Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

[DontdoitKatie]

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.

If anyone genuinely doesn't get why high-heeled shoes are an issue for modern feminists they should read this and this.
The second has a whole chapter on shoes which explains it all pretty clearly.

SGM - Refer to earlier post if you can be bothered. He used 'worship' and endowing with goods etc. Swings and roundabouts. Why use exactly the same words. Clearly the vows are about mutual respect. You can't see the wood for the trees can you?

Not suggesting 'all feminists are the same'. My life is mostly lived according to feminist principles, but I believe feminism was to give women choice - not to shoehorn them into another set of beliefs. I refer to certain condescending individuals.

Jenny60 - 'derailed a thread' and 'go away' - is that the sisterhood speaking? Nice. You can always make the decision to ignore me and continue your interesting analysis of the Royal Wedding. But perhaps it wasn't really that interesting after all. Or you are very easily distracted. Still - it's not like it will happen again so interested to know what all your serious analysis is for. Or actually - I'm not. I'm going to talk to DH and some friends - see if he's got any orders for me before I go up to warm his cocoa.

Not in my OED either.

brandnewme, I don't see how it's possible to read too much into a ritual that is pretty central to the society we live in. It's incredibly complex with layers of meaning, both historical and personal.

Lucky, you seem to think you know a lot about what feminism should be about. What is that based on?

I get the ridiculousness of high heeled shoes and why they are an issue. I have daughters and am brainwashing them into a thoroughly feminist viewpoint on that. Just taking the piss out of the pompous self-importance of this thread - it was the Royal Wedding and this is just another thread to go on about it. I think you'll find most serious talk has moved on to events in Pakistan. There's a subject for feminists to get their teeth into. But the Royal Wedding?! Barmy.

rofl @ Lucky telling us we should be talking about Pakistan instead.

you go and talk about Pakistan then.

Aha! My name is invoked. I therefore automatically win the argument.

No, it's not the sisterhood speaking it's me and I say this because you keep telling us how ridiculous this thread is but you won't leave. How odd

By the way - oh the the amusement - the friends who've just come round ARE from Pakistan. Well - their parents are. Just saying you pick soft subjects if you think the Royals getting married is useful. Bye bye - better not discuss anything that might be over my head though. Thanks for the vote of confidence sisters.

ROFL at you being Polly Toynbee - given she's President of the British Humanist Association, I very much doubt she was married by a vicar. But thanks for the laugh

I think it was meant to be a joke because she's taking the piss out of us don't you know.

But the thread - except for one point made by SybilBeddowes about the narrative - hasn't been about the Royal aspects.

The words of the service are the old ones from the Book of Common prayer, first written in 1662, and people are concerned that they don't reflect feminism?

It isn't a case of "why did he say this?" (to which the answer is - well, that's what the vows are in the service they chose), but why did THEY choose the old form of service and not the more modern one that most people have which reflects equality?

Maybe William loves the idea of presenting his wife as a mere chattel. Maybe Kate loves the idea of being nothing but a possession. Or maybe one or both of them love the beauty of the language of the Book of Common Prayer and chose it because of that, and didn't give a lot of thought to the way the marriage is presented from a feminist perspective. I rather suspect the last option is closest to the truth.

OMG it's like watching a car crash - but. I. just. can't. look. away.

I think 'Being Polly Toynbee' is what she bases her understanding of feminism on.

Meditrina, it's all part of the same thing. You literally can't separate religion and royalty in this country. One day Wills be head of the Church of England.

Oh bugger and shite to this stupid new bolding facility.

no-one wants to discuss the beckham's wedding then?

that could start a new trend though...

no. I am Polly Toynbee.

i quite like it.

I thought it was instead of Mornington Crescent as per Christine. The end goal is Polly Toynbee in feminist Mornington Cresc.

oh well in that case she's cheated because you can only get there via Suzanne Moore.

madwomanintheattic, when K&W sat to the side during the service, it did cross my mind that VB was thinking "well, we had thrones at our wedding".

I'm Polly Toynbee.

Not under the Millet/French rules. Under those rules you can get to Polly Toynbee via Victoria Beckham I think.