Last weekend I had the opportunity to be a part of my good friends wedding. It was a beautiful ceremony filled with even more beautiful people. However, though I was trying my hardest to be happy for my two friends, I was disgusted by just how patriarchal this tradition is.
Though most of you reading this have probably already experienced similar moments of epiphany, I will cite two common examples of how the traditional wedding ceremony perpetuates patriarchy.
1. The pastor asks, “Who gives this woman, to be married to this man?” The bride’s father responds, “Her mother and I.”
2. After the bride and groom kiss the pastor declares, “I now present to you Mr. & Mrs. (Groom’s first and last name).”
Both of these traditional components of a marriage ceremony support the idea that woman are property that is traded between households. No one gives the man to be married, nor does a bride ever brand her husband with the name of her mother.
As I was standing at this wedding, reflecting on all the weddings I have attended I thought to myself, would my wedding be any different? YES! If I truly believe that patriarchy is oppressive, I cannot consciously act in a way that perpetuates it.
So if I marry, this is what my wedding will look like.
1. I refuse to brand the person I marry with my last name.
2. I will not keep friends from my side of the wedding court just because they have a vagina. Traditionally, grooms select groom’s men to represent their ability to protect their bride to be. In contrast, brides select bride’s mates to compliment their beauty. This is an archaic tradition founded in a patriarchal ideology that I cannot support. My side of the court will be the friends and family that I wish to be there to publicly support me in the ceremony.
3. Neither of our families will give us away. If I marry, it will be because another person and I, as autonomous individuals, decided to commit to each other. Not because our families found our union economically, politically, or socially advantageous.
4. In wedding ceremonies, as well as in art, women are commonly portrayed as passive objects of beauty and men as the able actors. One of the clearest manifestations of this is the common phrase, “You may kiss the bride.” Since the man is the actor it therefore falls upon him to complete the necessary action. At my wedding, we will kiss each other.
5. Either both of us wear white or neither of us wears white. Traditionally, the bride’s white dress symbolizes her purity. However, neither purity nor a symbol of purity is required of the groom. Though the reason for this double standard is clear few ever take a moment to think about it. Traditionally a bride’s value is dependent on her beauty. If her virginity has been compromised then it is held that her beauty is as well. Since a groom’s value has been traditionally placed on his strength, his virginity is not a major concern (though more often then not a man’s experienced in sex is held with greater stature) and therefore must not be symbolized in the ceremony. Virginity is a social construct that has been used to oppress women and has no inherent value outside of that which we place on it; there is no physical state of virginity.
6. Any suggestions?
Para la liberación,
Mateo
57 comments:
aaaaaaamen.
When I get married my wedding will probably mostly be decided by my fiancé because it will probably be a much bigger deal to her. But it would probably look a lot like a “patriarchal” wedding. The bridesmaids will most likely be on the bride’s side (whether they be my friends or hers). I think a lot of the things that are done out of respect will still take place. Her father giving her away is like me asking permission to marry his daughter. It is out of respect for her parents as opposed to treating her like property. I see this as similar to saying “you may kiss the bride.” I’m pretty sure she will want to wear a white wedding dress, probably because she’ll think it looks beautiful. I don’t think I’ll wear white, but in both cases it won’t have to do with purity. Most of her decisions will probably mostly have to do with aesthetics rather than her being a tool to the patriarchal system.
Thank you Paul for your comment.
If your bride-to-be is not an object then why will she play a completely passive role? Objects, unlike actors, cannot move free of an actor. In the scenario you describe your partner's father passes her off as an object both at the wedding and before you start dating.
Have you ever thought why it is not custom for a female to ask permission of a male's parent? This tradition is founded in the patriarchal idea that women must be protected by men, in a similar fashion as it is believed that men are to be the protectors of their households. Here fathers act as guardians of their daughter’s chastity. To go on a date with a daughter without first being granted permission by her father (guard) is therefore seen with the same contempt at thievery. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in purity balls (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1822906,00.html).
The tradition of the father handing off his daughter functions similarly, in this custom the father publicly declares three things. He is declaring that he has fulfilled his responsibility of protecting his daughter’s “purity” (as seen by the white dress), he is offering up her virginity as a wedding gift to the groom, and he is publicly passing the responsibility of protecting the sanctity of “his” daughter’s vagina to the groom. Do you see the idea of ownership that underlines all of this?
If we truly respect an individual we must treat them as actors, not passive objects. We are all autonomous individuals that have the ability to make our own decisions, let us give each other the respect that is due.
These links may also be helpful in explaining my points.
http://collegecandy.com/2009/07/18/saturday-read-the-purity-myth-jessica-valenti-exposes-virginity/#more-32840
http://collegecandy.com/2008/07/21/purity-balls-teaching-girls-that-men-control-it-all/#more-10601
Mateo Regueiro,
I guess we just disagree on the actual meanings and reasons for certain activities during a modern wedding. It’s common in society to continue rituals without them holding its original meaning. The weddings I’ve been to and probably the one I will be a part of are usually centered on the bride and what the bride wants. For example when the bride walks in everyone faces her and watches her (not so in the grooms case). Generally the day of the wedding and before the wedding the bride gets exactly what she wants regarding the wedding, it seems like everyone just try’s to make her feel special rather than an object as you describe. I think if weddings were left up to male authority (they’re generally not) they would be a lot shorter, have less rituals, cheaper clothing and decorations, and all together be less special for the bride. I have never heard of a bride feeling like an object during a wedding, usually it’s the happiest day of their lives.
I do think that a girl’s father is her primary protector as is the girl’s future husband. All that you describe has no resemblance to modern interpretations and understanding of wedding rituals; while all that you describe may have been true in some cases in history it is almost entirely irrelevant today.
i have long wondered what my wedding will look like (back when i thought getting married was something i was probably wanted to do). ever since i can remember, i have been repulsed by the idea of being given away by my father to my next male protector. and really, as you, paul, pointed touched on, most weddings are focused around the bride. she is the object of desire and attention. she is the beauty on display, this is her day. she has fufilled her ultimate destiny and greatest desire - she is a wife. however, i do not believe that a woman's ultimate success in life lies in wifehood. quite the opposite in fact. if TWO people are lucky enough love each other enough to spend the rest of their lives together, i am happy for them. a celebration of the blessing they share is one i gladly join in. a celebration of a woman's final arrival in life and a man's new trophy is not something that puts me in a celebratory mood.
however, the more weddings i attended the more i realized that they are a demonstration and representation of the ideals that have hurt me my entire life. these traditions and ceremonies that make up a wedding mean something. they arent just empty motions. to say i agree with your post matt, is an understatement. and all the things that they represent have directly harmed me and many of the women, girls, men and boys that i love dearly.
i was in my dear friend's wedding earlier this summer, and as i stood in front of everyone holding my flowers, it was all i ccould do to hold back tears of anger and sadness as i watched her enter into a convanant of degredation. when they announced the newly wedded couple as mr and mrs. (the grooms full name) i blinked back hot tears for the first piece of my friend's identity cast aside, worthless.
however, i have wondered what my wedding would look like, b/c as much as a spit on the idea that anyone, much less my father, has the right to give me away, and that anyone, much less the person i would want to love and spend the rest of my life with, has any right to accept me as his protectorate, i know my parents dont see things this way. i know they see it as an act that demonstrates their love for me and their blessing on a life of happiness. so ive always wondered, is it worth to break my fathers heart by telling him i dont want him to walk me down the isle?
Abbie, great comment.
In regards to your last question. As I was preparing to walk down the isle a similar question crossed my mind; what will my family think/how will they take it?
As I considered the last couple weeks of life this question was answered. As you know, I am not a Christian. As you may not know my mother, who is probably one of the few people in the world that I can confidently say I love, is a DEVOTE evangelical. This fact, made the idea of telling her one of the scariest things I have ever done. I feared she would take it as me spitting in her eyes, abandoning her, and rejecting how she raised me. Moreover, I feared that she would take it as personal failure as a parent to have a son step away from what she believes to be the truth.
Needless to say I told her at the beginning of this summer. I finally decided that I was not being me around her; I was being who I thought she wanted me to be. I was lying to her and I was lying to myself. As this situation persisted I began to resent my mother for “causing” all this anguish. It took many months to realize that she was completely unaware of the situation because I was not letting her in. So finally, these reasons as well as by desire to live a consistent life pushed me to speak with her.
Since I spoke with her our relationship has only grown. I no longer feel like a fake and for the first time in my life I feel like my mom is really starting to get to know me, instead of the version of me I presented to please her.
Obviously me telling her could have also ended badly. But you know what, if she does not love and respect me for me, then I do not want her in my life; that would be an abusive situation in which I want no part of.
Tying this back to the wedding, I concluded the following. Fuck anyone who does not accept me for me, especially those who claim to be my family. I now see family as actions not a bloodline. Family supports, loves, and encourages. Family does not oppress, abuse, ignore, or abandon. If I marry, I will invite those I believe to be my family to the ceremony. At my wedding they will show me whether or not I was wrong to consider them so.
Abbie and Matt, brilliant. Thank you.
Paul, also thank you for your thoughts. In response to your comment on these traditions having a different meaning today than when they originated, I ask why perpetuate them?
For example of an alternative in addition to Matt's, if I get married, I hope to represent the truth of our relationship and lives rather than a tradition that isn't accurate to us.
Abbie,
I don’t think people will see my wife as fulfilling her purpose in life just because everything in her wedding is the way she wants it to be. Likewise I don’t think anyone will see my wife as only a trophy to me. I really haven’t ever heard of anyone that thinks these things while watching a wedding until I read this blog. And even people who are deeply cynical towards these traditions most likely don’t think in reality their meanings are true in the case that they are observing just because the tradition takes place. To most of the people I know, its no mystery why a wedding ceremony presentation is more important to the wife, and it isn’t because it’s her ultimate success in life (although I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a person having an ultimate goal of being a wife). My future wife will probably not be so insecure about her identity, value, and independence to be insulted by her father giving her away. I doubt you are that insecure either, so why not interpret it the same way most people see it: as a sign of respect to the parents.
I would be interested to know how these different traditions have directly harmed you and the people you love.
AK,
The reason I will probably still have these traditions is because the meaning I’m perpetuating is different than the meaning they may have had at one point in history. I think the parents giving away the daughter is typically seen as respect for the parents and as Abbie mentioned how her father would probably see it: a blessing from them. I value this meaning and I would like to continue it. With most of the others I think my wife will probably just want to continue the tradition because it looks nice (white wedding dress, bridesmaids/groomsmen on traditional sides). I don’t think anyone will mistake the fact that my wife will be wearing a white wedding dress to mean the only thing I value in her is her beauty and virginity. I’ve really got to pick my fights in life (and in marriage). I’m not going to risk ostracizing her family and frustrating my wife (because she will most likely want these traditions) just because there once was negative meanings behind these actions, which nobody sees anymore.
Mateo,
I don’t know if you saw, but I responded to your post titled “Words of Hate.” In my response I said that I would be interested to hear your opinion (and anybody else’s opinion) about the removal of Zelaya in Honduras.
Paul, two of your last comments on this post have come across very disrespectful.
“My future wife will probably not be so insecure about her identity, value, and independence to be insulted by her father giving her away. I doubt you are that insecure either, so why not interpret it the same way most people see it: as a sign of respect to the parents.”
Please do not claim to know my or anyone else’s insecurities on this blog.
Also, in general “everyone is doing it” arguments do not hold much weight. In the 1500 and 1600’s “most people” thought the earth was flat, while only a few claimed to believe it was not. If people like Capernicus and Galileo had suppressed their beliefs in order to not cause conflict with “most people” we would still be living under this falsehood today. Bottom line is that most people do not challenge the status quo.
“I’m not going to risk ostracizing her family and frustrating my wife (because she will most likely want these traditions) just because there once was negative meanings behind these actions, which nobody sees anymore.”
Paul, obviously some people (myself included) see these undertones in the traditional marriage ceremony. If nobody saw marriage this way anymore we would not be having this discussion; therefore please show respect for those of us who do. Silencing our voices by declaring us non-existent does not lead to positive outcomes.
Furthermore, neither I nor anyone else that has commented on this post has recommended that you force the person you marry to do it your way. If I get married this is a conversation I will have with my significant other while we are planning the ceremony. I cannot allow myself to act in a way that I see as oppressive and I will not marry a person who does not respect my beliefs.
If you invite me to your wedding I will go and stand beside you the entire time, like I did at my friends wedding. If is your wedding, not mine. In the same way that I would not ask you to force the person to marry your way, I would not force you to hold a ceremony my way.
In conclusion consider this, what traditions do we participate in that our grandchildren will see as oppressive? It is easy to look back at a wedding ceremony 100 years ago and label it oppressive, since we are disconnect by a century. However, if we went back in time 100 years it would be very difficult to explain to individuals the oppressiveness of their actions. In the same way, we are often blinded by our context. Some of the traditions we love may be seen as barbaric in 100 years. I believe that our marriage ceremonies are one of them.
Para la liberación,
Mateo
Mateo,
I don’t think it’s disrespectful to give Abbie the benefit of the doubt on whether or not she is insecure.
My argument wasn’t “everyone is doing it.” My argument was that very few people would think that my wife was treated like an object just because her father gives her away. My argument is that you are not fighting the status quo (at least not the status quo from this century). But on that subject, there are plenty of examples of people challenging the status quo for the worse. Every generation makes certain moral advancements, but things are lost as well.
It was never my argument to try to convince you that you don’t exist. Obviously I didn’t mean it literally. I meant “almost nobody.” There will probably be nobody at my wedding that thinks my wife is being treated like an object, so the choice I mentioned still stands: I’m not going to risk ostracizing her family and frustrating my wife just because there once was negative meanings behind these actions, which practically nobody sees anymore.
I’ve only been talking about how my wedding will probably look. I wouldn’t force my wife to do any of these traditions nor would I not marry her because she didn’t see eye to eye with me on this issue.
Will future generations judge our weddings poorly? I hope not but stranger things have happened. I like the majority of people will probably continue seeing weddings as beautiful and respectful, rather than “barbaric” and “oppressive.”
Paul,
A quick thought on the mind. There are conscious and subconscious recognitions that occur when we encounter particular life experiences. Do you believe many people have a conscious thought of, "I don't really care if she's nice, I'm just glad she's nice to look at up there"? or is it perhaps more of an underlying thread in the conversation, of how beautiful she looks, what a good man he is? The focus is often on her appearance, and his actions.
That is what is being spoken of when we say she is treated as an object. As a woman, the best and deepest compliment I can receive is not of my beauty or superficial appearance, but an affirmation of me as a person.
Yes, we have come quite a ways in certain areas, like women and men being able to hang out without a chaperone, or a few laws against explicit sexual discrimination. But think, for a moment, what is the first compliment often paid to a woman? Is it about her achievements or her physical appearance?
One last thing. Because people do not speak up on not believing in the status quo does not mean they agree with it. It means they are too threatened in some way to challenge it. So when you say the "majority" please understand that doesn't mean it's right.
Thank you for this dialogue, I'm really enjoying it (:
Oh, I forgot something. This is not about an individual woman's preferences or experiences. This is about how women
as
a
group
are considered and treated.
If I decide tomorrow that I want to go back to work fulltime, he would support me, please explain how he is oppressing me and how marriages are a sign of oppression?
Matt, I will continue to pray for you because that is all that I can do. You are very mixed up and it is sad to think that you have such strong thoughts regarding such a beautiful and meaningful day in both a husband and a wife’s life. Because you are not a Christian I can understand why you wouldn’t see the beauty in it, but considering how you were brought up it is disheartening. I pray that God will soften your heart and help you remember where you can from Biblically speaking, as well as where (Cuba) your family is from and what oppression REALLY is.
If I decide tomorrow that I want to go back to work fulltime, he would support me, please explain how he is oppressing me and how marriages are a sign of oppression?
Matt, I will continue to pray for you because that is all that I can do. You are very mixed up and it is sad to think that you have such strong thoughts regarding such a beautiful and meaningful day in both a husband and a wife’s life. Because you are not a Christian I can understand why you wouldn’t see the beauty in it, but considering how you were brought up it is disheartening. I pray that God will soften your heart and help you remember where you can from Biblically speaking, as well as where (Cuba) your family is from and what oppression REALLY is.
To anonymous:
You have described Matt as being "mixed up." Is anyone who does not agree with you "mixed up"? Are you the judge of what is right and what is "mixed up"? What more, Matt never stated that he found weddings to be oppressive. Rather, he stated that he finds traditional patriarchal weddings to be oppressive. You may not agree with him, but that does not give you a license to put words in his mouth.
What more, how does Matt not being a Christian make you "understand" his supposed inability to see "beauty" in weddings? I am a Christian and am appalled by that statement. Are Christians somehow endowed with another set of eyes that non-Christians are denied?! I know that many Christians believe that the Spirit grants insight (which I also believe) but I do not believe that insight is limited to those who proclaim to be Christian, or that the Spirit of God limits the giving of insight to those in the Christian "club" or something.
Jesus spoke a lot about bearing fruit and acting in love. While Matt may not be a Christian, my friendship with him has allowed me to notice that his lifestyle, reflection, and actions are much more "Christian" than those of many Christians I know. You may disagree with him as much as you like and you may pray that God softens his heart, but pray for your heart as well (and for mine while you're at it). Pray and walk humbly, because neither you not Matt nor I nor anyone else commenting on this are right about everything. Writing communities are a space for mutual journey, not agreement.
I have decided to come back for more :)
Abbie and Matt,
I was also in a wedding this summer. I experienced many of the same thoughts the two of you have described. A maelstrom of emotions passed through me during the ceremony, many of which had nothing to do with gender or patriarchy. That however, was definitely a large component of the reflections I had as I fidgeted on stage (I'm always scared of fainting at really bad moments!).
The uttering of the Mr. and Mrs. [insert groom's first and last] saddened me, as did they vows in which my friend said the words "I submit to your headship" to her husband to-be. From what I remember, he did not vow to submit to her, thoυgh he did vow to submit to Christ (which is undoubtedly very Paul-esque). If I also remember correctly, the vows included a portion in which he vowed to protect her (her vows did not include a vow to protect him) and she vowed to help him be a godly, self-controlled man (his vows did not include helping her to be a godly, self-controlled woman).
To say the least, I was up on that stage thinking that my vows would be very, very different if I were to ever marry. Yet that is where I run into problems. I am not them. They crafted their vows together so that it would model their theology and convictions. As much as I cringed at times, I knew I couldn't impose my own upon them. They seemed to be glowing with happiness while saying wedding vows that I wouldn't even utter under clenched teeth.
I felt torn throughout much of the ceremony. On one hand, I cringed as I thought of the patriarchal elements that have been rampant in probably all of the weddings I've been to. Another part of me, however, rejoiced for my friend; it seemed she was at the beginning of a beautiful unity with a man whom she loved and who loved her. I felt like a see-saw for much of the wedding. I wavered between harsh judgment and happiness, hoping to find a balance in which I remained a critical thinker while refraining from being a judgmental asshole of a bridesmaid.
Here are some of the thoughts I came to: While I believe that traditional weddings are rooted in patriarchy and can perpetuate ideologies that are oppressive to women, there are many men I know who have married women while not viewing them as aesthetic objects and there are many fathers who I know who "give" their daughters away while not viewing them as property. My friend's husband and father are two examples. While I may not know her husband very well, I know that he does not consider her an object; from what I know and have heard of his character, I believe that he recognizes her individual identity; I believe that he also recognizes her humanity and will respect her and that they will work together in decision-making. On a side note, I know many men who have the belief they should be the be the head of the house but who actually operate in a bit more of an egalitarian manner than their beliefs would suggest. (I think that sometimes people find changing a doctrine to be more scandalous than the act of not living according to their said doctrine). As for my friend's father, I know he loves my friend deeply. I think that he and most fathers I know do not consider "giving" away their daughter to be a symbol of the relinquishing of property but rather the closing of a chapter in which the parents recognize that the season they have enjoyed with their daughter is about to change and they open themselves to that.
Ultimately, I have been coming to believe this summer that most things are extremely more complicated than I have perceived them to be. I do not think that traditions with terrible backgrounds are doomed to lead all couples in abusive and oppressive relationships. I do, however, believe that the continuance of such traditions can perpetuate ideologies that can lead to such relationships. Thus, I believe that traditions should be examined and re-fined when necessary; tradition can be a beautiful thing but it should be held loosely and not with a clenched fist. In the case of a wedding, many aspects of it do not reflect the exact spirit that was behind it's formation; nonetheless, while the oppressive background may change and become more obscure to some, it is still reflected in the present.
With that said, here's what I might like my wedding to look like if I marry one day:
1. A part of me would love to have the last name of whoever I'm marrying as a means of symbolizing our unity and commitment, but I would also want him to take my last name (I've been digging the hyphen these days). The only bummer is our children (if me and my hypothetical significant other were to hypothetically have/adopt any children :) would have might-long last names, but I think they'd make it ;)
2. I wouldn't deny friends from my side of the court just because they have a penis. Right now though, I probably would just have females on my side because those happen to be the people I'm closest too.
3. I don't really know if I would want to be "given" away or not; I think I would either want us both given away or neither of us given away. I know my dad doesn't view me as property but if it symbolizes the dawn of a new season, I would probably want my whole family to be involved (instead of just him), and I would think my husband-to-be should also be "given away" if that were the case.
4. I also like "You may kiss each other" instead of "You may kiss the bride"
5. Matt, what you said about the double-standard is rather true. What I'm about to say is entirely superficial: I think white suits look hideous on most white males; if I marry a white male and we want a white suit, we'll have to find a really good suite haha.
Anonymous: It is a very, very sad thing when people use prayer as a weapon against people and as a way to be condescending. While there is certainly oppression in Cuba, at least no one there is using (read: distorting) the message of Jesus to degrade like I am seeing here.
AK,
I think peoples interest in a woman’s beauty, and women’s interest in being beautiful is a fascinating subject, but I think it is aside from why brides want to look their best on their wedding day. Just because a bride wants the wedding day to look its best doesn’t at all take away from her achievements or actions. It’s one of the most important days for the bride and the groom and they both try to look their best. It’s not anyone’s fault she always looks better than the groom.
I think I understand your point about this being about women as a group, but all I’m talking about, and what most people are talking about is what our individual weddings might look like. Like I said before I think as a whole people don’t see these meanings as being true for women as a whole, they see the new meanings that have been created.
Like I said before, my point wasn’t that it’s right because the majority does it, my point was that it doesn’t offend the majority. I take that into account when I weigh my choices because my future wife and her family may be offended which is much more important to me.
Bethany,
I’ve thought a lot about hyphened names as well and I don’t think I’m a fan. Part of it is what you mention: the kids. I heard Dennis Prager talking about it and I’ve thought about how funny it would be if my kid (say its name was Ward-Johnson) wanted to marry another person with a hyphen name (say its Cooper-Vara), would their name be Ward-Johnson-Cooper-Vara. And then what if their kids met people with four last names that they wanted to marry? Ok, so that’s not a very big reason why I don’t like hyphened names, but it is kind of funny to think about.
This is obviously just something that I will have to talk to my future wife about, and I’m not reaching any conclusions yet, but I do like it when a family all has one name, and if I’m honest, it would mean a lot to me if my wife took my last name. I don’t doubt that she would feel the same way though (that’s why we’d have to talk about it). I guess I’m just saying I’d rather have her name, or she have mine than hyphen. I don’t think every sacrifice spouses have to make in a marriage have to be equaled by the exact same sacrifice (although they should still make somewhat equal amount of sacrifices).
Bethany and Mateo,
Why do you have to identify a gender of a person by referring to their genitals? Gross!
Anonymous,
I’m not speaking for anyone else on the blog, they might feel differently about the subject, but can’t you at least summon up the courage to put your name if you are going to make attacks like that? I’m a big supporter of using your name on blogs because it instantly adds more accountability. The general trend is that if you put your name on your posts you will be more civil. If you are anonymous you feel like you can get away with saying anything.
Also, while I agree that the oppression in Cuba is a much more significant topic (and I think most people would), almost every topic is worthy of at least a discussion.
Annonymous:
I completely agree with everything Bethany said in regard to your post. It is highly offensive to be so condesending (especially, as Paul pointed out, when you refrain from even identifying yourself). To say Matt doesn't see the beauty in something you believe to be meaningful to every man and woman who choose to wed is disrepectful to both Matt and the men and women to whom such tradions and ceremonies are not meaningful. As Bethany poitned out, Matt never dismissed marriage as oppressive. He made comments about what certain traditions mean from his perspective and how he would want his marriage ceremonies to look, such that they would be meaningful to him - beautiful to him. Such alterations seem much more beautiful to several others on this blog, including myself. I am sorry you feel disheartened by Matt's perspectives, but I hope you know that the results of his perspectives are very heartening. He is respectful, considerate, kind, and is always ready to listen to someone else. People like Matt who truly consider what they do, what those things mean, and how those things affect others give me hope, not dispair, for this world.
Bethany,
I'm on board with everything you said, kudos kudos kudos.
Paul,
Throughout the majority of your comments on the article, you have compared your hypothetical wedding situation and what people in that situation "would" feel or think with real tangible people's experiences and feelings on this blog. To invalidate people's perspectives with the hypothetical perspectives of others or with assumptions about what "everyone" thinks is offensive and sort of silly.
Even after this was pointed out to you, you continue, even in your last post, to assume that "most people" would consider Cuba a more significant topic. If you have opinions, have the courage to stand behing them, without having to continuously support them with "besides, everyone thinks so." this sort of thing does not encourage the engaged dialouge you claim to be a fan of, it discourages it. what incentive do you give someone to engage in dialouge with you if they know whatever they say can be simply dismissed if you believe no one else aggrees with them?
And yes, I did find it disrespectful for you to assume that I am insecure, but then grace me with your "benifit of the doubt."
Abbie,
I’m not really comparing hypothetical feelings versus real feelings. Like I’ve said before I’m weighing the hypothetical feelings of the people at my wedding versus the hypothetical feelings of my future bride and her family. Like I’ve said before the conclusion I come to is that most people at my wedding will probably not see my wife as an object because of these traditions (although it is hypothetical because my wedding hasn’t taken place, I know the people who will be at my wedding and what they think about these sorts of things). I weigh that against the feelings my future wife may feel and her family (which is also hypothetical, but based on reason).
I’ll try to make my example more specific. My argument is that me, my future wife, my future father in law, and her family would not see the father giving away his daughter as a trading of property, or oppressive in any way. None of those people would see that as an oppressive action so not doing it in order to stand against oppression does not hold very much weight when considering my options. As I keep trying to explain, this is completely different than giving the argument that it’s ok because everybody is doing it.
I assume that most people would consider the oppression in Cuba more significant because it is so clearly more significant. I find it pathetic that people would even attempt to compare a father giving away his daughter at a wedding with the oppression in Cuba. The reasons I think Cuba is more significant has nothing to do with how many people are on my side. How does me saying more people consider oppression in Cuba more significant discourage dialogue? My whole point to anonymous was that no matter how insignificant an issue is to a majority of people we can still have a conversation about it. The whole reason I said most people would agree is because Mateo is most likely not trying to have this discussion because he sees it as equally significant as other oppression in the world. I’ve never dismissed anyone’s beliefs because no one agrees with them.
I’ll try to elaborate more on why I think insecurity can play a role in the decision. On one side of the argument (in my situation) you have the following positives:
The father of the daughter is shown respect.
The father of the daughter probably feels honored, and happy.
And here are the negatives:
The tradition once was like the trading of an object in that the main protectorate is now allowing a new protectorate to take control. It makes the bride out to be like an object, takes away from her individuality, identity, and value.
My answer to the negatives is that in this “oppressive” symbolism there is neither an oppressor, nor does anyone (me, my family, her family) even consider this an action representing any sort of oppression. My point was that no one is questioning my bride’s independence, identity, or value. My bride knows that she is independent, secure in her identity, and has value. I find it insecure of the bride to (after taking all this into account) not want her father to give her away because it makes her seem like an object to herself.
Paul,
I've also thought about children having hyphened last names and what they were to do if they married someone else with a hyphened name (shoot, even if they married someone with one last name and chose to combine them, three is a lot!). At the same time, I can't assume that I know my children would want to hyphen or that they would even decide to use two last names their whole life. I hope I'd let it be up to them. At the end of the day, some last names will have to get the ax so that things can be simplified.
I've also considered not changing my name at all. I grew up in Chile, where women do not change their last names when they marry. Males and females use their paternal and maternal last names and keep them when they marry. It is still fairly patriarchal in that children carry on their grandfathers' last names and not their grandmothers'. I know some Americans who think couples HAVE to share a last name in order for it to truly be a union; in actuality, the sharing or not sharing of a last name is often determined by culture and is not a sign of a stronger marriage.
At the end of the day, I hope to hold all of what I have said flexibly, since my potential marriage would obviously include myself and one other person who would have their own opinions about last names and such.
As for your comment "I find it insecure of the bride to (after taking all this into account) not want her father to give her away because it makes her seem like an object to herself." Even after taking into account what you have written, I still find it to be a shallow conclusion. I say shallow because a woman's desire to not take part in a tradition with oppressive roots is probably coming from a place of deep conviction rather than petty insecurity. I know that my father does not view me as property but I still think I might prefer to be "given" away in an alternative manner (perhaps with different language, and with my mother participating as well). This is not coming from a place of insecurity but of conviction. If I were insecure about the issue, I would be going ahead with a tradition I don't like merely because it's traditional and I fear what others may think. Different people have different sensitivities and having a sensitivity regarding patriarchal traditions does not guarantee an insecurity.
As for referring to people by their genitals, I don't think Matt or I were doing it in a vulgar manner. I personally wish people weren't so jumpy when it came to discussing body parts in a civil manner. Believe me, there are names for genitals and sexual acts hat I find rather disgusting, degrading, and oppressive. However, words like "vagina" and "penis" are signifying body parts (just like ears and eyes and such). They happen to be sexual organs but that doesn't make them taboo or shameful.
In regards to anonymous, it may be that the writer does not have a gmail or blogspot account and therefore was unsure how to comment with their name. It is important that we not jump to negative conclusions, but in stead give each other the benefit of the doubt in order to promote healthy dialogue.
Bethany, thank you for taking the time to write such a thought out comprehensive response. Your words have given me a new perspective that I hope I am able to clearly explain.
I have long believed that each human is raised and lives in many simultaneous systems, e.g., systems of patriarchy, systems of oppression, religious systems, and relational systems. These systems dictate what actions are and are not acceptable in any given situation. For example, when a person walking down the street says to me, “Good morning!” the system of relations in which I operate has provided me a few acceptable responses: (A) “Good morning!”, (B) “Hello!”, (C) “How are you?” It is within this framework that I act. If we take this example and apply it to all the actions an individual will choose in a lifetime it can be said that it is within this framework that we live.
Many individuals do not give the systems they were raised in and live in a second thought; others become aware of aspects of their systems and find joy in their prescribed actions; and still others wake to aspects of their systems and reject them. Of this last group I believe there are two general subgroups. The first is made up of those who choose to reject the system (this is the group I belong to). After years of living like a gentleman and a good Christian I woke up to the systems I was trained to love. Hate to use this example but I think my experience is best described by Neo’s experience in the Matrix. When he first woke up we denied the real world was reality. As he realized the depressing state of the reality he desired to return to the bliss of the Matrix. Finally as his understanding of reality grew, so did his hatred for the Matrix. Then, like me, Neo dedicated himself to challenging the Matrix (oppressive systems). If this sounds crazy to you then you probably don’t belong to this subgroup.
The second type of people who awake to their systems and reject them looks a little different. This subgroup, as Bethany put it, “find changing a doctrine to be much more scandalous then the act of not living according to said doctrines.” These people choose to include the traditional aspects of a marriage ceremony but reject the system by rejecting its ideology. A father that belongs to this group would give his daughter away not as an economic action but in a way of honoring his daughter.
The idea of redefining the dictated actions of systems is very common in racial systems as well. One great example of this was mentioned in Kameale’s post Listen! (see: http://nuestras-voces.blogspot.com/2009/08/listen.html). Here she brought up the topic of “proper” language. When the slaves where brought from Africa to the United States they were stripped of their home lands and forbidden from speaking their languages and practicing their customs. After many generations slaves in the US eventually lost their ability to communicate in the languages of their ancestors. The very fact that today African-Americans speak English shows the “success” of the slave trade at ripping individuals from their culture and forcing upon them a foreign one. As horrible as this fact is many persons such as W.E.B. Debois dedicated themselves to mastering “proper English” and using the existing mechanism of the system (the English language) in which he lived to further the state of his people.
Another example can be seen in the slave populations of Latin America. Here, slaves of both native and foreign origins were forced to adopt Catholic traditions. When one looks to places such as Cuba or Brazil, it is clear that these peoples found a way to practice their culture within the religious system of Catholicism. People began to use the names’ of their Gods and the Christian equivalent interchangeably. They chose images of Christian Saints and Virgenes that had similar stories to those of their Gods as symbols of their true Gods in worship ceremonies. In summary, they chose to change the meanings of the existing religious system that was forced upon them instead of staging a revolt. *To be clear, there were many individuals in these countries that decided to stage revolts.
Though I may see the actions and symbols of the traditional marriage ceremony to still be very closely tied to patriarchy, I can see how one would justify separating a traditional action from its traditional meaning and redefining it as a means of subversion.
In regards to last names, I have yet to see an option that does not re-enforce patriarchy. I have been thinking a lot about this the last couple of days and it seems to me that whether or not a woman decides to take the last name of her husband or keep the last name she already carries (the name of her father) she is still carrying the name of a man. The only option I see to not perpetuate patriarchy is for a woman to take on her mother’s first name or make up her own last name that was not given to her by a man.
If you are considering the hyphen the most practical way to do it is probably a splice between the Spanish and German model. The German model is the average in the United States in which the bride takes the groom’s name and the parents then pass on their shared last name to their children. In the Spanish model the wife never looses her name and the children take to last names, first is their father’s second is their mother’s (no hyphen). For example my name is Matthew González Regueiro. González is my father’s last name and Regueiro my mother’s. In the event that I have children this model dictates that my child carry González as their first last name and my wife’s maiden name as their second last name. Does that make sense? So if you want to hyphen your name the most practical way to do it would probably be to pass the hyphenated name to the children then have your children on continue the first name on (whatever you decide that name to be).
In regards to the oppression in Cuba, I am filled with great frustration when I see oppression being weighed. All oppression is evil in the same way that taking the life of one is just as wrong as taking the lives of thousands. I do not see the oppression of the Castro regime and the oppression of patriarchy in competition. They are both evils which we must all work to end by whatever means are available to us.
Bethany,
Are you sure you weren’t just trying to be edgy and provocative? You wouldn’t refer to a person’s gender by any other body part. Do you really think genitals are no more vulgar than eyes and ears?
Mateo,
I don’t really think in terms of fighting or continuing a system. Why not think of it in moral terms? How much good will be produced with the action you are taking? In those terms I still stand by my belief that in my situation little to no good will be produced if I fight against these traditions.
In regards to Cuba, why does it frustrate you when oppressions are being weighed against each other? I don’t think most oppression is in competition, but that doesn’t mean we can’t weigh what is more significant. Like I said before I think all oppressions should be fought, or at the very least talked about, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a world of difference between different kinds of oppressions. I don’t think any two evils are equal. Do you honestly think the taking of one life is just as wrong as the taking of a thousand lives? It makes a pretty big difference to 999 people. While I have no problem talking about even minor evils (although I wouldn’t even use the term “evil”), I think peoples inability to weigh evils effects them. I have seen countless people dedicate their lives to fighting an evil that is so minor it can hardly be called evil, yet they are indifferent or know nothing about true evil. We should try to dedicate the appropriate time to each evil, but in most peoples lives they have to choose their battles. Dedicating a great deal of time and effort to fighting trivial evils when such great oppression is occurring is a cruel joke to the people who are victims of great evil.
I haven't said anything yet on this comment, but I hope no one minds me chiming in for a few seconds..
Paul,
It seems to me you are now admitting (at least somewhat according to your last post) that there is some evil, however minor, occurring in the traditions that take place in marriage. Every "evil" or I prefer to say oppression, no matter how minor it may seem, needs to be outrightly declared. And this is exactly what Matt has done. From my little knowledge of Matt's life, I also do not think that he focuses his whole life around the oppression of the marriage tradition. His story seems to show someone who is fighting against all oppression big and small, and when something strikes him as oppressive, he talks about it. I think it is wrong to hide behind larger oppressions. It is much easier to go on public television and vow your allegiance to Compassion International and the fight against poverty around the world, but I think it is much harder to stand up for the very oppressions that no one is even noticing. Oppression is oppression, and although there are some extremely grave oppressions happening in the world, I think it is important to not just stand behind one big oppression but against all oppression-minor or major.
Plus, history I think does a very good job of telling us that minor oppressions often lead to the major oppressions that now run almost impossibly rampant throughout the world. It is important to deal with every oppression no matter how small or unimportant it may be for the very future of the lives we lead and the lives of those we love lead.
I also have been thinking a lot lately about how you said "in most people lives they have to choose their battles". I think this is true to a degree. We are really only one person, in one place, and at one time, but why are we choosing to involve ourselves in battles at such great distances away when we fail to see the hundreds of battles that need to be dealt with right in the very land we live life in. I don't in any way want to take away from the horrible things that are happening in Cuba, but how do we plan to deal with those if we can't even make the decision to try and make our wedding vows less patriarchal and more equal?
Mikael,
I don’t think these traditions in marriage are oppressive or evil to any degree. Sorry I was confusing about that in my last post. For the sake of argument I granted that for the people who believe that these traditions are oppressive would at least have to admit in comparison to dictatorship or genocide they are trivial. I wasn’t trying to make an argument for not fighting what you believe to be a minor oppression though. All of this has stemmed from a comment anonymous made about Cuba, in which I would only say that an honest person would have to admit the oppression in Cuba is much more significant.
I don’t know exactly what you meant by hiding behind larger oppressions. I still think that fighting large oppression is much more important, and it’s not like anyone is hiding behind the issue. I don’t think wedding traditions aren’t oppressive only by comparison, and I haven’t said that this isn’t a valid issue just because there are bigger ones.
I guess it’s true that minor oppressions can lead to major ones but I don’t think that is the case for these marriage traditions. They have only become less and less oppressive, now they are to the point where I don’t think they are oppressive at all. I have no problem with people fighting and speaking out against minor oppression, my only problem is when people believe it is a major oppression, or they could care less about true oppression. When I said “I have seen countless people dedicate their lives to fighting an evil that is so minor it can hardly be called evil, yet they are indifferent or know nothing about true evil” I wasn’t referring to Mateo.
Kenny,
(my opinion is built off of the men and women I have had experiences with and is not a reflection of sexism)
I was talking about a similar subject with a group of friends. When I spoke with the men they seemed to over look the wedding and proceeded to explain that it was for women and proceeded to joke about the subject. and when I spoke with women they spent so much time dreaming about having it big or small and having the perfect roses exc. that they never read the words of the pastor that was wedding them/over looked them.
If I had to give an opinion about weddings. I would have to say that the process MOST of the time is a couple more words ignored by women to create the dream they always wanted. Such as all of us have seen our closest of friends get caught in to.
I really want to see the marriage played back words. haha Where the man changes the color of his suit, the pastor says you can now kiss the husband, and the mother gives away the son...hmm i guess that might be the way to make a man understand.
Im not taking sides. I personally do like the idea of marriage. I believe that certain men and women don't have the mental capacity to be in a relationship that has equal power amongst two individuals. Mainly the people who have trouble just thinking about themselves. In my opinion the words in a wedding should be a reflection of the relationship. If your relationship is equal between two individuals then the pastor should say, "The husband and wife may now kiss as a sign of there everlasting love". If the relationship steers in one way or the other in power that should say how the wedding goes.
Im sure there where a lot of points I missed, but i was commenting on the biggest subjects debated in the postings.
THE POINT IS I BOLEVE IN FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!
your not forced to get married that way. Marriage is for your relationship and nobody else. Just do what makes BOTH of you happy :-) make sure you notice the emphasis on both
Live, Laugh, Love
Kennieth Gonzalez
Paul,
"For the sake of argument I granted that for the people who believe that these traditions are oppressive would at least have to admit in comparison to dictatorship or genocide they are trivial."
Oppression of women includes things as subtle as patriarchal wedding vows to acts as obvious as rape. The question I pose is if any kind of oppression is truly less dehumanizing, based on the core of what oppression is? And if they are equally oppressive, what motivates us to say one is more prominent a problem than another? If God sees us as equal, then do we have the position to say someone's suffering is unequally important?
These are genuine questions I have for you. Thanks
AK,
I think I can give a few examples to illustrate my beliefs. They might seem like extreme examples but they are just for the sake of clarity. I’ll use the situation that has already come up for my first example: what is more immoral: killing 1 person or killing 1,000. Let’s say for the sake of argument that each persons suffering is equally important. If that were the case killing 1,000 people would clearly be more immoral than killing one. If they were moral equivalents than that would be like saying the one person’s suffering is worth 1,000 times what one of the other peoples (one of the thousand) suffering is worth.
This leads me to my next point which is that one way to say what is more immoral or more oppressive is to look at the amount of suffering it creates. There is a clear difference in how much I would make you suffer by insulting you and if I murdered you. Simply insulting someone is far less dehumanizing right? So if I change the example to be two different people the moral difference stays the same. Saying the suffering I endure by being insulted is not as tragic as the suffering you endure by being murdered isn’t saying that you and I are not seen as equals by God. By saying that our suffering is equal, when the moral difference between insulting and murdering is so vast, only would make it seem like we are not equals. It would mean I’m so important that even insulting me is like murdering you.
Obviously I’m using extreme examples (although no more extreme than wedding vows vs. dictatorship) to show how some things are clearly on different levels of oppression, but I think there is a moral difference between almost all oppression. Understanding the moral differences between any two things is important for a lot of reasons: People need to understand that there are typically no actions we can take to solve the problems of the world that don’t have some cost. There are typically negatives that come along with every positive, that’s just the sad state of living in an imperfect world. When people can’t weigh the negatives of one side versus the negatives of the other they only learn to distance themselves from reality.
Another reason this is important is because we should seek to have a truthful and accurate view of the world. Saying that dictatorship is more oppressive than wedding vows is accurate.
Another reason is because if we say that wedding vows are just as oppressive as enslavement our understanding of oppression is cheapened and therefore the fight against oppression is weakened. Worse than that, it is deeply offensive to the victims of dictators to be compared to a bride on her wedding day. Imagine a person who has lived under a dictatorship, let’s say under Saddam. Imagine what it might be like to live your whole life in fear, have to witness your family being tortured, being forced to watch the rape of your daughters, being tortured yourself, and then being forced to applaud the man responsible. And imagine if somone had the nerve to tell you they were in the same boat as you because they were given away by their father on their wedding day.
So yes, I think it’s our position to say there is a difference between oppressions, as a matter of fact I think it’s our moral obligation.
Paul,
In regards to the following statement,
"what is more immoral: killing 1 person or killing 1,000. Let’s say for the sake of argument that each persons suffering is equally important. If that were the case killing 1,000 people would clearly be more immoral than killing one."
The italicized sentence is the argument. Instead of making an argument that defends your side, each persons suffering can be quantified to the same numerical value, you jump over the argument entirely "for the sake of argument."
How is it that one quantifies suffering? By what means does one measure suffering and decide that person 'a' has suffered the same amount as person 'b?'
Mateo,
I said “for the sake of argument” for several reasons:
Ak’s question was “If God sees us as equal, then do we have the position to say someone's suffering is unequally important?” So I said “for the sake of argument” lets say each persons suffering is equally important. That shouldn’t stop us from saying some acts, like killing 1,000 people, is more immoral than killing 1.
My position is that almost all oppression is not morally equivalent. Even the case where we are dealing with the same basic immoral act (murder) the suffering can be drastically different. Person ‘a’ might have been tortured to death and person ‘b’ may have been painlessly murdered in their sleep. So I said that “for the sake of argument” lets say each person out of the 1,001 people killed suffered exactly the same just to make the discussion simpler. It wasn’t like I was making an argument that I didn’t believe, in most cases killing 1,000 people is worse than killing 1, I just wanted to be consistent.
“How is it that one quantifies suffering?”
My last response was kind of an answer to this question. One way is the amount of people affected. Another is how cruel and how drastic were the effects. In a lot of cases it is very difficult to say one act created more suffering than another, but some cases are very easy. If you had to choose one, what would you rather have to go through: being given away by your father on your wedding day, or be stoned to death? I think the amount of pain and humiliation is measurably worse in the case of being stoned.
I feel at a bit of a disadvantage in these discussions because I try to address all of your points and you usually take one sentence and address it. I’d be curious to hear what your argument is for why killing 1 person is just as wrong as killing 1,000. I’d also be curious if you objected to my stance that the negatives of using these traditions in my wedding to be little to none, and the positives would be many. I’d also be curious if you were still not convinced that we should stand with Honduras’ decision to remove Zelaya.
Paul,
Since you last comment was not directed to me but to AK it is not my responsibility to respond to all of your points. The statement I quoted was the only one in which I held any interest in and therefore commented on.
Since you entered into a blog in which many individuals disagree with you, it is no surprise that you are at a disadvantage. I am regularly in your position and it is not fun, but is it necessary for the dialectic.
“What is your argument for killing 1 person is just as wrong as killing 1,000?” I do not believe that this argument we have been having is founded in direct clash as much as it is a matter of conflicting paradigms. I do not understand the situation as a purely numerical analysis. I believe that if a person can kill one human, with a complete understanding of what that means, then they can kill thousands without a problem. That is, I do not measure the ‘evilness’ of the atrocity by the number dead, but by the degree of awareness one holds when they commit such an act. Since one’s awareness cannot be quantified I have trouble comparing the killing of 1 to the killing of 1,000.
The other problem I see in such a statement is the act of measuring and comparing death to life long dehumanization. These two actions function in different spectrums. This approach of ‘numbers dead’ ignores the level of suffering experienced by each individual that was murdered, or those that still live in systems of oppression.
Reading your last post, I believe that we have a misunderstanding. The heart of this blog post was not marriage ceremonies, virginity, or white dresses; the crux of this post was the oppression of patriarchy. The wedding ceremony is just one of many manifestations of patriarchy experienced by the average woman in the United Stated. Therefore, to compare death to being given away by one’s father over-simplifies the topic at hand, the life long dehumanization that is felt by woman. Here is where I think we are passing ships. I do not understand how you can compare a lifetime of suffering to a stoning, but even this seems like a tangent. Where the disagreement between you and most of those who have commented on this blog seems to be is whether or not US women are being dehumanized, i.e., oppressed, by patriarchy today.
“I’d also be curious if you objected to my stance that the negatives of using these traditions in my wedding to be little to none, and the positives would be many.”
Like I said above, I see no positives to perpetuating oppression against woman.
Finally in regards to Zelaya I have dropped this discussion because it is a tangent to the topic at hand. The situation in Honduras is definitely important, but so is the oppression of woman in our system and that is the topic at hand. There are many forums in which you can entire in a dialogue surrounding the situation in Honduras, the Conservative Voice being on of them. This post is a forum for us to discuss the oppression of the average US wedding ceremony.
Mateo,
“Since you last comment was not directed to me but to AK it is not my responsibility to respond to all of your points. The statement I quoted was the only one in which I held any interest in and therefore commented on.”
I answered questions AK had about my response to your statement. Also I was not only talking about your most recent response to me, but every single response you have had to me. That is why the three questions I had were about subjects we had covered in the past.
“Since you entered into a blog in which many individuals disagree with you, it is no surprise that you are at a disadvantage.”
The only disadvantage of engaging in a discussion on a blog that has opposing views is that you may be outnumbered. This was not the disadvantage I was referring to. The disadvantage I was talking about should be the disadvantage of whoever runs the blog. It is a disadvantage to have to defend a position and address all counter arguments. Normally it is the luxury of the rogue blogger to pick apart the position given without having to give a real defense of any position.
“…I do not measure the ‘evilness’ of the atrocity by the number dead, but by the degree of awareness one holds when they commit such an act. Since one’s awareness cannot be quantified I have trouble comparing the killing of 1 to the killing of 1,000.”
Surely the degree of awareness is also a factor in how evil an act is, but isn’t the number affected also a factor? Don’t we typically use both standards to judge the severity of an act? I think that ones awareness can be quantified, and we do it all the time. That is why we have different degrees of murder. I also think there is a difference between asking ourselves how evil a person is and how evil an act is. The amount of awareness a person has can play a role on how evil we think they are but that is separate from how evil an act is. I guess a person who kills 1 person can be just as evil as a person that kills 1,000 but that is far from saying the two acts are equivalent.
“The other problem I see in such a statement is the act of measuring and comparing death to life long dehumanization. These two actions function in different spectrums. This approach of ‘numbers dead’ ignores the level of suffering experienced by each individual that was murdered, or those that still live in systems of oppression.”
While being murdered and suffering life long dehumanization are very different, we can still try to determine what is worse. But that is beside the point because I wasn’t comparing the two. My argument about the “numbers dead” was only because you said killing 1 person was just like killing 1,000. I said in my response that the number of people killed is not the only factor we should take into account: “My position is that almost all oppression is not morally equivalent. Even the case where we are dealing with the same basic immoral act (murder) the suffering can be drastically different. Person ‘a’ might have been tortured to death and person ‘b’ may have been painlessly murdered in their sleep.”
continued... “The heart of this blog post was not marriage ceremonies, virginity, or white dresses; the crux of this post was the oppression of patriarchy. The wedding ceremony is just one of many manifestations of patriarchy experienced by the average woman in the United Stated. Therefore, to compare death to being given away by one’s father over-simplifies the topic at hand, the life long dehumanization that is felt by woman.”
I compared being stoned to being given away by your father because it was my impression that your position was that every oppression is the same. To illustrate how much of an extreme position that is I gave an extreme example. I know that this was not the original topic, and I still hold my stance that wedding ceremonies are not oppressive. The original comparison was between oppression of Cuba vs. the patriarchy in wedding ceremonies. These topics came up because anonymous’ comments and your response to it. We can drop the topic if you want. I find it interesting.
“I do not understand how you can compare a lifetime of suffering to a stoning, but even this seems like a tangent. Where the disagreement between you and most of those who have commented on this blog seems to be is whether or not US women are being dehumanized, i.e., oppressed, by patriarchy today.”
I find it sneaky to change my comparison and ignore its purpose. I was not attempting to compare a life full of suffering to a stoning. The reason I gave that comparison was to show how different specific acts of oppression (although I only consider one oppressive) could be drastically different morally. But having said that, why can’t you attempt to compare a lifetime of being a woman in Southern California (a “lifetime of suffering”) vs. being stoned? A good way to start that comparison is to ask yourself what you would rather go through. As I said before I have no problem discussing the topic that was intended to be talked about, I’m only talking about different subjects in response to them being brought up.
“I’d also be curious if you objected to my stance that the negatives of using these traditions in my wedding to be little to none, and the positives would be many.”
“Like I said above, I see no positives to perpetuating oppression against woman.”
I have addressed your point of it perpetuating oppression. “My answer to the negatives is that in this “oppressive” symbolism there is neither an oppressor, nor does anyone (me, my family, her family) even consider this an action representing any sort of oppression. My point was that no one is questioning my bride’s independence, identity, or value.” Therefore it doesn’t perpetuate oppression, it perpetuates other things though:
What is your response to the specifics I mentioned as positives (I’ll start with the father giving away the bride): “The father of the daughter is shown respect. The father of the daughter probably feels honored, and happy.”
So do you see that as a positive? Do you think it is the case? Do you think it still does not outweigh the negatives? (Which I’m still waiting to hear)
In regards to Zelaya, I don’t mind if you don’t want to talk about it here. I was just curious what you thought because it seemed like you had a passion for Latin America and I saw it as a very significant event for Latin America.
Oh, Paul :)...
I honestly think you’re missing Matt's point. From what I understand your overall argument has been that wedding ceremonies are not oppressive. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
But Matt clearly states:
"Reading your last post, I believe that we have a misunderstanding. The heart of this blog post was not marriage ceremonies, virginity, or white dresses; the crux of this post was the oppression of patriarchy. The wedding ceremony is just ONE of many manifestations of patriarchy experienced by the average woman in the United Stated"
And I would argue that if you do not see patriarchy as oppressive it is not because it is not oppressive it is because your standing in society permits you from seeing it. Just because YOU do not realize that something is hurtful (to say the least) to others does not mean that it is not hurtful. And for those who are female and do not see it as that way does not mean that it is not. The best way to oppress a group of people is to teach them to oppress themselves without them even knowing it...
and your other argument is that suffering from 1,000 killings largely outnumbers the suffering from 1 killing…(once again correct me I am wrong)
How do you even know? It is pure blasphemy that YOU decided to weigh who suffers more. I honestly think that you should reconsider this argument. You are only yourself you do not know how much someone else suffers from something.
I believe that dialogue is very important but be careful of claiming how much you know when you are not in the position of those who are in this case being affected by patriarchy unless you have done your research, unless you come into a dialogue with first saying that you know nothing and you are willing to learn, unless you are ready to admit that in some cases you are wrong...
Freedom.
Kameale,
“I honestly think you’re missing Matt's point. From what I understand your overall argument has been that wedding ceremonies are not oppressive.”
It’s becoming increasingly confusing trying to address the overlapping sleight of hands going on here.
Mateo said:
“Reading your last post, I believe that we have a misunderstanding. The heart of this blog post was not marriage ceremonies, virginity, or white dresses; the crux of this post was the oppression of patriarchy. The wedding ceremony is just one of many manifestations of patriarchy experienced by the average woman in the United Stated. Therefore, to compare death to being given away by one’s father over-simplifies the topic at hand, the life long dehumanization that is felt by woman.”
As I said before, this is a little sneaky because I was comparing the death of a women (through stoning) with a different type of “oppression,” being given away by your father in your wedding. The purpose behind this comparison was to show that not all oppressions are equal, which I only addressed because someone else brought it up (the issue of whether there is greater oppressions). There is two different topics going on here: one is about how wedding ceremonies are one manifestation of patriarchy (call it topic ‘A’), and the other is if it is our place to say if there are greater oppressions than others (call it topic ‘B’). I feel that Mateo missed my point because he said my comparison, which is in regard to topic ‘B,’ oversimplifies topic ‘A.’
From what I understand Mateo wasn’t saying what you quoted to show how I have missed the point of his entire post, I thought he was only saying I missed the point through making that comparison.
It is an odd thing to argue at this point that me saying, “wedding ceremonies are not oppressive,” has missed the point of the post. Am I to understand I’ve missed the point because really “the wedding ceremony is just one of the many manifestations of patriarchy…”? The wedding ceremony aspect of the larger patriarchy has been exactly what the topic has been, and therefore me saying, “wedding ceremonies are not oppressive,” hasn’t missed the point at all. No one has argued for a larger patriarchy except through the example of wedding ceremonies on this post.
“And I would argue that if you do not see patriarchy as oppressive it is not because it is not oppressive it is because your standing in society permits you from seeing it.”
I see patriarchy in societies. I have never argued that there is no such thing as patriarchy. I argued that wedding ceremonies are not oppressive. I don’t argue that position because my standing in society doesn’t permit me from seeing it as oppressive; it is because I have yet to hear a coherent argument explaining how my wife will be oppressed on our wedding day.
“Just because YOU do not realize that something is hurtful (to say the least) to others does not mean that it is not hurtful. And for those who are female and do not see it as that way does not mean that it is not. The best way to oppress a group of people is to teach them to oppress themselves without them even knowing it...”
This must be a great situation to be in. Anyone who is male who disagrees with you just doesn’t realize the hurt they create. Any woman who disagrees with you has just been brainwashed without her knowing. I guess any argument I give, no matter how logical or truthful won’t matter to you. My point with arguing that weddings aren’t oppressive is that you are going out of your way (looking to historical precedent and connotations that no one has, rather than to modern understanding) to misinterpret traditions and needlessly feeling hurt by them. You are entitled to have any kind of wedding you want but you cant get away with calling my future wife a victim of my oppression.
...
...
“and your other argument is that suffering from 1,000 killings largely outnumbers the suffering from 1 killing…(once again correct me I am wrong)
How do you even know? It is pure blasphemy that YOU decided to weigh who suffers more. I honestly think that you should reconsider this argument. You are only yourself you do not know how much someone else suffers from something.”
I don’t think you have my position exactly correct. I said killing 1,000 people is a worse moral act than killing 1 person. I didn’t make a judgment on which of the 1,001 people suffered more (for the sake of argument I said let’s assume each person suffered equally), although I think in most cases we can determine who suffers more in any two acts. It really is becoming more and more embarrassing to watch people twist themselves into arguing that killing 1,000 people is like killing 1 person.
“I believe that dialogue is very important but be careful of claiming how much you know when you are not in the position of those who are in this case being affected by patriarchy unless you have done your research, unless you come into a dialogue with first saying that you know nothing and you are willing to learn, unless you are ready to admit that in some cases you are wrong...”
I believe dialogue is important as well. That is why I’m always troubled when people reject dialogue and go into some form of dismissal. You haven’t addressed any of my arguments, you’ve just dismissed them as either formed only because of my position in society, I apparently haven’t done enough research, I haven’t suffered the humiliation of being a women in a wedding ceremony, or I’m blasphemous. How am I supposed to take these dismissals seriously if my arguments can’t even be addressed? I’m willing to learn, but almost every question I’ve asked hasn’t been answered. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong, but every argument that has been made against me has not been very effective.
Addressing patriarchy:
It seems Paul is conceding the patriarchal origins of the wedding. Nowhere do I see an argument offered that disputes the genealogy of the wedding traditions.
Instead, he wants to argue, "That's not what we mean when we get married."
How's that theory working out for you when you use racial slurs to say howdy to a minority. But, "Hey, I don't mean it like my ancestors did!" My guess: not going to fly very far.
Similarly, you might not intend the patriarchal expressions these traditions represent, but that doesn't make them any less present. You can no more use the Lord's name in vain, "But not mean anything by it," than you can have a father 'give away' a piece of chattel and 'not mean anything by it.'
Words, actions, and ceremonies have meaning outside your postmodernist subjectivist reading, Paul. Because, let's be honest, that's what your interpretation of the wedding amounts to: you want to completely 'divorce the meaning from the text'. That's not legitimate when reading, say, Dostoevsky. It's no more legitimate when 'reading' social interactions.
If I've misinterpreted the 'patriarchy' line of this discussion, please let me know.
Paul,
If it seems that I don’t respond to something you, or anyone else writes, it is for one of four reasons: (1) I believe the conversation to be between others and I feel I have nothing important to add; (2) I believe it is a statement, not an argument; (3) It does not seem to be the heart of the person’s comment; (4) I forgot to include it in my response. If you ever feel that I did not respond to something that is foundational to what you said please let me know and I will be sure to tell you why it is that I didn’t respond to it.
You wrote,
“Surely the degree of awareness is also a factor in how evil an act is, but isn’t the number affected also a factor? Don’t we typically use both standards to judge the severity of an act? I think that ones awareness can be quantified, and we do it all the time. That is why we have different degrees of murder. I also think there is a difference between asking ourselves how evil a person is and how evil an act is. The amount of awareness a person has can play a role on how evil we think they are but that is separate from how evil an act is. I guess a person who kills 1 person can be just as evil as a person that kills 1,000 but that is far from saying the two acts are equivalent.”
You are right. I now understand what you were trying to communicate.
In regards to Cuba and weighing oppression, I think I found where all this confusion began. You wrote, “I assume that most people would consider the oppression in Cuba more significant because it is so clearly more significant.”
What oppression in Cuba are you specifically referring to?
Why do you believe that it is more significant?
I was not able to find the answers to these questions on the thread. I apologize if you wrote them and I just missed them
If you truly believe that I have written any of my posts in an attempt to be “sneaky” or intentionally ignored the purpose of your comments then you have clearly misinterpreted my intentions. I believe that all these tangents have buried the question at hand, is the traditional marriage ceremony oppressive? In my last comment I attempted to do nothing more than bring the discussion back.
The rest of your post addressed to me rests on the idea that the marriage ceremony is not oppressive.
“My answer to the negatives is that in this “oppressive” symbolism there is neither an oppressor, nor does anyone (me, my family, her family) even consider this an action representing any sort of oppression. My point was that no one is questioning my bride’s independence, identity, or value.” Therefore it doesn’t perpetuate oppression”
Your evidence does not support your claim. All this proves is that, as far as you know, the men in your family do not feel like oppressors and the women in your family do not feel oppressed. Kameale commented on this problem and you responded with the following,
“This must be a great situation to be in. Anyone who is male who disagrees with you just doesn’t realize the hurt they create. Any woman who disagrees with you has just been brainwashed without her knowing.”
This has always been a horrible situation to be in. A great example of this was brought up by JM, racial slurs. Racial slurs are commonly, both consciously and unconsciously, used by those in power to rhetorically suppress minorities. Those in power argue, “I didn’t mean anything by it, I’m just calling them what they are.” While minorities, marginalized by society, powerless to end this oppression, have historically stayed silent. Eventually the humiliation inflicted by these slurs is buried so deep that they are accepted as “Just being what they call us.” This has never changed until those who belong to the community of the oppressed and that of the oppressors begin to publicly condemn such practices (this was one of the motivating factors in this post).
Therefore, holding that the traditional marriage ceremony is oppressive, the positives you list amount to nothing more than decorations on a veil of equality that is being used to hide the oppressiveness of this tradition.
Finally, I am interested in Latin America but I believe that there are already enough tangents on this blog and nothing good will come of adding another.
Thank you again for taking the time to contribute to the conversation.
Para la liberación,
Mateo
JM,
“It seems Paul is conceding the patriarchal origins of the wedding. Nowhere do I see an argument offered that disputes the genealogy of the wedding traditions.”
I am interpreting wedding traditions morally. Like when someone says, “Bless you” after someone sneezes. I see it as a positive gesture, the history of the act means little compared to the good feelings I think it creates today.
“Instead, he wants to argue, "That's not what we mean when we get married."
How's that theory working out for you when you use racial slurs to say howdy to a minority. But, "Hey, I don't mean it like my ancestors did!" My guess: not going to fly very far.”
A racial slur is a bad example. They are just as reprehensible and mean the same as they always have and result in no positive outcome by keeping them. My argument has never been simply I don’t mean it like that. I think it is reasonable to judge acts/traditions individually, just because I see the good of a tradition doesn’t mean that I think all traditions are good.
“Similarly, you might not intend the patriarchal expressions these traditions represent, but that doesn't make them any less present. “
I guess what I have been trying to say is that I, nor anybody (specifically in my future wedding) intends these “patriarchal expressions” and that they are not present. I am aware that you will misunderstand the meaning of my weddings ceremonies but that does not morally outweigh the positives I have described prior that they represent.
“You can no more use the Lord's name in vain, "But not mean anything by it," than you can have a father 'give away' a piece of chattel and 'not mean anything by it.”
This is another bad example. People can use the Lords name in vain and don’t actually want God to damn someone, and a father can give away his daughter without giving her away as a “piece of chattel.” Why do you keep making up quotes?
“Words, actions, and ceremonies have meaning outside your postmodernist subjectivist reading, Paul. Because, let's be honest, that's what your interpretation of the wedding amounts to: you want to completely 'divorce the meaning from the text'. That's not legitimate when reading, say, Dostoevsky. It's no more legitimate when 'reading' social interactions.”
I think how I interpret weddings is almost the exact definition of modernism. You might want to explain your claim that I’m being a postmodernist subjectivist, I don’t really think much clarity will come from it though. I think we should stick to my actual stance, which is: The positives of these wedding traditions outweigh the negatives (patriarchy) that no one at my wedding will see in them.
Mateo
“What oppression in Cuba are you specifically referring to?
Why do you believe that it is more significant?
I was not able to find the answers to these questions on the thread. I apologize if you wrote them and I just missed them”
I was talking about oppression in general in Cuba. It is kind of an overwhelming question to ask about the oppression in Cuba. I think the fact that Cuba is a one party state, in which the executive branch controls the courts is oppressive. I think Cuba’s long and ongoing history of imprisoning homosexuals and transsexuals is oppressive. I think it is oppressive to incarcerate someone who tests positive for HIV. The whole ordeal in 2003 where Castro imprisoned all those non-violent dissidents is a good example of the oppression that goes on in Cuba. I think the oppression in Cuba is more significant because the suffering is greater.
“Your evidence does not support your claim. All this proves is that, as far as you know, the men in your family do not feel like oppressors and the women in your family do not feel oppressed. Kameale commented on this problem and you responded with the following,”
The only issue at hand is people’s feelings since I think we would both agree in almost every case there isn’t actual oppression. I thought your argument was that these traditions represent oppressions in the past, I thought it was a given that these oppressions aren’t taking place. In the wedding you witnessed was the father giving away the bride thought of as literally transferring property? Did the father or groom see it like that? Were the groomsmen on the right to protect their bride? Were the bridesmaids on left only to complement the bride’s beauty? Did the bride only wear white to symbolize her purity, and everyone understood this is at the heart of her value? That is why I put quotes around “oppressive,” because there isn’t actually any oppression going on. The only issue is the feelings of the people at the wedding. What is being perpetuated does rely on whether or not there is actual oppression (which I may have mistakenly thought was a given), and how people interpret the symbolism. This is an obvious difference with the racial slur example, because a racial slur is harmful whether people realize it or not, but wedding ceremonies may not cause any harm aside from peoples awareness of the origins.
...
...
“Racial slurs are commonly, both consciously and unconsciously, used by those in power to rhetorically suppress minorities. Those in power argue, “I didn’t mean anything by it, I’m just calling them what they are.” While minorities, marginalized by society, powerless to end this oppression, have historically stayed silent. Eventually the humiliation inflicted by these slurs is buried so deep that they are accepted as “Just being what they call us.” This has never changed until those who belong to the community of the oppressed and that of the oppressors begin to publicly condemn such practices (this was one of the motivating factors in this post).
Therefore, holding that the traditional marriage ceremony is oppressive, the positives you list amount to nothing more than decorations on a veil of equality that is being used to hide the oppressiveness of this tradition.”
Do you really think that wedding ceremony traditions, like racial slurs, happen because people either consciously or subconsciously want to suppress women? This is where I get lost in your argument. I think it is far more likely that women wear white because it looks nice, the father gives away the daughter because it means so much to him, etc. All of the reasons these traditions are still done, I don’t see it as meaningless. I’ve explained to you why they mean something to me earlier. If all of these things really mean nothing to you and your wife than I guess I understand your position. I would think that it would be at least somewhat of a inward struggle, for many it would be very difficult to tell their father they don’t want him to give away his daughter. I see the origins of the traditions as utterly meaningless especially next to the positives that would come from it. I guess the ultimate goal in a conversation like this is to understand each other, in which case I think I’m satisfied.
Paul,
I think at this point we will need to leave it at agree to disagree.
Maybe in the future we will come back to this topic, but right now it comes down to different eyes. At this point it is clearly not possible for either of us to share how we see the world.
I am sorry I didn't get in on this excellent discussion sooner. I appreciate the respectful tone everyone uses.
Bethany, although I am a strong proponent of a woman taking a man's last name, let me make a suggestion as an alternative to the hyphenated names. I have some friends who got married and did a genealogy of their family names and found a common name about 6 generations back. They both took that name. That gave a stronger family identity to the children, provided an “equality” to the marriage, and gave them a unique historical element. Not everyone can do this, but you would be surprised how many can.
e White Dress/Virginity: I am astonished that a very important element of this tradition has been completely left out of this discussion. The importance of the white dress goes way beyond what the bride wants, and not wanting to offend family. It seems everyone has underestimated how critical the contribution of the woman to the family unit is. And, it begins with that white dress. First of all, it is important to distinguish the difference between what God requires of us and what our own traditions tell us we should do. Clearly, the white dress is not a requirement of God. But it represents something that is. Both the man and the woman are required by God to be virgins when they marry. So, why only have the woman wear white? Simple biology. Because the woman is the one who bears the children, she is the keeper of the family continuity. She is proclaiming with that white dress to everyone, and especially her future children that this man I am standing next to and exchanging vows with is your father. You may not like it, but men and women are different, each contributing different strengths to a family. This is one of her strengths. A family and a marriage can overcome all kinds of infidelity, but sexual fidelity makes a stronger family. Mateo, virginity has great inherent value. Anything we can do to make the family stronger and more stable should be done. We have become a society that seeks our own satisfaction, and we sacrifice our children's greater good to make ourselves happier. Then we call it “balance”. That white dress may seem unimportant to you, or even evil, but I believe it is one small part of doing what is best for our children.
In retrospect, I believe this post ignores the power of re-definition. But, so it goes...
Post a Comment