39]

Critics of marriage argue that it is an institution based on control, domination and possession, and that attempting to exercise control over another person's life is immoral and dangerous, and should not be encouraged by the state. Claudia Card, professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writes that:[40]

The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other's persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse... Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem.

Anti-dowry poster in Bangalore, India. See dowry death

The United Nations General Assembly defines "violence against women" as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life." The 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women noted that this violence could be perpetrated by assailants of either gender, family members and even the "State" itself.[41]

Critics of marriage argue that it is complicit in the mistreatment and subjugation of women across the world. Common concerns raised today focus on the health and general well-being of women, who, in parts of the world, have virtually no protection in law or in practice against domestic violence within marriage. It is also nearly impossible for women there to get out of abusive relationships.[37][38] Abuses are upheld by claims of possession and entitlement in some cultures and the well-being of women is undermined by a powerful act of subordination.[37][38] According to Gerstel and Sarkisian, domestic violence, isolation, and housework tend to increase for women who sign marriage contracts.[42] Those with lower income draw even fewer benefits from it.[42] Bad marriages, according to Gerstel and Sarkisian, result in higher levels of stress, suicide, hypertension, cancer, and slower wound healing in women.[43]

Opponents of legal marriage contend that it encourages violence against women, both through practices carried out within a marriage (such as beating and rape inside marriage - which are legal in some countries and tolerated in many more), and through acts related to marital customs (such as honor killings for refusing arranged marriages; forcing rape victims to marry their rapist, marriage by abduction; or executions for sex outside marriage).[44] In some parts of the world, the extreme stigma cast on women who have reached a certain age and are still unmarried often leads these women to suicide.[45] Suicide is also a common response of women caught in abusive marriages with no possibility of leaving those marriages.[46][47] Women who are faced with the prospect of forced marriage may commit suicide.[46][48][49][50] Violence and trafficking related to payment of dowry and bride price are also problems.[51][52] Dowry deaths especially occur in South Asia, and acid throwing is also a result of disputes related to dowry conflicts.[53]

In various countries, married men have authority over their wives. For instance, Yemeni marriage regulations state that a wife must obey her husband and must not leave home without his permission.[31] In Iraq, husbands have a legal right to punish their wives. The criminal code states that there is no crime if an act is committed while exercising a legal right. Examples of legal rights include: "The punishment of a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by law or by custom".[54] In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Family Code states that the husband is the head of the household; the wife owes her obedience to her husband; a wife has to live with her husband wherever he chooses to live; and wives must have their husbands' authorization to bring a case in court or to initiate other legal proceedings.[55]

Famous anarchist Emma Goldman wrote how marriage was not a love pact but an economic agreement that restricts men's and mainly women's freedoms. She criticized how wives were surrendered freedoms permanently for the sake of marriage, and how sexuality and child rearing outside of marriage is shamed.[56]

Marriage is a focus of many feminist concerns. Of these many cultural concerns include the fact that within many marriages women are generally expected to do most of the work in the home, even if they had careers outside the home. A more economic concern is that marriage may also foster economic dependence since women's work is underpaid and women are expected to downgrade their careers when their careers conflict with their husband's or with work in the home. Without appropriate finances women can become dependent on their husband's marriage benefits like health insurance.[30]

Some feminists have argued for the reform of marriage while others have argued for its abolition arguing it is entrenched in sexist cultural norms and a legal structure that promotes it.[30]

Within early Marxist texts there existed critiques of marriage. Friedrich Engels wrote how the origins of marriage were not for the purposes of love but instead for private property rights. Monogamous marriage became an institution to be the base of the family and solidify a system for the family to handle private property and its inheritance. Monogamy would later spur on adultery and the business of prostitution.[57]

In the book The Second Sex, author Simone de Beauvoir argues that marriage is an alienating institution. Men can become tied to supporting a wife and children and women can become dependent on their husbands, and children can become the target of rage when the stresses of marriage overwhelm their parents. She argues about marriage that "Any institution which solders one person to another, obliging people to sleep together who no longer want to is a bad one".[58]

Within Queer theory a critique exists that the legalization of same-sex marriage simply normalizes the cultured gender norms and economic inequalities of marriage into the LGBT community. Also that the normalization of marriage delegitimizes non-monogamous relationships which are considered common in the LGBT community.[30]