If marriage is so exhausting for women, why does society push it so hard? A feminist unpacking of love, labour, and the world’s most successful social contract, 'marriage'.
Why Does Marriage Still Thrive—Even When It Politely Chains Ambitious Women?
This blog began, as many feminist awakenings do, with a “well-meaning” comment from family. My second cousin responded to an earlier piece I wrote on working women and domestic labour—especially cooking, that sacred skill women are expected to retain no matter how many degrees they acquire. Apparently, intellectual ambition is admirable, but only if it does not interfere with dinner.
Her message, however, was refreshingly sharp.
She wrote that she is constantly warned—by colleagues, friends, and the informal Ministry of Social Wisdom—that marriage traps women in a lifelong loop of care work, emotional management, and unpaid labour. At the same time, she is urged to finish her PhD quickly because “it’s time to get married,” accompanied by the soothing assurance that marriage, of course, will not affect her research in the slightest.
Allow me to add a bonus round: why are options like late marriage, no marriage, or permanent singledom treated as extreme sports for women? Why does society act as though an unmarried woman will immediately forget how to survive, pay rent, or operate basic household appliances?
Which brings us to the real puzzle: why does marriage continue to enjoy such excellent brand loyalty—even when its fine print clearly restricts women’s lives?
Spoiler: it’s not love. It’s logistics.
Marriage: Now Serving Moral Containment
In societies that proudly celebrate women’s education, marriage operates as a tamper-proof seal. An ambitious woman is impressive; an ambitious woman within marriage is comforting. Education without marriage feels excessive. Independence without supervision makes people nervous. Marriage assures everyone that no matter how far a woman travels intellectually, she will return safely to her designated zone.
Choice, But Make It Urgent
Marriage is often marketed as a “choice,” but it comes with reminders, deadlines, and escalating concern (particularly for women). Social visibility ensures that remaining unmarried is not neutrality—it is a condition requiring explanation. Marriage becomes less a romantic milestone and more a social panic button that stops intrusive questions, pitying looks, and unsolicited success stories that begin with “At your age…”
Sexuality, Safely Archived
Despite all the talk of freedom and liberation, women’s sexuality still triggers collective anxiety. Marriage remains the only officially licensed storage unit for desire. Ambitious women—especially those who read too much, travel too freely, or think too independently—are gently nudged into marriage so their sexuality can be safely filed, labeled, and supervised.
Emotional Labour: Included by Default
Marriage thrives because it quietly institutionalises women’s emotional labour. Women are expected to manage moods, smooth tensions, care for elders, and perform relational maintenance—tasks framed as personality traits rather than work. Professional success does not replace this labour; it simply joins the workload. The ideal woman is not less tired—she is more efficient.
Marriage as the World’s Cheapest Welfare System
In societies where structural support for childcare, eldercare, illness, and burnout is patchy at best, marriage steps in as a DIY (Do-It-Yourself) welfare model. Care is privatised. Women become the default administrators. Opting out of marriage, therefore, is framed not as independence but as irresponsibility—because who will absorb the fallout?
The Wedding Economy: Love, But Make It Cinematic
Marriage also thrives because it is wildly profitable. Weddings are no longer ceremonies; they are productions. Entire industries depend on marriage remaining compulsory—gold, real estate, photography, curated happiness. In this economy, women’s personal ambitions are politely asked to wait while the spectacle unfolds.
Neoliberal Burnout and the Family Repair Shop
Finally, marriage performs essential maintenance work for neoliberal economies. In a system that demands endless productivity while offering minimal care, the family becomes the repair unit. Women quietly restore exhausted individuals so they can return to work refreshed. Men become model neoliberal subjects. Women become the unpaid infrastructure.
Seen clearly, marriage does not survive despite the chains it places on women—it survives because of them. It organises women’s time, moderates their ambition, regulates their sexuality, and ensures a steady supply of emotional and domestic labour.
To question marriage, then, is not to reject intimacy or companionship. It is to ask why one particular way of living together is marketed as inevitable, while others are treated as reckless social experiments.
Perhaps my cousin’s “confusion” is not confusion at all. Perhaps it is literacy.
And perhaps feminism today must stop asking how women can succeed within marriage—and start asking why marriage still requires women’s success at the cost of their freedom.
Comments
Post a Comment