I will preface this by saying I have not been married. I am not opposed to it-in fact, I feel it is a very beautiful, intimate, loving commitment between two people who choose to embark on what could be a wonderful, enriching journey together. At some point in my life, I would like to reach that point with a partner because I do think it is valuable, beautiful, and the most intimate commitment one can make. That said, I definitely have opinions on what my marriage ceremony would look like...and it would not involve the sexism that is overt and inherent in nearly all wedding ceremonies.
It starts with the engagement. In heterosexual relationships, typically the man asks a woman's father for her hand in marriage. I have always said that if someone asked my dad for permission to marry me, I'd call it all off. Wtf. Seriously, wtf. Does anybody think about this? I understand it's "tradition" but when a tradition serves to uphold overt sexism in a society, I think it requires serious questioning and thought. Why would any man need permission from another man to ask a woman to marry him? Why is the woman's acceptance alone not enough? This harkens back to when women were essentially property and had no will of their own...merely pawns passed from one man to another. Yet, people still engage in this diminishing act today-and revel in it, if not require it.
While we're on the topic of engagement...why does only the woman wear an engagement ring? My view of a marriage is that both parties should be equally excited. Both parties would want to publicly demonstrate their commitment to each other, which can be a beautiful thing. So...again, I ask, why does only the woman wear an engagement ring? It serves as a sign that she is taken, claimed...yet the man has no such symbol. The engagement ring serves as a visual reminder that a woman has been spoken for by a man...a signal to all other men to back off...yet the man does not have anything, at this point, symbolizing his relationship to a woman. Either both should have it or neither should have it. #sexist
The other thing that pisses me off about engagement rings is how ridiculous women act about them. Somehow, women's worth is measured by 1) the fact that they have one (or don't) and 2) how big it is. I do not understand why women don't think it is fucked up to measure one's self worth by the fact that some man gave her a ring. And I am not exaggerating. It's like a woman has "made it" once she has a diamond on her left ring finger. Trust me...I have been privy to many of these interactions. If you want a diamond, go buy one yourself. I've even been guilty of saying something about a ring just because I don't really think the act of getting engaged is that big of an accomplishment and I needed something to say, that is how ingrained it is for everyone to ask the woman about THE RING (talk to me when you're married and still happy in 25 years and then I'll congratulate you-but that's beside the immediate point). The ring is the main focal point of an engagement for a woman-which is also fucked up because the focal point should be the couple and their happiness.
Aaaaaaanddddd...still on engagement...the man is traditionally the one who is expected to propose. Yes, I saw the episode of friends where Monica proposed to Chandler and I was excited and felt liberated that a popular TV show would portray something so outside the norm. And yes, I am friends with one couple where the woman asked the man...so before anyone throws out the few anomalies to the rule-I am aware. That doesn't change the fact that the man, 99% more often than not, is given the power to decide if, when, and where to propose...and most times the woman is dangling wondering if and when it will happen. Again, I go back to partnership. It is beyond me, why, if this is truly an intimate and equal partnership, each party wouldn't make a decision together that they wanted to get married and then embark on the journey TOGETHER. Traditional, heterosexual proposals give the man all of the power, right from the get go. #sexist
Next up...bridal shower! It says it right there in the name! I've never heard of a groom shower. I do know some couples who have held a wedding shower for both-and thankfully, this seems to becoming more common-but the fact remains that I and many women I know have been invited to traditional bridal showers in the past year...with (yawn) traditional gifts centered either around the household or sex. Now, I'm not going to act like I don't like a good sex gift, but both of these are the traditionally typical roles a woman is expected to fill in the household. Why do most showers focus on these things? #sexist
Personally, I'd like a sex gift or two mixed in with some athletic gear that I'd actually use. If this is truly what a particular woman wants, go for it. What I am so tired of and irritated by is the unwillingness to have an authentic experience based on what friends know about the couple. A wedding shower could be going to a baseball game, if that's something the couple likes to do. It gets at what I think should be the main focus-celebrating a couple's desire to make the most intimate commitment to each other...not fulfilling traditional roles and stereotypes just because "it's always been done like this." It is atypically a celebration for the woman because this is the "biggest day of her life"...and yet, the man doesn't celebrate until his bachelor party, which is typically known as his last hurrah (hence, the strippers and strip clubs) before he becomes encumbered by the "old ball and chain" and proceeds to have a mundane, "settled down" existence (see rant below). How much more opposite in perspectives and views can you get?
So...we're not even to the ceremony yet, and we're mired in sexist traditions and actions. Sexist traditions and actions that women willingly partake in and promote. I get it, if you believe men are the head of the household, not to be questioned and a woman votes the way her husband tells her to...then this all makes sense in that world view. What I don't understand is all the women who believe women should have equal pay for equal work, equal representation in our government, that child rearing responsibilities are not solely women's work, and that women are independent beings, who still embark on this sexist journey without question!
Onward to the wedding preparation. It is my understanding and desire that marriage is an intimate partnership. This is not demonstrated in the wedding preparations at any time up to or really during the wedding. The preparation, in most situations, falls solely to the female. It is widely "known" that a wedding is the woman's "big day". In many cases, "common knowledge" tells a woman this is the best day of her life. Contrast that with the messages men get about their wedding day...here are a few if you can't readily think of any (though I know we all can)...ever heard of the old ball and chain? ever seen "game over"? Those are the messages men get from society...so on the one hand, this is the day most women aspire to and the best day of her life and on the other hand a man is preparing to end life as he knows it and get ready to, I don't know what...never have fun again?
If marriage is truly a partnership, why this diverging of messages? And why do we allow this mentality to continue? I'm sorry, but if my partner really thinks his life is altering that much by marrying me, I would be the first one to say, hey, man, don't do it! Go ahead-tell me it's all just joking around...but it is a lot more than that. The words we use and the sentiments that go along with them are extremely powerful narratives in our lives. So, here we are with the woman stressed out and planning the perfect day (because it will be the best day of her life) and the man may be consulted for an occasional seating arrangement or dance song. I will interject here that weddings are sexist, mostly to the detriment of women, but they are sexist for men, too. Why does it matter so much less what a man wants? It is his big day, too, and quite often the groom is like an afterthought thrown on top of the cake to complete the picture.
And then here we are...the actual wedding day. Although, white wedding dresses haven't always been a tradition, they soon rose in popularity and came to symbolize innocence and virginal purity. Really? Again, like I said...if you subscribe to a certain belief system, this might be a truly authentic choice for you. But...pretty much everyone I've ever seen married does not hold this belief system...that women should remain virginal and pure (and, I guess, as usual, no standards or double standards for the men)...yet they participate in a tradition that is a visual affirmation of cultures that punish unmarried women's sexuality. Is that really the message you want to send on a day that is about you and your partner intimately connecting and committing? Again, I just don't understand why people don't think about this.
(Side note-not along the sexist lines but I also don't understand why every wedding has to look pretty much the same...sure, there may be one or two different songs and someone may have sleeves or no sleeves on their white dress...but I can pretty much tell you what a wedding is going to look and feel like. Where is the personality and authenticity in that?! If this day is so special, shouldn't it look and feel like the two of you?! I heard someone had a Beetlejuice wedding because the couple loved Beetlejuice...so the wedding party dressed in that theme...and I thought, finally! What a fun wedding and what an expression of what that couple is! The way it's done for the most part...unless you look at their faces, every wedding looks like every other wedding, looks like every other wedding...ad nauseam.)
On to the ceremony...I will admit this has at least gotten better in recent history. However, I have literally been to weddings this summer that still invoke extremely sexist language during the course of the ceremony. (I'm not going to harp on this too much, because, as I said, it is getting better and I'm not writing a book, though it may seem it, and I think we all know the traditional sexist language of "obey".) That said, the wedding I was just at last week made a point to use equal language during the ceremony and still started out with, "who gives this woman to be married to this man?". Where is the disconnect? I don't understand the cognitive dissonance necessary to insist on language of equality during a ceremony and still engage in every sexist accompaniment in all other aspects.
Aaaaaaaannnnndddd...for the coup de grace...the woman changes her last name to the man's. And not only does she do this, typically, she's very excited about it! Because, I guess, that means you've made "it". Whatever "it" is. One question...why doesn't the man change his name? Why is the man's name given more weight than the woman's? Why doesn't the man have to trade in the identity he's held his entire life for a new one? I had a conversation with a coworker when I was in my twenties and he was arguing this point with me. I'm not unreasonable (I've been in agreement with a Republican before, for chripes sake, ha!) so I wanted to hear what could possibly defend the finishing stroke-the moment a woman is truly a completely different identity (yet the man remains the same...because I guess he didn't need a change to be "complete" or "worthwhile"). Maybe there was a valid reason I hadn't thought of. He started out with the age old, well, if you have kids, you want them to have the same last name as you. So I said, yes, I could understand that...so you could combine names and make a new one (I know a lot of people don't like hyphenated names and, personally, that would probably annoy me). I know people who have done that (think Brangelina, just with last names) or, weird, you could both take the woman's last name-it doesn't always have to be the man's. Well, that was unacceptable and he did not have any logical reason for discounting my two suggestions.
So, it boils down to tradition and the sexism inherent in that tradition. I will give you that one person is not a statistically significant survey-but I do know that more often than not, the woman willingly changes her name and is excited about that fact. And I don't need to do a research study to know this is socially engrained-a woman is socially conditioned and told all of her life that her wedding day will be the biggest and best day of her life and she starts writing her name in notebooks in third grade with the last name of the boy she likes. I doubt any boy has doodled in his notebook with hearts and his first name with the last name of the girl he likes, or a combination of both their names. What a woman is really doing is relinquishing her identity-who she was before and the connections and achievements she was associated with in her single life (think about it...even the term "maiden name" reeks of sexism and puritanical expectations). Men are never asked to do this and I would be willing to bet most wouldn't consider it and some would be offended by the suggestion. To add insult to injury, along with the name change, a woman becomes a Mrs. (unless she is "high maintenance "enough to demand Ms. at any time in her life...the nerve!) and a man is...still a Mr. Why do women have a title defining and based on marital status and men don't? #sexist
These are all sexist traditions that go unexamined, for the most part. And, as I said above, I get it if you're of a certain mindset. What I don't understand is women who claim to be progressive and feminist and then when it comes to their own lives and living out ideals that support those identities and ideals, this is the one seemingly unquestioned proceeding. I think it is time to start living our ideals. And if you claim to be a feminist and against sexism, then I passionately maintain it is time to start questioning what the entire marriage process symbolizes and if that fits with your belief system.
No comments:
Post a Comment