Comments on: A “feminist wedding” is an oxymoron

By: May

May — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:41:47 +0000

Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman that binds them together. How is it unfeminist to marry, then? Feminism doesn’t support not having relationships with me. Some of traditional marriage trappings can be patriarchal in nature, but it is a choice whether one uses them or not. Having that choice is what makes it a feminist act. Not having a choice wouldn’t.

By: Marjorie Rodrigues

Marjorie Rodrigues — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:02:30 +0000

[...] Rodrigues … « Brazil’s next top troll Agosto 16, 2009 “That’s feminism for you: the freedom to participate in what is not necessarily a feminist a… — Renee Martin. She is as interested in socio-political issues as she is in [...]

By: O link que vale por mil palavras « Marjorie Rodrigues

O link que vale por mil palavras « Marjorie Rodrigues — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:40:17 +0000

[...] Brazil’s next top troll O link que vale por mil palavras Agosto 16, 2009 “That’s feminism for you: the freedom to participate in what is not necessarily a feminist a… — Renee Martin. She is as interested in socio-political issues as she is in [...]

By: Tanya Derbowka

Tanya Derbowka — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:17:29 +0000

This is the greatest post about marriage that I have ever read. For all the reasons you listed and more I will never, ever participate in another wedding again. Not only will I not get married myself, I actively discourage other people from doing it and I give the old “marriage is a tool of the patriarchy” speech while politely returning the wedding invitation. Thanks for your insight.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:50:44 +0000

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Renee, I’ve been wavering on the marriage thing (we just got the news that my health benefits are taxable income since we’re not married – it’s hitting our budget hard.)

But the whole thing stinks. It’s not just the ceremony, it’s the actual *marriage* that is antifeminist. Legal marriage isn’t religious, it isn’t open to individual interpretation – it’s a business proposition, that brings many privileges, with terms set by the state, not open to everyone, that has been reformed but not completely changed from the days when married women were basically chattel. No changes to the ceremony change the actual legal contract.

By: Visha

Visha — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:43:23 +0000

I agree TOTALLY. Weddings are rooted in patriarchy and its deluded to think that forgoing some “traditional” things qualifies it as a feminist wedding. However celebrating any relationship IMO is not a degradation of women or their rights but tradtional weddings is I am sorry

By: LoudPen

LoudPen — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:40:11 +0000

Maybe, I’m a part time feminist…no scratch that, I am a part-time feminist. I come to work only on the weekends and sometimes, I show up late. And today, I’m late. That being said, I don’t understand this post. Like really. Are you poking fun of “traditional” weddings because you detest them, or are you criticizing women who choose to get married?

I personally belive that weddings, marriage, and whatever else is like everything else in life…it’s what you make it. And you have a RIGHT to make it anything you want to. Why? B/c it’s your life. And I’m sorry, but, if women want to participate in the types of ceremonies you described and be placed in traditional patriarchy roles…then, they have that right. By criticizing their decisions as a staunch feminist and telling them to protest marriage…are you not doing the very thing you are protesting which is forcing women into a particular role? (Unmarried feminist)

A wedding is an event, that’s it. No more, no less. That’s why there are traditions, rules, etc. You can change the event in any way, shape, or form. That includes the dress, the ceremony itself, and subsequent reception. So, instead of criticizing “traditional” weddings, why not come up with a new wedding ceremony that “doesn’t degrade women”?

By: Puffalo

Puffalo — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:46:48 +0000

While there are problems with marriage as an institution that is rooted in patriarchal principles, most of your objections to weddings seem to be in the changeable stuff in the tradition.
It’s still a wedding if you forgo the floof, the dress and jewelry and all that princess girly stuff. It’s still a wedding if you forgo attendants and gifts, dancing, the name changing and parental hand off. It’s still a wedding if you forgo the groom.
Sure, it’s a problem when someone does all the standard wedding stuff and proclaims “I am a feminist so it is a feminist wedding!” But just because the typical wedding isn’t feminist doesn’t mean that no wedding can be feminist.
It seems hypocritical to fight for my right to marriage (I’m forgoing a groom) while levying such harsh judgment against people trying to keep their weddings consistent with their beliefs. Because, really, what are they meant to do? I can’t think of a more thoughtful approach to a wedding than making an earnest effort to have it be feminist.

By: magpie_seven

magpie_seven — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:43:11 +0000

Renee, I can see your point- marriage, as an institution, is rooted in social inequality. It is ridiculous, if you are planning to get married, to ignore the history of the institution- even today, far too often, marriage is used as a way to control women and their sexuality. It can’t be ignored.

The other thing that can’t be ignored, however, is that both women and men deserve to be able to celebrate their love and commitment to each other in a ceremony, if they so wish. I think ritual is hugely important to human beings- marks of progress that document significant changes in our lives. It was certainly important to me and my partner, and that’s why we decided to get married- in order to celebrate our love with those who were important to us, to make promises of fidelity and commitment in front of the whole world, without fear or shame.

There’s not a structure we’ve got in society other than the wedding to do that. I think weddings can be reclaimed, but it takes a lot of work, and I think that if one is inclined to monogamy it’s certainly work worth doing. Pretending that weddings do not have hideously patriarchal roots is naive, but I believe everyone should have the right to a ceremony to celebrate their love.

By: tenely

tenely — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:30:45 +0000

Wait a second, having a wedding is colluding with the patriarchy but wearing a burka is not? How can you support one and not the other so easily?