How to Have a Feminist Wedding

The part I find really difficult is the concept of being given away. If I were getting married again, I would either be at the door with the groom to meet guests, or walk in with him once everyone was seated. I just couldn't do the whole being walked up the aisle like a sacrifice by one man, to be handed over (literally in many churches) to another man for safe keeping.

But if you have a close relationship with parents, and want to involve them somehow in the ceremony, then how would you replace it?

I guess you could have both sets of parents at the door greeting people, then they walk up the aisle, followed by bride & groom. Kind of shows the whole 'we're celebrating as a whole family' without the 'bringing the virgin to slaughter' resonance.

But it's difficult. How do you get rid of one aspect of tradition that you don't like, but still keep the aspects that you do? After all, it's possible to have close loving relationships with men AND be a feminist.

We jumped on a plane left the country as teenagers got married. No guests, no walking down aisle, no first dance nothing. Then I did change my name but have never done any wifework and not even ever undertaken any task that could be described as wifey like in all those years.

'Mostly it just feels like a bit of a PR puff piece to be honest.'
Completely agree. Same with the Jessica Valenti piece. A great piece of self-promtion, sod all to do with feminism.

I read this article at the weekend and found that it was just a justification for having all sorts of traditional wedding stuff (throwing bouquet, wearing a white dress). I thought she fudged the issue of why get married at all by just saying 'it feels right for me' without any further discussion of why it felt right and the role that social conditioning may have played in her decision.

It was announced last week that civil partnerships will not be extended to opposite sex couples (by this government at least) and I am bitterly disappointed. I would really have liked to have a CP as I would like to make a legal commitment to my DP but one that doesn't involve any 'romance' or 'consummation' or have any patriarchal crap attached. In the inital consultation about equal marriage, over 60% of people were in favour of extending CPs to all but that doesn't fit with Cameron's conservative pro-marriage agenda so its been scrapped

'What I think people will object to is the idea that once engaged the man gives the woman a special shiny bauble to show everyone that she belongs to him is off the market and that he has the financial means to support a wife. It is very yukky.'
Spot on - that's exactly how I feel about engagement rings!

What I like about this thread is there is a lot of "I didn't like that so I didn't do it or I did X instead". Very refreshing.

no bridesmaids here either

I got married 20 years ago at a registry office. I wore a dress from the evening department of a big London store. I arrived at the wedding with my now DH, I didn't do the father giving the bride away bit. I didn't have bridesmaids. There was no flower throwing. The reception was a big party and just my DH made a speech thanking everyone for attending.

I dislike some of the more sexist wedding traditions, so we didn't have them. E.g. both parents walked down the aisle with me and I walked out with my husband - I like the symbolism of this (in as past of one family, out as a new one). There was no "giving away" . There was no father of the bride speech - me and my husband each just briefly thanked people after dinner. It didn't occur to me to throw the bouquet. I refused a veil, despite the best efforts of the woman in the bridal wear shop.

Oh, and I decided I would only wear a ring if he did (I wasn't expecting him to, but in the end we both wear them) and wouldn't change my name at all.

Noooo not wedding rings. They're equal (if you ignore the historical context and just focus on the current prevailing understanding and symbolism) although recently it's become more fashionable to have hers more blingy . Nor am I against a bit of bling in general. What I think people will object to is the idea that once engaged the man gives the woman a special shiny bauble to show everyone that she belongs to him is off the market and that he has the financial means to support a wife. It is very yukky.

Of course in this capitalist world it is equally probable that it will become tradition for men to get something pretty too upon engagement

tbh i think dp's mother would fall down dead if we told her we were getting married but i didn't have an engagement ring

i agree about opt-in too

i said to dp not long ago that if we decided to get married i didn't really think an engagement ring was necessary.

i agree about the veil. until i saw my cousin wearing my great-grandmother's veil, which my mother also wore, and all that fairy-princess-tradition-socialised-bollocks reared it's ugly head and i thought how lovely it would be to continue the tradition

It's a funny thing but only with hindsight can I see we had a less patriarchal wedding than most. At the time we were aware that we were not doing some of the traditions because they "weren't us" but we never really thought of it in terms of feminism per se. We just thought they were silly which is of course what feminism is - finding patriarchal bollocks ridiculous.

Take something like a veil. Do you ever wear one in real life? No. Because it has connotations with modesty and hidden "otherness". You would also look ridiculous. However wearing an amazing dress is not exclusive to weddings so that feels less ridiculous.

There are small things creeping into the norm that are distinctly feminist in flavour like keeping your own name and not wearing a veil. Or waiting for a proposal - many people I know had a discussion and decided.

I predict in time we will start to see a backlash against engagement rings.

Fwiw I'm not against marriage at all. Not when presented as a contractual arrangement and I don't back the idea of extending the rights associated with marriage to unmarried people. There should definitely be an opt in. Honestly I had to go through more red tape and more processes to buy my house than get married so the idea of being tied to someone without taking the conscious and active decision to actually get married seems bizarre. But I do understand that marriage has become a dirty word in some circles and I believe that is mainly to do with the anti-feminist bollocks prevalent in the wedding industry and in the historical context of what marriage meant for a woman: babies, respectability, permission to have sex with that person, giving up your identity, giving up work even. The last bit just isn't the case for many people now but the negative reputation remains.

I read it with interest too, when we decided to get married I was terrified of the whole traditional wedding thing, no way was I being given away, being called Mrs, changing my name, wearing a big white dress or a veil, throwing a bouguet, dancing in front of people or giving a speech. As far as I am concerned we could have dispensed with speeches altogether apart from a quick thank you for coming, which would have satisfied my leanings towards equality, but DH and DF thought they ought to do it.

However to all intents and purposes it looked like a traditional wedding. Civil ceremony and therefore no giving away. No name or title changes - easy, just don't do anything. No big white dress, well, I compromised with ivory, made by MIL. The dress was a simple cocktail style therefore no need for veils and trains, just a bouquet. No bouquet throwing - we stayed at the venue all day, evening and night so there was no going away, and my flowers were hand tied and could have done someone and injury if thrown. It wasn't totally feminist but I did feel we eliminated the worst of the inequalities.

The idea that romance involves giving away a big part of your identity in order to become the 'other' of a man?

This is interesting to me from a traditions of marriage perspective. I've been with my partner for ten years (both been married before) and we decided this week to get married some time next year. No 'real' reason, we won't be having kids together etc.

I told my mum and older sister, and said it would be a registry office, I wouldn't take his name, possibly no rings and the response ranged from 'wow, romance is truly dead' to 'what will people think'.

I honestly didn't/don't know where to go from there!

Quick plug for getting your mother's name on your marriage certificate alongside your father's - currently not allowed in England & Wales!

Interesting topic. In our case, while my dad did walk me down the aisle - which meant a lot to him and I wouldn't have wanted to deny him that - we also involved our mums in a hand fasting ceremony and DH's dad did a reading. To us, because all our parents had a role, this emphasised the joining of the two families rather than just focusing on the 'giving away' aspect.

I also did a speech, which I'm glad I did, but I was ridiculously nervous. I've been to weddings where the mothers of the bride and groom have spoken and where the maid of honour has done so. I think it's becoming more commonplace these days.

I also didn't wear white, although that was in no way a consciously feminist act - I just chose the dress I liked!

I understood and I don't disagree. I was just trying to demonstrate how it could be different. It's hard because of all the assumptions of tradition but one day we'll look back and boggle at the things we used to do. I expect...

sorry, i was including that within "ceremony"

A ceremony might not even be necessary. Two witnessed and the declarations and contract signing is not very ceremonial. Unless you make it so.

The only legal bits are the declarations and paperwork.

(to clarify - the ceremony may be not misogynist at all, if you're happy with the idea of marriage in itself)

Oh we each wear a wedding ring. I think we did talk about not bothering but decided we'd like to. They thought us very odd at the registry office when we didnt have rings. We saved that bit for the wedding where we made our promises. The registry office was just the paperwork.

separating the idea of marriage (which for many feminists will be no-go anyway) from a wedding...

given that so many aspects of what we think of as a traditional wedding are rooted in sexism, i think that once you've decided to have a wedding (of whatever magnitude), it's always going to be difficult from a feminist POV if you decide to keep specific aspects of that traditional wedding intact and try to retrospectively justify them in accordance with your feminist views

after all, the bare bones are:

• ceremony (essential)
• party (non-essential)

the ceremony can be more or less misogynist, but everything else is optional