Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Debriefing: a wedding

293 replies

vezzie · 22/11/2010 14:01

I went to a wedding at the weekend and ended up thoroughly depressed, as I often do after weddings. Please indulge me, because I want to talk about it.
The bride is one of the most dynamic, active, imaginative and intelligent people I know. She was patronised and belittled throughout ? ?who gives this woman ???? and during the speeches she looked very uncomfortable. I have never seen her so quiet and when it was clear that she didn?t like what was being said it seemed very strange that there was no opportunity for her to own the floor in her own style. I have never heard so little of her voice, ever, and yet she was notionally the centre of attention.
I suppose what is troubling me ? and there is no natural justice in what I am about to say - is that she is so close to the top of so many pecking orders (beautiful, clever, talented, well loved, well educated, professionally respected) that it seems obvious that her husband should be so near to the top of all the male pecking orders (tall, handsome, very rich, in a very well paying job) and yet unfair that this sort of man seems almost inevitably to bring the expectations that his wife will take a very traditional and subservient role. Without wanting to imply that anyone deserves to be pushed about, because they don?t, I suppose I am upset that this woman, who is brilliant, is now going to play second fiddle to a tosser for the rest of her life.

I hate weddings. I always start off all excited and filled with love and joy and enjoy the sentimental moment where you can look at the couple and do a mental 6-Feet-Under-like montage where you imagine them surrounded by children, growing older, surrounded by grand children, retiring together etc. Then at some point I am forced to realise that the whole thing is filling me with profound unease and it is as well if I am not too drunk or I have to find a cupboard to hide in and cry.

DP said, when I was telling him how sad I was feeling on Sunday, ?Why do you take it so personally?? I just shrugged and changed the subject. Later I thought, ?Because it is like this. Suppose you were invited to a housewarming party and you bought a present and wrote a card expressing all the good wishes that you have for the people in their new house, and you dressed up and turned up ready to celebrate and saw everyone else looking beautiful and happy and joyful, and the hosts offered to show you round and then you realised during the tour that the whole thing runs on a basement floor inhabited by slaves, it would slightly put a dampener on the occasion, especially if you were the same kind of person as the slaves.? This is of course a gross exaggeration.

We are not married. I often think we should be, and then I go to a wedding and I?m back to square 1.
What do feminists do about getting married?

OP posts:
Sakura · 29/11/2010 13:21

as vezzie said, this has nothing to do with love, so it's strange that love is being brought up a lot. Yes, perhaps you're right, men love their daughters as much as their sons.

We will have to search another angle to explain the gross unfairness

Sakura · 29/11/2010 13:19

their daddies didn'T love them enough . They loved them as pets, not as equal human beings to their sons

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 13:17

i'm not denying that girls weren't educated. what i am denying is that the reason they weren't is that their daddies didn't love them.

Sakura · 29/11/2010 13:15

rephrase: noones ever had a problem with girls doing physical drudge

Sakura · 29/11/2010 13:14

girls AND boys went down mines, for sure. Noones ever had a problem with stopping girls doing physical labour, the drudge

however

when it came to clean cushy work that required an EDUCATION, it was only boys that got the chance

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 13:11

i don't suppose people were so inclined to be indulgent of their children of either sex, historically. boys AND girls went down mines/worked in factories etc. parents did what they needed to do to survive, presumably at every class level. you might as well say that fathers didn't love their second sons, given how many of them were packed off to the colonies to seek their fortune (the family fortune having already been firmly earmarked for number one son). imo all kids were chattel in that sense. or had a sense of duty to their family, as might be another way of putting it.

vezzie · 29/11/2010 13:07

Not to get all Tina Turner, but what?s love got to do with it?
Not families and marriages ? obviously love has a lot to do with those. But to do with the institutions and ceremonies within which people operate, and even more, the analysis or discussion of these.

It is not somehow anti-love to submit customs to analysis.

Of course people in families love each other. It doesn?t mean that you can?t question how society operates ? for instance, people still talk about improving children?s nutrition, about supporting breastfeeding, without ever suggesting that any particular parents don?t love their children. It?s all the more important to talk about these things, and all the more heartbreaking when things aren?t ideal, because of course they love their children desperately. We don?t sweep the whole nutrition debate under the carpet saying ?but they LOVE their children!? with a sort of on-the-brink-of-tears expression of discussion-silencing sentimentality, because it MATTERS ? it matters, because, exactly, of love.

People don?t always act in what might be consisdered the absolute best interests of those they love either because a. they are not in a position to understand what their best interests are, or b. because they can?t, the absolute best is not available to them because of other societal or physical constraints. Asking questions about these things is not evil, it?s not a violent crime against a Hallmark bunny for heaven?s sake.

OP posts:
Sakura · 29/11/2010 13:04

The point I'm getting at is that women were used (continue to be used to this day) as chattel, because their value; their role; their profession was dependant on their fathers and husband's status. They were prevented from pursuing any path that would give them any value in their own right.

You would find the odd spinster, whose father was well off enough that she didn't have to marry, and funnily enough, very wealthy women often chose not to marry. For them, giving up the chance of children was worth not having to marry. If a father supported his daughter's wish not to marry that would have been an expression of love.

HopeForTheJingleBells · 29/11/2010 13:03

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on request of its author.

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 12:58

perhaps what that indicates is how highly they valued their wives?

Sakura · 29/11/2010 12:56

I also as "what is love?" Treating someone like a pet is not love. Treating someone equally to their brother is love.

Sakura · 29/11/2010 12:55

no, I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that I find it strange that none of them clocked the power imbalances that went on, the imbalances they themselves perpetuated.
I find it impossible to believe they didn't realise that there was something "off" about them educating their sons but not their daughters; setting up their son in a profession, while their daughter's job for life was to be a wife.

Unprune · 29/11/2010 12:53

BaggedAndTagged - I know, and I agree with you. It's a measure of how complex these things are. Basically there are 3 girls, one mother and a dad whom everyone loathes. One daughter is gay, and the other two didn't want to marry. When she had to marry, she felt the pressure from her mother and for various reasons, she gave in to that to a certain extent (she does value family a lot).
It's not how she would have organised her relationship at all. She just decided to have a bit of a laugh with it, and no harm done.

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 12:49

so you 'know' they did love their girls but operate under the assumption that this love left the room when a moneyed suitor came a calling? that seems unlikely.

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 12:47

that's unfair. giving his daughter the stability of a good marriage might very well have been the most loving act available to a father, likewise ensuring that his son had made a good match also.

Sakura · 29/11/2010 12:45

I'm just musing over why or how the ruling class i.e men could have consistently and persistently allowed the status quo to continue: treating their daughters unequally to their sons, auctioning them off to the highest bidders in marriage. Any affection shown to daughters can only be a farce under these circumstances, no?

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/11/2010 12:43

How on earth do you measure the love that a father may or may not have had for his daughter over the millennia?

MrsClown · 29/11/2010 12:13

Snowflake, can I ask you something. You say you are not a feminist. Does that mean you dont believe you are equal an deserve the same rights as your partner. I dont understand. Ive been dying to ask someone about that.

Sakura · 29/11/2010 12:10

I'm sure fathers have loved their daughters over the ages, no in fact I know they have. The problem I have is that perhaps they didn't love them quite enough as they should have, enough to treat them equally to their brothers.

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 10:16

"I do find it suspect that for hundreds of years fathers never questions the way society viewed their daughters as "chattel". It was only when women decided it had to change that any change took place."

see i just don't buy this. fathers' letters about their daughters's deaths, i'm thinking particularly of charles dickens but i am sure there is a tablet at vindolanda as well, suggest that they were grieving rather more than they might have done had they lost a particularly impressive cow.

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/11/2010 09:51

Agree. I think it's rather amusing that we're having a discussion based on the assumption that women are somehow duped into relinquishing any independent thought in their head for the sake of a wedding, which is somehow nothing more than a celebration of the patriarchy. Why is it so difficult for some to accept that women are perfectly capable of having the wedding they want, without any nod to patriarchy? So it wasn't your idea of a wedding - so what? It wasn't your day, it was hers. Stop analysing and overthinking it, and just be happy for them that they love each other and want to declare it publicly and legally. God knows, there's enough hatred in the world already.

Bunbaker · 29/11/2010 07:10

"It's when I read postings like this that I wonder if I live on a different planet to most MNers.hmm
People get married because they are happily in love. I sit there is the congregation getting all dewy-eyed with the mother of the bride thinking "aw, isn't that lovely" and "ahh, reminds me of my happy day" and "love is all you need". Why spoil a happy day?
I am a feminist and married for over 20 years. I can think of better things to get uptight about than wedding day customs. I'm with your DH and feel that you are overthinking it and projecting your views onto someone else's wedding."

I totally agree. I have been married for nearly 30 years and can't see what all the fuss is about. You are making an issue out of something that has nothing to do with you. At my wedding my dad gave me away, but I didn't promise to "obey" my husband. I didn't give a speech either because 30 years ago it wasn't the done thing, it wouldn't have occurred to me if it was and I wouldn't have wanted to anyway.

Sakura · 29/11/2010 07:04

my dad didn'T want to give me away Sad My parents didn't want to come to the wedding.

I do find it suspect that for hundreds of years fathers never questions the way society viewed their daughters as "chattel". It was only when women decided it had to change that any change took place.

AitchTwoOh · 29/11/2010 01:09

haven't read all teh thread but GOD i am envious of anyone whose dad was still alive to 'give them away'. Sad i love love love my dh and i love love loved my dad. it was his input into me, my life, my views of what a man should be, and my parents's marriage, that formed my view of what i wanted in a life partner.

i would have been delighted to see my father entrusting dh with my care. (and that does not imo patronise or belittle me, i am a parent now myself and i will want to be confident that my dds are with good men of whose behaviour their father and i approve. what parent wants different, tbh?)

this thread is a bit depressing, tbh.

BaggedandTagged · 29/11/2010 00:59

But that's pretty bad uneprune - if she's that much of non-conformist she should be able to stand up to her own mother surely.

Mothers cannot "insist" that their adult children do anything.