How did your wedding day reflect your feminist beliefs?

[SkaterGrrrrl]

After reading lots of the awesome threads in here I've realised that many of us feminists are married. Marriage and weddings are often seen as not particularly feminist institutions, so just wondering how posters here incorporated feminist touches into their wedding day! Did you cross out the vow ?to obey? from your wedding ceremony? (There was an uproar when Princess Di did this). Did you ask a woman to make a speech at the reception?

lrd - i think if you've joined the military, any other political statement is pretty much null and void

but i think everyone who took part (in our wedding) recognised the 'standard operating procedures' for what they were - a nod to custom, and then got back on with real life.

in hindsight, of course it would have been possible to make some sort of statement by deliberately going against the status quo, and in some ways it would have been deeply rewarding (!) but tbh, it was a sort of historical pageant like loads of other military displays/ parades i'd taken part in (proudly, lol). so, as a feminist it didn't really seem like a sell-out, as i wasn't living it at that point.

whether or not the deeply traditional nature of (most) military weddings bodes terribly well for the survival of feminism in the marriage itself... i do wonder. maybe it's an underhand way of letting you know what the real expectations of your role are, with a stonking great bill to underline them.

have women in the military made a great difference to spouses? no, don't think so. some of us just cross the fence and work our feminist heads round the fact that we now follow, rather than lead . you get used to the fact that often the only work you can get is unpaid voluntary, you get told where to live and when, and reasonably often get your social life dictated as well. i exaggerate for the sake of effect, clearly, as i don't think i've quite lost the will to live yet, but i do often have a voice in my ear that says 'equality, eh?' . in a way it's a nice little reminder that there's a way to go. women in the military and equality is a whole other discussion, though. that would be a whole other thread!

i should add i love my dh and dcs to bits, it just happens that outwardly the life we have ended up living isn't exactly shouting 'make way for the new age', despite what happens behind closed doors, which i would say is far more in line with my feminist ideologies, lol.

We too eloped. Got married at the Samye Ling Buddist Centre in Lockerbie by a Tibetan monk and our witnesses lived and worked there.

Death by chocolate cake and a cappuccino in a Glasgow cafe afterwards and the weekend in Kinloch Rannoch.

No name change and no rings. I always knew I'd never have a big white wedding - stuff of nightmares to me!

I often wonder, if civil partnerships were available to heterosexual couples, how many people would choose this option to avoid the sexist traditions and connotations of weddings and marriage.

Would anybody here have chosen to become civil partners instead of husband and wife?

CuppaTeaJanice
What's the point of a civil partnership? Really..I don't know?

Civil partnerships ARE available to straight people as things stand NOW -all you have to do is get married in a register office.

You pay £106.50 for the privilege.
You need two witnesses and provide proof that you're who you say you are and that it's legal for you to marry and you're doing it of free will.

NO RINGS.
NO 'GIVING AWAY'
NO RECEPTION
NO GUESTS
NO SPECIAL DRESS.
NO RELIGION.
NONE of the above are legally required.
Marriage is a way that a couple can express to the authorities/law that they wish to be viewed as a couple.
THAT'S it.
If people could just get their heads around this all this feminist claptrap about marriage being 'patriarchal' would fall away.

I really don't see that women who are 'just' cohabiting in long-term relationships behave differently to women who are actually married, anyway.
It's not as if cohabiting women don't take on 'traditional' roles just because unmarried.
Why not be married? At least you're childcare and time off work to do so will be taken into account if your partner does a runner if you're married.

No stag do. 'hen' do was a group of mates sitting around eating chocolate and drinking wine. A bit like being 13 then.

ONly 2 people at the wedding (both female)in a register office. No white dress. Changed my name 'cos my original one was crap and I actually like being part of Team Astronaut.

Big party for peopel to come and drink at (including karaoke). DH and I both gave a speech and competed for laughs. Conclusion was (apparently) that there were more gags per minute in mine, but longer laughs at his.

Marantha, I had a registry office wedding Saturday before last, and some of that 'patriarchial crap' is still very much in evidence. The woman is given the marriage certificate to look after (this is official policy, not just what my registrar happened to do), since it is proof (should she wish to) that she can use her husband's name. Her husband would have to pay and get a name change by deed poll to do the same.

The order in which vows are taken can't be reversed - man goes first (I know because DH asked, not because I did!).

Besides this, although there's no more 'mandatory' sexism in the ceremony, several people we dealt with there made pretty sexist comments, so they're clearly still working in that mindset. Our favourite was the registrar who leaned over to DH and suggested that we shouldn't have a 9am appointment as 'the ladies need a lot of time to get their nails and hair done'.

Not a lot of point lauding the lack of sexism in the ceremony if you're going to staff the place with people like that.

LittleRedDragon They have to give the certificate to man or woman, don't they?
NOBODY is forcing woman to take husband's name, all they're effectively doing is saying, 'Here, if you WISH to change your name, this may provide you with proof.'
What's unreasonable about that?

And if people ARE confronted by 'hair and nails' comments all they have to do is say,
'To us, this is just a way of legally cementing the love we have for each other.
We are not going to be bothering to get new clothes or even get out of our jeans, it is purely a legal rite-of-passage we must do to be legally considered a partnership'
Really don't see what the big deal is.

marantha, surely the normal thing would be to say, 'here, who wants to take this' (in our case, DH reached for it because he has bigger pockets and was told 'I have to give this to the bride'). The whole point of sexism is to make arbitrary decisions about who does/has what, and then to uphold them without allowing people to choose.

I know how to respond to people making sexist comments, but that doesn't stop me being irritated when someone makes them, especially in a context where (as you say), you'd expect not to find them.

To be fair, though, marriage IS a cause for celebration for most people, so perhaps you're being a bit oversensitive about hair and nails comment?

Would it have offended you if the registrar had said that BOTH of you needed time to get ready?
Or would you have preferred it if she'd said nothing at all?

Did you really want a person who was super-officious who did not even smile throughout the ceremony and was supremely business-like?

I got married as a legal contract. We already had DS and I wanted the legal protection of marriage (although I resent having to do that when we had lived together for 8 years and had a baby already). We had 2 witnesses and the shortest ceremony possible. No drama, no speeches, no outdated traditions. I wanted a marriage not a wedding.

Lots of my friends thought this was odd, but I just don't like a lot of the wedding palava, I hate being centre of attention, we didn't need to spend thousands of pounds on a big day to demonstrate to the world that we were together - we had a child. My parents were understanding too.

So, in all, it was a pretty feminist affair. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way, I was not giving myself to my husband, I was signing a legal contract to formalise the partnership we already had.

We are, however, not together anymore.

Because I dare say the registrars who conduct civil partnerships try to inject a bit of (perhaps misplaced in eyes of civilly-partnering couple) warmth and humanity into the proceedings.

yes, but you see marantha that is precisely why I would be more than happy to simply sign a piece of paper to acknowledge (legally) my relationship, but I don't want a 'ceremony' of any kind, with anyone else make judgements about how it should be (warmth and humanity or not). A nice quick sign on the dotted line and have it witnessed would do me...

You shouldn't have resented it, lifeissweet, people have to actively choose and sign to be in a formalised relationship.
I would detest being in a society where the government or some other agency could deem me to be in a committed long-term relationship without my expressly saying so via marriage.

Any woman living with an abusive partner could no longer just walk away- the government would force her to claim maintenance from abusive partner.

Blackduck, Are you saying that civil partners don't have to say anything at all during the process?

Of course I would have been fine with them saying we both needed time to get ready - can't you see the difference?

It was a remark addressed not to me, but to DH, and it was the guy assuming that I was going to get all bimbo'd up for this ceremony. Would you not be a bit irritated by that yourself?

no marantha I am sure they do, but would still argue civil is different to reg office (wouldn't exist if it wasn't). My point is I would sooner have an option that does away with all the ceremony and is merely legal (as you keep claiming reg office is..)

AcTually although I see your point LRD, I would have been grateful to have it pointed out to DH that maybe 9am was a bit of an early start...Would be for me, and I never do my nails!

It's like our old vicar who changed the time of the regular service to 9am and then insisted all christenings had to happen in that service. What are you supposed to do with your guests at 10am when it's all over? Give them breakfast?

I think the comment about the hair and nails is a moot point, because that was an individual registrar, not part of the marriage ceremony- he/she could easily have made the comment to a gay couple booking a civil partnership. You cant legislate for individuals making dumb comments.

I see the difference, LittleRedDragon, but, to be honest, I wouldn't really be irritated by it.

No system is perfect for those who wish to be married without ANY fuss but I still think that getting wed in a register office is the best we've got in this country at the moment.
And it would surprise me if gay people didn't have to say that they were marrying of own free will and so on.

True, you can't legislate. I just found it odd that we'd expected them to be very modern and precise and PC, and it wasn't like that at all! I got the impression that lots of people who have registry office weddings still do want and enjoy a lot of the traditions (with the sexism inherent), which is interesting but maybe also makes the case for a more formal/businesslike way of doing it.

LRD - exactly, I would guess alot of people who marry in a reg office do want the fuss and ceremony. My brother married in a registry office because he is not religious and his wife is Hindu, but they sttill wanted the ceremony and traditions. I don't. I'd like to just go and sign something 'official' (isn't that how they do it in Spain?)

I would rather have a civil partnership than a wedding, if they were available to heterosexual couples. I know that probably seems a bit silly as you could they're essentially the same thing under different names, but I just feel that the CP would have less historical 'baggage' and wouldn't carry the same expectations from friends and family.

I guess ideally for me there would be 'weddings' which would be open to all romantically involved couples regardless of gender, and would be the traditional 'ceremony and big family party' type of thing or some variation on that. And 'civil partnerships' which would be just signing the paperwork to legally formalise your status as a 'unit' for practical purposes, and would be a similar experience to signing the papers to get a mortgage together.

The OP was about feminism in particular, and lots of people seem to be talking about ways in which their wedding was simple and no-frills, which seems to me to be a different question. Unless it's to signal a certain disapproval of the whole idea of marriage and to make a statement 'We're only doing this for practical reasons', I honestly don't see what's feminist about having e.g. fewer guests, cheaper food, no flowers...

Not saying that there's anything wrong with the minimalist approach, obviously, if that's what you want.