![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.jodi365.com\/singledout\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/LGBTQ-activist.jpg\")
<\/a>For women, there is a necessity to seek social acceptance through marriage because the essence of womanhood wasn\u2019t defined outside the institution of marriage. \u00a0The role of a woman in the society was regulated by the marriage contract which in other words, is an example of the domestic labor contract. \u00a0While formulating the various reasons why most women tend to choose marriage over career, Simone de Beauvoir points out that, \u201cIt is understandable that [women are] tempted by this easy solution, especially as women\u2019s professions are so unrewarding and badly paid; marriage is a more beneficial career than many others\u2026 [women] will look for a husband whose situation is superior to her own, a husband she hopes will \u2018get ahead\u2019 faster and further than she could.\u201d<\/p>\n
Throughout history, marriage has been an institution of patriarchy that bred heteronormativity, and reinforced gender roles through the inherent power structure present in it. \u00a0Though an increasing number of marriages, today, are only meant to symbolize the honoring of one’s relationship by the state, it is difficult to maintain a marriage that is devoid of the element of patriarchy. In 1969, feminists declared that \u201cthe marriage and family must be eliminated\u201d to erase the underlying patriarchal structure. \u00a0If the legal interference of the state is removed from personal relationships, it would complicate the regulation of personal relationship.<\/p>\n
Personal relationships need to be regulated, as Clare Chambers writes, \u201cto protect vulnerable parties, including but not only children; so as to regulate disputes over joint property; and so as to appropriately direct state benefits and taxes. \u00a0Among these benefits might be included considerations such as immigration rights, next-of-kinship status and so on. \u00a0Not all aspects of existing marriage law that give special recognition to couples are legitimate. \u00a0But some may be compatible with or even required by justice, and so it is important to theorize how they should be revised for a marriage-free society.\u201d<\/p>\n It would be better to devise a new system of marriage which isn\u2019t inherently harmful to people of various sexes than to absolutely abolish the institution of marriage. \u00a0Family and marriage should be redefined and made available to same-sex couples in order to re-contextualize the concept of marriage outside the system of patriarchy<\/a>. \u00a0Ultimately, it doesn\u2019t mean you are not a feminist if you want to get married. \u00a0Marriage is a matter of choice and you can get married if it means something to you. \u00a0In the end, feminism is about relieving ourselves from the existing structures of oppression and making our own choices as long as the people involved are not affected negatively.<\/p>\n Featured image courtesy of Natesh Ramasamy<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n![\"Why](\"https:\/\/www.jodi365.com\/singledout\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Why-you-need-feminism.jpg\")
<\/a>