Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners
has been a valued etiquette columnist for MSN.com, the Chicago Sun Times and is
syndicated in over 200 other newspapers and magazines. Active since 1978 and in
2005 received an award from the White House for her Humanitarian efforts; Miss
Manners has become the go to etiquette columnist for North Americans. With her
sage, and occasionally cheeky advice, Ms. Martin has corrected her reader’s
etiquette in a myriad of situations. While
times have certainly changed from the earlier 20th century when
etiquette columns consisted of the proper way for a man to court a woman, and
our society has become more relaxed around social norms, there are still
etiquette hurdles that must be jumped, in this
instance – how does one tell their wife that they require a prenuptial
agreement? As many people may see this as a power play for the future husband
to have an upper hand and keep his finances away from his future bride, I argue
that levels the playing field for both parties to be in a position of power,
something which the institutional gaze of marriage does not allow.
Marriage while seen by many as the
ultimate romantic gesture, more often than not can become a stressful
situation. With so many cultural expectations surrounding it, many people fail
to note that marriage is not just a union of two people, but also the union of
finances. The traditional institutional gaze that surrounds marriage implies
that two people are meant to fall in love, get married and have children with a
white picket fence. In fact, should one bring up the financial obligations of
marriage they may be considered deviant and even money hungry. In the article
in question, a man ponders how to bring up the subject of a prenuptial
agreement to his fiancé, who will also be his second wife. The man has grown
children and wants to ensure after having one failed marriage, that should his
second marriage fail that he and his children will be protected. While 50 years
ago this would be against all social norms, it is becoming all too common in
the twenty-first century. With nearly fifty percent of marriages ending in
divorce it is impractical to assume that a marriage will be successful, and for
one to assume that their marriage is outside of the new normal may be considered
entirely foolish.
Focault speaks of a power balance between
people and while he attributes this to the balance of power between an officer
of the law and a prisoner, it can also be attributed to marriage. Marriage can
be one large power struggle, who has the most money, who is the breadwinner and
who survives off of whom. What is boasted as a partnership today, may have an
underlying tension regarding who carries the most power. Focault says “We must
cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms – as
exclusion, repression, censorship and concealment”. There is nothing wrong with
power, what becomes a problem is when that power is abused. By instating a
prenuptial agreement this places both parties in a position of power, to
negotiate and come to reasonable terms for a marriage and should the time come
– the dissolution of one. A prenuptial agreement is not a statement of power,
it is evening the playing field.
A concern regarding the prenuptial
agreement is the sign that it portrays – divorce. One reason people are so
hesitant to them is that they are discussing the dissolution of a marriage
before it has even happened. To speak of a prenuptial agreement to some is to
assume failure. This is a myth that is perpetrated by the media and by
Hollywood where the money hungry, evil man asks the innocent woman for the
prenuptial agreement and she is blindsided. One of the most popular and well
known instances of the prenuptial agreement shown in the Media is Sex and the
City. Charlotte, the demure innocent character of the famous foursome is
blindsided when her fiancé asks her for a prenuptial agreement, in which she believes shows her “worth” as an
individual. When she makes a demand that
she have worth increased, she in essence takes back her power as a woman. This
is a foreshadowing to her failed marriage, and perpetuates the myth that a
prenuptial agreement is a sign of disaster.
Feminism also plays a role in the development
of our new social norms surrounding marriage. With women now working outside
the home, waiting until their late twenties, and even thirties to get married,
there have become different reasons for getting married. No longer must a woman
rely on a man to take care of her, she can be educated, hold a well paying job
and take care of herself. A woman may very well have her own assets to protect.
The theory of the “male gaze” may be there to make a woman believe that she
still requires a man to live a successful life, but in truth it hasn’t been
necessary for a long, long time. However, you still fail to see many articles
in which a woman expresses the desire for a prenuptial agreement. This is
because the male gaze still places women in a position of inferior power, as
pointed out in Sturken and Cartwrights article “Spectatorship, Power and
Knowledge”. Sturken and Cartwright state
that women are meant to be looked at while men are meant to act. This places
females who are in a position of power in a precarious position. Because a
woman feels that she is being watched and judged, she may be less likely to
makes demands when a prenuptial agreement is requested of her as she may be
seen by others as money hungry or a gold digger. On the other hand, to be a
female and request one of her partner, a woman faces the possibility of
emasculating her future husband, thus jeopardizing the future of her
relationship.
An Interesting aspect of this particular
advice column is that Miss Manners does not attempt to scold the reader for his
deviant behaviour and the desire to protect his assets. In fact, she encourages
the conversation and suggests tactful ways to bring up the subject. A key point
in this is that she manages to balance the power between the man and his betrothed
by encouraging him to place the blame not on the potential failure of the
marriage as the writer does, but on his
children and the protection of their future. By doing so, Judith Martin
attempts to shift the balance of power and create an equal playing field for
both the male and the female.
No comments:
Post a Comment