How to Have a Feminist Wedding

[Thurlow]

Did anyone see the Guardian article by the author of Everyday Sexism?

The article itself was really interesting, but the comments were more so. I can't entirely make up my mind how I feel. Personally I'm against marriage for me (as anyone who has come across me before on here probably well knows ) and agree with some comments such as marriage, with its trappings of romance and its history, have become the only way to guarantee legal rights to inheritance and protection etc. But then again, surely feminism means doing whatever the hell you want, and if you want a big white dress and a church wedding, why not? Surely not being able to do what you want would be anti-feminist?

I also found a lot of the author's comments about the wedding industry - the attitude of bridal shops and the like - very telling, the assumption that it will be a woman's planning, a woman's decision, a woman wanting to look her best and all that.

Marriage is a partnership, pure and simple - but how easy is it really to escape from all the quite inherently sexist history and assumptions involved in a wedding?

Interesting topic. In our case, while my dad did walk me down the aisle - which meant a lot to him and I wouldn't have wanted to deny him that - we also involved our mums in a hand fasting ceremony and DH's dad did a reading. To us, because all our parents had a role, this emphasised the joining of the two families rather than just focusing on the 'giving away' aspect.

I also did a speech, which I'm glad I did, but I was ridiculously nervous. I've been to weddings where the mothers of the bride and groom have spoken and where the maid of honour has done so. I think it's becoming more commonplace these days.

I also didn't wear white, although that was in no way a consciously feminist act - I just chose the dress I liked!

Quick plug for getting your mother's name on your marriage certificate alongside your father's - currently not allowed in England & Wales!

This is interesting to me from a traditions of marriage perspective. I've been with my partner for ten years (both been married before) and we decided this week to get married some time next year. No 'real' reason, we won't be having kids together etc.

I told my mum and older sister, and said it would be a registry office, I wouldn't take his name, possibly no rings and the response ranged from 'wow, romance is truly dead' to 'what will people think'.

I honestly didn't/don't know where to go from there!

The idea that romance involves giving away a big part of your identity in order to become the 'other' of a man?

I read it with interest too, when we decided to get married I was terrified of the whole traditional wedding thing, no way was I being given away, being called Mrs, changing my name, wearing a big white dress or a veil, throwing a bouguet, dancing in front of people or giving a speech. As far as I am concerned we could have dispensed with speeches altogether apart from a quick thank you for coming, which would have satisfied my leanings towards equality, but DH and DF thought they ought to do it.

However to all intents and purposes it looked like a traditional wedding. Civil ceremony and therefore no giving away. No name or title changes - easy, just don't do anything. No big white dress, well, I compromised with ivory, made by MIL. The dress was a simple cocktail style therefore no need for veils and trains, just a bouquet. No bouquet throwing - we stayed at the venue all day, evening and night so there was no going away, and my flowers were hand tied and could have done someone and injury if thrown. It wasn't totally feminist but I did feel we eliminated the worst of the inequalities.

YY, Glitter - The idea that romance involves giving away a big part of your identity in order to become the 'other' of a man?

I still struggle with the concept that romance apparently means registering your relationship with the government not just, you know, being happy together and in love. But that's not entirely a feminist point, I know.

Interestingly, I'm in my mid-thirties and I can see amongst people my age that changing your name to your husband's is becoming a lot less common. It's almost 50/50 now. I have quite a few friends who just didn't even consider it because they couldn't understand why anyone would want to stop using the name they've used for 30 years. It's certainly become something that you actually ask your friends if they are doing, rather than an assumption.

(Oh, and sorry if my posts don't come up in a different colour, had an attempted nc yesterday, I don't know why, I did about 3 posts in that name and then decided I didn't like it all!)

It's a funny thing but only with hindsight can I see we had a less patriarchal wedding than most. At the time we were aware that we were not doing some of the traditions because they "weren't us" but we never really thought of it in terms of feminism per se. We just thought they were silly which is of course what feminism is - finding patriarchal bollocks ridiculous.

Take something like a veil. Do you ever wear one in real life? No. Because it has connotations with modesty and hidden "otherness". You would also look ridiculous. However wearing an amazing dress is not exclusive to weddings so that feels less ridiculous.

There are small things creeping into the norm that are distinctly feminist in flavour like keeping your own name and not wearing a veil. Or waiting for a proposal - many people I know had a discussion and decided.

I predict in time we will start to see a backlash against engagement rings.

Fwiw I'm not against marriage at all. Not when presented as a contractual arrangement and I don't back the idea of extending the rights associated with marriage to unmarried people. There should definitely be an opt in. Honestly I had to go through more red tape and more processes to buy my house than get married so the idea of being tied to someone without taking the conscious and active decision to actually get married seems bizarre. But I do understand that marriage has become a dirty word in some circles and I believe that is mainly to do with the anti-feminist bollocks prevalent in the wedding industry and in the historical context of what marriage meant for a woman: babies, respectability, permission to have sex with that person, giving up your identity, giving up work even. The last bit just isn't the case for many people now but the negative reputation remains.

I definitely agree with needing to opt in - even as a consciously unmarried couple, I think you need to make a decision to nominate someone as your next of kin, your beneficiary and as someone you agree to support financially. I would just prefer to have romance taken completely out of the context, as it is in some other countries.

Interesting points about the veil and the dress. I'm not sure about the backlash against wedding rings though - most people love a bit of bling says the woman who is wearing bling on her ring finger despite being neither married not engaged

i said to dp not long ago that if we decided to get married i didn't really think an engagement ring was necessary.

i agree about the veil. until i saw my cousin wearing my great-grandmother's veil, which my mother also wore, and all that fairy-princess-tradition-socialised-bollocks reared it's ugly head and i thought how lovely it would be to continue the tradition

i agree about opt-in too

tbh i think dp's mother would fall down dead if we told her we were getting married but i didn't have an engagement ring

Noooo not wedding rings. They're equal (if you ignore the historical context and just focus on the current prevailing understanding and symbolism) although recently it's become more fashionable to have hers more blingy . Nor am I against a bit of bling in general. What I think people will object to is the idea that once engaged the man gives the woman a special shiny bauble to show everyone that she belongs to him is off the market and that he has the financial means to support a wife. It is very yukky.

Of course in this capitalist world it is equally probable that it will become tradition for men to get something pretty too upon engagement

I dislike some of the more sexist wedding traditions, so we didn't have them. E.g. both parents walked down the aisle with me and I walked out with my husband - I like the symbolism of this (in as past of one family, out as a new one). There was no "giving away" . There was no father of the bride speech - me and my husband each just briefly thanked people after dinner. It didn't occur to me to throw the bouquet. I refused a veil, despite the best efforts of the woman in the bridal wear shop.

Oh, and I decided I would only wear a ring if he did (I wasn't expecting him to, but in the end we both wear them) and wouldn't change my name at all.

I got married 20 years ago at a registry office. I wore a dress from the evening department of a big London store. I arrived at the wedding with my now DH, I didn't do the father giving the bride away bit. I didn't have bridesmaids. There was no flower throwing. The reception was a big party and just my DH made a speech thanking everyone for attending.

What I like about this thread is there is a lot of "I didn't like that so I didn't do it or I did X instead". Very refreshing.

no bridesmaids here either

'Mostly it just feels like a bit of a PR puff piece to be honest.'
Completely agree. Same with the Jessica Valenti piece. A great piece of self-promtion, sod all to do with feminism.

I read this article at the weekend and found that it was just a justification for having all sorts of traditional wedding stuff (throwing bouquet, wearing a white dress). I thought she fudged the issue of why get married at all by just saying 'it feels right for me' without any further discussion of why it felt right and the role that social conditioning may have played in her decision.

It was announced last week that civil partnerships will not be extended to opposite sex couples (by this government at least) and I am bitterly disappointed. I would really have liked to have a CP as I would like to make a legal commitment to my DP but one that doesn't involve any 'romance' or 'consummation' or have any patriarchal crap attached. In the inital consultation about equal marriage, over 60% of people were in favour of extending CPs to all but that doesn't fit with Cameron's conservative pro-marriage agenda so its been scrapped

'What I think people will object to is the idea that once engaged the man gives the woman a special shiny bauble to show everyone that she belongs to him is off the market and that he has the financial means to support a wife. It is very yukky.'
Spot on - that's exactly how I feel about engagement rings!

We jumped on a plane left the country as teenagers got married. No guests, no walking down aisle, no first dance nothing. Then I did change my name but have never done any wifework and not even ever undertaken any task that could be described as wifey like in all those years.

The part I find really difficult is the concept of being given away. If I were getting married again, I would either be at the door with the groom to meet guests, or walk in with him once everyone was seated. I just couldn't do the whole being walked up the aisle like a sacrifice by one man, to be handed over (literally in many churches) to another man for safe keeping.

But if you have a close relationship with parents, and want to involve them somehow in the ceremony, then how would you replace it?

I guess you could have both sets of parents at the door greeting people, then they walk up the aisle, followed by bride & groom. Kind of shows the whole 'we're celebrating as a whole family' without the 'bringing the virgin to slaughter' resonance.

But it's difficult. How do you get rid of one aspect of tradition that you don't like, but still keep the aspects that you do? After all, it's possible to have close loving relationships with men AND be a feminist.

I didn't do the father giving away the daughter thing. I thought to myself I don't belong to anyone so how can I be given away, i'm a person not an object. DH and I went to the registry together and walked down the 'aisle' together as 2 equals.

I struggled with the engagement ring, it is the one part of the beautiful costume etc that I did love as a child, I have always loved jewellery and worn rings. But I was very torn because of the inequality of it. In the end I did have one, it was only unequal for a year or so as we both wear rings now (the fact that I have two and DH has one doesn't really matter). We discussed wedding rings up front and if DH had said he wasn't going to have one I would have had neither wedding or engagement rings myself.

I tried on a friend's veil and felt physically sick though. It is interesting that I could cope with the symbolism of wearing an engagement ring for a year but not a veil for a few hours. However the veil would have been very much centre stage on the day and in the photos, whereas the engagement ring on it's own was over by the wedding day and forgotten about.

I was fine with having an engagement ring and I brought my DH a watch. Instead of a wedding band I have an 'eternity' ring. I'm not sure why I went for that option, I think I just liked it. My DH has a wedding band.

In the C of E being "given away" doesn't even exist anymore. For proof, see the service wording here: www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/pastoral/marriage/marriage.aspx

I get the impression that LB hasn't even looked at the ceremony wording . She'll be aghast to find that it is completely egalitarian in every way and there's not much there to raise feminist hackles.

Being walked down the aisle is a totally different thing, although of course historically they are linked. Despite being a feminist I chose to have my dad walk me down the aisle because I actually wanted a fairly traditional wedding, and I knew my mum would want to see it. But no one gave me away.

chicken we did the same, went shopping together and bought a ring for me and a watch for DH. He felt more strongly than I did about having some sort of symbol of engagement, so I just went with it. But I was adamant that if I had such a symbol, then so would he.

There's something that is bothering me about some of the posts on here and on a thread about name changes that is running at the moment (the OP mentioned this thread so I'm going to guess it's ok to half-link the two threads)

There seems to be a slight undertone from some posts and posters, on these threads and in general, that it is more important to chose the feminist thing to do than it is to do what you would actually like to do.

So take your dad walking you down the aisle. The feminist approach is to view that in its historical context of chattel being passed from one man to another. And it is very, very hard to separate the act from that history. But if you know it will make your dad proud and happy and so you would like to have him walk you down the aisle for your sake, should you chose feminism over your family?

Or say you just like a big, white wedding dress with a veil. Say you actually look good in a big white wedding dress with a veil, better than you look in a red dress, or a little white dress. But white is tied with virginity and being untouched, and a veil is tied to being hidden before being 'taken' - so should you reject them and wear a dress you are less happy in, because it is the correct feminist thing to do?

Thinking about this is actually helping me to figure out some things I have been thinking for a while. I like the idea of people being able to do whatever the hell they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt someone. So I struggle a bit with the concept that you shouldn't have a ring even if you want one, you shouldn't wear the dress you want, you shouldn't wear your grandmother's veil, you shouldn't let your dad walk you down the aisle, because if you say you are a feminist, you should do everything in a feminist way. Because that would mean you are not doing what you want to and (aware this bit might get me flamed) and you're actually doing what someone else tells you you should do: trading do what the patriarchy says you should for do what feminist theory says you should.

I'd just like to applaud this from Petula

"people don't like others doing things that throws into question their own actions"