not only is it bourgeoise, but it is also homophobic, reactionary, haram, counterrevolutionary, ecocidal, and frankly cheugy as hell
The transition of marriage from a primarily economic union to one that is based in personal companionship is something that I think is actually a very good aspect of modernity.
It can be, and it often is, but it's not because it is ontologically bourgeois or reactionary, rather it's because hegemonic ideology will grab onto every institution found in human life and ascribe it's values to it, turning it into a normalizing force that self-enforces itself in order to support the power relations that led to it existing in the first place, as is the case of marriage reinforcing the patriarchy and heteronormativity which led to marriage existing in turn.
Gramsci lays out in a great way how hegemony coopts institutions and human life
Do have any beginner reading you'd recommend of Gramsci? I got the first volume of the Prison Notebooks, but it was a bit out of my league.
Read my response to dannoffs' comment... I haven't read Gramsci in English, so I can't recommend any annotated versions, but starting with those maybe selected around a single topic (Gramsci tended to go all over the place in the notebooks a bit) could help.
When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part. [G.B. Shaw, preface to "Getting Married," 1908]
You must imagine Sisyphus married.
“i hate my wife lmao” the book
Death to America
all things and concepts are bourgeois if you can profit from them. case in point, wedding planners. in the people's republic of earth all weddings shall be planned by a chatgpt run by the government.
asking the centrally planned chatgpt to plan my gender reveal explosion
Centrally planned weddings to go with the centrally planned economy.
It is if it's a cottagecore wedding.
well, women are bourgeois, so any wedding containing them is by extension, bourgeois.
is lesbian marriage double bourgeoise
without doubt.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
so marriage is feudalist
Yes. Why do you think I got married? I need my wife’s family to back me for the blood feud with my neighbors over his McDuchy (which de jure belongs to me) that’s been ongoing for 3 generations
Permanently Deleted
marriage is older than feudal which makes it patriarchal
it's an institution that dates back to when people were legally owned by their dad
although the concept of it being bad to murder your neighbour also dates back about that far so that isn't necessarily a criticism
fellas is it gay to be straight
Literally yes. Contrast with feudal arranged marriage. Gay marriage is also bourgeois but to less of an extent. It's just an adaptation of bourgeois (straight) marriage for gay couples. Marriage in China is also bourgeois. Cuban marriage is less bourgeois but not truly communist. Thank you for listening to my Ted talk.
This is a bit right
Permanently Deleted
What do you mean? I see the majority of the responses to this clearly joke post to actually be thoughtful responses to the question. It's great, because the post is a joke, but only half so in my interpretation, and it gets interesting answers.
What about this is irony poisoning? Thoughtful answers?
I conducted a representative double blind demographic unbaised survey of some catgirls i found hanging out in Hexbear and they said yes.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
If two bisexual people of the opposite sex get married, is it a straight marriage or a gay marriage?
it has two people of different genders so it's clearly a bisexual marriage
It's a straight marriage with gay attributes
It is a bisexual marriage
Yes marry me instead.
Me?
whether or not that was self aware you have to admit it was extremely funny
Probably, I know a fair number of married Marxists, but all of them only got married for the tax benefits.
"Are women bourgeois?"
