Marriage is good for men, women, children--and society

June 16, 2003

Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage
by Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes
Backgrounder #1662

Marriage is good for men, women, children--and society. Because of
this simple fact, President George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot
program to promote healthy marriage. Despite demonstrated evidence
in every major social policy area of the need to rebuild a strong
and healthy culture of marriage, President Bush's new marriage
initiative is still opposed by the extreme wing of feminism that
sees no good in marriage or in unity between men and women, and
between mothers and fathers.

Moderate, mainstream feminists have long rejected this animus
against marriage; the vast majority of such feminists either are
married or intend to marry. Mainstream feminists are focused on a
worthy concern: removing obstacles to the advancement of women in
all walks of life.

Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal--
even hiding behind it--go much further: They seek to undermine the
nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they
label the "patriarchal family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has
warned, this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists
profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream
feminists and most other American women.

Although radical feminists often claim that their opposition to the
President's healthy marriage initiative is a matter of efficiency or
program details, it is in fact rooted in a long-term philosophical
hostility to the institution of marriage itself. The Washington Post
underscored this point in an April 2002 editorial, stating that the
unwarranted animosity to the President's policy grew out
of "reflexive hostility" and the "tired ideology" of "the feminist
left."2 Decision-makers in Congress should not allow the badly
needed initiative to strengthen healthy marriage to be blocked by
organizations, such as the NOW Legal Defense Fund, that are still
wedded to the "tired ideology" of the radical feminist past.

The Washington Post editorial found "something puzzling about the
reflexive hostility" to the President's proposal. This paper
unravels much of this puzzle by reviewing major statements made by
radical feminist leaders about marriage over the past three decades.
Congress should review these radical feminist views on marriage,
reject their influence, and uphold legislation that seeks to
increase stable, healthy marriage--a better solution for men and
women who are parents of children. Congress should never forget that
it is children who suffer most when an anti-marriage agenda triumphs.

more