Radical feminism v. marriage
2006 May 15
Amanda at Pandagon expresses the “radical feminist” position that we should “tear down the institution of marriage”:http://pandagon.net/2006/05/15/the-radical-feminist-politics-of-oprah-and-glamour-magazine/. What does “tear down” mean? And what is the expected benefit?
If we disposed of marriage entirely because it doesn’t fit “radical feminist” principles, no one would gain any rights — we’d just lose ones we already have.
Perhaps Amanda would care to explain why, in this case, we should make a law that interferes in people’s private living arrangements?
