Why cannot people differentiate between respect for your mate's parents (if they deserve it) and the lack of respect for your mate that treating you like your father's property shows?

One expects nothing less than this...great leader of our nation. *gag*

Yeah we know what "school" you're from, fucktard.

Would that be the school daddy bought you into?

How sweet of People to ask 'did he do right,' too. Ugh.

I know this isn't the point, but somehow I am not surprised that Bush didn't care about his future son-in-law's fiscal responsibility.

Are we surprised? The whole asking the father for permission thing floors me. I will never understand it. No one goes to the groom's mother and asks HER permission do they?

I had this whole discussion on a date a few months back, and despite the fact that I repeatedly said how uncomfortable the whole concept made me, he asserted that he would in fact insist on asking my father's permission were he to decide to marry me.

"It's just a gesture of respect for the father," he said.

"How about respect for me and the fact that I just said such a thing would bother me?" I said, flagging down the waitress and mouthing CHECK PLEASE. "Nevermind that my father would burst into laughter if you tried that. He knows I wouldn't marry anyone who would even think about it."

He didn't really have an answer for that, except to repeat the respect for the dad thing. I am so sorry that guy's not in my life right now...

Ewww! That picture makes it look like Bush is fondling his daughter!

I wouldnt be surprised!

it's too bad. Jenna has (recently) been surprisingly progressive (for the family she was born into, and how she was raised).

Ah, well- just as I suspected:
She's marrying a total dolt. Not unlike her father.

This makes me so angry I actually feel irrational. I think it's because with the things that I've heard about Jenna Bush lately (here on Feministing, too!), its frustrating to know that these are the guys she has in her life.

Is it just me, or does it look like W is grabbing Jenna's breast with his right hand? And to top it off, she looks surprised. Very wierd photo.

I'm not surprised at W's remarks, but I am disgusted by People's question.

Yes, Miss Bush looks like she's acting surprised but cheerful for the sake of the camera, given that her dad appears to be grabbing at her chest.

If you look closely, it's actually Jenna's own right hand that is fondling her breast. W's right hand isn't in the photo at all. No excuses though, I still hate W even if he's not a daughter-fondler.

I wouldn't want any future spouse of mine asking my parents' (mom OR dad) permission, but what is the general feminist consensus on if the guy were to ask permission from BOTH parents instead of just the father? Does that make it any better?? (I think it's still rather obnoxious not to just ask the future WIFE herself, but maybe for the semi-progressive-traditionalist, it's a start??)

Gopher and GottaBeMe -

I saw the picture and said 'wow Bush is grabbing her boob. Gross.' I'm glad I'm not the only perv who's mind went there?

Also, is anyone really suprised that this is coming from Bush? He's just another idiot parading misogony as 'chilvalry'. Ugghh

MissMouse, I think only part of the problem is asking only the father, the other part (and really the worse part) is that daughters are treated like property and sons are not. I suppose it would be acceptably egalitarian if both parents were asked for brides and grooms equally, but the whole thing is rather squicky anyway because parents don't own their children.

I agree Bush here is a moron for more reasons than the fact that he is a sexist jerk. Anyone can see he is pretty much ruining our economy, healthcare, education, and our internaional reputation. But as a guy I think it is totally romantic and decent of a person to ask for the father and mother for the daughter's hand in marriage.

I'm not gonna lie.

If I was marrying the daughter of prez Bush I might ask his permission first. What with all the wiretapping and secret torture prisons and such.

I wonder what Jenna thinks about this, and if prez Bush ever held a purity ball event for his daughters.

PHOTO CAPTION:

Dear me Dad! You haven't felt me up this much since the purity ball!

LMAO UCLAbodyimage! PERFECT caption!

Karen,
Bush seems to like sexually harassing women. Remember Bush and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel anyone?

Nathan!!!
A woman is NOT property!

Nathan,

Have you ever questioned the implications of why it's considered "romantic" to ask for a daughter's hand in marriage but one rarely asks for a son's hand in marriage? The latter sounds silly to most people, right? If that isn't evidence of daughters being treated as property and sons not being treated as property, I don't know what is. Disguising it as romanticism is disingenous.

I think it's respectful and appropriate to have a conversation about your decision with your future spouse's parents (bride-to-be AND husband-to-be should do this).

For instance, I think it's great that this guy wanted to talk about his financial plans and things. Jenna may very well have sat down with his mom/parents too--in fact they've probably talked more about this wedding together than he and George W have!

I don't think guys should ask *permission* per se, but it doesn't offend me if they want to sit down and have a "heads up I'm planning on joining your family; any concerns you want to discuss?" type of talk.

I think women should do this with their future mother-in-laws as well. It just sets the tone for a respectful, positive relationship between all parties. This especially pertains to close families, and if the two lovers know each others' parents already. After all this is about two families joining--not just two individuals.

Even though it's the individuals' choice, it's nice to include the parents in the celebration and decision. I'd want to be if it were my kids.

MissMouse,
That may be her own hand, but Bushs left hand looks like its practically cupping, or nearly caressing her right breast. Looks eery.

Perhaps the Bush family is something akin to the movie "Deliverance." I cant imagine any other reason a person would be as stupid as Bush is without the aid of something very taboo that concerns mother nature and who you ARE NOT supposed to have intimate relations with.

Meg77,

In the People article it says that after Jenna's fiance asked Bush for permission to marry, the parents kept it a secret from her, which implies that the man asked Bush before he asked Jenna. I think this is what people are objecting to (in addition to the permission aspect) -- taking her out of the equation and acting as though parental approval is a prerequisite to asking her if she wants to get married. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing concerns with parents (though I can't imagine what concerns would exist that wouldn't amount to "I don't want you marrying this person") but ultimately I don't think anyone should feel obliged to have that conversation. Not everyone is terribly close (emotionally or physically) to their parents and many people (myself included) don't feel that my parents have a right to be included in my decision to get married, because that's a personal thing between me and my partner.

cheeky kitten - I cannot tell you how many times I have had that exact conversation! It is a load of crap that people think it shows respect to the bride's father. . . shouldn't respect for the bride supercede her father? I was fortunate to meet my fiancee who felt the same way I did. His family on the other hand was horribly upset to find out he hadn't asked my fathers permission to marry me. Never mind the fact that my dad would have outright laughed at him - and then I would have dumped his ass.

They also have a huge problem with the fact that I refuse to wear a veil at the wedding(because I am not a faceless and interchangeable entity who only serves one purpose) and the fact that I refuse to be "given away" also known as "walked down the aisle." (Once again, I am not my fathers property and he cannot give me to anybody) I love my dad and this has no reflection on our relationship - but the in laws do not see it this way at all. They are pretty much fking crazy and I don't really want to be related to them for the rest of my life.

Sigh.

I was agreeing with Meg here. I dont think of a woman or a man as property but it is respectful to ask the parents, kind of a am I good enough for your daughter or son thing. I never thought of the property angle and most people probably don't either when they do this.

I don't have a problem with "asking the parents" as long as a) The actual proposal happens first; b) the man (or woman) asks if it's okay with the woman (or man) before doing it and doesn't do it if she (or he) is at ALL uncomfortable with the idea; and c) if the parents "say no," it makes no difference in whether or not the marriage happens. That way it could be seen as a token gesture to the parents and not just as asking permission, which is sketchy.

Personally my major objection would be the idea of my parents knowing that a guy was going to propose to me before I did. That's just... yikes. Probably wouldn't want it myself regardless, though. Since chances are my parents will disapprove of anyone I bring home.

Err. I may be the odd duck here, but I would consider it polite if my partner talked to my parents about marrying me before proposing. In Asian cultures, family is a BIG thing, and I'd rather he be in good graces with them first (though I can understand if he won't be immediately - he's Australian and my parents are a smidgen strange!)

In the same vein, my closest friends have to be good with him first. I love him to bits, but I trust my friends too, and often they spot things I haven't noticed. So far they adore him too (one of my best friends has fallen in love with him without even meeting him) so it's all good.

I dunno. In our culture, it's considered polite. It's not the only conversation the partner has with the other side's family (and of course I am in contact with his family - his mum in particular seems to have taken a shine to me and I adore her!!) but it's just polite to inform them and get their blessing.

While it may not be appropriate to ask for 'permission' to marry a man's daughter it is respectful and appropriate to at least ask for his blessing (along with her mother's).

If it is inappropriate to ask for a man's permission to marry his daughter then it is also inappropriate for that man to walk his daughter down the aisle during the ceremony. In doing so he is symbolically 'giving her away' to the groom.

I wonder how many fathers say 'no' when asked, if any. Since a negative answer is so unlikely the act of asking is really giving the man a heads-up that you are planning on asking his daughter to marry you. It is custom and it is a polite thing to do, especially in families that are very close.

Hiker29,

Why is it a custom and polite to ask a father (or parents) to marry a daughter but virtually unheard of to ask a parent(s) to marry a son? This is what makes it frankly backwards and implies that women are property in a way that men are not.

As for this...

"If it is inappropriate to ask for a man's permission to marry his daughter then it is also inappropriate for that man to walk his daughter down the aisle during the ceremony. In doing so he is symbolically 'giving her away' to the groom."

You're right, and I personally (and others here) think both of those things are sexist traditions which treat women as property.

I think that the only version of this tradition that I'd be comfortable with would involve the *couple* getting both sets of parents together to tell them that they're planning on getting married. Maybe going as far as asking for their blessing, but that's kind of pushing it for me.

And I also played the "and whose hand is whose and where" game with that creepy picture...

MissMouse, I think it's absurd for a man to seek permission from a woman's father before proposing marriage. It's obviously sexist. And as much as people want to say, "Well he could ask the mom too!" that rarely happens.
And even if it were common for men to ask both the woman's parents, the most sexist aspect of the whole thing is the fact that the woman is inactive. Women don't ask their boyfriends' parents for permission to marry their sons. I'm sure a couple have, but it's simply not common enough to be even a blip on the radar. Why isn't it a tradition? Because men have never been considered property to be handed over from one family to another! The tradition is sexist. There is no way to argue with that.

WOW.

Nathan, someone doesn't have to INTEND something to be sexist, in order for it to be sexist. The guy can think he's being romantic and sweet and wonderful and yet in fact, unintentionally and unbeknownst to him, he is perpetuating harmful myths and stereotypes about the relationships between men and women. The thought of needing to ask another person's "permission" to marry a CONSENTING ADULT carries with it the implicit understanding that the consenting adult in question is not in fact free to make her own decisions. I agree with others here that it is respectful for both parties to make sure both sets of parents are on board, because family is important, and these two sets of parents could someday be grandparents together. It would be best if the grandparents can at least be cordial with the parents. However, I'm still squicked out by the idea of just one person going alone to the parents... it carries a hint of "the grown-ups are going to talk now, you can come back in later." I think it's weird for either side. I say talk to your families/parents together, not just one of you.

And I agree that having your father walk you down the aisle is also sexist, and not a tradition I intend to uphold. Sigh... that is one conversation I do not look forward to having. I envy those of you ladies on this site whose fathers are avowed feminists.

For that matter, and this one's a lot tougher to get even feminists on board with, I think engagement rings are sexist and I'm totally opposed to them. And while we're at it, I don't like guys "proposing" either (or girls, for that matter). If the two of you are at a point in your relationship where you want to seal your commitment with a legal and/or religious ceremony, sure, one of you might broach the subject, but it shouldn't be to the point where one person "knows" and the other person is "surprised." That just spells inequity for me, and I don't think there's anything remotely romantic about it.

Heh... I should just write my own book of revolutionary marital mores.

I find the 'asking paternal permission' tradition utterly revolting. But then, I'm with Faerylore on the whole parental involvement issue. If there's to be any, it should be in the form of an announcement of intent by both parties, parental objections be damned. Because, ultimately, it's none of my parents' fracking business whom I marry.

But then, I'd dump any guy who proposed anyway, because I make my views on marriage (i.e. I don't want to, and you aren't going to change that view.) clear from the beginning. But that's a separate issue.

Yeah, I guess Bush would have plenty of valuable advice to give about closing a sale. Didn't he bankrupt one or two companies?

If a guy asked my dad if he could marry me before he asked ME, my answer would be NO. But it's a nonissue anyway because I'd never get that serious with a guy who was supportive of backwards, sexist gender roles. No surprise that Bush is though, I mean the man and I agree on nothing so I would be shocked if he didn't treat his daughter's engagement as a business transaction between himself and the fiance.

I find the idea of asking one's fiance's parents to marry creepy and pointless, even if it's done for both the male and the female parties (which pretty much never happens, we're just talking pure theory here). It's really not up to them, so it doesn't matter what they think.

Oh and I agree with The Law Fairy that the whole idea of the man proposing is problematic. Frankly my husband and I just found the whole idea of staging a proposal to feel fake and inauthentic. I can't even remember when we decided we wanted to get married, it just kind of happened over time and a lot of discussions.

Your right Law Fairy, you don't have to intend something to be sexist in order for it to be. I agree totally.

So that means you are against VAWA and for a new gender-nuetral domestic violence law that affords equal protection and support for both genders that suffer from the violence of their partners?

That means you are also for default shared parenting bills that afford custody to both parents as the standard opposed to the legal precendent of giving the mother custody in a divorce even if both parents are equally capable?

You are also for punishing those people who are guilty of raping others as well as those who falsely claim that they were raped in order to protect victims of rape?

The list goes on and on. Sorry if this sounded like a tirade, but you get so offended by something that is so personal to people. If my girlfriend believes its important to involve her family and mine in the relationship, I will ask her parents for their blessing. While I believe wholeheartedly in independence and freedom for all, everyone still "belongs" to their parents, I belong to my mother and father and extended family. They don't own me but I still have to respect them.

Law Fairy, I completely agree with you about engagement rings and proposals, too.
I'm in a book club with a group of really cool women. They are all very smart and seemingly progressive.
A few are married, and lately it seems a lot are getting engaged. They ALL have fancy engagement rings and they all took (or plan to take) the man's last name.
If my boyfriend and I marry, we are either both wearing SIMPLE "engagement" rings (no diamonds) or neither of us will. Wearing a ring to symbolize that you're "spoken for" is so old-fashioned. And yet it's a given in our society. If you *don't* do it, YOU'RE the outsider.

What do your red herrings have to do with this issue, Nathan? "Personal" decisions can be sexist, you know.

How would you feel if your girlfriend asked your mom for permission to marry you, and then surprised you with a proposal and a ring?

The whole "it's respectful" excuse is bullshit because what if the father says "no?" Are you going to honor his wishes and forget about marrying his daughter? Or are you going to do what you'd planned to anyway? How is that "respectful?"

Maybe the question we should be asking Bush is more like Would you be happy for your daughter to work for Halliburton?

If my girlfriend did that I would feel surprised, duh! And I wouldn't mind because since I we had an open and communicating relationship she and I would have talked about this since this kind of thing is PERSONAL to us two. That is what I mean by personal that its up to the couples to decide how they feel about such issues, and both people in the relationship should respect the others feelings and wishes. How that is sexist I do not know.

Also what red herrings are you referring to. The Law Fairy opened the door to my comment and it was meant to be a red herring to take away from this specific issue since I addressed it as well. Please learn the correct meanings of your metaphors! (I am not one of those dumb illiterate men you think we all are.)

I can see the point about engagement rings being sexist. However, at the risk of sounding backwards or something, I have to say that I really like mine. Maybe it has something to do with me not expecting to actually get one; I told Adam he didn't have to. I also agree about the whole ridiculousness of a proposal where someone is completely surprised. My husband did get down on one knee and propose, but it was mostly just a formality, sort of a way to bring closure to the series of discussions that we had together that ultimately resulted in the decision to get married. Marriage should definitely be a mutual decision made between two partners after careful consideration. And he certainly did NOT go ask my father for permission, although my father insisted on talking to him after the fact, just to make sure we were going to be financially viable (we were/are young, I was pregnant, Dad was concerned that this was really what both of us wanted to do) but not to "give his permission" or anything like that.

On another note, I have heard of women who have had their fathers walk them down the aisle, but at the part of the ceremony when it is asked, "Who gives this woman to this man yada yada?" the father replied, "She gives herself with her parents' blessing," which I think is nice, because it shows that the parents are united behind a decision that their daughter made autonomously (I've seen both parents walk the woman down too, instead of just the dad.)

Back to the original topic: Wow, "once you make the sale"? That's so overtly sexist I'm almost surprised, until I consider the source. Wonder what happened after the whole discussion? Maybe they drew up a property deed and retreated to the library for cigars and brandy in celebration of their bargain.

Nathan, your tirade didn't make a lot of sense...

"So that means you are against VAWA and for a new gender-nuetral domestic violence law that affords equal protection and support for both genders that suffer from the violence of their partners?"--Not against VAWA, but feminists are against domestic violence- whether you are a male or female victim, it's still a crime and people need legislature to protect themselves.

"That means you are also for default shared parenting bills that afford custody to both parents as the standard opposed to the legal precendent of giving the mother custody in a divorce even if both parents are equally capable?" I think most feminists would be THRILLED if in a divorce both parents remained deeply involved in their children's lives. I don't think there actually IS a legal precedent of just handing over custody to a mother, but rather that decision is made after court battles if, unfortunately, the parents can't equitably resolve how to handle their responsibilities as parents.

"You are also for punishing those people who are guilty of raping others as well as those who falsely claim that they were raped in order to protect victims of rape?" Seriously, how many actual victims of rape are there vs. how many people have lied about it? You wouldn't bring this up with any other type of crime.

Your intent with this little fit was to 'blow our minds' with what a progressive you are, but I think all it did was highlight how uninformed sexism runs very deeply even today. The plight of the white male- you guys have it so tough.

I want a regular, formal proposal. But it would be show; I would have talked to the guy about the prospect of getting married many times. It shouldn't be a surprise, but I don't think there's anything wrong with doing the whole formal proposal thing as long as it ISN'T a surprise and the man (or woman, whichever) knows that his partner wants that sort of thing.

Also, I will wear a ring because I don't like getting hit on in bars and it would be something special he chose for me. I wouldn't want it to be diamond and platinum, but a little band with a modest colored stone and maybe a cool ring for him too would be fine by me.

Marriage is a deeply personal thing and it should be done in a way that both people love and appreciate and will remember fondly. If two people can't agree on what kind of proposal procedure is best for them, they probably shouldn't be getting married yet; but ultimately, it is their own choice. Not every moment of every woman's life needs to be completely focused on furthering feminist ideals.

That said, I agree with HollyPop: Bush should NOT have referred to it as a sale, he is a public figure and if it was a joke,it was in poor taste.

If you don't like getting hit on in bars, Basiorana, why don't you wear a ring on your left finger now?

Not every moment has to be focused on furthering feminist ideals, but you should not be perpetuating sexism. These traditions people are talking about are sexist.

SarahMC, you are awesome. That's exactly how I'd want to go about things. Your second comment is also right-on... to dig up an old phrase that bears repeating, the personal is the political.

Nathan,

So that means you are against VAWA and for a new gender-nuetral domestic violence law that affords equal protection and support for both genders that suffer from the violence of their partners?

?? 1) I'm not sure what that has to do with my point, and 2) why on earth would you think I'd be against that? I think those laws sound fantastic! Gender-neutral is GOOD. Laws that recognize that domestic violence happens against all kinds of people, and seek to redress it, are GOOD. Just because I am pro-woman does not mean I am even remotely anti-man.

That means you are also for default shared parenting bills that afford custody to both parents as the standard opposed to the legal precendent of giving the mother custody in a divorce even if both parents are equally capable?

If both parents are equally capable then they should both get equal consideration. I'm against defaulting toward the mother for no other reason than that she has a vagina. Again, point?

You are also for punishing those people who are guilty of raping others as well as those who falsely claim that they were raped in order to protect victims of rape?

Okay. I'm going to try to restrain myself, because this is one of the most offensive things I've heard, it occasionally makes its way into this community and it is always, ALWAYS, horrifically, disgustingly offensive. You seriously may as well have shaved your head and yelled "seig heil" while planting a burning cross in a black family's yard, because that is how WRONG what you are suggesting is.

Do. Not. Fucking. Pretend. that these two are even remotely, REMOTELY the same thing. You go fucking ask your friends who have been raped what they think, ask them how much therapy it has taken them to be able to function in society, how many years it has taken them to dare to think someone might actually ever love them, how many years it has taken them to be able to allow themselves to be touched again (if they have even reached that point), how much of a toll it has taken on their health, how indescribably it has HURT them, and then you come back here and DARE to ask that question again. Do not come here and make snarky, assholish, flippant comments about rape. Rape, apart from certain kinds of torture, is THE worst thing that can happen to a (still living) human being. I've HAD my reputation unfairly damaged by gossip and accusations and all kinds of other bullshit. Guess the fuck what? It happens to fucking EVERYONE. FUCK YOU for even suggesting the two are comparable. Are you even close with a single woman (or man, for that matter) who has been raped???

The list goes on and on. Sorry if this sounded like a tirade, but you get so offended by something that is so personal to people. If my girlfriend believes its important to involve her family and mine in the relationship, I will ask her parents for their blessing. While I believe wholeheartedly in independence and freedom for all, everyone still "belongs" to their parents, I belong to my mother and father and extended family. They don't own me but I still have to respect them.

I love how you get high and mighty about things that are "personal" to people right after you suggest that rape is no worse than (being generous to you here) slander. This stuff is personal to me too -- I'm a woman who lives in a sexist society that goes around telling people that this is the "right" way to get engaged.

For your information, I'm ridiculously close with my family, so much so that I use most of my hard-earned vacation time to visit them. If and when I get married, they will all be an integral part of moving forward in that relationship. I would NOT, however, appreciate my would-be husband sneaking off to MY family, without ME, to talk about me behind me back. That is not respectful. It is not romantic. It is rude and, to boot, it has its roots in sexist traditions that you don't seem willing to even examine.

An engagement rign is sexist, talking about marriage with your parents is sexist, it sounds pretty much like marriage is sexist. Oh the PLIGHT OF THE SINGLE WHITE FEMALE. We want you to commit, but asking you to make a decision is so sexist and bringing you down. The patriarchy must have invented monogamy.

What about the hurt for the person falsely accused. The friends who won't talk to him anymore, the police who interrogated him, insulted him, made his life a living nightmare for weeks and months on end. The public and humilitating trial where his sexuality is used against him, his personal life that no one should really know about. The co-workers that make fun of him, the boss that fires him. The "vigilante" groups that haze and intimidate and assault people who were aqcuitted of rape because they couldn't possibly be really innocent. Yes rape is horrible and traumatic and I have friends who have nightmares every night about the experience and there are some day where I just feel like I am losing my best friend to this thing, and I feel so powerless to help her. Then there is the guy whose entire life has become a waking nightmare and I feel for him too. DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH ABOUT HOW I AM AN UNCARING ASSHOLE!

You are being deliberately obtuse, Nathan. Marriage is an historically sexist institution. That doesn't mean a couple can't have an egalitarian marriage in 2007. Why, to you, must a marriage include a proposal by the man to the woman? Why must the woman wear an engagement ring?
Why can't you imagine marriage without these elements? If you can't, then it's clear that for YOU, marriage itself IS sexist.

To add to what Law Fairy already said, I am going to quote Thomas, another wonderful and beautifully succinct commenter:

Rape denialism: the ideology of denying or minimizing the prevalence of rape.

Contrast with rape apologism, the ideology of denying the seriousness of rape.

The rape denialist acknowledges the category "rape" and overtly endorses the view that it is wrong and grievously so. The rape denialist then attempts to construct arguments by which few or no rapes can be defined or verified.

Because rape denialists acknowledge the seriousness of rape, they frequently make extravagant assertions about how rapists should be dealt with; often through torture. The severity of proposed consequences, however, can be pressed into service in (1) defining rape as so aberrant that only the non-functional mentally ill would commit the act; and (2) that it is quite rare. The rape denialist often seeks to exclude acquaintance rape of any kind, any rape not causing visible physical injuries, and any rape where the rapist or any other party could pay a money judgment in any civil action, usually on the premise (among others) that fabricated allegations are common. For this proposition, only anecdotal evidence is generally offered, often in the form of an aside about the Duke rape case. Before Duke, the anecdote of choice was Tawana Brawley.

The Law Fairy:

Will you marry me?

HollyPop and Basiorana, I definitely understand the appeal of these traditions and had a really REALLY hard time convincing myself that an engagement ring was not important to me. I still don't think I'll be able to completely revolutionize my wedding, because this stuff is just SO deeply ingrained in us that it's really hard to fight. It takes a seriously strong person even to WANT to fight it.

And, no, obviously you don't have to (and probably can't) be a model feminist 100% of the time, day in and day out. But the important thing is that you try, that you care enough to understand why it's important, that you make SOME kind of change in your life to show that it's real to you, and that you engage and critically look at your choices. It sounds to me like you guys are doing that, even if you haven't made the same choices I have, and THAT is the important thing. Because in my opinion, thinking necessarily leads to change, eventually :)

Nathan: I don't have to put any words into your mouth. Seems like you are saying plenty of them on your own.

You guys, I apologize. I didn't realize I was putting out troll food.

MissMouse -- ;)

Several police, goevernmental, and academic studies have reported teh false rape statistic to be around 10-15 percent of reported rapes and some studies have made it as high as 20 percent. Hardly anecdotal evidence.

I'm not saying that rape isnt a problem and that rapes are mostly false, but you can argue the alternate viewpoint of the rape hysteriaist who claims that every man is a rapist, and that consensual sex is an oxymoron. I am not saying you believe is that heavily, but it seems to me that do seem to err on the side of if he's got a penis he's probably guilty of rape.

Also, I am a pacifist, so I do not believe in any form of capital punishment, I do believe in long prison sentences, but I am in favor of prison reform that makes prisons into rehabilitation centers instead of incarceration storage units for the detritus of society.

So according to your definition, I fail as a rape denialist.

There is no need to put words in your mouth. Your own words make you an asshole.
Stop pretending false rape accusations are common. They are no more common than false accusations of theft.
Men who are not convicted of rape have not necessarily been falsely accused. Rape is extremely hard to prove, because even when DNA evidence is present, defense lawyers are usually able to put enough doubt into jurors' minds that the sex was non-consentual. The conviction rate is embarassingly low NOT because men accused of rape are overwhelmingly innocent, but because rape is hard to prove.
Rape is terribly common; most women who are raped don't even bring charges against their attackers. It's not exactly a rewarding endeavor.
To suggest that a signifigant number women who haven't been raped would put themselves through such an ordeal is not only assholish, it's fucking ignorant.

Oh honey, even if you don't advocate corporal punishment, you are still a rape denialist. That's a small detail, and you are calling attention to it to deflect from the fact that you otherwise fit the bill.

I'd love to see links to the "several studies" you mention.

What is your definition of "false accusation," anyway? An accusation that does not lead to a conviction? Victims who are unsure who raped them are not malicious liars. Victims who don't get a rape kit are not malicious liars. That some rapists escape conviction hardly makes THEM the victims. You fucking asshole.

I'm also curious as to where you got the idea that any of us believes consentual sex is an oxymoron? Stop burning down strawfeminists.

SarahMC, please do not call me honey. That is a sexist term a woman uses on a man she considers to be a simpleton and an idiot. Also, calling me an asshole and other derogatory names does not make you any more right or more persuasive in your arguments. You can state your opinion without hate speech. I have not called any of you names so please don't do that to me.

I agree SarahMC about Victims who are unsure or don't get rape kits. False allegations means the police found direct physical evidence or the "victim" said she lied about her accusation. I am not talking about cases that could not be prosecuted, I am talking about cases where the allegation is flat-out false.

SarahMC, please do not call me honey. That is a sexist term a woman uses on a man she considers to be a simpleton and an idiot. Also, calling me an asshole and other derogatory names does not make you any more right or more persuasive in your arguments. You can state your opinion without hate speech. I have not called any of you names so please don't do that to me.

I agree SarahMC about Victims who are unsure or don't get rape kits. False allegations means the police found direct physical evidence or the "victim" said she lied about her accusation. I am not talking about cases that could not be prosecuted, I am talking about cases where the allegation is flat-out false.

And "Honey" I also addressed the other points of the denialist definition. Ignoring them doesn't make that fact go away.

SarahMC: Because when I did my friends freaked out and said, "Oh, man, you're getting married!?!" and doesn't listen to me try to offer an explanation.

Do I really have to devote my entire life to fighting sexism? Can't I spend other times doing things just because I like them, my partner likes them, and we think it's sweet and special for us? I'm not going to tell other women to have that kind of engagement. I won't even tell my daughters to. It's one of the more personal moments between a couple and telling me I shouldn't have an engagement like that because it furthers sexist ideals, to me, is a bit like saying I should never give my partner a blowjob because it furthers sexist ideals.

Also, to fuel the side-discussion against my better judgment: Yes, false rape accusations are bad and someone who falsely accuses another of rape should be punished (IF they can be proven to have some kind of malicious intent, and it wasn't just an accident). But the punishment should be like a week in jail and few months of community service and counseling, while the punishment for a rapist should be YEARS in jail and therapy for life until (s)he understands exactly what (s)he did to his victim and why it is so horrible. They aren't really comparable.

The Law Fairy: While I appreciate the sentiment, the insinuation that we are somehow weak if we want a traditional wedding/engagement is a bit much. I know many strong women who got married the old fashioned way as they championed women's rights, marched on Washington, fought in court for rape victims, etc. My engagement should be the way I want it to be; I can be a feminist the rest of the time and reserve some parts of my life just to be whatever I please.

Why do you keep referring to "hate speech?" Do you even know what that means? Your speech is much more hateful than mine. Just because you're not cussing doesn't mean you're not being a jerk.
You have no credibility here, as you've just claimed that being falsely accused of rape is just as damaging, if not more damaging, than being raped. And you still have not acknowledged the FACT that the number of rape victims far exceeds the number of men who are "falsely accused" of rape. Are one in four men falsely accused of rape during their lifetimes? One in twenty? One hundred? What?

SarahMC just because you do not like what I have to say does not mean I have no credibility. Also, the one in four women are raped statistic is incredibly false and outdated, please keep up to date on your statistics. Oh and before you call me an evil denialist again for even thinking that the 1/4 statistic is false, i think its like 1/10 or 1/15 which is still a high number, but not egregiously, blatantly false as the 1/4

The fact that you are seemingly incapable of discussing rape without taking a moment to remember those poor men who've been falsely accused of rape makes you a rape denialist.

Do you do the same thing whenever the topics of kidnapping or theft arise?

The fact that you are seemingly incapable of discussing rape without taking a moment to remember those poor men who've been falsely accused of rape makes you a rape denialist.

Do you do the same thing whenever the topics of kidnapping or theft arise?

God, you're insufferable.

I'm still curious:

must a marriage include a proposal by the man to the woman? Why must the woman wear an engagement ring?
Why can't you imagine marriage without these elements? If you can't, then it's clear that for YOU, marriage itself IS sexist.

No a marriage need not a proposal from the man to the woman, and the woman need not wear an engagement ring. Those are the couples decisions. I am jut arguing that they are not inherently sexist.

And SarahMC, I think your discourse is stimulating and has made me think a lot about marriage. I am sorry to say that you were too narrow minded to think at all about the things that I have said.

This whole comments section has made me realize that yes there are some sexist things in marriage today, like the father giving away the bride, leftover from the days when marriage was a financial transaction (Yes I admit it was that, I also believe that is why marriages suck right now because they need revamping from that transaction based idea.)

So I may be insufferable, but at least I am open-minded.

"i think its like 1/10 or 1/15"

Charlotte Bunch, in an article included in UNICEF's 1997 publication, The Progress of Nations, has stated that "[s]tatistics on rape from industrialized and developing countries show strikingly similar patters: Between one in five and one in seven women will be victims of rape in their lifetime."Source

The general internet consensus is (hard to determine, many rapes are not reported) somewhere between one and five and one in seven women are raped in their lives; some studies reported as many as one in three but they are less common.

Meanwhile the normal estimates for false rape accusations are like, 2% to 16% of rape cases that actually go to court, including people who make mistakes or were drugged and can't remember or did not see their attacker. There are currently no studies that confirm how many women do so maliciously but I'm guessing it's a fairly small percentage of that.

How can you argue that a tradition wherein the woman acts one way while the man acts another way is NOT sexist? Seriously.

Nathan, I have been thinking about the things you've said since I was born into the patriarchy. One can't ESCAPE your viewpoint, as it's the dominant one - the one we're encouraged and expected to embrace as the norm.

Also, the FBI cites only 8% of all rape cases as falsely reported, against with no distinction as to intent. Source

Never guess at statistics.

Thanks for looking that up, Basiorana. People must remember that the vast majority of rapes are not reported. So whatever the official statistic, the actual prevalence of rape is much higher.

Nathan, if you acknowledge that the father giving the woman away is a leftover from the days when weddings were transactional, why do you not make the connection between that and the tradition of men proposing and offering rings (which only the women wear)? It's all connected.

About the Topic At Hand- Are you sure this really qualifies as the Sexist Quote of Year? Is that really the worst we've heard? Awful as it is, it seems pretty mild as far as sexist quotes go.

To Nathan-

1.) Four words: The Personal IS political. This was pretty much the mantra of second wave feminism. That is why feminists today care about "personal" issues like housework, childrearing, sexuality and yes, the wedding ceremony- including all that leads up to it and all that follows it. There are VERY few times in a woman's life when she is not impacted by the patriarchy in some way. Often, she is impacted without realizing it, conversely men often perpetuate the patriarchy without realizing it. That is why we care about the wedding ceremony.

2.) The wedding ceremony itself is full of traditions that are nothing more than remnants of horrible practices. The bride's father "giving her away" is one of them. So is the presence of a "best man". If you're interested in perhaps, broadening your understanding of the Western/Northern European marriage tradition- I would recommend "Marriage, A History" by Stephanie Coontz.

3.) Now about rape- You acknowledge that it exists, and that it is a truly heinous crime that can have deeply traumatic permanent psychological consequences for the victims.

We'll that's something.

4.) According to a 2006 government survey, you and Sarah are both wrong. The rate is 1 in 6. This may not be accurate because the majority, 59% are still unreported. So I'd say the rate is closer to 1 in 4 than 1 in 10.

Source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/

5.) You said 20% of rape accusations are false. This means that 20% of the men accused of rape were found innocent. This does not mean that 20% of men are falsely accused of rape. It means that out of the men accused of rape, 20% are found innocent.

However, 1 in 6 of ALL women in America are sexually assaulted.

Do you understand the difference in the sample size? If yes, do you see why one is more of a pressing issue? Why feminists and society in general tends to focus on one more than the other?

5.) You made reference before to our race, mocking "PLIGHT OF THE SINGLE WHITE FEMALE". Don't do that. Especially don't do that and turn around and accuse us of "hate speech".

I should refresh the screen more....

I have a hard time believing 20% of men accused of rape are found not-guilty (as opposed to "innocent," which is not one of the options). Wouldn't that mean that 80% of men accused of rape are found guilty? Because that sure as hell is not the case. I'm sure it's less than 10% in the USA.

The plight of the single white female comment was a response to the single white male one a few comments back. If mine is racist, so is yours.

The plight of the single white female comment was a response to the single white male one a few comments back. If mine is racist, so is yours.

But you are right and it was wrong to say so I am sorry.

I have a hard time believing 20% of men accused of rape are found not-guilty (as opposed to "innocent," which is not one of the options). Wouldn't that mean that 80% of men accused of rape are found guilty? Because that sure as hell is not the case. I'm sure it's less than 10% in the USA.

Yes, well, as Basiorana, showed it is much lower. I was taking more of a let's-assume-you're-right approach.

The plight of the single white female comment was a response to the single white male one a few comments back. If mine is racist, so is yours.

But you are right and it was wrong to say so I am sorry.

I did not make that comment. It is just that you are not the first one to assume everyone here is white and privileged.

BTW Jessica, are you aware of the troublesome "iWife" advertisement at the top of the main page?

Why is the "best man" sexist?

Yeah, why is the best man sexist?

There is the maid of honor, is that sexist as well. Just want some historical perspective and am curious at the history behind it.

Why is the "best man" sexist?

The origins are. From this site:

The Best Man
Many centuries ago, before the women's rights movement, men who had decided upon a wife often had to forcefully take her with him (or kidnap her) if her family did not approve of him. The tradition of a "best man" probably has its origin with the Germanic Goths, when it was customary and preferable for a man to marry a woman from within his own community. When women came into short supply "locally," eligible bachelors would have to seek out and capture a bride from a neighboring community. As you might guess this was not a one-person operation, and so the future bridegroom would be accompanied by a male companion who would help. Our custom of the best man is a throwback to that two-man, strong-armed tactic, for, of course the future groom would select only the best man he knew to come long for such an important task.

The role of the best man evolved. By 200 AD his task was still more than just safeguarding the ring. There remained a real threat that the bride's family would attempt to obtain her return forcibly, so the best man remained at the groom's side throughout the marriage ceremony, alert and well-armed. He continued his duties after the ceremony by standing guard as sentry outside the newlywed's home. Much of this is German folklore, but is not without written documentation and physical artifacts. We have records that indicate that beneath the altars of many churches of early peoples (the Huns, Goths, Visigoths, and Vandals) there lay an arsenal of clubs, knives, and spears. The indication is that these were there to protect the groom from possible attack by the bride's family in an attempt to recapture her.

Traditionally, the bride stands to the left side of the groom. This was much more than meaningless etiquette. Among the Northern European barbarians (a name given to them by the Romans), a groom placed his captured bride to his left to protect her, as he kept his right hand free to use for defense. Also originating from this practice of abduction, which literally swept a bride off her feet, sprang the later symbolic act of carrying the bride across the threshold of her new home. It may well be that even the honeymoon had its origin with this capture scenario. It may well have served as a cooling-off period for the bride's family. It was the groom's hope that when the newlyweds returned from their honeymoon that all would be forgiven.

Law Fairy - I think surprise proposals can be equitable, since that's how it happened with me and my husband. We were walking to the grocery store and out of the blue I half-jokingly said we should get married; he half-jokingly agreed. I think I had to ask him seriously a few days later but we were just confirming out loud what we both already felt individually.

I hate the whole engagement ring thing too. I hate the flashy ring in general (I don't really wear jewelry), so we both got plain silver bands.

As for talking to our parents, we told his parents before we told mine but each of them learned about 6 months after the wedding. My dad acted all weepy that he didn't get to walk me down the aisle and I just bluntly cut him off, saying that there was no aisle and he didn't own me anyway. That shut him up pretty fast, thank god.

But I'm also not very close to my family. ;)

If some guy I was dating ever went and asked my father for "permission" I'd dump him right there and then. I'm tired of people putting the father's feelings before the woman's. these guys should care much more about making a woman feel like a financial transaction than gaining the respect of a dad who still can't recognize his daughter as an autonomous human being

Don't mean to break up the dialogue going on, but I just had an anecdote that I thought would be good...

My dad's mom was widowed, and five years later (when she was late 70s) she starting seeing someone! By that point, my dad did all of her finances, etc. (he's her oldest son). When my grandma's beau decided to marry her, he called my dad to ask permission. He's very old-fashioned, and there's no way I would ever say anything, but I just thought it was funny, as did my dad. Anyway, I guess ownership passes down the family tree.

On a side note, I cannot imagine my boyfriend asking my dad for permission to marry me. I mean, we are adults.. we make our own decisions. I'm close with my dad, but he knows he doesn't have that much control over me.

P.S. In the photo, the "cupping" hand is Jenna's hand... it has clear nailpolish on the thumbnail! If you follow from her elbow up, it's clear. Just figured that out :)

What weirds me out about it is how it fits into the general narrative that "old fashioned" is wholesome and respectful. Sarah is of course right, there is no way to look at this rationally as anything but sexist. And yet every part of it, from the Magazine's framing of the question, to Bush's answer, to Henry's discussion of "financial responsibility" all speak to a 50's mentality on marriage.

I'm immediately curious about what's just beyond the article itself. Namely their target audience: The people who find this sort of sexism reassuring and sensible.

In self-defense, the reason I put "old fashioned" in my post was because I am uncomfortable calling my 86-year-old step-grandfather "sexist." I don't approve of almost every aspect of their marriage, but I also don't strive to change them... I mean, they're in their 80s. And when I say old-fashioned, I am thinking in my head "sexist," not "wholesome."

"But the important thing is that you try, that you care enough to understand why it's important, that you make SOME kind of change in your life to show that it's real to you, and that you engage and critically look at your choices. It sounds to me like you guys are doing that, even if you haven't made the same choices I have, and THAT is the important thing. Because in my opinion, thinking necessarily leads to change, eventually :)"

Law Fairy, I appreciate you saying that, especially the part about making some change. Maybe I had a fairly traditional engagement/wedding, but my actual marriage is not so traditional; for example, both my husband and I are attending college, but since I have clear career goals and he's still not sure what he wants to do, he's the one that dropped down to part-time and he's the one who stays home with the baby during the day while I'm at school. I certainly don't want to devalue the act of challenging sexism in the wedding ceremony, but on the other hand I am comfortable regarding the decisions I made at that time in my life. That wedding took up one day of my life; I intend for my marriage to take up the rest of my life, therefore I tend to view challenging sexist ideas about how marriages should work as more central to my own experience of "the political as personal."

"the insinuation that we are somehow weak if we want a traditional wedding/engagement is a bit much." I do agree with this statement of Basiorana's to an extent. Yeah, I can see how my decisions further sexist traditions, but at the time that I made them I hadn't quite begun grappling with feminism as it relates to such issues. Actually, at the time of my marriage, the main issue relating to feminism that I had to deal with was making the decision to go ahead and get married when I found out I was pregnant, since I definitely do not believe that it's bad to have a baby outside of wedlock. However, since Adam and I had been discussing marriage for a year and a half and come to the mutually foregone conclusion that we would be getting married eventually, and were just waiting to make it official because we felt my parents would not be quite ready to give their blessing (which, by the way, it was my mother we were concerned about, not so much my father), we decided we might as well go on and do it; there really was no reason to wait, and I didn't feel it was necessary to have the baby first and then get married later just to prove a point that probably would have gone right over the heads of most of the people I know. (I grew up in a rural area chock-full of religious conservatives.) Anyway, I feel as if I'm rambling; the point I really want to make is that I feel like my personal decisions have been somewhat devalued despite being what I felt were the best decisions for me at the time, although I'm sure that was not the intention. Also, it's not as if I can go back and redo it. All I can do is move forward, and of course make sure that when and if the time comes, my daughter realizes the traditional way to do the whole wedding thing isn't necessarily the only or the best option and that she can decide whatever she wants about it.

Oh, and please forgive the use of quotation marks instead of italics. I am not sure how to do italics; could someone enlighten me?

"About the Topic At Hand- Are you sure this really qualifies as the Sexist Quote of Year? Is that really the worst we've heard?"

I actually wondered that too. It is pretty sexist, but I can't help but wondering if something worse has been said. Well, actually, I can think of something that some jerkoff said to me while I was minding my own business riding my bike down the street to the effect of "Hey! Pedalin' pussy is illegal!" which I found personally more offensive than Bush's statement, but perhaps sexist statements are made worse in direct proportion to the visibility of the statement-maker. I mean, this guy on the street was far from being the leader of the (so-called) Free World, at least in terms of media coverage. Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" comment also comes to mind; of course, that one seemed to get more attention for being racist than sexist, but it's definitely sexist as well.

Actually, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the idea that some statements are more or less sexist than others. If sexism is really that bad (which it is) should we really put in on a sliding scale? Just a thought.

"On another note, I have heard of women who have had their fathers walk them down the aisle, but at the part of the ceremony when it is asked, "Who gives this woman to this man yada yada?" the father replied, "She gives herself with her parents' blessing," which I think is nice, because it shows that the parents are united behind a decision that their daughter made autonomously (I've seen both parents walk the woman down too, instead of just the dad.)"

That's not bad. At my wedding the minister made a brief statement to the effect of, "No one is being given away -- the bride and groom are here of their own accord". (Not that there was an aisle anyway.)

i love to watch people get their asses kicked in the comments.

An engagement rign is sexist, talking about marriage with your parents is sexist, it sounds pretty much like marriage is sexist. Oh the PLIGHT OF THE SINGLE WHITE FEMALE. We want you to commit, but asking you to make a decision is so sexist and bringing you down. The patriarchy must have invented monogamy.

of course marriage is a sexist institution! if you've been reading anything the other commenters have been saying it's that marriage has its roots in a father owning a daughter a man paying a dowry (engagment ring?) for this property of the father's. it relegates women to the position of property, dehumanizing her.

sounds pretty sexist to me.

What does a modern partnership, or a formal recognition of that partnership (gay or straight) look like, if not marriage?

I really don't think I got my ass kicked in the comments, but whatever. The gentleness of feminism is so overrated.

Anywho, I believe you are wrong. The marriage thing was not instituted because a father owned her daughter, although property and rights and business are associated with marriage. Marriage was a business arrangement to bring lands and stuff together. Kings married their daughters and princes married princesses (guys got the short end of the stick sometimes having to marry an older woman or a child who they didn't rape, but still needed in order to ascend to the throne, so no one really got what they wanted in old school marriages.)

a man paying a dowry (engagment ring?)

Erm, not to argue that engagement rings aren't sexist, but I'm not sure if they count as a dowry. I thought a dowry would have to go to the father, and the engagement ring goes to the woman herself. Just saying.

"No one is being given away -- the bride and groom are here of their own accord". That's really great, actually. I wish I had thought of that.

And I just have to say this: yes, marriage traditions are grounded in sexism, and yes, marriage is a sexist institution. But it doesn't HAVE to be. I think an important part of the discussion is not just pointing out the ways marriage is sexist but also pointing out ways to challenge and change that, for example the many posts about people who have actually gone against/plan on going against sexist traditions in their own weddings and who continue/plan to continue doing so throughout their marriage.

Erm, not to argue that engagement rings aren't sexist, but I'm not sure if they count as a dowry. I thought a dowry would have to go to the father, and the engagement ring goes to the woman herself. Just saying.

Not to quibble semantics, but I'm pretty sure that the dowry was given from the bride's family to the groom to help with her "upkeep." Not that that is any less sexist, but it's a little different. Rather than the man "buying" his wife from her father, her father is "paying off" the groom to take her off his hands, so he doesn't have another mouth to feed. Which, I don't know, might even be worse. Women as burden, not even as valuable property. Not that being property is anything to aspire too.

I'm pretty sure that the dowry was given from the bride's family to the groom to help with her "upkeep."

Alexandra - you're right. I think what I was thinking of, a transferral of some sort of wealth from groom to father, would be called a brideprice. Either way, I'm pretty sure an engagement ring doesn't count because it doesn't go to the groom or the bride's father, it goes to the bride.

Alexandra - you're right. I think what I was thinking of, a transferral of some sort of wealth from groom to father, would be called a brideprice. Either way, I'm pretty sure an engagement ring doesn't count because it doesn't go to the groom or the bride's father, it goes to the bride.

HollyPop,

Yeah, I couldn't think of the word for brideprice, but I've always thought that it was weird that the brides family had to give a dowry to the groom, and the groom had to give money to the bride's family. If I'm not mistaken, a dowry mostly consisted of household items, a "trousseau" so to speak, to help with the new house. But still weird.

I got a little off topic here, but as far as permission goes, my dad is very "traditional" and I'm sure he would LOVE it if someone asked for my hand. Which action, of course, would cause me to dump the lout right off the bat. My sister let my father give her away, but that's all the satisfaction he's going to get from that particular tradition. I for one, will not be walking down the aisle with my father, if I even walk down an "aisle" at all. We may just go down to the courthouse and tell everyone later. My boyfriend and I have recently begun to talk marriage, but we aren't officially "engaged" yet. It would be nice to have rings (for both of us) just as a marking point, saying, yes, we've made the decision to make this commitment, and we want to show the world that we're going to do this thing. But I realize that's not for everyone.

...and then I would have dumped his ass

If some guy I was dating ever went and asked my father for "permission" I'd dump him right there and then.

Which action, of course, would cause me to dump the lout right off the bat.

Yeah, you people talk tough now, but wait until somebody you love deeply makes a mistake while trying to do right by your parents. Then we'll see how easy it is to just dump his ass. Dating you must be like tip-toeing through a minefield.

marriage is a sexist institution

I definitely understand how many of the wedding traditions are sexist, but how is marriage itself (i.e. post-wedding) sexist? I mean, obviously if the husband thinks his wife needs to be subservient or some bullshit, that's a sexist marriage. However, it sounds like you are saying it's impossible to have a non-sexist marriage here in 2007.

That's a very nice response, Alexandra, and in fact I guess how a lot of civil ceremonies are.

BTW, while Japanese "weddings" can be as big and traditional as any (I found the 50's mentality comment quite apt), people are only legally married when the couple submits a single sheet registration form to the local government office bearing two witness' signature seals on them. Thus my wife and I were *actually* married four months after the wedding. Weddings are just for show with no legal weight. A legal recognition of marriage in Japan requires no ceremony at all. About as formal or romantic as going to the DMV.

So how does someone picture a non-sexist ceremony for family and friends? I have seen the comments about best man, no veil and no "giving away."

Yeah, you people talk tough now, but wait until somebody you love deeply makes a mistake while trying to do right by your parents. Then we'll see how easy it is to just dump his ass. Dating you must be like tip-toeing through a minefield.

Fortunately for me, the person I love deeply won't make this particular mistake, not only because he knows that it wouldn't be something that I would want, but also because he thinks it's complete malarkey as well! Maybe that's why I love him so much.

A Male- I think that it would be very difficult to have any kind of "traditional" ceremony, while also being true to feminist values. Things like the white dress (symbol of virginity...heh, yeah, that wouldn't be hypocritical of me, especially with my son in tow), and all that other fun stuff we've mentioned, are really not what makes a successful marriage. I've always kind of hated big weddings, because then everyone gets so focused on the wedding instead of the marriage. I'm not sure how I want my wedding to be, but if my family is there, I would say that they would be in an audience position, maybe with our mothers signing as witnesses or something so that they get to feel a part of the ceremony. And I'll wear a nice dress, but it's not going to be white.

One more thing about the ceremony- we write our own vows to each other. I think that the most romantic thing I can think of is to hear from my man is why he personally wants to spend the rest of his life with me, and for me to tell him why I want to do the same. I'd rather not just spout off the traditional vows. They're all right, I suppose, but not really for me. Anyway, like I said, it's only one day, and really not the most important day of the whole marriage. It's just a symbol, really.

I must say that a non sexist engagement and wedding would be more practical, which is to say, less expensive. That savings can be money to be used by the family. I also appreciate the personalized aspect versus tradition or formula.

I must say that a non sexist engagement and wedding would be more practical, which is to say, less expensive. That savings can be money to be used by the family. I also appreciate the personalized aspect versus tradition or formula.

Thank you for your appreciation. The practicality aspect of the civil ceremony had certainly entered my thinking, as both boyfriend and myself are pretty frugal, and reluctant to spend gobs of money on something that seems so frivolous in the long run. I don't really need to be "queen for a day" in order to have a successful marriage.

I liked the way my boyfriend and I decided to get married. It was as real as it could get, no show, no ring, just us. Basically it was 4 in the morning and we were on the topic of where we were going together, and it just happened. Instead of him getting on his knee in front of a bunch of people, it was just us lying in bed having a real conversation.

I hate the idea of asking the father, or even parents, it definitely disregards the women's judgement, and tries to make her whole ignorance on the matter, a matter that STRONGLY involves her, all cute. Why would you ask the father first? Are you going to be making decisions with him for the rest of your life?

I liked the way my boyfriend and I decided to get married. It was as real as it could get, no show, no ring, just us. Basically it was 4 in the morning and we were on the topic of where we were going together, and it just happened. Instead of him getting on his knee in front of a bunch of people, it was just us lying in bed having a real conversation.

That's pretty much the way it was for me too. I like that way. Seems more authentic for my life, rather then trying to be some sitcom or romance novel.

Anyway, I have seen a lot of reaction to the opening article from the viewpoint of being the daughter in question. It is offensive. Perhaps Jenna was just as offended. How should Bush have handled the fiance's question and the reporter's question?

Also, two things I note is this the President of the United States and his daughter we are talking about, as well as the fact the President is this young man's boss. The President is also his father's boss. Some question if this is some sort of career move on the young man's part. Should these play any role in how the young man should conduct himself, re: tradition?

Emma Goldman has some good stuff to say on marriage and love. You should check it out: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html
You should also check out her other stuff... at this point I'm pretty much in love with her. So there's my bias

Liz,

I read the link. If I am reading correctly, this was an essay from 1911? Is this essay how we should judge society or marriage today, much less how we base our decisions for our own lives? I agree love, sex and children do not need to be reserved for marriage, and there are many poor marriages; but can't modern people form relationships or create a bond which is not as obscene as she portrays?

I didn't read through all the comments, but I have to say Law Fairy, I'm completely in agreement with you. If someone asked my dad's permission for my hand in marriage, it would be clear that he didn't know me that well, and therefore, he shouldn't be in the position of thinking about marrying me.

The whole proposal thing pisses me off too. I don't want you getting down on one me and asking like you think I'm gonna say yes if you haven't even bothered to talk to me about it first. I don't think it would bother me as much if it was like 50/50, men and women proposing with equal frequency, but...it's not.

I'm also with you on engagement rings. Unless he's wearing one, I'm not fucking wearing one either. But...I'm most likely not going to wear one. This is assuming that I even get married in the first place, which is doubtful.

Your right A male. The one problem I have with the feminists is that they choose the statistics and stuff they like even if its from the 50's or 80's and make it sound like its pertinent in today's world.

The most correct, peer reviewed statistics have chopped a large hole in the 1 in 4 statistic, and the 95% of DV is man on woman (today's leading scientific and government publications say that DV is equal in both genders), they pick the statistics from the 80's when women's studies was young and not as academically rigorous as it is now, and state false and misleading statistics.

I am sorry, but when I meet someone who fits into my life and decide to get married, I am asking HER, and not her father - but the fuck does her dad have to do with anything? Suppose her dad says yes and she says no, or suppose she says yes and he says no ...

Jesus Christ - romance is attending the Vagina Monologues together, going to the March for Women's Lives and learning feminism and all the crap together, and going to feminist conferences, and buying FFF for your mate as a Christmas present.

Pretending she's property and has no control or say over whether she can get married is treating her as a child and property.

Sometimes, the misogynist's version of romance can be SO cheesy. Jesus fucking Christ.

What kind of downry do you think it'll be?

And, Nathan, how about you don't group all feminists into one category, huh? As we don't do it to you, cease from doing it to us.

ProFeministMale, I am not atttacking feminist males, because I consider myself one (my dad is a sexist prick who thinks that all women should cook clean stay at home and shut up trust me we've had some rows about this), albeit a equality feminist or MRA. The thing I see is that you are totally devoting yourself and your identity to what the woman wants. Attending thte Vagina monologues with her, going to marches and movements, learning her femininst wants and desires, now I am not saying you can't do those things, but are you doing them because she wants you to, or are you doing them because you want to?

I have nothing to add to this discussion really (I would dump anyone who asked my dad for permission to marry me. My dad knows this, so he would probably send the guy away and tell him to never ever mention it to me).

I just wanted to say, I think the hand above the dress is a third person's hand. The cupping hand is definitely Jenna's but I don't understand how the other one could be Bush's unless his arm is broken. Anyway, who's hand is whom is kind of a nice metaphor for this whole subject.

haha, oh wait, they're both her hand. *sips first cup of coffee of the day*

Now, I don't particularly value marriage that much; it's not really important to me that my boyfriend and I make our relationship "official" in the eyes of the state or a religion, which neither of us subscribes to. But I do think it'd be fun to throw a big party with friends and family to celebrate our relationship.
Sometimes I fantasize about a quirky "first dance" and getting a lot of household appliances. It's stupid that one has to get married before she's lavished with practical gifts like that, haha. Sometimes I want to invite everyone I know to a "We're not getting married" ceremony. But that probably won't happen.

If we do marry, first of all, it will not be conducted in a place of worship. It will not involve religious language or symbolism at all, because we are both atheists. It would most likely be conducted by a secular humanist officiant or something like that (which will surely make both sets of parents proud, heh heh).

I don't know how the actual ceremony might go down. I don't like the symbolism of a bride being walked down the aisle by her father, but I have never seen or heard of anything *other* than that. So I would have to seek out different ideas. It'd be cool to have the officiant ask, "Who gives their support to this couple?" with both sets of parents answering "We do."

I would not wear a white gown or a veil. Just a nice, non-traditional dress.

I have not given much thought to the other aspects, but I would definitely not expect my boyfriend to speak with my father beforehand. And like I said before, I'd wear an engagement ring if he wore one as well.

Nathan, why would you assume that a man couldn't be sincerely interested in pro-woman, anti-violence activities like the Vagina Monologues or the March for Women's Lives? I know it's hard to believe, but *some* men do seek to help elevate women to an equal position in society.

Sorry that reply to ProFeministMale has lots of typos, its late for me here.

I am not saying that he can't be into that stuff, but it sounds like when he talks about it that he's doing it to earn approval and affection, which is a bad thing. I said in the post that if he likes it cool, I really think its cool if he's truly interested in it.

People definitely romanticize the old-fashioned & traditional, without really asking themselves whether the particular traditions are valuable or worthy of continuation.

Tradition is not necessarily right or good. Plenty of traditions are abhorrent, and deserve to be done away with.

It's mindless to perpetuate tradition for the sake of perpetuating tradition.

OT: I had a rather awesome friend who was left high and dry by her boyfriend. he did the whole, "I just can't do this...etc." speech and then pomptly left her with an apartment she couldn't keep and a rent she couldn't afford.
So, she sent out cards to everyone which declared "I've been dumped and I'm essentially without a home. I'm also registered at Crate and Barrel and Urban Outfitters. Will accept cash donations."
So the she got stuff and a little cash and eventually a new place and a new and way better boyfriend.
Personally, I'm much closer with my mom than with my dad. If my boyfirend and I decide to get married we will talk to my mom about it as a couple. My dad will be notified via phone call. The idea of two men talking about my future without my presence makes me slightly queasy.
i find it strange that so many women are still clinging to marriage traditions. I simply have no interest in playing the part of blushing bride.

13lesslee, that's awesome about your friend!

Nowadays most people live on their own (away from their parents) for at least a little while before they get married. So the first time they need furniture & appliances is not when they marry, but when they graduate college or shortly thereafter.
So it's kind of inappropriate that it's still expected of wedding guests to furnish the couple's home.

I glanced at this entry and I was really confused because I misread "sexist" as "sexiest". Between that and the photo of dubya, it was a very perplexing couple seconds.

Well, that's kind of "ick" but I think reading his comments as "daughter-for-sale" is off. If you look at the comment the, "I'm of the school, once you make the sale, move on," Bush is referring to Jenna's fiance as the one "making the sale"--the guy had "sold" Bush on himself as a prospective husband for Jenna, because Bush had given him permission, but the guy kept talking and Bush thought that was a little dumb. It's a wierd quote--he's mocking his daughter's fiance in a public forum.

FWIW, I agree with the comments upthread that, while in generally "asking for her hand" seems archaic and dopey, things might seem different when the father is a) President of the United States and b) your boss.

Per this:

My dad's mom was widowed, and five years later (when she was late 70s) she starting seeing someone! By that point, my dad did all of her finances, etc. (he's her oldest son). When my grandma's beau decided to marry her, he called my dad to ask permission. He's very old-fashioned, and there's no way I would ever say anything, but I just thought it was funny, as did my dad. Anyway, I guess ownership passes down the family tree.

Not in reference to your particular situation, but I actually do think there's a stronger case for people with kids asking their kids' permission (or at least opinions) before they get married than there is for people asking their parents. The decision probably has a much greater practical impact on kids than it does on parents, and if you're all going to be living together, it might be a good idea to get their buy-in.

I was getting angry and upset reading this comment thread. Then Nathan said, "The gentleness of feminism is so overrated."

The gentleness of feminism? The gentleness of feminism?

That was a good laugh. Oh, those feminists, getting all uppity and forgetting their gentleness!

meg77 said: "it's nice to include the parents in the celebration and decision."

No, sorry. I did include my parents in the celebration (in my mother's words: your wedding is my occasion for inviting people I like). But the decision was taken by me and my fiancee, independently of my parents (who would certainly not have chosen him, if they had any say in the matter).

I suppose it's nice to include kids in the decision to get married, but when I was one of those kids it felt like a travesty when my mother asked if it was ok with me that she was going to marry my stepfather. Considering that I hated him and was scared of him, and she was going to marry him no matter what I said (at least I thought so), I couldn't say anything but "sure, it's fine."

As far as the original thread, I've thought quite a bit about the patriarchial nature of weddings, and if I get married it's going to be as egalitarian as we can make it. A friend of my mom's got married a few years back, and her whole family including her parents, her two grown-up kids, and my mom walked her down the aisle. Technically my mom's not part of her family but she got included anyway. Actually I think the groom was also accompanied by family members on his trip down the aisle.

Also, hahahah! The gentleness of feminism! Yeah, I became a feminist to be more gentle!

"People definitely romanticize the old-fashioned & traditional, without really asking themselves whether the particular traditions are valuable or worthy of continuation."

Yes, so I agree that many traditions have sexist foundations but many people don't see them in that way now. People have their dad walk them down the aisle because that's how it's been done for a long time, probably not because they feel they're being given away.

I've been to more than one wedding at which both parents walked the bride down the aisle. Since mothers are generally more involved in their children's life, I never used to understand why the dad walks kids down the aisle.

I agree too big of a deal is made of weddings but I think the party part is fun and can be a good way for family to get together.

I've been to more than one wedding at which both parents walked the bride down the aisle.

That's actually the Jewish tradition--both the bride and the groom are walked down the aisle by their parents. At the last wedding I went to, though, the bride and groom walked down the aisle together, which was sweet.

I'd love it if the guy I was seeing asked my father for permission to marry me!
...but only because my father's been dead for 20 years.

What can I say? I appreciate a man with a good sense of humor.

Nathan... why does it matter when it was written? How many of us study dead old guys, and dead old women for that matter too. Its important insight into marriage (of course you don't have to agree either). I just thought that it was one well written philosphy on how marriage (and yes even today it is very similar to how it was in the 1911) is basically an economic institution. Why do people chose to get married (tradition is one, but what about tax benefits and health insurance). All she is saying, and perhaps she says it better in her other essays, is that marriage promotes and afirms capitalism. It really isn't about love, and that people can love without marriage. I don't think she's critizing people who choose to marry, but she's just pointing out that the idea that marriage was really set up so people could show the world how committed they are and how much they love each other is a lie. Marriage is and will be, until there is a huge cultural change, an economic institution.

Nathan... why does it matter when it was written? How many of us study dead old guys, and dead old women for that matter too. Its important insight into marriage (of course you don't have to agree either). I just thought that it was one well written philosophy on how marriage (and yes even today it is very similar to how it was in the 1911) is basically an economic institution. Why do people chose to get married (tradition is one, but what about tax benefits and health insurance)? All she is saying, and perhaps she says it better in her other essays too, is that marriage promotes and affirms capitalism. It really isn't about love, and that people can love without marriage. I don't think she's criticizing people who choose to marry, but she's just pointing out that the idea that marriage was really set up so people could show the world how committed they are and how much they love each other is a lie. Marriage is and will be, until there is a huge cultural change, an economic institution. By the way, love as we know it became prominent around this time and a little before. The idea that love is an important part of marriage is a really modern idea.

When I got married, it was when my wife and I were living in Japan. We were in a jewelry store together, and I saw a really nice engagement ring. So it was kind of a surprise to both of us, really. The actual formal proposal was a week later over a nice dinner, but she was with me when the ring was bought, so...

It didn't even occur to me to ask her father's permission. He was happy enough, and my family was very happy (my father's words were, "How did you convince her to marry you?!).

Now we have a daughter, and anybody who asks my permission to marry her doesn't have it, and she'll know about it. She's not my property in that sense (certainly is my responsibility, but not property). She or partner can certainly ask my opinion, but seeking permission earns my disapproval. If she wants to marry him anyway, fine, but I'll make my feelings known.

But that's a long way off now (considering that she's like... 14 months now...).

vervain... I'm with you on that one, since I'm in the same position too. By the way, if i were to uphold the whole asking the male head of the house to marry me, would they have to ask my brother? Now thats just way to creepy.

Ok, everyone, please go to Nathan's blog. He talks about us. It is very *sweet*.

Webbess, good call-his blog is fricking hilarious! Hee hee, those big bad meanie feminists were so MEAN to me! They didn't even LISTEN to my stupid ideas that they've heard approximately 1.89 billion times in their lives!! They didn't give me a cookie for trying to be nice to feminists! And they called me sexist, boo hoo!!!

Ok, now I'm going back to being the "gentle feminist" we all strive to be.

/snark

Webbess, pass. I knew it was pointless to debate anything with Nathan from this statement on: "I am not one of those dumb illiterate men you think we all are."

His mind was already made up when he arrived. He'd already forged his opinions and was just looking to reinforce them. I enjoy helping to educate those who sincerely want to learn more about feminism, but I don't waste my time on those who don't.

Shit, Nathan, I don't know you. This is why a lot of readers would like men to be off the board. Yes, I brought up CDC IPV/DV figures like you mention myself, once, in a discussion where I thought it was relevant. I can see on the birth control thread that you can be a reasonable person. Please don't blow it.

"I am not saying that he can't be into that stuff, but it sounds like when he talks about it that he's doing it to earn approval and affection, which is a bad thing."

If I ever attend a feminist or women's rights event*, or read or watch "The Vagina Monologues," it will be because I want to go. I want to see what the controversy about TVM is about.

*I attended the local women/child shelter's take back the night type event as a student nurse. We listened to horrifying stories of abuse. We viewed exhibits by victims who were in recovery. The director, whom I met by chance, made clear in no uncertain terms that men can be victims of violence, too, and the shelter offered services for men, which I did not learn more about. It was educational. If I had a single complaint, it would be that men were not represented. OK, two complaints - the local shelter has services such as 24 (40?) session long anger management workshops. I'd like to know how offenders turn out, or whatever became of the violent partners of the featured speakers. Did they die of their addictions? Did they go to jail? Did the victim's family and friends beat the shit out of them and run them out of town? Did they find Jesus?

Liz: "I don't think she's critizing people who choose to marry,"

Perhaps Emma Goldman is an early feminist, but more important to me is that she is a self identified *anarchist*, and according to her photo gallery, it appears she was deported from the US for being one. I just so happen to agree with a number of her comments, such as marriage not being a requirement for freedom, love, sex, children, etc., but she is not marriage affirming at all. I invite anyone to read and judge for themselves. This is the first line that grabbed me:

"That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny."

It most certainly sounds to me like she is judging people who get married, or even all who hold opinions on marriage different from her own, which would include, if this thread is any indication, a good number of modern feminists. Also, regarding wives:

"Moreover, the marriage insurance condemns her to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social."

This is why the date (1911?) was relevant to me. Even SAHMs who may need the economic support of partners or family are not in such a pathetic situation as she puts forth. I consider her notion insulting (she also speaks of men).

To those readers who see something sexually inappropiate in the way Bush holds his daughter: Hmmmm, looked pretty innocent to me, and I hate Bush. Fortuneately, note that most readers say nothing about the hold or hug. That says tons!

Did anyone else read the line about 'Sale' as referring to the young intimidated man having to make a good impression of himself to THE PRESIDENT? In business, when we need to convince somebody of something, we say we are 'selling it'.

Well, if I were a 26 year old, Ivy League graduate, a lowly White House aide, possibly with political ambitions, and dating the President's daughter; I would kiss the ass of my boss, who happens to be the boss of my father, as well.

But I would at least ask the woman first, and if she accepted, try to think of some tasteful way of informing the President. Together, perhaps, as in "Daddy, we're getting married!" to take some of the pressure off because she's happy, too. I'd hope.

And I hate President Bush, too.

a male... yes she was an anarchist and didn't recognize herself as a feminist (at least first wave, it may be different now, or she was classify herself as an anarcho-feminist), but I'm not sure why you had to put that in. I don't believe she is belittling the people, but the institution itself.

"That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny."

by saying this, if you read on, she means that marriage has proven that it is a failure, and just look at the divorce rates to show that it does work in bring two people together and creating loving relationships.

What she is really saying is that as long as marriage remains tied to capitalism and the patriarchy it can't live outside of sexism and misogyny. I can see where her words can be insulting, but it is important to realize she is criticizing the system and asking for people to change it (thats also why she and many others were deported).

In the end, I just sent this link to have some theory in the discussion, instead of talk that mostly centers around "it feels creepy" (although personal feelings often giving meaning to the theory). I was just bringing it to the table.

Oh yeah, and the date still plays no relevence to the overall theory. Although things are better now for women, we have more freedoms, and marriages are more equitable (as it seems in your marriage, as much as I've read you write about it), it still poses many of the problems she discusses. I guess I took the article and wanted people to see the overall message, not some of the smaller points she makes within it.

I mention she is an anarchist, because it is relevant to her anti-establishment views. Being a feminist does not necessarily indicate any bias, but being anarchist certainly does.

"That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny."

The meaning looks quite clear, even if I understand her reasoning or can agree with some points myself. She is calling anyone who disagrees "very stupid," which should be an insult to anyone, particularly those who intend on being married in anything like the traditional sense.

Or do you agree that the institution of marriage is still a failure, 96 years later? I am not attacking your view on that.

There is nothing at all wrong with you introducing this, nothing at all. I was just initially curious why you call it "good," if I recall. You've explained that.

No, my marriage is not equitable in the feminist sense. My wife and I support each other in our own ways, and I have come to the understanding that my wife is an irreplaceable partner. A business arrangement, similar to what Goodman claims. My wife is of a very old fashioned mindset, originally "The man does not speak [about] in the house*," if you recall my oldest posts. There was a time she did not want me to wash dishes or do housework, just make all the money for the household. How quickly some people change. At the moment, I am watching the house and kids during their extended winter break. I also need to take down the tree, because the cats finally trashed it.

*Which is to say, in traditional Japanese households, the woman is the authority (or final authority) on issues of childrearing, education, finances, etc. The traditional man makes the money and disciplines the children. Bah. She's changing.

"In business, when we need to convince somebody of something, we say we are 'selling it'."

because a daughter getting married is certainly a business transaction.

I think we are taking that quote differently. I see her saying that if we look at the divorce rates its easy to see that marriage overall doesn't work out for people and isn't healthy for most. Although if I remember correctly she does say that some people can make it work.

I do realize she is very radical and also talking about ideals, or at least her ideals. I guess its just one perspective. Would I like to have the ideal she writes about, sure. Do I think I will ever achieve it? Probably not, either because this society during my time won't let it, or I give into not fully realizing it. Hmmm well thanks for the good discussion!

Well, thank you too, Liz

My Japanese wife who grew up with elderly/near elderly family members and lacking a mother role model has the view, which used to be common in Japan decades ago, that marriage was not for love, but a bond between two families, a kind of business arrangement, which usually meant man makes money, woman takes care of home and related issues*. I was expecting a more romantic ideal. This traditional Japanese model expects two strangers*** to form a bond in which love could grow. I have a romantic love for my wife. My wife considers us to be parts of each other. I am family, but not quite a lover, particularly since the children were born. I deliberately kept my mouth shut on the recent sex and marriage thread despite agreeing with posts. I have come to agree with my wife that this arrangement is proving more stable****. I'm fine with it. The intensity of romance and sex we had before marriage has leveled off into something longer lasting and better for the health. Goldman would not approve.

*In rare cases, a man with poor prospects** would marry into a successful family with no sons, in effect becoming their son through marriage with their daughter, to take over the family, or family business under the woman's father. The man may even take on the woman's family name. I have known at least one man like this. In such cases, the "poor" man could be viewed as the wife's family property. This young man of Jenna's may prove to be like this if he has political ambitions, ever dependent on the influence and approval of Jenna and her father. I wish him luck.]

**There was a time in Japan, until recent decades, when only eldest sons were heirs. Later sons, and daughters in general were screwed.

***There was a time when it meant literally, marrying strangers. Perhaps you have heard of tales where Japanese maidens met their grooms for the first time at the wedding. In more recent times, and continuing on a small scale, are arranged marriages, where go-betweens and families find good "matches" for sons and daughters, in a business-like arrangement. Upon meeting an appropriate match, couples are married soon thereafter. Prior to being married, my wife tried those arrangement meetings, as well, but always proved incompatible, even with tradition minded Japanese men. She is an uncommon type, which appealed to me.

****As I have written elsewhere, there is only one reason for which I can foresee divorcing my wife - if SHE ever became dangerous (highly unlikely). I would of course seek help before allowing her to progress to that point. My wife can leave me . . . when she gets bored. I have provided her financial and professional resources. I've tried to see to it that she is not poor, despite our economic challenges as a family.

"The plight of the white male- you guys have it so tough."

Everybody has it so tough, just in different ways.

"The fact that you are seemingly incapable of discussing rape without taking a moment to remember those poor men who've been falsely accused of rape makes you a rape denialist."

Actually, it doesn't. "Nathan" hasn't denied that rape occurs, or that it occurs a great many times, or that it is horrific. Your reference to "those poor men" is obviously sarcastic, as though you don't seem to care if innocent people receive life sentences for crimes they didn't actually commit. That couldn't be what it means -- could it?

"Do you do the same thing whenever the topics of kidnapping or theft arise?"

Well, why don't we? Would you like to go to jail for a couple of decades for one of these crimes, even if you never committed them? And if someone willfully and falsely accused you of such a crime in the hopes of having you put away for a few decades, would you be satisfied if the person received a couple of months of community service for trying to ruin your life?

I'm not sure why so many believe that combatting rape (or any other crime) and combatting false accusations are mutually exclusive. You are allowed to fight against both, you know...

"The plight of the white male- you guys have it so tough."

Everybody has it so tough, just in different ways.

"The fact that you are seemingly incapable of discussing rape without taking a moment to remember those poor men who've been falsely accused of rape makes you a rape denialist."

Actually, it doesn't. "Nathan" hasn't denied that rape occurs, or that it occurs a great many times, or that it is horrific. Your reference to "those poor men" is obviously sarcastic, as though you don't seem to care if innocent people receive life sentences for crimes they didn't actually commit. That couldn't be what it means -- could it?

"Do you do the same thing whenever the topics of kidnapping or theft arise?"

Well, why don't we? Would you like to go to jail for a couple of decades for one of these crimes, even if you never committed them? And if someone willfully and falsely accused you of such a crime in the hopes of having you put away for a few decades, would you be satisfied if the person received a couple of months of "community service" for trying to ruin your life?

I'm not sure why so many believe that combatting rape (or any other crime) and combatting false accusations are mutually exclusive. You are allowed to fight against both, you know...if for no other reason than that those who lodge false accusations are doing so on the backs of those who've truly been victimized by those crimes...

To Bush's credit, he did say that he was pleased that the fiance asked Laura's twin first. Also, I noticed that the fiance asked both W & his wife.

I personally would be insulted if my fiance asked my family before me, but if they WERE going to, asking my sister first and BOTH my parents, as this guy did, would be the way to go.

My fiance and I discussed marriage in detail, but I told him that without a doubt, I wanted to be surprised. We were both in agreement that we wanted to get married, but I just wanted the surprise. He talked to my sister (asking her for thoughts on the kind of ring I wanted) and eventually, a few days before we got engaged, called my dad to ask for his blessing. He and my father know each other well, and it was just a formality, but it was one that my very traditional father appreciated--and so did I.

People may complain how engagement rings and asking the parents for blessings are sexist, but isn't the whole point of feminism to have choices and be able to make them for ourselves? If I want to be surprised with an engagment, if I want an engagement ring, why can't I have them? If I find a man who sees me and treats me as an equal and loves me for all that I am, why can't we get married? Because YOU think it's sexist? I don't think it's sexist and I don't think that it's appropriate for you to judge me for my choices.

An engagement rign is sexist, talking about marriage with your parents is sexist, it sounds pretty much like marriage is sexist. Oh the PLIGHT OF THE SINGLE WHITE FEMALE. We want you to commit, but asking you to make a decision is so sexist and bringing you down. The patriarchy must have invented monogamy.free online games