I recently saw a post on facebook written by a friend of a friend (in my feed because the mutual friend had commented): a man, commenting on a couple situations in which he'd recently seen sexism in action, concluded with "it's time to stop acting like women belong to you". How awesome! There are many, many, men who don't comprehend that. I know next to nothing about this original person, he's apparently trying to be a good guy - but even while trying to point it out, the internalized sexism runs deep.
For one of his examples, it totally fit within this concept - it was about a guy thinking his opinion of a women's appearance is important enough to override her own preferences. That's basically making her body public property, and is not ok, and is about men thinking that women belong to them, that they have an inherent right to make decisions for or influence women.
The other situation, he came to the same conclusion - he witnessed behavior that he thought indicated another man believing he had a right to a women, and that that guy should have acted differently. I, however, read it quite the opposite. A guy (a customer/client) gave a female employee his phone number, and suggested they hang out. The original poster (the one trying to identify sexism), proposed that it would have been more respectful to first find out if she was "available or interested", and specifically pointed out that he hadn't even found out if she was single.
The first step to asking out a potential date should be finding out if she's single and available? No. What does it ultimately boil down to if you're finding out if a woman's single? Whether she already belongs to another man. That's not respectful, that's just another iteration of sexist behavior.
This is the same sexist belief that leads to women wearing fake wedding rings or telling a guy in a bar "sorry, I have a boyfriend" in order to prevent being hit on, because saying you're not interested won't do anything - only saying there's already another man involved will make him back off.
It's about a guy believing he has an inherent right to talk a woman into giving him a chance if she doesn't already belong to someone else. You're not entitled to a woman just because she's not taken by another man yet. You're not entitled to a woman at all. If you're given a chance, it's by her choice. Her being interested in you (and giving her your phone number and asking to text you if she wants seems like a reasonable enough way to find that out to me) is the first hurdle; whether logistics make it possible to take it anywhere is - or, rather, should be - entirely secondary.
I'm not saying I get hit on all that often. But the last instance I recall (and what I feel like I see frequently, in real life and in media), it took the form of "Can I ask - are you married?" When I answered yes, he said, "hey I had to give it a shot, have a good day." He gave it a shot? What? He had absolutely no idea if I was interested in him whatsoever - but apparently, giving it a shot only required seeing if I was single. Presumably, if I was single then surely he could talk me into giving him a shot.
If a woman's interested, then it's her choice to determine if she's available to her interest - whether that's by being single, becoming single, cheating, whatever. (Maybe you're not interested in being the other man - but that only becomes relevant if she's interested. If she's not interested, then you won't be cheating with her anyway.) It's on her. But if she's not interested, don't try to convince her. Don't think you have a right to convince her. If you think you have a shot so long as she's single, you're assuming women belong to you.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wedding Crap: Why Even Get Married?
(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)
I think this is the conclusion to the series. There's a new page with all of the posts listed here.
What is the tradition?
I'm really talking about two separate things here: the getting married and the having a wedding.
A marriage is a legal, religious, or cultural agreement that gives the parties certain familial rights. The wedding is the act of creating a marriage, through a - often religious - ceremony and cultural traditions. A wedding is generally a community event, perhaps seen as a blessing or support of the marriage being formed.
What is the origin of the tradition?
In various forms and contexts, it's a tradition as old as humankind. Marriage has historically been used to form alliances between groups and countries. It built economic and business partnerships. It creates (intended) stability between partners and for any children resulting from the marriage.
The wedding as the formation of a marriage seems like any other cultural ceremonial traditions - it's a rite of passage, a spiritual recognition, a community celebration.
Why do people still follow it?
Even though long-term non-married partnerships/cohabitation is becoming more accepted, there can still (especially in certain subcultures) be a stigma against not being married. Some may view even a committed partnership as less stable than an actual marriage (because obviously the legal paperwork will make the relationship itself work out, always!).
There are a variety of legal benefits from being married, such as rights to be next of kin for inheritance or medical care, joint ownership of property, health insurance, and lower taxes (there is such a thing as the "marriage penalty", but the with current US tax laws, depending on your type and relative levels of income, you're very likely to come out ahead). There are ways to create legal contracts that give you most of the same benefits, but in a marriage they're all consolidated into a nice, simple one-page contract.
Weddings are done because they're fun, and people want to celebrate this (ostensibly) huge life change with their family and friends.
Why is that crap?
Weddings are crap because in our middle class society, we don't do big events like that. It's most people's one chance to show off and be part of a huge celebration like that. They see the rich throwing huge weddings and think it's a wedding thing, so it's accessible - when really it's a rich people's party thing. It's also a bit odd when it's not a huge step, not a rite of passage - because you've already long since committed to each other, formed a household, and perhaps even had children. So there's no significant change happening at the wedding.
The other benefits, legal and perceived stability, are just that - perceived, and arbitrary. Romantic attachments, realistically, are not exactly known for being stable. Why in the world do we think lust is the best way to form the connection with the other parent of our children? Many people have the most stable relationship in their life with someone other than a romantic partner - parent, sibling, friend. Can a romantic attachment be steady through the years? Of course, many people's spouse are their closest friend. But it's far from universal - if anything, I'd say that's the exception that proves the rule.
You also don't need a legal contract to have a lifelong relationship. Many friends are friends forever - simply by choice and trust. They don't need the government involved in telling them how to treat each other or how to support each other. A commitment might be beneficial to a child; a marriage is not necessary for that commitment.
What am I doing with this tradition?
Well, we got married, of course. If I could do the wedding over again, I wouldn't. I would use the same money to fly our immediate family to Colorado and do a self-officiating ceremony. While the wedding was fun, and it was nice to see all of our loved ones in one place - it's really fucking weird to throw a party for everyone, for all of your various groups. My work friends, my college friends, and my cousins, were all acquired in my life at different times for different reasons, and just the fact that they all know me is not necessarily reason for them to socialize together. I'd rather have made it about just the two of us and our immediate family, than our entire circles.
Being legally married, versus just committing ourselves to each other, was important to me for a few reasons. It's easier than contracting for the same benefits separately. It appeases my anxious nature to have things in writing and formally agreed upon. It was also important to my family, who sees it as an important distinction in life and a statement about the relationship - I might not agree, but it makes familial relationships significantly easier to have it be "official" to them.
All else being equal, it made sense to take advantage of the established understanding of what a "marriage" is. It says something to my family about what we are, it says something to society about what we are. Which I don't always see as a positive - does society need to know what our relationship is? Is it anyone's business? Not really. While I don't regret being married, there are definitely ways in which getting married was simply the path of least resistance.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
I think this is the conclusion to the series. There's a new page with all of the posts listed here.
What is the tradition?
I'm really talking about two separate things here: the getting married and the having a wedding.
A marriage is a legal, religious, or cultural agreement that gives the parties certain familial rights. The wedding is the act of creating a marriage, through a - often religious - ceremony and cultural traditions. A wedding is generally a community event, perhaps seen as a blessing or support of the marriage being formed.
What is the origin of the tradition?
In various forms and contexts, it's a tradition as old as humankind. Marriage has historically been used to form alliances between groups and countries. It built economic and business partnerships. It creates (intended) stability between partners and for any children resulting from the marriage.
The wedding as the formation of a marriage seems like any other cultural ceremonial traditions - it's a rite of passage, a spiritual recognition, a community celebration.
Why do people still follow it?
Even though long-term non-married partnerships/cohabitation is becoming more accepted, there can still (especially in certain subcultures) be a stigma against not being married. Some may view even a committed partnership as less stable than an actual marriage (because obviously the legal paperwork will make the relationship itself work out, always!).
There are a variety of legal benefits from being married, such as rights to be next of kin for inheritance or medical care, joint ownership of property, health insurance, and lower taxes (there is such a thing as the "marriage penalty", but the with current US tax laws, depending on your type and relative levels of income, you're very likely to come out ahead). There are ways to create legal contracts that give you most of the same benefits, but in a marriage they're all consolidated into a nice, simple one-page contract.
Weddings are done because they're fun, and people want to celebrate this (ostensibly) huge life change with their family and friends.
Why is that crap?
Weddings are crap because in our middle class society, we don't do big events like that. It's most people's one chance to show off and be part of a huge celebration like that. They see the rich throwing huge weddings and think it's a wedding thing, so it's accessible - when really it's a rich people's party thing. It's also a bit odd when it's not a huge step, not a rite of passage - because you've already long since committed to each other, formed a household, and perhaps even had children. So there's no significant change happening at the wedding.
The other benefits, legal and perceived stability, are just that - perceived, and arbitrary. Romantic attachments, realistically, are not exactly known for being stable. Why in the world do we think lust is the best way to form the connection with the other parent of our children? Many people have the most stable relationship in their life with someone other than a romantic partner - parent, sibling, friend. Can a romantic attachment be steady through the years? Of course, many people's spouse are their closest friend. But it's far from universal - if anything, I'd say that's the exception that proves the rule.
You also don't need a legal contract to have a lifelong relationship. Many friends are friends forever - simply by choice and trust. They don't need the government involved in telling them how to treat each other or how to support each other. A commitment might be beneficial to a child; a marriage is not necessary for that commitment.
What am I doing with this tradition?
Well, we got married, of course. If I could do the wedding over again, I wouldn't. I would use the same money to fly our immediate family to Colorado and do a self-officiating ceremony. While the wedding was fun, and it was nice to see all of our loved ones in one place - it's really fucking weird to throw a party for everyone, for all of your various groups. My work friends, my college friends, and my cousins, were all acquired in my life at different times for different reasons, and just the fact that they all know me is not necessarily reason for them to socialize together. I'd rather have made it about just the two of us and our immediate family, than our entire circles.
Being legally married, versus just committing ourselves to each other, was important to me for a few reasons. It's easier than contracting for the same benefits separately. It appeases my anxious nature to have things in writing and formally agreed upon. It was also important to my family, who sees it as an important distinction in life and a statement about the relationship - I might not agree, but it makes familial relationships significantly easier to have it be "official" to them.
All else being equal, it made sense to take advantage of the established understanding of what a "marriage" is. It says something to my family about what we are, it says something to society about what we are. Which I don't always see as a positive - does society need to know what our relationship is? Is it anyone's business? Not really. While I don't regret being married, there are definitely ways in which getting married was simply the path of least resistance.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Wedding Crap: The Name Change
(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)
What is the tradition?
Upon getting married, the woman replaces her last name with her husband's last name. This is not only legally, but also is portrayed as a big deal socially - for example, at the end of the ceremony, and as the couple enters the reception, they are formally announced as Mr. and Mrs. HisName.
What is the origin of the tradition?
This varies greatly around the world, but is the English and American tradition. Ultimately, it represents the fact that both legally and socially, the woman was merging into her husband's status and identity. Even once past the time of women being literally owned, they still had limited to no legal standing. It is far too recent in the past when women couldn't open a bank account without her husband's permission.
A unified family name makes sense, on both a logical and emotional level. But that it is traditionally the woman to take the man's name, and not vice versa, is because of their relative standings in society.
Why is that crap?
If it were only about forming a united new family with a common last, it wouldn't matter which name you picked. You would pick between the two names (or make up a new one!) based on where they fell in the alphabet, what ethnic heritage they represented, or simply which one sounded the coolest with the parties' first names. But if so, you'd expect a fairly even mix of women and men taking their partner's last name. But no, it's only women who are expected to do this.
It'd amazing how defensive men can get about this, even if they say they don't view it as ownership or anything "sexist" like that. I've far too many times heard a woman talk about jokingly tell her soon-to-be husband that she was going to keep her name - and oh how hilarious it was when this fake news upset him! His name is the important name. If he would never consider taking her name, what the fuck right does he have to ask the same of her?
While there's nothing wrong with a woman taking her husband's name, there is if she's doing so primarily because that's just what people do, or for her husband to be upset if she doesn't want to if he wouldn't make the same sacrifice, or for others to assume that women will take on this burden and that a man wouldn't. Like many things based in historical oppression, modern day choices are not being made in a vacuum, and the historical oppression continues to impact how people perceive the choice and its meaning.
What am I doing with this tradition?
We both kept out last names. To make sure our community knew this, we put language in both our wedding invitation and programs.
Invitation:
Can I reserve a game of [ ] with the new Mrs. HisName?
I’m afraid not, as no such person will exist. We’ll both be keeping our names as is: Abe T----- and Margaret W------ (Mr. and Ms., if you must.) But we’d both be happy to play a board game with you at some point during the event!
(A side note: my MIL also kept her last name, and my FIL's parents are deceased, so it actually was true that there was no Mrs. T------ present at the wedding, or even currently alive in the family.)
Program:
Yay, you’re married! What do we call you now?
Same thing as before. We’ve both chosen to keep our names as is - Abe T------ and Margaret W------ (Mr. and Ms., if you must).
Here's another post with some of my thoughts on this. Obviously, the invite/program wordage didn't help for those not invited to the wedding, but it became fairly self-evident in business contexts, since we operate with a lot of written communication, what my last name was (except to the coworker in the above linked post, apparently).
You might note that we specified that if honorifics must be used (which, I'd prefer they weren't. My Quaker college definitely convinced me of that), I would use Ms., not Mrs. For a couple reasons.
First - if someone has a formal enough relationship with me to use an honorific, then it is also formal enough that my marital status is none of their fucking business. Men get Mr. just for being an adult, no signifier of being married necessary. So why do people think it's so important to know if women are married? Well, because if they're married they're weren't their own person, but hopefully we've moved beyond that reason. Second, while Mrs. has primarily been used to signify being married, it also was used as a sign of respect, for example the housekeeper might be Mrs. Smith, even if unmarried, due to her respected role. Mrs. = married. Mrs. = respected. So... married = respected. Fuck no. (Sorry for the higher than normal swearing in this post. It's an extremely passionate topic of mine.)
Don't try to respect me by assuming I'm married. Respect me by assuming I'm a valid human being in my own right.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
What is the tradition?
Upon getting married, the woman replaces her last name with her husband's last name. This is not only legally, but also is portrayed as a big deal socially - for example, at the end of the ceremony, and as the couple enters the reception, they are formally announced as Mr. and Mrs. HisName.
What is the origin of the tradition?
This varies greatly around the world, but is the English and American tradition. Ultimately, it represents the fact that both legally and socially, the woman was merging into her husband's status and identity. Even once past the time of women being literally owned, they still had limited to no legal standing. It is far too recent in the past when women couldn't open a bank account without her husband's permission.
A unified family name makes sense, on both a logical and emotional level. But that it is traditionally the woman to take the man's name, and not vice versa, is because of their relative standings in society.
Why is that crap?
If it were only about forming a united new family with a common last, it wouldn't matter which name you picked. You would pick between the two names (or make up a new one!) based on where they fell in the alphabet, what ethnic heritage they represented, or simply which one sounded the coolest with the parties' first names. But if so, you'd expect a fairly even mix of women and men taking their partner's last name. But no, it's only women who are expected to do this.
It'd amazing how defensive men can get about this, even if they say they don't view it as ownership or anything "sexist" like that. I've far too many times heard a woman talk about jokingly tell her soon-to-be husband that she was going to keep her name - and oh how hilarious it was when this fake news upset him! His name is the important name. If he would never consider taking her name, what the fuck right does he have to ask the same of her?
While there's nothing wrong with a woman taking her husband's name, there is if she's doing so primarily because that's just what people do, or for her husband to be upset if she doesn't want to if he wouldn't make the same sacrifice, or for others to assume that women will take on this burden and that a man wouldn't. Like many things based in historical oppression, modern day choices are not being made in a vacuum, and the historical oppression continues to impact how people perceive the choice and its meaning.
What am I doing with this tradition?
We both kept out last names. To make sure our community knew this, we put language in both our wedding invitation and programs.
Invitation:
Can I reserve a game of [ ] with the new Mrs. HisName?
I’m afraid not, as no such person will exist. We’ll both be keeping our names as is: Abe T----- and Margaret W------ (Mr. and Ms., if you must.) But we’d both be happy to play a board game with you at some point during the event!
(A side note: my MIL also kept her last name, and my FIL's parents are deceased, so it actually was true that there was no Mrs. T------ present at the wedding, or even currently alive in the family.)
Program:
Yay, you’re married! What do we call you now?
Same thing as before. We’ve both chosen to keep our names as is - Abe T------ and Margaret W------ (Mr. and Ms., if you must).
Here's another post with some of my thoughts on this. Obviously, the invite/program wordage didn't help for those not invited to the wedding, but it became fairly self-evident in business contexts, since we operate with a lot of written communication, what my last name was (except to the coworker in the above linked post, apparently).
You might note that we specified that if honorifics must be used (which, I'd prefer they weren't. My Quaker college definitely convinced me of that), I would use Ms., not Mrs. For a couple reasons.
First - if someone has a formal enough relationship with me to use an honorific, then it is also formal enough that my marital status is none of their fucking business. Men get Mr. just for being an adult, no signifier of being married necessary. So why do people think it's so important to know if women are married? Well, because if they're married they're weren't their own person, but hopefully we've moved beyond that reason. Second, while Mrs. has primarily been used to signify being married, it also was used as a sign of respect, for example the housekeeper might be Mrs. Smith, even if unmarried, due to her respected role. Mrs. = married. Mrs. = respected. So... married = respected. Fuck no. (Sorry for the higher than normal swearing in this post. It's an extremely passionate topic of mine.)
Don't try to respect me by assuming I'm married. Respect me by assuming I'm a valid human being in my own right.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Wedding Crap: The First Look
(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)
What is the tradition?
After getting ready separately, the bride and groom arrange for a photographed "first look" to see each other for the first time in their wedding finery. It's often set up so that the groom is waiting somewhere, with his back turned, and the bride approaches; it's the look on the groom's face when he sees her that is intended to be a particularly special moment and one that's desired to be captured in pictures.
What is the origin of the tradition?
When marriages were arranged by parents and essentially business transactions, the parents desired to keep the bride and groom apart until the ceremony so they didn't have a chance to decide they didn't like their chosen spouse and back out. Eventually this morphed into it being "bad luck" for the groom to see the bride before the ceremony.
Why do people still follow it?
Having a first look - either a pre-ceremony "first look" or having the moment as the bride enters the ceremony - seems to be viewed as a special, emotional moment. The bride is, obviously, all gussied up and looks not just like the woman the groom loves, but she looks like a bride! He's supposed to be overwhelmed with emotion at how absolutely beautiful she looks.
Having a separate first look before the ceremony is typically justified with one of two reasons: (1) to be able to take group photos including both the bride and groom beforehand, rather than taking up time in between the ceremony and reception to do so (cause, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to take those groups photos cause the groom would see the bride!), or (2) because it's seen as an intimate moment between bride and groom, and this allows them to express emotions in privacy rather than in front of all the guests in the ceremony.
Why is that crap?
Um, is the marriage predicated on the bride's good looks? I certainly hope not! While it's certainly not unreasonable to be gussied up for the occasion, for the bride to be so extravagantly beautiful for the sake of the wedding that the groom - who presumably has known her for quite some time, since it's not an arranged marriage - tears up in joy at the sight - that just screams icky, gross, superficial, obsession with appearance and virginity and ugh. Or it's a beautiful sight because she looks like a bride, rather than the actual human being that she is, also brings up thoughts of patriarchy and ownership and gender roles and other such disgusting things. Edited to add: after publishing, my mind was finally able to split out the words that had been on the tip of my tongue: Placing such an emotional value on this moment of appearances, not only objectives the bride, but almost fetishes her.
If you desire to spend some quiet time with your spouse-to-be in the midst of what is otherwise an often hectic day, and reflect on the importance of solemnity of the occasion, sure. But why bring this superficial obsession with looks and fanciness into such an intimate moment? Why put it into terms of the roles of "Bride" and "Groom", rather than the person you got to know over the course of your relationship, with whom you've chosen to spend the rest of your life?
What am I doing with this tradition?
Nothing! We both got ready at home, so saw each other in all stages of readiness for the day (pretty sure he saw me in curlers, gasp!). While I thought he looked handsome, and I'm sure (hopefully) he thought I looked beautiful, we also both looked like ourselves, so there was no stunning moment of a reveal.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
What is the tradition?
After getting ready separately, the bride and groom arrange for a photographed "first look" to see each other for the first time in their wedding finery. It's often set up so that the groom is waiting somewhere, with his back turned, and the bride approaches; it's the look on the groom's face when he sees her that is intended to be a particularly special moment and one that's desired to be captured in pictures.
What is the origin of the tradition?
When marriages were arranged by parents and essentially business transactions, the parents desired to keep the bride and groom apart until the ceremony so they didn't have a chance to decide they didn't like their chosen spouse and back out. Eventually this morphed into it being "bad luck" for the groom to see the bride before the ceremony.
Why do people still follow it?
Having a first look - either a pre-ceremony "first look" or having the moment as the bride enters the ceremony - seems to be viewed as a special, emotional moment. The bride is, obviously, all gussied up and looks not just like the woman the groom loves, but she looks like a bride! He's supposed to be overwhelmed with emotion at how absolutely beautiful she looks.
Having a separate first look before the ceremony is typically justified with one of two reasons: (1) to be able to take group photos including both the bride and groom beforehand, rather than taking up time in between the ceremony and reception to do so (cause, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to take those groups photos cause the groom would see the bride!), or (2) because it's seen as an intimate moment between bride and groom, and this allows them to express emotions in privacy rather than in front of all the guests in the ceremony.
Why is that crap?
Um, is the marriage predicated on the bride's good looks? I certainly hope not! While it's certainly not unreasonable to be gussied up for the occasion, for the bride to be so extravagantly beautiful for the sake of the wedding that the groom - who presumably has known her for quite some time, since it's not an arranged marriage - tears up in joy at the sight - that just screams icky, gross, superficial, obsession with appearance and virginity and ugh. Or it's a beautiful sight because she looks like a bride, rather than the actual human being that she is, also brings up thoughts of patriarchy and ownership and gender roles and other such disgusting things. Edited to add: after publishing, my mind was finally able to split out the words that had been on the tip of my tongue: Placing such an emotional value on this moment of appearances, not only objectives the bride, but almost fetishes her.
If you desire to spend some quiet time with your spouse-to-be in the midst of what is otherwise an often hectic day, and reflect on the importance of solemnity of the occasion, sure. But why bring this superficial obsession with looks and fanciness into such an intimate moment? Why put it into terms of the roles of "Bride" and "Groom", rather than the person you got to know over the course of your relationship, with whom you've chosen to spend the rest of your life?
What am I doing with this tradition?
Nothing! We both got ready at home, so saw each other in all stages of readiness for the day (pretty sure he saw me in curlers, gasp!). While I thought he looked handsome, and I'm sure (hopefully) he thought I looked beautiful, we also both looked like ourselves, so there was no stunning moment of a reveal.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Wedding Crap: Being Walked Down the Aisle
(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)
What is the tradition?
As the wedding ceremony begins, after the other wedding party members are at the front of the venue (the groom generally entering first, quietly without any pomp; the bridesmaids and groomsmen coming down the aisle before the bride), the bride enters the venue and walks down the aisle accompanied by her father. When they reach the front, the officiant asks some variation of "who gives this woman to be married?" (not uncommonly now altered to "who gives their blessing for this wedding" - at least there's some acknowledgement of the ultimate meaning of the original wording).
If the bride's father is deceased or doesn't have the relationship to play this role, it is occasionally fulfilled by the bride's mother, or more often by the next closest male relative, such as a grandfather or son.
What is the origin of the tradition?
This is a direct descendant of the bride's father literally giving her away. Because the bride, as a woman, was property, being transferred from her father to her husband. The handoff at the front of the aisle actually was the handoff of an object of property being bought and sold.
Why do people still follow it?
Because it's tradition. Many, even if icked out by the origin of the tradition, don't want to offend their dad. If you have a good relationship with your father, it's generally considered an insult to not want him to walk you down the aisle.
Others consider it a useful tool to the bride, to have their father supporting them (emotionally and literally) as they walk down the aisle to a lovely but emotional and stressful moment for the wedding ceremony. It's also often thought of as a lovely gesture that simply represents the bride leaving her parent's family and joining her husband to start a new family.
Why is that crap?
You know what's actually disrespectful? Treating a woman as her father's property. Even if it's adapted to include being walked down (or given away/blessed) by the bride's mother as well as her father, and/or being viewed as simply the transition from one's birth family to one's chosen family - why only the bride?
Very rarely have I heard of the groom's parents accompanying him to the ceremony to represent him leaving their household, or providing their blessing on the marriage. In essence, the bride is treated as a child until the wedding is done, still under the protection of her parents, while the groom is already considered an adult.
Even as it's become more common to acknowledge that, while sure it does have a less-than-pleasant, it's still a lovely way to involve the bride's father (or parents) in the ceremony, to represent the idea that your child is growing up and forming their partnership, etc. - why is the alternative, when needed, to being accompanying by your father still to consider the next-nearest male relative?
If it were only about the person who raised you willingly giving up you being a de facto member of their household, why it is even debated whether you should ask your single mother to walk you instead? Why would you defer to a grandfather, brother, or even uncle, if you have a single female parent who raised you? Because we're still stuck in the concept of men being the head of the household. Asking a male relative to fulfill this role over a nearer female relative inherently reinforces the sexist power structure that still exists in society.
There is absolutely no reason, beyond the patriarchal origin, to (1) treat the bride differently than the groom or (2) to defer to male relatives rather than the parental figure closest to the bride.
What am I doing with this tradition?
We eliminated the aisle altogether. When we were ready to begin the ceremony, we played a topical song to cue the mood (The Muppet's "Somebody's Getting Married") and both meandering through the room to the stage at the front to take our places.
We're both adults, who have each been living on our own and supporting ourselves for years. Though of course we still love our parents and family, neither of us considered ourselves still part of their "household" or under our parents "protection". It would not have felt authentic to represent either set of parents walking us towards our new life together.
Fortunately, my relationship with my parents, and my dad, is close enough that we've had many talks over the years about how I feel regarding these traditions, and my dad wasn't offended by my not wanting him involved in this tradition. He knew it wasn't an insult or statement about my relationship with him, but about the origin of the tradition itself, which has no place in our lives or how he (and my mom!) raised their strong-willed, independent daughters.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
What is the tradition?
As the wedding ceremony begins, after the other wedding party members are at the front of the venue (the groom generally entering first, quietly without any pomp; the bridesmaids and groomsmen coming down the aisle before the bride), the bride enters the venue and walks down the aisle accompanied by her father. When they reach the front, the officiant asks some variation of "who gives this woman to be married?" (not uncommonly now altered to "who gives their blessing for this wedding" - at least there's some acknowledgement of the ultimate meaning of the original wording).
If the bride's father is deceased or doesn't have the relationship to play this role, it is occasionally fulfilled by the bride's mother, or more often by the next closest male relative, such as a grandfather or son.
What is the origin of the tradition?
This is a direct descendant of the bride's father literally giving her away. Because the bride, as a woman, was property, being transferred from her father to her husband. The handoff at the front of the aisle actually was the handoff of an object of property being bought and sold.
Why do people still follow it?
Because it's tradition. Many, even if icked out by the origin of the tradition, don't want to offend their dad. If you have a good relationship with your father, it's generally considered an insult to not want him to walk you down the aisle.
Others consider it a useful tool to the bride, to have their father supporting them (emotionally and literally) as they walk down the aisle to a lovely but emotional and stressful moment for the wedding ceremony. It's also often thought of as a lovely gesture that simply represents the bride leaving her parent's family and joining her husband to start a new family.
Why is that crap?
You know what's actually disrespectful? Treating a woman as her father's property. Even if it's adapted to include being walked down (or given away/blessed) by the bride's mother as well as her father, and/or being viewed as simply the transition from one's birth family to one's chosen family - why only the bride?
Very rarely have I heard of the groom's parents accompanying him to the ceremony to represent him leaving their household, or providing their blessing on the marriage. In essence, the bride is treated as a child until the wedding is done, still under the protection of her parents, while the groom is already considered an adult.
Even as it's become more common to acknowledge that, while sure it does have a less-than-pleasant, it's still a lovely way to involve the bride's father (or parents) in the ceremony, to represent the idea that your child is growing up and forming their partnership, etc. - why is the alternative, when needed, to being accompanying by your father still to consider the next-nearest male relative?
If it were only about the person who raised you willingly giving up you being a de facto member of their household, why it is even debated whether you should ask your single mother to walk you instead? Why would you defer to a grandfather, brother, or even uncle, if you have a single female parent who raised you? Because we're still stuck in the concept of men being the head of the household. Asking a male relative to fulfill this role over a nearer female relative inherently reinforces the sexist power structure that still exists in society.
There is absolutely no reason, beyond the patriarchal origin, to (1) treat the bride differently than the groom or (2) to defer to male relatives rather than the parental figure closest to the bride.
What am I doing with this tradition?
We eliminated the aisle altogether. When we were ready to begin the ceremony, we played a topical song to cue the mood (The Muppet's "Somebody's Getting Married") and both meandering through the room to the stage at the front to take our places.
We're both adults, who have each been living on our own and supporting ourselves for years. Though of course we still love our parents and family, neither of us considered ourselves still part of their "household" or under our parents "protection". It would not have felt authentic to represent either set of parents walking us towards our new life together.
Fortunately, my relationship with my parents, and my dad, is close enough that we've had many talks over the years about how I feel regarding these traditions, and my dad wasn't offended by my not wanting him involved in this tradition. He knew it wasn't an insult or statement about my relationship with him, but about the origin of the tradition itself, which has no place in our lives or how he (and my mom!) raised their strong-willed, independent daughters.
 |
| Photo by Stephanie Kaloi |
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Wedding Crap: Invitations
(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)
What is the tradition?
According to proper etiquette, wedding invitations should be written in a standard format, using formal language (or, if you want to be casual, you can elect to not write out the date and time in full words), and "proper" addressing of the parties involved. For example:
What is the origin of the tradition?
The format of wedding invitations - stationary, envelopes, wording, etc. - is based on the format that all social correspondence followed once upon a time. When was the last time you sent a hand-calligraphied note on crisp linen stationary to a friend to invite them to your house for a dinner party? Oh, about 100 years ago? Yeah.
Despite all the advances we've made, both in technology and cultural norms, some of these "etiquette" rules have stuck around as etiquette when they were just reflected social norms at the time, and have no bearing on how we otherwise relate to other people today.
Why do people still follow it?
A wedding is one of the largest and most expensive (even if you aren't extravagant, it's expensive because it's so large!) events that most people ever host, therefore it's fairly understandable that they want it to be impressive. Since they don't normally host such events, they're willing to believe what others says they are "supposed to" do, or even things that are "required".
Why is that crap?
Of all the things to take issue with in regards to weddings, many people would probably view the invitations as fairly innocuous. I disagree!
At the most surface level, the fanciness of invitations that doesn't show up anywhere else in our modern lives; much like the white dress, it has this bizarre hold on our expectations, one that I think makes us want to be wealthy and privileged - and I don't think that's healthy, whether it's held consciously or unconsciously.
Regardless of the paper it's printed on, the wording, is oh so gross. The formal language, spelling out the date and such, is again like the fanciness issue. It's not a clear reflection of who we are these days. Sure there are different levels of formality, but "Two thousand and fourteen" isn't formal - I would never write that in a business memo - it's merely antique. Even the most casual wedding is probably special even that it warrants more than a mere facebook event to invite guests (although - that would probably be most akin to the town criers who once upon a time issued wedding invitations, so that would make a facebook invite the ultimate in following tradition, would it not?), but you can raise the level of formality without contradicting your normal sense of self.
And, I'm sure you knew where this was ultimately heading. Wives have first names too!!!!!
This wikipedia entry even states that the addressing of the parents in this manner is "as they use them in formal social contexts". Uh, no. First of all, there are virutally no "formal social contexts" in two thousand and fourteen, and even if there were, the majority of women, if they gave it any intelligent thought, would balk at the idea of "formal" = "my husband's identity". IT IS NOT OK TO ERASE A WOMAN'S IDENTITY!
What am I doing with this tradition?
We used this Offbeat Bride post to inspire our invitations (and our programs - "So you've arrived at the..."). I thought the pamphlet style not only allowed best expression of our personalities, but as a bonus was super ridiculously cheap to create - I mean, you can't use anything fancier than copy paper to make this look authentic. :)
We did splurge for pretty envelopes, but they were addressed via printed white mailing labels.
Absolutely nothing in our invitations mentioned our parents; although they all assisted in various ways with money and/or planning, ultimately it was our - mine and Abe's - event, and we were the hosts. We're almost 30, getting married, we don't need our parents to host this event for us.
We didn't follow any special "wedding" wording, we merely created an invitation that reflected our personality and provided the relevant information about the event to our guests. And more importantly - it gave a sense of the vibe and what to expect at the event itself, which is also an important goal of any invitation.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
What is the tradition?
According to proper etiquette, wedding invitations should be written in a standard format, using formal language (or, if you want to be casual, you can elect to not write out the date and time in full words), and "proper" addressing of the parties involved. For example:
Mr. and Mrs. Father HerName
and
Mr. and Mrs. Father HisName
Request the pleasure of your company
at the marriage of their children
Bride Middle HerName
and
Groom Middle HisName
Sunday, the Twenty-Seventh of July
Two Thousand and Fourteen
Two O'Clock in the afternoon
The Village Ballroom
700 North East Dekum Street
Portland, Oregon
This is usually printed on high quality, thick stationary, often with pretty floral or swoopy designs to accent it. One is also supposed to hand write - nicely, i.e., in calligraphy - the addresses on the envelopes (yes, two envelopes! the outer one for mailing, and a nicer one with the specific addressees written on it).
What is the origin of the tradition?
The format of wedding invitations - stationary, envelopes, wording, etc. - is based on the format that all social correspondence followed once upon a time. When was the last time you sent a hand-calligraphied note on crisp linen stationary to a friend to invite them to your house for a dinner party? Oh, about 100 years ago? Yeah.
Despite all the advances we've made, both in technology and cultural norms, some of these "etiquette" rules have stuck around as etiquette when they were just reflected social norms at the time, and have no bearing on how we otherwise relate to other people today.
Why do people still follow it?
A wedding is one of the largest and most expensive (even if you aren't extravagant, it's expensive because it's so large!) events that most people ever host, therefore it's fairly understandable that they want it to be impressive. Since they don't normally host such events, they're willing to believe what others says they are "supposed to" do, or even things that are "required".
Why is that crap?
Of all the things to take issue with in regards to weddings, many people would probably view the invitations as fairly innocuous. I disagree!
At the most surface level, the fanciness of invitations that doesn't show up anywhere else in our modern lives; much like the white dress, it has this bizarre hold on our expectations, one that I think makes us want to be wealthy and privileged - and I don't think that's healthy, whether it's held consciously or unconsciously.
Regardless of the paper it's printed on, the wording, is oh so gross. The formal language, spelling out the date and such, is again like the fanciness issue. It's not a clear reflection of who we are these days. Sure there are different levels of formality, but "Two thousand and fourteen" isn't formal - I would never write that in a business memo - it's merely antique. Even the most casual wedding is probably special even that it warrants more than a mere facebook event to invite guests (although - that would probably be most akin to the town criers who once upon a time issued wedding invitations, so that would make a facebook invite the ultimate in following tradition, would it not?), but you can raise the level of formality without contradicting your normal sense of self.
And, I'm sure you knew where this was ultimately heading. Wives have first names too!!!!!
This wikipedia entry even states that the addressing of the parents in this manner is "as they use them in formal social contexts". Uh, no. First of all, there are virutally no "formal social contexts" in two thousand and fourteen, and even if there were, the majority of women, if they gave it any intelligent thought, would balk at the idea of "formal" = "my husband's identity". IT IS NOT OK TO ERASE A WOMAN'S IDENTITY!
What am I doing with this tradition?
We did splurge for pretty envelopes, but they were addressed via printed white mailing labels.
Absolutely nothing in our invitations mentioned our parents; although they all assisted in various ways with money and/or planning, ultimately it was our - mine and Abe's - event, and we were the hosts. We're almost 30, getting married, we don't need our parents to host this event for us.
We didn't follow any special "wedding" wording, we merely created an invitation that reflected our personality and provided the relevant information about the event to our guests. And more importantly - it gave a sense of the vibe and what to expect at the event itself, which is also an important goal of any invitation.
 |
| Inside flap, back, front. |
 |
| Inside of pamphlet. |
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Three Things Thursday: Trivial Things That Are Annoying and Not Really Trivial
1. People talking about finding out the "gender" of their unborn baby via ultrasound.
No. Ultrasounds do not show anyone's gender. They show indications of one's sex. As we were taught in intro to sociology: You learn gender, you have sex. (A particularly funny choice of phrasing to 20-year-olds at a Christian college that forbids premarital sex.)
Is the gender you're imposing on them going to match its sex? Most likely. But not necessarily. Will a baby care that she's in a pink tutu when she really wants to wear blue overalls? No, but putting her in a tutu imposes the expectation of feminine traits on everyone around that baby, making it that much harder for her to express herself in any contrary ways as she grows up.
You'll have plenty of time throughout the kid's life to enforce gender roles on it, at least let it have the first nine months in the womb without that.
2. Addressing a couple as Mr. and Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast, or a woman as Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast.
I'm not even talking about last name choices (you've already read my thoughts on that). Even assuming that the woman in a hetero couple has taken her husband's last name: she continues to retain her own first name. Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast completely erases her identity as anything but His Wife. He can divorce or be widowed and remarry, and his new wife will also be Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast. It's all about her relationship to him.
There's a reason that traditional "etiquette" uses this as the proper address for a married woman. It's derived from a time when being married to a high status man was the pinnacle of achievement for a woman. Called a woman Mrs. Bob Smith would be akin to referring to her as Dr. Smith - an acknowledgement of her status in society being determined by her marriage.
It's also related to the concept of coverture. She didn't need her own personal identity, because legally she was the same as her husband. Women at times in the not so distant past had no control over their own assets and income, everything belonged to their husband.
It's not quaint or proper etiquette to erase a woman's name and personal identity; it's an incredible lack of respect.
3. Using someone's mother's maiden name as a security measure.
This is oddly an issue that didn't fully occur to me until recently, when Abe and I opened a joint account together, and the banker asked him for his mother's maiden name to put in the records. Ummm, my mother-in-law's "maiden" name is her current name! His parents were married, she just chose not to change her last name.
The concept of making one's mother's maiden name as a required piece of information assumes two things: everyone's mother is married, and every woman who's married changed her last name. Now, this may have been a reasonable enough assumption 30 years ago when my MIL was a, likely rare, exception, but it's far from unusual now!
Nowadays, I can choose to keep my name, my husband could choose to take my name, hell, we could even create a brand new name to both take. Sure, you can still give whatever answer you want to the question, but even asking the question reinforces the norm that taking your husband's last name is "just how it's done". It's cultural infrastructure that supports the continued belief in a patriarchal expectation. That's not ok.
No. Ultrasounds do not show anyone's gender. They show indications of one's sex. As we were taught in intro to sociology: You learn gender, you have sex. (A particularly funny choice of phrasing to 20-year-olds at a Christian college that forbids premarital sex.)
Is the gender you're imposing on them going to match its sex? Most likely. But not necessarily. Will a baby care that she's in a pink tutu when she really wants to wear blue overalls? No, but putting her in a tutu imposes the expectation of feminine traits on everyone around that baby, making it that much harder for her to express herself in any contrary ways as she grows up.
You'll have plenty of time throughout the kid's life to enforce gender roles on it, at least let it have the first nine months in the womb without that.
2. Addressing a couple as Mr. and Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast, or a woman as Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast.
I'm not even talking about last name choices (you've already read my thoughts on that). Even assuming that the woman in a hetero couple has taken her husband's last name: she continues to retain her own first name. Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast completely erases her identity as anything but His Wife. He can divorce or be widowed and remarry, and his new wife will also be Mrs. HisFirst TheirLast. It's all about her relationship to him.
There's a reason that traditional "etiquette" uses this as the proper address for a married woman. It's derived from a time when being married to a high status man was the pinnacle of achievement for a woman. Called a woman Mrs. Bob Smith would be akin to referring to her as Dr. Smith - an acknowledgement of her status in society being determined by her marriage.
It's also related to the concept of coverture. She didn't need her own personal identity, because legally she was the same as her husband. Women at times in the not so distant past had no control over their own assets and income, everything belonged to their husband.
It's not quaint or proper etiquette to erase a woman's name and personal identity; it's an incredible lack of respect.
3. Using someone's mother's maiden name as a security measure.
This is oddly an issue that didn't fully occur to me until recently, when Abe and I opened a joint account together, and the banker asked him for his mother's maiden name to put in the records. Ummm, my mother-in-law's "maiden" name is her current name! His parents were married, she just chose not to change her last name.
The concept of making one's mother's maiden name as a required piece of information assumes two things: everyone's mother is married, and every woman who's married changed her last name. Now, this may have been a reasonable enough assumption 30 years ago when my MIL was a, likely rare, exception, but it's far from unusual now!
Nowadays, I can choose to keep my name, my husband could choose to take my name, hell, we could even create a brand new name to both take. Sure, you can still give whatever answer you want to the question, but even asking the question reinforces the norm that taking your husband's last name is "just how it's done". It's cultural infrastructure that supports the continued belief in a patriarchal expectation. That's not ok.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Wedding Crap: The Engagement Ring
(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)
What is the tradition?
When a man proposes, he does so by presenting a diamond ring - usually picked out (and definitely purchased) by him, perhaps based on hints from the woman as to her preferences. The woman wears the ring until the wedding, and then adds on a (plain, or with smaller diamonds) wedding band. The man doesn't wear a ring until the wedding.
If the engagement is broken off before the wedding, the ring is generally supposed to be kept by the party who didn't initiate it (i.e., if the man breaks it off, the woman keeps the ring; if she breaks it off, she gives the ring back to him).
What is the origin of the tradition?
I think this video describes it better than I ever could. (Caution: contains some NSFW language.)
Ok, the general concept of exchanging a ring of some sort as part of the engagement goes back a long time. But the diamond ring - and particular an expensive diamond ring - totally modern, totally all an advertising campaign.
It also may have been connected with the ending of "breach of promise to marry" laws. Because, of course, a woman's value as a potential wife lies in her virginity, and she might lose her virginity in between the engagement and wedding, so she needed a form of recourse if the man broke it off and left her "damaged". At one point, laws gave her the right to sue him; as those laws were removed from the books, being given a valuable ring at least gave her some monetary compensation for the injury to her character.
Why do people still follow it?
Because we readily buy into advertising and like shiny things? Honestly, that's the only reason that makes sense.
Some might say it shows commitment from the man (personally, if I'm to expect financial commitment, I'd rather get it in the form of a more practical asset, like a car or down payment on a house). And to the general public, it's a display of (your fiance's) wealth and financial stability.
Why is that crap?
We no longer need monetary recourse for losing our virginity and being jilted (in America's mainstream culture, at least), so that justification is out. It also isn't a good investment and thus isn't a commitment to the couple's financial future. That leaves buying into advertising as the only justification, which I'd hope you don't believe is a good reason!
Unlike many other wedding-related traditions, which at least had some basis in practical (albeit patriarchal) needs (such as political alliances), this one is truly pure crap.
What am I doing with this tradition?
When we decided to get engaged, we - together - picked out engagement rings (plural - he's engaged too!) from an etsy seller (Metal Monkey Jewellery), which are custom-engraved with each other's fingerprints. Much more meaningful than a ubiquitous diamond, in my opinion! There was no exchange of rings, on bended knee or otherwise, but we simply both started wearing the rings the day we made the engagement official.
We bought separate rings to exchange at the wedding, also from etsy (artifactum). Mine does have a diamond - but the seller guarantees that it is conflict free, and it is an uncut diamond. I really enjoy that it's subtly undercutting (in my mind, at least), the tradition of a diamond, even while seemingly going along with it (albeit backwards, with a plainer band for the engagement and a stone for the wedding, instead of vice versa). I.e., see, this is what a diamond really is - it's just a rock, nothing sparkly.
I do get the occasional "oh... how... unique" comment from people who I suspect don't quite understand the choice, but I've yet to get overtly negative feedback on it.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
What is the tradition?
When a man proposes, he does so by presenting a diamond ring - usually picked out (and definitely purchased) by him, perhaps based on hints from the woman as to her preferences. The woman wears the ring until the wedding, and then adds on a (plain, or with smaller diamonds) wedding band. The man doesn't wear a ring until the wedding.
If the engagement is broken off before the wedding, the ring is generally supposed to be kept by the party who didn't initiate it (i.e., if the man breaks it off, the woman keeps the ring; if she breaks it off, she gives the ring back to him).
What is the origin of the tradition?
I think this video describes it better than I ever could. (Caution: contains some NSFW language.)
It also may have been connected with the ending of "breach of promise to marry" laws. Because, of course, a woman's value as a potential wife lies in her virginity, and she might lose her virginity in between the engagement and wedding, so she needed a form of recourse if the man broke it off and left her "damaged". At one point, laws gave her the right to sue him; as those laws were removed from the books, being given a valuable ring at least gave her some monetary compensation for the injury to her character.
Why do people still follow it?
Because we readily buy into advertising and like shiny things? Honestly, that's the only reason that makes sense.
Some might say it shows commitment from the man (personally, if I'm to expect financial commitment, I'd rather get it in the form of a more practical asset, like a car or down payment on a house). And to the general public, it's a display of (your fiance's) wealth and financial stability.
Why is that crap?
We no longer need monetary recourse for losing our virginity and being jilted (in America's mainstream culture, at least), so that justification is out. It also isn't a good investment and thus isn't a commitment to the couple's financial future. That leaves buying into advertising as the only justification, which I'd hope you don't believe is a good reason!
Unlike many other wedding-related traditions, which at least had some basis in practical (albeit patriarchal) needs (such as political alliances), this one is truly pure crap.
What am I doing with this tradition?
When we decided to get engaged, we - together - picked out engagement rings (plural - he's engaged too!) from an etsy seller (Metal Monkey Jewellery), which are custom-engraved with each other's fingerprints. Much more meaningful than a ubiquitous diamond, in my opinion! There was no exchange of rings, on bended knee or otherwise, but we simply both started wearing the rings the day we made the engagement official.
We bought separate rings to exchange at the wedding, also from etsy (artifactum). Mine does have a diamond - but the seller guarantees that it is conflict free, and it is an uncut diamond. I really enjoy that it's subtly undercutting (in my mind, at least), the tradition of a diamond, even while seemingly going along with it (albeit backwards, with a plainer band for the engagement and a stone for the wedding, instead of vice versa). I.e., see, this is what a diamond really is - it's just a rock, nothing sparkly.
I do get the occasional "oh... how... unique" comment from people who I suspect don't quite understand the choice, but I've yet to get overtly negative feedback on it.
How did/will you handle this tradition?
I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!
Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
What Makes a Marriage Feminist?
It feels slightly inappropriate to write a post about marriage when I've only been married for 34 days, but I wanted to join this bloghop by Balancing Jane. Hopefully if you've read my blog for any length of time, you already have an idea of my stance on feminism, after reading some of my rants on marriage-related and wedding-related feminist issues.
In some ways, Abe and I have made decisions in formatting our relationship that directly contradict patriarchal norms. He's in charge of the kitchen - grocery shopping, cooking, dishing. I'm currently the sole income-provider, and do most of the planning and tracking of our big-picture finances. We both wore engagement rings before our wedding, walked up to the ceremony together (I didn't have a grand entrance nor get given away), and both kept our birth last names.
Some might look at these choices, and imagine we made them to directly rebel against traditions (*cough* certain relatives *cough*). In fact, that's not the case at all. We haven't made decisions based on either complying or flouting expectations. All we're doing to forming our lives in a way that works for us, that makes sense based on who we are, not as a man and a woman, but as our individual selves and as a couple.
Abe enjoys cooking, and loves the challenge of planning a meal that is both nutritionally sound and cheap to create. I love my career and am lucky that it pays well enough to support us as he goes back to school to find his own fulfilling path. Our wedding was full of choices that reflected *us*, regardless of typical wedding standards.
And I don't quite mean that we're following "choice feminism". I believe there are issues with that concept (the theory that feminism is about allowing choices, including the choice to follow a more traditionally patriarchal path), mainly that we aren't making those choices in a cultural vacuum. A woman who chooses to take her husband's last name and stay at home to raise children may be making a conscious choice to do so, but it's nonetheless heavily influenced by society's expectations. If she also has negative connotations with her birth name (perhaps due to poor family relationships), and finds fulfillment in child development, this might really be the option that stays true to herself. But the challenge is in truly exploring that choice, determining what is important to you, and making the choice that represents yourself.
Sometimes, the choice may seem irrelevant. For example, we just set up our joint bank account. Some might think it doesn't matter who's listed as the primary account holder. But traditionally, the man was always first, because he had legal authority over both his and his wife's assets. So it was important to us that Abe wasn't the primary account holder just because he's male.
Alternatively, I could the primary account holder because I'm currently the breadwinner. But it's not my money, it's our money! Just like the default of the husband being listed first supports the concept that the man is charge of the money, the (previously inherently the same) default of the breadwinner being listed first supports the concept that the breadwinner has ultimate control of the joint money. We don't believe in that, either, regardless of which partner is earning the money.
Instead, we flipped a coin. I ended up winning the coin toss and being listed as the primary account holder. It was important to us, though, that this isn't because I'm the income provider, but because there didn't need to be a default. If it's our money, it's our money. We're not making a choice for or against society's expectation, but we're making a choice based on the true belief that there isn't any default.
There shouldn't be a default as to who is listed on first on a joint bank account, and there shouldn't be a default as to who changes their last name. A feminist relationship doesn't act for or against patriarchal or feminist norms, but rather ignores norms on all sides, and makes decisions for the individuals involved.
Yes, this makes decisions more complicated! Sometimes it would be nice to have a default to fall back on, to make a mindless choice that we know others will support. But having a husband who believes as I do that we need to make the best choice for us means we have to take responsibility for our choices, and ultimately we know that we're choosing the most fulfilling life we can create. That's a feminist marriage.
In some ways, Abe and I have made decisions in formatting our relationship that directly contradict patriarchal norms. He's in charge of the kitchen - grocery shopping, cooking, dishing. I'm currently the sole income-provider, and do most of the planning and tracking of our big-picture finances. We both wore engagement rings before our wedding, walked up to the ceremony together (I didn't have a grand entrance nor get given away), and both kept our birth last names.
Some might look at these choices, and imagine we made them to directly rebel against traditions (*cough* certain relatives *cough*). In fact, that's not the case at all. We haven't made decisions based on either complying or flouting expectations. All we're doing to forming our lives in a way that works for us, that makes sense based on who we are, not as a man and a woman, but as our individual selves and as a couple.
Abe enjoys cooking, and loves the challenge of planning a meal that is both nutritionally sound and cheap to create. I love my career and am lucky that it pays well enough to support us as he goes back to school to find his own fulfilling path. Our wedding was full of choices that reflected *us*, regardless of typical wedding standards.
And I don't quite mean that we're following "choice feminism". I believe there are issues with that concept (the theory that feminism is about allowing choices, including the choice to follow a more traditionally patriarchal path), mainly that we aren't making those choices in a cultural vacuum. A woman who chooses to take her husband's last name and stay at home to raise children may be making a conscious choice to do so, but it's nonetheless heavily influenced by society's expectations. If she also has negative connotations with her birth name (perhaps due to poor family relationships), and finds fulfillment in child development, this might really be the option that stays true to herself. But the challenge is in truly exploring that choice, determining what is important to you, and making the choice that represents yourself.
Sometimes, the choice may seem irrelevant. For example, we just set up our joint bank account. Some might think it doesn't matter who's listed as the primary account holder. But traditionally, the man was always first, because he had legal authority over both his and his wife's assets. So it was important to us that Abe wasn't the primary account holder just because he's male.
Alternatively, I could the primary account holder because I'm currently the breadwinner. But it's not my money, it's our money! Just like the default of the husband being listed first supports the concept that the man is charge of the money, the (previously inherently the same) default of the breadwinner being listed first supports the concept that the breadwinner has ultimate control of the joint money. We don't believe in that, either, regardless of which partner is earning the money.
Instead, we flipped a coin. I ended up winning the coin toss and being listed as the primary account holder. It was important to us, though, that this isn't because I'm the income provider, but because there didn't need to be a default. If it's our money, it's our money. We're not making a choice for or against society's expectation, but we're making a choice based on the true belief that there isn't any default.
There shouldn't be a default as to who is listed on first on a joint bank account, and there shouldn't be a default as to who changes their last name. A feminist relationship doesn't act for or against patriarchal or feminist norms, but rather ignores norms on all sides, and makes decisions for the individuals involved.
Yes, this makes decisions more complicated! Sometimes it would be nice to have a default to fall back on, to make a mindless choice that we know others will support. But having a husband who believes as I do that we need to make the best choice for us means we have to take responsibility for our choices, and ultimately we know that we're choosing the most fulfilling life we can create. That's a feminist marriage.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
My Husband Doesn't Get Asked This Question
I phrased the title in reference to my own husband, but I'm basing this more on observations of other men (primarily coworkers, so the sample is recent and in the same general socioeconomic class, educational background, etc. as me - as well as working in the exact same office environment!) who have gotten married. (Abe is also on summer break, not interacting daily with coworkers as I am, so an alternative explanation for him, personally, not getting this would be his current daily circumstances.)
After taking two weeks off for our honeymoon, I've now been back at work for a few days. Lots of catching up on emails, as usual after a vacation. The typical "how was your vacation" questions are slightly modified to include congratulations and ask how the wedding went, or how married life is going.
But two significant differences have also occurred: First, I've had lots of forms to fill out, to change the beneficiary on my life insurance and 401(k) to Abe, and add him to the health insurance policy. Second, and this what this post is ranting about, virtually everyone I've interacted with for more than a brief greeting has asked me what my current last name is.
Granted, sometimes this questions is worded in a less obnoxious way, making clear whether or not there is an underlying presumption as to what I did - "What do I call you now?" versus "You're still Margaret [Yourname], right?" - but I have never heard this asked of any male coworkers upon returning from their honeymoon. Ever.
Marriage-related name changes vary by state, but in Oregon, both spouses have the exact same options. There isn't even a default for either spouse (i.e., it's not like the husband keeps his name and the wife changes hers unless they select otherwise) - you have to deliberately select one of the available options (either party's birth name, name at time of marriage, or some combination thereof) when filling out the marriage certificate. A woman changing her name is not the default, the automatic choice, or path of least resistance logistically! Why, then, would anyone, in this day and age, presume that a woman has, of course!, changed her name by getting married?
I'll give the older generation a little bit of slack. There's one very "good ol' boys" former-partner of the firm, actually, who I would totally expect to be shocked that a woman didn't change her name, and would find it rather amusing to witness his reaction (I haven't talked to him yet this week, though, to confirm this hypothesis). But if you were raised in the era of working moms and hyphenated family names - no. You get no slack for making such a ridiculously outdated assumption.
The worst interaction was actually from a coworker who I also went to college with (at a Quaker university - some might assume this Christian background would create a framework on more fundamentalist beliefs, but Quakers are actually a quite liberal branch of Christianity, with a history full of fighting for social improvement). She's one year older than me, same education, same cultural background, same professional environment.
She was emailing me yesterday afternoon (so I'd been at work for a full two days - surely, if I needed to do something like update my name on firm documents, I would have gotten to it by then) about a client, and then added "You haven't updated your [email] signature yet!!:)"
Crossing my fingers that I was interpreting that the wrong way, I decided to play dumb in my response "Updated for what?" The email thread continued:
Her: Didn't you just get married!?
Me: Do our clients care about my marital status?
Her: Don't you want them to call you the right thing? Did you not change it?
Ding ding, we have a winner! Believe it or not, I, a married woman living in the year 2014, made the available choice to not change my last name! I'm still in shock at how long it took her to process that, oh, the assumption that I would change my name was incorrect (or she was also playing dumb and baiting me - I'm not sure if that's better or worse than her really being unable to fathom not changing one's name!)
If I had ever heard of a man being asked this question, I wouldn't care. Of course people do have the choice to easily change their last name when they get married, and it's reasonable for people to confirm with them whether or not they did. But men aren't asked this! Regardless of the legal options available, it's only women who are presumed to have likely made that choice.
I'm not saying it's the "anti-feminist" choice to take your husband's last name - I totally understand the practical and emotional reasons that it's appealing. But it is definitely anti-feminist to only confirm name changes with women, and to approach the confirmation with the assumption that she changed it!
After taking two weeks off for our honeymoon, I've now been back at work for a few days. Lots of catching up on emails, as usual after a vacation. The typical "how was your vacation" questions are slightly modified to include congratulations and ask how the wedding went, or how married life is going.
But two significant differences have also occurred: First, I've had lots of forms to fill out, to change the beneficiary on my life insurance and 401(k) to Abe, and add him to the health insurance policy. Second, and this what this post is ranting about, virtually everyone I've interacted with for more than a brief greeting has asked me what my current last name is.
Granted, sometimes this questions is worded in a less obnoxious way, making clear whether or not there is an underlying presumption as to what I did - "What do I call you now?" versus "You're still Margaret [Yourname], right?" - but I have never heard this asked of any male coworkers upon returning from their honeymoon. Ever.
Marriage-related name changes vary by state, but in Oregon, both spouses have the exact same options. There isn't even a default for either spouse (i.e., it's not like the husband keeps his name and the wife changes hers unless they select otherwise) - you have to deliberately select one of the available options (either party's birth name, name at time of marriage, or some combination thereof) when filling out the marriage certificate. A woman changing her name is not the default, the automatic choice, or path of least resistance logistically! Why, then, would anyone, in this day and age, presume that a woman has, of course!, changed her name by getting married?
I'll give the older generation a little bit of slack. There's one very "good ol' boys" former-partner of the firm, actually, who I would totally expect to be shocked that a woman didn't change her name, and would find it rather amusing to witness his reaction (I haven't talked to him yet this week, though, to confirm this hypothesis). But if you were raised in the era of working moms and hyphenated family names - no. You get no slack for making such a ridiculously outdated assumption.
The worst interaction was actually from a coworker who I also went to college with (at a Quaker university - some might assume this Christian background would create a framework on more fundamentalist beliefs, but Quakers are actually a quite liberal branch of Christianity, with a history full of fighting for social improvement). She's one year older than me, same education, same cultural background, same professional environment.
She was emailing me yesterday afternoon (so I'd been at work for a full two days - surely, if I needed to do something like update my name on firm documents, I would have gotten to it by then) about a client, and then added "You haven't updated your [email] signature yet!!:)"
Crossing my fingers that I was interpreting that the wrong way, I decided to play dumb in my response "Updated for what?" The email thread continued:
Her: Didn't you just get married!?
Me: Do our clients care about my marital status?
Her: Don't you want them to call you the right thing? Did you not change it?
Ding ding, we have a winner! Believe it or not, I, a married woman living in the year 2014, made the available choice to not change my last name! I'm still in shock at how long it took her to process that, oh, the assumption that I would change my name was incorrect (or she was also playing dumb and baiting me - I'm not sure if that's better or worse than her really being unable to fathom not changing one's name!)
If I had ever heard of a man being asked this question, I wouldn't care. Of course people do have the choice to easily change their last name when they get married, and it's reasonable for people to confirm with them whether or not they did. But men aren't asked this! Regardless of the legal options available, it's only women who are presumed to have likely made that choice.
I'm not saying it's the "anti-feminist" choice to take your husband's last name - I totally understand the practical and emotional reasons that it's appealing. But it is definitely anti-feminist to only confirm name changes with women, and to approach the confirmation with the assumption that she changed it!
Monday, July 21, 2014
Who Forms a Marriage?
Abe and I picked up our marriage license a couple weeks ago. The gist of the process is: You fill out your information on an online application. Go to a DMV-like office and take a number. They pull up your application and print it on a government form. You sign it in the presence of the clerk. Your qualified officiant signs it after the ceremony. Your two witnesses print their name on it. Your officiant mails it back to the county office, and a county official signs it.
A few initial thoughts:
1. Why do the parties getting married have to sign it at the county office? I want to fill out the license during the ceremony, but apparently that doesn't include us, the bride and groom, signing it during the ceremony.
2. The witnesses don't actually sign anything. They just print their names. Actually, it doesn't even say that the witnesses have to do it. Again, I wanted to have our sisters come up and sign the license during the ceremony - and we still will have them come up and print their names, even though apparently we or our officiant could just print their names instead.
3. I'm fairly certain that the certified copies you can get after the license has been filed is of that government form. Again, assumptions.... I always pictured the wedding license being more certificate-y, like a birth certificate or car title, kind of aesthetically pleasing. But I think it's just a copy of a very government-form-like government form.
Supporting the assumption that that last assumption is common, though, is that they also provide you with this non-official "commemorative certificate". So, I suppose that's the solution to wanting something pretty that you, your officiant, and your witnesses sign during the ceremony. But, first, that's silly because it's unofficial and doesn't actually mean anything. And second, take a closer look at its text:
In case you can't read it well in the photo, it says:
This is to certify that the undersigned a, [title of person solemnizing marriage], by authority of a license bearing the date [ ] day of [ ], 20xx, issued by the County of [ ], State of Oregon, did on this [ ] day of [ ], AD, 20xx, at [ ], join in lawful wedlock [groom] and [bride] with their mutual consent and in the presence of the witnesses undersigned below.Um, what. I read that as the officiant stating: I, a person allegedly "ordained" by some random internet religion because the state said that counts, joined these two people in marriage - oh yeah, and fortunately they consented to it cause apparently I could do so even if they didn't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled Oregon allows internet ordained officiants, because I wouldn't want some random government official, or religious officiant that isn't relevant to us, to be our officiant, but if you're opened it up so that virtually any citizen of any country can meet your requirement, maybe you just shouldn't have the requirement in place?
I can't sign that certificate. I don't want that statement hanging in a frame on my wall. No one is going to marry us, as in impose an action on us, with or without our consent. Fortunately the actual license doesn't have any such nonsense on it - the officiant signs to the statement: "I certify that the above named persons were married on the date listed above." This license statement is consistent with the underlying Oregon law, which merely requires that the two parties to a marriage declare, in the presence of a qualified officiant and two witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife* (§106.150). Basically, the officiant is just a "super-witness".
*Obviously limiting it to "husband and wife" is a whole other outdated-government-stance issue.
Honestly, my dream wedding (which wouldn't be possible for a variety of reasons, including logistics and compromising with parental desires) would have been to fly our immediate family members to Colorado, rent a B&B for the weekend - and do a self-solemnizing ceremony. It just feels so much more right. (Sorry for the abuse of italics in this post, and this paragraph in particular.) Getting married isn't something that anyone else can do to us. It's an agreement between me and Abe. Period. Yes, we want the government to recognize it, but ultimately, what are they recognizing? A self-made agreement.
This is what we're putting in a program to explain our choice of officiant, and some of the wording that will be used during the ceremony:
Oregon law to solemnize a marriage simply requires that the parties declare, in the presence of a clergyperson, county clerk, or judicial officer and two witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife (ORS §106.150).
While we want our lifelong commitment to be recognized by the government for legal purposes, we believe that no one other than the involved persons can truly solemnize the agreement and form a marriage. It is not up to a religious officiant or court official to declare that we are binding ourselves to each other.
Having our ceremony facilitated by a moderator who is legally a qualified officiant, but leading our own promises and declaring ourselves married to each other is our compromise to comply with the requirements of the law but also follow our own philosophical beliefs.
What do you think of this certificate's wording? Who did/do you feel had/has the right to marry you, and does it jive with your state's laws?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
