There is nothing better than a wedding to bring a woman's self esteem to an all time low. As an example, the second I changed my relationship status on Facebook, the ads changed:
"Don't be fat for your big day!"
"Millions of brides choose to be beautiful with [some diet product]
"It's the biggest day of your life!" (I forget what this was for -- maybe photography.)
Sorry. I apparently missed the memo, but apparently I was utterly worthless as a human being before becoming engaged. This is the biggest and best day in my life. Teaching? Not important! Getting my degrees? Not important! For a woman, nothing is as important or more beautiful than wearing that horrible tent of a dress and giving up your entire identity to become Mrs. Whomever.
I finally figured it out. For years, I dismissed the claims of women who stated that marriage, as an institution and an act, was primarily aimed at keeping women "in their place" and concerned about "the right things" because I was not planning on getting married.
Now, I am trying to plan a wedding, and, oh shit. Those women were completely correct. This whole institution is rigged and completely worthless. The modern concept of marriage -- a partnership of equals -- is bullshit and completely belied by the outdated, chauvinistic traditions.
I know this sounds like a feminist rant. Bear with me.
1. The ring.
Traditionally, the ring was meant to show everyone the manner in which the groom would keep and maintain his wife. (Read: 1950s housewife style, where you go out and make the money and have the life and your little wifey stays home and bakes you cookies and irons your shirts.) While it's no longer expected that the ring will be a full 10% of the annual income/2 months' salaries, it's still much less about the woman, no matter what you think, and still more about showing off the rock.
Think about it. If the engagement token was actually a symbol of love and the bride's interest, there would be far more practical exchanges. A woman who reads might receive a rare book, a woman who enjoys travel might receive a trip someplace new...that would be a proper, "it's about her tastes" present. While women do traditionally like jewelry, if the bride to be's defining characteristic is "likes shiny things", the groom to be needs to think twice about marrying a magpie.
Yes, a "diamond is forever", and all that crap. Plastic also has an extremely long life, but you don't see many bottle caps on rings. It's about money.
2. The wedding itself.
Back in the day, women were considered useless except as marriageable pawns. Therefore, the family of the bride paid for everything, since some super-important man was going to sweep their useless daughter off, forming an (economically and politically advantageous) alliance between the super-important son in law and the super-important father.
As a commodity, and nothing more, the bride also had to meet certain criteria. (Yes, that's the reason brides wear white. To show how virginal and pure they are.)
Fortunately, we've seen the collective error of our ways, and changed all that.
Oh. Wait. Brides still pay for everything, traditionally, with the exception of the rehearsal dinner and the pre-nup (to protect Mr. Important's finances from traditional alimony laws). And they still wear a hideous, unflattering, white tent to the ceremony itself.
3. The name change.
Since women are of no importance, and have no personality, history, or future, it makes complete sense for the woman to give up her name. A woman refusing to give up her name is lunacy! Seriously. Women NOT giving up a vital piece of their identities at marriage? What next? They'll want to learn to read! Maybe even vote! The insanity!
The institution of marriage itself is more balanced, these days. But, if this is how it starts, with the woman either giving up her identity or choosing to keep it at the expense of being part of the family she creates, it is NOT a partnership of equals. Without some discussion, at the very least -- REAL discussion, not "Wah wah wah, it's tradition! Wah wah wah!" -- there is not even a pretense of partnership.
All of this ass-backwards claptrap, despite chauvinistic and biased roots, can still become a strong foundation for a truly equal and meaningful marriage, but only if the couple goes through and figures out the meaning they want to glean from the acts rather han blindly accepting hackneyed traditions. Pick out the ring together as your first act as partners, or at least find out what she wants (if she wants a ring). Better yet, both of you can buy and exchange rings. Make it something other than a one-sided power play.
Split the marriage costs. I'm still sort of astounded at how many parents have started putting away more to pay for their daughters' marriages. Jesus Christ. Is this an Austen novel? Split the costs.
Discuss, and really discuss, the name change. Does one of the pair have more siblings/brothers vs. sisters? Does one last name sound better with both first names? (Remember the Wedding Singer: do you REALLY want to subject someone you love to a name like "Julia Gulia?") If you both keep your names, what's the equitable way to deal with kids? If you really want a fair deal, pick a new name.
Most of this stuff is so infuriatingly obvious. Who wears the stupid ring? Right, the woman. Should she, juuuuuuuuuust maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, have some say in the process? (Hint: there is one right answer. It rhymes with "tress".) Paying for part of the wedding is common courtesy. I keep hearing these insane stories about grooms whose families sniff at the "cheap, gaudy" receptions their daughter-in-law's families put on. Hey, didja think of participating and helping? No? Then shut up and eat your free dinner.
The name is one of the biggest things. This one, there's no good solution. But it is SO. GODDAMNED. INFURIATING. So many men will not consider any possible middle ground on this. "Oh, baby, it's just a name. Don't you love me? Why don't you wanna be part of my family?" Just a name. Of course. Then I suppose the average man would be just tickled to take his wife's name? Oh, the insanity of that suggestion!
And, that's the problem. From the stupid white blimp-suit to demolishing a portion of my identity to spending more than it would take to buy a luxury car on one party, this is a one-sided institution that puts all the work on the woman and all of the fun on the man.
And I am very over it.
4 comments:
Deep breaths, Mairead.
Everything you say is, of course, quite true. I remember complaining (albeit mostly as a joke) a few weeks ago that men don't get any of shiny stuff when they get engaged — the woman gets a ring, we just get the sense that we're engaged and thus suitably normative.
"O'Sullivan" is not a name that lends itself to hyphenation, unfortunately. My mother hyphenated; I have some colleagues who didn't change their names for a while afterwards. (You have to go out and legally change the name separately, after all; the marriage ceremony doesn't do that for you.)
Incidentally, there's no hard rule that says your dress has to be white, at least, not any more. We used to have a whole set of codes about which colors you had to wear, but those rules are long since gone. My mom made her own wedding dress and then modified it for later use. I don't know how well that'd go over with your family, but you don't need to submit to this.
You know, it's never too late to elope.
Also, some of these traditions (the ring and the big wedding, namely) are around to help keep up the insanely large capitalist enterprise known as the wedding industry. (It only warms their hearts that people get remarried so often now.) What are you, some sort of communist for not supporting the industry? *Cue Soviet anthem.*
And don't worry about the rings so much. I can't remember the last time I saw either of my parents wearing their wedding bands, and I can't ever remember my mom wearing her engagement ring. Yet, they are still together after almost 30 years (which reminds me, I should probably plan something for that).
Besides, you should be getting a bunch of new stuff from friends and family.
But the important thing is that you will be happy in your marriage. The wedding only lasts a day. The marriage is much more important.
Understandably I feel your frustration. I'm not married but I do see the pointlessness in many wedding traditions.
The instance of the ring for example. More specifically diamond rings, which until 1948 wasn't even a tradition. Just some scam created by Da Beers diamond company to luring female consumers into suckering their poor fiancees into paying for them. The supposed theory of a guy being forced to shell out three months worth of salary for a diamond ring is a joke, especially when diamonds could easily be manufactured. The previous tradition of using birthstone rings seem much more personable.. Moreover, I'm not a fan to the idea of the female wearing a ring that delivers the message, ' stay away I'm taken,' while the guy goes scot free. Why can't both partners wear them, or better yet not have them.
The other tradition that I find ridiculous is the whole father walking their daughter down the aisle to give them away. As though the daughter is a piece of property. Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole notion is medieval and I would gladly argue against any female to thinks otherwise.
Let's not even get on the dress. White for virginity? Who's a virgin now a days. Come on!
Post a Comment