Not just a critique of marriage but one of the best books EVER on romantic relationships and how they really work. What do people want from love? How do they think marriage will help them, and what does it really give them? Marriage is all about love, right? Actually, it's more about money. Behind the romantic language, marriage is primarily a financial agreement merging the assets and liabilities of two individuals into a single corporate entity. After your wedding, the money you earn and debts you incur are no longer legally yours; they belong to the marital "community"-a common pot that both of you contribute to and draw from. It's a lot like Communism: an idealistic sharing of resources and risks supposedly for the common good. What could go wrong with this plan? Pretty much the same things that brought down political Communism in the late 20th Century: It slows growth, suppresses initiative, dilutes responsibility and mires decisions in bureaucracy. Healthy relationships need clear boundaries, and marriage erases too many of them at once. Marriage was designed for medieval times. Back then, life was hard and short; most marriages were arranged, and a woman was essentially the property of her husband. Marriage was a sort of licensing system for sex and childbirth. Once the relationship was officially approved and the religious ceremony concluded, the couple's overriding goal was to produce as many children as possible, knowing that many would die. Times have changed. Birth control, longer life spans, sexual freedom and women's rights have rewritten the rules of matrimony. Under the laws of most Western countries, marriage is no longer a sex license or child-rearing contract, only a contract to merge financial resources. "It's only money," couples may say, but Glenn Campbell argues that love and money are separate issues that should be kept that way. In modern Western society, unmarried people can legally have sex, live together, raise children, buy property together and do nearly everything else associated with a committed relationship, so why do they need to marry at all? What are you really getting when you walk down the aisle? Is marriage merely a public announcement to make your relationship "official," or does it fundamentally change the relationship? With simple, powerful and accessible arguments, The Case Against Marriage explains why, if you truly love someone, marriage may not be the wisest way to show it.

Against Marriage argues that marriage violates both equality and liberty and should not be recognized by the state. Clare Chambers shows how feminist and liberal principles require creation of a marriage-free state: one in which private marriages, whether religious or secular, would have no legal status. Part One makes the case against marriage. Chambers investigates the critique of marriage that has developed within feminist and liberal theory. Feminists have long argued that state-recognised marriage is a violation of equality. Chambers endorses the feminist view and argues, in contrast to recent egalitarian pro-marriage movements, that same-sex marriage is not enough to make marriage equal. The egalitarian case against marriage is the most fundamental argument of Against Marriage. But Chambers also argues that state-recognised marriage violates liberty, including the political liberal version of liberty that is based on neutrality between conceptions of the good. Part Two sets out the case for the marriage-free state. Chambers criticizes recent arguments that traditional marriage should be replaced with either a reformed version of marriage, such as civil partnership, or a purely contractual model of relationship regulation. She then sets out a new model for the legal regulation of personal relationships. Instead of regulating by status, the state should regulate relationships according to the practices they involve. Instead of regulating relationships holistically, assuming that relationship practices are bundled together in one significant relationship, the marriage-free state regulates practices on a piecemeal basis. The marriage-free state thus employs piecemeal, practice-based regulation. It may regulate private marriages, including religious marriages, so as to protect equality. But it takes no interest in defining or protecting the meaning of marriage.

The Case Against MarriageWhat You're Really Getting. What You've Got To LoseNot just a critique of marriage but one of the best books EVER on romantic relationships and how they really work. What do people want from love? How do they think marriage will help them, and what does it really give them?Marriage is all about love, right? Actually, it's more about money. Behind the romantic language, marriage is primarily a financial agreement merging the assets and liabilities of two individuals into a single corporate entity. After your wedding, the money you earn and debts you incur are no longer legally yours; they belong to the marital "community"-a common pot that both of you contribute to and draw from. It's a lot like Communism: an idealistic sharing of resources and risks supposedly for the common good.What could go wrong with this plan? Pretty much the same things that brought down political Communism in the late 20th Century: It slows growth, suppresses initiative, dilutes responsibility and mires decisions in bureaucracy. Healthy relationships need clear boundaries, and marriage erases too many of them at once.Marriage was designed for medieval times. Back then, life was hard and short; most marriages were arranged, and a woman was essentially the property of her husband. Marriage was a sort of licensing system for sex and childbirth. Once the relationship was officially approved and the religious ceremony concluded, the couple's overriding goal was to produce as many children as possible, knowing that many would die.Times have changed. Birth control, longer life spans, sexual freedom and women's rights have rewritten the rules of matrimony. Under the laws of most Western countries, marriage is no longer a sex license or child-rearing contract, only a contract to merge financial resources. "It's only money," couples may say, but Glenn Campbell argues that love and money are separate issues that should be kept that way.In modern Western society, unmarried people can legally have sex, live together, raise children, buy property together and do nearly everything else associated with a committed relationship, so why do they need to marry at all? What are you really getting when you walk down the aisle? Is marriage merely a public announcement to make your relationship "official," or does it fundamentally change the relationship?With simple, powerful and accessible arguments, The Case Against Marriage explains why, if you truly love someone, marriage may not be the wisest way to show it.

Against Marriage argues that marriage violates both equality and liberty and should not be recognized by the state. Clare Chambers shows how feminist and liberal principles require creation of a marriage-free state: one in which private marriages, whether religious or secular, would have no legal status. Part One makes the case against marriage. Chambers investigates the critique of marriage that has developed within feminist and liberal theory. Feminists have long argued that state-recognised marriage is a violation of equality. Chambers endorses the feminist view and argues, in contrast to recent egalitarian pro-marriage movements, that same-sex marriage is not enough to make marriage equal. The egalitarian case against marriage is the most fundamental argument of Against Marriage. But Chambers also argues that state-recognised marriage violates liberty, including the political liberal version of liberty that is based on neutrality between conceptions of the good. Part Two sets out the case for the marriage-free state. Chambers criticizes recent arguments that traditional marriage should be replaced with either a reformed version of marriage, such as civil partnership, or a purely contractual model of relationship regulation. She then sets out a new model for the legal regulation of personal relationships. Instead of regulating by status, the state should regulate relationships according to the practices they involve. Instead of regulating relationships holistically, assuming that relationship practices are bundled together in one significant relationship, the marriage-free state regulates practices on a piecemeal basis. The marriage-free state thus employs piecemeal, practice-based regulation. It may regulate private marriages, including religious marriages, so as to protect equality. But it takes no interest in defining or protecting the meaning of marriage.

Why, when there is so much evidence of the detrimental, suffocating impact marriage has on women's lives, does the myth of marital bliss still prevail? If the feminist project has been so successful, why do so many women still believe that our value is intrinsically tied to being chosen by a man? In her most incendiary and controversial book to date, Clementine Ford exposes the lies used to sell marriage to women to keep them in service to men and male power. From the roots of marriage as a form of property transaction to the wedding industrial complex, Clementine Ford explains how capitalist patriarchal structures need women to believe in marriage in order to maintain control over women's agency, ambitions and freedom. I Don't presents an inarguable case against marriage for modern women. With the incisive attention to detail and razor-sharp wit that characterises her work, Ford dissects the patriarchal history of marriage; the insidious, centuries-long marketing campaign pop culture has conducted in marriage's favour; the illusion of feminist 'choice' in regard to taking men's names; and the physical and social cost that comes with motherhood.

In this epic drama of personality and politics, passion and ambition, courage and betrayal, Marcia Cohen tells the fascinating inside story of the feminist revolution through the lives of the women who made it-and were sometimes unmade by it. Focusing on Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Kate Millett, "The Sisterhood" is a revealing group portrait of the women whose ideas and actions have so profoundly transformed us all. This classic account traces the women's movement from its quiet birth in the 1960s through its startling triumphs in the 1970s and its troubled legacy in the 1980s. Today, everything seems possible for women as they function on an equal plane with men in nearly every walk of life. But the revolution was hard won. Now the irreverent, entertaining chronicle that reveals all the well-kept secrets of feminism, with a thoughtful new foreword by the author, appears in a special edition that serves as a riveting social history, casting light on an entire era so important for women as well as men.