Married people stupid and backwards
Catherine Deveny unleashes a torrent of anti-marriage arguments on Fairfax Digital today.
I AM against gay marriage. I’m against straight marriage. I’m against marriage full stop. Why are we hanging on to this relic of an anachronistic system (which still reeks of misogyny and bigotry),
Ms Deveny seems to be arguing that women who choose to marry are somehow being duped into a life of servitude and an early death.
Weddings and marriage are spin-doctoring propaganda to maintain social order. Which is code for ”making sure the blokes are running the joint while women are oppressed and conned into doing the majority of the unpaid domestic and emotional heavy lifting” (and a hefty whack of the income earning as well). Married men live longer than single ones. Unmarried women live longer than wives. Girls, read the fine print and ask yourself: ”What’s in it for me?”
And just in case you thought that there may be some arguments to be made for marriage, Deveny dismisses them thus.
I don’t judge you if you have an ownership ceremony. I do laugh at you behind your back when you defend it with hilarious and irrational rhetoric.
Seeing as Ms Deveny declared that she isn’t, never was, never will be married, I’m not quite sure why she feels so outraged by the choices of others. Her arguments against marriage are selective in their treatment of statistics and put up some very lame straw men for her to knock down.
Although marriage is an old institution there’s no reason to accept that a modern marriage must be defined by all of the traditions that have come before, however there’s also no reason to accept that people can’t be happy in one that is.
Disclosure: I recently celebrated my 10th wedding anniversary, and so did my wife.
Disclosure: I recently celebrated my 10th wedding anniversary, and so did my wife.
That sentence leaves quite a lot of room for conjecture, Dave. : )
Well, yeah. What’s her problem?
Should I have added a Boom-Tish to the end monkeywrench?
Tomorrow I celebrate my 10th year of stupidness and backwardness. I will wear a tin hat in honour of Catherine.
As usual, in Deveney’s quest to be controversial/entertaining/the Andrew Bolt of the left, she makes a reasonable point in a completely unreasonable way. I entirely agree that marriage is an anachronistic institution, and as an institution tends towards entrenching certain gender roles and male dominance (which is not to say that these things occur in every marriage, because obviously they don’t).
I think it’s unfortunate that the only formal recognition of a committed relationship we have is through an institution with, let’s face it, an awful lot of baggage. Unlike Catherine, I completely understand why people get married and have nothing but support (not to mention admiration) to offer. But I also understand her reservations, and wish that there was some alternative.
My wife tells me I’m very happily married — who am I to argue….
I’m sure – (I hope) – it will come as quite a surprise to my wife that I’ve been oppressing her for the last 17 years.
If I was feeling uncharitable I’d say perhaps Catherine’s objection to marriage stems from the fact that no-one has asked her.
Isn’t Deveny in a longterm relationship that has produced children? There are plenty of reasons why someone might not want to be married – speculating as to why is just that: speculation.
Interestingly her wiki page cites PP as a reference for this sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Deveny
Girls, read the fine print and ask yourself: ”What’s in it for me?”
Well they get to play dressup with their friends and husbands for a day and get some treasured photos for the rest of their lives. They also get treated differently by society (yes prejudice exists in real life!). And finally they and their partners get to declare their love and respect of each other in front of their closest friends and relatives.
Its a memory I cherish and I expect Ms Deveny probably is only spouting sour grapes because no one was foolish enough to go through one with her.
Oh and as a bonus Ms Deveny you get a slightly lower lifespan which for you should mean less time to be lonely and bitter, so please don’t ever contemplate it.
Should I have added a Boom-Tish to the end monkeywrench? Please, spare my sides.
While I love to see Caz D or anyone else take down people or institutions that desperately deserve it, I really don’t think this is it. As for ‘selective treatment’ of statistics, how about just plain false ones? Divorce rates climbing toward 50 per cent, my foot: just a couple of weeks ago the ABS confirmed divorce rates are still on the decline, as they have been most of the past decade.
And the marriage rate per capita is steady too, so it’s not as though being married is going out of fashion.
What you do see is an increasing majority of marriages being conducted in a civil rather than a religious context – implying that people seem to want to free the institution from its religious baggage. So Caz can rest easy on that one. I don’t think she’s bitter and twisted, like TimF I think she just doesn’t see the point in it. But I’d like to think the institution is evolving with the times.
(Disclaimer: My wife was married to the same person for 15 years and still is.)
As long as the govt dictates who one can or can’t marry then I don’t give a toss about the institution of marriage, it’s an anachronism.
Now, I’m married, my wife and have discussed it and we both reckon that the bit of paper is just that, we are committed to each other and we don’t need anybody else’s recognition. Until it’s up to consenting adults exactly who they marry (someone of the same gender or a relative????) I will feel this way about ‘marriage’
We know when it’s our wedding anniversary – My mum sends us a card
(Why did I get married then? good question, one I can’t be bothered answering right now, but the reasons are good enough)
Catherine obviously didn’t get an invite to someone’s wedding.
This discussion is way too upside down for me.
I thought it was the peace and brown rice mob that ditched the idea of marriage for living together and the conservative church-goers who looked at them with lowered bifocals and raised eyebrows.
(My own disclosure – twenty years in November. And I’ve already chosen the ridiculously expensive piece of jewellry that comes with it.)
Dave
Apart from upsetting those married people who seem to be happy with their lot, where has Catherine’s erred in her peice? Is she factualy wrong in some way? She is simply saying Marriage is an antiquated concept, and more importantly she is pointing out that she and others should not be classified by her marital state, surely she is correct in suggesting that it is no one else’s business whether she is married, in a relationship or not.
This piece seems to me to be antidote to the piece talked about yesterday http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/09/15/compared-contrasted-consumed/
And yes I am married, and happy but if we weren’t married we would be just as happy. Here’s a test, find a word to introduce your wife, with out using the word wife, and see how you go.
Deveny’s first argument is that the divorce rate is proof that marriage doesn’t work. She overstates the divorce rate, makes no mention of the fact that the divorce rate for first time marriages is much lower than the overall rate and ignores the recent stats which show the divorce rate has been dropping for close to a decade.
She then goes on to dismiss there being any reason for marriage beyond the four flimsy examples that she puts up as straw men.
Surlysimon,
Here’s a test, find a word to introduce your wife, with out using the word wife, and see how you go.
I’m assuming she has a name? You could always use that. Unless of course you married a female version of the The Artist Formely Known as Prince.
While there are some problems with this, I think some of it contains valid points. (Of course, SOME valid points in amongst some other poorly expressed things does not a good article make…)
I think it’s a common thing to get all outraged and say ‘but she consented to it!’, which ignores the deeper problems of a culture that is still sexist and a state that enforces heteronormative monogamous relationships with legal and financial incentives… it is perfectly valid to criticise the culture that leads to someone making the choice to get married… and fine to be outraged that others are lead to make this choice.
For the record, I support gay marriage now but hope that marriage will fade entirely when it’s ready.
What happens when Cath’s on holiday? A week of comfy anodyne opinions? All this burgherschrecken must be tiring…having to fire off a Bolt from the red every day…
So married people are backwards – that would be era elpoep deirram wouldn’t it?
Perhaps the recognition of same sex marriage would help put an end to the claims of misogyny and bigotry? We can only hope.
Dave
That’s her job and her right, that is to put up an argument, a discussion point, to simply accept that marriage as it is and not question it is conservative thinking surely? As to the reasons for getting married that she uses, in my experience she’s pretty much on the money.
And you haven’t managed to shoot down her assertion that she shouldn’t be classified by her relationship or lack there of. And while I am at it what about her point regarding the change of name at marriage?
Many of the things Catherine wrote of are traditions based on the notion of marriage as a property transaction with the woman being part of the property, and in the 21st century many of these traditions and conventions do need to be question.
Jossy
My question is more as to how you describe your relationship with her.
Just as with most of CD’s column’s – its all about her. Bottom line, no one forces you to get married. And those who choose to get married make it of their own free will (or they should – some cultures still have that arranged crap).
CD routinely likes taking a massive steaming turd on anything that riles her on a particular day. That’s why I consider her a “lifestyle” or “gossip” columnist rather than a serious commentator.
Been married for 10 years and we still have heated debates about issues – the one with the logical argument wins (and if my wife loses – she uses emotional blackmail tactics!!!!!)
surleysimon, I agree that Deveny raises some valid questions, but by indulging in hyperbole and using lame straw men this becomes more of a rant than a serious argument.
As to introducing my wife, it depends on how happy I was with her. If things are good I’d say she was Buster Boy’s (5yo) mother, otherwise I’d introduce her as The Troll Princess’s (3yo) mother.
“women who choose to marry are somehow being duped into a life of servitude and an early death.”
As a bloke wot who next year is staring down a celebration of a 40th wedding anniversary I’d like to say “fcuk off”, Catherine Deveny.
Me and her have had rip roaring arguments about all things relevant and irrelevant. (And in situations where we both know how silly each of us are being.)
Me and ‘her indoors, who must be obeyed’ look forward to “a life of servitude and an early death” wot has apparently escaped us over the past four decades
… and do I suspect that Catherine was faced with one of those days where she had to fill up a column when she had no idea what to write about … and then proceeded to do exactly that?
Pedron,
I hope your jewellery is platinum. Or you could be traditional and give crockery.
These sort of articles are just internet hit drivers (I mean seriously look at the headline – that’s just designed to get married people to click on her article to giver her a piece of their mind). She’s already garnered over 140 comments for the article which judging by the number of comments on a quick perusal of other articles may well be the current National Times record.
If I was employed as a commentator I too would write crazy stuff to garner hits. Much easier to justify your paycheck to your employer when you can point at the amount of traffic your crazy articles are producing.
I agree with everything Deveney said in this article. I have been with my partner for over 7 years and I love her too much to ask her to marry me.
I think people saying she wrote this because she’s never been proposed to/married should maybe try not to be so petty just because they disagree.
Josh, just proves what a rag the National Times is going to be. This story which is much more important has just three comments:
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/australias-ugly-secret-we-still-warehouse-asylum-seekers-20090916-fqqe.html
Agree with Daphon @ 30. For all David Marr’s towering rhetoric about reviving a respected masthead, sadly the offerings are just news ltd lite.
Josh @ 28.
So spot on it’s painful.
Oh and as another disclaimer. Whilst I’ve fessed up to being a near 40 y.o. married old fart, I have a daughter who has chosen not to ‘marry’.
15+ years unmarried years later and having provided us old farts with a grandchild she’d probably have a few well chosen words to share with Catherine the Devine.
…and another ‘spot on’ lion stamp is awarded to ‘confessions’ @ 31.
I’m old enough to remember the launch of ‘National Times’ part the first.
Back then it was ‘Nation Review’ lite.
It’s a provocative argument. Marriage is, as Tim points out, accompanied by a lot of historical baggage. But so are a lot of our most prized institutions. Haven’t we got to the point where we can get beyond that? Ok, it used to be that marriage was a way of establishing property rights, but surely we have evolved beyond that. Nowadays, most people simply see it as a public forum for declaring their love for, and commitment to, another person. What is so regressive about that?
There are aspects of marriage and weddings that still need to be renegotiated to keep pace with this kind of social function. Allowing gay couples to marry is for me the very least of these. Other, more cosmetic issues such as the woman taking the man’s surname are, to my mind, problematic, but those are not any reason to do away with the whole institution of marriage, any more than the
Jessica Valenti, the American feminist, wrote a really interesting piece about feminist reactions to her engagement, as well as her and her partner’s efforts to make the wedding/marriage process their own. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/24/feminist-wedding-jessica-valenti
Also, about the divorce rate argument: this strikes me as a particularly blatant red herring. If we didn’t do anything because there’s a decent chance we would fail, we would never enter into romantic relationships at all, or for that matter start a uni course, try to run a marathon, take up skiing or the piano, write a novel…
Accidentally deleted half a para. Never mind.
Lucy (happily unmarried; thinking about waiting for full gay marriage rights before I take the plunge, subject to discussion with partner on the matter)
well, it’s worked, hasn’t it? 36 comments so far…
Daphon, the jewellry involves chocolate pearls and BIG diamonds. Screw tradition!
37
Pedro, I’d marry you for 20 years if that’s what I got at the end of it!
In retrospect, getting all your friends, rellies and various hangers on together in the one room, standing in front of them and saying “We really mean this” means an awful loss of face if you muck up.
All relationships have rocky patches. You fall out of love and wonder why on earth you’re with that person, but you soldier on ‘cos you were silly enough to tell all those people you meant it. Then, luckily, you fall back in love again and wonder why you ever thought it was all over.
My partner once described marriage as ‘glue, but not super glue’ – it helps you stick together, but you know that it’s not indissolvable, and that’s good too.
(I think we’re at about the 28 year mark).
I’ve heard the secret to a happy marriage is driving down to the gate to pick up your wife in a hurricane. I believe this to be true.
Glad to see that you have looked at stupidity from a leftist to task in your piece Dave, must be a first for this site {Juvenile emoticon removed — Scott}
Well done!
Iain
So you think marriage is a good thing yes? Ready to share it with same sex couples yet?
Thought not
I note a whole heap of ad hominem and only passing attempts to take Deveny’s argument apart in this thread. Utterly pathetic. Some standouts:
Confessions@7:
“Interestingly her wiki page cites PP as a reference for this sentence:
‘Rumors of a mental illness were created by insecure men not able to cope with a woman who has an opinion, a sense of humor and is doesn’t spend her life googling people.’”
Nice implication. I seem to recall that Bolt took a shot at her in fairly similar fashion.
twobob@8:
“Its a memory I cherish and I expect Ms Deveny probably is only spouting sour grapes because no one was foolish enough to go through one with her.
Oh and as a bonus Ms Deveny you get a slightly lower lifespan which for you should mean less time to be lonely and bitter, so please don’t ever contemplate it.”
Ah, the “she’s unattractive and undesirable” card. Outstanding, and a staple of right wing punditry.
C- for the lot of you. Could do better.
Disclosure: I’m married, too, so you guys can get off your high horses right now.
Mr Surly
My opinion on Gay marriage is well known and I don’t resile from it by even the smallest iota, however it is just not relevant to the topic of Dave’s post here quite simply Deveny’s piece is all about Heterosexual marriage, players for the other team and their agenda are entirely off topic.
Actually Iain, Deveny places Gay marriage in the mix in her opening paragraph.
“however it is just not relevant to the topic”
It’s relevant to the reason that marriage is a crock (which is the topic), after all it discriminates against those who don’t fit the ‘image’ of what dinosaurs consider a committed couple. Allow consenting adults to choose their partners from the massive pool of other consenting adults then it may be worth the paper it’s written on (to me that is).
“Ms Deveny probably is only spouting sour grapes because no one was foolish enough to go through one with her.”
But there was someone foolish enough to marry you!
no 42: my noting that was in recognition of Deveny’s neat takedown of Bolt’s (and Blair’s -let’s be honest here) disgraceful attempts to ridicule her. Obviously you aren’t familiar with the PP thread Deveny’s comment came from (the one I highlight, and the one in wiki), otherwise you would’ve seen the comments I made in response to Bolt/blair. A giant FAIL on your part Mephistopheles. If you want to mischaracterise others you had better be sure of the ground you stake out.
Oh and I note you’ve disingenuously omitted the first para of my comment where I rebuke the very same attacks from others. Another fail.
In your opinion. As Rob says the failure to recognise marriage other than between a man and a woman is one of the reasons why the institution is seen by many as anachronistic.
Point conceded on Deveny’s opening Dave , I read the piece yesterday and it I was commenting from my poor memory of the piece.
However Gay marriage is hardly the focus of her argument now is it?
RobJ
It seems to me that those who are so vehemently anti marriage are the poor sad sacks who can’t make a go of any sort of commitment, unusually because they are too selfish and uncompromising.
“It seems to me that those who are so vehemently anti marriage are the poor sad sacks who can’t make a go of any sort of commitment,”
I’m happily married, committed and monogamous myself, and I’m not against marriage, I’m against the bigoted discriminatory constraints put on marriage by the state! Please, pay attention!
“I was commenting from my poor memory of the piece.”
More like your inability to comprehend!
“selfish and uncompromising.”
perfectly sums up your stance on gay marriage. LOL