I know whenever we discuss patriachal wedding traditions on feminist blogs a lot of feminists get upset over an apparent attack on their love of said "traditions". I'm not here to knock those who want their father to walk them down the asile, hell, at one point I thought that would be a great moment for me and my dad, but I would like to discuss because I found Jenn Thompson's Mental_Floss article,The Bizzare Origins of 8 Wedding Traditions, about exactly where these traditions come from, fasinating.

A lot of these, like the father being responsible for giving away the daughter and the origins of the white wedding dres, I knew about. However, there is one I had no idea where it came from and I was both amused and terrified when I read about it:

Talk about your runaway brides--the original duty of a "Best Man" was to serve as armed backup for the groom in case he had to resort to kidnapping his intended bride away from disapproving parents. The "best" part of that title refers to his skill with a sword, should the need arise. (You wouldn't want to take the "just okay" member of your weapon-wielding posse with you to steal yourself a wife, would you?)

Wow. So, if I *ever* get married I will be sure to ask my groom-to-be about his best man's swordmanship. You know, in case I need to prep my dad and brother for my possible kidnapping. But it gets better:

The best man stands guard next to the groom right up through the exchange of vows (and later, outside the newlyweds' bedroom door), just in case anyone should attack or if a non-acquiescent bride should try to make a run for it.

So is this some kind of weird reversal of a shotgun wedding? It's times like these I am thankful to be born in the era that I am. Then again, there are probably young women in the future who will look back on this time and thank their lucky stars they were born when they were.

There was also the origin of tossing the bouquet, which leaders had to come up with because the alternative was to rip the bride's gown off as she was either on her way to the marital bed, or actually ON the marital bed about to consumate the union. Tossing the bouquet was a distraction to keep the mob from attacking her. I think it's really great we didn't keep that one, nor did we keep the waiving of the bloody wedding sheet. The last thing I'd need on my wedding night is my mom checking my hymen.

What gets me about wedding traditions are the ones women choose to keep and choose to "remake". Obviously, tearing off a bride's clothes and watching her husband penetrate her isn't good in any sense but what about the father giving away the bride (yeah, I'm opening that can o' worms) It was clearly a form of transaction and yet now it's seen as perfectly harmless, even romantic in a sense. There is also the question of wedding vows, with a lot of women opting out of saying, "To honor and obey" which was clearly part of the tradition. Why keep one and not the other? When it comes to walking with dad down the asile(and even the potential groom asking the bride's father for her hand in marriage) a lot of women are quick to defend it and say that because it's the modern age it doesn't mean what it used to mean so it's okay to do now, even though there was never a consenses that the offical meaning/intention changed, it only seems to change when women are asked to explain why they choose to do it.

And if the definition is so easily changed then is it really "tradition"? There are mental hulu hoops you can do around "honor and obey" and yet no one seems to want to make the effort to redifine those two words they just drop it altogether, calling it blatently sexist and patriachal and yet cling tightly to the others, which are still sexist and patriachal.

What is it about these that we keep that we feel the need to keep them. I know when I was a kid and the few times I thought about my wedding I never really focused on anything else besides my dad walking me down the asile. Didn't picture my dress, didn't picture my cake, hell, I didn't picture my groom. I jokingly told my mother once that the ONLY reason I would ever want a wedding was so my dad could walk me down the asile, that's it and I really can't put a finger on why that was so important to me. A few years later my mom brought up the possibility of me getting married (which I don't really want to do) and what would I do if my dad died. My reply was "There'd be no point then." Yeah, I was that set on it. When my friend got married her brother had to walk her because her father had passed away. I remember feeling bad for her for some reason, that she wouldn't get that experience with her father.

And is that it? That it has become a special moment, albeit brief, between father and daughter, especially on her wedding day when she's most likely doing everything with her mother?

I had these feelings long before I became a more learned feminist but even though I know where the tradition comes from I'm one of those women who'd drop "honor and obey" from the vows but I still think it would be nice, if I did get married, to have my dad give me away though I still can't put my finger on why I feel this way. It's a funny feeling, it really is.

(please forgive the grammar, it's been a long 11 hour day and I wanted to get in a post before I head home).

1

You recommended