Why I Won’t Say ‘I Do’

Marriage and Weddings are not for me, and this is not a phase.

I’d like to start this article off by warning you – opinions such as mine on this topic are usually regarded as radical or ‘over the top’, and will not be shared by most. I consider what I’m writing to be a critique of overlooked aspects of ‘traditional’ weddings and marriage – classically heterosexual institutions.

I wasn’t always anti-marriage; I’d chosen the song I was going to walk down the aisle to years ago! Just in the last year or so, I’ve became more inquisitive, more stubborn, and more educated on the topic; embracing feminism and a undertaking Women’s Studies at university have taught me to question all that is passed off as ‘traditional’ and ‘normal’ in society. Seeing marriage differently was in a way like re-watching Disney movies from your childhood and noticing all of the plot-holes for the first time…but in another way, it was awesome. It’s like taking off the rose-coloured glasses and seeing everything as it really is…and it’s a way cooler colour underneath.

It all started when I realised I didn’t want to change my surname upon getting married, even though it is eternally misspelt and mispronounced! I didn’t want our name to die out as a result of Danenberg men only having daughters – and daughters grow up to take their husbands’ last name, remember? Before long I realised that I didn’t want to just keep my surname; I didn’t want to get married at all.

The name. According to research by Australian academics Jo Lindsay and Dr Deborah Dempsey, the estimate figure of Australian women taking their husbands’ surname at marriage ranges from 80-95% – I read somewhere that it was 90% and upwards. This data is astounding, to say the least. Our names are the basis of our identities, and it’s not exactly rocket science to comprehend that when women give up their names at marriage, they are therefore willingly sacrificing a significant part of their identity, independence, being, and personhood. The ownership aspect is also important; the name-taking demonstrates that the wife now belongs to the husband, like his car or his livestock.

The changing of the name is one of the many unequal and sexist elements of marriage; after all, how many men would take their wives’ names after marriage? According to Dempsey and Lindsay’s research, only 3%. I’ve never heard of a man changing his surname after marriage, and I imagine he would put up with a lot of crap for doing so. And that raises the question, why is it completely abnormal for a man to take his wives’ name at marriage but it’s expected that a woman takes her husband’s? Traditions, of course! I think that when we attempt to justify a history of systematic inequality against women as ‘tradition’, then we need to re-evaluate and start making some changes.

Interestingly, Dempsey and Lindsay’s Victorian study (apologies, SA) revealed that 90% of children have their father’s surname; this includes children of women who keep their surnames, but still give the children the fathers’ surname. It’s simple enough to understand that babies are a mixture of their parents’ DNA, yet their names are more often than not, not representative of that mixture. Now, name-wise, what would be representative of both parents having their genetic input towards the child? The controversial double barrel, of course! It makes perfect sense in theory that the child gets a fair amount of each parent, but in real life only 2.4% of children have double-barrelled surnames. People say that hyphenated names are unfair to the kids themselves, as supposedly they’re harder to spell, to write, and they get teased for it. I’m sorry, but what a load of bull – it’s literally just a hyphen.

Giving the child the mother’s surname is a lesser-chosen option too, and one that I like. If the norm is for only one parent’s name to get the limelight, why not make it the Mum’s for once? Let’s turn this double standard on its head and shake it up a bit.

The Ring. Feminist writer Jessica Valenti has compared an engagement ring to the ear-tags of livestock, and I have to agree with her here. Now, I love jewellery as much as the next girl, but when you think about it, the engagement ring is really a mark of territory. It’s not exactly being urinated on, but these diamonds worn on a specific finger, show the world (and specifically men) that this woman belongs to a man – and the bigger the ring, the more impressive the man. What would really contribute to this double standard or ‘tradition’ being debunked would be if engagement rings were given to and worn by men as well as women.

The Dress. White wedding dress. White is the colour of purity. Virginity. Do you see where I’m going with this? Historically, and still today according to some religions, the bride and groom remain virgins until their wedding night; however, the emphasis of purity is on the woman, as the groom’s don’t wear a white suit to demonstrate their chasteness. The concepts of virginity and the idea that sex with a man has the power to literally change who a woman is (virgin/not a virgin, angel/whore), is sadly misogynistic. I believe that sexual experience isn’t a measure of self worth; absence of sex doesn’t mean you’re pure, and presence of sex doesn’t mean you’re dirty. These socially constructed stereotypes only seek to hurt women; have you ever noticed how lots of sex makes a man a legend or a stud, while the very same thing makes a woman a tramp or slut?

The Ceremony. In my opinion, this is the most romanticised and misunderstood aspects of weddings; the father walking his daughter down the aisle, and ‘giving away’ his little girl. The origins of this ‘tradition’ are symbolic of the bride’s father literally giving her away to another male; it implies constant patriarchal ownership over the woman, and she goes from having her father’s name to having her husband’s. The idea of the father ‘giving her away’ represents that she is not her own person. I see it as a business deal, an exchange of goods; dowry for daughter.

A lot of people have said to me that weddings and marriage don’t mean the same thing they used to, and that’s partly true. Progress has been made; we can have weddings with no engagement ring, no name changing, no white dress, and no father giving away his daughter. Would that make it a feminist-approved wedding? Can a feminist wedding truly exist? I don’t know.

The fact that the institution of marriage still widely denies gay people the right to marry proves how closed-minded it is, and how far it still has to go.

What I do know is that one day I want to have a long-term, committed relationship and children; and I don’t need a marriage certificate to do that. To me, weddings and marriage today are a preservation of an institution that I will always have a problem with, and the rose-coloured glasses are well and truly off.

By Eleanor Danenberg

Originally published in Catalogue Magazine.