1A Lesson for “I Do. Not.: Why I Won’t Marry” (60)

 

Part I. What arguments does Catherine Newman rely on to defend her position not to marry?

 

One. Marriage is a tool of the patriarchy, a man-ruled society that oppresses women. So if marriage is part of patriarchy, her logic goes, then marrying is cooperating with the patriarchy and an act of self-betrayal for women. See page 60. Is she not using an over simplification and an over generalization and perhaps even paranoid emotions over reason?

Two. Newman equates marriage with the trafficking of women because, as she says, men have “historically solidified their economic connections to other men.” Is this true today? See 60 and 61.

Three. She equates an expensive wedding with a dowry. Explain. 61. This is what we call a faulty comparison.

Four. Is Catherine Newman’s interpretation of the candle on page 61 fair to her argument? Could you call it a faulty comparison? Explain.

Five. For Newman, how would getting married be a betrayal against her gay friends? See page 61.

Six.  She is not sure about her sexuality. See page 61. This could be a legitimate argument and her general personality is not good for marriage, but she doesn’t have the courage or humility to face this head-on.

Seven. She does not believe in monogamy. See pages 62 and 63. Monogamy is rare but so is happiness and guess what? People in monogamous relationships are happier than those who are not.

Eight. She equates being in a committed relationship, sealed legally in marriage contract, as being “possessed” by another man. See page 63. One could argue that Newman is possessed by fear and that should be a bigger concern than being “possessed” in a relationship.

Nine. Michael is not her ideal partner, just some dude who capitulates to her neuroses and insecurities and this makes her feel good. That he doesn’t resort to obsessive romantic poetry or the “extremes of passion” makes him a suitable partner. This seems irrelevant to her argument about marriage. An irrelevance is called a non sequitur, which literally means “it does not follow.” See bottom of page 63.

Ten.  Not being married makes her feel more wanted because her partner chooses her every day as opposed to having to be with her under the dark shadow of a marriage contract. See page 64.

Eleven. Their having a child is a substitute for marriage. See page 64.

 

Part II. Reviewing Some Alleged Fallacies in Newman’s Essay

 

One. On pages 60 and 61, Newman equates modern marriage with marriages of hundreds and thousands of years ago, lumping all marriages, today’s and yesterday’s, as part of a “patriarchy” in which women are “trafficked” like property. This is an over simplification of marriage.

 

Two. Fallacy of hasty generalization based on a single anecdote on page 61 in which Newman wants us to believe that the symbolism of a Catholic wedding represents enslavement to the husband.

 

Three. Purposely misinterpreting the candle symbolism of the Catholic wedding described on page 61 in which Newman writes that the single candle represents the bride’s “old naughty self.” This is Newman’s language and false interpretation, which in critical thinking is called a “straw man.”

Four. Faulty logic: If some people use marriage as a bully club against the gay community, as Newman purports on page 61, then ALL people who marry are against gays.

Five. Fallacy of irrelevance or red herring: Newman confesses to having a previous relationship with a woman on page 61. What is the relevance? Perhaps that if she wants to go back to relating to women, it would not be fair if she married a man.

Also on page 63, Newman doesn’t want a man who obsesses over her, but this argument could be called a red herring or a non sequitur.

Six. For Newman, it appears that in marriage the commitment is too strong. In other words, it is so strong that it becomes a form of mutual possession. She feels threatened by that sense of possession whether or not being enslaved or possessed by one’s spouse is true or not. Such a condition is more psychological than anything. Legally, one is not “possessed,” not in modern times. It appears that Newman is paranoid and irrational in her definition of marriage, so of course she objects to it.

Seven. She and her boyfriend don’t need marriage because they are tied together by a child. Actually, lots of deadbeat dads bail on the mother and child, so Newman is a bit naïve to place so much faith in the child as a permanent bonding agent.

 

 

Part III. Writing Options:

Defend or refute one of the following thesis statements regarding Newman’s essay.

 

Thesis One

Newman’s position to not marry is a self-justifying hack job wrought with paranoia, over simplifications, Straw Man arguments, faulty comparisons, red herrings, and other lapses of logic so egregious that she comes off as an immature, selfish crank trying, feebly, to gloss over her irrational fear of marriage with pseudo intellectual arguments. 

 

Thesis Two.

In spite of some half-baked logic and familiar claims about the rarity of monogamy, Newman’s decision not to marry has little foundation in reason and logic. Instead, her wobbly arguments against marriage are merely pathetic rationalizations for her failed existence, which becomes more and more transparent as we read her unconvincing polemic. Instead of a convincing argument against marriage, what we are served is the failed life of the author, which consists of a woman imprisoned by sexual confusion, a control freak who finds a spineless man who will put up with her fear of love and commitment, a pseudo intellectual who hides behind specious academic arguments in order to justify her cowardly existence.

 

Thesis Three

 

Whoa. Let’s not be so hard on Newman as the writers above. While her argument contains some of the logical errors mentioned above and while she betrays certain insecurities, she makes some legitimate criticisms against marriage, most importantly the myth of monogamy. If we’re honest and look at the research on marriage and monogamy, we must conclude that marriage is a very precarious institution since the monogamy it rests upon is compromised by ____________________, ________________________, ____________________________, and __________________________________. 

 

Thesis Four.

Don’t try to distract us by focusing exclusively on the monogamy argument. Yes, Newman uses the rarity of monogamy as one of her anti-marriage claims, but that is only one-tenth of her argument. When you look at her arguments as a whole, you will have to agree that her exposition is an amateurish affair replete with _____________________, _____________________________, ______________________________, ___________________________________.

 

Thesis Five.

I’m sure there are some good, solid, convincing arguments against marriage. But Newman’s isn’t one of them. What purports to be a legitimate defense against her decision to not marry really becomes the irrational defense mechanisms of a frightened child. These defense mechanisms include __________________________, _______________________________, __________________________, and ______________________________________.