Wedding/marriage traditions

[Emmaheather]

Does anyone else find the number of women planning to marry in white and change their name shocking? Although I can see the beauty and glamour of a white dress, and the practicality of changing names, these are traditions which have such a strong association with the suppression of women and misogyny I find them unacceptable. I wanted to share a surname with my children so they have both mine and their dad's.
I'd be interested to hear how people who view themselves as feminist reconcile this with marriage traditions which a reflection of a male dominated society and women's suppression. I would challenge other behaviours which are sexist or misogynist but this isn't something I feel i can ask friends about for fear of offending. I think it's important to give up these traditions given their history but I'm surprised to find myself in the minority among peers. I'd be really interested in others views on this.

For me the current manifestation of a trad wedding is patriarchal rather than misogynist

Absolutely. Although I would go further and say marriage was never misogynist - and still isn't - it was all about patriarchy, in this country anyway, but even that has been diluted enough to be pretty much meaningless now.

I know language evolves but I think misogyny is bandied about inappropriately quite often when you think about its actual meaning. Even accounting for the historical purposes of marriage, it was never about disliking women and it certainly isn't now.

Surely not changing your name is more practical and convenient? It's the "do nothing" option. I've never had any problems with having a different surname from my children and they're grown up now!

Great post EgginaNest

And completely agree about solving the problem of kids having different names to you by giving them your name! And your partner / husband changing his name to yours too. At the very least, be prepared to discuss it, rather than just defaulting to his name being the more important one

For example- I kept my name because otherwise I would be perpetuating the idea that I'm property of either my father or husband.

Do you really think that when people meet someone called Mrs <husband's name>, they think 'Ah - that poor woman is the actual property of her husband'? If not, then how would you be perpetuating that idea?

Similarly, if you see a woman wearing a white wedding dress, do you think 'Ah - that woman has been made to remain a virgin until marriage'? Of course you don't. It's not perpetuating that idea, because everybody knows it doesn't mean that any more.

The same way I don't look at my female colleagues' fancy nails and think 'Oh look at those impractical adornments which prove that these women are purely for decoration and never have to sully themselves with drudgery or practical activities'.

Times change (thankfully). We keep the bits of traditions we like, shaking off the aapects we don't believe in any more, and we ditch the rest.

Surely not changing your name is more practical and convenient? It's the "do nothing" option. I've never had any problems with having a different surname from my children and they're grown up now!

Out of interest, how did you choose whose surname your children got? Or were they double-barrelled (in which case presumably they would have partially the same surname as you)?

This!

i don’t see it as misogynist so nothing to reconcile so I don’t get why there are loads of threads on this topic and nothing on feminists travelling to the Middle East for example..

Why? It's traditional. Some wear white some dont.

Some change their name some don't. I had a horrible name si it was a great opportunity to change it

It's interesting some of the "traditions" e.g., white wedding dress are not that old, and more like a long term fashion than tradition.
Similarly, diamond engagement rings has only really been a thing since the 1947 advertising campaign by de Beers (and the "x times the man's salary" value is completely made up and always changing).
I find expectations like that just as oppressive as the white wedding dress thing, and had neither (the diamond industry is horrible as well).
However, I was happy to change my name.

Didn’t wear white
Didn’t change my name
Didn’t wear a diamond ring
Used the same vows
had no speeches
Had a Dad who told me “I’m not going to give you away, you’re not my property”. I reckon this fact might be connected to my views on the above… also his job involved marrying many couples. He had Views.

‘For me the current manifestation of a trad wedding is patriarchal rather than misogynist.’

As others have said, absolutely. It’s important to use words correctly, or how can we debate?

It’s interesting that the OP , who presumably regards herself as a model feminist, is only concerned to interrogate the manifestation of ‘ misogyny’ as demonstrated in a ‘traditional’ Anglo Saxon British wedding , and is ignoring the wedding ceremonies taking place in Britain which have other traditions rather more detrimental to feminism, or as I prefer to think of it, women’s equality. This is not ‘ what aboutery’ , it is relevant to the discussion. Most women in the British tradition are more involved in arranging their own ceremonies, and seem to have more influence over the whole performance than the groom or his family. The OP may disagree with their choices, but choice they are. This is not misogyny, not even internalised.

FWIW, both DH and I had ‘traditional’ first weddings ( both rather short lived marriages). However, I had far more input into my ceremony and reception etc than he did. Our marriage ( after 25 years + being together) was pretty much devised by me, as it was registrar conducted you can choose your own words. But I did change my name, as It gives me a palindromic monogram which is nicer for signing artwork.

It’s interesting that the OP , who presumably regards herself as a model feminist, is only concerned to interrogate the manifestation of ‘ misogyny’ as demonstrated in a ‘traditional’ Anglo Saxon British wedding , and is ignoring the wedding ceremonies taking place in Britain which have other traditions rather more detrimental to feminism, or as I prefer to think of it, women’s equality.

Good point. Some of the non-"British" traditions seem a bit more mysogynist in some ways. DH's family is part Indian (moslem). The woman is expected to leave her family and join the man's.

I'd probably do some of it differently if I was getting married now. I like having my husband's name though. We discussed which name we would use.

I didn’t get married in white, but I don’t really see the colour as a misogynistic thing. I don’t think the association with a virgin bride really existed other than as an anachronistic joke even when I got married several decades ago. And now I don’t even think the idea of a woman being a virgin is fetishized the way it was.

My anti-white decision was still driven to some extent by feminist thinking, but I was more anti- the idea of wedding days being the bride’s special day/best day of her life/etc. that having an expensive, one off dress seemed tied up with.

I've only skim read the thread, so this may have already been mentioned.

Wearing a white dress was originally a sign of wealth, not virginity. White was an impractical colour, meaning that a white dress would get very little use before it became stained and dirty, particularly for a working class woman.

Queen Victoria popularised the colour for brides, who frequently wore colours other than white up until that point.

Even today, a wedding dress is usually entirely impractical and worn only once in a woman's life, thus not far removed from the origins of the white dress.

When women started wearing white wedding dresses it had nothing to with virginity and everything to do with status and fashion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.youbeauty.com/fitness/when-did-white-wedding-gown-become-symbol-of-virginity/%3famp

Impossible to have even one of these threads without the reduction of feminism as being about 'choice'. It is not, and never was. No one (of either sex) ever has complete freedom of choice, nor are choices ever made in a vacuum. They - at least decisions concerning the division of paid and household labour and the set-up of the family - are the consequence of a society that's systemically, structurally and socially organized to benefit men.

Feminists - excepting fruitloops like Valerie Solanas who would like to see the whole male race wiped out - have never traditionally asked for anything men haven't always taken for granted. The toe-curling phrase 'having it all' is only ever used to describe women. No one ever questions men's entitlement to having a family and a professional career simultaneously. Feminism occupies some fiercely contested and pretty contentious ground; sometimes in direct conflict (cf. the 'wages for housework' vs. the 'woman citizen' schools of the first wave). What they all, without exception, have in common is the striving after the redressing of sex-based inequalities. They have been about women's right to vote, our right to own property, our individual and bodily autonomy (including abortion), our right to our own names, independence, money, work, life. More importantly, they are also about protection from the sex-class who physically oppress, abuse, rape and murder us.

In many cases, feminism has been a fight for our lives. We benefit from the choices we have as a consequence every time we bank our own salaries or cast our vote. Women have died to secure those rights. Boiling serious issues like this down to 'feminism = choice' - then dressing ALL choices up as 'feminist' - is reductive and a cop-out of some magnitude.

NB. White dresses are simply a fashion, not a symbol of virginity. Before Victoria set that fashion, blue was considered a sign of virginity as it supposedly symbolized the Virgin Mary's robes.

It's the veil that's still viewed as a sign of modesty and sexual purity. I didn't wear white as it happens - I find it too 'samey' - but I'd never have worn a veil of any colour under any pretext.

It's seems pretty harmless to cherry pick which traditions you want to use when planning your wedding, white dress, father giving you away etc are done on the day and don't really affect other women. Taking your husband's name is different, it's a decision that affects the rest of your life, and your childrens lives, and normalising it makes it more difficult for other women to keep their name. I got married many years ago and didn't change my name, but in my workplace i was constantly referred to by my 'married name', I felt bullied into changing it tbh, and this was by my colleagues, people who I considered my friends. I would like to see the term maiden name abolished, perhaps a campaign to get rid of it would be a start, after all what is the point of it? It suggests that a female's name is temporary somehow, and not really hers.

I do kind of wonder if this is why we’re encouraged to marry young, we’re all agreeable and caught up in the soppy stuff and don’t ask the questions. I changed my name for expedience (have a huge surname and it would have been a cross-cultural mess put together with DHs (my name is the minority one, not his) but TBT have been married forever and still feel like it’s not my name. I’d have had a lot of questions to answer from the ILs if I’d ‘rejected’ his name and once even had my FIL question why I had something published under a pseudonym (was X name not ‘good enough’? Lol) I thought the getting married in white thing went out a long time ago, wouldn’t have minded my dad giving me away, it would have made him feel special and I didn’t get a lot of time with him as a young person. I do admire men who take their wives’ names.

I have married twice and on each occasion have changed my name to theirs ..because feminism is not about following someone's dictat but about MY RIGHT TO MAKE MY CHOICE.

I am a feminist who has spent 39years in a v full on male arena (think army or the like - where I am a fairly senior officer ) .. I am nobodies fool and have pushed several closed doors open to get where I am ..

My birth surname was HIDEOUS.. so changed it with huge relief to first husbands .. when I remarried I definitely didn't want first husbands name once married to second.. and there was NO WAY I would go back to the original having managed to jettison it 30 years ago..

YABVU .. 'feminism' isn't what YOU want me to be.. it's about MY choice about who I want to be. No one else's .. male female or otherwise .

In this country marriage was traditionally a legal and religious ceremony to ensure any babies were legitimate and brides were usually teenagers brought up in Christian households so expected to be abstinent (and therefore a virgin). The vows themselves were a religion sacrament solemnly spoken before God. And they are fairly equal in commitment for both parties. It’s the laws on property and assets that prevented true equality for women. The law is what also made legitimacy important.

Having seen the faux-demure pictures of that Love Islander who got married this week in white, but with her big fake tits falling out of the dress and her child in attendance - I think the solemnity and traditions of the Christian marriage sacrament have largely been lost. (Some may say that’s good news!)

As for men ‘owning’ women - now that the laws have changed and we can vote, own our money and property, it’s just a pretty white dress (still allowed under feminism no?) and a name that establishes cohesion for a new family unit.

I recognise that there are some vestiges of patriarchy but so many people are bucking the traditional ways I don’t think it’s really the most pressing issue feminists are facing right now.

'In many cases, feminism has been a fight for our lives. We benefit from the choices we have as a consequence every time we bank our own salaries or cast our vote. Women have died to secure those rights. Boiling serious issues like this down to 'feminism = choice' - then dressing ALL choices up as 'feminist' - is reductive and a cop-out of some magnitude.'

Very well said, great post

Are you not bothering to read the replies then?