Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: Can a wedding ever be feminist?

41 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 28/07/2014 13:52

Marriage has been a burning topic in the media this year - from the introduction of same sex marriage to the campaign for mothers’ names on marriage certificates. As a recently-married feminist, it’s also been at the forefront of my mind for the last couple of years, as my (male) partner and I tried to figure out whether “marriage equality” is really possible. Weddings strike me as one of the few areas in life where some feminists are reluctant to be independent, opinionated and radical – and I didn't want to fall into this category.

My partner and I had lots of questions: Could we avoid the sexist stereotypes and traditions inextricably linked to marriage? Would same sex marriage be legal by the time we got married? And, if so, would it force gay couples into these stereotypes - “so who’s the ‘bride’ and who’s the ‘groom’?” – or could it inspire all couples to re-frame their expectations of weddings and marriage? Could we really play around with marriage enough to turn something that’s so inherently sexist and unequal into something truly radical?

Despite setting a date two years in advance, the deadline for answering these questions rolled round much quicker than expected, and here I am, almost two months into married life, still not entirely sure of the answers.

When we got engaged I was nervous about telling my feminist friends, for fear that I’d be judged as a traitor to the cause. I'm well versed in the feminist arguments in opposition to marriage; as a historically patriarchal institution, it’s not served women particularly well over the years. In the UK, women’s rights both in marriage and in divorce have been hard won, and marital rape was only outlawed within my lifetime.

Feminist approaches to marriage differ widely – ranging from a belief that two feminists in love can work towards and achieve equality in marriage, to the more radical view that falling in love with, let alone marrying, a man is the ultimate example of sleeping with the enemy. For some feminists, marriage and the nuclear family are the key patriarchal structures - the means through which women find themselves trapped in a lifetime of domestic drudgery. It’s a fear that I know many young women are conscious of, but just how far have women and our relationships really come since Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique?

There are certainly plenty of sexist hangovers tied up in the whole process of weddings and marriage, but many heterosexual couples do find ways to make equality work, both practically and symbolically. The engagement ring, for example, is traditionally a symbol of ownership, but alternative feminist options include either scrapping the ring altogether or, as we did at my partner's request, both having one.

Despite having a ring each, I was conscious that in a sense, I’d fallen at the first hurdle - wanting the same happily married family life with my partner that I’d grown up with. As always, there’s a difficult line to walk between the feminism of ideology and collective responsibility, and the feminism of individual choice. Would other women judge my choice as anti-feminist for going against their ideological position? Or would they respect my decision and recognise the equality of our relationship? On the whole, my anxieties proved unfounded; many feminists sympathised with the dilemmas involved, and shared their own experiences, and if any did object to my treachery they at least chose not to voice it!

Once you've tackled the ring dilemma, navigating feminist wedding planning in a non-feminist world is full of pitfalls. First there’s the body shaming: the influx of 'wedding diet' ads appearing on your Facebook sidebar, and the seemingly innocuous “you've got a wedding dress to fit into” comments from your mother while you’re stuffing your face with cake. No amount of body-positive feminist theory can make you completely immune from those messages. Then you have to tackle the traditionalists. If I was nervous about talking about the wedding with my feminist friends, I was utterly petrified of telling the more traditional members of our family that I wanted to do things differently: that I was keeping my surname, that I wouldn't be wearing a white dress. “Why are you being so awkward?” one friend asked, “stop trying to prove a point.” “You’ll look like a bridesmaid!” others warned, in bafflingly concerned tones. If anything these conversations made me more obstinate, and I married in teal.

I also didn't want to conform to the gender segregation of ushers (who help) and bridesmaids (who stand around looking pretty). We had brideswomen and men, groomsmen and a groomswoman. Our bridesmen read a passage from Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, and our groomswoman, a fellow feminist, read a WH Auden poem with the refrain “you’re my cup of tea”. We also requested a female registrar, to help counter the history of marriage as the proprietorial transaction of a woman between, and conducted by, men. Neither of us was “given away”, neither of us promised to obey. I loved the idea of my groom and I walking into the ceremony together, but couldn't bear to disappoint my dad so, instead, we asked my mother-in-law to escort her only child down the aisle as well.

Do I believe you can be a feminist and get married in white? Sure. But not if you're doing it because someone else insisted that “you have to because it’s tradition.” Why do you even have to wear a dress at all, if that’s just not you? If I've learnt anything at all, it’s that the key to feminist wedding planning is making your own decisions, rather than following the crowd.

A million and one other details are of course open to feminist critique if you over-analyse enough. Can you be a feminist and get married in heels? Is it anti-feminist to wear bridal make-up or shave your armpits before donning a sleeveless wedding dress? Probably not, in the grand scheme of things, but equally don’t feel that you have to. And can you be a feminist and still throw your bouquet, or have your groom publicly remove your garter with his teeth? I didn't want to do either, but I'm sure it would have been possible to instigate a mixed gender scrum for the flowers.

Ultimately, there is no hard-and-fast rule for a ‘perfect’ feminist wedding, but it is a lot of fun to swap the role of bride for ‘creative director’ and give tradition a feminist re-imagining. Of course, whatever expectations you brilliantly subvert on the day, the most challenging part is yet to come; you've signed up to a lifetime of feminist marriage, so just make sure he’s committed to shared housework and childcare before you put a ring on it.

Image: Copyright Polly Thomas, (Polly & Simon Photography) and Owain Thomas.

OP posts:
funnyvalentine · 29/07/2014 08:36

The wedding's the easy bit, IMHO. Loads of people have non-traditional elements to their weddings now, whether for feminist reasons or other.

A far more interesting question is whether a marriage can be feminist. I'm finding that's much harder, especially juggling young kids and full-time jobs.

maui50 · 29/07/2014 10:09

Happy36, yes, I remembered a similar article too from the Guardian recently, and here it is. The article itself is similar drivel to this blog, but the comments from hardcore feminists who responded to it drew my attention more at the time.

For some people, this author included, marriage as an institution is "inherently sexist and unequal" no matter how you initiate it on your wedding day. So in answer to her own question, according to hardcore feminists, no, it is not possible to have a feminist wedding.

This blog, like the article, drew a lot of ire on my part. It sounds like she had just another slightly non-traditional wedding - what's the big deal? Is it only feminist because there was feminist sentiment behind it? Or because she's interpreting some of her fairly run-of-the-mill choices as feminist choices?

Practically everything she listed as her feminist choices could be just as easily interpreted as not necessarily feminist - just choices from someone who wanted something a little different on her big day. Wedding magazines are full of case studies like that! "Let's shake things up a bit - let's have bridesmen! Let's have ushers of both sexes! Let's have someone walk the groom down the aisle - let's be original!". Having a woman registrar is pretty common now - we had one at ours, without asking (why ask when feminism is about equality? Is a woman registrar better than a man?!). My friend's sister was his brideswoman - he wasn't making a statement, but she just happens to be his best friend so why on earth wouldn't he ask her? I wore a red cocktail dress to my wedding instead of a white gown - because I look fabulous in red and I wanted to look fabulous on my big day. I gave a speech along with DH, best man, father of the bride and father of the groom - not to make a feminist statement, but because half the people in the room were there for me on an important day in my life, and it seemed rude for me not to acknowledge them formally.

Funnily enough, I'd say the author succumbed to the pressure of including supposedly radical feminist elements in her big day, just as most people succumb to including traditional elements in their big day. Her feminist colleagues were probably just as tick-boxey as ageing aunties are at 'traditional' weddings.

The sad thing is that the ghosts of old feminists seem to hang over her - to say that "wanting the same happily married family life with my partner that I’d grown up with" is falling at the first hurdle? Is achieving happiness in the surrounds of a loving family falling at a hurdle? If so, I guess I'm better off not being a hardcore feminist.

maui50 · 29/07/2014 10:30

funnyvalentine, yes, I agree - forget the big day, it's the rest of it that counts. Obviously you want to start as you mean to go on, but marriage is about the man (or woman) you're marrying, not the day - I kept having to repeat that to myself in the maelstrom approaching our wedding day.

As with madcats, we opened a joint account a few months before the wedding and each put in a reasonable standing order in there to cover rent (now mortgage) and household bills. We each earn a similar amount so why should one rely on the other financially? Weddings costs, house deposit and everything else - except the few months I was on maternity leave - has been 50/50. Now childcare costs come out of the joint account as well. We have no joint savings but separate investments and savings including property, ISAs and bonds, and a savings account for the baby which we jointly pay into. We pay for fuel in our cars ourselves, and our own clothes and personal items from our own accounts (ok, his shaving foam and my tampons come under the household bills). Baby stuff is paid for jointly. Holidays are paid jointly and when on holiday, we don't keep track of who buys what - we're both equally generous.

DH took 6 months parental leave when I returned to work. He needs a nudge when it comes to household chores (and a few hours' or days' deadline) and he's much better at most of it than I am. He does his own ironing - although occasionally I feel sorry for the huge pile and do a couple of his after he's tackled 80% of it and has lost the will to live! But that's just being generous.

We live by our own rules. Maybe that's all the feminist movement was meant to allow us to do.

Back2Two · 29/07/2014 11:33

This reply has been withdrawn

This post has been withdrawn due to privacy concerns

Thurlow · 29/07/2014 11:52

Scousadelic - I just think it is quite sad that women feel they still have to justify their choices. If we are not answering to men we are answering to feminism

I agree. I see hints of that knocking around some feminist debates. I don't personally think it is helpful to anyone, not when the minutest decisions can get questioned.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 29/07/2014 11:57

I get the whole 'feminism is not just about validating every woman's choices/it's kinda nice not to have to justify every choice when we're not killing puppies' side of this debate.

I don't want to put this nastily, and the OP is perfectly sweet and if it were in a glossy magazine I'd skip past it happily (having already read a zillion similar pieces by Laura Bates and Lucy Mangan and so on).

But why is it here? Confused

dashoflime · 29/07/2014 13:19

I think some people get so hung up on the symbolism they can't see the substance.

Marriage is basically a way of creating financial and legal obligations towards each other and tying your affairs together.
The way that plays out depends on where women's rights fit in the legal landscape of the country you are getting married in and the relative amounts of capital and earning potential each partner brings to the marriage.

No amount of faffing about with the symbolism, changing the dress colour, rearranging the bloody deckchairs at the reception changes that.

Having studied family law a little bit waaayy back in university, I think its clear that the legal status of married women now is not comparable to their legal status a century ago (for example).
Married women used to be chattel. Marriage in the past was a dangerous proposition because of that. This is not the case anymore, not just because the institution of marriage has changed- but because so much law has changed around it.

These days- if a woman is entering a relationship with less capital and earning power than her male partner, then marriage is a sensible enough way for her to protect her interests within the long term life of that relationship (and afterwards).

I don't think that makes marriage "feminist" as such- but I guess it makes it more likely that feminists would support it/want to enter into it.

I find it really amusing when people dig back into the past and say "Oh look, here's the original root of this institution and its OPPRESSIVE!! And here some traditions surrounding it that reflect its oppressiveness!! Quick- lets root those traditions out so that our union will not be tainted by the oppressions of the past"

It doesn't make any difference.

Happy36 · 29/07/2014 14:07

maui50 You're a lot more articulate than me. In short, your post is spot on!

moonbells · 29/07/2014 15:59

I prefer to say I'm an equalist. I want to be able to have the right and the choice to do anything that a man can (physical abilities notwithstanding!), for the same pay if at the same level of competency. Ditto in reverse.

When I married DH I gave him an engagement ring, we had a female usher (gave her the choice!) and we combined names. The whole celebration we did as both of us wanted, and we also paid for it all between us. That was 10 years ago almost and I still have some family who can't cope with the combined names and invariably get them wrong!

I also don't use Mrs. Or Ms for that matter. Title I use is the gender-neutral one I spent years earning. Another one that the rellies find hard.

Yes also to joint account, equal amounts of monthly cash into it, and I hope to get home tonight and find DH has cooked supper :) as he's currently working at home. Sometimes I earn more or get home first, sometimes he does. It's all swings and roundabouts and what works for you as a couple/family.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 29/07/2014 16:10

What do you think feminists believe, then? Confused

mummytoo · 29/07/2014 19:55

Thank god I am gay and had a civil partnership. ..I didnt have to buy into any if the traditional wedding stuff as no one was expecting me too. Which is a good job as I had no idea you had to do all that wedding stuff mentioned above... I used to be engaged to a man (very young!) because It seemed a good idea.

At my civil partnership I wore trousers as I look cack in dresses (I did try some)...we had no bridesmaid or ushers and anyone who wanted to could give a speech..we both did. After a lovely meal everyone had a jolly knees up. ..one of the best days of my life

Feminism is not something I considered during the planning. .

now that we are both mums it is so much more important an issue....part time working, raising kids and careers..nit compatible. ..both of us had men promoted over us and faced redundancy. ...

mummytoo · 29/07/2014 19:58

...oh and we kept our own names....but going to have to change them bext time we renew passports as its a nightmare travelling with the kids with different surnames...Australian immigration nearly went into meltdown!

moonbells · 29/07/2014 21:55

LRD yeah I know, I know... But I find if I say equal then people do doubletakes and I am more likely to get a conversation going on differing attitudes! Also I like that it covers all human artificial divisions. Wink

LRDtheFeministDragon · 29/07/2014 21:57

Mmm.

To be honest, I think it reinforces the 'feminists are all wrong-headed' division, but there we go ...

Personal taste, etc. Smile

littlepig · 01/08/2014 19:47

This whole article horrifies me.
Happily my skim through was enough to reassure me that there still seems to be a majority of sensible women who don't obsess about male/ female point scoring!

Housefulofboys · 02/08/2014 08:27

Surely all that worrying about whether what the writer chose to do/not do at her wedding, and whether it was properly feminist or not, is just as much being a slave to feminist ideals as the writer suggests a traditional wedding is a slave to a patriarchal system?

Isn't feminism about the woman's freedom of choice, without worrying about what others think. That includes worrying about other feminists opinions too.

My impression from reading this article was of someone a little insecure in their beliefs trying too hard to prove themselves.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page