American University of Beirut
Spring 2012 - 2013
Response to "Marriage and Love" by Emma Goldman
"Marriage and Love", an article by Emma Goldman tackles the issue of marriage and the notion of free motherhood. Goldman argues that "love" and "marriage" are two concepts that simply can 't go together. She states that love has the ability to liberate its subject, empower him. However, marriage does quite the opposite; it’s an "economic arrangement", an "insurance pact", which traps the women and reduces their role to simply being objects owned by their husbands. According to Goldman, marriage is an institution condemned to failure. It 's born out of traditions, convenience and public opinion; certainly not out of love. Once married, …show more content…
The author decided to eliminate the possibility that such kind of marriages exist. However they do exist because I personally witnessed a good amount of them, including my parents ' marriage. The author goes on to reinforce the idea of "free motherhood". She stresses that women should not be "degraded to a mere machine". I agree with Goldman that women have the right to decide on the number of children they want and when they want to have them. However, she states that marriage is used as a way to force the women to have children, as a way of preserving the race. I don’t agree with that simply because a good marriage won 't force the woman into such a thing. Other married women might have suffered from that, however they are the exception not the rule. She states that a woman "desires fewer and better children, begotten and reared in love and through free choice; not by compulsion, as marriage imposes." However, a woman can have her free choice while being married. Marriage gives her the right to choose that she doesn 't want children right away and decides to wait instead. "Free motherhood" shouldn’t be exclusive to unmarried women.
In conclusion, I strongly agree with the author about protecting women 's rights and privacy. However, I find myself disagreeing with her when she
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
God created marriage as a union between man and woman. A woman, while still having a mind of her own and control over her own life, is under the authority of her husband. This frightens some women, who fear oppression at the hands of their husbands. While it is true that some men abuse the system that God set up for man and woman, not all men act as such. The Bible states monogamy is what God laid down as a foundational law of marriage,
The book has a section entitled, “Marriage is traditional” and in that particular section it mentioned about how “marriage has changed over time.” When examined current day marriage trends show that people are looking for partnership or soul mates, not for the most traditional reasons of the past. The idea that one person is supposed to be with one person for the rest of their life is no longer relevant. It is possible to have many happy years with one person, but that does not mean that these people will die together. People can have a falling out. Situations change—people do grow. If people stayed stagnant their whole lives, where would society be? With the way
In the play Tartuffe, Molière portrays marriage in a unique way. He expresses a different perspective on marriage that most people would disagree with. In the play, marriage never seems to base around love but rather seems to be a very serious part of their life. Mariane submits to her father because during this time period the father was able to choose whom his daughter would marry. This submission is not based on love but rather who her father enjoys the best. It puts a great deal of pressure on the father to make the right decision. Marriage to Tartuffe would have caused Mariane a lifetime of discontent and it would have also associated the
If one does not require a marriage for their love to grow or even transpire, then why do it at all and for what purpose? With a look at “The Arranged Marriage” by
Stephanie Coontz is a sociologist who is interested in marriage and the change in its structure over the time-span as love became a main proponent of the relationship involved in marriages. In her article, “What 's Love Got to Do With It,” Coontz argues that the more love becomes a part of the equation the less stable the institution of marriage becomes. Marriage at one point was a social contract that bound two families together to increase their property and wealth as well as ally connections. Each party entered into the contract knowing their roles and if one partner failed to meet the expectations, they were still contractually obligated to one another and were not allowed to divorce. As love became part of the equation, each partner was less sure of their obligations and often chose to end their marriages if at all possible.
Marriage has always been a convoluted subject to every era of time, especially when wealth is brought into the equation of it. During the Romantic Era, the state of marriage illustrated women’s continued inequality in society. For instance, women lacked legal equality once they entered marriage due to coverture, which is the condition of a woman during her married life, when she is under the law of being the authority of and protection of her husband. This basically entails that once a woman marries, she is property of her husband. In later decades, women would make great strides to gain legal recognition. However, during the late eighteenth century, Romantic feminists voiced more practical concerns rather than that of law (Feldman 280). Before the nation could acknowledge women as equals, husbands must first accept their wives as true partners in marriage. This was considered not only logical, but practical. Feminists located one of the sources of inequality within women’s own behavior and the methods they employed to gain husbands. Women had been taught to use beauty and love to attract husbands, but beauty and love are only temporary states. These states do not establish a solid foundation for a lasting marriage. As illustrated in Jane Austen’s novel Emma, a successful marriage is founded upon the match between two personalities, and not upon looks.
Marriage has been a heated controversy for the past few years because people often marry for the wrong reasons. Anyone who thinks of an ideal marriage would think of two people loving each other and sharing a personal bond or goals together. Marriage is regularly defined as the legally or formally recognized union of two lovers as partners in a personal relationship. This definition remarks there is an actual connection between two people in marriage, but do people actually consider this when committing to “love” and “support” their partners forever? As research and studies have shown, people ultimately get married for many reasons, except love. This philosophy can be easily applied to the short poem, “Marriage” by Gregory Corso. In this emotional poem, the author argues marriage is more effectively understood or known for culture and convenience rather than through the abstract considerations of love. Here, we can identify people generally decide to marry for the incorrect reasons, for instance the story of the author himself. Corso finds himself confused multiple times, wondering if he should marry to not be lonely, for tradition and for his physical and mental health. He disregards love, a relationship or a connection with his future wife. General ways of convenience like loneliness, health and economic status between cultural stereotypes and religion are usually the true reasons of why people chose to have the commitment of marriage with another person.
The article “About Marriage” was about a how the author Danielle Crittenden, felt about the importance of marriage then and now. The author preached that marriage is not as much of a priority in life as it once was. Throughout the passage, she seems to support the idea of marriage and supports it with several things she has done herself in her own marriage. Danielle Crittenden is a well accredited columnist from the New York Post and the founder of Women’s Quarterly.
When it comes to marriage, we expect the fairy tale story that we grew up watching on tv and reading in books; stories such as Cinderella, Snow White, or Aladdin. We’re convinced that marriage will solve our problems. We have the false conception that marriage will bring us the perfect white picket fence, 2.4 kids and a nice dog; that our husband/wife will be ideal, and that we’ll live happily ever after. In the story The Sorrowful Woman by Gail Godwin; modern marriage is portrayed as the perfect fairytale that went horribly wrong. Godwin’s protagonist “The wife and mother” can be described as selfish and self-centered due to her unwillingness to conform to the fairytale that she finds herself resenting.
Emma Goldman’s main claim is that love and marriage are not the same. She justifies this through explaining that majority of marriages taking place at this time are occurring simply for the couple to meet public expectations. A bulk of the marriages are not based on love and therefore, love cannot continue to grow throughout the length of the amalgamation. There are few cases where love thrives in married life and under these circumstances, it would have done so regardless of marriage. Goldman asserts that one would be able to compare an insurance policy to marriage except instead of paying money the women sacrifice her freedoms. While one would be able to refuse to pay for insurance it would prove to be much different in regards to marriage as a woman abandons her own life to become an attachment to her husband. While marriages also impacted husbands, their sphere was still broader than the common housewife who was confined to their own private sphere. Goldman makes it clear that marriages were just another form of oppression for women in comparison to free love. At this time it was ultimately a woman’s job to marry a man and give herself to him while simultaneously giving her already limited freedoms away.
The book, Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, was written by two professors of sociology, Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, who were studying the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. Their goal in this book is to address the typical rationale many Americans have in regards to the decisions made by women of this specific socioeconomic status. They start by stating, “Many Americans believe a whole host of social ills can be traced to the lapse in judgement that a poor, unmarried woman shows when she bears a child she can’t afford.” They then continue with the “solution” that the mainstream society believes is for them to “wait to have children until they are older and more economically stable, and they should get married
Avril Lavigne revealed her split with Chad Kroeger ending their two years of marriage on her Instagram account on Wednesday. The Canadian-French singer shared the sad news along with their wedding photo which made it more dramatic.
In the past, marriage is a necessary process of life. It was very unusual for people to delay marriage or stay single for their whole life. Marriage was just like a custom that everyone needed to follow. However, according to the research of Anderson and Payne (2016): “In the mid-1950s, the median marriage age at first marriage was at a record low of just over 20 for women and 22 for men, but by 2014, the median age is 27.9 for women and nearing 30 for men (p.1)”. The data shows that there is an apparent late marriage tendency, which means that American people delay their marriage about six years later than 50 years ago. There is a Chinese old saying that marriage is the tomb of love, which shows young people’s hesitation and fear of marriage. What caused this trend? Why has marriage become less attractive today? Is it a phenomenon that happened by accident or an inexorable trend that is happening all over the world?
Marriage is a union that has been around for as long as humans have walked the earth. The human race depends upon the union of its members, and as such, the subject of marriage has been an issue that receives more intense scrutiny and attention than many would likely believe. In today's day and age, with humanity continuing to move in a modern direction, many argue that marriage is a union that should be entered into freely and should be based exclusively on the love between two people. However, I argue that arranged marriage, which has taken place throughout the ages and throughout the world, is a union that offers its observers a marriage based in support, longevity and love, and is an institution that should not be frowned upon.
Today, the idea of marriage conjures images of bashful brides beautifully draped in all white, of grandiose flower arrangements climbing towards the ceiling, of romance personified. As an institution in this modern world, marriage represents the apex of romantic love, with an entire industry of magazines, movies, and television shows devoted to perpetuating marriage as an idealized symbol of the ultimate love between two people. Contrarily, as a sociological institution, marriage comes from much more clinical and impersonal origins, contrasting with the passion surrounding modern understandings of the institution. Notably, french anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss theorizes that the institution of marriage emerged from a need to form alliances between groups, with women functioning as the property exchanged so that such alliances could be solidified (Levi-Strauss).