Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 ··· 13 14 15 ··· 23 24

Original poster

Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

593 replies

DontdoitKatie · 29/04/2011 11:08

This is one of the times when you realise how very lonely seeing things through a feminist lens can make you.

Patriarchy in all its glory.

OP posts:

Animation · 02/05/2011 16:06

"two nuns in different stages of life, as far from glamourous as possible with sensible shoes.."

Apparently black Reeboks.

KatieMiddleton · 02/05/2011 16:18

I thought Princess Di kept her Princess status but lost the right to use HRH. Same as Fergie who got to keep her Duchess of York title??

hocuspontas · 02/05/2011 16:44

Traditionally women took the man's name not just the surname. So they were Mrs. John Smith. To denote possession I suppose. As a child I addressed letters to my aunts as Mrs. .

LuckyWeKeptTheCot · 02/05/2011 16:46

I would have loved to have been 'given away' by my Dad. I would have been so proud to be escorted by one man I love towards another man I love - that's really all it is. But my Dad died before I even met my husband - they would have loved each other and our wedding would have celebrated that as much as our own love. It's not a charade of possession - who really thinks of it that way these days? I would have found it a privilege and a joy to have had my dad at my side.

LuckyWeKeptTheCot · 02/05/2011 16:50

By the way - the exchanging of rings thing isn't always a statement. I received a ring - it was my mum's - but DH didn't have one because if you could get one over his knuckles it would be like a bangle on his finger. I also promised to obey - slightly silly because I did take the words seriously - but wanted to raise the eyebrows of feminist mates - always like to provoke a bit. But I didn't change my name. I took the vows as a demonstration of my trust in DH's good nature - I know he would never order me to do anything so it will never come up.

KatieMiddleton · 02/05/2011 16:59

You chose your wedding vows based on what some of your feminists mates might think? How disrespectful to your husband and people who take their vows seriously.

I meant mine and neither dh nor I gave two hoots what anybody else thought because it wasn't about them. It was about us.

LuckyWeKeptTheCot · 02/05/2011 17:14

I don't think you read my post properly. "I took the vows as a demonstration of my trust in DH's good nature - I know he would never order me to do anything so it will never come up." I was demonstrated my faith in my husband and knew that using that word would raise eyebrows. I didn't do it solely for that reason but quite enjoyed it as a side effect. I did respect my vows and had a long discussion with the vicar about the words 'to obey' and what they meant to me and how some of my friends wouldn't like it. So he brought that into his sermon and explained the whole thinking and what it really means. A wedding is a public declaration - that's why you invite people to witness and celebrate with you. We took that seriously too. No-one could have more respect for their husband or for the words spoken at a wedding than I do but I guess I didn't word the post well!

KatieMiddleton · 02/05/2011 17:17

I think I did read it properly. I read what you wrote: I also promised to obey - slightly silly because I did take the words seriously - but wanted to raise the eyebrows of feminist mates - always like to provoke a bit

You've added another post now saying something a bit different which is your perogative but I'm not sure I get your point.

dittany · 02/05/2011 17:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TimeWasting · 02/05/2011 17:23

I've read it twice and I still don't understand why you chose to declare publicly that you would obey your husband?

KatieMiddleton · 02/05/2011 17:28

I don't think I will ever understand no matter what anybody writes why one person in a relationship would choose to obey the other.

Even if sometimes (like today) I bloody wish DH was a bit more obedient

LuckyWeKeptTheCot · 02/05/2011 17:33

I love my friends - that's why I invited them. I just knew some of them would find saying 'obey' problematic so the vicar addressed it in his sermon. Where better to raise eyebrows than at a wedding - hardly anything else is formal to do it enough these days. I chose to use those words due to this meaning - "to listen, take heed". The root of the word is from Latin 'oboedire' meaning 'to listen to'. I liked that when we talked about it and it was explained that I made the vow in the spirit of that definition. I liked people thinking it meant one thing and then realising there are more perspetives than that. I was very happy to promised to listen to my husband and as the vicar said "She is only promising to listen to his opinion, not necessarily to share or follow it". I thought that was entirely appropriate for any healthy relationship. OK with you?

KatieMiddleton · 02/05/2011 17:37

So I assume your husband said the same?

Actually as a feminist I do have issues with inequality. But I am also a liberal so I respect it is your choice to make.

LuckyWeKeptTheCot · 02/05/2011 17:46

No but he promised to worship me and endow me with all his worldly goods - vows the woman doesn't make in the traditional service. I thought promising to listen in exchange for being worshipped seemed to favour the woman rather than the man. But we all interpret feminism in our own way.

TimeWasting · 02/05/2011 17:55

What a beautiful cage.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 02/05/2011 17:58

But obey doesn't mean "promising to listen to his opinion"

What a load of guff! The church now get to redefine words do they? If "promising to listen to his opinion" is what you wanted to say why didn't you say that?

SybilBeddows · 02/05/2011 18:08

I'm all for feminism involving a diversity of opinions but no-one has ever managed to convince me that women promising to obey their husbands and not the other way round is feminist in any way whatsoever.

though some Christian feminists did try very hard once.... mostly based on the argument that having to be obeyed all the time was an awful responsibility so the wife got the easier ride by just having to do the obeying.

lolol.

hocuspontas · 02/05/2011 18:08

'...love, honour and listen when I feel like it' sounds better to me.

SybilBeddows · 02/05/2011 18:10

btw re the feminist bits of it, I read on another thread that the helicopter had a female pilot - don't know if that 1. is true and 2. has been mentioned on here, but cool if so

also I guess a few years ago there wouldn't have been the female protection officers that there are now? The fact that we were talking about ninja nuns does bespeak a change of attitude about some things I think

madwomanintheattic · 02/05/2011 18:25

yep, i mentioned it earlier. and the female security staff.. and the fact that none of this was mentioned (or the women police/ military on the crowdline) as it was all accepted as being perfectly normal. not worthy of comment.

although the helicopter pilot is a kiwi i think. clearly we couldn't find a home grown one.

madwomanintheattic · 02/05/2011 18:27

i think my point was that an awful lot of things have changed - but they aren't the things that we are looking at. just the things that we are accepting as the norm, now. the things that need changing are the things we are 'seeing'. which is ok. as it should be.

but we do need to give a nod towards the changes with a grin every now and again, too.

SybilBeddows · 02/05/2011 18:29

I find it fascinating that the thing that might once have seemed quite logical that men do rather than women - ie the thing that might involve physical strength - women are doing, but the things that women are obviously able to do - speaking in church, escorting a daughter up the aisle - they're not.

SybilBeddows · 02/05/2011 18:31

(I don't mean that I think women can't be police officers or soldiers, obv.)

madwomanintheattic · 02/05/2011 18:35

interesting idea - do you think it's a case of picking your battles? and choosing them on the basis of pr-appeal? (pr-appeal isn't really right - more to make a point, ie of course women can read and walk it's a no-brainer. more kudos to claim they can fly a helicopter/ take out an assassin equally as well as a man?)

is it just that it's so blindingly obvious that women can do that other stuff that we (largely) haven't bothered with it yet?

noblegiraffe · 02/05/2011 19:08

Katie - Diana was Diana, Princess of Wales, but because she wasn't born a princess she shouldn't actually have been referred to as Princess Diana, but Princess Charles, as Princess Michael is, with her husband's first name.

Flip

1 2 ··· 13 14 15 ··· 23 24

Swipe left for the next trending thread