I am sure that it's a difficult, confusing thing to be a woman in the 21st century. I know this because even from a place of white, male, upper-middle class privilege, I find the landscape of rights, wrongs, rebuttals, and retributions incredibly confusing. As a white man raised in a politically conservative, protestant, Christian, economically safe, and emotionally supportive environment, I find almost any interaction with anyone to be a complicated maneuver of trying recognize and avoid stereotyping, systematic disrespect, and personal disrespect, while trying to remain affable, practical, and avoiding the "guilty white man" personality. I do my best to respect all kinds of persons in all kinds of contexts, and while I think I do a reasonably good job of it, I know it's hard, and often there are times when one simply cannot have one's cake and eat it too.
Case and point: Asking a woman's dad for her hand in marriage.
This is a complicated issue that I think deserves careful consideration from persons in all walks of life, of both sexes. The matter touches on important notions of filial respect, maturity, feminism, humanism, pragmatism, and of course tradition. Lately, I have given a great deal of thought to the matter, consulted the best sources available to me, and I'd like to present my thoughts here.
Why Not?
The understandable impulse of the traditional person inside all of us is to throw up the hands and ask in exasperation, "Why do we even need to talk about this?" After all, the tradition as it stands accomplishes a number of worthwhile aims.
First and foremost, its very concept unequivocally acknowledges the important truth that even adult persons with fully formed rational, autonomous capacities are the product of particular circumstances, more specifically of their parents, and the way those parents have chosen to raise the individual in question. Whether a person responds affirmatively or negatively to the way their parents raise them, initiating a marital commitment "from the top down" does an excellent job of acknowledging the parents of one's beloved as the most influential figure(s) in that person's life.
Furthermore, it begins the crucial relationship between a spouse and their in-laws on a basis of mutual respect and recognition. Despite what movies would have us believe, however they may seem in-laws are a crucial part of any family, on a meta-level if not on an immediate level, and beginning one's relationship with in-laws on a firm, mutual basis of respect is unquestionably good.
Finally, in correlation with the previous two points, asking to become a part of a family acknowledges in a very healthy way that even a newly married couple is not a new family, but that they live in multiple spheres of influence which form the most intimate, meaningful relationships of our lives. Just as a contract should be read and considered by both parties before being signed, it is important to realize and to recognize that marrying a person is not an isolated act, and the "ritual" of asking for a woman's hand in marriages accomplishes this goal very well.
All the same, there are a number of flaws, some of them particularly disquieting, which are more or less inherent to the practice.
Indecent Proposals
Prima facie, I think the first objection to the tradition of a suitor asking a father for a woman's hand in marriage is also the most potent objection. Though the choice to marry or not to marry still ultimately lies with the woman in question in our cultural arrangement, the practice finds its roots (and most of its history) in a deeply entrenched, misogynist tradition that did not and in many places still does not leave the ultimate choice up to the woman in question. At first glance, the agreement still looks uncomfortably like two men agreeing on the fate of a woman as if she were a piece of property. No amount of ultimate female autonomy can erase the firm appearance of misogyny in the tradition.
Furthermore, it strikes me that any adult relationship which has progressed to the point of intimacy at which two individuals are ready to marry is beyond the reasonable jurisdiction of a parent in the 21st century. To first ask a woman's dad for permission to ask her to marry is ultimately to disrespect the primacy of her decision-making authority in her own relational arrangements. In addition, what couple in the 21st century, genuinely ready to marry one another, would actually heed the prohibition of a parent? It may be that I am a vain, disrespectful person (it probably is) but I cannot imagine that failing to secure permission from a woman's father would really prevent me from asking her to marry me, and I think that I am nowhere near alone in that sentiment.
Thirdly, if the gender roles in the equation are switched, the tradition seems strange. Disregarding for a moment our problematic notion that only a man should propose, even then it would seem vaguely strange and out of place for a woman to ask a man's mom for permission to marry him. Why then does a switch to the traditional arrangement make the tradition justified? Because of its longstanding base in patriarchal gender-power dynamics? As in the same ones that still to this day create innumerable problems for women all over the world?
Yes. Those ones.
Finally, while the tradition does accomplish a number of admirable aims, by its very nature it undermines itself by cutting off most of the parties involved in the formation of a new family. Surely, a suitor and a woman's father should both have one another's perspective on a prospective marriage. But shouldn't he also have the perspective of his lover's mom? Shouldn't SHE have the perspective of her parents on the matter? What about the man's parents, would not his parents also have important, helpful contributions to make both to their son and the woman he plans to marry? The tradition as it stands turns what could, what should be a meaningful opportunity for six different people to openly offer advice and insight to one another into a private conference between only two persons.
All the same, the benefits of seeking parental wisdom are unquestionable for any young couple, and completely discarding the whole concept seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so next week I will try to piece together what I think a more coherent, helpful model for engagement as an institution would be.
Until then, please feel free to comment and share your thoughts on the matter.
Case and point: Asking a woman's dad for her hand in marriage.
This is a complicated issue that I think deserves careful consideration from persons in all walks of life, of both sexes. The matter touches on important notions of filial respect, maturity, feminism, humanism, pragmatism, and of course tradition. Lately, I have given a great deal of thought to the matter, consulted the best sources available to me, and I'd like to present my thoughts here.
Why Not?
The understandable impulse of the traditional person inside all of us is to throw up the hands and ask in exasperation, "Why do we even need to talk about this?" After all, the tradition as it stands accomplishes a number of worthwhile aims.
First and foremost, its very concept unequivocally acknowledges the important truth that even adult persons with fully formed rational, autonomous capacities are the product of particular circumstances, more specifically of their parents, and the way those parents have chosen to raise the individual in question. Whether a person responds affirmatively or negatively to the way their parents raise them, initiating a marital commitment "from the top down" does an excellent job of acknowledging the parents of one's beloved as the most influential figure(s) in that person's life.
Furthermore, it begins the crucial relationship between a spouse and their in-laws on a basis of mutual respect and recognition. Despite what movies would have us believe, however they may seem in-laws are a crucial part of any family, on a meta-level if not on an immediate level, and beginning one's relationship with in-laws on a firm, mutual basis of respect is unquestionably good.
Finally, in correlation with the previous two points, asking to become a part of a family acknowledges in a very healthy way that even a newly married couple is not a new family, but that they live in multiple spheres of influence which form the most intimate, meaningful relationships of our lives. Just as a contract should be read and considered by both parties before being signed, it is important to realize and to recognize that marrying a person is not an isolated act, and the "ritual" of asking for a woman's hand in marriages accomplishes this goal very well.
All the same, there are a number of flaws, some of them particularly disquieting, which are more or less inherent to the practice.
Indecent Proposals
Prima facie, I think the first objection to the tradition of a suitor asking a father for a woman's hand in marriage is also the most potent objection. Though the choice to marry or not to marry still ultimately lies with the woman in question in our cultural arrangement, the practice finds its roots (and most of its history) in a deeply entrenched, misogynist tradition that did not and in many places still does not leave the ultimate choice up to the woman in question. At first glance, the agreement still looks uncomfortably like two men agreeing on the fate of a woman as if she were a piece of property. No amount of ultimate female autonomy can erase the firm appearance of misogyny in the tradition.
Furthermore, it strikes me that any adult relationship which has progressed to the point of intimacy at which two individuals are ready to marry is beyond the reasonable jurisdiction of a parent in the 21st century. To first ask a woman's dad for permission to ask her to marry is ultimately to disrespect the primacy of her decision-making authority in her own relational arrangements. In addition, what couple in the 21st century, genuinely ready to marry one another, would actually heed the prohibition of a parent? It may be that I am a vain, disrespectful person (it probably is) but I cannot imagine that failing to secure permission from a woman's father would really prevent me from asking her to marry me, and I think that I am nowhere near alone in that sentiment.
Thirdly, if the gender roles in the equation are switched, the tradition seems strange. Disregarding for a moment our problematic notion that only a man should propose, even then it would seem vaguely strange and out of place for a woman to ask a man's mom for permission to marry him. Why then does a switch to the traditional arrangement make the tradition justified? Because of its longstanding base in patriarchal gender-power dynamics? As in the same ones that still to this day create innumerable problems for women all over the world?
Yes. Those ones.
Finally, while the tradition does accomplish a number of admirable aims, by its very nature it undermines itself by cutting off most of the parties involved in the formation of a new family. Surely, a suitor and a woman's father should both have one another's perspective on a prospective marriage. But shouldn't he also have the perspective of his lover's mom? Shouldn't SHE have the perspective of her parents on the matter? What about the man's parents, would not his parents also have important, helpful contributions to make both to their son and the woman he plans to marry? The tradition as it stands turns what could, what should be a meaningful opportunity for six different people to openly offer advice and insight to one another into a private conference between only two persons.
All the same, the benefits of seeking parental wisdom are unquestionable for any young couple, and completely discarding the whole concept seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so next week I will try to piece together what I think a more coherent, helpful model for engagement as an institution would be.
Until then, please feel free to comment and share your thoughts on the matter.
