|← Samsara and Sakuntala||Museum Report →|
Lisa Miya-Jervis’ “Who Wants to Marry a Feminist?” develops an exhilarating argument to support her ground concerning feminism. After reading this article, one gets inspired and also has a change of heart in regards to the perception towards feminists. This is because its message is that contemporary feminists are not necessarily going against feminism when they decide to marry a man. While I had the knowledge of this in theory, I still found it difficult to believe in practice, but I had a clue that it became possible after I had read this piece because it presented a sensible argument. This essay, therefore, addresses a number of issues, such as the popular stereotype that feminists are lesbians, hate men, or if they are married they do not have that time for their husbands.
In order to analyze this piece perfectly, we must undertake to answer the questions hereunder: a) what do feminist do or believe and who are they? If a feminist is married to a man, do both genders receive equivalent treatment? What types of stereotypes affects feminists act? Are feminists fuzzy-hair-legged lesbian women against their male counterparts?
This piece also talks about the tarnished image or history of marriage, and how its meaning has transformed presently. Lisa, in that regard, remarks that believing in such out-dated ideologies concerning marriage only strengthens those individuals fighting to hold women back. The other thing she talks about is that even after getting married her husband’s life has not eclipsed hers. I really like the manner in which Lisa Miya-Jevis thinks and reacts in her own piece. Her reaction is focused on how people think about women, feminists, and getting married to men “traditionally”. While reading, one is flanked between disagreeing and agreeing with her viewpoints. In her view, she believes that feminists are the ones who fought so hard to procure basic rights, which initially used to be obliterated by marriage. She supported this by saying that it was because of the women’s right movement that women could maintain their own bank accounts, make their own health care choices, refuse sex with their husbands, and could also prosecute their husbands if they did not comply (Lisa, 374).
According to me, the part whereby the lament that the author was a “betrayal of feminism” is particularly upsetting. It is not good to hear the offensive stereotypes from uninformed non-feminists; however, hearing it from a feminist is one way or another unacceptable. This clearly shows lack of cohesion and understanding. The other area that really touched me was the part that Lisa mentioned her reasons for getting married. She continued to indicate that apart from the emotional reason, she had other reasons too. She affirms that to reject marriage because of the history it holds is like giving in to the history itself. Similarly, to argue against marriage by saying that a wife’s identity is necessarily subsumed by her husband’s is to do nothing more than just seconding the perception. This portion really made some sense to me, because I hardly thought in that direction. When looking at the history of marriage through various sociological courses, I had initially held the belief that marriage was a ploy to conform the masses. However, I strongly concur with Lisa that marriage is what you make it.
This piece is somehow a confirmation that feminist movements have really accomplished so much. This is an area that resonates with me, because the author says that we are not necessarily going against feminism and its long struggle for equality encompassed in the notion of marriage. In fact, women have really achieved so much in regards to basic rights, “basic rights that used to be obliterated by marriage” (Lisa, 376). In this case, the author mentions a number of things, such as ownership of property, right to divorce, and the right not to be beaten by husbands. It is not an insult to feminism to enter into marriage institutions just because in the contemporary world it is considered as an enterprise. Generally, the fact of whether women marry or not solely dwells in the hands of the man is a testimony to how much feminist movement accomplishment.
The writer also argues that narrow minded individuals are the ones who do not get married, as compared to feminist. Conversely, a feminist that gets married leads a better life, as compared to non-feminists, since they dedicate much of their time to their marriage. However, in this piece we find that Lisa leads a very normal life after getting married traditionally. She advises that a woman may only take what is important out of the marriage and leave out the rest. She admits that it may not work for other women but it has worked for her. That makes the basis of her argument: just because she is a feminist, it does not imply that she must hate men, but rather let her man lead her life. She affirms that feminists, just like other women, should also marry men and lives a better and normal marriage life. According to me, I do have a feeling that feminists stand better chance with a longer, healthier marriage possible since they are not likely to be submissive. This implies that the relationship is likely to be better.
In addition, the piece also reveals that it is really irritating for a feminist to buy Lisa Miya-Jervis’s magazine she edits and later realize that the author is married to a man. The buyer becomes appalled at the fact that the author is married to a man. It is not easy to understand the absurdity. However, it also indicates that even those, who consider themselves feminists or liberals, can still be closed off. Lisa affirms through this magazine that feminists are man-hating and lesbian, who refuse to marry just due to the fact that she is autonomous (Lisa 375).
In conclusion, must admit that I really liked this article since the author provides expiation as to how times have really changed, marriage has transformed, and it does not have to be like it was in the past forty years. Being an outrageous feminist does not mean that you have to fight for your basic rights to be equal in the marriage partnership. It is worth noting that the roles of every relationship should be divided between the two partners equally. Each party must have a say in what goes on within the family level. I feel that equality is what Mrs. Lisa Miya-Jervis is trying to put across. In that regard, she says, “By and large I do believe that we’re culturally ready to accept changes in the way marriages are viewed” (Lisa 375). According to the above statement, it is clear that a woman must no longer stay at home like it used to be for many years. We must agree that times have changed, and Lisa Miya-Jervis is an outright example of this change.
Lisa Miya-Jervis invigoratingly presents an argument that is well argued and this is obviously evident in this essay. It also represents feminist visions that are excellently balanced of conceptual, classic and contemporary issues that affect feminist s in general. It also brings out the changes that have been noted as a result of women movement which were long ignored. This essay also entails a number of issues that affect married feminist and also highlights on the effects of marrying a feminist. Generally, this essay is a short, readable and accessible reading that reflects on the diversity of women’s experiences.