Archive for December, 2008
Potential Allies in Congress
Our 2009 legislative agenda is starting to take shape. A key step is to identify Representatives and Senators who are likely to be receptive to our message about increasing fairness for singles and non-marital relationships in health care, taxes etc.
A recent NY Times article makes the unmarried Sanchez sisters of California sound like potential allies in the House.
Senator Sue Collins of Maine is interested in making domestic partner benefits available regardless of age or gender.
Representative Pete Stark has spoken out against using welfare funds to promote marriage.
AtMP is looking for constituents of these officials who would help us present our agenda to them.
Which additional congressmembers we should prioritize?
Letter to the Update editor: Are Single Women in India Really Happier?
The Alternatives to Marriage Update article Single Women in India: Rarer, Riskier, and Happier Than in the U.S. by Kay Trimberger has generated some good discussions, and we invite others to read and respond.
Rajiv Garg (who recently joined AtMP’s board of directors) wrote this letter:
The conclusion that single women in India are happier needs more scrutiny. Moreover, due to the significant social and cultural differences it is unclear how we can better understand the obstacles and advantages single women face in the US by comparing the situation to single women in India.
Growing-up and living in India in the Hindu culture for twenty four years and visiting often, I have seen very little change (especially in rural areas and small towns in India where most people live) in the status of women. Even though lifestyles are changing, there are very few women, mainly in progressive big cities, who are happy being single. They are rarely accepted by the society (even less by their immediate friends and family since they see it as a shameful act and disgrace to the family) and often stigmatized and ostracized. Women past the “marriage-able age” (34+) are often subject to ridicule and assumed to have major personality or physical disorders even though arranging marriage is a family enterprise and the family takes part of the blame. These unmarried women are rarely happy.
It is true that single women in India do not have the pressure of finding a suitable match but this putative advantage is far overshadowed by very low-self esteem, fear of getting married to an incompatible groom, fear of being part of a new, often hostile and potentially violent family, being able to adjust to a new family and home environment, constant worry of how parents will accumulate dowry and pay for future gifts to the groom’s family…the list goes on. Even though some women may be happy (for a very short period of time until they are married) it will be naïve to conclude that they are happier than their American counterparts.
There is mention of Hindu culture having a positive image of celibacy. I must point out that celibacy is only revered in the religious context – the special space and respect for unmarried women and the act of voluntary abstinence is bestowed only if they become part of the religious system and hierarchy (similar to the celibate priests in the Western societies). Absent any religious affiliation, no special status or respect is granted to a celibate woman.
Also, contrary to the assertion in the article I believe that there is a cultural imperative in India that marriage/coupling should bring happiness. Even though personal happiness is not valued as much as happiness of the entire family, most people understand that if the couple is not happy, they cannot bring happiness to the family at large. The concept of finding a “soul mate” may be rare but most families compare astrological charts of the bride and groom and make efforts to ensure compatibility that would lead to happiness. In fact this cultural imperative is more pronounced in India as the bride is under constant pressure to not only please the husband but to bring happiness to the entire family.
There are local and regional feminist groups in India fighting for women’s rights but these efforts are primarily focused towards obtaining social and economic equality. It is encouraging to see that life for singles is changing in India but the change is very slow and limited to a very small segment of the society. Due to the relatively close knit social structure of friends and family, singles may not feel as lonely and desperate (even though that is debatable) as their American counterparts but to impute that single life is psychologically easier for Indian women (for the reasons mentioned above) would be a mistake. Single women in India face discrimination, live in subservience, and deal with a variety of tough challenges and hardships; I cannot imagine a scenario where we can say that generally they are happier than their American counterparts.
This makes me wonder about the interesting commentary and reporting by feminist intellectuals and journalists in India, perhaps they are focusing and reporting on a very exclusive group of single women that do not really represent the majority of single women in India.
Kay Trimberger responded:
Dear Rajiv, Thanks for your interesting comments on my article. Some of your comments I agree with and some I don’t. I did not choose the title, and I don’t think I use the word “happier” in my text. But I also have not objected to the editors about the title. I think my position is clarified in two other blogs I have written, and I’ll provide you with the links here.
“Single Women in India: A Conversation with Kay Trimberger”
“Single Women and the U.S. Women’s Movement : Insights from India”Best regards, Kay
Chitra also sent a note in response to Kay’s article:
Hi,
I am from India, and we do not have an equivalent of ATMP here, as most Indian women are expected to get married 
However there are many women who dare to defy convention and are living happily as single women, or in live-in relationships. I for one have a boyfriend but just do NOT want to marry or get into a live-in relationship. It does not make sense to my peers or my parents – and this just goes to show that the pressure to get ‘coupled’ in America is as strong as the pressure to get married in India.
I liked the article on how single women in India are probably happier than their American counterparts. But in urban India that mostly tries to ape the west, celibacy is slowly beginning to be looked upon as ‘weird’ – and that is upsetting to the small minority that still choose to be celibate.
I liked reading about asexuality – and I know for a fact many Indians will be able to relate to it. I don’t think it is weird – if abstinence is acceptable, what’s wrong with asexuality?
The irony about being an Indian is – even though this is the land of the Kamasutra (and a high population clearly shows everyone is having sex) – you are expected to be celibate till you get married. And yet, as I mentioned, if celibacy is something you choose- you are frowned upon as someone ‘weird’. It gets confusing sometimes.
In any case, here I am , mailing you, letting you know that your website gives me so much hope and happiness.
Thank you ATMP!
btw I have written a funny article on why I do not want to marry on my blog.
Bloggingheads: Ban Marriage?
The two law professors in this video are not suggesting to end the legal status of marriage, just to call it by a new name and make it available to both same-sex and different-sex couples. Granted, this would achieve one important step forward by recognizing more couples’ relationships. But nothing the professors said suggests that they have any problem with privileging some licensed couples over all other relationships. So they really are not suggesting to get government out of the marriage business, merely to rebrand the business with a new, modern name. An interesting moment that shows real bias: they talk unselfconsciously about “downgrading” existing marriages to civil unions or domestic partnerships. If they are proposing to give CU/DP the exact same legal status as marriage with a different name, why would they call it a downgrade?
Marriage should be a right, not a requirement
Now that same-sex couples can marry in Connecticut, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says that domestic partners of state employees “will not enjoy the health benefit and pension rights they have after Nov. 30, 2009, unless they either enter into a civil union or marry.”
There are so many problems here. First, health care should not depend on one’s relationship or employment status. Ideally, every individual would have equal affordable permanent health insurance in her/his own name. Until we achieve universal health coverage, employers that are willing to cover employees’ families should cover anyone whom an employee designates as family. And, people should be able to bequeath their pensions to any economic dependents, or anyone they choose.
AtMP saw and opposed a similar situation in Massachusetts in 2004. Of course we will send a strong protest to CT as well. We really want to hear from CT state employees who may be affected by this wrong-headed policy.
Get government out of the marriage business
To mark the one-month anniversary of the election, here’s an unscientific assessment of the impact of Prop 8 and discriminatory ballot measures:
In the past month, at least 18 blogs have discussed getting government out of the marriage business. In the month before the election, only 6 bloggers were thinking along those lines.
Of course, the public’s attention span is short, and fame is fleeting even for an issue that affects 93 million people. As AtMP plans its objectives and activities for 2009, we invite your proposals:
What is the one thing you think AtMP could best do within the next 12 months to get government out of the marriage business?
Guest Post: withhold marriage from everyone
Nicky asked me if I’d be willing to give an update on my “nuclear option” efforts, and I’m grateful to be able to share them with you here.
I’ve been following the same-sex marriage story here in California for the past four years, ever since San Francisco’s “Valentine’s Day Revolution”, and have over those years read the various lawsuits and decisions that led earlier this year to the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision [PDF] to require same-sex marriage within the state of California. In reading that decision, I was struck by a passage late in the majority decision.
When a statute’s differential treatment of separate categories of individuals is found to violate equal protection principles, a court must determine whether the constitutional violation should be eliminated or cured by extending to the previously excluded class the treatment or benefit that the statute affords to the included class, or alternatively should be remedied by withholding the benefit equally from both the previously included class and the excluded class. –In Re Marriage Cases, p. 119.
