Friday, August 14, 2009


Let me clear something up.

When I wrote the post earlier today about why I am choosing to not marry, I did not mean it as a lecture for feminists who do marry. I made a careful point to state in this post that I believe everyone should make the choices that they feel are right for themselves, and for me, marriage is not in my future. For the feminists who want to get married and hold a feminist wedding, more power to you! I will support any woman who believes marriage is the right path for her.

All I was trying to do is offer an alternative viewpoint. Our society makes marriage out to be necessity, and so I think it is crucial for every woman to sit down and truly think deeply about whether or not marriage is right for her. Breaking out of the shackles that society places us in is damn near impossible... but not marrying isn't the only way to do it. The way to break free from the patriarchy is to truly make a choice for ourselves, not for the rest of society. And if you have decided that marriage is the right path for yourself, that's wonderful.

I apologize if I confused or offended anyone. But next time, please ask me for an explanation first before swearing off my blog forever ;)

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories

16 comments: to “ Listen...

  • August 14, 2009 at 1:33 AM  

    Geepers, now I hafta go back and see the comments... I thought your answer was well-formed.

    I and my spouse would love to be able to marry and pay $10K less in taxes, but we can't, and so appreciate your solidarity.

  • August 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM  

    You can't marry? Are you in a same-sex partnership?

  • August 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM  

    I can't see anything wrong with what you wrote. You made it very clear that you were not criticizing feminists who marry. I wouldn't apologize at all. If someone leaves the blog out of being offended because they lack proper reading skills, that is not your problem.

    I thought it was an interesting post, and I liked reading it.

  • August 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM  

    Thank you Jenn :)

  • August 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM  

    I can see in the other post why the person was offended, although I they could have posted their ofended-ness without anger. I really don't think your response should have been in a seperate post, though, because it causes other readers to all go back, read the other comments, and get involved, then flame the person who was offended, like "Jenn" saying the person can't read. I'm sure if the person who was offended before sees this, it will only make matters worse/make them have more reasons to dislike you/your blog. :( Just my opinion though.

  • August 14, 2009 at 4:53 PM  

    ***I think they could have

  • August 14, 2009 at 5:13 PM  


  • August 14, 2009 at 7:53 PM  

    Flaming? This person didn't take the time to ask Amy to clarify what they meant before she stormed off in a huff. The original post made perfectly clear it was not directed at feminists who choose to marry. Calling it out is not flaming, it's a legitimate criticism, "Lynne."

  • August 15, 2009 at 8:26 PM  

    Well, I'm sorry to see my seeing both sides of the argument offended you Jenn, I'm just saying I can see where the other person could have been ofended, even with Amy saying she wasn't going against all feminists. I think the title "there's no such thing as a feminist marriage" or whatever it was is whats offensive. As a feminist if I were married I can see how that could be offensive, like saying I'm suddenly not a feminist for getting married, or something. I can see how it can be offensive to a feminist who happens to be married is all. I think Amy said she agreed with that headline 100%, so... just sayin' I get it. No biggie. Don't flame me too!

  • August 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM  

    Seeing both sides of the situation doesn't offend me. Your criticism of the original post doesn't offend me either. What offends me is when you accuse me of flaming when I'm making a criticism. I explained that in my last post very clearly. If your response to that is to disregard my explanation and make comments like "don't flame me, too," then you are just being a troll.

  • August 17, 2009 at 6:35 PM  

    I wasn't being a troll Jenn, I just think you were being kinda harsh in saying the other person can't ready correctly just because she was offended by the idea that feminism and marriages can't mix. But, if I'm somehow a troll for disagreeing with you and thinking your poor attitude wasn't just a criticism, but nastiness/flaming, then so be it! As I said I think there's a whole lotta unnecessary anger goin' on around here, and was just trying to help in saying what I think that other girl was maybe offended about. I'd probably be offended too if I were married, since I'm a feminist! I'll try not to stick up for the misunderstood next time. (I can see why people might run away from this blog! Sheesh!)

  • August 17, 2009 at 10:23 PM  

    I don't believe that feminism and marriage are incompatible There are sexist traditions that I want to drop, but I want to get married. That said, I don't feel the need to get upset if someone doesn't feel the same. Especially when the original post said nothing about someone not being a true feminist if they get married. In fact she said she agreed that the institution of marriage itself is unfeminist. The commenter who stormed off made the decision that she was being attacked without clarifying what was meant. She jumped to conclusions.

    My criticism of her had nothing whatsoever to do with her beliefs and everything to do with her behavior. If calling out bad behavior is the equivalent of having a poor attitude, I can live with myself.

  • August 19, 2009 at 4:10 AM  

    So if you don't marry, do you plan on forming a committed relationship to raise children in?? Or do you think that having a father is not important to a child? Or do you mean that by not getting married you don't plan on forming a long term relationship and don't plan on having children either?

  • August 19, 2009 at 4:18 AM  

    I think it's important to remember that we HAVE changed all the laws during the 70's so that only women mainly get custody of the children about 90% of the time, we can also get the home and get alimony and child support. +PLUS there are A LOT of benefits to being a single mother given to us by the government.

    We made no-fault divorce law also. So we can get all these things even in no-fault divorce now. So if you really think about it we've made it so that it is men who loose in divorce. I think it's like 90% or so men only get to be a father about 4 days a month or every other weekend and the rest of the time he has to send an alimony support check and another for child support.

    Anyway, all I'm saying is that we made the laws so that if we don't like the man or he is not making us happy he still has to support us financially.

  • August 19, 2009 at 4:26 AM  

    Oh and also I think if you file a domestic violence charge it's really difficult for the man to get custody. My sister's lawyer pretty much told her to start the divorce this way. I don't think he abused her or anything but you know I mean he scared her a lot when they were breaking up and broke some plates etc.

    All I know is that she did get a restraining order against him and after she left he could not see Sharla unless he went to some sort of class and under supervision.. I think it's like VAWA or Violence Against Women law or something like that.. So she got full custody..

    So they said that if he does not send her alimony and child support he goes to jail and has to pay her "back support owed" with interest if he does not send her the money. Like I said, marriage is really only a risk to men now.

  • August 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM  

    lol cmon lady noones gonna believe sayin someone doesnt know how to read right is criticism and not a personal insult, lol who are you trying to kid? yourself i guess