Posts
I just got back home last night from a really, really long work travelling thing, and surprised my B2B with her engagement ring. It was really, really fun and I'm kind of amazed that I managed to pull it off - the whole extended, nearly compulsive honesty thing makes it hard to keep secrets. To be honest, I was a little worried that it might not be the fantastic surprise I was hoping for, but I was pretty sure it would go over well and it did.
The slight bit of worry stems, of course, from our discussions about the wedding symbols. Though the engagement ring itself, as a tradition, doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with 'buying' a bride, there's certainly a reminiscent flavor to it of dowries and bride-prices. The tradition of the engagement ring only goes back to the middle ages, and has more to do with status symbols (initially there were legal rules limiting gem selection by class) and longer engagement periods. The standard of a diamond is purely corporate - it didn't exist until DeBeers decided it should and advertised the hell out of it in the mid-20th century. Also, the whole 'tradition' that an engagement ring should cost the equivalent of 2-3 months salary was invented by DeBeers just to sell more expensive diamonds. And lastly, having one half of the couple wearing a marker of taken-ness and not the other half just doesn't seem to go along with approaching marriage as equals.
All of that said.... rings are pretty. And I don't think that what we want here is a refusal of all things traditional and symbolic - it's fun being engaged, and we want it to be exciting and public and special. It's just a matter of finding which things make sense, and how they make sense to us instead of just making sense to the people who make a ton of money from other people getting married. I read an article recently about feminist weddings in the modern world which said nearly exactly that. The author (a woman engaged to be married in the UK) said that reclaiming traditions - taking things and turning them to be about one's own situation, and not the situation that was common or encouraged 800 years ago - can be much more powerful than making up everything new from scratch. Tradition does have a lot of value, I think. It binds us together as a society, it gives a context for others to relate to us in and it helps us to feel like we're participating in the world instead of fighting against it all the time. The trick is just to follow those traditions from an honest personal place, instead of trying to force ourselves into fitting the mold. I guess it's kind of more like allowing the mold to fit around us.
In our case, I didn't spend nearly the "traditional" (pah!) two months salary, but I did get a gorgeous ring that has a lot of relation to the life we're trying to build. It's simple and delicate, and made from reclaimed gold and a panned (not mined) rough-cut diamond, purchased through a company that re-invests part of its profit in humanist and environmentalist work in the region the diamonds come from. Though the fact that I gave it to her a few weeks after asking her to marry me is mostly coincidental (it was a very spontaneous proposal - I had been shopping for a ring for a couple weeks before asking her, but hadn't found exactly the right one yet) I kind of like it that the ring came second. It removes a lot of the conditional implications, and the bribery feel of offering someone something beautiful and expensive alongside a question asked. Personally, there's nothing conditional about the gift for me. I gave it to her because I want to, not because I have to in order for her to agree to marry me.
We're planning on visiting the designer (Sarah Perlis, who seems to be a wonderful person as well as a fantastically talented jeweler) later today to say thank you and look into having a ring made for me matching my fiancee's - if she gets to wear a betrothal symbol, I want one too!
Monday, August 11, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
A Question of Values
The other day my B2B mentioned to me that she was having some doubts about whether she could really get married according to her principles. Naturally, this freaked me out. She explained though that she's not having second thoughts about committing with me, it's the institution she's questioning. To be honest, I hadn't thought about it hard enough, but she has a serious point here. If this is a ceremony about us symbolizing and celebrating the life we want to have together, shouldn't the ceremony itself be one that we agree with philosophically and ethically? Is it fair for she and I to be married when people we know and love aren't legally allowed to do the same? If we choose to get married when homosexual couples and polyamorous couples aren't allowed to do the same, are we supporting and bolstering an institution that we think is fundamentally not in keeping with the ideal of equal rights for everyone, regardless of religion or creed?
It's a seriously complicated question. Personally, I think that at this point in history, and under the ideals of this country, the decision of whether to marry, who to marry, and even how many people to marry should have no legal boundaries (apart from age restrictions - I really don't think a 13 year old can make a considered decision on whether or not to marry someone). To me it falls pretty clearly under that pursuit of happiness clause, and therefore the government has no right to pick and choose which marriages to recognize. But does our very personal decision to marry one another support that? Does it effect it at all?
There are certainly instances I can think of where forgoing a right that isn't equally held can be an effective form of protest. If I had been born fifty years earlier and chose as a white man not to use white drinking fountains and pools, or not to ride in the front of buses I think that would've been a pretty clear statement of solidarity with the cause of racial equality, and an effective protest. Choosing not to exercise the right to vote as a demonstration of solidarity with women's suffrage though is clearly counterproductive. This one falls somewhere in the middle I think. I don't think a choice not to have a ceremony would have any real effect on achieving equal rights. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to be part of a club that says my friends can't be members too. On the other hand, I really want a fun, pretty party and a public declaration of my devotion to the woman I love. Maybe the solution is just in the word - maybe calling it a civil union will clear things up a little bit. Honestly I don't care what we call it, it's the act and not the name that matters to me. At least from a personal point of view that's what matters. From a social point of view, names carry a lot of power, and if I can do a tiny thing to make the world a little better by choosing a word with the right kind of social significance, I'm all for it.
It's a seriously complicated question. Personally, I think that at this point in history, and under the ideals of this country, the decision of whether to marry, who to marry, and even how many people to marry should have no legal boundaries (apart from age restrictions - I really don't think a 13 year old can make a considered decision on whether or not to marry someone). To me it falls pretty clearly under that pursuit of happiness clause, and therefore the government has no right to pick and choose which marriages to recognize. But does our very personal decision to marry one another support that? Does it effect it at all?
There are certainly instances I can think of where forgoing a right that isn't equally held can be an effective form of protest. If I had been born fifty years earlier and chose as a white man not to use white drinking fountains and pools, or not to ride in the front of buses I think that would've been a pretty clear statement of solidarity with the cause of racial equality, and an effective protest. Choosing not to exercise the right to vote as a demonstration of solidarity with women's suffrage though is clearly counterproductive. This one falls somewhere in the middle I think. I don't think a choice not to have a ceremony would have any real effect on achieving equal rights. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to be part of a club that says my friends can't be members too. On the other hand, I really want a fun, pretty party and a public declaration of my devotion to the woman I love. Maybe the solution is just in the word - maybe calling it a civil union will clear things up a little bit. Honestly I don't care what we call it, it's the act and not the name that matters to me. At least from a personal point of view that's what matters. From a social point of view, names carry a lot of power, and if I can do a tiny thing to make the world a little better by choosing a word with the right kind of social significance, I'm all for it.
Friday, August 8, 2008
A Rose by Any Other Name
The Last Name Question is a doozy in modern marriages. The idea of the bride taking the groom's last name is heavy with implications of ownership and submission. It's definitely an archaic, outdated symbol, and yet it's still somewhat expected. My B2B (bride to be for future posts) and I have been reminding each other nearly daily that this is about us and not what the rest of the world thinks about us, and yet every time we discuss the name thing at least one of us ends up asking 'will people think that's weird'?
We talked very briefly about me taking her last name, but that seemed more like just sticking it to the patriarchy than finding a more egalitarian tradition. Of course, the hyphenation option was introduced long ago specifically to make things more equal, but we both think that it's just silly. My biggest problem with it is imagining our grandchildren with names like Brian Anderson-Yoshikawa-Smith-Obama-McDonald-Simons. You can see the issue here. Also, as a side rant I would like to state that in my non-feminist groom researching I came across a site (in 2008 mind you) that said about hyphenation: "For teachers and for women with established careers, this option is understandable." WTF, mate?
Almost as briefly as my taking her last name we talked about each keeping our own last name, but as a symbol it still felt wrong for us. Getting married is supposed to be about merging our lives, so why symbolically keep them seperate? Also there's the kid issue again - do we give daughters her last name and sons mine? Visa versa? Alternate last names? Does that mean we're obligated to have an even number of children?
The two options we've talked about the most are either just making up an entirely new last name, or picking parts of each of our last names and smooshing them together. We lean more towards the smooshing option, as picking a brand new last name seems a little disrespectful to our respective family histories. The only issue with it is that we keep coming up with things that sound pretty silly. And while silly could be fun on the day of, signing Jojobilgorsploot for the rest of one's life could get wearing. At this point I think we're nearly settled on an acceptable smooshing. I'm sure it'll take some explaining to our families (mine more than hers probably, since tradition says she should give hers up anyway), but it just seems right for us. We're combining instead of giving up, we're taking a unified name, and hopefully future generations won't suffer too much from it. We are going to have to leave detailed notes for future genealogists though.... I'm thinking in a dusty box in the attic.
We talked very briefly about me taking her last name, but that seemed more like just sticking it to the patriarchy than finding a more egalitarian tradition. Of course, the hyphenation option was introduced long ago specifically to make things more equal, but we both think that it's just silly. My biggest problem with it is imagining our grandchildren with names like Brian Anderson-Yoshikawa-Smith-Obama-McDonald-Simons. You can see the issue here. Also, as a side rant I would like to state that in my non-feminist groom researching I came across a site (in 2008 mind you) that said about hyphenation: "For teachers and for women with established careers, this option is understandable." WTF, mate?
Almost as briefly as my taking her last name we talked about each keeping our own last name, but as a symbol it still felt wrong for us. Getting married is supposed to be about merging our lives, so why symbolically keep them seperate? Also there's the kid issue again - do we give daughters her last name and sons mine? Visa versa? Alternate last names? Does that mean we're obligated to have an even number of children?
The two options we've talked about the most are either just making up an entirely new last name, or picking parts of each of our last names and smooshing them together. We lean more towards the smooshing option, as picking a brand new last name seems a little disrespectful to our respective family histories. The only issue with it is that we keep coming up with things that sound pretty silly. And while silly could be fun on the day of, signing Jojobilgorsploot for the rest of one's life could get wearing. At this point I think we're nearly settled on an acceptable smooshing. I'm sure it'll take some explaining to our families (mine more than hers probably, since tradition says she should give hers up anyway), but it just seems right for us. We're combining instead of giving up, we're taking a unified name, and hopefully future generations won't suffer too much from it. We are going to have to leave detailed notes for future genealogists though.... I'm thinking in a dusty box in the attic.
Intro
Hello world.
So here's the deal. I'm getting married. To the coolest girl ever. I asked her about two weeks ago, and she said yes, much to my relief. A lot of the reason that I asked her to marry me is that I feel like she and I have an honest, thorough, very real partnership. And what I mean by that is that we do things together very well. We're not the same person, but we do share the same values (oh that laden, heavy word). We have strengths and weaknesses that shore each other up and we allow those to exist.
We said we were going to have a long engagement, but since the proposal we've both been researching and planning and exploring possibilities like mad. We can't seem to stop ourselves. We're just both so excited, and we have so many ideas about what this day could be like and how it can symbolize this big, huge, surprisingly not scary thing that we're doing together.
Emphasis on 'both'. Here's the thing - I WANT to be involved in the wedding planning. And, thankfully, she wants me to be involved in it too. Neither of us are viewing this as 'her big day' but as 'our big day'. It's something we're doing together, and we want it to be about both of us. Sadly, all of the wedding things I've found on the web so far have been hugely bride-centric. The whole industry is centered around the idea that this is the bride's big day, her last hurrah as it were, a tradition that stems from the idea that after the big day she is going to subsume her identity into her husbands. This is pointed out beautifully in the article that inspired this blog, located here: http://www.mv-voice.com/morgue/2003/2003_02_21.oped.html
It seems like for those of us grooms who view our brides to be as equal partners (and I hope to all that's sacred that there's more than just me) there's very little out there by way of advice, assistance, support or encouragement. And that's why I've decided to do this little number. Hopefully it'll be found in searches, read and even contributed to by other guys like me - guys who were raised to think that women are people too, and that in getting married we aren't acquiring an awesome new toy, but are devoting ourselves to another person, because that person is the be all and end all as far as we are concerned.
I'll be posting here about my experiences, trials and joys in planning a wedding WITH my bride to be. Hopefully it'll be helpful for some other guys out there. Feel free to write and contribute!
Tomorrow - the last name issue.
BT
So here's the deal. I'm getting married. To the coolest girl ever. I asked her about two weeks ago, and she said yes, much to my relief. A lot of the reason that I asked her to marry me is that I feel like she and I have an honest, thorough, very real partnership. And what I mean by that is that we do things together very well. We're not the same person, but we do share the same values (oh that laden, heavy word). We have strengths and weaknesses that shore each other up and we allow those to exist.
We said we were going to have a long engagement, but since the proposal we've both been researching and planning and exploring possibilities like mad. We can't seem to stop ourselves. We're just both so excited, and we have so many ideas about what this day could be like and how it can symbolize this big, huge, surprisingly not scary thing that we're doing together.
Emphasis on 'both'. Here's the thing - I WANT to be involved in the wedding planning. And, thankfully, she wants me to be involved in it too. Neither of us are viewing this as 'her big day' but as 'our big day'. It's something we're doing together, and we want it to be about both of us. Sadly, all of the wedding things I've found on the web so far have been hugely bride-centric. The whole industry is centered around the idea that this is the bride's big day, her last hurrah as it were, a tradition that stems from the idea that after the big day she is going to subsume her identity into her husbands. This is pointed out beautifully in the article that inspired this blog, located here: http://www.mv-voice.com/morgue/2003/2003_02_21.oped.html
It seems like for those of us grooms who view our brides to be as equal partners (and I hope to all that's sacred that there's more than just me) there's very little out there by way of advice, assistance, support or encouragement. And that's why I've decided to do this little number. Hopefully it'll be found in searches, read and even contributed to by other guys like me - guys who were raised to think that women are people too, and that in getting married we aren't acquiring an awesome new toy, but are devoting ourselves to another person, because that person is the be all and end all as far as we are concerned.
I'll be posting here about my experiences, trials and joys in planning a wedding WITH my bride to be. Hopefully it'll be helpful for some other guys out there. Feel free to write and contribute!
Tomorrow - the last name issue.
BT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)