At this point, I should declare interests. As regular readers know, I identify as a BDSM Dominant; any woman I might end up wanting to marry would conversely identify as a BDSM Submissive or "slave". Our relationship would be based on fully informed and consensual power exchange; therefore, the wedding ceremony would very likely involve self-penned vows written to be asymmetrical in nature. The very symbolism that Renee decries would not be rejected but embraced consciously and consentingly as symbols of ownership to represent the relationship that she and I would have chosen to live together irrespective of (and indeed, in some ways in defiance of) social norms. So I have no real vested interest in the points I'm about to make, except to say that because of them the choices I and the putative future Mrs. Explodes might make will indeed be choices and not forced upon us.
Renee starts by talking about the activism role of a wedding:
It begins with a moment of apologizing for not waiting until all could legally marry, but hey, it is possible to use this archaic patriarchal ceremony to advance same sex marriage. Just use rainbow flag napkins or some cool fauxgressive symbol and your lack of solidarity will hopefully be forgotten.
I have heard about the campaign movement to ask people to forgo marriage until same-sex marriage is legal, but I honestly don't see what good it will do. Indeed, to me it sounds rather like class privilege to be able to say "we will forgo the financial and legal benefits that come from being recognised in law as a family unit".
I therefore don't see any "lack of solidarity" in choosing to go with getting married. This isn't like standing on the picket lines or anything! I don't know: maybe if there were picket lines formed outside all the major wedding venues in the US, personnel-ed 7 days a week, 52 days a year, then I might see some point in it. With my leftwing socialist upbringing, I will not cross a picket line. That's solidarity, and if brothers and sisters in the US were to form picket lines to stop weddings taking place until marriage equality existed there, then I would say that was pretty potent. But of course, that's not going to happen - too many churches, not enough progressives to picket them all, I'm guessing.
Seems to me that maybe there are better ways of going about same-sex marriage activism.
Make sure you use your wedding as an opportunity for activism and awareness, even as you participate in a ceremony that legitimizes heterosexuality and male headship. Don’t worry about wearing that glass slipper instead of Birkenstocks on your big day, perhaps if you forgo shaving your legs you can still display some sort of coded resistance. Remember, the personal is political and the more you can convince others that this is your great stand for justice, the less silly you will look when you fall into stereotypical gender roles.
You know what? Personal may be political, but sometimes I think it's fair to tell politics to just butt out! Why should everything be seen as a "great stand for justice", surely the point of a wedding is to celebrate personal happiness, and unity with one's life-partner? I think most people having weddings (whether they're feminist or not) would argue that it is a "great stand to say 'I deserve to be happy'".
Self-centred? Maybe. but every once in a while it's not merely okay to be self-centred, it's a positive good. And you know what? Women (whom us feminists are constantly reminding people are taught by society to be self-effacing and other-centred all the time) maybe need even a few MORE excuses to be self-centred and have it be socially acceptable, rather than fewer - no?
So, politics be damned - a feminist's wedding can be a great party and fun, instead of frightfully earnest!
Somehow, your man above all others managed to avoid internalizing patriarchal values,
Ah, the "nigels" of this world, so sweet! Of course, it's entirely impossible that a man might have absorbed patriarchal values (*ahem*just as much as everyone else has, including feminists*ahem*) but actually see that he, also, has a vested interest in getting rid of them - or just see that maybe equality isn't so bad after all and just want to help out. In other words, a man who has also absorbed at least a little bit of what it means to be feminist. Nah, such a creature doesn't exist (and if he did, he wouldn't get married, Or something).
so the cursory interest he is displaying in wedding invitations and seating charts, is because he is more concerned with ensuring that his attendants (notice I didn’t say groomsmen), are busy planning a feminist-geared bachelor party for him
Well, gee, is it possible that if the mythical feminist man exists, that he might have a friend who is also a feminist man? Who might therefore be expected without supervision to plan a bachelor party or stag night that was not offensive to feminist values? Regardless of my BDSM leanings, in this point I do have a vested interest. I guarantee you, I would not trust the planning of such an event for me to someone whom I was not convinced would share my values, or at least, respect them.
(Of course, when my brother got married, his "best man" was actually my sister, so how's that for subversion?)
Not to worry, you’ll get all the fancy underwear and pots and pans you will need at the other traditionally feminist event – your bridal shower
Okay, the "bridal shower" as far as I know is not a part of British wedding customs, so I can't talk about this to any great detail. But as I understand it the origin of the tradition was to provide gifts that would help the bride set up her new home? This sounds like the tradition of wedding gifts given at the wedding reception in British culture. So, in my experience, the "pots and pans" are presented equally to bride and groom alike. Fancy underwear, not so much making an appearance in British wedding gift lists. Indeed, if they did, it would most likely be joked that they were for the groom to wear anyway! This custom, of course, allows for the possibility that the groom will become the "house husband" while the bride is the main wage-earner.
If your father gets upset about being asked to forgo the tradition of “giving away” the bride, just ask your mother to join you on your jaunt down the aisle. Now you will have two people confirming that you are property that can be given away.
Or how about: explain why it's offensive to you, and that it would mar your special day. How about have the groom's father (or mother) present to give him away to you, too?
Then again, this may be something that's more of a problem for US culture than British - or it may just be I have a progressive family and friends in general. As near as I can recall, it's about a 50-50 split on weddings I've attended that involved the "giving away the bride" custom, and in each case it has been the bride's decision to include or reject it. I haven't asked my sister whether she'll be "given away" at her wedding, but I know for sure that it will b entirely her free choice whether to follow that custom.
The prevalence of registry office weddings in the UK (in 2007 two-thirds of all weddings were civil ceremonies rather than religious) may suggest that it is less of an issue here than in the USA (where in 2006 53% took place at a church); the customs of civil marriage do not conform in quite the same way to patriarchal norms, unless the couple choose to have them do so.
When you order your closest friends into hideous dresses that they will never wear again, be sure to refer to them as attendants and not bridesmaids, we would not want to give credence to the idea that all women are secretly waiting their turn to be princess for a day.
Then again, what's wrong with wanting to be princess for a day? Inasmuch as being princess for a day is simply code for "being made to feel special, the centre of attention and having the chance to be self-centred in a socially-acceptable way" I think perhaps women need more opportunities to enjoy such self-centredness: after all, we are well aware as feminists that women in patriarchal society are brought up to be self-effacing and other-centred, often to the point of harm to themselves by ignoring their own needs.
Oh yeah, and who doesn't enjoy dressing up for a special occasion? Maybe at heart I'm too much of a girlie-girl to get this, but someone wants to put me in a fancy dress to parade about and be photographed? I'm there, baby, no matter matter how "hideous" it might be! And believe me, if someone put me in a fancy dress, chances are it will be hideous with me inside it!
Perhaps, you’ll be really radical and decide to keep your own name, ...
Maybe your "nigel" will take yours too! Or maybe you'll both take some form of compound name. My best friend chose to become a hyphenated double-barrel name combining both his and her surname. Maybe you'll just invent a new surname that you both like!
But none of that has anything to do with being "radical", it's just to do with a) symbolising unity and b) choosing a new way to be that suits both partners. Honestly, this particular moment of snark seems rather pathetic.
...and we’ll all just ignore the symbol of ownership, or should I say wedding band, that goes along with this little ceremony.
At 100% of weddings that I have attended, the bride and the groom have exchanged rings. Does that, therefore, mean that the bride is symbolising her ownership of the groom also?
Hm, interesting this. When we married 23 years ago, my parents (both of them) gave me away, and his parents (both of them) served as his attendents and gave him away. It was in our vows, they all 4 let go of us and gave us to each other. We married so he would qualify financially for grants and could finish school. My decision, not his. There was no bachelor party, nor bridal shower, nor foofy white dress and tuxedo. And yet here we are, 23 years later, still married and content in our roles. Go figure. There was no activism involved, no thought given to advancing a cause or reaffirming patriarchal values, just 2 people committing to each other publically because we wanted the world to know that we were. Why does every single damn thing people do have to be so...I dunno...Gung Ho For The Cause with these people?
ReplyDeleteHiya Rootie:
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a wonderful ceremony!
We married so he would qualify financially for grants and could finish school.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was talking about with the whole "class privilege" thing.
Why does every single damn thing people do have to be so...I dunno...Gung Ho For The Cause with these people?
I really haven't a clue, really, I can't work out why every life decision has to be Politically Significant in that way. Like I said in the OP, sometimes it's fair to tell politics to just butt out for your special day!
Funny thing about our wedding- my husband's cousin was there, she was an Atlanta socialite, debutante and all that, had a $300,000 wedding with 2000 guests, etc, the whole 9 yards, and was wistful about our ceremony. (we spent a grand total of $500, rehearsal dinner, dress and all). talk about "class privilege".
ReplyDelete