Patriarchal Weddings: a low point

As I mentioned before, my partner and I shoot a lot of weddings, especially this time of year. The institution of marriage is a topic of great contention for feminists. With gay marriage still illegal in most states, some feminists have decided to eschew the institution itself, believing that it was created as a patriarchal structure of power, which cannot be redeemed. Moreover, it excludes a large portion of America's population: gays and lesbians in committed relationships.

Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States

██ Same-sex marriages

██ Unions granting rights similar to marriage

██ Unions granting limited/enumerated rights

██ Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

██ Statute bans same-sex marriage

██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage

██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

Other feminists have attempted to transform the system of marriage into something more egalitarian and innovative. Consequently, my partner and I have participated in ceremonies where couples write their own vows, invent their own liturgies, and dispose of traditions that seem to devalue women's autonomy. One couple walked a labyrinth to signify their commitment to one another. Others light the unity candle, but refuse to blow out their individual flames. Still others read poetry instead of
scripture, or combine two religious ceremonies into one. (OK, most of these occurred in MY wedding... but I'm sure they're happening elsewhere too!)

Yet this past weekend included NONE of the above. In fact, I think the ceremony was more entrenched in patriarchy than any I'd ever participated in before. The pastor quoted the following passage from Ephesians:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

As a person who ascribes to the Christian faith, I can't say this is my favorite passage in the Bible. In fact, truth be told, I rather despise it. However, the following verse, which this particular pastor conveniently glossed over, asks for mutual submission in a relationship:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

Sacrifice is required in both roles, which is how I've most frequently heard this passage interpreted. (Of course, there is still some inherent patriarchy in these verses, but my own personal theory of feminist biblical exegesis will have to wait for another post...or another master's dissertation.)

THIS pastor, however, seemed to completely ascribe to the literal translation of the first passage. He turned to the couple (for the purposes of this blog, let's refer them as "Lynette" and "Bob.") and said, "Yes, Bob, this means that you are in charge. Of course, Lynette, you can certainly have an opinion. Don't forget that, Bob. But in the end, Bob is the one whom God will hold accountable. The mantel of leadership has fallen on him and him alone."

So the hierarchy looks like this (and this is from an actual website that professes to be about partnership in parenting!)
This theology is quite antiquated, and takes us back to the woman-as-property concept. It also infers that she does not possess a soul, and thus does not possess spiritual agency in terms of making her own moral choices. Sure, she can state an opinion, but overall, she is owned by her husband and his spiritual practices.

This theology is particularly damaging in situations of verbal, physical, or sexual abuse. If a woman believes that her husband is her God-ordained ruler, then it follows that she's expected to obey and honor him as God's representative on earth. Now most theologians (even conservative evangelical theologians) would say that in the case of abuse, the husband is obviously not following God's law, and that the wife is thus released from her obligation of blind obedience.

However, this gets tricky. How neurotic it must feel to be a woman in this situation. Is he hitting me because he believes God needs to discipline me? Do I deserve to be yelled at because of my own sinful behavior? Maybe I brought this on myself. I should have been kinder. More supportive. I am the one who did wrong. He is merely correcting me.

This theology is downright harmful to women in very real, tangible ways. But I haven't even gotten to the low point of this sad, sad ceremony.

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse, the pastor attempted to describe what it would be like when the happily-almost-married couple faced their maker face to face at the end of it all:

"God will hold you accountable, Bob, for this marriage. Not you, Lynette, so you get off easy. I like to explain it this way. Your job, Lynette, is to duck when God's fist comes flying at Bob."

Violence, eternal damnation, and gendered submission. Can you imagine any better way to begin a lifelong relationship?

If I could turn back time...I wouldn't

Continuing with my recent segues using 80's/90's music, I decided to begin today's post with Cher's reminiscent single. Ah, don't we all often feel a certain wistfulness for days gone by. (Especially my dear mother, who tried to get in the front row of Cher's recent reunion tour...for real.)

I was listening to a radio program a few years ago on NPR. The guest speaker was discussing the state of American society. I can't remember if the topic was poverty or teenage pregnancy, but I remember that the man was hopeful toward our nation's possibilities.

When the announcer opened the lines for phone calls from listeners, one man called in and suggested that the solution lay in the past. That all we needed to do to solve our problems was to "turn back time" to an era when there were no drugs, no making out in front of the lockers at one's high school, no severe poverty. He was speaking of the 1950's.

I'll never forget the announcer's reply. He said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here), "Oh yes, the perfect 1950's, when racism and sexism were still rampant and acceptable. Sure, your life as a middle class white man might have seemed perfect, but what about the rest of the population?" Then the guest speaker chimed in. "Yes, I agree. And I don't know about you, but there were still plenty of people at my school in the 1950's making out in front of lockers..."

Ha.

It's pretty clear to me that turning back time to a more Eden-like state of perfection does very little to move our society forward. Consider two recent books in the news that attempt to rewind American society: the re-emergence of the The Art of Kissing as a historical relic, and the new release of The Retrosexual.

In a recent article that appeared in Women's Enews, Kristen Tsetsi examines the ways that the seemingly innocuous language in this antique text mirror the language of date rape. (By the way, if you haven't done so already, consider subscribing to Women's Enews for free. A great resource for emailed news by and for women.) Consider just a few sample passages from Hugh Morris' 1935 book, The Art of Kissing:

"He must be the aggressor...He must always give the impression of being his woman's superior, both mentally and especially physically . . . He must be able to sweep her into his strong arms, tower over her . . . "

"If she flinches, don't worry. If she flinches and makes an outcry, don't worry. If she flinches, makes an outcry and tries to get up from the sofa, don't worry. Hold her, gently but firmly, and allay her fears with kind, reassuring words. Remember what Shakespeare said about a woman's 'No!'"

Ah, the old "no means yes" scenario. It's quite amazing to me that the genteel-seeming culture of the 1930's still presented quite a chauvinistic attitude.

And now for the second title: The Retrosexual. I don't think I could introduce this book any better than the London Mail:
"Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn't spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published."

A small selection of retrosexual tendencies:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner's hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.
Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.

2. You can make decisions on your own. You don't need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.

3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.

4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.

The problem with books like these is that they assume that women's progress equals men's recession. In addition, they rely on our idealized version of the past and try to convince us that thing were better "back then." But were they?

Consider #2 on this list. Apparently men are not supposed to communicate with anyone about any big decisions. This is yet another example of a gender stereotype that harms us all.

Instead of turning back time, let's look ahead to a bright future, where men like my husband can use Herbal Essence hairspray with confidence, and women like me can belch at the dinner table. Who needs the rigid gender roles of the past when we can make our own, right Cher?

Paris fights back

***Thanks to my two slinking commentators who pointed out that the singer/songwriter of the tune, "Bitch," was Meredith Brooks and NOT Alanis Morisette. Here's an interesting wiki about how so many people (me included) mixed this up! I've corrected my post below...***

Well, I never thought there would come a day when I would praise the actions of Paris Hilton in a feminist blog.

But, truly, that day has come.

The recent John McCain television ad was meant to mock Barack Obama's supposed celebrity. However, in doing so, it mocked the lifestyles of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton as well.

Now, I'll be the last to defend the lifestyles of said Spears and Hilton, but the truth remains that only female celebrities were mocked in this ad. In addition, this is quite different from the banter that occurs in People and Seventeen. At least entertainment magazines deal with the field of entertainment.

McCain's campaign, however, implies an even political playing field with, um, "candidates" Spears and Hilton, with the juxtaposition of their images with Obama's.

Enter Paris Hilton's response video, now widely circulated on YouTube. (In fact, I saw her response video before I'd even seen the original commercial.) Here, Paris uses humor, an important feminist tool in subverting patriarchy, in order to point out the audacity of McCain's approach. Is she running for president? No. Is she the face of ditzy celebs? Yes. Does this make her entirely unintelligent? No. Does this mean it's possible for female celebrities to be thinking human beings as well as famous? Maybe. Just maybe.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Either way, I think it's hilarious.

More importantly, it's great that Hilton found the resources to talk back to the male powers that tried to silence her. McCain's ad intended to box her in, to limit her to the singular role of dumb blonde.

Hilton's response is intriguing, not because she wholly denies this role, but because she expresses herself as a complex person: one who is both frivolous and grounded, articulate yet ditzy, fun-loving yet serious. Too often, women accept the labels given to them instead of embodying their complexity.

I'm reminded of Meredith Brooks' lyrics that illustrate women's multifaceted natures:
I'm a bitch. I'm a lover. I'm a child. I'm a mother. I'm a sinner. I'm a saint. I do not feel ashamed. I'm your hell. I'm your dream. I'm nothing in between. You know I wouldn't have it any other way.

Hilton's response is empowering because it subverts our expectations, reclaiming language like "bitches" and reversing the hierarchy of power that McCain intends.

As a result, at least at my water cooler, we're all talking more about Hilton's political "campaign" than McCain's.

And as Brooks so wisely sings,
You know I wouldn't have it any other way...

Safe is the new Sexy

While traveling in Europe these last two weeks, I noticed a provoking ad for Clinique make-up products: Safe is the new Sexy. I was so pleasantly surprised by a message that seemed to affirm women's strength and self-preservation that I made a note to blog about it as soon as I returned to the States.

Initially, I found myself wanting to congratulate the make-up mogul for a campaign that, on a literal level, encouraged women to use proper SPF sun protection; and on a figurative level, seemed to imply that women should, indeed, have the freedom to be safe and sexy at the same time.

Too often, our society infers the opposite--that rape, for example, is a woman's fault for dressing provocatively, or that wearing a condom is not cool if you really care for somebody. As a result, we aren't used to seeing "safe" and "sexy" in the same sentence.

So I found myself in the Rome Airport gawking at a slogan that I desperately wanted to believe. Yes, I thought. Women should be allowed to exude their sexuality proudly without fear of violence or abuse.

But sadly, we don't live in a world that makes this possible. Women have to be careful, very careful, in this age of HIV/AIDS, date rape, and domestic violence. According to NOW (The National Organization of Women):
Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

NOW also reports that women are 10 times more likely to be victimized by an intimate partner than are men.

So at least for now, sexy is not always safe. Yet Clinique continues to hope for the best, handing out free string bikinis at its product release.


I admire the sentiment, but their logic is flawed. More "sexy" doesn't directly equal more "safe." We need better awareness campaigns about women's sexuality and safety. We need a cultural paradigm shift, one that implies that "risky" is many times not "sexy" at all, but "dangerous" in its consequences. Both women and men need to work at creating a safe space for sexual expression, one in which mutual respect triumphs over fear.

Planned Parenthood, who has also used this slogan in the past, has a more realistic grip on its implementation.


So, Clinique, while it's possible that string bikinis are a start, you have to admit that we have a long way to go before women can truly feel safe and sexy at the same time.

"thoughtful, bemused, affectionate, deeply skeptical outsider"

These six words are what Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, used to describe the new poet laureate of the United States, Kay Ryan.

Hooray, Kay! As one of only a handful of women chosen for the position since its founding in 1937 (then called Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress), Kay Ryan is a deserving choice. In addition, she's the only "out" gay individual ever chosen. This decision illustrates great strides in the literary establishment, but we still have a long way to go.

Many people assume that the arts community, because of its liberal tendencies, is largely resistant to the influence of patriarchy. As a female poet, I observe on a regular basis that this is not necessarily the case.

Consider the following statistics distributed at this year's AWP panel, entitled Women's Presses, Activism, & Gender Inequities in the Literary World:

1. In the history of the National Book Awards, only 29 percent of the winners have been women.
2. The New York Times Book Review from Dec 9 listed the 10 Best Books of 2007: 5 fiction titles by men; 5 non-fiction, only two of them by women.
3. A full-page ad celebrating 2006 National Poetry Month, sponsored by the Academy of American Poets and listing more than 100 institutional sponsors, prominently features excerpts of five famous poems--none of which were written by a woman. The official poster for National Poetry Month 2006 includes eighteen such quotes--no more than 25% by women poets.
4. Of the 137 authors in the most recent Norton Anthology of American Literature, less than one-third are women.
5. In early 2005, women constituted only 17% of the opinion writers at The New York Times, 10% at The Washington Post, 28% at US News & World Report, and 13% at both Newsweek and Time.
6. In 2003, only 28% of all books reviewed in the New York Times Book Review were written by women.
7. In 1995, 40 feminist presses existed in the U.S. and 40 in the rest of the world; there are now roughly six.

Consider, also, that since the founding of the original poet laureate post in England in 1668, no woman has yet to be chosen.

There are plenty of female writers out there, just waiting to be found. This feeling of invisibility is perhaps best captured by one of Ryan's own poems:

Hide and Seek
Kay Ryan

It’s hard not
to jump out
instead of
waiting to be
found. It’s
hard to be
alone so long
and then hear
someone come
around. It’s
like some form
of skin’s developed
in the air
that, rather
than have torn,
you tear.

Feminist Monks?

I've just returned from a brief stay at Holy Cross Monastery, located near Poughkeepsie, NY, where I worked intensely on poetry and reflection. I traveled there by train with my good friend, The Creek Hiker. The monastery was on a hill overlooking the Hudson River. You could walk down to the river and just think, or walk up the hill to a labyrinth made of stones. The monks were so gracious. We went to worship with them several times a day. They sang entire Psalms, and it was just one of the most beautiful sounds I've ever heard.

So one might ask why a feminist might find solace with a group of men, yet that is exactly what happened during my stay at Holy Cross. There seems to be a general misconception in the public mind that feminisim = man-hating. This cannot be further from the truth for the vastmajority of feminists.

While there are many different versions of feminism, most feminists are fighting against patriarchy, a structure of power that traditionally oppresses women. This structure tends to put men in power and offer them privilege. My goal, then, as a feminist, is to deconstruct patriarchy, to unpack the ways that it harms both women and men.

Patriarchy harms us all, regardless of gender. A wonderful, whimsical illustration of patriarchy is the book Hope for the Flowers. Here, Trina Paulus presents us with the life of two caterpillars, Stripe and Yellow, who try to fulfill their instinct to "move up" in the world. They join thousands of other caterpillars in a giant "caterpillar pillar," a mass of little bodies climbing on top of each other to the great unknown above. Soon, Yellow becomes disconcerted with this effort, uncomfortable at the prospect of having to step on someone else's head to move forward in the world. She begins the long crawl down, abandoning this patriarchal structure for something better.

Yellow learns to fly, and in doing so, to "move up" in the world in a way that empowers others instead of disempowering them. This, too, is what most feminists aim for: a new way of doing things. A new way to reach the sky without stepping on a fellow caterpillar in the process. A butterfly way of being.

It is this kind of deconstructing that I found in the monks. Note their non-patriarchal Vision and Core Values:

*To personally and communally live a more authentic witness of Benedictine Ideals (namely pax or "peace," and ora et labora or "prayer and work" in the Contemporary World.
*To consciously develop and practice the attitudes and skills necessary to genuinely Listen and Respond to each other and our world.
*To face the power we hold to act on behalf of justice and to use that power, individually and corporately, for the sake of justice.
*To Welcome Diversity that enriches our life and mission and to embrace the costs and benefits that results.

It almost sounds like a feminist platform.

Yet you'll notice in my previous post that I referred to my father as "pro-feminist," not a "feminist." In the same way, I would ascertain that the monks at Holy Cross certainly seem to embody many feminist principles, but as men, they don't embody feminism. They can't, anymore than I can embody the experience of an African American. But they can certainly participate earnestly in the cause to eradicate patriarchal forces. And they do.

Perhaps my favorite inkling of resistance came during Vespers one evening. In the prayer book, I noticed that several newly typed prayers were scotch taped over the previous prayers. When I lifted the corner of one, I realized that the new prayer referred to God as "you" instead of "him."

What a beautiful way to deconstruct authority. In that quiet moment, with the monks singing Psalms in a small cathedral, I almost felt like Yellow. I could let go of the caterpillar pillar of religion within me. I could fly.

Man and Wife

My partner and I are wedding photographers, which makes it inevitable that I should write about gender disparity in the ultimate bastion of patriarchy in American society: the wedding ceremony.

This weekend, I heard a phrase that I hadn't heard in some time: I now pronounce you man and wife.

It took me back to the memorable scene in the Princess Bride Wedding.

Prince Humperdinck just can't wait for the priest to say those magic words, "man and wife." It will define his marriage to Buttercup. It will seal the deal.

So what's the problem with this time-honored sentence? It assigns men and women different and unequal realms. While it defines a man by his gender, it defines a woman by her role. Consequently, a man merely has to exist, while a wife must fulfill her duty in marriage. He is not required to act as a husband, but she is asked to act as a wife.

This language is important because it tells women that they are responsible for a marriage's success or failure. They are the ones who must serve, while the man is the one who must be served.

And while we're talking about language, the word "patriarchy" comes from the Greek words πατήρ, father, and αρχή, rule. Male authority can take many different forms. In the institution of the family, men have traditionally been given power over women in terms of property and ownership. Until the passage of the Married Women's Property Act of 1848, women relinquished ownership of all property on her wedding day to her husband. Thus, literally and figuratively, her husband "owned" her.

Today, patriarchy in the institution of marriage is less overt. We almost take for granted that children are automatically given their father's last name or that a man is still expected to "bring home the bacon," while a woman is expected to keep house. Still, these gendered expectations certainly affect our most intimate relationships. For instance, if a woman makes more money than her male spouse, should he feel inferior? If a man likes to cook or clean or do laundry, is he too "feminine"?

In my own home, I find myself falling prey to gender expectations like these. One example: I'm off for the summer, but my partner works. He likes to cook, and I don't. For him, cooking is relaxing, a creative outlet, an opportunity to try something new. For me, it's a chore. So who should cook dinner tonight? Can I remove all patriarchal influences when making that decision? Is the guilt that gnaws at me there because I don't have to work all day or because I feel like I should want to cook as a woman and don't?

It's tough stuff.

I like to look at the ending of the Princess Bride as an optimistic one. Check out the dialogue when Buttercup reveals to Westley that she's married Humperdinck:

Buttercup: Oh, Westley, will you ever forgive me?
Westley: What hideous sin have you committed lately?
Buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: What?
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: But it did. I was there. This old man said, "Man and wife."
Westley: Did you say, "I do"?
Buttercup: No. We sort of skipped that part.
Westley: Then you're not married. If you didn't say it, you didn't do it.

Ah, the power of language. Westley's right. Saying it is doing it. In my own commitment ceremony, we agreed to be "partners in life." The phrase evoked a kind of agency on both our parts, a commitment to serve each other.

Yet even so, I'm still not convinced that it's my turn to cook tonight. :)