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.

Wedding Crap: The Veil

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

During the ceremony (but often removed for the reception), the bride's outfit includes a veil. Depending on the venue (e.g., church versus golf course), religion, family culture, and other factors such as personal preferences and style, this may range from a full, cathedral length veil, extending as a train on the floor, to a fascinator with a short mesh hanging over one's forehead, and anywhere in between.

What is the origin of the tradition?

There is a long history of women wearing veils in general society, not just at weddings, so ultimately it appears to me that the significance is one of separating women from men, as being held to higher standards of modesty, and possibly even showing ownership (i.e., only males who are related to you should see your face). 

Within weddings specifically, the veil tradition evolved to take on additional meaning. In ancient times, it may have been intended to protect the bride from evil spirits. In times of arranged marriages, it may indeed have prevented the groom from seeing the bride and being disappointed while he still had an out. In times of strong Christian culture, it likely became a symbol of purity and virginity, along with the white dress.

Why do people still follow it?

Similarly to the dress, the veil has been built up in people's mind as the epitome of womanhood; the ultimate signifier that this woman is a bride. If you've ever watched a show like Say Yes to the Dress (I'll ashamedly admit to this), you know that if a shopper is hesitating, the consultants add a veil, and that often does the trick - you make you feel like a bride, and she'll buy everything that makes her look like that role.

There may also be a religious/purity aspect to it still in some cases, but fortunately I think that's becoming less and less common, in all but the most extreme subcultures.

Why is that crap? 

Women wearing veils is ultimately based on separating women from society, and then the purity/virginity implications make it even worse. Even if you don't personally hold the beliefs under which the tradition developed, why unintentionally pay homage to those beliefs?

Plus, it generally covers up the pretty hairdo (and often a gorgeous back of a dress) you spend so much money and/or time on!

What am I doing with this tradition?

I had absolutely no interest in wearing a veil, so I didn't! I didn't want to feel like a "bride", but rather the dressiest/classiest version of myself. My dress was accessorized just with a pearl necklace (made by my mom) and a fancy-ish, curly hairstyle. 

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.

Wedding Crap: The Bouquet

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

The bride carries a bouquet of flowers while walking down the aisle; as does each bridesmaid. During the ceremony, the bride generally hands hers to the maid of honor to hold during the ceremony, so she has her hands free for exchanging rings and such. 

(The bouquet - or a second "toss bouquet" - is often tossed to guests during the reception, but as that goes along with the garter toss, I'll discuss it in a separate post.)

What is the origin of the tradition?

The bride's bouquet began not as bunches of flowers, but bunches of herbs and spice, including dill and garlic. The aromatic bouquets were intended to ward off evil spirits. Eventually it morphed to include flowers, and in the Victorian era each flower was selected for its meaning in the "language of flowers". 

Why do people still follow it?

I think similarly to the dress, a big aspect of it is just it being an unusual extravagance, that can be justified by the Tradition of Weddings, a feeling of participating in a more luxurious existence for a day. 

I've also heard it justified as necessary for the bride to have something to hold, and keep her hands occupied while walking down the aisle, and particularly for the bridesmaid to have something to hold during the ceremony.

Why is that crap?

Actually, in this case, I think it's primarily just a waste of money, more than an indication of a deep-seeded patriarchal issue. Particularly when you've already spent so much money on attire and appearance otherwise, do you really need to add yet another visual element to distract from your expensive look?

Although if women need something to keep their hands occupied - why don't the men?

What am I doing with this tradition?

Nothing whatsoever! No flowers! (Well, it was important to my MIL for the parents to have corsages, so we had those, but nothing else.) We didn't have an aisle to walk down, and during the ceremony we held hands, the microphone, and our notes with what to say. So no need for anything to carry.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 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.

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.

Wedding Crap: Groomsmen

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

Same as the bride picks out bridesmaids, the groom selects people closest to him to stand next to him during the wedding ceremony. They are usually asked to rent identical tuxes (to each other, and often also to the groom).

One is the "best man", standing closest to the groom, and is generally responsible for planning a bachelor party. Along with the maid/matron of honor, he also usually fulfills the role of legal witness for the marriage license.

What is the origin of the tradition?

Also like bridemaids, groomsmen are likely initially from the Roman requirement for witnesses, and dressed identically to the groom in order to confuse evil spirits. Groomsmen also played a protective role, in times when travel was dangerous due to outlaws and such, they escorted the bride to ensure she arrived safely to the wedding.

But this escort was sometimes unwanted - at other times in history, the groomsmen assisted the groom in kidnapping the bride, and making sure her family didn't rescue her.

Why do people still follow it?

Like on the other side of the altar, this is used as a way to honor one's friends and loved ones. But, it's considered an honor to be included, and an insult to be excluded, because other people used it as a honor or insult, not because there's necessarily anything about the role that honors ones attendants. 

Why is that crap?

Pretty much the same reasons bridesmaids are crap - it easily ends up being away to show off how many friends you have, and you friends really don't have anything more to do with the wedding ceremony than the rest of the guests do. Also, it makes it confusing, if you're from the bride's side, which man in a tux is the groom, if they're all dressed alike (at the reception, that is, when they're all wandering around. Obviously at the ceremony the groom is the one in the center).

Plus, the history that the groomsmen helped kidnap the bride makes it a bit icky.

What am I doing with this tradition?

We just had our sisters come up to be our legal witnesses, but no other attendants or honor roles. 

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.

The Wedding

*All photos in this post and linked album by Stephanie Kaloi.*

Abe and I got married on July 27 at the Village Ballroom, a historic building in NE Portland.

The space didn't need much added, so things got started at 1:00 when we arrived, along with some family members, to set up a few things. We really just had to put out tablecloths and runners, and put boxes of candy and playing cards (the favors) on top as the centerpieces.

For our guest "book" we used this idea from Offbeat Bride to have our guests sign Jenga blocks. That table also showcased a wedding photo of Abe's paternal grandparents, who happened to get married on the same day, 79 years prior.

Stephanie showed up while family members continued setting things up. (Big thank you to everyone who helped set up, and clean up afterward!) We did some formal portraits outdoors and indoors, then did group family shots.

Guests started arriving shortly before 2:00, the advertised "doors open" time. Rather than hiding out, Abe and I were both milling around, greeting guests. Though it was a bit socially exhausting for introverts such as ourselves, it was a great way to make sure we at least connected briefly with everyone before things got busy with the party. 

By about 2:20, it seemed everyone had arrived and was getting settled at tables, we had B switch the background music to "Somebody's Getting Married" (from The Muppets Take Manhattan) while we meandered our way through the tables to the front of the room.

Abe's friend, F, got ordained as a Dudeist priest to be our officiant, although from our perspective he was more of the "moderator" of our ceremony - legally qualified to be our officiant, but Oregon marriage laws don't require the officiant to say any specific words or take specific actions other than be present at the ceremony. We worked with him to draft our ceremony, which include some introductory and transition sections by F and a couple readings that Abe and I presented. We had our sisters come up to sign the marriage license as the legal witnesses. 

We ended by having B re-start the music with Sara Bareilles' "I Choose You", and we left the stage to head over to our table and play our first game as a married couple, mancala. 

(If the slideshow isn't working, you can view album directly on flickr here.)

Our guests either started a game or got in line for food. Our friends L and J were sitting at the next table and offered to get us food so we didn't have to wait in line. They jumped to the front and got us plates with some of everything. Which, I realized later, meant I never saw all the food set out! But it all tasted good. :) 

We eventually got up and each wandered about to chat with guests, and occasionally play a game with them. It seems like everyone got into the spirit of the event and spent some time playing a game, which was great to see! Things started to wrap up after a couple hours, and the first few people started leaving.

By the time all the guests had left, my family and some of Abe's remained to help us pack up things to take home. We picked up Indian takeout food for dinner, and spent a relaxing evening at home, watching the latest episode of SYTYCD and opening the cards we got at the wedding. It was a delightful way to wind up the wedding day for a couple of introverts!

Wedding Crap: Bridesmaids

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

The bride selects her closest friends and/or relatives to stand next to her during the wedding ceremony. She selects dresses for them to wear; generally the exact same dress, though more recently has seen a trend towards different dresses in the same color, or the same dress in different colors. In the US, the bridesmaids are expected to pay for the required dresses, along with specified shoes, and having hair and makeup done by professionals the day of.

One of the bridesmaids is the maid of honor or matron of honor (depending on the attendant's marital status), and stands nearest to the bride during the ceremony and holds her bouquet for her. She's generally in charge of planning a bridal shower and bachelorette party, though all the bridesmaid often chip in to pay for these events.

The maid/matron of honor, along with the best man, likely also take the (actually necessary) role of legal witnesses, signing the marriage license.

What is the origin of the tradition?

This is believed to be derived from a Roman tradition of needing ten witnesses, either for witnessing the wedding and/or to distract evil spirits from the bride and groom. Under such belief, the bridesmaids not only dressed identical to each other, but also identical to the bride! Obviously, cause otherwise the evil spirits would know who was getting married. (So next time you're asked to put out a couple hundred dollars, just be glad you're not required to shell out thousands to match the bride's wedding gown.)

Why do people still follow it?

Part of it is a legitimate desire to honor your friends, along with the obligation to have as bridesmaids any friends who asked you to be theirs. Also, I think many might get a secret satisfaction out of the power they're allowed to have over minute details regarding their friends. But ultimately, this is one of those things that I think people continue to do simply because everyone else does it (but everyone else is doing it because you are).

Why is that crap? 

Well, first of all, I'm fairly sure most brides are no longer concerned about being attacked by evil spirits, so that rationale is out.

Even with the best of intentions, it just becomes so easy for your group of bridesmaids to become merely a show of how many friends you have. Yes, it's good that you have close friends who support you, but they have no more part of the actual ceremony to your spouse than the rest of the guests - who don't need to actually stand at the altar with you to show that support. Let your friends sit down and wear what they want. If someone was of particular help and support to you in planning the wedding or in forming your relationship, by all means, acknowledge them in the program. But forcing extraneous dress purchases is not a valid means of showing respect.

Also, can I just point out how stupid it is to distinguish whether the lead attendant is a maid or matron? The groom's attendants' marital status is never revealed, and the maid of honor's marital status also has no relevance to her role. She's not required to married (though perhaps she could provide more valuable wisdom and assistance to someone about to marry if she were), nor to be single (though that might make her bachelorette party planning more appropriate). So how does her marital status become so relevant as to be publicly announced?

What am I doing with this tradition?

We didn't have any attendants, or any showers or bachelor/ette parties. 

Since we each have one sibling, we asked our sisters to be our legal witnesses, and they came up during the ceremony to put their names on the license (surprisingly to me, the witnesses aren't required to sign Oregon marriage licenses, you just write their names on it). We didn't ask them to wear anything specific (though they ended up accidentally coordinating fairly well). 

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.

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.

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!

Wedding Week

I tried to keep my wedding plans - the actual event, and the planning and lead-up to it - as laid back as possible. I was adamant that there was no need to take any time off work beforehand; I wouldn't take vacation days to prepare for hosting a mere dinner party or game night, would I? That was my bar for many wedding-related things, to make sure things didn't spiral out of control into bridezilladom - how does this compare to how I host a typical event? A wedding is on a much larger scale, of course, even for a small-ish wedding like ours with 90 attendees, which requires some adjustments, but overall, we wanted it to just be an extra-special game night like we always have - in other words, to be consistent with us. 

Now that the event is over, I still maintain that that was a reasonable sentiment (especially as I already have Fridays off from work during the summer, so I had two full days to prepare for the Sunday afternoon wedding) - however, the things I packed into the preceding week made it feel pretty hectic!

The Wednesday before was my first Toastmasters speech. This required some preparation and practice the preceding weekend, as well as meeting up with a friend Monday evening to practice. Wednesday night was dinner with Abe's family, including his uncle who was visiting for the wedding.

Thursday afternoon I had a massage (ok, a pretty typical pre-wedding event), followed that evening by something Abe and I have been talking about doing for months, maybe almost a year - a wine painting class! This is one of those studios where they instruct the class, step-by-step, on a particular painting, while you drink wine or beer. (Note: I somehow got the impression - although now I don't see this actually indicated on the website - that at least one beverage was included in the price of the class; it's not. The drinks are an additional charge. About the same price as you'd pay at a bar, but made the class fee feel like a bit less of a value. The class fee does include all the painting supplies, just not drinks.)

I really don't consider myself talented in this artistic genre, but they make it quite easy to follow along and create a painting that does indeed resemble the image it's based on. For "Broadway Stroll", we first made light outlines, where the black lines end up, then painted each section a solid color. Details were then added in layers, including the detail that I found most ingenious - each time we used a different color, as you reached the end of the paint on your brush, you swiped it lightly across the sidewalk to get the reflections! Seems totally obvious, but nothing I would have thought of and that's why I'm not a painter!

Friday was my chance to fit in most of my usual weekend training - two Hood to Coast runs, a medium-distance bike ride, and a swim.

Saturday included another standard pre-wedding activity - manicures and pedicures with my mom and sister. This actually the first time I've ever done either at a salon! And, pathetic though it might be, crosses something off my 30 Before 30 list! Purple on my toes to match my wedding dress, and a neutral shellac polish on my fingernails. 

I am certainly impressed with how well the shellac stands up! Two weeks later, it was still not chipped, even after clipping my nails. Not so impressed once I did some research and realized I had to basically soak my fingers in pure acetone to get it off. Fortunately, by this past weekend it had weakened up enough to peel it off, leaving only minor scratch marks on my nails (covered up in the meantime with a light glittery polish, since I'm not a fan of bright colors on my fingers, just on my toes).

My family also helped with some last minute prep on Saturday, such as cutting and ironing table runners. We had a "non-rehearsal dinner" with our immediate families, but no rehearsal as the wedding party was just us and our officiant.

Although I had been planning on doing a 5k together the morning of our wedding, I didn't feel ready to PR, nor had I gotten a chance to put together "bride" and "groom" t-shirts or anything in time, so we decided it wasn't really worth paying money just to workout. Instead, we did our currently-typical Sunday morning long bike ride, followed by a quick run for a brick workout. The  couple that trains for triathlons together, stays together, right?

Our wedding was on a Sunday afternoon - here's a peek at our photos! I'm totally impressed at how a professional photographer can make even candids look so pretty. :) We worked with Stephanie Kaloi (found via Offbeat Bride), who I would totally recommend! Affordable, great balance of friendly and professional, and timely in providing deliverables.

Photo by Stephanie Kaloi