FeministWedding.com

Names: Only What We Know Everyone By (but they must not be that important)

2012-02-19T18:56:00.000-08:00

This article appeared in my newspaper a couple weeks ago, but under a more inflammatory title: "Women say so long to maiden names" with the subtitle "More brides opt to take husband's name".

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/relationship/137384208.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y

Someone glancing at the article who didn't bother to read it would get the impression that the trend of women keeping their names upon marriage is dying fast.

So I'm reading it and see that the last study done in the 2000s found that around 18% of women were keeping their names. That's up from 2-4% in 1975. That sounds like progress to me. But then the author cites a study of 19,000 women by the wedding site TheKnot.com done last spring as proof that 86% took their husband's name.

Skpetical, I wanted to know: was this survey of women visiting TheKnot website? Because if so, that is a horribly skewed sample study. I did some digging and according to this website,

"The 2010 Real Weddings Study captured responses from nearly 19,000 U.S. brides married between January 1 and December 31, 2010; respondents were recruited throughout the year from TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com membership, which represents nearly 80% of brides nationwide."

That right there tells me that the sample is biased. What is the likelihood that brides who aren't subscribed to those more traditional bridal sites (which are heavily invested in wanting women to remain traditional and spend lots of money on their weddings) are more likely to be less traditional and keep their names? Seems like a high likelihood. I remain skeptical of statistics, especially ones with these kinds of samples run by companies with a strong interest in particular results. Have we ever heard of double-blind?

Meanwhile, the average newspaper reader (in print or online) sees the article headline, maybe reads a little into it, and comes away with the impression that it was just a fad for women to keep their names, now no one is doing it anymore. Great fodder for the pushy groom or family member who is trying to convince a woman on the fence about the name issue to just change it (everyone else is doing it). Peer pressure doesn't end at high school, folks!

What was scarier in the article was the mention of the national survey by Indiana University last year that found that 2/3 of 800 people felt it was "best" for a woman to take her husband's name. And then 1/2 of them supported a law to that effect!!! The article tries to tamper that shocking result by saying that 1/2 also found it okay for a groom to take his bride's last name. Do people really want to go back to the days when women lost name battles in the court even when there was no actual law regulating names? And do they think men (the majority of law-makers) would ever legislate their own identity to have to be changed to that of women's? It's laughable. But welcome to culture. Sometimes it doesn't make sense.

Bridal Shower invitation

2012-01-28T17:20:00.000-08:00

My friend's sister is going all out with planning a shower for her. I just received my invitation in the mail and it's got glitter on it as well as a recipe card. I'm supposed to come up with a quick and easy recipe to be featured in some kind of scrapbook to be made at the shower I'm not going to. I'm torn: this is clearly a homemaker signal (can you imagine guys throwing a party for the upcoming groom and asking for recipes that he can make for his family?). Why should the woman be expected to cook and take care of the home? Aren't we in the twenty-first century yet? But if I don't participate, I won't be in the recipe book that will probably be one of the few things she keeps forever. Maybe something nonchalant would be appropriate. I'll try to think of something.

Languish - over

2012-01-10T21:51:00.000-08:00

We all have excuses for neglecting our blogs. Mine was a combination of life getting too busy and losing the spark for complaining about weddings. But now that I've been asked to be a part of one (my first one, at that), I am finding myself motivated to get back into the groove.

The wedding is going to be really traditional. I vacillate between being excited for my friend and dreading the thought of all the patriarchal activities I will have to partake in.

At least the dress from David's Bridal was under $100. The color isn't the greatest, but I was thankful when I saw the bright orange puffy dresses on the rack and thought to myself, 'Some bride makes her attendants wear those - so glad I don't have to deal with that!'

It's difficult for me to see someone torn between her life values and the traditions she feels bound to abide by. So far I have been holding my tongue. We'll see how long I can hold out.

Royal Wedding dress

2011-04-29T21:14:00.000-07:00

Sure, I was a little curious to see Kate Middleton's dress. After all, it was kept such a big secret. Isn't the whole point of the wedding focused on the "big reveal" as they would say in the home makeover shows?

I wish it had actually been something to get excited for. But instead, as expected, it was another white/ivory wedding dress with a veil, a long train, and some lace-work. Why do people get so amped up over the same old thing?

I think it would be a whole lot cooler if brides took advantage of the wide range of colors in the rainbow available to us in fabrics nowadays and had stunning dresses in amazing colors with fun details. Why do they insist on being stuck with the one color that is not even a color?!

Maybe because of royal weddings like this that keep perpetuating the stereotype.
Thanks, Kate, for being a seemingly normal woman, but no thanks for setting another disappointing bridal model.

Mrs Man

2011-04-17T15:23:00.000-07:00

I'll admit I really enjoyed reading Mrs Man by Una Stannard, even though it got my blood boiling in some parts. People wonder why it's so important to learn history, and this is a great example: we can turn up our noses at the idea that certain traditions have been around "forever" or that no one has ever tried to set more equal precedents. This book might just be enough to convince some women on the fence about changing their name that it's not the way to go. Here are some of my favorite quotes (book review should be up soon on the main site):

"The history of married women's names is as much the history of men as of women, of men's desire to make and keep women wives and of women's inability for thousands of years to have any other role." (2)

"It used to be said that love is the history of a woman's life, and that history and only that history is recorded in the husbands' names nineteenth-century professional women successively assumed. For the name Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy means that Mary Baker had connubial relations with a Mr Glover, a Mr Patterson and a Mr Eddy, as if her life had been the mere history of her affections." (79)

"Perhaps women will sometimes awake to the absurdity of this thing. It always seems as if a man were laughing in his sleeve when he hears his wife called 'Mrs John', or 'Mrs Peter', or whatever his name may be. If he does not laugh he ought to." (149)

"Men, [Ruth Hale] said, always think it 'socially convenient' for women to take their husbands' names, but they would not think it so convenient if the custom were reversed." (194)

"A married woman who retains her name is issuing a challenge...It is a defiance, and as such is dealt with by society, under a hundred euphemisms, always with hostility." (194)

Updates

2011-03-06T20:39:00.000-08:00

I have completed several updates to the site in the last few months and have also added more articles and book reviews to round out the Topics section.

Last week I found Una Stannard's out-of-print book Mrs Man at a local used bookstore, and it happened to be on sale for $3.00! Even though it's from the 70s, I think a lot of the information will still be relevant and I can't wait to read it. It might be awhile at the rate my reading has been going lately though...

Also, I found a wedding blog put on by Rosie (of SpareCandy.com), a feminist who is getting hitched in September and blogging about the experiences of being a feminist bride. The link is now available in the Resources section.

-Casey

2009 Wedding #2

2010-01-17T18:12:00.000-08:00

The second wedding I attended in 2009 began with high expectations from me. I knew the couple was the fun, quirky sort who would be brave enough to do something a bit different at their long-awaited event. But I underestimated the power of the parents (and their purse). The ceremony was presided over by the groom's grandfather, whose old-fashioned patriarchal sayings were making my mouth gape (and my friends sitting next to me were getting a kick out of watching my response since I'm the "feminist" of the group!). Mentally, I knew that a lot of weddings followed this pattern, even if it didn't reflect the couple involved at all, but physically being there and listening to it was something else entirely.

Not only did the grandfather slip in a bash to non-heterosexuals and to deep friendships too by saying that the "best kind of love is between a man and woman", but he had to mention all this stuff about the duties of each gender which was completely untrue. I'm hoping more than a few people in the audience were internally chuckling when he told the groom, "It's your duty to provide tender leadership and to protect her from danger" and the bride, "It's your duty to support him, and to make a happy, healthy home." Granted, the grandfather is from a different era, but with this couple, the bride was making a generous salary in a scientific profession while the groom was unemployed after not following through with his post-college plans. If anyone is going to be creating a happy home, it's going to be the groom!

There were also the usual traditions I can't stand, like "Who gives this woman?" and "It's my honor to present to you Mr. and Mrs. His First and Last Name." Congratulations, bride. You've just been subsumed! The only plus for this ceremony was that there were male and female attendants on each side and they were called attendants in the program. But this was probably only a choice of convenience because there were different genders in the first place. So maybe that plus is really just a neutral. :)

Overall, the constant references to gender stereotypes and work/home situations just weren't necessary. I don't know why people, both of older and newer generations, insist on having one person in a marriage be superior to the other (at least in language). What could have been an enjoyable experience with a healthy deviance from the normal stuffy gendered language turned out to be even worse than the earlier wedding I attended. And for a couple who clearly doesn't live out these stereotypes, it made even less sense to me.

No weddings are scheduled for this year yet, but I have discovered an interesting book entitled A History of the Wife by Marilyn Yalom which is supposed to discuss the evolution of the wife's role from ancient Greek and Roman times to the present. Might be a bit of a downer, but I'm used to it in this field by now. Cheers.

2009 Wedding #1

2009-11-11T20:45:00.000-08:00

I've attended two weddings in the past year. Unfortunately, both of them were pretty traditional even though the couples weren't.

Wedding #1

I really felt that the "Who gives this woman to be married" bit was just forced. It seemed so unfitting for both the family and the woman, and in the twenty-first century. While the father was gracious enough to answer "her mother and I", it still seemed like a bargaining arrangement since only the woman had to be spoken for. Waiting for her to come down the aisle with virtually no one allowed to see her beforehand seemed to put a ridiculous amount of emphasis on her dress and makeup and beauty. If there is no secrecy surrounding the groom, why should the bride be treated like a mysterious treasure? Grrs all around.

At the reception, which is often more relaxed than the formal ceremony, I was surprised at how that, too, was dominated by men speaking instead of women. The toasters included the best man, a groomsman, the father of the bride, the father of the groom, the groom, and one woman - the maid of honor. The guests heard not a word from the bride, a bridesmaid, the groom's sister, the groom's mother, or the bride's mother. I was quite surprised because the bride's mother is an outspoken woman and I thought for sure that she would make some sort of speech or toast. As I watched the seated bride smile and cry throughout all of the toasts, I was disappointed that no one got to hear publicly from her, seeing as how it is "supposed" to be a day all about her!

Stay tuned for Wedding #2...

-Casey