Are Weddings the Patriarchy’s Last Stand?

Patriarchy is romantic. I came across this phrase last year and it has echoed in my thoughts ever since (I am, frustratingly, unable to find the source of this quote – a good reminder to keep detailed notes!). This is not meant as a positive affirmation of the “romance” of the patriarchy. It’s a statement about the way that patriarchal modes of romance seem to be particularly difficult for feminism to undermine. Perhaps the most pronounced way that this is seen is within the traditional wedding ceremony.

I do not mean this as an indictment of all weddings. I fully understand that others do not, for various reasons, have the same beliefs around egalitarianism that I hold. I am interested, however, in exploring the ways in which those of us who do hold to feminist and egalitarian principles uphold these ideas. There are specific patriarchal structures that are seen as romantic and central to the Christian weddings that I believe need to be challenged with alternative traditions that are just as romantic that support and encourage egalitarianism. Without wanting to deconstruct the institution of marriage itself (that’s a story for another time...), I want to assert that the wedding ceremony is a place where a couple should feel empowered to proudly declare the egalitarian values of their partnership and that this does not need to mean losing the fairytale romance of the whole wedding vibe.

One of the initial ways that gender disparity is shown in the marriage process is through proposals and rings. Exact statistics on women proposing to their male partners are difficult to find, but some reports suggest that this occurs on less than 5% of occasions. That’s a pretty significant disparity that doesn’t seem to be representative of many couple’s beliefs that they share an equal load in the decision making process. For some couples, a decision may have already happened prior to the proposal, but does the act of one partner asking another (generally in a romantic show) really get to the heart of the equality central to the relationship? If the intention is to make decisions together throughout the course of your marriage, and if a discussion hasn’t happened before a proposal, why is it considered “romantic” to make one of the biggest decisions separately? 

Similarly, engagement rings are only given to and worn by a woman up until the wedding day. What does this say about the status of the two persons in the relationship prior to their official marriage? Engagement ring traditions have a long and complex history: they have been viewed since Roman times as a sign of ownership to a husband, and a commitment as part of the bride price. Many of these undertones remain today in the expectations around how much a man must spend on the ring and the fact that it is only worn by one half of the couple. If your relationship is about equal commitment, then why not both wear a symbol of your soon to be marriage? A close friend of mine, for example, has started to wear his wedding ring already in the lead up to his marriage to symbolise his commitment, but on his right hand instead of his left to show the change that will occur once the ceremony has happened. I’m not suggesting that the romance needs to be done away with, but why not think of a symbol that makes sense for each couple and that challenges the patriarchal norms of engagement ring traditions.

Another key example of gender disparity in the modern wedding is the way that the planning and organising occurs. Wedding culture reinforces the idea that it is “her day” through the much higher prevalence of “Bride” magazines and websites over “Groom” ones. “To Do List” templates online feature far more tasks on the side of the bride than on that of the groom. There is a distinct expectation that the woman will have more involvement in the planning of the wedding than the man will. Sociologists Áine Humble, Anisa Zvonkovic, and Alexis Walker argue that the unequal way that tasks are allocated through the wedding planning process portends directly to the unequal distribution of domestic roles. The way that planning occurs is likely to have an impact on a couple’s domestic life, so how can they be supported to prepare for their wedding in a way that they want to live in their marriage? I’ve watched this disparity occur for a number of couples; watched my female friends labour over planning a huge celebration with little support from the person that they call their partner. Is this really the type of partnership to go into a wedding with?

In addition to the overwhelming pressure placed on brides to plan, there is the inequality of beauty expectations. For a couple of dark months when I was 21 I watched a lot of “Say Yes to the Dress.” Reflecting on the show, I’m now struck by language that the brides would use about themselves. Many had worked hard to lose weight so that they could “look their best,” they wanted to “feel like a bride,” and they were willing to spend thousands of dollars to help achieve this. But what does it mean to feel like a bride? Surely the fact that you are getting married should be enough, but instead in order to “feel like a bride” copious amounts of money must be spent on a wear-once dress, hair, makeup, maybe even personal trainers all for the woman to often look radically different to herself. Meanwhile, the men hire a suit and spend 5 minutes in the mirror. The occasion to dress up is a key part of the romance of a wedding and shouldn’t need to be thrown away completely. But perhaps there is a levelling effect that can occur, a more reasonable approach to the beauty standards that modern weddings throw at brides. Find a secondhand dress you love, look like yourself, and don’t spend more money on your appearance than your honeymoon.

And then, there’s the day itself. I’m sure we can all remember weddings we’ve attended where surprisingly patriarchal formats have been kept in the name of a traditional wedding. I don’t think I need to explore in depth the issues around the language of “giving away” the bride, nor do I need to explain the problem of including the language of submission in the ceremony for the sorts of couples that I am addressing in this post. 

However, one part of the wedding ceremony sticks out to me as regularly going unchallenged: the walk down the aisle. This is a confronting way that egalitarian relationship values butt up against romanticism. The walk down the aisle, the first look, the fairytale drama of it all, is often central to the idealised dream wedding. Isn’t there something inherently unequal in the way that one member of a couple is guided in to meet the other who waits for her? Instead, why not have the first look at the end of the aisle and walk in together? Or, have two aisles (if your venue allows)? You don’t have to lose the beauty of a tradition in order to adapt it to meet your values.

“Patriarchy is romantic.”

I’ve had this conversation with friends before and been told that perhaps I’m making a mountain out of a molehill: It’s just one day and the tradition is beautiful so why can’t you just let it be? However, a Christian wedding ceremony is in many senses far more than just a single day. It’s a statement of commitment to a form of living that is radically different to what your lives were like before. In this way, it is the moment when you and your spouse stand together and publicly declare the way that your relationship will occur going forward. The whole structure of weddings is part of this process, and as such the wedding makes a significant statement about the way that you view your relationship.

As someone who hasn’t gone through the wedding process, I don’t want to underestimate the social and familial pressure involved in upholding traditions. Recent sociological studies in Canada have shown a trend that I don’t think would be out of place in Aotearoa. In general, heterosexual couples who initially have a desire to have a non-traditional wedding—to challenge some of the societal norms around marriage—end up having weddings that are less what they want and more what their families are comfortable with. There is an ideal picture of a fairytale wedding that for so many parents, and couples themselves, is difficult to change and to accept that their losing. With broader societal change in terms of the expectations of marriage perhaps these traditions will be easier to lose, but for now there is a need for couples to stand strong in their convictions and for parents to accept the different view of relationships that their children hold. In saying that, it is also important to recognise the grief this may entail for some parents at the loss of what they expected for their children.

While there is certainly a need to hold to significant traditions in the Church, this does not mean that there is no space to challenge traditions that undermine convictions about the values of gender equality. Traditions that uphold the patriarchy should not be seen as romantic and they are not central to the covenant relationship of marriage. Rather, they are social trends that have upheld particular views of gender roles that many couples would rather not have in their marriages. My hope instead is that couples would feel empowered to challenge social norms in their weddings so that they can begin their lives together by celebrating the equality they believe is central to their relationship.

~

Jaimee van Gemerden is currently an editor at Metanoia.