"Like most popular notions this also rests not on actual facts, but on superstition."

[lauralh]

I took one of those "which oldskool feminist are you" quizzes and got Emma Goldman, whom I'm familiar with mainly, um, hahah, from reading Robert Rodi's queer novels. (Rodi's novels are about libertarian fags sometimes.) Anyway I got a few ebooks but never got all the way through, so I'm reading stuff online right now.

This essay is apropos with all the hooplah on gay marriage right now, I believes.

Comments

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

As a married person, I thought a lot of what s/he wrote was crap. I agreed with the historical/"traditional" analysis (i.e. what marriage meant/means to the religious right, and how fucked up it is, etc) but I don't agree that marriage is a failure. SOME PEOPLES' marriages are failures. Every marriage is unique. I don't agree that marriage automatically oppresses women. Etc.

I don't think the author understands what a loving marriage is. For most people, love leads them to exclusive, dedicated relationships with other people. Making a public, lifelong committment to that person is therefore a natural extension.

[hello-tiger.livejournal.com]

i agree...she seems completely in denial that people can have an equal, mutually respecting relationship within marriage, her idea of what marriage entails seemed to be almost Victorian (as backed up by her statistics: since *1871* divorce as a result of desertion has increased? i didn't think that was too shocking..) - surely she can't still believe that home life is entirely dictated by the husband.

Ignore what I just said...I'm an idiot.

[hello-tiger.livejournal.com]

heh, I just went back and noticed that it actually was written in 1911. Duh. Well done me for dating it accurately at least...