Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

Nobody with an ounce of sense would think that modern marriage is woman destroying or about ownership of the woman (although my own personal view of marriage is that you belong to each other in every sense of the word).

Marriage protects women and children, I don't understand why women would have children with men they aren't married to, given that they have no real legal protection without it.

Bonsoir, taking the past into consideration, especially the recent past, is simply the intelligent way to approach a subject like this. Particularly when people do most of these things for reasons of 'tradition'.
Very odd attitude.

When Kate reached the bottom of the aisle, I thought that was the only time she looked nervous - and she gripped her dads hand very tightly. At this point William and Harry were both looking her up and down - and William said to her that she looked beautiful.

My feelings were mixed. On the one hand it looked to me like she drew most comfort from her dad's presence and support. On the other hand I wondered if she felt intimidated at all. Come to think of it now it was very male orientated down there - flanked by those three men and also three powerful looking church men!

My thoughts were just - go-girl - don't feel intimidated.

Good point, SBM. One of the above might have collected data.

It's quite possible they don't think so! You know, there are wider issues to consider. Had they chosen to flout convention in a major fashion, it would have meant putting feminist politics before the people's expectations, before the Queen's status as head of church, before the pomp, ceremony & traditions, and before the tourist dollars. Sure, it would've been nice if they had, but I wouldn't blame them for compromising!

I think dittany is a dangerous stirrer of sexist propaganda and hatred and I think she should take a long, hard look at herself.

Gosh, no wonder you find life difficult, dittany, if you think I am being rude here . You need to toughen up!

SGM, I googled "how many men have been convicted of raping their wives" and found this by Sue Lees, which says Since the Home Office do not categorise marital rape cases separately, we do not know how many convictions occur. We do however know that the number is tiny. In tracing the outcome of 100 cases of reported rape from three police stations between 1988-1990 no cases where the defendant and victim had had a previous sexual relationship resulted in a conviction

I think the paper's quite old, though.

You are very obviously in deep denial about living in the past, dittany, but I am neither rude nor unpleasant to point it out to you. You clearly find it very uncomfortable that I do so, and try to refute it - understandably, since your whole life seemingly revolves around being a 1960s feminist, and you are clinging on to your outdated belief system for dear life since it would leave a gaping hole in your existence if you faced up to facts and admitted that the 2011 feminist agenda is quite different (and much more complex and sophisticated) than the one you embrace.

Dittany, your statement: It's patriarchal to try and put relationships into a legal contract. looks oddly naive. As I've, perhaps ineffectively, explained: I feel that a contract is wise & necessary for people who are joining their lives. My issue is with our current all-or-nothing choice (gross simplification.) I feel there are better ways to do it than to have the State determine one rule for everybody who marries.

Of course that isn't how it works in practice: our law is constantly modified by case tests, thank goodness. But I find this widespread reluctance to acknowledge the practical aspects of relationships very damaging; it's mostly women who fall into the trap, which makes it worse imo.

I'm not attacking you dittany - I'm pointing out (as garlicbutter also has) that you consistently take a "feminist" position that is wildly outdated given the law today. Why bother being so angry about something that is past? Why stir up sexist hatred in this way? It's a bit gratuitous (and very pointless). Focus on the future - it's more productive.

x-posted, swc, thanks - So the 'somebody' was Mrs R, along with her lawyers and the Lords. Hurrah for them!

There you go again, dittany, living in the past. Why are you so angry about past injustices against women that have been righted in law? Why do you read feminist texts and get angry about the situations they describe that are no more?

You are at least two generations behind the times.