Debriefing: a wedding

And for what it's worth, maybe you should stop imposing what you believe women should want for their weddings on them. While forced marriages sadly still exist, the weddings you're talking about are not forced on these women. If modern women are happy to have a traditional weding, what business is it of yours?

I think it's frankly insulting to pity a woman who in all likelihood enjoying the best day of her life. And not because she is becoming her husband's property, but because she and the man she loves are getting married and having a fantastic party.

honour you, that should have been

What is marriage about?
"Love
Bringing up children
Sharing property (and tax benefits with inheritance of such, etc)"

Er, is sex not in there as well? "Forsaking all others...With my body I worship you"

I cannot understand how an intelligent, independant grown up woman can allow her self to be dressed up and given away. Never have , never will its weird .

Vezzie, I noticed that you called the groom at this wedding a tosser, but didn't give any evidence to back it up. Do you actually think he's a tosser (and yet you implied that you went to the wedding full of joy for the couple) or do you think that all men whose wives didn't give a speech at their weddings are tossers?

And for the survey...
We had a traditional church wedding, my mum walked me down the aisle as my father died when I was younger. She gave a speech, I gave a speech, as did DH and the best man. I wore an (elegant, non-meringue) cream dress.

I did change my name, which I had mixed feelings about but I feel I made the right decision as I like us all having the same name - I wouldn't like to have a different name from my children, which is the case for all my friends who kept their name.

Oh, and do people compare their engagement rings? They all look the same to me, which is partly why I didn't have one as they seemed a bit princessy-bling (and I was a bit scared of having something that expensive).

Plus DH was walked down the aisle by all 4 of his parents, and I was walked by all 3 of mine.

BTW, DH and I both had as much to say as each other in our ceremony - we wrote our own vows. And best man and maid of honour (or best woman if you prefer) both made a speech. As did all 4 of our parents. And I sang, just to make it cheesy.

Wow, vezzie, thanks for that slap-down.

I reserve the right to post whatever takes my fancy no matter what direction you would prefer the thread to take. Just because you started it does't give you the right to dictate what people say.

Incidentally, I also too my DH's name because I despise my father and love and respect my DH and his family.

Quite a few people's experiences show that they did, in fact, play an active part in the proceedings, or opted to go down a non-traditional route and circumvent the imagery, full stop.

Others chose to go with the bits that some (incl me) find depressing and objectionable and have given reasons for it.

Quite a mixed bag, really!

Unprune I wasn't disparaging the anecdotes, but they don't elucidate why so many women don't take the chance to have a more active part in their own wedding ceremonies (as opposed to doing all the planning, which generally they do).

Pointissima, I know. The reactions to my cheap (if pretty) ring were very telling.

Dead right Eldritch

But sadly it's not just men who see this sort of marriage as enhancing their status. There are plenty of women who see it as putting the seal on the "achievement" of having "caught" a high status male, with the cheque book that goes with it.

The greed and competitiveness with which engagement rings are compared has always struck me as particularly vile

The OP did ask what others have done in view of the fact that the traditional ceremony has a dodgy past. There have been a variety of answers to that, plus anecdotes about other weddings attended.

I'm not boggling, OP, I see what you are getting at. Anecdotes about what other posters did is not really going to the issue of why so many women still default to the traditional rituals, with all their unfortunate symbolism.

Status is important. to some men, I think that ostensible modern, liberal attitudes can be msileading: high status man enhances his status far more by having a traditional wedding/relationship with an educated high status woman than by marrying a more overtly traditional helpmeet/consort type. Does that make sense? So there is even more pressure on a woman like the bride at the wedding you went to to conform. As to why she does it, hard to say.

As for children and property being tied up exclusively in marriage, I would have to say that in our society marriage is is the fundamental on which the patriarchal system rests. Man owns woman, and she is dependent. There is little room in that scenario for more communitarian approaches to children or property. Because a woman traditionally 'lost' her birth family when she married, they had little say, influence or power over what happened to her or her children. She handed over her property to her husband and it took very expensive and unusual arrangements like marriage settlements to create any exceptions to that.

The irony is that marriage is still the best protection a woman has for her rights and interests over property and children available.

I have been to a three weddings where intelligent, otherwise sensible women have promised to obey. Ok the BCP language is lovely (and thereto I give thee my troth) but that is NO EXCUSE.

If they are taking it seriously then they are surrendering all adult responsibility for anything, not to mention any right to do anything of which the husband disapproves; and if they are not taking it seriously then one can assume that the whole marriage is also a joke.

I'm married. No ring, no giving away, no Church, I keep my name; but I'll confess to champagne coloured Vivienne Westwood party dress because it was the only excuse I'll ever have and I let DH and my father do the speeches because they wanted to say nice things about me and it seemed churlish to get chippy.

I'm with the OP generally. Weddings are depressing for feminists

"But there is nothing that logically confines any of these things to being between two people only, or all of these 3 things to the same partner."

You started off saying you don't like weddings because of some feminist viewpoint but you have now veered off into your own peculiar free-for-all, pick'n'mix concoction.

"It seems strange that 3 people can't be married, for instance. Or that you can't civil-partner your brother for proprety reasons"

What on earth are you on about?

Interesting points Vezzie especially about consumerism. Weddings have always been about public declarations of wealth and status. For example, the tradition of wearing white came about not as a symbol of virginity but because pre-washing machines, it showed you were wealthy enough to buy a dress to wear on one occasion only. Nowadays those sorts of weddings are more accessible.

I am married and a feminist but to be honest I don't really believe in marriage and what it means. I think we would be better off without it and that it should be removed as a legal entity. This would make the law more complex around property but it would put the onus on the individual to ensure their financial affairs are clear and well managed. I also think it would free our imagination to create our own celebrations and days where we declare our love for our partner / partners / dog / best friend.

The reason I married was because of the person my DH is, not because I believe in it as an institution. We walked up the aisle together, we wrote our own vows and readings, I kept my maiden name, gave a speech myself (no fathers to give speeches) and my best woman gave a speech too.

Well, if anyone doesn't want a traditional wedding, they don't have to have one. DH and I made ours up, put everything we liked about wedding into it and left out the bits we didn't like. I'd agree that the traditional Christian wedding is very un-feminist, but unless we start to have more non-traditional wedings to show people that they do have a choice, things aren't likely to change. I don't think that boycotting weddings, either as bride or guest, will help at all.

For DH and I it was about getting up in front of family and friends to declare that we were definitely an item and planned to stay that way. And have a magnificent party with everyone in the world who we loved. Best day of my life!

And not liking weddings is no excuse not to get married! Have a small civil wedding. Legally I think it puts women in a stronger position. Marriage is what you make of it, for us it's an equal partnership (for the most part).

I did take DH's surname, but only because my name was impossible to spell/pronounce and frankly I was glad to be rid of it!

DH is Israeli, and oddly, for a very progressive country with very strong women, the Hebrew word for 'husband' is the same as the word for 'owner'! I'm astounded no-one has changed this yet. The word for 'wife' is the same as 'woman'. So in Hebrew I call DH either my partner or my 'man'. I refuse to call him my owner!!

Interesting. I promised to obey (DH did as well) but that is primarily because DH's health is rocky and we were looking at some pretty big decisions - could we/ should we have DCs/ if there gets to a point where the treatment for his illnesses is worse than the illness what happens etc and it was important for me to acknowledge that he will have the main say in what treatment he will do and whether he can carry on.

I did make a speech at the reception though.

I would certainly self-describe as a feminist and don't think it would exclude me but admittedly, DH isn't a tosser.

I completely agree about status. I find the whole big-wedding thing awful, because they're mostly (with some exceptions) totally pointless and vulgar. Interesting about women hijacking traditions that didn't historically serve them well. I tend to think it's more to do with consumerism.