Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:08:39.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marriage and Bourgeois Respectability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2010

Lori Jo Marso
Lori Jo Marso
Affiliation:
Union College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Feminist critics of the institution of marriage point to its tendency to reproduce and solidify a gendered division of labor, norms of dependency and protection, and mandated monogamy. While I support the feminist call for a decoupling of state benefits, such as rights to health care and legal proxy, from the institution of marriage in light of discrimination against same-sex couples who are denied the right to marry, in this essay I draw attention to a separate but related issue. I focus here on what I consider one of the most troubling aspects of marriage for feminists, one highlighted by Simone de Beauvoir in her classic and still timely critique of marriage in The Second Sex (1952): the fact that marriage automatically confers bourgeois respectability on its participants. Even as we oppose antigay marriage legislation and recognize that marriage can protect vulnerable parties by guaranteeing health care, equity upon divorce, tax benefits, and so forth, feminists must continue to refuse the bourgeois respectability that is so deeply linked with the institution of marriage. Having the state accord legitimacy to some kinds of intimate relationships and consensual sex, but not others, goes against basic ideas of feminist freedom articulated most convincingly, I argue, by Beauvoir. While arguing this position, however, I will also ask whether only the relatively privileged are able to refuse the bourgeois respectability that marriage promises.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 145 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beauvoir, Simone de. [1952] 1989. The Second Sex. Trans. Parshley, H. M.. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1962. The Prime of Life. Trans. Green, Peter. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denizet-Lewis, Benoit. 2008. “Young Gay Rites.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27young-t.html?scp=1&sq=Denizet-Lewis%20Young%20Gay%20Rites&st=cse (Accessed April 27, 2008).Google Scholar
Gordon, Linda. 1994. Pitied but Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marso, Lori Jo. 2006. Feminist Thinkers and the Demands of Femininity: The Lives and Work of Intellectual Women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paul, Pamela. 2009. “Why Can a Lesbian Couple Be Foster Parent to Older Kids but Have to Fight to Adopt a Newborn? The Battle over a Baby.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26lesbian-t.html?scp=1&sq=Pamela%20Paul%20Why%20Can%20a%20Lesbian%20couple&st=cse (Accessed July 26, 2009).Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Snyder, R. Claire [now Snyder-Hall]. 2006. Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Warner, Michael. 1999. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar