What’s Wrong in Marrying?

On reading Catherine Newman essay I Do. Not. why I Wont get hitched with? , the first signal that arises in the idea is the amount of power and survival of the fittest that women wonder to twenty-four hour period. One can non simply imagine this conformation of freedom of thought or reflectivity from a cleaning lady say, a iodine hundred years back. Those were the whiles when most women didnt yet get to the liberty to die or be intimate their needs and desires. sequence the freedom that women enjoy today is a welcome change, Newmans essay is work with a number of misconceptions and apprehensions.It appears that she hasnt gotten every home plate the affright of slavery that volume see centuries ago, especi all(prenominal)y the hotshot brought by the launching of man and wife. The invisible confiscate that keeps together whatsoever apprisalship is trust. It may a stupefy between a child and its come or nonplus, between friends, between a student and a tea cher, between two life quislings, or between preserve and wife. In todays introduction a man and a woman ache every freedom to involve their life partners.And, they can also postulate on how they wish to livewhether they indispensability to formalize their kin by marrying or simply carry on until they atomic number 18 sure of each other. Prudent tribe pass on use their wisdom in weighing the pros and cons of any relationship that they may get into. Newmans objection to pairing is the way in which a bride is granted away by her father to her husband in the altars. She argues that the number of gifts that the father bestows on the daughter and the heavy money that he spends on the wedding make the bride sense of smell like a commodity that is macrocosm transferred from one to another for a sum.By this end she overlooks the love and c atomic number 18 that the father has for the daughter, and the last thing that impart be in the fathers mental capacity at the altar will be the welfare of his daughter and her new family and emphatically not the money that he is spending on the occasion. There are some(prenominal) marriages that take place in a very simple manner and on that point are many that take place in a pompous manner. It all depends on the spending capacity of the families touch on and that doesnt have any relation to the bondage and goodwill that goes with the ceremony.Newman mocks at the rite where the bride blows the candle from her father by sexual relation that the bride blows away her naughty old single-handed self. This straw man argument all in all misrepresents the brides position and it is a shun way of looking at things. It would have been healthier if she had looked at the ritual from the point of view of the bride lighting up one for her husband and had said that it portrays that beginning of a new life. This only goes to strengthen Newmans misconceptions of marriage.Another lame argument that Newman puts straw manward against marriage is by projecting the brisk people. She argues that get married people fail to acknowledge audacious people and even bruise them. This is a gross generalization and her idolise of marriage is further proved when she asks the readers to coin marriage as a svelte and gasping little injured bird in trying to promote the cause of the gay community. She acknowledges that she had had gay relationship in the bygone until she found her partner, Michael.Her thoughts are baseless when she argues that she will be doing injustice to her gay friends if I put on a bead cream bodice and vowed myself away in front of all our gay friends. She assumes that they will be gossiping wickedly against her and even goes to disembarrass that what theyre snubbing should certainly be a viable option. Newman states out loud and create that she doesnt believe in monogamy. The argument that closely follows this statement is purely brutish in nature. She argues if climbing onto the same have person for fifty years will maximize our brief fling on the earth. She argues for variety and says that it depended cruel and unusual that one should have to give up so much in order to vow to a man. She agrees that she and her partner do not practice monogamy and doesnt seem to have any regrets roughly it. This doesnt justify her stand against marriage nor are her arguments sound enough to turn out polygamy. Some businesss that Newman expresses towards marriage are the fear of losing her individual identity and the life- great commitment that espousal demands. She conveys that neither she nor her partner ever felt the need to get married.She argues that strongly held beliefs on marriage and commitment can be aloof from the world where people real impression things The best life partner is exactly the sort of person who doesnt crave pigheadedness. She claims that marriage brings with it the baggage of possession of ones wife or husband This argument is fe eble in todays world. People are quite independent to do what they want, and what keeps a family together is not possession yet simple caring, and love and take. Newman seems to enjoy the position that she gets to choose and be chosen to expect her relationship with her partner every day.She says that when a couple is not married and when they await partners, they have to constantly keep choosing each other. She seems to take pleasure in the choice that she and her partner make every day to keep the relationship going. This way they feel more wanted and the unmarried station helps them to move forward and keeps them going she says. Dr. Neil Clark warren in The Cohabitation Epidemic sums up this carriage beautifully well The fundamental stipulation upon which live-in relationships are based is conditional commitment. This attitude says, Ill stick with you as long as things go well.But if we tolerate into problems, all bets are off. Relationships that begin with a quasi-com mitment carry the same mind-set into marriage. When things go away trying, as inevitably they will from time to time, the spouses say goodbye. Newman says that they are quite use to each other, and with the birth of her child the bond between them has only grown stronger. She feels that in that respect cannot be anything more permanent somebody binding than the sharing of the child. She proudly confesses that her partner has taken on to his duties as a father like a angle to water.But somehow, the fear of getting married seems to linger on and she continues arguing against marriage. Newmans fears are purely psychological in nature and they do not have any solid reason bum them. In putting forth juke intellectual arguments she does not offer clarity of thought. Her thoughts are distorted views coming from an boyish person with some kind of a psychological fear for commitment. It is natural that a person who seems to have a fear psychosis towards marriage objects to it. Wedd ing or live-in relationshipit all depends upon the individuals. As Nancy L. Van pour out and Fleming H.Revell put it, Whatever happiness is achieved results from in-person effort, knowledge, love, and commitment. No magic happens with marriages in making individuals better. There are men and women who whirl out of marriages even after having children. So, Newmans argument that kids are permanent intellect binding is void. However, with marriage, the commitment becomes legal and the people involved in the break up are legally bound to run certain obligations to each other. So even while the break up is painful, thither is still a legal shelter offered. In a live-in relationship, this protection doesnt exist.