No. 1662 June 16, 2003 WHY CONGRESS SHOULD IGNORE RADICAL FEMINIST OPPOSITION TO MARRIAGE PATRICK F. FAGAN, ROBERT E. RECTOR, AND LAUREN R. NOYES Marriage is good for men, women, children— In 1970, author Robin Morgan referred to mar- and society. Because of this simple fact, President riage as “a slavery-like George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot program practice. We can’t destroy to promote healthy marriage. Yet the President’s ini- the inequities between Produced by the tiative is opposed by radical feminists who seek to men and women until we Domestic Policy Studies undermine what they call the “patriarchal family.” destroy marriage.” In Department As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this 1971, Minnesota radical Published by anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists pro- feminists Helen Sullinger The Heritage Foundation foundly at odds with the family aspirations of and Nancy Lehmann 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE mainstream feminists and most other American released a manifesto that Washington, DC women. declared: “Male society has 20002–4999 sold us the idea of mar- (202) 546-4400 The Emergence of Radical Feminism. In its heritage.org initial stages, modern American feminism was not riage…. Now we know it hostile to marriage; but in the late 1960s and early is the institution that has 1970s, a wave of radical feminism emerged that failed us and we must was overtly hostile to the institution of marriage work to destroy it….” In 1981, author Vivian Gor- itself. In their influential 1968 pamphlet “Toward a This paper, in its entirety, can be Female Liberation Movement,” for example, Bev- nick, a tenured professor found at: www.heritage.org/ erly Jones and Judith Brown proclaimed: “The mar- at the University of Ari- research/family/bg1662.cfm ried woman knows that love is, at its best, an zona, proclaimed that inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre “The choice to serve and be protected and plan heritage of oppression.” In 1969, University of Chi- towards being a family-maker is a choice that cago sociology professor Marlene Dixon declared: shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to “The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for change that.” the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is Mainstreaming the Anti-Marriage Message. As through the role of wife that the subjugation of their influence grew, such sentiments increasingly women is maintained.” found their way into college textbooks and courses, No. 1662 June 16, 2003 exercising a detrimental influence on the intellec- lock childbearing. Regrettably, however, most states tual formation of millions of students. In addition, have done little to advance these objectives directly. radical feminist novelists have carried the same President Bush has therefore sought to meet the message into popular literature. Marilyn French, for original goals of welfare reform by proposing, as example, in her 1992 book The War Against Women, part of welfare reauthorization, a new model pro- wrote: “In personal and public life, in kitchen, bed- gram to promote healthy marriage. He proposes room and halls of parliament, men wage unremit- spending $300 million per year on his model pro- ting war against women.” gram—or only one cent to promote healthy mar- Such views help explain the shrillness of the riage for every five dollars the government now opposition to President Bush’s policy to promote spends to subsidize single-parent families. healthy marriage. Anyone who believes that mar- Radical feminists view the President’s proposal riage harms the emotional health of women, that with alarm. NOW President Kim Gandy, for exam- men and women are locked in a predator–prey rela- ple, has declared: “Finding a man—the [Bush] tionship, or that marriage exploits women will dis- administration’s approved ticket out of poverty—is dain any policy to promote healthy marriage. And terrible public policy. Marrying women off to get while these views are not widely shared within our them out of poverty is not only backward, it is society, they do influence feminist interest groups, insulting to women.” But the radical feminists’ ani- which in turn influence Congress. mosity toward marriage is not widely shared by any The Facts About Marriage. Radical feminists other group within American society. It would be a view marriage as an oppressive institution that tragedy for America’s children and families if groups harms women and children. The facts, however, motivated by radical feminist thought were to suc- belie this view. On average, a mother who gives ceed in their efforts to block or cripple the Presi- birth and raises a child outside of marriage is seven dent’s healthy marriage proposal. times more likely to live in poverty than is a mother Conclusion. For decades, radical feminists have who raises her children within a stable married attacked marriage as an institution that economi- family. Over 80 percent of long-term child poverty cally oppresses women and as a prison that gener- in the United States occurs in never-married or bro- ates despair and mental illness for women trapped ken households. within it. The facts, however, show that marriage Radical feminists claim that marriage foments has enormous economic benefits for mothers and domestic violence against women. Yet domestic vio- children. Stable marriage has substantial, positive, lence is most common in the transitory, cohabita- emotional and psychological benefits for women, tional relationships that feminists have long and it dramatically improves the well-being of chil- celebrated as replacements for traditional marriage. dren. Never-married mothers are more than twice as American children, in particular, need a culture likely to suffer from domestic violence than moth- of stable, healthy marriage. Poor children need it ers who are or have been married. most; they have consistently suffered the greatest The multiple fields of research that have investi- damage from the erosion of marriage over the past gated the effects of marriage show that for men, 30 years. For the sake of all children, but most women, children, and communities at large, mar- especially for the children of the poor, Congress riage leads to greater health and longevity; more should join the President in rebuilding a culture of education; higher income; less abuse of women, stable, healthy marriages. boys, and girls; less poverty; less crime; less addic- —Patrick F. Fagan is William H. G. FitzGerald tion; and less depression. Research Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues, Robert President Bush’s Initiative. The federal welfare E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow, and Lauren R. reform of 1996 set clear goals to increase the num- Noyes is Director of Research Projects in Domestic Pol- ber of two-parent families and reduce out-of-wed- icy at The Heritage Foundation. NOTE: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. No. 1662 June 16, 2003 WHY CONGRESS SHOULD IGNORE RADICAL FEMINIST OPPOSITION TO MARRIAGE PATRICK F. FAGAN, ROBERT E. RECTOR, AND LAUREN R. NOYES1 Marriage is good for men, women, children— Although radical feminists often claim that their and society. Because of this simple fact, President opposition to the President’s healthy marriage ini- George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot program tiative is a matter of efficiency or program details, it to promote healthy marriage. Despite demonstrated is in fact rooted in a long- evidence in every major social policy area of the term philosophical hostil- Produced by the need to rebuild a strong and healthy culture of mar- ity to the institution of Domestic Policy Studies riage, President Bush’s new marriage initiative is marriage itself. The Wash- Department still opposed by the extreme wing of feminism that ington Post underscored sees no good in marriage or in unity between men this point in an April 2002 Published by The Heritage Foundation and women, and between mothers and fathers. editorial, stating that the 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE Moderate, mainstream feminists have long unwarranted animosity to Washington, DC rejected this animus against marriage; the vast the President’s policy grew 20002–4999 majority of such feminists either are married or out of “reflexive hostility” (202) 546-4400 and the “tired ideology” of heritage.org intend to marry. Mainstream feminists are focused 2 on a worthy concern: removing obstacles to the “the feminist left.” Deci- advancement of women in all walks of life. sion-makers in Congress should not allow the badly Radical feminists, however, while embracing this needed initiative to mainstream goal—even hiding behind it—go much strengthen healthy mar- This paper, in its entirety, can be further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family riage to be blocked by found at: www.heritage.org/ research/family/bg1662.cfm of married father, mother, and children, which they organizations, such as the label the “patriarchal family.” As feminist leader NOW Legal Defense Fund, that are still wedded to Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage the “tired ideology” of the radical feminist past. agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists The Washington Post editorial found “something and most other American women. puzzling about the reflexive hostility” to the Presi- 1. The authors are deeply indebted to interns Darin Thacker and Anna Shopen, who contributed substantially to this paper. 2. Editorial, “The Left’s Marriage Problem,” The Washington Post, April 5, 2002, p. A22. No. 1662 June 16, 2003 dent’s proposal. This paper unravels much of this • Jessie Bernard, author of The Future of Marriage puzzle by reviewing major statements made by rad- (1972) and influential Pennsylvania State Uni- ical feminist leaders about marriage over the past versity sociologist who “converted” to radical three decades.