HOME / culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

I Don'tA new book tries to convince you not to marry.

Book coverRead Jaclyn Geller's Here Comes the Bride in your shared queen bed, your husband (or wife) snoring nearby, your child tucked away elsewhere, and you can't help but cringe in self-recognition. Here Comes the Bride is no Bridget Jones's Diary, but here and there Geller's screed against marriage stings: the ubiquity of the petty royal "we," the "mundane intimidation" of a smug duo at a dinner party, holding hands while badgering the dateless girl, the cell phone chatter of husband and wife as autistic monologue. ("Honey, I'm at the dentist. Honey, I'm walking down the street.")

The book is a single girl's complaint against the lure of the marriage mystique and what it's done to her once intelligent girlfriends. The culture, she argues, bombards women with images of the Cinderella bride—Princess Di in a frothy white cloud, "dazzled and dazzling"; Nicole Kidman in Badgley Mischka; Jackie O., "a walking ad for graceless selfless matrimony." By the time they reach 30, her college girlfriends, who once passed the night reading Adrienne Rich to each other, "now pored over bridal magazines, selecting their wedding dresses, invitation formats and china patterns with great earnestness." Meanwhile, the single girl lives like a medical oddity, sitting patiently through another afternoon barbecue where her newly betrothed girlfriends fret about her condition—is her lover a rogue or just a commitment-phobe? Will he be the latest to abandon her to the plague of spinsterhood?

In this book, one happily hetero single girl gets her revenge. Geller's method is to cruelly dissect each chapter of the wedding fairy tale with grad student rage. The down-on-one-knee proposal is "man feigning power, bowing before his love object while simultaneously laying claim to her," the invitation "a last touch of aristocracy," the registry "capitalist decadence," down to the wedding, "a sentimentalized transfer of property."

But after a while, Geller's attention to detail grates. Like most grad students I know, Geller puts too much stock in symbols. A wedding is not a marriage. And by confusing the two, Geller misses what's going on. I don't know any woman who takes her wedding as seriously as Geller does. Or who reads in People magazine that Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise "will be on our honeymoon for the rest of our lives" and swallows it whole, sighing in dreamy innocence. Sure, we wear white dresses and order flowers and seven-tiered cakes, but the whole affair takes place in quotation marks. We know we can put on those gowns that "take us back to the nineteenth century" because we're not there anymore. The symbols by now are emptied of all their meaning, so we can embrace them; it's a fairy tale told out of real time.

Part of Geller's fault stems from her reporting method. At one point she ventures out of her grad school bubble, disguising herself as an actual bride-to-be. When she gets to the Bloomingdale's registry, she finds that (shock!) the salesladies dote on the brides! And wouldn't you know it, the same thing happens at Kleinfeld's, the wedding dress warehouse in Brooklyn.

Geller assumes a kind of innocence in the culture at large that's no longer there. We've all read Updike and Cheever, seen Kramer vs. Kramer, lived through the age of divorce. For every Cosby Show, there's a Sopranos. For every Moonstruck, there's The Graduate. For every Princess Di, there's a, well, Princess Di. Ditto for Jackie O. And Nicole Kidman.

One of the most interesting things about Geller the radical feminist is her disdain for moral relativism. She chides Gloria Steinem for explaining her decision to marry as a personal choice, valid for her if not for everyone, and generally makes fun of the New Age psychobabble permeating personal vows. Women who think they're marrying out of "spontaneous or romantic impulses" are just plain deluded, she argues. Marriage is "intolerably sexist," and for any woman who calls herself a feminist to participate in it is just wrong. In this way, Geller is a headstrong opponent for the latest crop of marriage evangelists, such as Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and Maggie Gallagher. But she recalls them in more ways than she'd like. Like them, she picks cartoonish examples. They have their rogues and Zsa Zsas who leave their spouses at the drop of a hat. Geller has her suburban dullards, the Scarsdale wives she knew from her youth whose lives were a string of tedious errands. In her book, married life is days on end of carpooling and picking up dry cleaning. The single life is a romp of the mind and body, days of dissecting Virginia Woolf and nights of sexual adventure, interspersed with bouts of thoughtful solitude and nary a lonely night.

The marriage canon would do well to make room for some ambivalence, especially among American women. In a country with no history of arranged marriages, we have been allowed to romanticize our unions. That's why they are constantly letting us down. We believe in the fairy-tale wedding. We also believe in divorce as an absolute right. We are optimists, until we are not.

Geller is ever vigilant about shades of doubt. She loved Sex and the City until she realized that Carrie Bradshaw was just like the rest of them, consumed with her "need for the one." But that's exactly why Bradshaw works as a character. Like Ally McBeal, or Mary Tyler Moore, or Murphy Brown, she is defined by her regret and ambivalence.

What Geller wants is a world full of women like Linda Fiorentino in Last Seduction, savage, bloodless, wholly devoid of an inner life. But women like that don't really exist, and if they did, they'd be interesting for only one episode.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Hanna Rosin is the author of God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission To Save the Nation and a contributing editor at the Atlantic. She can be reached at .
COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: Texwiz's defense of marriage was so personal, so strongly-felt, so eloquent, that it touched our cynical stony Fray hearts, and we are quoting at length.]


Even if her feelings are the result of careful research, personal experience and soul searching, it doesn't matter. [Ms Geller is] wrong. Not mistaken, not misguided, or any other euphemisms intended to soften the blows of disagreement. She is just flat wrong, and for several reasons.

First, it should be said that no one is in favor of bad marriages and that many such unions do, in fact exist. But we're talking here about the intrinsic worth of the institution of marriage. Marriage provides a framework for stability. Just as a child feels secure when they know that the parents are always there, waiting to catch them when they fall, partners in a good marriage have a peace of mind unknown to the single people. A commitment has been made and bonds have been forged that are intended to outlast sickness, financial troubles, emotional upheavals, births, deaths and home renovations, which are worse than most of the aforementioned. That such a commitment has been violated by many does not devalue the worth of commitment and marriage as an institution.

In the course of my eight year (so far) marriage, I have lost my job, lost relatives in death, been disappointed by friends, disappointed in myself and been through several home improvement projects. At no time was I alone. When I lost my job, no accusations were made, no blame placed. She just said, "we'll be alright" and we were, just as we endured the other challenges together.

Now, make no mistake, I am a strong and capable person, (as is my wife, a beautiful, capable woman who speaks four languages and works harder than anyone I know.) I would have weathered these slings and arrows and taken arms against them, married or single. But I cannot imagine having to do so alone. I, in my happy marriage, am blessed with great good fortune. My good fortune kisses me each day as I leave for work and greets me with the same when I return.

I do the same for her. Were either of us lost to the other, we would be devastated. It's a risk made acceptable by the joy we have now. Ms. Geller risks nothing, but deprives herself of this joy in the mistaken notion that independence is the greatest goal. She's so wary of being oppressed that she forgets to love. I would be sad if I didn't feel so sure that I wouldn't like her much if I met her. To deny your reliance on others is to deny one of the most vital portions of your humanity.

The article neglected to mention that marriage is also vital to the raising of emotionally healthy children. This is not to say that some single parents don't do a great job, but all things considered, two parents, together, not divorced, make better parents than one woman or one man. Some may disagree, but frankly, they are just as wrong as Ms. Geller.

The real tragedy is that so many people have bought into the modern notion that divorce is not so bad. True, a bad marriage can be a remarkably excruciating experience, and sometimes, divorce is inevitable, but if marriage was not viewed as a temporary institution, maybe people would make better decisions about who to marry.

In conclusion, let me say simply that love is the greatest thing. And the greatest expression of love is to commit your life, 'til death do you part, to the person you love.

--Texwiz

(To reply, click here.)

(7/27)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Office party high jinks.98/091215_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on lobbying.70/091215_TC.jpg
The gathering.60/091215_TD.jpg