Talk:Criticism of marriage

on Plato, Kilbride, and Mormons

I recommend a couple of edits to the section Social Planning.

• In the subsection Plato's Republic, after I moved out what was not about that book, only one sentence is left and I guess it doesn't much cover what's in the book on the subject. If someone here has read it or about it, could someone please expand the subsection a bit?
• The subsection Philip Kilbride appears as better positionable not as a focus on one writer but in a more general passage about why polygamy or polygyny is better than monogamy or monogyny, an argument possibly available from Mormon sources, for example.

I don't know enough about the subject to address either issue. Some of what I added lately is also skeletal, and is equally available for being beefed up.

Nick Levinson (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Article needs elaboration

Despite referenced criticisms of Marriage, this article needs to elaborate more on the referenced articles. (Marriage Sux is not an argument, despite any references that suggest so.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.241.243 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Violence against women

Wikipedia is written npov. This means that we are neither for nor against violence against women!

So that section needs to be rewritten to state that UN resolution says thus and so, and various countries (enumerate, if possible) are not in compliance with that resolution. The section is currently a vague rant against possibly (not really sure) various Arabic and African countries. Maybe some Asian ones thrown in for good measure. Or maybe more. Who knows? Student7 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

New material = new subsection?

We need better structure in this article. We seem to be rapidly losing control. Not every "fresh" material requires a brand new subsection to support it. Possibly an old one can be found that will serve. It might need renaming. Sections should be broadly (simply) named anyway, otherwise we'll wind up with too many. Ten is probably more than enough. We're just about there now. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality - reverts by user:Student7

I have seen that you have reverted several changes, stating in your summary that WP must present the subject of violence against women, legal inequality between husband & wife, marital rape, dowry violence etc from a neutral POV. But these are considered violations of human rights by the UN, and crimes under international law. Domestic violence, including marital rape, is listed as a human rights violation by international conventions.

The 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women lists domestic violence against women as a human rights violation, and defines it as:[1]

"Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non- spousal violence and violence related to exploitation".

Other articles, such as Rape, Murder, Child sexual abuse etc, are not presented in a neutral way, because these acts are officially considered human rights abuses by international organizations.

"The 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women lists domestic violence against women as a human rights violation, and defines it as:http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm." This is great and is the type of thing we are looking for - something on which to base editorial criticism of violence. It should be stated early in the article IMO. Probably summarized in the lead, then early in the body of the article itself.

Right now, some of the sources of criticism summarized in the lead sound a bit fallacious. "I just don't like it, therefore there needs to be a subsection (or material) devoted to it." Begging the question comes to mind.

The huge list at the beginning should be compared to the article to see if they are all covered - that is, is the summary accurate?

We should also compare the summary against the UN declaration. If they aren't in the declaration (or some other document), why are we raising the issue? I think these need to be separated out by what supports them, not merely, "Some editor just dreamt this up!"

But editors still can't "take sides," like the media does. That dispassion is what separates us from them. We are still neither pro-violence nor anti-violence, and neither pro-marriage nor anti-marriage. We just report the facts. We are not looking to "excite" readers. We want readers to come to Wikipedia to read what we wrote last year or the year before. The media doesn't dare write that dispassionately. Reading their stuff from last year or the last decade, makes for funny reading.

The UN declaration is a "fact" in capital letters! Yemeni law, too, is a fact of high standing! Editors don't pit one against the other - they allow WP:RS to comment. Would be nice (but not mandatory) if critics were WP:NN. This is not always possible (and many RS are not authored by notable sources), but it "looks good." Student7 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Section of 'History'

The section on 'History' contains the paragraph:

Martin Luther once said: "I detest divorce so much, that I prefer bigamy rather than divorce." Subsequently, a bigamist marriage was performed with his written consent in 1539 inspired by the Hebrew Bible. Notably, Luther's own wife detested his views in turn. "Before I put up with that, I would rather go back into the convent" she said. An American anthropologist Philip Kilbride, in his book Plural Marriage for our Time, also proposed polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of the American society at large.[5] New research shows that in the U.S. the chances of divorce "increase dramatically as a result of affairs."[6] Kilbride argued that plural marriage (as in Mormonism) could serve as a potential alternative for divorce in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. According to Kilbride, ending an extramarital affair in a plural marriage, rather than in a divorce, could possibly be better for the children. He suggested also that other age groups could benefit from it, such as elderly women.[5]

I'm going to remove it because it is not about criticism of marriage which is the subject of this article. It is off topic. It is rather a criticism of divorce, and a support for plural marriages (which are also marriages) and bigamy. It does not criticize the institution of marriage itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.26.250 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics, it is encyclopedic to comment on the quality of the otherwise reliable material.

That is, somewhere there is an article on the South Korea ferry incident. If it were "criticism of the SK ferry system," an editor might say "ferries are sometimes allowed to be overloaded, causing a top heavy condition resulting in capsizing the vessel." Another editor might take factual issue with this. Balance is allowed, even in criticism articles, just as they are in "articles about." Student7 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

G.B. Shaw, spokesperson for anti-marriage

Material states:

"In 1905, George Bernard Shaw asked if marriage was as great as its proponents claim, why was there so much need for its promotion, and for social and legal norms that encourage it and hold spouses together. He wrote in Man and Superman:

Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?"

The quote is over a century old. A lot has happened in one century in public morals and opinions.

Shaw is rather the reverse of an expert on marriage.

The quote is from a life-long bachelor, possibly misogynist. His biases should be revealed IMO. He is not an authority on marriage, but rather an authority on "letters." A wordsmith. An amusing person. Would you allow a quote from Dave Barry here? Should we have a section devoted to "jokes about marriage?" The summary of his remarks are already there. The quote is there, unnecessarily, simply adding extra words in a pov language. The earlier remarks summarize his remarks in a npov manner. "Prisoners" and "lock him in" is obviously pov and not necessary nor desirable to the criticism article. The "him" is a giveaway as well. How about locking her in? Misogyny. The words are unencylopedic and demean the level of argument. It overstates the position and sounds desperate for attention.

Sometime quotes are needed when they are npov and present statistics or something that can't really be summarized properly. Or is from an npov source (government, UN) but emphasizes that the activity/outcome was desirable/undesirable. Student7 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I' m going to address several of your points.

• You say: "The quote is over a century old. A lot has happened in one century in public morals and opinions."

So what? This article is about criticism of marriage; older views are as important as new views, because the article is supposed to give a general overview - both historical and present - of the opposition to marriage. It would be inappropriate to only focus on present views. Also, older writings on marriage from past authors often serve as a source of inspiration for new writings by contemporary authors (as with all subjects).

• You say: "Shaw is rather the reverse of an expert on marriage. The quote is from a life-long bachelor..."

First of all, what on earth is an "expert on marriage"? It's not like we're talking about an expert in chemistry, or in any hard science - ie. something in which one can have clear credentials. Shaw is clearly a relevant personality - a Nobel laureate. He expressed political and social views during his lifetime - he had opinions on relevant social issues; and there is no reason as to why his views, as an important personality, should not be cited in this article. His lifestyle, character etc, are completely irrelevant. We present ideas from relevant authors here, we do not judge their lifestyles and other personal characteristics. (And btw Shaw was not a "life-long bachelor", he was married to Charlotte Payne-Townshend).

• You say: "His biases should be revealed IMO. (...) The quote is there, unnecessarily, simply adding extra words in a pov language."

Well, quotes are biased and POV, when they express a specific idea/criticism. We don't endorse their POV, we present the quote to the reader. In fact, sometimes, it is much better to have the quote from the author, rather then summarize it, because we can get it wrong, especially if the quote is complex.

• You say: "Prisoners" and "lock him in" is obviously pov and not necessary nor desirable to the criticism article."

Again see above. Quotes are not neutral. (And as an aside note: "Prisoners" and "lock him in" are used rather metaphorically in the quote above (IMO), but even if they meant to be taken literally they would still not be exaggerated - at the time on this quote people were literally 'prisoners' and 'locked' in their marriages as divorce was extremely difficult to obtain and highly stigmatized too - and this continues to be the case today in most countries outside the West).

You say: "The "him" is a giveaway as well. How about locking her in?

Until very recently, the English language used "he/man" as masculine generics, ie. "he" was used to refer to any person - in ordinary language, in legal texts etc; there simply was no other generally accepted form (when referred to a 'person' - unless it was clear that the person was a female). Yes, this was extremely misogynistic - and this has been a major area of activism by feminists. But Shaw was simply using the language of his time; he should not be faulted for this.

• In conclusion, I believe the quote is very relevant and should stay.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:711D (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)