Debriefing: a wedding

Family, mainly. Mother insisted on the party. It sort of evolved the week before, apparently, as she was squirming about every single aspect of what she was about to do. Left to run the relationship as they wanted, they wouldn't have married at all. And she has a strange sense of humour, not one I totally get myself, but she found it funny and the photos are kind of amusing.

Why go to the bother of all of that if she was so intent on rejecting the patriarchy though? Quick trip to the registrars, just the 2 of them, witnesses off the street, and job's a good 'un. Seems a bit unnecessary to make public show of sticking 2 fingers up at the whole thing, not to mention the expense of throwing a party (and buying the beards) when they didn't need to

I've just remembered a feminist friend's wedding.
They didn't want to have a marriage, but needed to as both were going to work in the UK and are not British - so for visa reasons. They've been together for two decades.

So they stuck two fingers up to the whole thing, had a quick civil ceremony and a massive party, and then the "bride" made all the women (everyone pissed by now) wear false beards. Sort of: if you make me join the patriarchy, I will just take the piss out of it.

I discovered the day before my wedding that both mothers had assumed they weren't making a speech, so we insisted, and in fact added a bit of the ceremony just for them :)

We had no MC, vicar or celebrant (we did the legal signing of forms seperate, in a 5 minute in and out ceremony) and we just talked people through it all ourselves.

I wore the big dress, but DH wore a ridiculous Mr Darcy style cream suit and silly shoes. I wore combat boots, so I think I was the most comfy :)

I had five bridesmaids, but he had no best man or anything, so the bridesmaids were kind of for both of us. There was no parading about (apart from my mum making me do a big entrance into the bar, which I wasn't happy about, and a first dance that dh really wanted that I just went along with as he was letting me have things he wasn't that bothered about) and we both entered together from the side of the stage.

i welcomed the first few guests in my jeans, then ran off, stuck the dress on, pulled a brush through my hair and slicked on some makeup, then i was back out again in the party :) I breastfed for the first half of the day, then started drinking, and we ended up in a rock club at the end of the day.

It was ace :)

Well, for DH the point was marriage in the eyes of God. Hence the whole fuss about going to church, asking bridesmaids to help, having family there, etc. The point I'm making is, some of the 'faff' in a ceremony isn't optional for some people; it's the whole point of the wedding. If you're happy with just the legal stuff, fine, that's easy: go sign paper in the registry. But do realize that for others, this does not constitute a marriage.

But if it is not a legally-validated marriage what is the point of it?
It's just a ceremony where people declare their love and make vows. All very well and good. I am most definitely not having a pop at this at all.
But it is foolish to think that legal rights like maintenance in event of splitting up, 'spouse' dying intestate and so on- will be granted in event of the couple breaking up.
If people who marry in non-legal ceremonies do not care about such things, fine.
But if they do, they better make sure their marriage is legally valid.

sakura, that's a very good point you made a page back, about marriage still being seen by many people as the way in which a female child becomes an adult. It really annoyed me that my dad (who was quite happy not walking me up the aisle), was still adamant that there was something about marriage that would change me from a child to an adult. I found it incredibly offensive but there was no changing his mind.

marantha - riiight. All marriages in this country do not, in fact, share in common their legal basis. All legally-validated marriages do. There are so many people, in this country and elsewhere, who marry in religious ceremonies but do not enact a legal contract. I don't have a vested interest in saying promoting this at all, but it's a bit much to close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen or isn't 'real' marriage.

oh I agree, I'm not arguing for that. I'm just saying that there is good and bad to both options, so from a feminist POV, as in wondering what's the best choice/step for a women, there is no answer

Sakura You may be right. All the same, I can have a sexual relationship with another adult in this country while living with them and can just get up and leave without having to involve another party (other than arranging upkeep of children financially and sorting out joint financial interests-if there are any).
I do not think people should have this right taken away.
Can you imagine the situation where a woman who is abused by a cohabitee cannot just escape and has to be treated as married by the state who will insist that she sue him for maintenance (shudder)?
Why extend marriage crap to ANOTHER faction of society?

freedom of choice is a veeeery tricky concept in feminism.
I don't believe freedom of choice exists for women.
In the context of marriage/cohabitation, it's a leap of faith one way or another. IN most patriarchy's, children are automatically owned by fathers, if the mother is married to him. It's only recently in the UK that a mother has been allowed to keep her children after a divorce- until then they were the father's property.
We see elements of this even here on MN, when husbands have threatened a mother he'll fight her for the children by using underhand tacticts (such as a bout of depression she had once, for example)

Sakura
There may be other reasons why couples who cohabit before marriage are more likely to split:
a, Sometimes people slide into marrying when cohabiting. There might be a 'may as well get married now' attitude
b, A relationship that has gone stale may be mistakenly pepped-up by marriage

I disagree with you about cohabitees being treated unfairly, though.
Sorry, but while marriage may be riddled with faults, I do not agree with the state imposing obligations upon people (other than maintenance of children-married or not) who have not asked for certain rights via marriage.
I do not want it assumed that people are quasi-married just by living together.
It's about freedom of choice.

true

"An interesting fact: Marriages are more likely to break up if the couple lived together unmarried for a while beforehand. This tells us that there is something IN marriage, in the institution of marriage, that changes the relationship.
And my guess is it's the unspoke wifework- having to remember MIL's birthday, that type of thing."

Not necessarily. You'd have to look at the number of people who didnt get married (ie just continued to cohabit)who also split up.

Also, arguably, people who dont cohabit before marriage are often (although not always) religious and therefore tend to be less likely to get divorced. Nothing to do with the "quality" of the marriage.

I also remember a MNer pointing out that if you are NOT married there is a loophole in the law. So while a woman will probably be better off unmarried in a relationship, society is still very patriarchal, so it lets unmarried men off the hook wrt his obligations after a split

Dittany said "Maybe people can ameliorate the worst aspects of the institution but that doesn't contradict what it actually is or what it is based on."

It's important, though, that ameliorating the worst aspects of the institution, as understood in historical terms (recent or distant), actually is going on. Many people are chucking out the symbolism, marrying people who are unlikely to rape them, acknowledging that £100 for a quick ceremony is actually (right or wrong) the best way of protecting a spouse or child from legal problems in the event of their death, scoffing at the idea of changing their name, and just getting on with having a good relationship with someone they love and respect (which of course they can do without marriage, but the legal stuff gets expensive).

marantha I agree with your second to last post.
All the "stuff" about love, religion, romance and white dresses is NOT what marriage is all about, and never has been. But unfortunately there is a media preoccupation with these things, and a lot of women are misled into believing marriage is something it's not.

An interesting fact: Marriages are more likely to break up if the couple lived together unmarried for a while beforehand. This tells us that there is something IN marriage, in the institution of marriage, that changes the relationship.
And my guess is it's the unspoke wifework- having to remember MIL's birthday, that type of thing.

LordRowdyDuck Yes, if you had been married in a religious ceremony WITHOUT legal bit, I would say you were most definitely not married.
And so would the state and the law.
I do not know why it is so difficult for you to understand that what all marriages must have in common in this country to be recognised is the legal ceremony.
I just do not understand why you cannot grasp this.

When married, people lose their right to be seen as individuals in own right.
Financial (as well as emotional) dependence is taken as read by the state.
If a woman (or man) loses her job, they will not be eligible for certain benefits because they are married.
Now it can be argued that to marry is a choice and as such they knew what they were signing up to.
But until all the stuff about marriage being about love, religion, white dresses is put aside and people are actually warned about the true financial and legal implications marriage will have upon their lives- so that they can make an informed choice- I think it is not reasonable for any potential bride to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to marry.

Dittany I think you are right; marriage IS a patriarchal institution.
This does not mean to say that people cannot be equal and fair in their individual marriages but it is patriarchal all the same.
But, it is the institution itself that is patriarchal NOT how people get married.

It matters not if they do it for £100 in a register office or have the full blown white wedding they are in same position at end of day-so I think things like arguing over speeches deflect from the main point.

I will add that my parents had raised me to look down on marriage as an institution. MY mother was a feminist in her own way. I never ever thought I would get married, my mother refused to come to the ceremony (long story), father only said he was coming 2 weeks before the big day, so in a weird way getting married was a massive act of rebellion on my part.

I've mentioned before, that as a feminist woman, I find the role of daughter much more oppressive than that of wife. I was 24 when I married, so quite young, and looking back I realise that it could have been because marriage is still women's route to true adulthood.
And you know what? It worked. My parents were forced to treat me as an adult as soon as I became Mrs X
It's horribly patriarchal, the way that my father could only respect me as a person after I had the backing of my husband's own patriarchal "might" behind me.　I had travelled the world alone, done things that required real guts, but he only managed to consider my POV in an argument after I was married.

I didn't understand all these dynamics at work until after I'd got married.
I would say that, as mothers, we should aim to see our daughters as adults in their own right, and over-egg the pudding.

I made a speech at my wedding.

INteresting thread. I generally rather like weddings (and am in fact a BHA wedding celebrant) but what I like and am interested in is the various ways people make a public declaration of love and commitment and (in many cases) actively try to strip the 'wedding/marriage' of its nasty patriarchal undertones. It certainly seems to be true that every human society has had some sort of 'marriage ceremony' which was a public or formalized declaration and rite of passage of some kind. Human beings generally like and appear to need rituals and formal ceremonies, that's not in itself a bad thing.

I have never been married and never will be but when I was a lot younger (and sillier) I did, on a couple of occasions, exchange rings with then-partners and make loving promises to one another. (We are talking pissed-teenagers-on-a-hill-at-sunrise BTW, not any kind of event with any legal significance). I think the concept of making meaningful promises to a loved one and doing so within a ceremonial framework is a good one, which people can still have without it necessarily being a Tool Of The Patriarchy, but if you are a feminist it's worth thinking about which bits of the ritual you want to keep and which bits of the unfortunate patriarchal flummery you want to ditch.

marantha, surely if rape were like many other crimes, it would be normal to assume that yes, the woman was raped, even (or especially) because her husband was right there?

If I work in an open-plan office and say my handbag was stolen, it's not likely the police will suggest my colleague thought it was ok to take my money just because it was close by. In fact, it's likely that the people I trust most in that environment, the people who are physically nearest, will fall under the most suspicion.

Surely it should be the same with marriage? After all, rape is no more related to consensual sex that stealing a handbag would be related to sharing a desk with someone.