From what I remember, the hypocrite part came in because of what she thought of weddings, not marriage in general.

But you're right about narrow-minded women.

alanis got pegged as a feminist because she (co)-wrote ONE song that expressed anger towards a man and talked about blow jobs. she coveted that label and has continued to whine about men ever since.

and as for the feminist/marriage debate, now that i am happily married, i find i am able to do MORE than i ever did before, because i have someone who supports me and helps me and believes in me. the whole marriage-equals-1950's-housewife debate is old school.

and really, aren't her most stellar lyrics "i've got one hand in my pocket and the other one is waving a peace sign"? um, gag.

alanis got pegged as a feminist because she (co)-wrote ONE song that expressed anger towards a man and talked about blow jobs. she coveted that label and has continued to whine about men ever since.

And that's what I really resent! Feminist = anger towards a man = speaking openly about blow jobs = whining about men? Surely, we can all identify with better-founded principles. This is as brilliant as suggesting that feminism has anything to do with Sex and the City, you know, because they're so "empowered" about dating.

(Of course Nicole, I'm criticizing the principle, not your comment. But you know that. :)

Sure, it's simplistic to say 'I'm a feminist, therefore I can't get married.' But it's also an oversimplification to say that any woman with concerns about marriage is "diametrically opposed to 'happily ever afters'" or anti-men. I'm not sure that I want to get married, but it's not because I think I'd automatically morph into a '50s housewife, nor because I think my partner would turn into a patriarch, nor because I don't value lifelong commitments.

Xander! Not Zander! May you be thrown into the Hellmouth for your error.

I agree with smitten wholeheartedly here. I think a lot of people confuse marriage with dependence or lack of independence rather than the formalising of an existing life style/relationship.

If a woman is worried about turning into a stereotypical stepford wife on saying 'I do' then surely that's more her own issues and fears ((and maybe moreso) issues with her fiance?) than an antiquated vision of the institute of marriage?

And as both a Buffy and a Berg fan the turning down Xander thing? Actually hurt me a little inside.

From what I remember, the hypocrite part came in because of what she thought of weddings, not marriage in general.

But you're right about narrow-minded women.

that's what i was going to say about the book. also, the whole "hypocrite" theme was repeated about various things throughout. not trying to push you to read it obviously, just wanted to ditto what she said

isn't it ironic that alanis is hypocritical about hypocrites when she doesn't even properly use the word "ironic?"

and i think marriage will just - to quote some women who are labeled feminists because they're lesbians - "multiply life by the power of two."

Hear hear! I embarrassingly still enjoy Ms. Morissette's music, but your diatribe was great.

marriage shouldn't be equated with lack of freedom or independence, but also feminism is not just for women who don't marry! my boyfriend/hopefully-one-day-my-husband is totally a feminist, in many ways moreso than me. feminism should not equal men-hating, and men (mostly, i think) are not out to marry women for the sole purpose of stealing their freedom. marriage should be about supporting and empowering each other.

deb, thanks for this great site. you are so my kind of feminist- you wear pretty dresses and lacy underwear and cook fancy things, but you do not suffer fools.

bravo.

Unfortunatly, our society is still so resentful of women and so ready to reduce the meaning of the word 'feminism' that they/we label any woman who is successful as a feminist. So Martha, Oprah, Hillary, Jenna Jameson are all called feminists while women like Camille Paglia make any real discussion on feminisim impossible.

What makes marriage unsavory is the ceremony, not the partnership. The ceremony must be about the uniting of two people, not a trade in goods between a father and a man.

As women, we must simply live well and set examples for the people around us, male and female. Basically, being a good person.

Whew - a sober rant! I haven't done that in a while. Back to work...

I agree with your criticism, Deb--not so much of Alanis, but more of the idea that some of us so-called feminists subscribe to--the idea that being a wife and being a feminist are two separate things, and that we, as women, can't be both. Unfortunately, I think this is something that women and feminists alike are always struggling with--if I do "X" will I still be considered a feminist? Will I still be considered "womanly?" If I'm a smart, successful woman who wants to stop working and stay at home with my kids, will Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem curse me for all eternity? Nowadays, if we're women who want to do "traditional" (or 1950s-style) things, like get married and have babies or stay at home with our kids, we're considered anti-feminist--at least by some, mostly other women. As women, we're really doing ourselves a disservice--feminists critiquing other feminists for not being feminist enough. It's crap. The irony of it all is that radical feminists of the 1970s--the spearheads of the women's lib movement--fought, yes, to get women out of the home, but really, they fought for our rights. Our right as women to choose--anything and everything. And, now, when women choose marriage and kids, or marriage and kids over a career, not only are we judged by other women (friends, mothers, co-workers, etc.), we also fall into a trap of judging ourselves (just as Alanis has done), questioning our very basic needs and wants, all in the name of a feminism that is constantly evolving and changing, becoming harder and harder to pin down.

a.m.e.n. I think her attitude is one of the reasons some men avoid marriage... because they don't want to be viewed as barbaric.

Susan Jane Gilman is being ironic with the word "hypocrite" in her title. Seriously, you should read the book. Not only is it hilarious, but you will find that Gilman whole-heartedly agrees with your viewpoint on marriage and feminism and that in her post-twenty-something wisdom, she is able to see the irony and "hypocrisy" of her earlier views of feminism.

Also, yes, Gilman is laughing at herself for throwing a lavish wedding celebration when you always swore she'd keep it simple.

I should stop pretending I'm a bad-ass and admit that I'll be reading the book any day now, when my best friend - the same one that insisted that I read Bergdorf Blondes - lends it to me.

You can also have concerns about the institution of marriage, note that it has changed and wonder what role it will play in your life and development without being accused of simplifying the discussion into feminist=man-hating. The institution of marriage has changed and it should affect our lives differently than it did our mothers and grandmothers. We have feminists to thank, in part, for that. It is okay to have reservations about it and still love your partner or even marry them. It would be more hypocritical to have those reservations and not awknowledge them, at least to yourself, before tying the knot. Feminism is a big tent, let's try and support all critical thinking and not judge those who may differ from where we stand at this exact moment.

The book is funny, though. And it is referencing that she just never saw herself as the type to fall for a pouffy dress, but as soon as her "beast" was on her, she knew it couldn't be any other way.

And for the record, I am a feminist and look forward to the days of frilly aprons and 6 pm promises. A la femme -- to be complicated is to be female. Non?

My husband is a feminist (seriously--women's studies major!)and I'm no great fan of Alannis, but the girl has a point. Marriage does mean that you are no longer totally independent. If you are totally independent you live without recourse to other humans, and once you are married you choose not to do that anymore. Not htat you couldn't do it on your own, but you choose not to. Even with the most supremely caring and reasonable husband in the world you "compromise" and make "mutually beneficial" decisions that sometimes to those of us who have been brought up believing that independence is the freedom to do what you want when you want sit a little uneasily on the stomach.

Re. 21 - But, I think it's easy to get making compromises within a relationship mixed up with compromising your independence and values. It's not always a feminist principle at hand; sometimes it's just your turn to wash the dishes. (Additionally, I'm not going to start living without recourse to other humans just because I'll be married.)

Re. 20 - Oh, I SO already do. But, it's my choice and isn't "choice" what all the bra-burning was about, anyway?

Also, comment #13 is a favorite of my own, and also SantaDad, who is celebrating a 65th Birthday today.

HAVE YOU WISHED SANTADAD A HAPPY BIRTHDAY?

Happy Birthday SANTADAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HO HO HO HO! Thank you.

I always thought that line was "the cross-eyed bear that you gave to me..." I was very wrong indeed.

As for the marriage issue, I agree with you to an extent. I think that ruling out marriage because it will turn you into a baby/cupcake factory is more than a little mindless.

But bear in mind that what some of us have a problem with is not women like yourself who get married, or women who choose to stay at home with the kids, etc. It's with the institution itself, its foundations, and the way it is so revered by "tradionalists" as the only acceptable core of a family unit. And that in some places in this country, you can't comfortably live outside of these bounds without being considered immoral. And that the option of marriage is a "choice" made available only to those who lead heteronormative lifestyles and, at least to a degree, fall in line with that same status quo.

While I can't speak for Alanis (and don't particularly want to), I still think that there's no "illogic" in not whole-heartedly supporting such an institution.

I think it is a brave woman indeed who takes all of these aspects, considers them carefully, and still chooses to get married. The fear of being subsumed by that institution, of losing your individuality in face of being forever "united" in an institution so deeply rooted in patriarchy, well, that's not something to take lightly.

But I don't think that happily married people are any less "less free-thinking or self-sustaining," and I don't think that your choice to get married, or not, has any effect on me or anyone else--to each their own. I know plenty of married couples who are "happily ever after" and do live in an equal partnership because it makes sense, not to live up to some societal standard.

HEAR HEAR!

I haven't read the book, but I feel like I don't need to now! ;-)

There's a great sadness in feminisms fear of being women, fear of wanting what women have traditionally wanted and the belief that men=evil, marriage=evil and end to independent life and children= end to life as we know it. I have both, a husband and a child, I am *only* 26 and I am doing more things, independently, than I ever have in my life!

great post. my first visit, but I'll be back!

Isn't it ironic...
That Google Ads is now trying to sell us readers Alanis Morisette CDs?

because she found someone worthy of spending her rest of her life alongside.

She didn't say she had a problem with that. She said she had a problem with the institution of marriage. They are two different things.

I was fortunate enough to find someone worthy of spending my life with 20 years ago. We have been building our lives together ever since. We have never gotten legally married. Here's (some of) why.

Why should we? For whom? To prove what? Why do I need a religious institution to sanctify my relationship, or the State to validate it?

Why participate in the fiction of "til death do you part" when you know you can un-do it - as painful and horrible as that would be - if you need to?

If I had chosen to spend my life with a another woman (which I might have), I couldn't get legally married, so why should I enter into that legal institution with a man?

These are just some of the reasons my partner and I chose not to be legally married. Other people see it up differently, that's fine.

But it has nothing to do with man-hating.

hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

irony: An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity (or) An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning

I see how Alanis is neither a hypocrite or uses irony incorrectly. Irony has 5 different meanings so pick one.

To sassycat and laura:

Yep, that's what I was thinking. Nowhere in that article did Alanis say, "Hey all you feminists who get married out there, you aren't holding true to the feminist code!"

To the others:

She simply said that she has a problem with the institution of marriage, meaning it has deep patriarchal roots. If you look at our worlds history, men wanted to marry women so that's what happened. Before that, relationships weren't fluid but there was no greater need to declare ceremoniously that one husband would be taking several wives (and yes, poligamy was practiced by almost all men who could afford it as it showed their wealth).

Heterocentric marriage was originally intended for the father to pass off his daughter to the husband. It was based in ownership and done when girls were 12 in many countries (and still done today) and often against their will.

Some of you have said that feminism is a large tent. This, too, falls under that large tent. Just because you think speaking out against the insitution of marriage may = man-hating, doesn't mean that it really does. I question it and have determined that marrying is not an option for me. "Assigned" roles do show up in a marriage unless both persons are aware of themselves within the relationship at all times (and both are willing to be aware of this also). Another reason is similar to what laura said: why get married when others can't simply because it's 'immoral?'

There is no true gain from going through the whole wedding schpiel, so why do it? I would like to think that the feminists who think she spouts man-hating bull will get over themselves and realize we aren't critizing the women as those of you have been doing here in this post and in the comments, but then whine when we aren't accepting you into our feminist discourse because you're married.

I'd say that falls under the definition of hypocritical and ironic, doncha think?