If you haven't already read the New York Times article by Linda Lee -Bridal Hunger Games: Losing Weight in Time for the Wedding - on how some brides are now going to the extremes to lose weight to "look good" or fit into a particular dress or size for their wedding, you have to check it out. The best story is the woman who went on a feeding tube to lose weight fast, and then had to stop because she was losing it too fast.
This behavior is insane, but you wouldn't know it by talking to these women. They see nothing wrong with picking up an eating disorder as long as there's a specific reason and time deadline for it. And who wants to deny a bride anything for "her special day"?
I just finished The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf, and even though it was published in 1991, it is sadly still very relevant to the issues facing women today.
"The politeness people extend as a matter of course to the bodies of men does not apply to those of women: Women have little physical privacy. Each change or weight fluctuation is publicly observed, judged, and discussed." (126-127)
"But if there is a most natural urge, it is to satisfy hunger. If there is a natural female shape, it is the one in which women are sexual and fertile and not always thinking about it. To maintain hunger where food is available, as Western women are doing, is to submit to a life state as unnatural as anything with which the species has come up yet. It is more bizarre than cannibalism." (200)
Enough said.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Wedding #3 - Let's Talk About Purity
The reception was, like the ceremony, an insert-bride-and-groom-here affair. The hall was decorated with white tulle and lights as I'm sure it has been many times before and will be many times again. There were flowers on the tables and food representative of the groom's home state, but otherwise, you would never have known whose wedding it was. There were sure a lot of gifts though!
As is traditional, the bride's father was the one to do the toast of the night. [The only female voice heard in public the whole day (besides the bride reciting vows at the ceremony) was a woman who later said a short prayer before the meal. That was semi-encouraging.] So, the father gets up with a microphone and says a little something about his daughter finding this guy, nothing out of the ordinary. But then he broaches the subject that I can't believe even conservative brides tolerate - sexuality, virginity, purity, etc. Yes, in this day and age, fathers are still publicly speaking about their daughters not having slept with anyone. I'll refrain from references to the Middle East and elsewhere where women's sexuality is linked so much with family honor that they are shamed/beaten/killed if they disobey the 'rules.'
So the father congratulates his daughter on her purity and says something to the effect of "They have done what many in the world today would say is impossible, or even undesirable." Sure he didn't come right out and say They waited until tonight to have sex, but we all knew what he was talking about. And I rolled my eyes, not because I think the concept is bad, but because I found it so ridiculous that this guy was up here in public talking about his daughter in that way. Like if she hadn't waited, she would be worth less. Like sex is dirty and she kept herself pure from its taint (except for after marriage, when suddenly it's not dirty?). They have linked sexual disorders to our culture's unhealthy way of dealing with sex and marriage, and this is a great example of the kind of message that I believe hurts women. The idea that a woman is good or bad, pure or dirty, based on her sexual history just won't go away. Besides, asking people to wait until the average age of marriage (late 20s) to have sex is a pretty ridiculous concept in itself. And when you see young couples rushing into marriage for this reason (go to a religious college and see it happening all over the place), it's sad.
But the rest of the reception proceeded without much fuss. There was the bouquet toss at the end which can be a humiliating experience for women, depending on the atmosphere. And then the night was over. One day to inaugurate a couple into the rest of a life together, assuming the statistics don't catch up to them. Then maybe she will regret having relinquished her name.
As is traditional, the bride's father was the one to do the toast of the night. [The only female voice heard in public the whole day (besides the bride reciting vows at the ceremony) was a woman who later said a short prayer before the meal. That was semi-encouraging.] So, the father gets up with a microphone and says a little something about his daughter finding this guy, nothing out of the ordinary. But then he broaches the subject that I can't believe even conservative brides tolerate - sexuality, virginity, purity, etc. Yes, in this day and age, fathers are still publicly speaking about their daughters not having slept with anyone. I'll refrain from references to the Middle East and elsewhere where women's sexuality is linked so much with family honor that they are shamed/beaten/killed if they disobey the 'rules.'
So the father congratulates his daughter on her purity and says something to the effect of "They have done what many in the world today would say is impossible, or even undesirable." Sure he didn't come right out and say They waited until tonight to have sex, but we all knew what he was talking about. And I rolled my eyes, not because I think the concept is bad, but because I found it so ridiculous that this guy was up here in public talking about his daughter in that way. Like if she hadn't waited, she would be worth less. Like sex is dirty and she kept herself pure from its taint (except for after marriage, when suddenly it's not dirty?). They have linked sexual disorders to our culture's unhealthy way of dealing with sex and marriage, and this is a great example of the kind of message that I believe hurts women. The idea that a woman is good or bad, pure or dirty, based on her sexual history just won't go away. Besides, asking people to wait until the average age of marriage (late 20s) to have sex is a pretty ridiculous concept in itself. And when you see young couples rushing into marriage for this reason (go to a religious college and see it happening all over the place), it's sad.
But the rest of the reception proceeded without much fuss. There was the bouquet toss at the end which can be a humiliating experience for women, depending on the atmosphere. And then the night was over. One day to inaugurate a couple into the rest of a life together, assuming the statistics don't catch up to them. Then maybe she will regret having relinquished her name.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Wedding Season and Wedding #3
Apparently April is a very popular time for weddings. My Facebook news feed (aka stalker wall) has been filled with pictures of brides and grooms lately. What saddens me is that even two fairly feminist friends chose not to upset some of the patriarchal traditions I abhor and went along with the flow like everyone else. White/ivory dresses, lace and sequins, all the stereotypical poses. For a minute, I tried to compare weddings to graduations and how there's nothing wrong with everyone going through the same ritual, the same routine of wearing black gowns and hats and tassels and marching down the aisle to accept one's diploma. But then, graduations don't carry the same gendered baggage that weddings do. When a woman dons a black robe and accepts her diploma, she celebrates her achievements and looks forward to the next stage of life, where hopefully she can use her knowledge and skills to better herself, her community, and her world. When a woman dons a white dress and accepts being passed from her father to her husband under the watchful eye of a minister (usually male) with some words about a deity (usually male), there is a whole lot more going on in terms of gender.
This month I was a "bridesmaid" in a friend's wedding and it actually turned out to be quite stressful and unnerving for me to have to play along with the traditions and meltdowns that accompany an ordinary wedding. I ended up shelling out almost $200 for the dress and alterations and cleaning, and now have a dress that I don't care for (although it could definitely be worse - David's Bridal has some orange and yellow gowns that I wouldn't be able to tolerate). I had to have my hair done, and it somehow was more tangly than normal for the whole week following, probably due to the large amounts of hairspray and gel placed in it. The day turned out to, unfortunately, be freezing cold, very windy, sometimes rainy, and not suited to photographs at all. All of the ladies were shivering outside and longing desperately for the men's jackets. Who knows if any of the pictures will turn out decent with that weather interfering.
The ceremony was very traditional, as I knew it would be. The father walked his daughter down the aisle. Then, there was a long handing-off of the bride deal - several minutes - which further emphasized the woman was being torn from one man to be given to another. Just like the last wedding I attended, this one had the father responding to "Who gives this woman to be married to this man" with "Her mother and I'" which is better than just him giving her; but still, we never hear from the mother and besides the bride's, no female voices are heard through the entire event. For something where women did almost all of the prep work, it is strange (though not surprising) that they remain silent during the actual event. This is true in most arenas, I know. Women prepare the way so men can take the credit and have the stage.
There were no unique vows or anything to differentiate this couple from the last one that was married in the same place. As I had to stand for the whole thing, I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have to what was being said. When the minister changed the wording of what each person had to agree to, I heard him tell the bride that she must a) respect her husband b) give him praises, and then my mind got stuck on why on earth she had to give him praises but he didn't have to give her praises, that apparently I missed what he said next, which included obedience. Seriously?! I missed that?! Probably better that I did, because of course I can't really say anything to my friend about how I disagreed with all of this junk. She already knows I disapprove anyway.
It was finally over - so stiff and formal but over before you know it. More pictures in the freezing wind outside, then I got to head to the reception and take off the short-heeled shoes which had already blistered my poor feet. I haven't worn heels in years, and my feet were not happy. I would have worn flats, but nothing matched that dress. (insert rant about women's fashion here)
I think I'll save the reception bit for a little later. Hint: it features a toast about purity!
This month I was a "bridesmaid" in a friend's wedding and it actually turned out to be quite stressful and unnerving for me to have to play along with the traditions and meltdowns that accompany an ordinary wedding. I ended up shelling out almost $200 for the dress and alterations and cleaning, and now have a dress that I don't care for (although it could definitely be worse - David's Bridal has some orange and yellow gowns that I wouldn't be able to tolerate). I had to have my hair done, and it somehow was more tangly than normal for the whole week following, probably due to the large amounts of hairspray and gel placed in it. The day turned out to, unfortunately, be freezing cold, very windy, sometimes rainy, and not suited to photographs at all. All of the ladies were shivering outside and longing desperately for the men's jackets. Who knows if any of the pictures will turn out decent with that weather interfering.
The ceremony was very traditional, as I knew it would be. The father walked his daughter down the aisle. Then, there was a long handing-off of the bride deal - several minutes - which further emphasized the woman was being torn from one man to be given to another. Just like the last wedding I attended, this one had the father responding to "Who gives this woman to be married to this man" with "Her mother and I'" which is better than just him giving her; but still, we never hear from the mother and besides the bride's, no female voices are heard through the entire event. For something where women did almost all of the prep work, it is strange (though not surprising) that they remain silent during the actual event. This is true in most arenas, I know. Women prepare the way so men can take the credit and have the stage.
There were no unique vows or anything to differentiate this couple from the last one that was married in the same place. As I had to stand for the whole thing, I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have to what was being said. When the minister changed the wording of what each person had to agree to, I heard him tell the bride that she must a) respect her husband b) give him praises, and then my mind got stuck on why on earth she had to give him praises but he didn't have to give her praises, that apparently I missed what he said next, which included obedience. Seriously?! I missed that?! Probably better that I did, because of course I can't really say anything to my friend about how I disagreed with all of this junk. She already knows I disapprove anyway.
It was finally over - so stiff and formal but over before you know it. More pictures in the freezing wind outside, then I got to head to the reception and take off the short-heeled shoes which had already blistered my poor feet. I haven't worn heels in years, and my feet were not happy. I would have worn flats, but nothing matched that dress. (insert rant about women's fashion here)
I think I'll save the reception bit for a little later. Hint: it features a toast about purity!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Names: Only What We Know Everyone By (but they must not be that important)
This article appeared in my newspaper a couple weeks ago, but under a more inflammatory title: "Women say so long to maiden names" with the subtitle "More brides opt to take husband's name".
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/relationship/137384208.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y
Someone glancing at the article who didn't bother to read it would get the impression that the trend of women keeping their names upon marriage is dying fast.
So I'm reading it and see that the last study done in the 2000s found that around 18% of women were keeping their names. That's up from 2-4% in 1975. That sounds like progress to me. But then the author cites a study of 19,000 women by the wedding site TheKnot.com done last spring as proof that 86% took their husband's name.
Skpetical, I wanted to know: was this survey of women visiting TheKnot website? Because if so, that is a horribly skewed sample study. I did some digging and according to this website,
"The 2010 Real Weddings Study captured responses from nearly 19,000 U.S. brides married between January 1 and December 31, 2010; respondents were recruited throughout the year from TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com membership, which represents nearly 80% of brides nationwide."
That right there tells me that the sample is biased. What is the likelihood that brides who aren't subscribed to those more traditional bridal sites (which are heavily invested in wanting women to remain traditional and spend lots of money on their weddings) are more likely to be less traditional and keep their names? Seems like a high likelihood. I remain skeptical of statistics, especially ones with these kinds of samples run by companies with a strong interest in particular results. Have we ever heard of double-blind?
Meanwhile, the average newspaper reader (in print or online) sees the article headline, maybe reads a little into it, and comes away with the impression that it was just a fad for women to keep their names, now no one is doing it anymore. Great fodder for the pushy groom or family member who is trying to convince a woman on the fence about the name issue to just change it (everyone else is doing it). Peer pressure doesn't end at high school, folks!
What was scarier in the article was the mention of the national survey by Indiana University last year that found that 2/3 of 800 people felt it was "best" for a woman to take her husband's name. And then 1/2 of them supported a law to that effect!!! The article tries to tamper that shocking result by saying that 1/2 also found it okay for a groom to take his bride's last name. Do people really want to go back to the days when women lost name battles in the court even when there was no actual law regulating names? And do they think men (the majority of law-makers) would ever legislate their own identity to have to be changed to that of women's? It's laughable. But welcome to culture. Sometimes it doesn't make sense.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/relationship/137384208.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y
Someone glancing at the article who didn't bother to read it would get the impression that the trend of women keeping their names upon marriage is dying fast.
So I'm reading it and see that the last study done in the 2000s found that around 18% of women were keeping their names. That's up from 2-4% in 1975. That sounds like progress to me. But then the author cites a study of 19,000 women by the wedding site TheKnot.com done last spring as proof that 86% took their husband's name.
Skpetical, I wanted to know: was this survey of women visiting TheKnot website? Because if so, that is a horribly skewed sample study. I did some digging and according to this website,
"The 2010 Real Weddings Study captured responses from nearly 19,000 U.S. brides married between January 1 and December 31, 2010; respondents were recruited throughout the year from TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com membership, which represents nearly 80% of brides nationwide."
That right there tells me that the sample is biased. What is the likelihood that brides who aren't subscribed to those more traditional bridal sites (which are heavily invested in wanting women to remain traditional and spend lots of money on their weddings) are more likely to be less traditional and keep their names? Seems like a high likelihood. I remain skeptical of statistics, especially ones with these kinds of samples run by companies with a strong interest in particular results. Have we ever heard of double-blind?
Meanwhile, the average newspaper reader (in print or online) sees the article headline, maybe reads a little into it, and comes away with the impression that it was just a fad for women to keep their names, now no one is doing it anymore. Great fodder for the pushy groom or family member who is trying to convince a woman on the fence about the name issue to just change it (everyone else is doing it). Peer pressure doesn't end at high school, folks!
What was scarier in the article was the mention of the national survey by Indiana University last year that found that 2/3 of 800 people felt it was "best" for a woman to take her husband's name. And then 1/2 of them supported a law to that effect!!! The article tries to tamper that shocking result by saying that 1/2 also found it okay for a groom to take his bride's last name. Do people really want to go back to the days when women lost name battles in the court even when there was no actual law regulating names? And do they think men (the majority of law-makers) would ever legislate their own identity to have to be changed to that of women's? It's laughable. But welcome to culture. Sometimes it doesn't make sense.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Bridal Shower invitation
My friend's sister is going all out with planning a shower for her. I just received my invitation in the mail and it's got glitter on it as well as a recipe card. I'm supposed to come up with a quick and easy recipe to be featured in some kind of scrapbook to be made at the shower I'm not going to. I'm torn: this is clearly a homemaker signal (can you imagine guys throwing a party for the upcoming groom and asking for recipes that he can make for his family?). Why should the woman be expected to cook and take care of the home? Aren't we in the twenty-first century yet? But if I don't participate, I won't be in the recipe book that will probably be one of the few things she keeps forever. Maybe something nonchalant would be appropriate. I'll try to think of something.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Languish - over
We all have excuses for neglecting our blogs. Mine was a combination of life getting too busy and losing the spark for complaining about weddings. But now that I've been asked to be a part of one (my first one, at that), I am finding myself motivated to get back into the groove.
The wedding is going to be really traditional. I vacillate between being excited for my friend and dreading the thought of all the patriarchal activities I will have to partake in.
At least the dress from David's Bridal was under $100. The color isn't the greatest, but I was thankful when I saw the bright orange puffy dresses on the rack and thought to myself, 'Some bride makes her attendants wear those - so glad I don't have to deal with that!'
It's difficult for me to see someone torn between her life values and the traditions she feels bound to abide by. So far I have been holding my tongue. We'll see how long I can hold out.
The wedding is going to be really traditional. I vacillate between being excited for my friend and dreading the thought of all the patriarchal activities I will have to partake in.
At least the dress from David's Bridal was under $100. The color isn't the greatest, but I was thankful when I saw the bright orange puffy dresses on the rack and thought to myself, 'Some bride makes her attendants wear those - so glad I don't have to deal with that!'
It's difficult for me to see someone torn between her life values and the traditions she feels bound to abide by. So far I have been holding my tongue. We'll see how long I can hold out.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Royal Wedding dress
Sure, I was a little curious to see Kate Middleton's dress. After all, it was kept such a big secret. Isn't the whole point of the wedding focused on the "big reveal" as they would say in the home makeover shows?
I wish it had actually been something to get excited for. But instead, as expected, it was another white/ivory wedding dress with a veil, a long train, and some lace-work. Why do people get so amped up over the same old thing?
I think it would be a whole lot cooler if brides took advantage of the wide range of colors in the rainbow available to us in fabrics nowadays and had stunning dresses in amazing colors with fun details. Why do they insist on being stuck with the one color that is not even a color?!
Maybe because of royal weddings like this that keep perpetuating the stereotype.
Thanks, Kate, for being a seemingly normal woman, but no thanks for setting another disappointing bridal model.
I wish it had actually been something to get excited for. But instead, as expected, it was another white/ivory wedding dress with a veil, a long train, and some lace-work. Why do people get so amped up over the same old thing?
I think it would be a whole lot cooler if brides took advantage of the wide range of colors in the rainbow available to us in fabrics nowadays and had stunning dresses in amazing colors with fun details. Why do they insist on being stuck with the one color that is not even a color?!
Maybe because of royal weddings like this that keep perpetuating the stereotype.
Thanks, Kate, for being a seemingly normal woman, but no thanks for setting another disappointing bridal model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)