My inner feminist considers weddings
admin October 11th, 2007
After having just attended a wedding, the symbolism of the common traditions has been on my mind. Weddings are all about symbolism. There is the lighting of two candles to make one. There is the never-ending ring. There is the first walk back down the isle as Mr. and Mrs. These are nice traditions, I mean, if you buy into that sort of thing. And even the most anti-sentimentalist can usually suspend the gag reflex at a wedding. But after having attending probably a dozen weddings, I still have a problem with how many of the traditions still blatantly symbolize a woman as property. Check it out:
The white dress – At one time symbolizing virginity, without which the man was not obligated to continue with the contract no matter the circumstances, the white dress is still used by tradition. Although I think that a bride should be able to choose whatever color she wants, (red? Great! Orange? You betcha!) white and variations thereof tend to be quite flattering and the ties to virginity have largely been lost, so whatever. I can deal with the white dress. But please, don’t expect me to join in your disapproval of the colored flowers on the bodice. Go gossip to someone else if you don’t want to hear my opinion.
The giving away of the bride – Hello? Why is her father “giving” her away? What the hell is up with this? She is not property to be given away to another man. Nobody gives her. She is not being given. She is not being bought. She is deciding to permanently hook up with this guy up front. Yet, even the most forward thinking brides continue to be “given away.” Maybe they don’t even stop to think about what it symbolizes. But they should. If there is any time when people should be thinking about symbolism it should be at a wedding ceremony. The whole “tradition” argument is weak to me too. Back before women could vote, keeping them from the polls was tradition too. How about the “tradition” of checking the sheets after the honeymoon night? Want to do that one too? I didn’t think so. I can completely see wanting to involve parents in a wedding. It is a big deal. It symbolizes a transition to adulthood. I get this. Why can’t the bride walk up with both her parents? Why can’t she walk up by herself and give them both a big “goodbye” hug? Why is there still the “who gives this woman” section in the speech? If the preacher had accidentally sprung this at me on my wedding, I would have spoken up with an exasperated, “Nobody!” The giving away stinks of ownership to me. I don’t like it.
The taking of his name – Back when women were property, their names were legally changed to give witness to the transfer of the property from father to the husband. Let’s pretend the bride is a chicken. It used to be Smith’s chicken, but now it is Ander’s chicken, so we’ll call it Mrs. Chicken Anders. That way, there is no mistake as to who the chicken belongs to. Well, we are not chickens, and we are no longer the husband’s or the father’s property (if we ever REALLY were), so why is name changing still so common? Why don’t the men also change their names? I can understand from the point of view of the family. It does get a little confusing when the parents have different names from the child. But I can’t understand why it is just assumed that the woman will change her name. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the two just got together and decided which one they liked best? Or if they can’t decide come up with something new, or an amalgam? I mean, Mrs. Anna Dick and all her children could have been saved a lot of teasing if everyone had taken her maiden Stevenson, or adopted Dickerson. Poor Mary Christmas, and Anita Bath. Did it never cross their minds not to adopt these horrible names? Automatically taking the name of the man is in effect saying that the male line of the family is more important. It is an unstated transfer of power and ownership to the husband, and that just isn’t right, or true. So why are we still doing it?
The asking the father for permission to marry – Man, it just rubs me the wrong way. Again, I understand that the fiancé wants to make a good impression with the parents. I also understand that it is a big deal to any child’s parents when they get married. But asking permission? From the father? Again the whole idea smacks of male ownership. It would be much preferable to me if the husband sat down with the two parents, told them his wishes, and then stated that he hoped they would eagerly and happily accept him into the family, while on the other side of town the daughter was doing the same thing in front of his family. Wouldn’t that be nicer? Wouldn’t that be a way of showing respect to the parents without minimizing both the status of the mother and the soon-to-be wife? I am all about respect but this tradition disrespects the bride, her mother, and really, the parents of the groom. Shouldn’t his parents have a say in the matter too? Oh wait, he’s not THEIR property like she is, so it’s OK. Ick.
Don’t even get me started on the “serving the husband” part of the vows. Fortunately, I don’t hear that one too often these days.